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 Sitush (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 3 January 2013 (→‎Reliability: yes, Encyclopedia Indica is problematic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • I never thought I'd see a section anywhere called "block of Drmies" and now my history is full of such references. Time to re-evaluate what I'm not doing right here. In the meantime, happy new year to all, including IP vandals, socks and masters, IP99, abusive admins, non-abusive admins, allegedly enabling admins, abusive content contributors, bots, vandal bots, dramahmongererers, ArbCom members, Jimbo, Badmachine, the Lady, Mandarax, Bbb, Ironholds, Dennis, Mandarax (again), MF, Floquenbeam, MONGO, Scottywong, Dougweller, and everyone else. Try to keep it clean and remember we're supposed to be here to write articles and help others write articles. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody look at the mess that is Jerry Speziale‎. I've got an editor harassing me and I'd like to stay away from them, but this page needs some massive editing. Bgwhite (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ...

I'm not really sure what all went down over the last couple days .. but I hope you have a great new years Drmies. — Ched :  ?  16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seconded. Don't disappear on us... we need Dr Baconator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I see you've been around this morning handling a Boobnipple. Take your time mending fences (and I mean that only in the literal sense). Enjoy your break, and I know you realize that there are tons of people (and yes, you can take that literally too!) who want to see you back on regular duty. HAppY NЄW YЄAR! • !ЯAЭY WЭИ YqqAH – MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy New Year! Come on back and edit when you feel like it (which I hope will be sooner rather than later). LadyofShalott 01:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And thank you for that close on my talk page. Good timing for a good laugh. Later on the talk page, the editor learns a lesson, so its all good. Be sure to eat your greens, and peas and all that. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 05:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility

To continue my support of your attempts to gain youth cred, I have to point out Aymatth2's and Dr Blow-Dry's mistake with Riin Tamm (AfD discussion). Everyone knows that doing articles on scientists isn't hep and in the now, man. As you can see from User talk:Aymatth2#A New Year's present for you., Aymatth2 is even doing very dead scientists, which is even worse. And as you can also see from User talk:Aymatth2#Joseph Colt Bloodgood there's a whole load of very dead fellas, grandfathers and grandsons, with the same name that are leading Aymatth2 astray yet further. Very dead mayors aren't popular; and all these are only serving to lead Aymatth2 into contact with Poms who read noticeboards. Poms on noticeboards are things to be avoided.

Now you could do some more work on a K-Pop sub-unit of twee, and counter Pommiepedia bias. But that would be missing out on the Wikipedia editorship's mission to get every reality/talent show winner into Wikipedia. Rimas Valeikis, cartoonist, painter, and winner of Baltic Robinson, is absent, for example. As is his niece Miglė Vilčiauskaitė, better known by her stage name of Migloko, whose album is reasonably priced. Lithuanian pop culture is what you want if you want effective youth cred. Not that science, history, geography, and philosophy dren.

After all, the Wikipedia editorship at large wants pretty pictures of young pop singers, not boring things for squares. Only a square, man, would have Wikipedia tell the world (or at least tell Greg Bard) that Arvydas Juozaitis was a prominent member of Lietuvos Persitvarkymo Sąjūdis and a scholar who did his dissertation on Wilhelm Dilthey; and that his withdrawal from the 1989 election led to Algirdas Brazauskas winning his seat. Lithuanian history ain't where the cool cats are at, man.

Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M. Cripes It's 1942, this is what your talk of Dutch Golden Girls leads to.
  • Dude, you got Youth Cred with the Dutch series... how about doing the Dutch Golden Girls? That's hip, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And easily sourced, too:
      • Kloek, Els; Teeuwen, Nicole; Huisman, Marijke, eds. (1994). Women of the Golden Age: An International Debate on Women in Seventeenth-century Holland, England and Italy. Uitgeverij Verloren. ISBN 9789065503831. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
    • But you are sneakily leading Dr mi estas into doing non-pop-culture topics, M. Cripes It's 1942. Next, you'll be having xem writing about Judith Leyster's The Proposition, which Amanda Cross turned into a short story. Then you'll be getting xem to write about bottom wiping in Dutch art, such as Jan Miense Molenaer's The Sense of Smell and Adriaen van de Venne's illustration of Johan de Brune's Emblemata (1624). I suggest that Dr mi estas rightly cast your begilded and beguiling temptations aside, as the insidious distractions from the pop culture of Lithuania that they are.
      • Hofrichter, Frima Fox (1975). "Judith Leyster's Proposition: Between Virtue and Vice". Feminist Art Journal. 4: 22–26. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
      • Hofrichter, Frima Fox (1982). "Judith Leyster's Proposition: Between Virtue and Vice". In Broude, Norma; Garrard, Mary (eds.). Feminism and Art History. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 173–181. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
      • Kahr, Madlyn Millner (1978). "Judith Leyster: The Rejected Offer". Dutch painting in the seventeenth century. Harper & Row. pp. 65–66. ISBN 9780064335768. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
      • Schama, Simon (1988). "In The Republic of Children". The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520061477. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
      • van der Weij, Marleen (2003). ""A Good Man, Burgher, and Christian": the intended reader in Johan de Brune's Emblemata". In Adams, Alison; van der Weij, Marleen (eds.). Emblems of the Low Countries: Book Historical Perspective. Glasgow Emblem Studies. Vol. 8. Librairie Droz. ISBN 9780852617854. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
      • Westermann, Mariët (2005). "Texts and Images". A Worldly Art: The Dutch Republic, 1585–1718 (2nd ed.). Yale University Press. pp. 55–56. ISBN 9780300107234. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
    • Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Aymatth2 has been busy with the very dead people, leaving you free to get on with the pop culture of Lithuania.

...for the thoughtful close of the RfC on Murder of Kitty Genovese. It was starting to get a bit nasty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure thing. I appreciate your note, given that the close (which is a bit muddled given the discussion) didn't really go your way. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I had my opinion, but the issue wasn't nearly as important to me as it seemed to be to some other contributors. It was better to get it closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! Stop thinking about the 1960s and get with the present day! Rimas Valeikis, Miglė Vilčiauskaitė, and Migloko are all still redlinked. Chop-chop! Uncle G (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Ignore all of this Golden Nederlander stuff. Get on with the pop culture of Lithuania!
Judith Leyster's The Proposition, converted into a short story by Amanda Cross, and slightly copyedited by Uncle G
Judith Leyster's The Proposition

Dr mi estas: Dear Onion Lady, fain I would cast off this veil of old age, and ugly hat and beard, and appear as young as the editors of K-Pop articles! But Providence stands athwart my efforts to gain youth cred, despite the sagely counsel of Uncle G. I find myself thinking about the 1960s and Noam Chomsky. Couldst thou write Rimas Valeikis, Miglė Vilčiauskaitė, and Migloko for me? Here's $5 for your trouble.

Onion Lady: Sir! How daredst thou approach me for such? I am a humble and Christian onion lady, whose onions are not tainted by the foul infamy of paid editing. Direct your elderly and infirm hands at the harlots, trollops, and bottom-wipers of Nederland, and trouble me no more for such base purposes as the popular culture of Lithuania.

exeunt omnes

Hi Drmies, up for a chronic BLP issue? Please have a look at Walledro (talk · contribs) re: David Hammond (director), now being discussed at ANI. My thinking is this has gone on way too long. Hope all's well. Cheers. 99.156.64.147 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. This is not a chronic BLP issue. I've followed all rules and sourced and cited all quotes and comments. Mr. Hammond is simply not happy with posts if they have any negativity at all despite their validity and being sourcedWalledro (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)walledro[reply]

  • Well, guy, I can understand that since I myself don't like negative posts. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sorry, I thought you were referring to yourself. You're blocked, of course, for edit-warring, and being a repeat offender means this time it's indefinite. Also, I don't believe that the IP editor, Red Pen of Doom, and any of the other editors you've been duking it out with are dramatists. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Drmies. Now a follow up question, which can be taken to apply more generally than in this instance: does a talk page thread like this belong, or does it constitute another avenue for introducing BLP violations Talk:David Hammond (director)#old_allegations? As for formalities, I'm dressed in a tux. And just because I'm not a dramatist doesn't mean I don't like the occasional drama. Alas, poor Yorick, etc. 99.156.64.147 (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OH WILL YOU PLEASE KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE F***ING SHAKESPEARE ALREADY? See, I can do drama too. I've deleted the section, simply. I don't think it's so bad it needs to be removed from the history. Did you ever raise hell about that 3R warning? I'll be glad to support (though it is old news, of course). Thank you kindly for this excursion, and my best wishes to you and yours, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holidays at my house
        • To one-up the above image, here's one with folks getting sick from all sides. Enjoy. 99.156.64.147 (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • One-upmanship is it? Have a small one-act play, then. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The play's the thing indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Uncle, I think the first paragraph on p. 178 is characteristic of your ideas about editing Wikipedia. Plus, we have a problem: this is 3, not 17 as my source says. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hiding behind my lack of JSTORrery, eh? What are you doing mis-spelling Zinnewerck anyway? As you can see from the hyperlink in the section above Rimas Valeikis has made a statue of an angel with the horn in Vilnius. This is important pop culture that will garner you youth cred. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • As you've no doubt seen, your source probably meant page 17. But here you are falling into M. Cripes It's 1942's trap.

                  Fortunately, we won't have to look around for an expert to translate Dit lijf, wat ist, als stanck en mist? into English. It's translated on Schama 1988, p. 481. ☺

                  Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken that spare letter "s" that you had lying around and stuck it on Emblemata ofte Sinnewerck for you. Enjoy more Migloko on YouTube. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Onion Lady (not to be confused with The Onion Girl) has started work on blueing one of those redlinks. LadyofShalott 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost ship move

Hey Drmies, why did you move the ghost ship page to the plural, ghost ships? Ego White Tray (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to ask that too. The discussion and WP:SINGULAR would seem to recommend the singular form.--Cúchullain t/c 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems fairly obvious to this onlooker. Drmies took the "List of" off the front of the title, exactly as stated in the RM nomination, but didn't take the "s" off the end, which wasn't explicitly stated and is easy to miss. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, what my uncle says. I hope that my apologie balance it out. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help on Give It Away

I accidently posted this one someone else's talk page. But thanks again for your help on the Give It Away move. Oldag07 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glad to help, and for linking this topic ("My mom I love her 'cause she love me / Long gone are the times when she scrub me") to previous sections, where the need for the creation of Category:Bottom wiping is implied. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

Hey, Drmies! I hope the Manchester Star was palatable, although since J. W., Lees stuff usually travels no more than 70 miles or so, the impact of a cross-Atlantic journey might have been considerable.

Got a query for you. I'd take it to WP:RSN but they now only deal with specific "is source A suitable for statement B in article C" stuff, rather than the more generalised issues. Can you take a quick look at this? It is hosted by the Govt. of India but, honestly, it reads like a poor hagiography to me and it cites no sources. I've also got no idea what merit attaches to the author and am pretty concerned about seeing it used at, for example, Kakori conspiracy and related biographical articles. Stalkers welcome! - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say it's unacceptable for precisely the reasons you mention. Tone is hagiographical, sources are missing, editorial oversight is not indicated anywhere. If you need me to back you up on RSN I'll be glad to. Oh, we haven't had the Star yet; I'll let you know how it traveled. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker)IMO, anything that describes someone as "THE IMMORTAL REVOLUTIONARY" is not a reliable source. Writ Keeper 16:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can find that text in volume 100 of the Encyclopaedia Indica, Sitush. It's also in the Encyclopaedia Of Indian War Of Independence (1857-1947), also published by Anmol. It has done the rounds, somewhat. It's even on User:Manoharshivum. You can read it here as well. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have raised issues concerning plagiarism by EI on a few occasions, and by Anmol in general. There have been some clear instances where EI has printed stuff that had appeared elsewhere previously - eg: see this thread - but I only have a pretty limited view of EI content and so cannot do extensive checks to support an entry at WP:MF etc. That is, Mirrors and Forks, not Malleus. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]