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 QubixQdotta (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 8 January 2018 (→‎User:QubixQdotta). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User greentar

I never had an account other than this snowlands.

Deletion review for Save Sibelius

User:Chrisdevelop has asked for a deletion review of Save Sibelius. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 18:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the consensus is to erase the article, and Merge its content to a location other than its own page. There were two votes to Merge with Sibelius Software and one for Sibelius (software), one for Speedy Deletion, and one for Keep. Given that the number of votes is so small, and recent discussion on the Deletion Review page suggests that it is acceptable to repatriate the content to the 'Derek Williams (musician)' page currently in the Chrisdevelop Sandbox, this will be carried out within the next 12 hours, unless there is further feedback requesting a different outcome. The consequence of this will be to reassert the content as contributing to the notability of the subject (Derek Williams) currently on the Chrisdevelop page, and to remove it from 'Save Sibelius' campaign, which will presumably be erased by an Administrator.

The fact that there are two pages (Sibelius Software and Sibelius (software)) so similarly named ought of itself to be the subject of discussion. The Sibelius (software) page could be renamed "Sibelius (scorewriter)" for greater clarity.

So far there has been no feedback on the viability of the Sandbox article.

Chrisdevelop (talk)

  • Drmies There are several pages running this discussion, but none is happening on Sibelius Software at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sibelius_Software, which is where the directive at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Save_Sibelius%27_campaign is pointing. There has been some discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Save_Sibelius, and the comments there indicate that there is no problem to repatriate the content to its previous location in the Chrisdevelop Sandbox, in the article 'Derek Williams (musician)' currently in preparation, with the most recent comment proposing that the deletion review be relisted. The original reason for exporting several of the paragraphs (including Save Sibelius) was to reduce the size of the 'Derek Williams (musician)' article, so that it isn't speedily deleted when submitted for review. As the Save Sibelius article has a role in establishing the notability of the subject, it would serve a more useful purpose back in that article than in either of the Sibelius Software pages, where brief mention is already made of the user activism. On this last point, either one of these two almost identically named articles (Sibelius Software and Sibelius (software)) should be renamed to avoid confusion, or they should be merged. While there was brief discussion on merging the Sibelius Software pages earlier on, as has happened with the Save Sibelius article, minimal input has so far been forthcoming, despite relisting.

To summarise: 1. On which page should the discussion on the merge target be taking place? 2. Is there agreement to rename Sibelius (software) to 'Sibelius (scorewriter)' Chrisdevelop (talk)

Done, thanks!

Chrisdevelop (talk)

Panzer Ace

Please refrain from removing the opposing viewpoints of the Panzer Aces. I have tagged the article for Bia and undue weight. These tags will only be removed once the article is shown to express all viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You sound like a child that didn't get a lollipop. Your very first sentence already doesn't make sense--no wonder you can't tell a dime novel from an academic publication. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd ask that you refrain from making personal attacks here, we are all volunteers here on wikipedia, I'm just trying to get a well written article up that isn't pushing just one viewpoint. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks) As I've stated, you removed both sources that establish the opposing viewpoints. Both sources are RS, if you think they aren't please prove it. George Forty is a leading expert on tanks, writing over 70 books, with personal experience with tanks, the military. While you say he is an amatuer, he was the curator of the tank museum and The TIMES said he was a "Leading Authority" on tanks. With this established, I would ask that you reinsert his viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi again - I'm seeking further opinions on whether your removal of George Forty's references is warranted, based on your view that he is only an amateur. Please feel free to contribute - the previous consensus was that he was ok to be used, with you the only one advocating that he is an amateur, if no one pops up to support this, his references will be reinserted. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I hoped I explained more fully on the talk page, it is really time to drop this abuse of the word "viewpoint". Forty is not an academic or a historian; he cannot have valid "viewpoints" on academic matters, such as the appropriateness of the term "Panzer ace". His expertise is different. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • His expertise is "museum studies". The difference between Forty and Zaloga is that the latter has a Certificate in International Affairs from Krakow and is thus entitled to have a valid viewpoint on academic matters. Next week on WP, is Carter Page an RS given that he has a PhD? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marzipan for you!

Yummies from Softlavender

In case Santa inexplicably forgets.

Drmies, thanks for the laughs, your admin/ArbCom service, and your devotion to Wikipedia and its principles.

May you and yours have a wonderful, joy-filled Christmas. Softlavender (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is very kind of you, Softlavender: all the best to you and yours. Santa did bring me some stuff--OH MY GOD HES TURNING ME INTO AN AMERICAN----------I got a new Alabama shirt, a Daisy Red Rider, and a bottle of bourbon....! What's next? A Ted Nugent album? Drmies (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

Martinevans123 (Santa's Drop-in Centre) ... sends you ...


... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Oi, Doc Mice... Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you have a good run in 2018!!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Drmies, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
—MBL Talk 05:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Holiday

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.72bikers (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!
Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ad Orientem (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!!!

My very best wishes, Drmies for this holiday season. May your heart be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello Drmies: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 Merry Christmas! 23:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Good people on both sides!

"There is a problem in general in Western history either professional or of the History Channel sort in giving the WW2 German military any credit because they were BAD BAD Nazis." [1]

So if there are BAD BAD Nazis are there GOOD GOOD Nazis? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to look at the term "Nazi" in a more nuanced way. First of all, it really hurts someone's feelings if they get called a "Nazi", like it's a bad word. Second, it diminishes the remarkable technological, moral, and fashion improvements... no I can't finish that sentence, sorry. Yeah. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every member of the National Socialist party was necessarily directly involved in the misconduct for which the party is best known today, although most probably broadly supported the sanitized version of the atrocities some of them might have heard. Wernher von Braun might in the eyes of some qualify as having been a marginally good Nazi. And some who joined during the war for patriotic purposes may not have been much worse than a lot of similar people in other countries. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, I think you're still wearing your rosy Xmas glasses... But the basic thrust of the person who made that comment was that the German military was somehow underappreciated, which is certainly complete bullshit. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awww but those poor nazis..always being vilified and such. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the German military did make numerous tactical and technological innovations for which they deserve acknowledgment. But... yeah. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't know of any person, book, TV program, study, website, academic program, serial, newspaper, magazine, DVD, video game, chat room, blog, board, radio show, cartoon, comic, play (tragedy, comedy, historical, etc.) that makes light of their technological and tactical strengths. I presume the person who made the statement that opens this section does--or, and this is my suspicion, they are deluding themselves and hope to delude others. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How true! Also "Hitler's meals were delicious..." Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The daily mail really burying the lede...'The Russians then came to Berlin and got me, too,' Woelk said. 'They took me to a doctor's apartment and raped me for 14 consecutive days. That's why I could never have children. They destroyed everything.' Erm DM is this not a more important topic than what Hitler ate?! You written a sentence on something truly heroundos, yet half an article to his desire for asparagus and Peppers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Krauts are people too, you know." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
The example given is (perhaps) along the lines of 'good' and 'active' being in inverse proportion to each other. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've oft heard it said that "the only good Nazi is a Wikipedia Nazi". (I mean those uniforms are quite chic, aren't they??) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor of the "BAD BAD Nazi" comment also describes Germany's leading military historian Sönke Neitzel as a "self-hater", who has made "a tidy living for himself" by criticising the Wehrmacht: [2]. I found this attack on the integrity of a professional historian to be pretty shocking. But yeah, the biggest problem that Wikipedia is facing today is that the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS are not getting enough credit for their accomplishments :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coffman, I thought you were exaggerating, but then they made this comment--I find that staggeringly dumb. Haha, TonyBallioni, that comes on the heels of my looking up some references to the Canadian liberators... "Incompetent and slow", etc. Seriously, if this guy is typical of MILHIST (The ed17, tell me it isn't true?), there are problems there--not just that someone is glorifying the Nazis, but that it obviously impedes their point of view. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were indeed good Nazis -- actually there were probably a great many of them, just that one had particular talents and steadfastness -- just as there seems to be the odd problematic MILHIST member. Neither label is a definition of the whole person, nor allows one to generalize from a single individual to everyone else in a particular group. MPS1992 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Israeli friends

What is wrong with the term "...our Israeli friends..."? I meant this comment in reference to the Israeli/neocon term "self-hating Jew" which is what they call any Jewish person who dares criticize Israel- like Woody Allen or Norman Finkelstein. I meant to characterize Sonke Neitzel as the same sort of person in reference to Germany. IMO his work is very hard on WW2 German soldiers- unfairly so. Thus my use of the term.Makumbe (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have to ask...well, your comparisons are really strange (as is your use of "/": Israelis are neocons?). Yeah, those poor German soldiers, who suffered so much; I assume you didn't read this. Some, I hear, were fine people. Anyway, Neitzel is a certified historian, with a real education and a real position in the field, who directs the Institute of Military History at the U of Potsdam. He edits a journal and has published a bunch of books. One cannot be more certified than that, really. He is also covered by the BLP, which should prevent editors from making shitty comments about him, esp. those with a decisively antisemitic flavor. That shouldn't be hard to do. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to ask if neocons or many Israelis use the term "self-hating Jew" then I guess you don't get out much. Your interpretation of it as antisemitic just shows where you are coming from- the term simply refers to people who criticize their country or race or religion. I use this term somewhat ironically about Mr. Neitzel because he is the talking head of choice on The History Channel or American Heroes Channel to denigrate and explain how bad the Wehrmacht was in WW2. As far as the BLP policy- I would say you violated far more Wikipedia policies by implying I'm a Nazi and using foul language. Using the BLP threat to cudgel me into submission has worked- I'll not go back to editing Panzer Ace soon.Makumbe (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't give a good goddamn if you edit that article or not--you violated the BLP (on the talk page, not in the article, as far as I know) and I warned you not to do so again. Also, it's Dr. Neitzel. Again, your very first sentence just reveals the stunning depth of your ignorance. Note that I never said or implied you're a Nazi--the real Nazis are dead. You seem to be a sympathizer, which in some ways is worse cause you should know better. I'm not sure what you're implying about me (where do I come from?), and I really don't give a damn about that either, since it's neither here nor there. If your ignorance impedes your neutrality and objectivity, as it seems to do, you shouldn't be editing here. Now go away so you can pretend in some other place that you got bullied by some big bad administrator with his MEAN MEAN cudgel who didn't like Nazis. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Hmm...postcard to the WMF in San Francisco was a brilliant idea ! We ought to mention that over here.By the way, I have slightly re-factored(??) your advice.Acronyms are always confusing:).And wishing you and your loved ones a pleasant 2018:)Winged BladesGodric 06:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't got mail

...because my messages to you keep bouncing. If you have an alternative address, could you write me from it, please? Bishonen | talk 10:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Your email is still borked

Bouncing back. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • My gmail goes through to Drmies. Maybe Alabama state email servers like me better for some reason? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw Bish, I'm sorry--did you finally email me to propose and make an honest Wikipedian out of me? I emailed you and Doug; I hope that came through. I'll try emailing you from my highly secret arb address too, though that means I'll have to sign into it and *sigh* read my arbmail. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selena y Los Dinos

The information of the death of Selena should be on there too, can you help me to add it by making the resume you think is good there ? thanks.TheBellaTwins1445

  • No. The lead mentions her death, and she is wikilinked. There is no reason whatsoever to include the account of her murder. You can wiklink it, maybe, in the lead, but that's all that is needed. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Well. My question was semi-rhetorical and not meant to provoke anyone to a cry of existential angst. But thanks for doing my homework on the refs. Oh, and you should just get a Gmail account for wiki and be done with it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, maybe semi-existential, given that we live in the post-truth era. I have a Gmail account for my Arb business; I suppose I could link that. As a soon-to-be ex-Arb, there won't be so many emails to that account anymore. In the meantime, one of our sysops at work was doing overtime and fixed the problem: it was (again) a spam filter... Yay, more email! Drmies (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it ;-)

Thanks for redacting that BLP issue :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing user problem

There is an IP only editor who keeps editing List of deaths in rock and roll, namely adding individuals who do not have a Wikipedia article (ie. not-notable). This is despite the editing note within the article and repeated, and I mean repeated, requests from fellow editors to desist. The editor does not engage in any discussion and simply ploughs on regardless. I feel a term in the cooler may be the only alternative left open. Could you have a look please. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

As a current or past contributor to a USCG article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! COASTIE I am (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can find this on a boxing day sale

Oh yeah, you don't have boxing day. Anyway new article at Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls, I am sure the kids will love it (if you don't already have it). I will have to see if I can find it locally. I am too lazy to do DYK these days, but feel free. It could also use some expansion and my writing needs fixing, if you are so inclined. The author articles look like they could use some work too... Without the committee to commit to in the new year, what else have you to do? Also pingign Keilana as this is right up her alley too. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Kansas, it's Canada's Texas, and yes I am that busy! Thanks Moishe, at least there is one person I can count on :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shropshire deserted villages and lost places

On your header subject of sinking deeper into despair, the long-inactive David Carrington (talk · contribs) produced List of Shropshire deserted villages and lost places some years ago. Although there are a very few specific sources, and there is an entire section trying to explain where the info comes from, I'm tempted to send it to AfD as original research and, well, a pretty hopeless mess. An alternative would be to trim it to just those entries for which specific sources exists (excluding the original research seemingly based on comparing maps). What do you think? - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Just slap a {{prod}} on it and either it will prompt someone to come up with some actual sources, or I'll disappear it in a week. That's an absolutely blatant piece of pure original research, and not necessarily even accurate—something disappearing between one edition of a map and the next is just as likely to be the mapmaker correcting an error as it is to be the place being destroyed. There are ways to write "lost archeological heritage" articles, but this is clearly not it, and reducing it down to just those entries that are sourced will be actively misleading. ‑ Iridescent 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lost Pits in Durham (County) anybody? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to agree with Iridescent on a procedure here but that makes sense. Really, Wikipedia ought to be the place where this kind of information is found, but yeah, the sourcing is just way too problematic. I don't agree that a mapmaker's error is "just as likely", but that doesn't mean that the method here is prone to error. Still, the whole thing is a treasure trove for historians, geographers, archeologists... Drmies (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 21:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

When you get a moment...

...please take a look at this edit history. You closed this RfC as Merge a few years back but the article has not enjoyed stability, apparently from what appears to be tendentiously motivated disruption. It keeps showing up in our NPP feed as a result, so I went ahead and AfD'd it. Atsme📞📧 18:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping...as in wine a toast? Not yet, but thank you for the reminder. Atsme📞📧 21:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppress abusive edit

Could you please suppress this abusive edit? I asked another oversighter for help but he didn't reply. Thanks. --Xzinger (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
for protecting Arvind Kejriwal from abusive vandal. Xzinger (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018. —Donner60 (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Sockpuppets for Louisiana-Lafayette

Hey Drmies, I along a couple of others have very high suspicions of at least seven (7) accounts that could very well be socks. Would you mind checking them if I list them here or would you rather me take it to WP:SPI? I haven't done one at SPI (that I can remember) and have always gone straight to the administrators... Thanks, Corky 20:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol I bet that "someone" is! I was gonna let you know B3 got it since you had been gone a couple of days... and I wasn't sure how long you'd be gone for! Thanks for helping look, I'm sure I've missed something in there. Corky 18:54, 1 January 2018 (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.

Jim1138 (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox

Hey, I think you deleted my sandbox. I was making fake infoboxes then, and I realize now that that was against this site's regulations. Is there any chance of me getting all the text back, because I need it for some projects I'm working on. I don't intend to make any more infoboxes on there. Baconheimian (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Baconheimian, Drmies will let you know about the deletion when they're back on line; what projects are / were you working on? Take care, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it's User:Baconheimian/sandbox under discussion, there's absolutely no possibility it will be restored, since I can't imagine a more blatant breach of Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. Serial Number 54129, it was a huge stack of fake infoboxes for such things as "George V, Emperor of the American Empire", Eisenhower's nuclear attack on China in 1951, "Yucatan Republican Airlines", "Oliver North, 46th Vice President of the United States", the nuclear attack on the US Capitol by the Black Panthers in 1978 and around 80kb more of similar garbage. ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you Iridescent- I did wonder ("projects" was sufficiently vague enough / undefined to suggest some sort of WP:NOT!). On a lighter note, that certainly sounds a more interesting sort of history than any dusty tome, eh :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry for not responding. Yes that is the page I am referring to. I was making an alternate history universe at the time. I am still working on fleshing out that universe (or hope to), just not using infoboxes. Baconheimian (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the regulations now, and I do not want the page restored, I would just like a copy of the source of the page. Baconheimian (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleideum

Hi Drmies, The editor adding content to the Kaleideum article works for the museum. I added a note on her talk page, but I don't think that she is paying any attention, and she has added more information since your (and my) edits. I don't have much experience with this. Do we just wait her out or request that the page be temporarily blocked? Leschnei (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch euro article

I really don't care to get into an edit war over something so minor, but how on earth do we now need references to show something is important when it is clearly on topic and from a governmental source. If you are so set on deleting content then I'll leave you to it but it is a little crazy declaring public opinion on the article matter to not personally matter to you.- J.Logan: 18:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you don't want to get into an edit war over something for which you have no secondary sources, it's probably a good idea not to get into that edit war. The governmental source is primary; you seem to believe that because the government published something it should be in a Wikipedia article? Not so. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the Linda Sarsour / Kaepernick RFC?

Happy holidays, Drmies, by which I mean tomorrow's game. I'm wondering if one of your admin stalkers who's not currently tailgating would be able to check out Talk:Linda_Sarsour#RfC:_Kaepernick,_NFL_protest. I tried my hand at closing the discussion, but I didn't notice that the article is full protected. If you don't object to what I suggested - and I certainly won't argue with you if you do object - could you please implement the close?

And while I have you on the line, Drmies... what is your view of assigning homework for Tuesday's class? I don't teach in Alabama or Georgia, but our boarding school certainly has a large number of fans of each. I've assigned a problem set, but a shorter one than usual. Am I going to burn in hell?

Thanks! Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, l'enfer c'est l'autre, and your homework won't change that much. Place I teach at isn't all that football crazy, and for us it's the first week of the semester so I don't have to make any kind of decision. I'd go a bit easy on them--if they're football fans, and Southern, it's...how do I say this gently, it's pretty much all we got. A shorter problem than usual is very fair and I thank you for it. And I thought, speaking of problems, we were doing alright, and then it turns out Jennings was seriously injured, had surgery, and won't be playing; he was my MVP. I'll go have a look at Sarsour/Kaepernick, and I'll confess to having watched a bit of NFL yesterday (mostly to see Derrick Henry and Julio Jones). I wonder of Tide rolls watches the NFL. Thanks, and HNY and RTR, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, did it--I didn't object or not object, cause that's not my role to play. I'm looking at the discussion and I can't help but wonder why some of these right-wingers want this kind of detail in that kind of article--for them I suppose it's guilt by association. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much appreciated. I know your role isn't to object or not object... but I would appreciate a nudge if I misinterpreted the consensus, or if I didn't explain clearly. I mean, I personally lean toward leaving out details like this until at least a year after the event - if we're still talking about it a year later, it might be encyclopediaical. But it seemed like those who weighed in leaned toward the one sentence, so that's how I closed. And I never considered that it was the right wing who would want such statements in - naive Moishe thought that it was the *left* who might want to trumpet every last cause to which she lent her name. I guess it shows my preconceptions, in that I personally think it laudable to support Colin K. Both from a social justice standpoint and from a football standpoint. Note to self and Andy Reid: when you're up by three touchdowns, don't abandon the running game. Good luck tomorrow night. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson’s Magnolia

Jackson has a magnolia? He truly is an important figure in the WH, isn't he. Sadly yes. But it's rotten to the core and to be cut down.[3] Have a pleasant new year. (I’m still dating my checks 1999.) O3000 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:QubixQdotta

QubixQdotta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

After having his edits to Aryan Brotherhood ([4],[5],[6], [7]) reverted by two editors (myself and Grayfell: [8],[9],[10], [11]) for being POV, QubixQdotta decided to get POINTy instead of discussing on the talk page, as he was advised to do. [12] According to his edit summaries:

Okay, looks like its field day for reverting back to non-sourced crap. I'll add my own non-sourced content, except this is actually true. Something real that you don't hear on the news...hopefully you guys will become more educated.[13]

Finishing the job. Reverting more unsourced material. [14]

and continued to revert without discussion [15],[16].

You blocked this editor in September 2017 for disruptive editing directly connected to a dispute over this same article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, there is nothing on Talk:Aryan Brotherhood about this dispute, from either side. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, you break Wikipedia guidelines when its convenient for you. And you've reverted my reliably sourced information back to some unsourced content made by some IP amateur. You opportunistically break guidelines yourself and point the finger at other people. What more to say? I don't know...you're beyond reasonable at this point. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=819218788"