User talk:Drmies

• I may have pinged you in a response to a recent message; please see User talk:Drmies/Archive 81. Thank you.

What emptiness.

Cafe Couple

Ideallandschaft bei Mondschein 17 Jh

Hafspajen (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What is this place?

Fukurokuju- God of Wisdom

Opehlia

Me thinks I'm lost. It was hard enough being a talk page stalker knowing where I was, but now I don't know where I'm not. Atsme☯^{Consult Agent 99} 15:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Join the club [1]. EEng (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Shall we al sit here and feel the Emptiness? Hafspajen (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• May I ask Technical 13 what was the point to put this picture in an archive from 2007? Or why archive somebody else's page? Hafspajen (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Archived RfC at Slavic Speakers of Greek Macedonia

If, after having read the comments again, you still disagree with my synopsis (in particular, that 6 out of 7 respondents agree that in some cases it's permissible to make a specification), please let me know why (about this). Thanks! Tropcho (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Tropcho, that "the motivation had nothing to do with questions of ambiguity/difficulty of verification" is immaterial: it's a serious problem. In addition, you do not seem to acknowledged that "ethnic/language affiliation" is not an easy yoking together of two terms, which is a serious (BLP) problem recognized by Pmanderson and Taivo. I do not agree with your synopsis, and I do not understand what exactly the problem is: if you have a person, and you wish to include their nationality, ethnic background, linguistic affiliation, mother tongue (or stepmother tongue), blood group, etc., you can propose it on the talk page. You may think that "it's important to state explicitly in the summary that in unambiguous and reliably verifiable cases where ethnic/language affiliation is part of the notability (e.g. national activists, ethnicity researchers, etc.) a specification is permissible", and that six out of seven agreed with your wording, but I disagree, and I'm not going to stick something in the close that I don't see consensus for. Six out of seven? As I said before, there are three NOs, and how that gets turned into 86% support for your statement, I don't know. You have a way to get the things into the article that you want in, if you have the evidence for it and get the consensus for it; I don't know what more you want. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Should I do the count?

Comments 1-3: yes, it's OK.

Comment 4 (Taivo) no

Comment 5 yes, if they unambiguously and verifiably stated it themselves.

Comment 6 (PMAnderson) bad idea. Comment finishes with "If a person was a leader of a Bulgarian or Macedonian ethnic movement - and for some of the history involved these would be the same thing - that's a biographical fact. Include, and source."

Comment 7 In general no, with exceptions for those where that ethnicity is a significant part of their notability (activist, researcher specifically in ethnicity, etc).

So (depending on how you interpret PMAnderson's remark) either 5/7 (comments 1-3, 5, 7) or 6/7 (1-3, 5-7) people think in some cases it's permissible. Two of the "no's" have an important except.

And this is not a BLP problem, because 1) most people on that list are dead 2) we are not talking about the ambiguous cases where we can't know or verify; let me emphasize this: the question is whether it is permissible to do a specification for some people on the list (those where we have a way to know unambiguously), not whether it is permissible to specify everyone's identity. I agree that it's in fact impossible to do the latter. Tropcho (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And to answer your question, I'd be happy to see a summary that somehow reflects the 4 (or more) YESes, not only the 3 (or less) NOs. Tropcho (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a vote. If there's so much math involved in your summary, perhaps you were asking the wrong question. You can take the matter up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (with the other commenters) or at WP:AN (to get this close overturned). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting. How much math is counting up to 7? And who said it is a vote? I just suggested a summary that reflects all comments, not the minority. And in case you didn't notice, Taivo's concerns were addressed. Perhaps the question could have been phrased better to avoid any misunderstandings, but even as it is there's no reason to have a summary that completely ignores a significant number of the answers, in my opinion. Tropcho (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Good luck in the next state, if that's where you're going. Perhaps there they will recognize that, for instance, "Taivo's concerns were addressed" simply must mean that a universal truth is uttered. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"Failed at AN"

So far as I can see, the only two admins with any objection are the two admins that abdicated their responsibility to supervise an editor that they unblocked over the strenuous objections of multiple parties. I really am at a loss here: what was the purpose of placing a 0RR restriction on an editor if you did not intend on reblocking when the restriction was violated? What did it mean if it could be violated without consequence?—Kww(talk) 23:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is no formal ban, and you're not at a loss: I'm sure you were quite pleased you could drop a three-month blockhammer down after that edit warring report. Maybe you should learn to see farther than "block"; two sides can be at fault, and you never seem to look at the other side. Why should you? That guy from Chile is just an asshole who refuses to get an account and who, for some weird reason, gets pissed when they get reverted. I am not claiming that I was right here just because you're so wrong, nor that the IP didn't deserve a block of sorts--but the glee with which the vultures come swooping in, yeah, that's a distasteful spectacle. And what you're trying to enact on that LTA page isn't just distasteful, it's also wrong, and if you want that enshrined you're going to have to get it certified, in triplicate, from AN. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• What reason do you have to believe that the IP will ever reform his behaviour? That's the point that you seem to miss: the quality of his edits doesn't matter when judging his behaviour, and his behaviour is unacceptable. And I actually am at a loss: while I disagree with you on many things, I don't tend to see you as dishonest. What was the point of the 0RR restriction? Why are editors having to take him to the edit-warring noticeboard instead of you blocking immediately on the first reversion? If you weren't intending to do that, what did you mean by a 0RR restriction?—Kww(talk) 05:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Kww, I don't think I swore a blood oath to start blocking. If I remember correctly, the IP quit pinging me, and Yngvadottir responded on a number of occasions. Yngvadottir, like me, also doesn't seem to think that blocking is the way to go. And again, this ANEW thing was preceded by a number of reverts on the other editor's part, reverts that were in themselves at least open for censure. So I chose not to block either one, yes. The point you continually miss is that it always takes two to tango: the editor who took him there was themselves guilty of edit warring, and that's not the first time something like that happens--and pardon me for not believing a block is always the answer. But I'm done with this, Kww. The IP doesn't seem to want to discuss this with me or change their behavior to suit your desire (which is, I believe, for them to just roll over the first time someone hits them with a revert, no matter what the edit was), and your side seems to be winning in this fist fight. You also seem to miss that Y and I attempted to be in the middle, to mediate, to improve the project for everyone, and all we get as thanks is a bunch of shit. So now I should have blocked. I'm "enabling". I let someone chase people off the project. (I don't see who left, but OK.) I gladly admit that this attempt (which I have been in on for years) was an abject failure, but at least I tried, and maybe there is life and hope for future years in there. You can be all righteously angry, but I can only be sad. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Good... goooood!

My plan is working puhrrrfectleeee. <rubs hands, laughs diabolically> [2]. EEng (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Broken clocks and all that... :) Drmies (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm back!

Thanks again for looking after my talk page and wondering what rock I was hiding under. I dropped 10 spots on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits during the time I was under the rock. While you might have passed me, I'm still leading you on User:JamesR/AdminStats by a wide margin. So there. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Dammit Gogo, what do I need to do? Block more? Delete more? Write less? Hey, nice to see you. Really, I didn't mean to twist your arm, trying to make you come back--but you were one of the old guard, one of the ones with a cool name who got their admin tool by emailing Jimbo and sending him ten bucks via PayPal. (No?) And the ranks are thinning: the latest admin to leave, it appears, is Coffee--ANI has insightful reading material, if you have nothing better to do for a half an hour. Anywayz, thanks for dropping by: not everyone gets a visit from a dodo. That reminds me! Dodos came up before dinner today--must have been something silly one of the kids said, but they played dodo until they realized that would mean they're all dead, extinct. Well now. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oh man, you got me by a factor 10... But you gotta watch out of that Materialscientist dude, who's been on a tear ever since he got the tool. Ha, I'd be proud if I had any kind of ranking in the unblock and undeletion list. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An article that you deleted

Bombardier Innovia APM has been recreated. You had deleted it before? Or atleast the talk page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Tesla's father

I read your closing statement. Did you ever read what you wrote?

This proposal is gaining no traction at all. There is no reason to overturn the result of the previous RfC, closed by Srich32977, certainly not on the basis of the comments here, which are clear. Some of the support for the proposal is completely unqualified and presents no serious argument: "The list of references is undeniable" is--well, tautological, strictly speaking (the list exists) but not an argument, since the quality of those references is under question;

Who questioned William Terbo, the grand-nephew of Nikola, for example?