User talk:Drmies/Archive 38

Level three warning on disruptive editing

Please stop introducing platypuses into SPI case pages, such as those you created at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wm55. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered humourous. Continuing to add jokes and other amusing content into SPI cases may lead to you being blocked from editing, as members of the evil cabal of administrators have no sense of humour. I mean, come on, do we really need those cute graphics all the time? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That platypus is nude! Shock! Horror! It couldn't be more nude if it tried. We need a filter for image such as that. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What did I tell you about the evil cabal? [1] JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't template the fucking regulars, JamesBWatson, or I'll platypus you! And thanks for your action on the SPI and your note at the AfD. I left DoRD a redundant memo message. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Template? Template? Where's the template that says "Please stop introducing platypuses into SPI case pages"? If I'd known there was one, I could have saved myself the trouble of hand-crafting that message. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll be introducing the "Platypus of playability" shortly, unless Kelapstick beats me to it while I get the kids. It should probably come in different levels. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For the awesome Wicked reference on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Nelson, I award Drmies the Barnstar of Good Humor. Seriously, you made this theatre nerd's day ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 18:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate that immensely--esp. since, ahem, I am not familiar with that particular work... Drmies (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm Writ Keeper. "No good deed goes unpunished" is a prominent line in the lyrics of a song in Wicked (the song is even called "No Good Deed"), but it's also a regular ol' idiom that predates the play. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm Drmies. Thanks Writ Keeper! Drmies (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Any interest...

...in taking a look at this one [2]? Thanks and cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• NO! Drmies (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No ale for you. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mata amritanandamayi - wiki

Hello drimes - can you please list your issues regarding above page. All details are with proper references and Neutral point of view. No promotional here. If you have any issue, I am ready to clarify in details. Vivekash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekash (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think I explained them. Those details, if they are of encyclopedic relevance in the first place, are not neutral and the sources are not reliable--[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and I could go on, are not reliable and obviously promotional: they promote the centers that use those techniques, making claims about their efficacy. Sorry, but this kind of content is not acceptable. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not promotional. All references are given to show that it is taught all over the world. when you write some thing about a biography of an Individual - you should tell positive things also. otherwise wiki will be become wrong tool to attack one individual with a motive. If you see the biography - you just have an attack over mata amritanandamayi. If you really interested in uphold the ethics of wiki - please revert back. all details are given with fantastic and very clear references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekash (talk • contribs) 04:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone can see that this is not correct. The links cited above and other support comments (in sub-par English) such as "Large number of people was benefited by the above technique"; "A huge pool of trainers is created and they teach the IAM all over the world based on request"; "More details available in the following website.(www.iam-meditation.org)". I'm going to report you for using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Drimes, I agree with you that it can be improved. many details are removed which looks like promotional. but be positive. you can not remove every thing at one stretch which also more like a vandalism or hate against an Individual. we are not promoters but we are want to contribute to wiki in nice way with proper details. If you have any apprehension, let we discuss so that we can keep biography of a person to the good extent reliable. As of now, it looks like a blog or editorial page attacking some body. thanks in advance. Vivekash--121.243.61.82 (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't accept that. You called me a vandal for removing promotional information, now you're editing without logging in. Find me one edit where I am hating on an individual. I think I have some experience here that helps me in determining what is and what isn't acceptable. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• I see that another admin agrees with me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Be a meanie at Minhas?

Take a look at the history and talk page of Minhas. Unbelievable, but I rather think that I could be done for edit warring after my latest revert. OTOH, consensus has to be based on policy and so the numerous reverts against me carry no weight. Should I send it to RFPP or will I be shooting myself in the foot? There are, after all, some trigger-happy folks around. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually if they are around then they'll be doing the shooting and I won't need to hit my own foot. But you get what I meant. I hope. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I can. Take my advice: withdraw. Stay on the right side of the bright line, always. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I am on the right side of 3RR, no problem there. I suspect some socks but it would be easier just to semi. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you sure a stub is all that can be salvaged? You know there's some folks who say that having unverified content is fine (I'm not one of them). Anyways, you're not breaking the rules yet and you've started a discussion on the talk page. I think you'd be on safe ground if you can revert, next time, to something more than a stub. Who needs sleep? (Yes, semi-protection is easy and you can ask for it--I won't do it right now, but that's also because of perception. Post the request and see what happens.) Drmies (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not sure that a stub is all that can be done. I am sure that it is all that can be salvaged. I appreciate your attempt, which I t-i-c ridicule below, but this lot are quite difficult to track down. I find it very odd and will continue to search because, in truth, there has to be something out there. Oh, for my JSTOR access (still pending) etc. Or a decent academic library at the end of my street. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of information on "Emil Kazaz" article.

Is it possible to put back the information that was on the Emil Kazaz article. I see that there are problems regarding its in-line citations. I have reviewed it, and the article is not poorly written, non-neutral in any way. It merely discusses the achievements about the artist. I see there are in-line citations that are not coded to Wikipedia correctly. Could you possibly fix that problem? Also, the inline citations are referenced in the External link tab. That links need to be in the reference list column. Any help would be greatly appreciated. This article is of an important Armenian public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.213.128.251 (talk • contribs)

• No, and no, since you're the editor who got blocked on that article in the first place. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hello, I'm Sitush I am, honestly). I noticed that you made a change to an article, Minhas, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Are you a regular? Can I template you? Hopefully my edit summary explains. No offence intended - the templating is jokey, although the point is serious. Thanks for trying. Sitush (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Shucks, none of us know it all. Least of all me! - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, regarding Gyan, I'd forgotten this. I must remember to use it. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Damn you Sitush. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can live with that. Being "the bastard offspring of your mother fucked by a dog" (or something similar) is the more usual and bizarre type of insult found aimed at me at articles such as this. Or just a simple death threat by email etc. The community is notable and one day, hopefully, we'll prove it. I am convinced that transliteration and non-English sources are the big issues here. I could probably use the works of the Anthropological Survey of India but, alas, they are pretty much a 40-odd volume regurgitation of the British Rah sources, such as H. A. Rose, but with poor attribution. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm no zoologist, but I'm pretty sure that's biologically impossible. Though they say we're very similar to mice. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grand Style

Hello. Thanks for the help. I think I have made all the necessary changes to my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grand Style. Scorpiorok (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wondering if a 'See also' section would include Grand manner. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it to main space. Scorpiorok, don't be surprised if this article undergoes serious revision. 76, tit for tat: I put up your Rotting Flesh, maybe you can copyedit this article a bit? Hint hint? Drmies (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, Grand style redirects to Grand manner, and the caps in Grand Style are in correct--so I'll move it to Grand style (rhetoric), which strikes me as appropriate. IP, do you have a hatnote handy for the Grand manner article? Drmies (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(back from dinner, now otherwise occupied) Will take a look. If I log in and use my registered account, everyone will recognize my true identity, and the condemnation will be horrifying. As it is I can't go out in public for fear of hurled comestibles. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Aw shucks. Thanks for helping out, Man Formerly Known as "The Hope". Drmies (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hint, hint

Can't believe this once passed AFD process [8], but in 2007 things were a bit looser. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Or you could just log in. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Help on a talk page about iTunes

This is at Talk:Manila_Luzon#iTunes. Same person that asked if I was gay and wanted Facebook, twitter, myspace links in external links.

From the article it states, "...is available for purchase via iTunes and many commercial music sites" and then gives the links to the singles on iTunes." He is not understanding the is promotional and thinks this is referencing something. Bgwhite (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you're gay. You hate your wife too much to be gay. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Man that article is not good. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I don't hate my wife, I actually love her. But, don't tell her that as I don't want her to know.
• In fairness to XLR8TION, Luzon's partner died recently and the article was pounced upon by all sorts of users. XLR8TION has cleaned it up alot from where it was.
• "for all we know it's john sununu in drag" Thank you for that mental image I will never forget. Bgwhite (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Víctor Vázquez

Hi there my dear (virtual) friend, "AL" "speaking" (hell we all know it's VASCO!),

found a ref in Dutch for this guy's transfer to Club Brugge, could you be a sport and translate the title please? Man, i really have to take up Dutch lessons, no excuse being unemployed and all :)

Have the greatest of weekends (all the same to me, Monday through Sunday), warm regards - --AL (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Hey, if you start going to church again at least Sunday will be different. Do we have a job for you in the motherland? I know someone who works in the Amsterdam Arena--send me your resume and we'll see... And if you're a good defender, Ajax can probably use your help. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Same problem, now in Sander Boschker, in the article's intro. I mean i could have a go and try and translate it myself, but it would definitely be "googlish"...In a related note, reading Boschker's NL.WIKI, it looks like he prolonged his contract a further year, but somebody wrote "retired" in his English piece so i was mislead. Which is which m'friend?

And what is it that Dutch goalkeepers eat to have this longevity?! Then again, maybe it's just those Amsterdam winds (Boschker, van der Sar, Jan Jongbloed - unless i'm much mistaken it means "young blood" does it not? - did not play for Ajax but he did play for a club in the city, "resisted" until the age of 46!)... Cheers --AL (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, Eddy Treytel was old too, bald before his time I guess. I do believe having seen footage of him bringing down that seagull but I can't find it on YouTube. He does have a delicious Rotterdam accent. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• OK, Boschker is not retired: I just straightened that out. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank YOU for your friendship and attention. That working invitation you made yesterday? Too bad i'm just a sad human being, not willing to take a chance anymore, i'll regret it when i'm 80... --AL (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Supercouple page

You posted somewhere a message referencing a few boards I could take this issue to. I can't find that message. Please direct me to the appropriate discussion board. I want this resolved ASAP, as you know it's a very ludicrous statement that has to go. Sancap (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't know that. On the original ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive770#Help_requested_on_Supercouple_page, I pointed out that this was (at that time) a matter for WP:ANEW, but you kind of pre-empted that by continuing the edit war. I did point out the talk page, and you promoted your view there. It's a pity no one responded; the IP editor may be operating under a different IP address now but I'll drop them a line. At this point, it's probably a matter for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But I suggest you try a lighter approach than you've tried so far, since you haven't managed to convince other editors yet. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've commented here [9]. It's not a ludicrous statement per se; it seems the relevant question is whether it's received enough use to be credible. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: I didn't know there was already a discussion at that noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I here and here. 187.1.160.79 (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the appropriate noticeboard yeserday. In less than 24 hours, two IP editors have replied, stated their opinion and then closed the discussion before I could even respond! And isn't it the admins who are supposed to be discussing this with me on that kind of board, not the same IP editor I've been arguing with? I need to take this issue somewhere where it will get the proper treatment. Sancap (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Patt

Thanks for your suggestions. What do you think about the Death Records and Williams YAHOO death notice and WP:RS?

Williams is a secondary source for the Vanilla Book and the death date. The Death Records (using SS database) is the only source for place of birth and is the primary source for death date. I don't think that anybody is likely to challenge those facts, or the short description of The Vanilla Book.

Of course, the birth and death dates and the Vanilla Book sentences could be removed, and the bio updated as though he were still alive, but this seems unreasonable in this case. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Kiefer. I don't know--I think it would look silly without those dates. The Yahoo message should be used sparingly, but you've used only neutral information as far as I could tell after a quick glance, and I personally wouldn't challenge it, though it's not the best of course. For Death Records (which is also a bit unlikely to be challenged, but who knows) it may be best to post a note on the RS board. If you're right, that this uses SS information, it should be no problem.

  I've added a few things--not in Harvard format, and with my apologies. Maybe you can find a place for this as well (in an octet with Richard Maltby, Sr.). Good luck! Drmies (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  Those were very nice additions, especially the Columbia River book, which I really should have found earlier. I don't remember the Billboard finding, but it doesn't look to be so important. He seems to have authored a report on Las Vegas groundwater that had 30 citations, on JSTOR or Google Scholar, but I've not had the energy to add it. It doesn't look like it adds much to the bio.

  Thanks also for catching The Music News book, which establishes notability for the Patt--Wayne booklet. I asked for a finding about the reliability of The Music News last year, when I wrote about two Ovation Guitar clones, because I've only read extended news-releases (apparently) in it. (Is it really a journalistic journal?) Nobody answered..., at least not before I cut 95% of my pages monitored after a block..... Whether by a journalist or the publisher, the statement that it was a best seller is informative and credible. I'll try to write RSN about the Yahoo group this weekend. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  Glad to help, Kiefer. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  Please see WP:RSN#Ralph_Patt: GAN vetting. Thanks again! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion

Hi Drmies. Could you possibly take a quick look at User talk:Danielj27052705 and The James Young High School which came up on my watchlist the other day. The user was trying to add a full staff list and list of facilities to this article, which was a reasonable newbie mistake to make, but I blocked them when after admitting they were affiliated with the school, they twice removed a mildly negative but well-sourced sentence from the article. They seem reluctant to read up on our policies and maybe another voice will help them to understand, if you have the time. You may also comment on whether you think I am too involved to have made the block if you like. Thanks for any assistance you are able to provide. --John (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I looked at the article, their edits, the talk page, and other associated pages (closing that AfD in the process per WP:SNOW). You have acted perfectly appropriate, in my opinion. Should they place an unblock request I shall refrain. I'll copy some of these comments on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention. --John (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, John. And may I point out that you're actually preventing my retirement? But you won't stop me from having lunch. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see why after making such a remarkable edit, you would find my request rather banal to complete. All the more grateful for your intervention, m'lud. --John (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Friz

Drmies, you look smashing today! Would you (and/or your loyal stalkers) do me a favor and look at Friz Freleng, as well as my comments on User talk:49.145.53.55? I've reverted some of the IP's edits to the article a few times and don't want to break any rules by doing it any more. Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

John (talk · contribs) took care of it. Thanks, John! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mandarax; just passing through, but a quick look at the pages edited by the 49 IP shows a lot of unsourced changes in this vein, and a history of such edits made by a series of 49.145 accounts. This could be a wide range of sneaky vandalism, or at the least annoyingly unsourced edits. Mondo annoying, and lord knows I don't want to draft a report, but maybe a few others would like to follow the trail and weigh in. Me, I'm gonna try to watch the AL wildcard game, as if I care. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

One for the watchlist

This user has chosen a name that is going to get a lot of watchers among (mostly young and male) WP contributors. Unlike, say SpottyWong ;) Thanks for the pointer re: ScottyWong's admin assessor & related discussions. I can't see it ever taking off but then SW wasn't suggesting that it should. According to the tool, I make too few edits to non-article/non-article talk space. Am I bovvered? - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hm, probably it's some 300-pound computer programming dude. I made too few edit summaries and lost almost 100 points. Also, I need to do more blah blah blah. I'm drinking a delicious Belgian red ale--from Ichtegem. It better be good for the price. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Block question (sort of)

I indeffed User:Efrange - see the discussion at WP:ANI. A non-admin replaced the material on Efrange's user page with {{indefblock}}. The template documentation says that this is typically added by the blocking admin, although anyone can add it. My typically Bbb-nit-picky question is what guidance is for when you should or shouldn't use this template, or parroting the language of the template doc, when is it "needed"?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Mmm, I don't know. I always wonder what it is that makes other editors place such tags; it always seems like a kind of final stab. I use this sparingly and probably only to replace offensive or otherwise unsuitable content. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Here's one: User:StillStanding-247--a kind of disappearing. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Heh, that, too, was added by a non-admin, but how come that non-admin gave credit to the blocking admin? "My" non-admin didn't (sniff).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cute (having trouble stopping laughing).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I just placed one myself. Maybe some would consider it a badge of honor, like a body count, but I derive little pleasure from it. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ooh, we could add it to the service badges (see this surreal discussion).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Hello, I'm Marco Guzman, Jr. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Big_Bird that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. You wrote: "Bullshit. It's not news. It's nothing--it's only an opportunity for social media overusers to indulge. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a list of trivialities. Even if it was trending it means nothing--it's not trending now, and it won't be tomorrow. You got a dozen edits here; Macaddct1984 and I have a couple more and I think we might have a better idea of what it is that we do." Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  00:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• And? Drmies (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Dear Drmies: I note that you have received several warnings lately, and have recieved criticism on AN for being too jocular, so this is a pre-emptive intervention, just in case you are turning to the Dark Side of Wikipedia.

  Please don't do that. The Good Side (Light Side? Positive Side? Democratic Side? [oops!]) needs you! You are loved and appreciated, please return to the bosom of your Wikipedian family. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I guess I should have said "bird shit"? No, I've not gone over: I'm still the same abusive admin I was before. Bwuhaha and all that. Good to see you again BMK; are you staying out of trouble with dams and other stuff? Drmies (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, too busy in RL lately to spend much time editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Father Mulcahy: "Jocularity, jocularity".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Question for you and your TPS crew: Who was it that recommended that English-language writers favor Anglo-Saxon words whenever possible over words of Latin and Greek origin? Was it in one of the style guides? Strunk & White? (The question came up at work today.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know--I don't have S&W laying around here, but I doubt that they'd make suggestions like that. Still, they like economy, terseness. It's one of the things that's perennially floating around about the Gettysburg Address--this is a fantastic book, by the way. Maybe Malleus knows, but I think he's on vacation. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Orwell said it, as did a bunch of other people. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, Nikkimaria. I'll keep that in mind when I teach HEL, this coming spring. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, HEL--the class--needs an article: it's a class still required for many English majors and is notable as a topic, IMO. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI/Runtshit

I think you forgot to put the sock. XD Elockid ^(Talk) 01:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I did. Baka. But never mind--apparently I was an idiot for starting it in the first place. Thanks Elockid. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone try to improve Wikipedia?

"I have no opinion on the dab page per se" You won't say anything because I am right that the Territory topic should have a real article.

Why would anyone try to improve Wikipedia if an obivous improvement will just result in an edit war, and then the administrators won't protect the improvement? If I put a proposal on the Talk page, it will be ignored, and if I try to make the change again weeks later, it will just be reverted again. Suggestions on the Talk page are almost always completely ignored and lead to no action being taken on a page. So there is no way to improve Wikipedia. It is stuck the way it is now forever. 24.125.39.254 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• You're falsely claiming vandalism, trying to get your opponent blocked. How is that improvement? You haven't even tried conversation. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Today's great poem

The ancient poets ne'er did dream

That Canada was land of cream,

They ne'er imagined it could flow

In this cold land of ice and snow,

Where everything did solid freeze

They ne'er hoped or looked for cheese.

from "Oxford Cheese Ode" Bgwhite (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• That's charming. Were you inspired by this? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerns?

I was a bit surprised that you withdrew your support and moved to neutral. I would like to figure out what I can do better, so if you had any specific concerns from Cunard's oppose, could you elaborate? Thanks. →Σσς. (Sigma) 00:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Sigma. You're keeping your cool now that there is a bump in the road (which still seems headed toward the tools), and I'm glad to see that. I don't want to rehash all the pros and cons; I hope an example or two will suffice. This (a. in your rebuttal) is in itself a decent edit, in my opinion, but I have a track record of not wanting to auto-revert edits by banned users. If you had provided an edit summary I would have felt differently. I gladly accept your explanations for b. and c. at face value, but in all three cases an edit summary is really called for. The three AIV reports are a bit bothersome since you're running for admin--we don't expect admins to file reports that are so quickly whisked away. The AfD for Barry Charles Honig is bothersome as well, given the weakness of two (possibly three) of the four keeps (and the article is still in a pitiable shape); if you had given that more attention it's likely to have been deleted and it gives the appearance of a drive-by nomination. (I'm sure I've also left AfDs unattended; no one single thing in Cunard's list is by itself damning.) I guess I can't fault you as an editor for not catching the problem in Antenarrative, but it's there nonetheless. The joke AfDs--I remember seeing one or two of them at the time, not sure if they were yours; I may have commented on that somewhere, possibly on AN, but I have a low threshold for such jokes, sorry. I'm not so bothered by the IRC stuff, mostly because I know nothing about that entire world, but the comment you placed wasn't so offensive to me.

  We've had a couple of interactions, more than I thought, actually, as I discovered when I went through my talk page archives. You and I intersect on so many articles that it's useless plowing through those, so I don't know (remember) if I ever had a real disagreement with you that doesn't show up in our talk page archives. Of course I was a bit pissed about that thing at my RfA but I didn't say much about it until later (saw it earlier today in my archive), and the notes I left since then on your talk page should tell you that I have no hard feelings. As for those notes on your talk page, they should tell you that I greatly appreciate you as an editor, and I haven't, AFAIK, removed AIV reports of yours or anything like that, but the little things do add up and made me move to neutral--mind you, not oppose. Should this RfA be unsuccessful (unlikely) then I think you know what you'd need to do for a next one; care with rollback and more usage of edit summaries when rolling back, even though that can be tedious cause you know you're right (that's the nature of the rollback beast), and even more care with reports and deletion nominations. If it is successful (likely), well in both cases, please take this as friendly advice. Does that help? Sorry if this is also in the TLDNR category, but hey, at least it's shorter than Cunard's comments. All the best, Drmies (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit some articles

Per your excellent suggestion, I was patrolling new articles, tagging a few, deleted a couple, looking for something interesting I could work on and improve. You know, light duty but needed article editing. And of course, I ran into two different nests of socks, so a dozen blocks and two CUs later, half the night is gone. This is what I mean. I can't hardly get to the editing part anymore. And if I see them and know they are socks, it isn't like I can ignore them. :( Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, that's kind of lame, in a Calvinist sort of way. I've been using the same excuse for years now... On another note, I'm watching an SEC game and drinking a beer. Also not writing an article. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Which SEC game? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• The inventor of the fun and gun is sticking it to Georgia. They're getting slaughtered, in a miserable performance; the crowd was chanting "overrated" twenty minutes ago already. Alabama was idle today, so I got to clean the downstairs bathroom and do a bunch of laundry. ;) Drmies (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I switched from Georgia/South Carolina to Nebraska/Ohio State due to the lopsidedness of the score, before changing sports entirely to the Reds/Giants NLCS game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• The Georgia game was just... pathetic, really. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ed, sorry--when did you become a Southerner? Or, who granted you the privilege of criticizing an SEC team? Don't make me tell Tide rolls! Drmies (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• That's some harsh criticism. At least my team typically has the edge in basketball. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't watch girl sports, Ed, unless it involves mud or olive oil. I did log out earlier today to make a fan edit for my team in b-ball. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cute edit there, very constructive. ;-) Let's not forget that the UConn men's team isn't half bad either, and the Big East/ACC has relatively consistently kicked the SEC around over the last several years, aside from Kentucky last year. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Tenedos

I changed the article completely after that move-reconsider request. You could close it on that basis; I think there is silence there finally. Churn and change (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Haha, if I close that there will be hell to pay. Have you looked at the Move review discussion? I closed the last Move request, apparently unsatisfactorily according to some. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. After that there was a move-review, an RFC, a discussion on WP:Article titles, and a discussion on the talk page all going on at the same time. I expanded the article so much all the discussion is now rather moot, and seems to have finally died down. Churn and change (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not touching it. There was an RfC? I half expected an RfC/U, with Chrisrus asking me to render a detailed opinion on his analysis of a YouTube video of a Procol Harum performance from 1974. But whatever happens to the article, the matter of the title still stands. BTW, I have changed my mind, at least of one thing I said during one of those conversations: I wouldn't mind vacationing there. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw a request to close that move review at WP:ANRFC. I spent about twenty minutes reading it, then realized I was not even halfway through the discussion. I gave up/ This perfectly mirrors my one and only previous experience with move review. I'.m not so sure it is a properly functioning process. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious what the problem is: every one in that discussion (though the "move" side is fully represented, and the other side isn't) feels compelled to rehash all the arguments for moving, counter all the arguments against moving, vent their personal frustration, etc.--and none of this has anything to do with whether the request was closed properly. In other words, I don't think it's necessary to read the entire discussion. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

New message

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kurtis (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks continue

Hi Drmies. This person keeps insisting on making personal attacks. His BLP violations were also fueled by these attacks. I think a block is way past due. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Now he is targeting articles I started. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Not a nice man" and "jerk" aren't blockable, at least not in my opinion. That other edit, that's a different matter. One more warning, and then it's over. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Let me know if this happens again, and I or one of the tool-enabled stalkers will take appropriate measures. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
      • You've got a way with words. :) Thanks for that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you are seeing it that way

The deletion policy page has one para on possible reasons (followed by many on nonreasons) and formats it as a bulleted list, making the recommendations look more specific and comprehensive than they are (yes, there is wording "not limited to" but that hardly means a thing). Churn and change (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

could you help me

I want to ask questions about justin beiber, and am a huge fan, but why is his page locked too?75.171.2.67 (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The article and the talk page are protected from editing by anyone other than autoconfirmed users. That would mean you would have to register at Wikipedia and then perform a sufficient number of edits to be able to edit the article. That said, Wikipedia is generally not a place for you to "ask questions" about Bieber or anyone else. Depending on the nature of our question, you could try posting to the entertainment reference desk. There are, of course, other places on the Internet to ask questions about celebrities. Finally, please stop posting this message at multiple editor talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also a huge fan, by the way. Thanks Bbbieber! Drmies (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

RIP Amy Pond

I'm sorry Drmies as this will be the last post about Amy Pond. It was a very sad moment. My wife and I looked on in disbelief at both Amy and her husband's tombstone at the end of the episode. Atleast the 25-year old Amy died with her 2,026-year old husband as their 47-year old daughter and 1,200 year-old son-in-law (The Doctor) looked on. It was hard for the Doctor because he had been traveling with Amy for almost 300 years. This includes having Amy see her daughter kill The Doctor 97-years ago. Gosh, I can't believe that I have to watch totally unbelievable U.S. TV shows now... like Last Resort where a mentally challenged U.S. President would attack a Muslim country for no reason. I mean, who would believe that? Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just watched that one last week, now starting Torchwood. I'm going to miss the Ponds. Although they didn't die, they just got sent back in time. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• You know what, I really should look for that show. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Bad form Mies, tut tut. I'm on my way to Miami right now. Going to be there for about 1 hour before I hop right back on the same plane back to Toronto (and I seldom hop). I even have the same seat. Because of my late return to Mongolia, I am low on Aeroplan points, so have to do a mileage run in order to remain high on the frequent flier food chain. The customs agent sort of snickered when I told him I was turning around as soon as I got there. If its any consolation I got upgraded to business class on two of the four legs of the journey. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Locking Urolagnia based on misleading info

Hi!Not happy about this [10] - could you please explain your reasoning. I don't see why I should have to create an account to edit it, and there has not been a problem with vandalism.87.194.46.83 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes there has, and the problem was you and our BLP policy. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

One edit, that I didn't add, but restored with a source, as requested by annother editor who has a vendetta against me?85.179.140.200 (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The True American Dream

Dear Drmies,

With regards to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The True American Dream, I understand you put this Speedy Deletion Tag, on my article, please, would you consider approving my article? Below are the reasons, along with the proofs. Actually, this is already part of the Problem, under point 6, and under "The Problem" of my article, that there are too many American Dream principles/ concepts in existence, written by prominent authors and leaders, for the past 200 years, but none of them defines the concept clearly, none of them shows step-by-step concepts (on how to do those concepts), and certainly, none of them is based on the ultimate concept of True Love.

1. Some authors know that the real American Dream is about"Our challenge is to create an America that lives up to the principles and ideals of our Founding Fathers." as written here http://www.todaysamericandream.com/, but NOWHERE in that website is written of HOW the concept is done.

Now, let's look at this approved article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream "The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the United States DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE which proclaims that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." First of all, that writing never really defines what the concept is all about (very vague and not clear). Secondly, where is in that article and in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, that shows the step-by-step instructions on how to do the American Dream concept? I know that article was written under encyclopedic format, but what is the conclusion that the readers can draw, after they finish reading that article? Can they answer this: what is the American Dream concept, and what can they do to make them happier and more complete, by practicing that concept? What are the benefits of reading that article? How inspiring and educational is that article?

http://www.amazon.com/Sonia-Sotomayor-True-American-Dream/dp/0425234835. Where is in this book where the concept of The True American Dream is clearly defined, and where are "the step-by-step" instructions on how to do this concept, like the way written in my article?

And you will see the same thing happening in the following websites, that all of those websites/ books (articles) never really define what the concepts truly are (never in a tangible concept form), and they don't really show the step-by-step instructions on how to do the concepts:

A. http://mytrueamericandream.com/

B. On here http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/jesus_the_true_american_dream.html, the author is kind of know what his concept is "to be like Jesus"; he is in the right direction, but that article is more or less about a discussion. The concept is never clearly defined, and there is no "how the concept is done" written in that article. What is the purpose of that article? What is the benefit of reading that article? Just for knowledge? Or the author intends to dedicate his life, to help people understand his concept, so people will be happier and more complete? To be like Jesus is such a broad concept.

C. http://72.5.117.181/economica/stories/viewStory?storyid=3667

D. https://my.barackobama.com/page/group/ThetrueAmericanDream

E. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/may/01/the-true-american-dream-5259/?partner=RSS

And many more.

The conclusion? THIS IS A FACT: There is NO American Dream, or NO True American Dream articles, or books, in history, whose concepts are based on the ultimate concept of True Love, and whose concepts are written on a step-by-step format like the way written in my article.

2. Now, my article might appear to be promotional to you. But, please consider this. This is a fact, that almost all of Wikipedia articles have promotional values. For example, all those Wikipedia articles about Actors, Directors, Producers. How? Because those articles talk about who they are, what they have accomplished (selling themselves); all have a hidden purpose: the opportunity for more fame and more projects in the future (for money). So why were those articles be allowed to be published? The difference between those articles and mine? Mine is not asking money from people. We are a non-profit organization. We intend to help people for the confusions caused by the authors and media about American Dream and love. The DEFINITION of PROMOTIONAL is this: when there is an opportunity/ hope for financial benefits (rewards) for the author of an article or for the person/ company that the article writes about. We, the Foundation (The True American Dream Foundation) and the Founder, expect no financial benefits from our readers. We give benefits to people.

My article needs to be written in that format (the way I have written now), because that concept:The True American Dream, is an invention and unprecedented. I need to include the writer/ founder. So if your policy:"Encyclopedia articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources", so how can I get those? If you don't believe me, please do your own research. There are no American Dream concepts/ articles/ books in the market and in history that are based on the ultimate concept of True Love. In fact, there is no True Love concept written in history that covers 10 ideal principles (true concepts) like the way tangibly written in my article. Even the BIBLE was not written that way. Even the bible does not tell/ explain specifically what True Love concept really means. The bible does not summarize True Love in a tangible and definitive concept, and it doesn't even explain/ tell whether True Love is an integrated concept that covers all the other 10 ideal principles (true concepts).

To check if there is another True Love out there, that is defined like the way it was in my article, please type this in the Google: "True Love, and (its components/ Ideal Principles/ True Concepts) True Happiness, True Purpose of Life, True Leadership, True Marriage, True Parenting, True Relationship, True Romanticism, True Faith in God, True Friendship, Kingdom of Heaven", I can assure you, there is no True Love concept in history that integrated its 10 True Concepts (Ideal Principles). So if there is none other, there is no way I can include references from other books/ authors/ websites, because my article/ concept (The True American Dream and True Love) is unprecedented.

3. Regarding my username, I have put my signature of my username as Sebastian, did this not solve the username or conflict of interest issue?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration. God bless you and all your family. Sebastian (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Dear Sebastian, thank you for your note. However, I am going to sound dogmatic to you. What is defined in American Dream as the American dream is a well-established concept that's been active in the world for a couple of centuries. What you propose is--I don't know, a website, a method, a self-help manual, a whole bunch of things. That yours would be a "true" American dream may well be interesting discussion matter in the coffee house, but it's not for here. Until there are reliable sources reporting on your concept (or whatever word you wish to use for it), it's not for Wikipedia. And if it ever gets to be for Wikipedia, it can't be written up in the way that you did it.

  Now, your username--you do need to change, given our username policy, links to which are on your talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Thanks

Thanks for helping the editorial efforts that resulted in the recent WP:GA promotion of Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens

This user helped promote Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I only made minor copyedits, Tony. Thank you and congratulations on another GA. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

File:Erect penis measurement.png

Whose is this?

Fred Flintstone or Peter Griffin?

...for that thought provoking and inspiring addition[11] to my RfC closure. You know its going to be good when the summary is longer than the comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, since Tenedos I'm not taking chances. And I thought we weren't making "longer" jokes! Drmies (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • [groan....] I had already reverted one joke below that section at ANI and overlooked your comment.... DC might not like the outcome, but I just couldn't see any other possible way to close that. The key to clarity at RfC is to start with a well defined question, then keep it on topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes. I was somewhat surprised to see the claim of clear consensus. That image is in the article again, of course, and I don't think that's a good thing--I guess I won't be closing the next RfC there! Drmies (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
      • It was there preclose, per a "consensus" above, adding more confusion to the mix. And yes, it is very problematic. All I could do is raise the two issues that make it problematic, and that is why I included the no consensus to include or not include. They need a better discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
        • And a better cock, obviously! Drmies (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I did notice that whoever this is, he is well groomed, even for a cartoon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
            • You're correct: those are some closely-shaved balls. Hey, I tell you, that's one of the weird things about having a son: I've never handled another man's penis before. Lady, that reminds me--are you ever going to make your new-baby visit? The pool is in the low 70s, so it's nipply but not too bad. In other sucky news, apparently my mother in law wants us to go there for Thanksgiving and she be here for Christmas. No wonder her two other children live in California and Washington. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nippy or nipply? Never heard of a nipply pool. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Nipply". Adj. Making nipples stand out. Chiefly Am. usage. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah... Erm... well... bacon? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Per your unblock discussion elsewhere, please try to refrain from using the words "Dennis" "poorly" and "penis" in the same sentence. Thank you for your cooperation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Diffs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm offended. Drmies doesn't want me to talk about Amy Pond and actually hides those posts, but Penises are ok? Egads. Blofeld requested I send jstor articles on blue whale penises and before that it was on phallic architecture. He just erected Phallic architecture to GA status. I just don't know. You are all disgusting. Of course, I've been castrated married for 18 years and I'm just plain jealous. Bgwhite (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oh yeah. I hate the castration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Whereas I got to go home this morning for a half an hour between dropping off children and going to work. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I just wouldn't go home. I'd go to Timmy's — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
      • When you can get a rare half hour uninterupted with the wife, eating glazed donuts is not exactly what I would be doing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume by " eating glazed donuts" you mean cunnilingus.... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• We didn't eat donuts, Dennis--you are correct. Besides, I'm diabetic, and instead of getting high on sugar, we got high on life. Ahem. Beeblebrox, come on now. We're trying to be properly euphemistic here, despite the picture of Dennis's this odd penis. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I just invented a new euphamism actually. "kids, go run along while daddy gets some glazed donut.... " Or conversely " that man of mines sure does know how to glaze my donut." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is based on an old euphamism, and because that restaurant is known for selling donuts, I couldn't help myself, knowing Drmies would get it :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

My god, guys - and it is only guys with the exception of Drmies's one question to the Lady who didn't respond (smart lady) - is this discussion still going on? All I can say is my penis didn't look like that picture until I cut and pasted the arrows on using dickware.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You just partially outed yourself with that comment. Now we know you are a white, circumcised male with a cartoon penis. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the dangerous world of inferences. Is that image of a white person? Not necessarily. Is it a cartoon? Looks more like a diagram. Circumcised? Depends. Maybe after I cut and pasted it, but if I undo it, doesn't that make it uncut? Finally, I could be a female with a penis. BTW, those arrows hurt.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• A Japanese-born, white-skinned (wo)man with a ridiculously large and toned penis? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• It only became ridiculously large after my RfA - kind of went to my head.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder how Freud would take that... or just the RFA process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Freud would clearly be envious that penises can now be decorated with software, whereas he had to do everthing by hand. I, of course, blame the RfA process on my mother.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In Freud's terms, RFA is broken because we crave the acidic, sometimes dangerous and maddening, place that is our mother's womb? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

How does that make you feel? Assuming RfA is broken, the reason is because people vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ah. A dictatorship, then, or anarchy? Or... nothing!

You know, I don't think we should discuss RFA in the context of penises and futanari. It's... rather symbolic, methinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I try to avoid any serious discussions about the RfA process as it seems to me like group therapy without a moderator. Or maybe too many moderators, all of whom behave immoderately. But, hey, this discussion is at least amusing (although Drmies may be tired of it by now). I mean, how often do I have a discussion about penises with someone whose user name is crisco?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think, for an experiment, we can nominate Jimbo at RFA and (assuming we aren't blocked for disruption) write an article about it to be submitted in a journal: "Wikipedia's Feeding Frenzy: Chumming the Sharks with 'The Founder' and What it Reveals about the Politics of Wikipedia".

Of course, if I were to do that we wouldn't end up with a hermaphrodite on the front page (a second time)... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Need help!

Please provide some suggestion here: User_talk:Jim1138#Please_also_see. Should we go to ANI when multiple users, IPs and multiple articles are involved? --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

• I respect an interaction ban with Neutralhomer and trust that it is appropriate to let you (rather than he) know my concerns as necessary from time to time.
• The fact that Neutralhomer still believes today that he was stopping "vandalism" is a serious remaining issue. Even my first edits were sourced to the 2007 source in the article and however long he has been updating the article he never felt it necessary to question that source. After he did question it and I attempted other interaction methods, he still did not recognize any change in my edits but argued that even an edit that adds only whitespace and commenting for discussion is vandalism, because, it's so obvious to him that sourced historical data doesn't belong in the article, that even commenting it in requires no discussion prior to reversion. Since Neutralhomer has reaffirmed belief in the linchpin of this structure, his judgment is still in question.
• The fact that Neutralhomer still affirms today that he believed he had no choice but to call is a problem that arises from the vandal-fighting mythology. There was the choice to rethink his views on vandalism, there was the choice to listen to those who declined his AIV reports instead of the occasional supporter, there was the choice to use any number of DR methods without going offline. If he faces a situation again where he believes he has no choice when he does, his current view will indicate to him that he should proceed and take the rap rather than question his belief. This is not rehabilitation.
• The fact that Neutralhomer misstated his own block history, was called on it, admitted it, expressed no remorse, and justified it by appeal to forgetting the past and to medical wisdom indicates some judgment failure.
• The fact that Neutralhomer is copying TV drafts offline, when those drafts are nothing more than unattributed copypastes out of history of articles that very rapidly desync, is not encouraging given his current stated desire to avoid TV topics, nor a good indicator of judgment about encyclopedic improvements; his deletion request was better than some alternatives but that is not the standard of judgment here.
• Neutralhomer's first mainspace edit was to add a hatnote to Wisconsin Card Sorting Test to indicate that radio station WCST is at "WCST". This is not the best judgment either. I will not revert this, but we flat-out don't hatnote articles when searchers of the one are never going to get redirected to the other, even with name similarities; an experienced editor getting this confused on his first edit out of the gate is concerning. Radio is also not the best arena to restart, and his action in the face of his knowledge of the dozens of eyes watching him does not encourage me, and his desire to wait until the flu is over was not honored when the smallest of temptations arose to break his word. Yes, he broke his word already, "I am putting editing off for a couple days" followed by a stimulus-response rationalization that I would word as "well, a hatnote here and a feedback response there can't hurt", and this indicates continuing poor judgment.
• These are not blocking situations, they are just ongoing poor decisions. Your mission if you choose to accept it is to find teachable opportunities where Neutralhomer can recognize the disconnect between his view, that of others, and reality, and desire to expand his horizons and integrate new ways of thinking. I anticipate that there will be many teachable opportunities, given the list above in such a short time, so you can be selective for best approach. These events were a shock to his system (and less so to mine), and so I trust he is open but has not yet opened enough. Best wishes. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your note; I appreciate it. I don't know if an interaction ban was ever pronounced and it doesn't really matter much to me: in practice it's a good idea and I expect Homer (I hope he's watching) to honor it in spirit even if there is no letter. I hope you don't mind my not agreeing with you on some of the matters you raised above; if I didn't have a little bit of faith in him I wouldn't have unblocked, and even if all your charges are accurate they are not, as you say, blockable. I'm not going to judge whether promises were broken or lies were told, in part because I read these statements and their intent a bit differently and in part because I am interested in progress--not with blind faith, mind you, but still. I will agree with you on the hatnote, and I'll remove it myself: it is unlikely to be helpful the other way around, so to speak.

    In return, I'll ask you something: Homer has plenty of eyes on him, no doubt; this is a controversial unblock, I believe. I will take these and any future comments of yours into consideration, but I want to ask you to try and leave him alone, so to speak. Others will revert, if needs be, but if they do revert his edits that doesn't necessarily mean much more than disagreement with them: it does not mean he's incapable of editing here, a suggestion I read between the lines. Homer doesn't need kid gloves, I don't have to mediate every thing he does that someone doesn't agree with (mind you, I'm not saying this because of you or your comments--it's as much to make these things clear to myself), though I will gladly do so for very troubling edits. A hatnote is not very troubling; a conflict or possible violation is. These are matters of judgment, of course, and if push comes to shove I will follow the judgment of the community, if such a thing ever comes to be. Thanks again, and happy editing. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

    • Interaction ban between 12.153.112.21 and I? Absolutely no complaints on my end. Will address the hatnote with Drmies on my talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

Since I am on my self-imposed 2RR (and I don't want to push the envelope), I bring this to your attention. I reverted it once as "possible advertising, also a redlink. Reverting, feel free to re-revert." Well, the IP user, User:184.166.74.67, did. I didn't revert a second time. Not sure what you do in these situations, but probably just a note saying advertising isn't allowed should work. These two edits are this user's only edits to date. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Homer--no reverting at all please. I thought I was clear: I don't think you should be doing any reverting at all. I know that edit was clear bullshit, but I think you should not push the envelope at all. I guess you have this article watchlisted? Don't look at your watchlist, at least not for a while. Ordinarily it's obvious what should be done (and another editor agrees with it), but this is not ordinarily yet. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought I was allowed a revert. So many suggestions from so many people, I definitely got confused. No problem though, if I see something like this, I will let you know. My goof. :S

I do have the article watchlisted, I check for changes on articles, but haven't really commented/edited anything. Just kinda observing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright then. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin help

Not sure the proper procedure, but a block is probably warranted for language, tone and fake name. Also fake block using a sysadmins name. And more. Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems innappropriate

[12] I wonder if this should remain. It certainly does not deserve a reply, that is for sure.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm not the civility police. I really don't want to deal with Andy anymore, but I'm sure there's admins around who might either feel inclined to do something or comment on it. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL! I'll just remove it as a personal attack.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick glans at this page should be sufficient to see that nobody around here is an arbiter of the appropriate. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

*ba-dum-tsh* Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the context of my painful pun, I recognized that immediately as a rimshot, but I'd never thought about how one of those would be onomatopoeiated. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ba-dum ching! [13]! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think one needs to look at this page for that. LOL! A random look throughout the project is a clear sign!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Leiden Glossary

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Indeed you do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with how to handle a vandal...

Hey Drmies. I was reading feedback on one of my pages, and there was a nonsensical comment which ended up being from an IP user who has a history of making vandalizing edits and, from what I can tell, little else. He's gotten a bunch of warnings but never seems to respond to any of them, and he appears to have been blocked before, but I don't think he is at the present time. It feels excessive to go to AN/I, and I'm not sure how to handle it. Reason I'm asking you is that I tend to lurk at AN/I and have a lot of respect for the way you handle things on there, so your advice is much appreciated. :-) Thanks in advance. RunnerOnIce (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey, RunnerOnIce! Hope you don't mind my butting in! In this case, it looks pretty stale to me(the most recent contributions I can see on that IP are from September), so it's probably best to just leave it be. IPs can change hands frequently, so it's better to take no action if there haven't been any recent offenses. For the future though, do you know about WP:AIV? It's the admin board that specializes in handling simple vandalism; it tends to get the quickest response, and is the "right" place to report serial vandals. There are a few rules about making reports there that you can read about on the page; in a nutshell, it has to be blatant vandalism, it has to be recent, and the user must've been sufficiently warned about it (usually the four standard escalating warnings) and still repeated their actions, which is all good practice before requesting admin intervention. It's the best place to report things like garden-variety vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Writ Keeper! I keep forgetting it's not September anymore...anyway, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you so much! RunnerOnIce (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Hey, I thought it was spring 2013 the other day. Yes, AIV is the best place to go, but success is not guaranteed unless the editor has been warned (enough). And what Writ Keeper says about IPs changing, that's true as well. I'll have a look anyway, just for kicks. And welcome to Wikipedia, which is on the internet, where one can anonymously insult and assault at will... Drmies (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions for Drmies

I logged in and received your note on my page. I have a few questions/comments about that. I also saw your remarks about me on the administrator's webpage, and I have questions/comments about that, too.

First, I want to say thank you for approaching this situation fairly, or at least trying to. You have made comments in my defense, but you have also made critical comments. I'm writing to address the critical comments, not surprisingly, I know. Please consider the following:

1- You said it takes two to Tango in an edit war, but then you posted a note telling me not to edit war, while I do not see a similar note from you posted to the person who started it. I consider this unfair. I had not edited the article in two weeks when the other half of the Tango reinserted an error I had corrected earlier, starting the war.

2- Your note on my page says I should discuss changes on the article's talk page. I have been discussing changes, but on my page where the other editor posted, so that is where I put my responses and questions. The location of the discussion isn't my fault.

3- Your note says I am to discuss to reach consensus. Please tell me how I am to do that when the other party decides to leave the discussion, not respond, and chooses instead to spread innuendo about me to admins.

4- On the admin page, you said this edit of mine is "absolutely wrong":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Operations_OPSEC_Education_Fund&diff=517063960&oldid=516944124

How was it absolutely wrong? That edit was an "undo" of Devil's Advocate's edit to return the "discredited" wording (sourced!), and the wording about the similarity to the attacks on Kerry (sourced!), and to broaden the description of the source of criticism to more than just the Obama campaign (even Advocate admits other sources). Also, my edit was not a stand-alone edit, please see the additional edit made by me just a moment later to further support the previous change.Sally Season (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC) If I am completely missing something, and you can point it out to me where I am "absolutely wrong", I will apologize. If not, hopefully the comments on the admin board can be amended. Thank you for your time,Sally Season (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• One quick remark, I'm in the middle of something: there's a huge difference between "has been described as" (which sounds objective) and "has been accused by" (which is accurate). The Reuters reference is called "Obama campaign accuses Republicans of smear tactics over bin Laden" and that is indicative of what's correct here. The article bears that out too. And the NYT article, for instance, does not say that the group swiftboated the Obama campaign, it says that the Obama campaign said that etc. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You are making my point! Many sources describe it as a Republican led effort. The "accusation" by the Obama campaign is that those Republicans "are resorting to 'Swift Boat' tactics because when it comes to foreign policy and national security, Mitt Romney has offered nothing but reckless rhetoric". The campaign is accusing the group of using Swift Boat Tactics. The campaign is not accusing the group of being Republican (that case is made by countless news sources). See the difference now? I never said that the campaign spokesman didn't say what he said. The problem is some people are trying to make it sound like the campaign said things that it did not, and that it made "accusations" when it did not.Sally Season (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Maybe an example will help. If a news article says "Automotive safety expert says that cars made by Toyota have defective brake design", it should not be inserted in the wikipedia article to say "Safety expert accuses Toyota of making cars". The expert didn't "accuse" Toyota of making cars, the accusation was that brake design was defective. The fact that Toyota makes cars was only incidental to the statement. Likewise, the Obama campaign did not "accuse" OPSEC of being a Republican led group, the accusation was that the group was using Swift Boat tactics. I have a solution that may work to everyone's satisfaction.Sally Season (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, that's great--I hope you all can work this out on the talk page. You all probably know a lot more about this than me. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• You got a warning for edit-warring on that particular article because you were, it's as simple as that. It takes two to tango, but in that particular case you had a lot more opponents and reverted too often, against consensus. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You answered a question I never asked. I know why I got a warning. I asked why the other party, who did worse, was not left a similar note by you. But since you raised opponents (why does everyone else describe these events in terms of a battle, like edit WAR, and OPPONENTS, yet I am the one accused of "battlefield mentality"?), there were two other editors. Rightcowleftcoast and Belchfire, and their edits were of a completely different nature, and were unrelated to consensus about whether mine or Advocate's representation of the sources was accurate. They contributed nothing to consensus generation, or to discussions, and their edit note only says they didn't like the point of view of the information. Add to that, information on that Admin page says one of these people just "tag teams" reverts on articles with information he dislikes, which I find to be the case here. In light of this, I have to ask you now a fifth question.

5- I see only Advocate's explanation of what sources say and my explanation of what sources say, and there is a disagreement still to be resolved. Could you please indicate for me where this consensus was achieved, and specifically how that consensus is against me?Sally Season (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you are busy with other things, but just to clarify, the above 5 questions are not rhetorical. I am left with a significant amount of confusion about what has transpired, especially about this consensus reasoning. I opened the discussion on the talk page for the article about my edits, and only one editor joined, and (s)he agreed with my edit. What is the consensus?Sally Season (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive the intrusion here. Sally, Wikipedia is not fair. In a perfect world the correct person would have been warned/punished/admonished correctly. But there are volunteers who run the place and often problems escalate and then a hammer of hurt falls taking out innocents along the way. The take-away is that you should let it all go and try to avoid getting caught up in the drama in the future. If someone is being difficult the chances are good they get themselves into trouble. If you're editing contentious subject areas shoot for the range of what the article will likely look like next year; then the dozens or hundreds of intermediate edits won't seem that dire or crucial. The goal isn't to win battles, although you point out the irony of the mentality that seems to exist, but to inform readers. Insomesia (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sally, my silence isn't rhetorical either: I have no interest in pursuing this discussion. I looked at it because it was reported on ANI, where I, in either moderate wisdom or infinite ignorance, decided no action (against you) was necessary. Now please stop filling up my talk page: I have no interest in pursuing this discussion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Language icon

Hi brother! Can you help me create a language icon for Uzbek like this one? If you put {{Ref-ru}} next to a source, it says it's in Russian. {{tl|Ref-uz}} will be used to cite external sources in Uzbek. Thanks! Nataev (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ha! I was wondering how this worked, and then I had my "duh" moment: it's just a redirect. I created it, and the icon was already there, so you're gitmek için iyi.{{ref-uz}} (OK, that's Turkish, but it's the closest Google Translate could do for me.) Hope you're doing well! Must be cold now... Drmies (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Awesome! Thanks a lot! It's getting cold in Budapest. Nataev (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

another sock

2.103.15.77, is a sock of Acoma Magic. You blocked on of their other socks so thought you would be helpful in this matter. Insomesia (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks... Drmies (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

IP 86.40.102.64

Drmies, I'm disappointed in you. This is wrong. The edits are fine. My watchlist lit up and I had no problem with them at all. In fact they're edits that someone needs to make at some point because frankly the importance ratings are fubar. I'm seriously disappointed to see that an IP was bitten in this manner and that another regular was similarly bitten. Editor retention is vital; the lit project is moribund and those few of us who do work on lit are seriously disillusioned and seeing something like this is enough to make me crawl back into a hole and give up for good. Why? What's the point? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Truthkeeper, there's plenty of biting all around in that affair. If you read the entire talk page, you'll see that there's at least three offers to unblock, none of which were taken up (at least not when I last checked). That someone is willing to tackle those assessments and do cleanup in the process, that's great, but the way in which the IP went about it was troubling. Maybe not to you, and less to me than to others, but troubling nonetheless. That they refused to acknowledge that a problem was perceived, that they kept asking what their one wrong edit was--come on. How many times can one say the same thing? And I'm not sure that all the edits are fine, or even a majority, because there were so many of them, it's as simple as that.

  Look, Truthkeeper, I tried to reason with this person, in my position as big bad admin. They weren't interested in discussing anything, or in trying to understand (I'm still not convinced, though, they they didn't understand: this person is smart enough). All they had to do was say "OK, you think this is too fast? I'll slow down and talk it over at the Literature project." Now, this BITE thing--I just don't buy it. They got a warning of sorts, and next thing you know they start a thread at the drama board. Look at their use of syntax: this isn't a newbie. I'm not going to speculate any further, but this isn't a newbie, and biting doesn't apply here. You know that if someone starts an ANI thread their own edits often come under scrutiny and that's what happened here. Turns out, there's displeasure with the edits, it's a collaborative project, they're being told that, they don't give a flying fuck--and so it goes. I'd love to have them on board (well, I'm convinced we already have, or have had, but I don't really care about that, except that the BITE thing is off the table), but at least some pretense of playing along would be very helpful. I'm not happy about it, far from it. That's why when I felt I had to block I picked a really short one, and spent more time on that talk page than I wanted to. I'm sorry you're disappointed, Truthkeeper. I hope there will be resolution for it--but I am not going to accept that I did this. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the AN/I discussion because I don't have AN/I on watch. I noticed it from checking on a friend's edits (and you clearly did bite a regular in that case). But I have to ask - what's wrong with this. I'd rate this page as top importance. A long time ago I had a discussion with someone about these ratings and how much work needs to be done on these pages - but what I see on the IPs page are admins who don't even edit lit pages with the assumption that the edits are bad. I don't think we do have this person on board - but you may not know that once a long time ago (around 2005ish) we did have someone on board who single-handedly (without copying from the 1911 Britannica) wrote many of our best lit pages. Is it the same person who perhaps lost his password. And btw - yesterday I didn't have a toolbar, so for people who rely on that, it was impossible to sign posts. I haven't read this carefully and I guess it's just more to add to a deep sense of disappointment - but if we wait for consensus for these assessments you and I will be waiting for pigs to fly. Why can't the people who so happily pile on to useless edits to a talk page take some time to clean up a single lit page? Anyway, sorry for this rant, but I do think you owe an apology to Riggr. That was quite uncharacteristic of you - or at least what I've seen. He's a very good editor, is registered, and made a point that shouldn't have been swept away so brazenly. I still stand by the fact that editor retention is crucial and biting each other is really not good. Just because you've never heard of an editor does that mean he gets a response a la, "I've never heard of you so your opinion is worthless" ??. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have no idea how close I am to leaving Wikipedia forever and this really struck a chord. The stuff I currently have on my watchlist is just endless fighting over templates, etc. Anyway, sorry to have bothered you. Carry on. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, Riggr is suggesting that I'm blocking, or disregarding someone's contributions, because they're an IP editor. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I will grant you, on re-reading, that I could have responded less strongly, but I kind of take offense at the charge that I don't care for IP editors (I care greatly, but I obviously can't prove this or I'd be giving away my secrets...), and Riggr Mortis's comments came at the end of a long effort. I will drop him a line, thanks for the suggestion. And no, I'm not suggesting that someone, some committee, check all their assessments, not at all--but I think it's clear what I want: since assessments, as meaningless as they may be to some and as underappreciated as they are according to others (just ask Mike Christie), should be done according to the project's standards, they should have a kind of support, a kind of consensus. No one wants someone to go check every little thing--but a hundred or a thousand of these rankings, coming out of nowhere, that's just too much too soon.

My "I don't know who the hell you are" was too much, and I guess it didn't come across the right way: what I meant to indicate was that Riggr Mortis doesn't know me as an IP editor (and I guess I meant that since I didn't know him he didn't know me), and suggested that I was the kind of editor who respects only those with registered accounts--and my IP pages have more warnings (added by children running RC "anti-vandalism" patrol) than you can shake a stick at. So I don't dislike IP editors, far from it. But I think I've talked too much here already, I have another edit to make. Thanks Truthkeeper. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies the thing is, this feels terribly wrong on a lot of levels. I have a really good sense of socks, a good sense of malicious editing, and honestly I'm not seeing anything like that here. Obviously the person knows how to edit, but all I can see is that the guy was editing as an IP and then boom, gets blocked, because he's an IP. (Assuming it's a guy). Can you please point me to the AN/I thread - I can't find it. I'd like to take some time to read it over and look at the edits more closely. So far I still am not seeing anything at all that's harmful and quite frankly I'm seeing a lot of good edits. All I can tell is that the person was blocked for being an IP, a regular was bitten, and now the blocking editors are taking me to task for questioning their behavior. So I want to know how this blew up like this so quickly. Also, since the blocking editors object to the edits, do they intend to do something about the assessments or will they be left in the presumably compromised state the IP created. (Sorry, a bit sarcastic these days. It happens.) Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I am happy to hear from you. You may have seen a note I left elsewhere. The IP was not blocked for being an IP, let that be clear first and foremost. They were blocked because they did a great number of assessments whose validity could not easily be ascertained considering the number, and considering that there was no indication that this was done in concordance with the relevant project--I'm sure there's a pretty blue link somewhere to the paperwork that says that. They refused to slow down and take it up with the project. A short block ran out, and they returned to do the same thing immediately, at a speed I actually envy--still without any indication of concordance or even conversation. Qwyrxian blocked again, longer, for essentially the same reason (disruption), after which followed a long and tedious back and forth in which the IP seemed unwilling to grasp, or acknowledge grasping, why they were blocked (not for being an IP, of course, and not for vandalism or making incorrect edits).

I didn't block for sock suspicion: I have some thoughts about editors past and present who might work in this area, and evil as it is for an admin, I don't pursue all such "suspicious" edits because I care selectively, one might say. The IPs edits would be very useful, to put it concisely: I never said I objected to the edits themselves, only to the manner and speed with which they were made by someone who seemed to have no connection whatsoever to the project. I did object to one edit, and it turned out I was wrong (they didn't make it) and I apologized for it. Now, the ANI discussion, I saw earlier today, seems to have disappeared: it was headed "User:Dcshank", I believe, and that thread in itself I found disruptive and lacking good faith--but I would not have blocked just on the basis of that. I see it was archived: see here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#User:Dcshank. I hope you'll temper my final statement there with the spirit in which I left the note to Riggr Mortis. If you like, you can de-archive it--but if you wish this to back on the board it should really have a different heading, I suppose. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a current editor; maybe a past editor. I've seen this IP or one from a similar area on other lit pages in the past and I always thought it was an Irish editor, who I alluded to earlier, who was a contributor to many lit pages in the early phases of the project, but that's only a guess based on no evidence. Anyway, I'm letting this go. At the moment am going through a thoroughly horrible time in real life and it seems to be having an effect on my judgment. I simply was disappointed to see it blow up more than necessary. Frankly it's a task that needs to be taken on and I as I said I checked the edits on my watch and because none seemed out of order I wasn't bothered who did it. As far as disruption or speed or any of that, I leave it to the admins to make those decisions I suppose. Thanks for putting up with me and please let me apologize to you for coming on a bit too strong. I did see your message on Riggr's page and thank you for that. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a past editor as well, but that's as far as I'll go in this public forum. Check for carrion pigeons with coded messages. ;) I tell you, I also really didn't like this, and I like to say I tried--though from the IP's perspective I was, no doubt, just another bully with preconceived notions about IP editors. That you and Riggr Mortis took up for them is of course fine, and while I flew off the handle a bit I have often found myself in similar positions, defending IP editors. The hat one wears from one day to the next, what a difference it makes. I do thank you for engaging me on this, as embarrassing as it is for me to have to admit I didn't behave as I should. I'm sorry to hear about the rest, and I sympathize; I'm not having a great time myself and have been a bit less active here as well. I do hope the IP comes back. They'll have to play nicely (and I fully realize how awful that sounds), but that the work needs to be done is a fact. I hope they're reading this. Truthkeeper, take care of yourself. The weekend is almost here--wings and beer await (and a ton of grading), Alabama plays Missouri (now an SEC team, strangely), and we're watching Cinderella in the living room projected on the wall: everybody, bring sleeping bags and jammies. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Macjcnan

...is a cross-wiki spambot (using various socks) that should be blocked on sight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was about to pry into that, but Jon Stewart is really funny. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • huh?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a TV program. Real news, not satire, haha. Hey, isn't there a toolbot kind of thing where you can see what a user(name) has done on all the wikis? Drmies (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
      • [14], but that isn't useful here, since it's usually one wiki per sock. mw:User:Steelers23 is another one of these (deleted contribs available via email on request).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
        • OK then--how do you know? I mean, the text gives it away, I remember having seen that sort of stuff before, but is there anything else? (And, what do they hope to achieve with it?) Drmies (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Novaseminary's Disruptive Edits

Please review Novaseminary's disruptive edits on Douglas_Tait_(stuntman). This editor has disrupted this BLP for quite a while and now also disrupts related articles like edits here, here, here and here, all because those articles were wikilinked in the BLP. He has been warned repeatedly about his disruptive edits, but here is an example of his most recent response, here. Now he appears to be edit warring with you as well: here and here. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC) . 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Right. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please see talk on Douglas Tait (stuntman) re your recent reverts. Also please see WP:FACEBOOK, which says: "The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source". If you believe I've misinterpreted the rule, kindly explain. Because it's entirely unhelpful to revert, then just say "i don't have to explain there that jimmy star entertainment and facebook are not reliable sources, but thanks", as you did. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for showing me around the place. Note that you're pointing to an essay that's a supplement for a guidelines. In other words, we should start by applying common sense. We should also note the verbs used: "may be used". They don't have to be, and if there is a dispute between editors, you can't hold on to a "may be used" guideline to argue that it should be used. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why so much off-the-chart snark? Bottomline is, I asked for your input on what I thought was a reasonable edit, reasonably supported by a WP guideline. And all I've gotten back is attitude - and still no "common sense" response to my question. But thanks. I won't risk troubling you again. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• You're a major source of disruption. You know your way around some of the acronyms here, and you've used that to triple the size of the talk page in a matter of two weeks. It's irritating, you're an SPA who's messing around here not for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, and you achieve nothing with it. Cheers. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear that you've made up your mind - and nothing, not even the facts, will change it. You're also apparently a mind-reader who can judge my intentions? Fine. I won't waste my time trying to defend myself to you. I don't have/need/want to. The log of my positive contributions here speaks for itself and no judgmental admin with a fragile ego changes that log. Cheers. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Man, you just totally put me in my place. I'll go block someone randomly to boost said fragile ego. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Riots vs Ethnic Violence

Hi again. Can you take a look at this article and say whether it should be renamed? Even though it's a very important subject currently there's little interest in it. Thank you beforehand. Nataev (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. Please don't take all of that advice--"landlocked country" isn't helpful. It seems clear that the consensus is against using "pogrom", so that's a start. Now, there's two options. One: to make your proposal the subject of an RfC (just to keep it formal), where you could propose, as the topic of the RfC, a choice between the two names you laid out. Two: you proposed a name change, another editor agreed, pogrom was already consensused out as an option, and the lengthy comment didn't (from what I can tell) oppose the name you proposed. So, just move it already! (And make a clearly separated note, at the bottom of that section, explaining what you're doing and why.) Drmies (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry; I forgot to add this SPI to the original request for protection. Mea culpa. I came back to add a bundle of links &c and edit-conflicted with you... have fun! bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Fun, sure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Knight's Spider Web Farm

Bought a book today on unusual places in the US, found this place and had to start an article on it. Spider webs as art, what's not to love? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• You should help me with that and submit it for a shared DYK: "Did you know you can use spider webs as art?". I hate messing with the bureaucracy, but that is a pretty interesting concept. Found a few good refs and it shouldn't be that far off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Anything bad you say about Wikipedia reflects on you as well, Mr. Admin. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Pot. Kettle. Black... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Alright, who's going to utter the first obscenity? Drmies (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Larry Sanger. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Ok, then do it because I'm too lazy to run the maze for a tiny piece of cheese. But I will eat the cheese if it is handed to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Dennis, your DYK is up. Now go through that article again, old pal, and see if it needs more cleaning. Or I'll unload a bucketload of acronyms on you. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  I found a logo to use, of sorts, under fair use. A picture of their sign that they use at the farm, on their website. And thanks. I'm not selfish, I personally never mind sharing a DYK with anyone willing to help out. I just thought this was too cool to not create an article about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Since you have some of this in your blood, you might this ambitious project interesting: User:Dennis Brown/Articles/American automobile culture of the 1950s. I don't know if every decade needs an article, but the 1950s certainly do. I looked and didn't see anything similar, that puts together all the different articles in a comprehensive way. I've picked up a great deal of books on the subject as well, which provide tons of specifications for manufacturing, etc. Your 2c is always appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Statue of Ebih-Il DYK

Hello Drmies. Just wanted to thank you for the the review and the very kind words and wishes. Dank u! Yazan (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• They are on my mind. I hope, for instance, that your family is well--if I understand your user page correctly you are far away.

  And I'm happy you wrote up that article, which I enjoyed reading (and the sources as well). I am happy when I discover something else that hasn't yet been destroyed by violence, carelessness, zealotry, or just time. The connection to Ishtar was interesting as well: I need to read up on my Middle Eastern religions. Oh, I have a question for you: wasn't the statue's weight mentioned in one of the sources? That might be an interesting little factoid to add to the article's tactility.

  • Thank you Drmies. Family are safe, so far. But beyond that, there's nothing but raw tragedy. I'm all the way in Japan, and I do whatever little I can to keep this place from being "forgotten."

    The statue is a gem though, isn't it? Probably one of my favorite articles; that cheerful optimistic (even flirtatious) expression on his face is priceless. Unfortunately none of the sources I've looked into actually mentions the weight (which is rather strange; I would've imagined it being an important characteristic to mention, especially in the early listings by Parrot).

    This (a Hurrian hymn found in the Royal Palace of Ugarit) should make great company when you read up on Ishtar. My town's (which traces its roots to Ugarit) patron god has always been Baal (or Hadad), but Ishtar still carries a special place with people. Hopefully when this is over (and it will be; if we survived the Bronze Age Collapse then we can overcome a small-time dictator and a bunch of zealots) you'll come and check it out for yourself! Yazan (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

    • Ah, mon ami: "Sans perdre de temps, le lieutenant Cabane aidé de ses collaborateurs, MM. Béchir Garro, A. Arsan et Lacape, transporta non sans peine, de Tell Ilarïrî à Abou-Kémal, le monument dont il évalue le poids à plus de trois cents kilos..." I looked at the size, and I guess 300 kg makes sense. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I saw that actually. But I doubt it refers to this statue because a) he was describing the chance discovery of the site (which was in August 1933) and how the bedouins found a statue while digging for a burial. Proper excavations only started in December and Ebih-Il wasn't excavated until January 1934. b) 300 Kg, is a bit too much, I think. Especially considering that the statue was found in two parts; first the head, and then later the torso. Yazan (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick request

Hi bro! We more or less reached a consensus and I moved the page to a new title. Can you delete this page? "Ethnic" is misspelled there. Nataev (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been deleted. Nataev (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Jweiss11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cecil Murphey

I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article Cecil Murphey in which you might have an on-going interest. All contributions are welcome. Bielle (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• That was a disaster, and I'm not surprised to see it turned into one again. Thanks for your attention. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 16:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at GoShow's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Could you...

Speedy deletet this please- Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination). I can't believe its still around this long after being made with no replies.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see what happened here. It was just a talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Grrr

Lightning suspension...How will that affect the "Juggernaut"? Tim Brando's word, not mine Tiderolls 20:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, that Mizzou player seems to be OK. The Juggernaut got a bit slow afterwards, didn't he. And now for USC-LSU! Drmies (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Another sock

Short life (talk · contribs) is undoubtably another sock of Acoma magic. Insomesia (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'll block, but next time please add them to the relevant SPI, at least for the record. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 05:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Upendra

They are back to Upendra! Article history shows at least three accounts are editing in that article at this moment! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I just see one. I reverted (but you could have done that yourself) since the edits are highly non-neutral, to put it mildly. Subsequent problems with this editor and/or the article are probably dealt with better in a larger forum--consider BLPN. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Knight's Spider Web Farm

Hello! Your submission of Knight's Spider Web Farm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Miyagawa (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just think, once I get the 1950s article up to speed, you get to help me get it to GA status :D Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Meelhuysen

Template:Meelhuysen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ulrich Franzen

Hey super admin friend, would you mind checking something for me? I created Ulrich Franzen today after reading his NY Times obit, was very surprised to find we had no article on him. Apparently we did have one in 2010 but it was deleted as a copyright violation. Was wondering whether there were earlier versions of the article before the copyright violation that might be restoreable? Was wondering whether deletion could have been avoided if someone was looking at the time. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sure--right after class. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• No, it was irredeemable. There was only one version, and that was copied straight from the Harvard U page you have as an external link. Thanks for re-making it. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Might need your help

Hey, Drmies, I might need you to work your JSTOR magic if you're so inclined. The article for "A Rose for Emily" is kinda in a shambles, and I'd like to rework it. Google Scholar turned up some pretty promising-looking sources on JSTOR. No rush at all, I'll be agonizing over writing the plot summary for a while yet, I'd think, but if you have some time to kill for some reason... (Do your classes encompass Faulkner? I bet rewriting the article would make for a good class project.) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• She slept with whom? WHAT? Haha, I used to teach that story, yes. What do you want me to do? Search and send you a million PDFs? (NO!) Try GBooks as well--the URL "fill in" function in the citation template pull-down Java editor toolbar functionality gizmo makes it real easy. ;) Oh, and I'll look at your other case tonight. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha, fair enough. I've redone the plot summary and removed the list of characters (when is Emily ever described as a "vibrant and hopeful young girl" in the story, anyway?); could you take a look? It's the first plot summary I've done for Wikipedia, and it seems that they require more judgement than most. I changed it around to be (mostly) chronological per the confusing shortcut WP:PLOTSUMNOT; I think it's easier to understand what's going on this way, although it does lessen the impact of the ending. It still needs an analysis section, which will probably replace the current "Themes" section, but that'll come in time. What do you think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it. In the meantime, I think you should check your email; I am sending you a few things pertaining to plot, narrator and chronology, including this, for geeks only:

William Faulkner's non-chronological story telling style has long been a challenge to critics and a puzzle to beginning literature students. "A Rose for Emily," one of Faulkner's most frequently anthologized stories, exemplifies the complexity of Faulkner's treatment of time. In this paper, we apply a constrain t-based problem solving method to an analysis of the chronology of "A Rose for Emily." Constraint logic programming is a declarative programming language paradigm that solves problems by enforcing constraints among variables. CLP's ability to sort numeric variables that do not yet have definite values makes it possible to sort the events of "A Rose for Emily" with only fragmented and relative time information. In attempting to sort the events of the story, we find an inconsistency in the temporal references scattered throughout the narrative. After removing this inconsistency, we are able to compare our chronology with earlier ones and discuss the thematic relevance of Faulkner's nonlinear plots.

Drmies (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually read other people's mail, but...

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For working well with registered and IP accounts. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to start a new thread - not knowing how to call it - to thank you for reason in heat, - I like your comments better than my own ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

For only the second time I can remember, I strongly disagree with Drmies. Saying somebody is a "net benefit" and gets to flaunt rules is a problem. There are some rules, when broken, that punishment should be handed out. Unfortunately, this is not how life. I saw too many instances of tenured Profs getting away with things that anybody else would be fired for. Bringing female "grad students" from Asia only a year to be their girlfriend. Profs verbally and physically abusing their grad students. Every time it was the prof is "too much of a valuable asset"... aka brings in money. Bgwhite (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheesus on whole wheat toast--can't a guy give a barnstar without it getting ripped? Bgwhite, I watched all kinds of abuse in academia, too, but not having followed the thread re: the net benefit, I'm guessing that Drmies wasn't bringing a female grad student from Asia for immoral purposes. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do appreciate the shout-out, dear IP. As for Bgwhite's comment--this concerns Jack Merridew, and I'd just as lief leave that on the AN board. Let's just say I disagree. And I've never done anything with any undergraduate, at least not until after the semester. I've certainly never imported one: I've never been in a place where that kind of thing happened. I'm small fry, Bgwhite. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As for that, I've seen the usual trespasses, including the outrageous verbal abuse of grown students and the garden-variety teacher-student affairs, all of which were permissible so long as the instructor had seniority. Occasionally a pretty youngster would bat her eyelashes at me and make a leading comment, but I always figured she was legally blind or angling for a better grade. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. It's a pity life isn't more exciting. Then again, if it were, imagine how much trouble we could get in. Did I ever tell you about the time that I told a class that proper MLA style dictated that they start every question with "Dr. [x], you look wonderfully handsome today?" I loved the sound of that. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Who wouldn't? Really, there were years when I was very popular with the students, and years when the tide turned. In retrospect the shifts were largely propelled by forces that had little to do with me, but rather, were driven by larger political mechanisms. Good lesson: do your job with love and treat people with consideration, and don't sweat whether or not you're liked. There's the door, and that's where you leave your ego. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to bug you...

...but I need some honest feedback on the talk page [15]. I have never tried to author something so comprehensive. Ever. This is definitely pushing my editing skills to the limits, which is a good thing. I would probably fail your class, but I'm quite sincere in attempting to create something just a little bit special here. I still have a ways to go, and I know there are minor errors, I'm just looking at the big picture, the flow, topic, etc. and would appreciate feedback from you or stalkers. If I can eventually get a GA (or maybe FA with some outside help) out of this in due time, I think it will help me personally, as well as give me a little better perspective of what content creators go through. I'm still 100 edits away from a final product. I'm familiar with the topic and have purchased a number of books, which I expect will spawn several other articles. I have already started a few stubs to prevent redlinks. Amazing how many articles are still missing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Left you an edit summary. I see that there is part of what I'd be looking for, in the shape of the Eisenhower Interstate System (proving Marx right, of course). I might quibble and desire more of the automobile's influence on other infrastructure, including local zoning and planning--in the end, white flight is related, no doubt. But first of all, let me say that you've done some really, really impressive work. Don't forget to randomly block editors and protect articles without reason. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, interesting. I'm having trouble deciding how much tech info is too much. I think the V8 is fine, but the sales numbers might be much, and a summation comparing 1940s to 10501950s would be better. Yet, it tells who sold how many, like Plymouth, who is no longer in business. It is difficult to call. I'm also trying to be careful to not fall into synth, which is easy to do on what is really a cultural article. The public transit and other stuff is a good idea, as part of the suburbs section. I just found some good stuff at the Smithsonian and added it, which should help with city design info and sourcing. (ironically, just after you left your summary but before I saw it!) I've actually learned an amazing amount about it since starting, and realized how little I really knew, in spite of thinking otherwise. I knew (or believed) the 50s were the most influential, I just didn't realize how much until I researched. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

    A comparison of the V8 automobile engine from the 1940s to that of 1050s would be an impressive feat indeed! Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Come on Malleus--don't be a kerk. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  I just can't help myself, must be something I inherited from my Norman ancestors. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• At least he's not being a pick. Don't worry, in a month or so when it is ready, he will be helping me get it to FA status, my first :) (or at least GA for a start). All in time, I've decided to stick with this and make it genuinely the best I've ever done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  I probably ought to have said as well that I really like the way your article is shaping up, although I can see loads of potential pitfalls with its scope. I'm a bit of a petrol-head myself, and I can hear my MGB calling to me even now: "Why haven't you fixed my exhaust yet? And you bought that cylinder head ages ago, yet you still haven't fitted it." But as you say Dennis, cometh the hour, cometh the man, and if you're looking to get this through GA and even FA then I'll be around to help whenever you need it. I'm good like that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Malleus, I know you are, and I'm very serious about taking it that far. I appreciate the kind words as well. As I said on that talk page, it has too much info right now, and I can see how the scope is a problem. I'm currently throwing facts at it, and slowly trimming them out, trying to balance the technical with the cultural aspects, since both are important to the subject. And this is literally 5x larger and more complex than any other article I've done. OR and Synth are pitfalls that I think I've avoided, but are easy to fall into with this type of subject. I'm probably too optimistic when I said it was 100 edits away from main space as well, but I'm patient and actually enjoying the process and learning a great deal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I need to expand the "The business of manufacturing" to create an article "American automotive manufacturing in the 1950s", spin it out, and then summarize it in this article to reduce that section by half. I actually have 2 or 3 times more information that could be put in, all the mergers, etc. The more I read, the more interesting it becomes. The 1950s truly was the death of the independent car manufacturer and the birth of the big three + AMC. That might help some of the scope issues, ie: put all the failures in the other article, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to create a lot of spin-off articles to keep the scope of this one manageable. It's a big job you've taken on. In your place I'd probably focus on the obvious spin-off articles first, and get them to GA/FA. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Going to sleep on it, but I think you are right. As I read and research more, how it should be organized starts to make more sense. I can certainly see those two articles coming from this research, and a lot of really good info on suburbanization that can be used in existing articles or as a stand alone, although I have no idea how yet. I've noticed that many of the "main" article I've linked are actually lacking sources as well, so I can improve them along the way. It has turned into a bit of a spider web, but a good one and certainly a manageable one. It is amazing to me that there is a lot of info available, but no one has bothered to organize it here before. I wasn't even alive in the 1950s, but both the good and bad of that decade have always fascinated me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an experience we all share. You start to write an article on, let's say some medieval custom or other and you come across something called a halmote court. Blithely you link to it, only to find that when you check it later it's a piece of shite. So you now you feel you ought to fix it, but when you follow its links you get dragged deeper and deeper into the mire. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not calling the current version of halmote court shite, as I largely wrote it myself. Just an example. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Coral Island's GA review

There are just a couple of small things it would be good to have your input on. The first is American grades; I always just add 5, but confirmation that grades 7–9 is ages 12–14 would be good. The other is a question about whether the book appears on any current reading lists. I suspect not, but you'll almost certainly know better than me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm on it. Have a look at this, if you're ever interested in the curriculum here. Prepare to be underwhelmed.... Drmies (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  "Never in the field of human education has so much been said by so many, saying so little." (Yeah, I know its not really a quote, but I wanted to drive home the point by making a Churchillian reference.) Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Mrs. Drmies agrees with you, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, it's not on the Alabama list, but that's a real short one. Moving along. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• I can find no evidence that it's on any current list by the National Council of Teachers of English or the American Library Association. But I'll ask the Lady as well--she knows this stuff better than I do. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  Proving that something isn't on any list is a damn sight harder than proving that it is, as any student of the philosophy of science will no doubt be happy to bore you to tears by explaining. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the ALA and the NCTE are the organizations, besides state boards of education, that would have such lists. I'll go through JSTOR again, but I think I know what the answer is: the days of The Coral Island are over. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sad but true I think; the days of Empire are finished. But I still feel a sense of pride when I look at a map of the world and see all those arbitrary straight lines dividing countries. Who else could have done that? :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, we made a couple of those as well. And we don't need Conrad (or Greene) for the darker side--surely you've read Oroonoko. Hey, I added sentence to the island. There is a lot more on the novel in the Victorian era: JSTOR gives me 25 hits between 2001 and now. I don't really want to do too much while it's being reviewed, but it's such a drag to log on to JSTOR, do the search, pull up the articles, etc., that I don't really want to wait either. I'm wondering if there should be further division in the Themes section. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  If we were shooting for FA then we probably should, but we're not. My ambition was never to take this beyond GA. I think we've done enough. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• By the 1930s, when the war over cheap paperbacks was in full swing (Penguins for seven pence) a company called Martyn published CI and other "reliable titles" in a six-pence library. We don't have much on publication information, but I don't see how I can easily stick it in. Maybe once I find more. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Shoot, I keep forgetting that there's a format I don't know how to use. Sorry--I'm probably making more work for you. I'll stop soon. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Do try to keep up. ;-) For me, FAC can be a clear demonstration of the law of diminishing returns. Sure, I take articles to FAC, but it's sometimes difficult to persuade myself that the benefits outweigh the hassles; I try to keep in touch with FAC only so that I don't let my own standards slip. I'd far rather once this GA review is over turn my attention to The Man in the Moone than I would pursue a little bronze star for The Coral Island. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Graham Hancock

I've got a COI here, but external links don't follow the guidelines for sources. A lot of fringe articles have fringe links we wouldn't use as sources except in articles about them. A couple of other issues here. Scalzi is a well known author, why remove his link? The Hall of Ma'at links include articles by Garrett Fagan[16] and Nic Fleming OBE[17]. As for the website itself, you can read this article from Archaeology, "a publication of the Archaeological Institute of America". Do you think you could put back at least some of the links? I must get back to Serer stuff. Taking a break tomorrow as I'll be on holiday until early November, but then I'll start again. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Doug, feel free to undo whatever I did. Reliability is an issue, EL or not, as far as I'm concerned. If Scalzi (whose article is way too much a resume and should be trimmed drastically) is well-known, then that link should be a reference, not an external link... I've moved it--now it's a reference. But if something says "The Big Idea", and the author's name isn't wikilinked, and the link is to a blog, I don't have much of a reason to think anything else than that the EL section is used as a repository. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I take your point about using them as references. As I said, at least 2 of them are clearly reliable sources - I may use them in the article at some point. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And maybe that website can be written up. There's an unwritten rule: whatever has an article is a reliable source. It's not correct of course, but that's the way it often seems to work, esp. at AfD. How are the Serer articles these days? Have you moved on? Drmies (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Things that have articles are reliable? God, I hope not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

SPLC-designated

Could you reconsider this please? Putting a relatively unknown acronym in the middle of a template makes little sense. The majority of respondents favored list of anti-gay hate groups or a near variation and gave reasons why. I think adding an unknown acronym is a bad idea and doesn't aid anyone's understanding of the subject. WP:Egg and WP:LinkClarity would also seem to support a shortened and simplified (clear) wikilink. Insomesia (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please read my (lengthy) closing statement in which I addressed all these points. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Tatacolt's talk page.
Message added 10:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redirect issue

Hi, Drmies. Will you fix the redirect formatting mess that User:Lorem Ipsum Generator created at the Anal sex and Men who have sex with men articles, and perhaps inform him on the correct way to do that type of formatting? I don't even believe that all those alternate name redirects he added to the Anal sex article should be there. 188.65.233.219 (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Gay butt sex" also probably should not redirect to the Men who have sex with men article, since that article is not just about that sexual act. Either way, mentioning such a redirect at the top of that article seems inappropriate. And every single one he added to the Anal sex article seems unnecessary and redundant, and will no doubt be considered inappropriate by some people. 188.65.233.219 (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wait--you want me to teach them the proper way of having anal sex with men? Sorry, I'm watching Mitt Romney so I'm getting a bit confused. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL, of course not. I stated "the correct way to do that type of formatting." Redirect formatting, of course. But like I stated, I don't believe that all of those alternate name redirects should be there, if any. The number he added to the Anal sex article is just plain overkill. I'm certain that no one was having a difficult time finding that article simply because these redirects weren't mentioned at the top. If people type in these alternate names, which are less popular than the term "anal sex," they'll be redirected to that article regardless. 188.65.233.219 (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you should have more consideration for readers who wish to see risque terms on their computer screen. Thanks for the note. BTW, I'm not going to revert what was done to Gay butt sex--it's a stupid term and not much of a search term anyway. Feel free to revert: you're an editor with just as much right to do such things. Safely, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL, and thank you for fixing this. I'm also not much concerned about "Gay butt sex" redirecting to the Men who have sex with men article. Even though I stated that the Men who have sex with men article is not only about anal sex, a similar point can be made about the Anal sex article -- that it isn't just about anal sex among gay men. So the "Gay butt sex" redirect is definitely a toss-up. Still, since the Anal sex article covers anal sex specifically, it definitely seems as though "Gay butt sex" should redirect there...just as any term/phrase specifically about anal sex among heterosexuals or lesbians should redirect there (unless any of them were to get their own articles, although I can't imagine that a Wikipedia article specifically about anal sex among gay men would be called Gay butt sex). Anyway, I'll let Lorem Ipsum Generator know that all of this was discussed here. 188.65.233.219 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And can we change topics then? I'm starting to feel a bit...constricted. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. *Smiles* (substitution for a smiley face). Just hopefully he doesn't do this again, or this type of overkill at other articles. 188.65.233.219 (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 02:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pachelbel

I assume you meant to hit edit=autoconfirmed? :) – Connormah (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Nope, but it's all over now. If there's something fishy going on it may not be just new accounts, especially not if that fishiness is organized. Anyway, we can go back to business. Can you fix that image parameter in the infobox? I never know how those work. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually the image shouldn't be there at all IIRC - there was hidden text previously there saying that that particular image is not verified (there are no verified portraits of him I think). And I'm not even sure if the infobox should be there as the Composers WikiProject is pretty against infoboxes... – Connormah (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I also think he has a silly name, but that's just me. Well done, by the way--thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

New message

(ANI) I have not got any more reply in India noticeboard. One editor and one IP are doing too much, I have reported here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Newly_released_Bengali_commercial_.28masala.29_films. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

TParis

I removed your message. I think it's best his talk page is left alone for now. Hope you don't mind.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 14:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I do mind! Why do you think you have any right to mediate between me and him? You think he's a tee-totaler? Drmies (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  Because he said no messages. I promised I'd watch his talk page. If you really want it there then put it back on but I am jus following his wishes.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 14:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• If he really wants no messages he can protect it--he's an admin. No, don't undo what you did; it's there in the history. I'm just surprised at the presumption. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

TParis personally follows the policy of only protecting talk page in cases abuse or violations. That was explained to me in an email.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 17:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Altapresyon

Hello. I just came across this User talk:Sauquillo who creates self-promoting articles. He created a "Princess Music Academy" article wherein it was very obvious that it is an inexistent film. The article was deleted due to a proposal. Another article he created, Altapresyon is also an inexistent Philippine drama. Plus there are no valid sources stated, and every information is self-created. I proposed its deletion, but the user deleted the template that i added. I hope you could take action on this. :D jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Writ Keeper re-tagged it, and I've subsequently deleted it. If this continues, and if there is evidence of foul play--the intent to disrupt, nothing but self-promotion, etc--it's probably best to take it to ANI. Or let Writ Keeper sort it out: I don't think he's in school right now. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

His previous contribs look somewhat out of order, but none outside the deleted articles are any more recent than September, so I wouldn't worry about it for the nonce. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that. I have his talk page on my watchlist now, so I'll keep half an eye out for any antics for the next few days, but it's probably fine to just leave it be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and a Question

I bring actual vandalism to your attention. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Done. You can always tag it with "cn". ;) Thanks Homer, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • True, but it is easier to just have an admin come along and ixnay it right quick. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Need your opinion on something unrelated to vandalism. Which of these climate charts look better? This one or this one? I perfer the former as it is less tacky, has more information and is easier to read. The latter is the standard one to use. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm that's a tough one. I can't say I care for the colors on the second one, but the first one probably has too much information to me. What do others think? Drmies (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the first one better myself, although Drmies is right in that it's probably a little too much information. I like the formatting better; the colors on the second one are a bit distracting and subjective (I mean, 48.7 degrees Fahrenheit gets a warm orange color? I like it cold, but that's ridiculous.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

On this one (the first one from above), the "mean number of days" can be taken out, so it is only temps, inches of precip and the years. I think the reason the first one from above is so information packed is it comes directly from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (part of the National Weather Service) and they get a little scientific with the information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO the highest highs and lowest lows recorded are not as helpful as the other data; ditto for rain and snow. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I am opposite on that, I feel the rain/snow and record lows/highs are helpful and in some cases notable. I remember seeing in one article where it was noted the town had the record high temperature for the state. The weather geeks (myself included, so I am a little biased here) love the large amounts of weather data. But again, I'm biased. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what bugs me about the highest highs and the lowest lows is that it's taking up two lines per row, and it's a bit more trivia-like than the other ones. On the other hand, the mean number of days really bothers me because it's in a different unit than the surrounding data, and so it doesn't really fit in as well as the others (plus, it causes problems with labeling each overarching section as (inches) or (°F), since they're not all measured in those units). I see both sides of the argument, but if I were forced to choose between the two, I would give mean number of days the axe. Whether we are forced to choose between the two is left as an exercise to the reader. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What editors previously did was just take the top highs and lows and mention them in the article with the year (ie: the highest recorded temperature was 105 °F (41 °C) in 1918, 1988, and again in 2010...). Most of the time these were, unfortunately, unsourced and ditched quickly. I am looking into whether the Ottawa version can have Celcius temps (for folks outside the US) intergated in with the Fahrenheit temps. I think they can since the "Ottawa version" is not bound by a template and can be edited as the editor sees fit. Let me see what I can tinker with and get back to you all in a couple minutes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I tinkered with it in my sandbox and I can use the old templates Fahrenheit to Celcius converter and transfer that to the new template (not as much work as it sounds for me). The only problem is, when I get down to the "Highest recorded" and "Lowest recorded", I will run into problems with the parentheses. Any ideas? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

...or second option: have an entire temperature section just for Celcius and one just for Fahrenheit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Lance

Apparently our "major" edits made us "desperate" to edit Lance Armstrong while fully protected in opposition to the "spirit" of WP:FULL. I've undone our edits (couldn't really undo mine without undoing yours, I'm sorry), feel free to undo my edit; I can't be arsed to defend inclusion of bare-faced facts to some people who prefer an incorrect article, despite correctly referenced material. Hope you understand! My very best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• And my best to you, Rambling Man, you old abusive admin. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • See you at Arbcom I suppose...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Institute of Technology (United States)

We have a dispute between two users and their contributions, one believes it was "originally" from an administrator, supposedly, I hope you can resolve the solution, otherwise, keep up the good work have a great day;). --GoShow (............................) 00:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The dispute started off with User:Marco Guzman, Jr and User:Rickynati. Nevermind I see User:Rickynati user is possibly doing more dispute, thanks anyway.--GoShow (............................) 00:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

ARS List

The ARS list is for improving content, not for getting more voters at an AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• This talk page is not for patronizing me. Use appropriate manners and consider that I have ten times as many edits as you do--so chances are I know what's what. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this was a mistake? I'd imagine that IRWolfie meant to send this message to User:Ohnoitsjamie, based on the thread Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd, which is listed right below yours, Drmies. Perhaps he clicked on the wrong talk page link and didn't notice? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, apparently not a mistake. Just pretty remarkably poorly-worded, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, I must not know much, but fortunately I'm not the only admin who appears to be intellectually challenged and needs other editors to help them out--see Talk:Lance_Armstrong#Admins_editing_this_fully_protected_page, and the section after that. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"I must not know much, but...". Now you are sounding like Caveman Lawyer. Did you see my recommendation on father-son relationships? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

*facepalm* So much for IAR. I don't know, man, I just work here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

*Drmies up to much badness again? Getting an unhealthy reputation.....!! See you in court! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I just found the approach a little odd. You nominated it for deletion because you couldn't find any sources, then listed the AfD at ARS. But if there are no sources, then ARS can't help. ARS is for improving articles that do meet GNG but are presented badly etc. If you thought ARS could help, why nominate it for deletion instead of just listing it? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

ARS helps out saving articles. There are people there who are better searchers, maybe, than I am, or who get lucky when I don't. What's the problem? The article is a poorly-referenced vanity piece and so I nominate it. Out of the kindness of my heart, and prompted by a pretty dumb comment about being lucky, I ask the ARS to help out. What's the problem? If they save it, or add proper references, I withdraw the nomination and everyone is happy, including me. This is the second such comment I got over this particular AfD, and I don't get it. Or maybe I'm just too dumb, and I need you and Ritchie to set me straight. In which case I thank you sincerely. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Kitten of death

Hey Drmies, much appreciate the sinister kitty. I have one, a white one with pink ears but blue/green eyes, six months old, who attacks me from all quarters, horizontal and vertical, 24/7 like a miniature ninja. I love him. And I love the wiki-gift from you. Cheers dude! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy balloon day

Some nice balloons, to brighten up your day.

Bellshill Celebration

It's not a feast, it is a party basically.Britishman9999 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• An unreferenced, non-notable party, basically. Sorry, but this is for encyclopedic topics with proper references. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable? It's been held across the United Kingdom for 30 years! Yes thirty!Britishman9999 (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prove it--at the deletion discussion. I'm sure it wasn't held in Des Moines, BTW. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for offering to help. If I need anything, I'll definitely keep you in mind. Thanks again!

SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Userpage

When you have a moment, could you take a look at this discussion?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do, and I have! Drmies (talk)

Writ Keeper

Don't you think you ought to support your nominee? I almost put in a support and signed your name, but I guess that would be frowned upon.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's his own fault for going live when we're out camping. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• So that's where you've been. Your unblock request is denied; blaming others is never a good approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

New Dutch-speaking user ....

Sorry to bother you again, but just in case you can figure out a way to reach this new user: CO MEIJER has been creating stubs on (notable) tennis players written in Dutch. I've translated most, including undeleting one, and I and others have left him notes on his talkpage, but he's still doing it. (I see someone else has translated at least one while I was afk in the past few hours.) He's also not providing references - I and others have been going along doing that as best we can, but he is also editing at least one other article without adding references - and I'm not sure he is looking at his talkpage. Unfortunately he doesn't have e-mail enabled. As a last-ditch move, in case he is reading his talkpage but doesn't understand, could you try in Dutch? I note that he also registered the account on nl.wikipedia and have been wondering whether the rules there require him to wait before creating articles. But basically I hate to see his expertise and effort shitcanned. Thanks for anything you can do. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• No bother, Yngvadottir. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope he sees it; they've all been notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. He's doing the exact same thing on the Dutch wiki. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism vs copyright

I don't want to derail Unusual's RfA any more than it is with more discussion there, but could you take a look at my response to question 22 on my RfA and let me know here if you think I'm off base? I always thought I had a pretty good understanding of this kind of thing, so I was surprised by your response to my comment, since I know you do as well. Gigs (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I actually saw it a while ago and was thinking of commenting, but didn't (for more or less the same reason). I'll have a look again. BTW, question 22? I think RfAs these days are really silly: that's way too many questions. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Heh, well I did say in my nomination that I'd be happy to take any number of questions, so partially my own fault. Gigs (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Well, in my reading, plagiarism occurs also when for instance a passage is copied verbatim but without quotation marks (that is, it seems like paraphrase but it isn't) even when it is cited properly: so that is the exception, if you will, to what you present as a general rule. I do have to tell you that I have learned a lot since I got involved with these things on Wikipedia, and I can claim no ultimate expertise. In your answer you suggest that something may be a copyvio without being plagiarized, but that's not what I'm pointing at--I'm looking at an instance regardless of the specific copyright status of the work cited. (The two are easily conflated, of course, and I may well have used the one where I meant the other, in a quick edit summary for instance.) It's plagiarism if one does not give due credit to the author, and that includes word choice and syntax and all that--leaving out quotation marks (thus suggesting paraphrase by providing the citation) is making a claim that word choice and syntax are one's own. Now, I gladly stand corrected, of course, but this is what I think the correct answer is. Thanks for asking, and my apologies for how unfriendly and shorthand these conversations always appear to be. BTW, a few RfAs were cited where this was an issue to the point of not succeeding, and there's more. I guess I'm lucky that I wasn't asked that question--I had a decently accurate general idea, but like I said, I have learned a lot since then. BTW, odd that we haven't really run into each other before. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, you did, and so does everyone I guess, but still I think there are too many, far too many. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    • We are on the same page I think. Seems to have just been mostly a symptom of what you pointed out, abbreviated exchanges where it's easy to misinterpret what someone is saying. I usually hide in the talk page bowels of certain policy pages, and edit primarily on neglected articles, with a little occasional participation on contentious articles, and dispute resolution through 3O (which, due to its nature, doesn't involve much interaction with other 3O people, mostly interaction with newbs). I stay away from ANI and only occasionally get sucked into conversations on Jimbo's talk. Anyway lack of networking with a wider range of experienced editors is probably something I need to work on, as evidenced by my RfA. Gigs (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies bitched that I don't come here often enough anymore, so I'm trying to rectify that. I'm lost. Gigs, I don't see anywhere in your RfA that Drmies commented on Q22 - did I miss it? As for your answer, I thought it as reasonably accurate, if a bit verbose. I don't think your description of copyright infringement was quite right, but your explanation of the differences between plagiarism and copyright violation was about right.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Bbb, I commented on Gigs' comment in QuiteUnusual's RfA. It's a bit confusing--we have three going on at the same time, and Gigs got asked a question based on the other RfA. Hey, you better be watching the Alabama game or you're not welcome here anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• You're just trying to confuse me by commenting about one nominee at another nominee's RfA - and it worked. Here's what Gigs said at QU's RfA: "Extensive close paraphrasing is indeed copyright infringement. That's the only reason to be concerned about it. It's not plagiarism if you cite where you got it." I don't know what he meant by the second sentence, and I didn't read all the crap above it, but the first and third sentences are reasonably accurate (without getting into all the complexities of copyright infringement as to the first sentence). You said he was incorrect. Why? Then Malleus said: "Plagiarism is intellectual theft, passing off the work of others as your own, which is what you did, citation or no." That sentence is internally contradictory. How can a person be passing some work off as his own if he attributes the author? And I have no idea if there's actually a concrete example that everyone is looking at - I'm just speaking conceptually. As for the Alabama game, you're lucky I know where Alabama is, let alone what game is being played there. Monopoly? Besides, you can't complain that I don't come here often enough and then threaten to ban me from your talk page just because I don't know - or care - diddly about sports.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• That is the point I was trying to make, that he wasn't stealing, he was paraphrasing. Perhaps poorly, but he did change the words, he did cite the exact source, but everyone seems to jump on the bandwagon that this was just intellectual theft, and that isn't the case: He cited it, he didn't claim it. If he would have added quote marks, it would have just been called a sloppy job of quoting. That being the case, I think the concern is being labelled too aggressively for candidate that otherwise seems ok. Of course, I expect others to disagree, someone always does.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)