User talk:Drmies/Archive 35

Kerala

I thank you for your close of RFC in Talk:Kerala. I'm here because I would like to improve the article further in the light of your criticism like this: "this article and this section get improved (it's really not good at all right now) ". It would be highly helpful to me if you brief the most important quality issues with this article. (Pls don't suggest to go for a peer review or FA!!) AshLey ^Msg 09:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that tackling the prose in that particular section would be a good start. I'm already not sure about the heading--"Religious traditions" suggests that the section will discuss the religious traditions of Kerala, but the supposed subject matter is the mythological origin of the area/state. The section needs to start with a topic sentence that outlines that content; the current opening sentence, "The oldest of the surviving Hindu Puranas, the Matsya Purana, sets the story of the first of the incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the Matsya Avatar, and King Manu (King Satyavrata, mankind's ancestor), among Kerala's Malaya Mountains", is totally confusing and doesn't even suggest anything to do with Kerala except for the mountains. Any rephrase along the lines of "A mythological origin of Kerala is proposed in Hindu scripture; the xx-th century Matsya Purana sets the story of... etc" would be better than what we have now. Then the puranas disappear, to return unannounced in the fourth paragraph. In between we have some mentions of the name, but what do those have to do with religious traditions or a proposed origin? And of the last paragraph, only one sentence refers explicitly to Kerala.
I can't really judge the rest of the article in great detail, but at first glance some issues are clear. The article needs a very thorough copyedit, and it needs to be trimmed in places--"Education" is much too long, given that there is a main article, Education in Kerala, and that goes for a couple of other sections as well ("Media", "Sports"). I'm positively impressed with the number of references and how the cites look, and I guess I agree with the B-rating. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for your guidance. I have done a few copyedits here and changed the sec title as "Kerala and Hindu mythology". Pls comment on this modification. AshLey ^Msg 13:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw what happened and I reverted. That editor, please let me know if he continues to bother you. Now, as to your improvements, good--but what does that second paragraph ("Tradition says that") have to do with Kerala? This has to be made explicit--I have no idea if Travancore has anything to do with it, and the second sentence, "The Kollam era is also known as..." has no connection at all to the previous. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your intervention was really helpful; that has improved my confidence much, thank you Drmies. A few more changes: I had no option but to trim 2nd para' related to Parasurama. These are not part of the original puranic version but a part of later literary work. Also, not that important to Kerala history and do not find a space in major sources. I have also made an attempt to clarify the legend of Mahabali further. Request your review for the changes that I have made. Gratefully, AshLey ^Msg 14:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi Ashley, I think that section is looking a lot better. I've made a few tweaks to the lead (hard editing such a huge article--long load times). For further improvement, I suggest you ask someone who produces quality and knows India--I'm talking about my man User:Sitush. Another editor who knows this stuff is User:SpacemanSpiff, and he might be able to assist in handling problems with other editors. I speak somewhat euphemistically since I don't want to presume there are or will be problems. Good luck, and thanks for getting in touch, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Drmies, The behaviour of Sumerian Prince reflects how I did it when I was not aware of the pillar policies of WP. Then I had a bombardment with Sitush and that was the major turning point in my wiki-life. Still, we have some good-faith issues and I think as my experience grows that's slowly tapering. Your reference has really boosted my confidence in him and I'll surely approach him for further help (if necessary with an apology). I wonder how I could correct Sumerian since he doesn't assign good-faith on me and in past even unresponsive to talkpage messages. AshLey ^Msg 09:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ashley, I saw your note about this thread on my talk page. The issues between you and me are mostly done and dusted, no worries. Wikipedia is sometimes a weird place and it is inevitable that there will be differences of opinion ... and that while it is most likely true that experience counts for a lot, it is not politic to say so! Nor have I always been correct: my own experience of you has been educational and you have added to my knowledge. If our past contretemps gave you the impression that I thought your comments etc to be in bad faith then I apologise for that because it was not the case. As for your query regarding what is good faith, well, it is one of those nebulous areas. Just keep plodding on and you will pick up the constraints by a process not dis-similar to osmosis. And please do bear in mind that there is absolutely no-one here who is always correct. Not even Drmies ;)
        I am not good on geographical stuff - my inclination tends towards history and society - but I'll certainly take a look at the Kerala article when my (short) period of employment ends. A week or so, probably, but feel free to give me a nudge. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sitush, I feel much relaxed on seeing this message, thanks a lot friend. Though I supported many of the points you raised, my ego, nagging suspicion or my attachment to some POVs prompted me to oppose them in general. Though I had started understanding the concept of NPOV (that what Robinklein was not doing), I was really trained by you on the standard of NPOV expected from WP editors. I started clicking WP:x type links to meet your challenges and that changed me a lot; Hats off sir! I know, still I have some real issues with my English and its phrasing and I have to improve myself to help making good articles in WP. Request your guidance whenever I'm not up to the WP standard or deviating from its policies. My salute to Drmies also for giving me an opportunity to dissolve my ego against a veteran Cantabrigian. (Kerala: Yes, I will approach you when you are back.) Thank you both, AshLey ^Msg 08:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, I had to file a case against User:Snowcream in WP:WQA and referred your guidance in this section to substantiate my edits. I'm really disturbed by his "fanatic" remark against me and hence moved WQA. Hope you have no issue with my reference to this page! AshLey ^Msg 09:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Would you, or your talk page watchers, care to venture an opinion? Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle, when did I become a diplomat? Drmies (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do only diplomats have opinions? ☺ Anything in the range from "I agree entirely." to "I wholly disagree." is what I'm looking for. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That certainly was interesting though it left a bad taste in my mouth. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it makes your mouth taste better, I found out a bit about the chess for you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

Thank you for fulfilling the warnings RFC close request. It's wonderful to have that closed right on the 30 day schedule. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 15:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're more than welcome--but really, you should thank Cunard (talk · contribs) who keeps getting on our case to remind us of things that need closure. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More eyeballs

Hey Drmies, I decided that Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin shouldn't be an improper redirect and turned it into an article yesterday, and was thinking about submitting the fact about Pilot Mountain as a DYK, being somewhat timely. Can you take a look? I think I have it pretty well ironed out, but would appreciate a look and fine tuning. I've only had one DYK before (Pigs in the City), figured I should at least try for another. I might even try for a GA on another article some day ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help tweaking. It is starting to look like an actual article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get back on it--after lunch and nap. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Must be one hell of a nap ;) A couple others have come in and graciously helped, and it is up for DYK now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, sorry, got distracted... but well done, Dennis. Odd, you'd think that US geography would be covered completely by now... Drmies (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, I've noticed a great many missing articles, particularly in areas like river basins and less obvious geographical designations. Even many small cities are missing, as are many rivers, lakes, dams and more. When I get more time, I need to focus on that. That doesn't require poetic stills, just good sourcing, so I think I can handle that. I need to finish up some of the loose ends with the politics here so I can focus more on actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with The Admin's Barnstar for closing discussions listed at the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrator's noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second set of eyes

A request for a second set of eyes on a revdel request that's been made on my talk page User talk:Skier Dude; I'm not 100% sure if this really fits the needed requirements. Your advice would be appreciated. Skier Dude (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should be; it's not "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive." Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! --->

Brechbill123

Sorry that it has taken me quite a while to respond to your post on my talk page, but I have done so now. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bent-Con

Hello. You deleted the Bent-Con page I created in less than 24 hours of my creating it. I only found out this morning, when I was going to provide additional information to the article, that it was deleted without any real chance to contest. Accoring to the Wiki guidelines, the page requires more notable third party references to remain active. That is exactly what I was going to provide the article with this morning, again, within less than 24 hours of creating the article. I would appreciate in future you would provide fellow Wiki editors more adiquate time to update pages before deleting them, especially if the articles are new and still in the initial editing process. Artemisboy (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this and find that the logged reason for the deletion ((del/undel) 06:58, 27 July 2012 Drmies (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Bent-Con (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (view/restore)) is entirely appropriate and withing the bounds of speedy deletion. if it was not ready to be in article space you should have finished drafting it in userspace or at the very least tagged it with {{underconstruction}}. If you would like it userfied so you can continue to work on I can do that for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beeblebrox. Artemisboy, you're not a spring chicken here (metaphorically)--you know the score. I didn't see any reason to assume encyclopedic importance: those conventions are really not that unique; there's a lot of them, and this one had nothing to prove it was notable. Userfication will help you work on it (just say the word)--and so does releasing something into the mainspace only when it's presentable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Someone is asking for help regarding avian lungs on my talk page, and I'm hopelessly out of my league here but your user page tells me this is up your alley and perhaps a very simple call for you to make. Could you take a look please?[1] As always, thanks a million. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dennis, any teenager can tell you there's a huge difference between boobs and lungs. I know nothing about lungs. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an easy put down there, but I will leave that to your wife. On another note, I started Pork jowl, being that I am a member of the now quiet Bacon Cabal. It is only a stub, but I will work on it over the next few days, hopefully the rest of the bacon cabal can pitch in. Surely there is a DYK with the Beverly Hillbillies that can be created. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having known me for years .. Drmies is quite familiar with "boobs". :/ Chedzilla (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that special. On a more positive note, Drmies, I'm closing in on being in the top 2000, and I've written more new articles in the last month than I did last year, which still isn't that many. I now find it a nice break to get away from the drudgery of abusing others with the admin tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why didn't you abuse this guy? Drmies (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says "hog jowl" is archaic? Seriously, {cn}, because I don't think that's accurate. LadyofShalott 01:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just someone's Yankeeness coming out, Lady. I left them an insulting edit summary. Hey, that's a really, really nice photograph you found there, Dennis! And as a side note, hog jowl is overrated, haha. I'm never buying it again. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a little bit of OR in there now, but I kept most of for my most recent edit summary. LadyofShalott 02:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me--that's not OR. Did you see the photo that opens Soul food? Doesn't the bowl and the surface look similar to the hog jowl picture? ;) Drmies (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Nice contributions. Once in high school, I was sitting at the French table for lunch. I wanted to say something about black-eyed peas (which we had not been served that day - so pointing was not an option). In something akin to David Sedaris's Me Talk Pretty One Day, I referred to "beans with black eyes". Oddly enough, no one could figure out what I was talking about, and I finally had to say it in English (pretty much not ever done at the French table). LadyofShalott 02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jowl IS overrated. The flavor is something like bacon with a hint of sweaty feet, and a texture that reminds me just a little of gummy bears. Yes, I noticed the summary Doc Mies, I wasn't sure the proper adjective to describe the term "hog jowls". I need to get the camera out and do some photos of bacon related items at the grocery store. Last two times I bought pork for pictures, I ate it before I remembered I was supposed to photograph it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Rebecca McDonnell

Concerns addressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Rebecca McDonnell. Thank you for the review. --LauraHale (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Danceking5

I blocked him for a legal threat after his ANI performance, and now his talk page action would seem to be a thinly veiled threat against me. (yawn) But since it is against me, I would rather have another admin look and decide if talk page access should be revoked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, you're loved. I should hang out at ANI more; you get all the juicy blocks. I'm watching the Olympics, the opening ceremony; I haven't seen Wesley yet. Did you see the "Independent Olympic Athletes"? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thx. I probably could have justified it pretty easily, but always good to put another pair of eyes once involved. Olympics? Has it been 4 years already? I don't have time for the Olympics, I'm too busy racking up block points and writing articles on North Carolina Music Hall of Fame and D.H. Griffin Companies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's obviously a Doctor Who Special on during the ceremony if Drmies is watching it. Although I think that Drmies might be a bit confused looking for an appearance of Wesley in Doctor Who. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Our Wesley is not a doctor, Uncle, as far as I know, and I don't watch Dr. Who. I'm watching the bike road race right now: England is green! Also, did you finagle a date yet with that Sylvia? "...Sylvia's mother says, Sylvia's happy..." Drmies (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ack, that article is a shameful mess! Must. Fix. Article. Dr. Hook brings back all too many good memories to leave it in that shape. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on the Kerala page.

My edit on the Kerala page reverted an edit that altered what was on there for several months. While you see no reason for my revert I wonder what reason you see in the edit that was made in the first place. AshleyThomas1980 has meanwhile made several other edits and alterations which you do not seem to have taken exception to as well.

Your discourse on the WIKI rules apart, I shall explain myself just this one time here, and I think it should be pretty clear to you.

According to Hindu Mythology/Legends, the Matsya Purana's story is the oldest and the first, in the litany of legends associated with Hinduism. It is also the oldest of the surviving Hindu texts. Therefore it was placed first in the section. Then comes the story of the King called Mahabali. The Parasurama story is much, much, much later in terms of Hindu Cosmology/genealogy that runs into astronomical numbers of years. Besides, there is no mention of any such thing in what are universal Hindu texts, but in a regional text of a later date called Keralolpathi. This was discussed at length on my Talk page which you can refer to if you want.

You might be pretty well aware that you are only one of the admins here and not the only one. That you see no validity in my revert when you have not mentioned what validity you see in the edit I reverted int he first place is pretty obvious. In the normal case you should have reverted his edit made out of nowhere. Anyway I believe we shall not have to talk of this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SumerianPrince (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes sir Mr. Prince, what's pretty clear to me is your attitude. Take it up on the article talk page. Whatever discussion was happening on your talk page is of little interest: the article talk page is where these things should be hashed out. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to come back to show you this though I need not have. As I said I will bring in another admins if this issue is not put to rest for I very clearly see where the editor is coming from as I mentioned in my very first edit summary.

In the edit he makes below he says that he as added/modified some info about the Parasurama legend and goes on to rehash and delete info related to other legends - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kerala&diff=504592612&oldid=504548863

The references state exactly what has been put down there and he modifies them with vague wordings like "has a mention of" etc.

As I said you have commented on my edit summary rather than my edit and claim that it was wrong without a word on the edit that was reverted in the first place. SumerianPrince (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Prince, you removed my response to your first comment--that's in bad form. You may not know this, but I do not believe in nobility as a God-given quality, so you'll just have to behave like everyone else. I'm also having a hard time trying to understand what you are trying to say. I think you are saying you are going to bring in some admins to set me straight. If that is the case, I'd love to see it. Happy days, and please stay away from my talk page, which is only for happy, well-written messages that promote peace, love, and great writing around the world in a true Olympic spirit. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Oldest surviving Hindu text is Rigveda (some Government documents in support. That's all I can understand now. And one needs to correct the book URLs in that article unless it has been done already. remove "q=Matsya+Malaya+Malabar&source" etc from the book URLs. I can help here if needed --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tito--maybe you, as a GA reviewer, have some ideas on how to improve this article on this wonderful Indian state... Drmies (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made few minor edits. I need some time– because I cannot understand some very basic question like– are they using British English or American English (etc)? I have added the article in watchlist. --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Altairisfar (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan, Request for comment

Thanks for closing Dylan Rfc. I think the comments continue into the next Talk section, so maybe that should be closed too. Best, Mick gold (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It doesn't look like it formally, but that's alright--a sure sign that it needed closing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You around?

?? Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, for a bit--in between painting. YGM soon. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Histoire ancienne jusqu'à César

On 29 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Histoire ancienne jusqu'à César, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the illuminated French 13th-century Histoire ancienne (detail of illustration pictured) told the history of the world in prose with moralizing verse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Histoire ancienne jusqu'à César. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

Your comment on dispute resolution about redundancy in the article or unnecessary info is 100% right. If you're interested, and spot any other examples, feel free to bring them up in the talk page. Unless it's removing an entire passage, it shouldn't be met with much resistance...

Thanks!

--Activism1234 22:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, my comments to you on Saafi was uncalled for and I apologise for my remark if you take offense. Regardless of our differences I could have been more delicate. So I apologise for that. Regarding Raampa and Serer symbols, I have the 1971 paper so I know it exists, but since you've tried to look it up on the net with no luck, no problem I can delete if that is the consensus, no big issue, better than the arguements. I will make an entry to DRN (and await Jogarths return) and strike off my remark to you on Saafi. Good day. Tamsier (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamsier, I appreciate your note, but I didn't really take offense. I'm looking forward to getting that article so we can move forward. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anila Weldon

Why you could not wait for a few hours before deleting that article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChJameel (talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was nothing but spam and a copyright violation to boot: content was copied from http://corporate-trainers.blogspot.com/2009/07/anila-weldon.html. That's a no-no. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please search for "Anila Weldon" on google and I hope you find many websites and pages about her or mentioning her. She deserves a wikipedia page of her own. ChJameel (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I found one, and that was enough--the one from which you copied the content. You have a long history of creating stubs for usually non-notable people that lack reliable sources, and you've been adding all kinds of unverified information to other articles, some of which including unacceptable speech. You are welcome to create acceptable articles on people, with reliable references (see WP:FIRST) but if you continue creating articles without references and with copyright violations you will be blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but you still can not copy from another website. See WP:COPYVIO. LadyofShalott 17:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content Factor

This page wasn't a copyright violation. As you can see from the source (which is itself copying from here) the content is available under CC-BY 2.5. Hut 8.5 17:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)That's actually still a copyright violation, though; Wikipedia needs its text to be licensed under CC-BY-SA; the "share alike" clause is pretty important for Wikipedia's purposes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't actually require content to be licensed under CC-BY-SA, only under a license which is compatible with CC-BY-SA. CC-BY is less restrictive than CC-BY-SA, so we can use content released under it. See this table. Hut 8.5 18:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* Learn something new every day. S'what happens when I think I know something. :P Sorry, and thanks for the table! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've restored the article which needs significant work. Hut, your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Phillips (guitarist)

Hey Drmies, may need your help over at Paul Phillips (guitarist) again... Giant Snowman 18:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a case of not listening. I've left them a (longer) note on their talk. M300300 is interesting--wonder how they got to the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

content factor

the article in PLoS ONE is completely free of any copyright. how can it be a copyright violation?? 4081xsn (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

never mind; sorry; just saw above...

4081xsn (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I didn't see the license. I've also removed the spam tag: though the article needs lots of help (and I've edited it a bit), it was not promotional, in my opinion. Thanks, and with apologies, Drmies (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elsvan

You might want to take a look at this editor's contributions to Jewish control of Hollywood and an article he created, Jewish control of finance. Sourcing is lousy (which is why I reverted much of it), and it smells to me like someone using the cloak of objectivity to sneak some anti-semitism into the encyclopedia. He's a brand-new editor, whose first edits were to create the "finance" article in his sandbox. His sole contributions are to these two articles, which screams SPA/POV-editor to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I tried cleaning up the old one a while back. I'm starting to think those all need to become redirects to Antisemitic canard Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redirect would be a good idea - the articles are so perfunctory that merging them makes a lot of sense, and it would be easier to keep track of the shenanigans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds awfully like someone I've run into before wno immediately turned to socking. I don't remember either user name though. I'll have to do some looking at article histories to see if I can bring it up and find the SPI. LadyofShalott 01:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were their edits in the anti-semitic vein? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prachursharma/Archive LadyofShalott 01:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that "Pilsoto" started the Jewish control of Hollywood article. LadyofShalott 01:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty ducky -- enough to block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing the block while y'all were discussing it here. LadyofShalott 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I was on my way. The Lady beat the tramp this time....I had blocked the last ones. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did change to redirects and indef semiprotected the redirects. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done, folks. Next thing you know I'll have the Palestinian faction all over me since you all are just restoring the Jewish grip over the media, but I can live with that. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, nicely done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observation

I don't know if you're familiar with Aliens, the second film in the "Alien" series, but there's a scene where Sigourney Weaver, who has been recovered from 50 years floating through space in suspended animation, is trying to convince the bureaucrats of the all-powerful Company about the serious threat posed by the aliens. They're having none of it, and Weaver bursts out "Did IQs drop sharply when I was away?"

Lately, that's the way I feel when I deal with some of my fellow Wikipedians. I know that makes me a bad Wiki-person, cranky, uncollegial, and sometimes potty-mouthed, but... geez louise, isn't there any way to insure a minimum level of basic intelligence around here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just because college is out, and all the sophomores – who know, after all, everything there is to know – have gotten bored with grabbing ass and smoking grass and have decided to enlighten us with their wisdom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's processes - especially those for resolving content disputes - are predicated on the assumption that sane, reasonable people will always outnumber incompetent or tendentious editors, and that clueful editors will support each other. The first assumption is no longer a safe one, which makes it all the more incumbent upon the dwindling group of competent and clueful editors to support each other. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - - @MastCell: Very good point, thank you; more solidarity, and less unnecessary vituperativeness, between editors who actually contribute to the encyclopedia would be nice. At the same time, some more control over editors who appear to believe that Wikipedia is an online debating society, or a vehicle to right the wrongs of the world, or a neat place to get their jollies, would be nice, too.
      I'm beginning to feel that overreliance on AGF as a primary operating principle has lead us into a blind alley where it's practically impossible to effectively regulate truly disruptive behavior without first going through hours of repetitive palaver and jumping through multiple hoops, all to get to a conclusion – a block – that seemed obvious from the beginning. Why not cut to the chase and block first, and apologize later (if it's warranted)? After all, we're not a microcosm of society, when an editor is blocked here he or she isn't deprived of his or her civil rights, they're simply not allowed to edit a privately-owned website they have no right to edit in the first place.
      We're a project set up with a specific goal in mind, to make a comprehensive freely-available online encyclopedia, and yet we let political and philosophical principles get in the way of that goal again and again, to the point where volunteer editors spend a significant amount of their time not improving the encycylopedia, but simply battling the entropy created by vandalism, idiocy and advocacy, while at the same time having to dodge a minefield of regulations which steadfastly refuse to allow anyone to take a stand on what's what, instead focusing on who best dotted the I's and crossed the T's. It may not be insane, but it's definitely crazy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On that score, you might want to distribute some clue to the editor who made this edit. Even I can see that that is sheer nitwittery. I went and did the right thing and consulted the source cited to see what it said. Ironically, Mark Renier's foolish war against the word "some" completely missed the wood for the trees. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, but if that's the worst of it...it's better than dealing with invented information supposedly sourced to peer-reviewed articles. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not the worst of it. See this and this. A pointer in the right direction and even an example of what to do have failed to sink in, apparently, and the editor is back to xyr three-year-old pattern of attacking people who disagree with xem. And now I have to remember to clean up this foolishness that made the encyclopaedia worse at some point when I have the time, too. Beyond My Ken, I blame you for getting me pointed at Special:Contributions/Mark Renier. ☺
        But you could have read and checked the cited source, too. This isn't about politics and philosophy and assuming good faith, or blocking first and leaving people with permanent public records before talking. This is about two editors, neither of whom actually read the source and the text being argued about. You're supposed to read. Reading and writing are fundamental encyclopaedist skills. That is what's what. And neither of you were doing it.
        Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, you are correct, and I'm not sure why I didn't. I know that I went as far as to go to the source to look at something, but it may have been the author's names, or just verifying that it existed -- I really can't remember (please blame Middle-Aged Memory Syndrome). As to why I didn't take the logical next step and go to the actual cite, I can't say. It certainly would have much better if I had. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos

Is it just my watchlist or is this place extra chaotic over the past couple days? I see multiple blocks of established editors (not to say they were bad blocks, only established editors), ridiculous amounts of edit warring, arbiters being accused by established editors of personal attacks, etc. I'm just waiting for it to rain Wikifrogs. Sædon ^talk 06:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's too hot to play outside. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Saedon, BMK (above)--did I miss something? Penyulap got indeffed, but that was in the cards, I think. It did start raining here yesterday and the sun room leaks (irony?). I'm not so regularly on those boards that I keep up with things, and mentally I'm way too deteriorated to see broader movements. Maybe it is the weather. Youreallycan was in hot water, also to be expected, and I'm starting to think that it's no longer worth it. But on the bright side, SarahStierch beat me at RfA with no opposes and more supports, and most of the recent RfAs were unopposed or otherwise uncontroversial. I think Bbb cleared a path, maybe. Ass grabbing and smoking grass, BMK? I missed out while I was in college. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Since Drmies, LadyofShalott and I nominated Bbb23 and started the "Summer of Love" at RfA, I think we should get some kind of award. Or the cash equivalent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I'm not going to call it extortion or anything unpleasant like that, but if you folks want the RfA Summer of Love to continue, there'd better be some baksheesh in my in-box pretty soon, because if my palm's not greased, I'm going to put myself up for admin, and that will stop the love-fest, fer shur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't grease my palm with your filthy cash. I might stick around or I might be a fad, but I won't sell my soul for no TV ad. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        What if I throw in...another penny? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Then I'll put even more shame in your game. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A penny for your thoughts

Per the above; sorry, I only have one left. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A penny? Well, that's more than my employer gave me for teaching two independent study classes this summer, so thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The horrible new level 1 warnings

Hello, I'm Mandarax. I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings. Your closing was, of course, correct, based on the comments there. I was curious about your personal opinion of the matter. I had been unaware of the discussion until I saw complaints at WT:TW and started seeing these dreadful new warnings showing up. I imagine most users of these templates were also unaware of the discussion. Shockingly, it was not mentioned on WT:TW until the complaints. Each individual template page has a notice saying "If you are planning to make major changes to this template ..., please notify Twinkle's user base and maintainers at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle as a courtesy." This was not done.

I was unaware too, but that's no surprise: I didn't know the Olympics were going on until my daughter started asking about naked men in Speedos on the TV. This Blethering Scot person is pushing the point, IMO: Steven is correct in that it was advertised in lots of places, though it's never enough, I imagine. Drmies (talk)

The most important problem with these new templates: the data on which this renovation was based indicate that the new wording had a positive effect only for registered users, but actually had a negative effect for IPs. But registered users may have already shown a productive predisposition by the mere act of registering. The users who are most in need of encouragement to continue as productive editors are IPs. See WP:IPDIS for some statistics about the productivity of IPs (the results are based on a small sample five years ago, but it seems likely that the general trends are still relevant). In particular, a very large percentage of all vandalism is perpetrated by IPs, so they likely receive the overwhelming majority of the warnings. But a very large percentage of total IP edits are not vandalism. Constructive IP editor retention is obviously an extremely important goal, but the WMF conclusion seems to be that these new warnings have the opposite effect.

I can't speak to that. Even while closing I didn't look at the data--the only thing that mattered to me were the interpretations thereof and how these were interpreted by those who chose to comment (and it was a fair number of people, though I'm sorry you didn't know about it). But what you sketch about IPs is my experience also. I've run into thousands of them by know, good and bad; if the templates don't help IPs (and us) then that's not good. But I don't know, is this tweakable? Can they be improved? Drmies (talk)

Some of the new level 1 warnings, such as {{Uw-vandalism1}} and {{Uw-error1}}, say that the user issuing the warning undid the edit. This is bad when such warnings are issued by a user other than the one who actually did the reverting; it would also be ironic for Uw-error1, because the warning for adding incorrect information would be adding incorrect information.

It hinkt hisw asm entionedi nt hatR fAt, houghn os olutionw aso ffered. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others, such as {{Uw-test1}}, do not say who undid it, but then go on to say "If you think I made a mistake ..." This seems to be a bit of a non sequitur. But that's certainly better than lying, as above, when the issuer is not the reverter.

Steven addressed this at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. See what you think; I don't like it either, since I do it (or at least used to do it) quite often. Drmies (talk)

Some, such as {{Uw-delete1}}, are poorly worded. "This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content ..." This makes it sound as though I may have unintentionally noticed the edit.

See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Ambiguity. Drmies (talk)

As for inviting the recipient to ask questions of the issuer, I think that many vandalism patrollers would not want that. Should we really be encouraging new users to ask questions of someone who may see such questions as an annoyance, and may not have the time, desire, skills, or knowledge to offer decent answers?

I suspect that some users may avoid these horrible level 1 warnings and jump right to level 2, whether appropriate or not, thus actively defeating the purpose of the changes. Fortunately, I do little vandalism patrolling any more; I've probably been doing a lot more of issuing warnings for reverts done by others than I have of reverting. As such, I think I'll be inclined to just not issue any warnings at all if they're level 1-worthy, but continue to do a level 2 or higher as appropriate.

I also hate the "Hello, I'm Mandarax." It's redundant, since the notice is also signed, and it looks odd, like phony, forced, fake friendliness. But the WMF seems adamant about including it, so I guess that's not going anywhere.

Oh, I didn't realize this would be so long. Sorry. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I might do instead is issue a welcome-but-with-problems template where I would've normally issued a level 1 warning. It always seemed a little strange to welcome someone who most likely had just done something not very welcome, but for me I think these templates may be better than the current alternative. An issue with these templates is that most tools and bots (and many people) don't recognize them as warnings, so the next warning will not be escalated to level 2. But that's okay; the vandals will essentially get two level 1 warnings in a row, and for users who aren't here just to vandalize, maybe the welcome will have a positive effect. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, valid points. I consider {{Welcomevandal}} to be a warning already but I'm not a bot. Can this be done electronically? Maybe you and Steven Walling can do lunch and figure it out. Drmies (talk)
TLDNR, MNDRX. I'll be happy to address your concern in detail, but right now I'm watching a bunch of 15-yr olds fly all over the place in the team final, gymnastics. FWIW, even a cursory glance at your comments shows me nothing I disagree with. This friendly stuff is just a bit too soft for my taste. Hello, I must be going. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry again about the length. I was just gonna ask your opinion, since you'd closed the discussion, and somehow ended up blathering on and on. Thanks for your replies. • Yes, it's good that the discussion was advertised in various places, but I still maintain that it was a major oversight to not mention it in the specific place which the templates themselves request that such a discussion be advertised, where Twinklers, some of the heaviest users of the templates, would have been most likely to see a notice. • For the IP issue, they could conceivably fix the templates to serve up the old wording to IPs and the new to registered users. But I very seriously doubt that would ever happen. • Steven's response about issuing a warning for someone else's revert being an "edge case" doesn't apply to me at all. I think the practice is much more widespread than he apparently thinks. • Thanks for reporting my observation about poor wording. • I don't mind "friendly stuff", when done the right way. I consider warnings at level 1 to be the AGF level and it's fine to be appropriately friendly. I try to issue such a warning only if an edit can reasonably be AGF'd. • Anyways, thanks for tolerating my wordy venting. But I'm way behind on my rant quota! Oh, that reminds me ... the exclamation marks in these new warnings are inappropriate. "Your test worked!" Oh, I'm so excited about your test! Do it again! "Thanks!" Your vandalism is much appreciated!
Lots of good stuff going on with the Olympics. Gymnastics, swimming, diving, canoeing, all great. I never thought I'd enjoy watching weightlifting, but women lifting twice their own weight is amazing! Beach volleyball? Boring. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies (and I assume Mandarax as well), I proposed some alternate versions of uw-delete1 over at the talk page of WP:WARN. Let me know what you think. Personally I am leaning toward the simpler version B. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Steven. I hope it is of some use for Mandarax and others, and I'll have a look as well. Mandarax, I've been watching swimming and cycling--Kristin Armstrong and Bradley Wiggins were fantastic; I love the time trial discipline. And Marianne Vos getting gold, well, that was awesome. I saw a British tandem get gold in a rowing competition and am very pleased for them. The Dutch hockeyers are doing well also--see below, a section on Paul van Ass, a name much funnier to Dr. Blofeld than to me. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although my current intention is to avoid all level 1 warnings unless they're all overhauled, I figured I should voice my opinion for the benefit of others who will be using them. (Sorry, Steven, that I couldn't support version B.)

In response to this, sure I guess it's fine. There used to be something in the MOS suggesting that this not be done, and that birth/death places should instead be integrated into the main text, but I don't think that's there any more. (Whether that's due to a discussion, or just one person who didn't like it, I dunno.) I don't do it myself, but I don't change it when others do it, unless the article has a place where it is (or unawkwardly could be) mentioned.

Oh, if you're looking for an article to write: Paraskevi Papachristou on Twitter! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keansburg, New Jersey

Hi Drmies; against my better judgment I've returned, if only for a few moments, and found the place much as I left it. You're good at cleaning out the dross--when you have a chance could you look at this? I'm making little progress in rolling back the local trivia--God save us from 'interesting facts'. Thanks and cheers, 99.137.209.191 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you thought the prose in that article was bad, check out this summary (in a revert that rebloats the article some). Well, I don't want to piss anyone off, certainly not someone who loves that state so much. But that history needs pruning, obviously. Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of your recent edit, which caught a statement in a featured article unsupported by the purported source, I find this edit, which justifies removing quotations in references by insisting that "there's no need for those and they just clutter up the references" rather ironic. I am reminded of being in elementary school when the teacher would have us read out loud from a book, and while I was daydreaming, the teacher would come over and demand to know what we were up to in the text. I would splay my fingers over the page hoping that one of my appendages was pointing to the correct location. Too often in Wikipedia, there is a reference but there is no explanation of what it is in that source that supports the claim in the article. I've spent ten or fifteen minutes paging through a source cited in an article, baffled as to what sentence supports the claim, left unsure of what the editor who added the source was referring to. By including a quotation that ambiguity can be effectively eliminated. The quotation supports the reference and the quotation can be verified directly in the source so that the loop is closed. Your smarmy remarks that the revert "rebloats" the article are in atrociously bad taste coming from an admin. I'll never force another editor to use quotes, but I'm baffled as to how the article was improved by their removal. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such quotes are unnecessary, despite your claims--in this case, there weren't many appendages necessary to point at the relevant information. Size matters, as far as I'm concerned, and (if I am also allowed a personal recollection) I was reminded, with no small amount of anxiety, of another New Jersey article, on the township of Wyandanch, whose reference section included just such quotes. In this case, we're talking merely of a mention of the town in that article; easy to find. Alansohn, I have the greatest respect for you as an editor and a content creator and I wasn't going to revert (smarmily or otherwise), but the comment about and link to that FA article is a red herring and you know it. If you had plowed deeper through my edits you'd have known that I was led to that article through a copyright investigation, and that the phrase and reference I removed passed unnoticed in the FA process is not a trifling matter. Anyway, I apologize for needless smarminess, and will take the "in atrociously bad taste" stab in stride, applying it to my wardrobe as well. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies for the umbrage, much of which was related to the late hour. Your apology and humor are much appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alansohn, no need to apologize. I hope you accepted mine. I've been trying to dig up things for that Hackensack Christian School so we could do a DYK together--I'm trying to catch up with you, you know. All the best, Drmies (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alansohn, you're in the process of crossing the copyright line into Richard Arthur Norton territory, which is another CCI case. Step back onto this side. We do not quote sources merely to copy them for the convenience of editorial review (especially since doing so completely undermines the very principles underlying the idea of verifiability), and your entire scenario of being unable to locate something is spurious in at least one of the cases of that edit, where the exact page number was and is given. We employ quotations as and when they are encyclopaedically relevant, in the manner of ordinary professional writing, not to spoon-feed internal reviewers nor to subvert copyright restrictions. If you cannot find the pages, ask for the page numbers to be given and the citation to be done properly. After all, a citation that doesn't include enough information for one to be able to find what is being cited is not a proper citation that fulfils its primary purpose. This applies as much to citing hundreds-of-pages books without giving the specifics of pages as it does to bare URLs or hyperlinking to Google Books. The right corrective action is to put the page number(s) in, not to filch the non-free prose.
    I remember Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232. I spent a week working to rescue a former featured article from utter disaster because of it.
    Uncle G (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A quotation in a reference is the ultimate definition of allowable quotation, no less than quoting that same text inside the article . These quotations are encyclopaedically relevant, in the manner of ordinary professional writing, and I can point you to hundreds of books that use this same method, which I have adopted. Feel free to point to a page, but where a quote supports a reference it is a best practice. I won't force you to use it, nor can I see why anyone would waste their time trying to impose their belief that it is not needed, nor concocting copyright violation accusations for a practice that is standard throughout academic publishing at the highest level. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are quite wrong, alas. Encyclopaedic relevance is not simply gained by mere presence. If you don't understand this then you don't have a grasp of academic publishing, "at the highest level" or otherwise. The Richard Arthur Norton lessons are very important ones to learn, because that is a line that no-one should cross. Go back to the lengthy discussions that there have been of this point in many places such as this and this, and read them until the points where Richard Arthur Norton gets things very wrong sink in. Quotations are not magic ways to turn non-free content into free content. And citations are not magic ways to shoehorn quotations in that somehow magically makes them exempt from the copyright restrictions (and indeed simple good writing restrictions) that exist on quoting stuff. It is most definitely not a best practice to put quotations into citations to "support the reference". It's a poor practice in fact, that promotes slipshod editorial review practices, fills articles up with repetitive chaff, brings one straight up against copyright concerns, and completely undermines the principles that underlie verifiability.
        I'm afraid, as Drmies and many others will no doubt attest, that anyone who thinks that academic writing automatically allows quotations just because one uses references therein is living in a dreamland. People experienced with academic writing will all confirm that there are, in fact, rules about quoting things, and they deal in exactly the sorts of fair use concerns that are dealt with here in Wikipedia, albeit that academic writers don't have to worry so much about serving the needs of free content re-users. To learn how the professionals do things, start with the guidelines for authors set out by the likes of Elsevier and Wiley, and then the further guidelines set out by the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers and by the Publishers Association. The "anything goes" standards and the the-template-has-a-parameter-so-it's-always-alright-to-use-it nonsense that some very misguided people have propounded are in fact nothing like the standards of the professional world, and are highly un-professional.
        Executive summary: What one might have got away with four years ago, in the light of more recent discoveries of deliberate flouting of copyright policy for two thirds of a decade, is not what one will get away with nowadays. There is a line to step back from crossing.
        If we had known what we know now after the various CCI cases, I do wonder how differently the 2008 arbitration case where you, Richard Arthur Norton, and Rlevse were all talking about copying non-free content and putting it into Wikipedia verbatim would have gone.
        Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I got some reading to do--thank you for those links. You must have an elephant's memory. One quick thing, though: I've learned more about copyright on Wikipedia than I did in twelve years of college. In my master's and Ph.D. program this was never brought up. I may take this up with my head, to make sure that we address it in the general colloquium for English majors. Later, Drmies (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You might, then, be interested in some of this stuff from the Hortense Parrish Writing Center at UTM, in particular the workshop notes on Incorporating Quotations. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ha, but that's easy. That's Strunk and White and MLA and all that, and I cover that in almost all my classes. I didn't do undergraduate studies in the US, so I never had freshman comp and survey lit--I don't know how I learned it, must have been part common sense and part experience in reading scholarly writing, picked up overseas. It's the copyright part as it applies to quotes that's somewhat new to me. As good writing practice it stands to reason that quotes should be brief--Mrs. Drmies and I both teach it as such (she teaches middle school)--but as a possible copyvio, in the context of the work cited, the author of the work, the subject of the essay, and the context of the paragraph, that's a different matter. Thanks again; this has been very enlightening. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        IANAL, so take my comments for what they're worth, but my feeling is that Wikipedia's standards regarding copyright violations are more stringent than those of the (American) courts, which are more lenient in regard to educational usage, which Wikipedia would (as a not-for-profit institution with an educational goal) would most likely fall under. It's been my impression that the WMF, by setting its standards higher than is actually necessary, has been pro-actively working to prevent any possible copyright infringement case because it's concerned that the whole Creative Commons/"copy left" structure has never actually been vetted by a court of law, and if it was to be struck down, the whole house of cards would follow after it.
        But even if that is true, it's still incumbent on our editors to follow the internal regulations here, regardless of whether they're more restrictive than legally necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Uncle, please have a look at this series of edits and my comments on the talk page. This is one of many articles by TonyTheTiger mentioned in User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_46#length_of_quotes. I hope I'm getting it. I've read the other material as well and followed a couple of the links; odd indeed that there was no mention of this issue in the ANI discussion from 2008 that you linked. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of Indo-Dutch collaboration...

...I bring you Ram Labhaya Lakhina to either clean up or add a twitter account for. How're you doing by the way? Have you gotten back to the US yet or still enjoying your Euro vacation? —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've been back for what seems like months now. Holy shit, you want me to do that? No way--I'm teaching business writing in the fall and don't want to be looking at resumes already. Happy days to you! Drmies (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I feel for you. How about you give Wikipedia resume cleanup as one assignment for the students? Clearly, if anyone gets this one cleaned up, they deserve an A for the full course! —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you know how difficult it is to get a freshman class to recognize, let alone practice, neutral encyclopedic writing? It's a lost cause sometimes. Still, the best thing that came out of that class was actually a pretty good thing: Ysleta Mission. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 03:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 03:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	For blocking multiple spam accounts. Thank you! Vincent Liu (something to say?) 04:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In the meantime, you should really consider getting yourself one of these. It's BPA free! And dishwasher safe! Drmies (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vague reference

How do you mark a reference that is so vague that you can't tell what it is? LadyofShalott 08:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{dubious}} or {{clarify}} ? —SpacemanSpiff 09:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- … {{bare URLs}}, {{page missing}}, {{dead link}}, {{author missing}}, {{title incomplete}}, …? How does one answer a question that is vague about vagueness? ☺
  My amazing psychic powers tell me that you need two of those.
  My truly astounding psychic powers tell me that you really need MST 2005a and MST 2007a.
  Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "World's first ever low temperature thermal desalination plant opened at Kavaratti" (Press release). Ministry of Science and Technology. 2005-05-23.{{cite press release}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  - "One Million Litre Per Day (1 MLD) Barge Mounted Desalination Plant" (Press release). Ministry of Science and Technology. 2007-04-18.{{cite press release}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  - Hah, thanks Uncle G! (Yeah, title missing (not merely incomplete) and author missing were what I was aiming for. Nicely found, BTW! LadyofShalott 22:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Guillaume2303 is sending me an article I found in Nature. We'll get that section up to snuff. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - My psychic powers are truly amazing, ne? By the way, the Ministry of Science and Technology is the source of the press release, not the PIB. You'll see on the WWW site that the MST is named at the top. Also note Kathiroli, Jalihal & Sistla 2008 and ISBN 9788171886234.
      Please ensure that you completely rewrite from scratch the prose that was there, because the reason that the citation was so vague was that it was a straight gank of this copyrighted ("IRC © 1998–2012") non-free content. The formatting actually did set off alarm bells, but I was busy writing a sourced biography of a 16-year-old and didn't pursue it.
      Uncle G (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kathiroli, S.; Jalihal, Purnima; Sistla, Phanikumar V S (2008). "Barge Mounted Low Temperature Thermal Desalination Plant" (PDF). Proceedings of the Eighteenth (2008) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 6–11, 2008. The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers. ISBN 9781880653708. {{cite conference}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)

The point that it should be rewritten is well-taken. However, your directive to do so seems, well, misdirected. Should such a point not be aimed at the person who is trying to get this pushed through as a GA? LadyofShalott 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're all invooolved now. I hope that that editor has been looking at this thread as well (see below); I'll drop them a line. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that person one of these people? My astounding psychic powers only tell me who is actually doing the writing and cleanup work at the time, alas. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is; see also Drmies's "see below". :) LadyofShalott 00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to Drmies the Naturist, you are all here on this page. ☺ Apart from AnomieBOT, that is. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LoS, if you feel like being lazy, go with {{full}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full marks for not being lazy, though. It's a good thing that such collaborative effort is being done in secret on Drmies the Naturist's user talk page, though. We wouldn't want word to get out that administrators sometimes help to write. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I mention the Lakshadweep Development Report by the Planning Commission above, by the way, is that it provides a moderately good structural guide. Chapter 2, "Economic issues", starts with a whole set of statistics and other information on page 41, making the report a source for such stuff, and then addresses several topics in turn, in sections headed: Agriculture, Animal husbandry, Soil and water conservation, Fisheries and ocean development, Coöperation and civil supplies, Public Distribution system, Tourism, Industries, and Savings and investments. Chapter 3, "Infrastructure", is similarly useful. It's a delight when one has a source that tells one what aspects of the subject exist to be covered. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As i have said on Lakshadweep's talkpage .I think this is the link we need.This looks the same report when you compare the introduction here and here--Ayanosh (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Hello there thanks for the cleanup at Lakshadweep article.Also please have a look and leave a comment at this PR.-- Ayanosh (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul van Ass

Hehe we have to do this one as a joint DYK. Can you translate from Dutch wiki? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...that Paul van Ass, the coach of the Dutch men's hockey team at the 2012 Olympics, generated controversy for not selecting T&T? I'll find another source or two for that controversy, but it's there. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Paul van Ass. You owe me one, Herr Dr. Blofeld! Drmies (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you going to clean up all the Lichtenstein up of copyvios?

Hi,

Are you going to clean up all the Lichtenstein copvios? See Lichtenstein copyvios noted by GA backlog drive

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen that thread, no, but I'll have a look. (I'm only sideways involved with the GA process, and often negatively, unfortunately.) I hope that other editors, in light of User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_46#length_of_quotes and now comments on this talk page (see above, "Keansburg, New Jersey", Uncle G's comments), will pitch in. You have noted the problems already--I understand that you didn't tackle them as a GA issue, though I think now, in hindsight, they should have been cleared up before the stars were awarded. In other words, next time, even if you're not entirely sure, don't feel like you have to stick the star on there just because the GA guidelines are not clear on that particular point. And go ahead and take care of a couple of them; these aren't my articles or my reviews... I really hope that TonyTheTiger is going to do the right thing and clean them up: I know he keeps up with his articles and I think he may look at this page every now and then, but he and I are not on the best of terms. If you like, you can drop him a note; I for one would appreciate that. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I originally noticed them as GA nominations, as I was a participant in the backlog drive, and that's how I noticed the articles. I complained long and hard about the copyvio and to Moonriddengirl also, who agreed they were a copyvio but said she didn't have time to clean up the mess. So I didn't know what to do except document the copyvios on the talk pages. I didn't award the GA's. As you can see Status did. I think the articles are disgraceful. I did remove some non free images without proper rationales. This is the kind of thing that makes me think wikipedia is hopeless. People will get away with what they can. And i'm tired of it. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I thought you did the reviews; I clearly didn't look carefully at them. Tell you what, I'll leave a note for Status and for Tony. Don't worry about these articles--this is something fixable. That MRG didn't do anything yet is understandable: her plate is pretty full. I'm afraid I can't help with the rest of Wikipedia...but I'm an optimist. I still think that Angola can win gold in basketball. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Java Pacific Film

On 2 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Java Pacific Film, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the studio of Java Pacific Film was located in an old tapioca flour factory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Java Pacific Film. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Paul van Ass

Hello! Your submission of Paul van Ass at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Cmprince (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 14:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tree shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

A section on this was opened on the talk page even before the reversion was made. If you do not wish to discuss, consensus can not be reached. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a jackass: I've reverted you twice: you, on the other hand, have reverted three times in eight minutes. This is not how it works. You can take your stuff up on the talk page and find consensus for it. To do what you did with a GA-nominated article is highly disruptive, and if you continue you'll be blocked for it. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Don't call me a jackass or I will simply report you and cease all discussion. Wikipedia users are not obliged to cop your abuse to find consensus.

2) The GA nomination was for the article before the current massive rewrites.

3) I am attempting to find consensus. You are refusing to discuss the issues I have raised. Would you care to actually address the issues raised, or explain why you insist in reverting my edits because of some issue with "external links". I have no idea what external links you find so objetcionable that you feel you have to revert the entire article. SO if you can clarify then I can address that issue. The external links are why you reverted the article, right?Mark Marathon (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not attempting nothing. You give me a warning for edit-warring after a second revert. Your first was totally unexplained, your second claimed "fully explained"--well, no, you posted and reverted. And no, I'm not reverting because of those links, but they were a good example of what was not OK with the version you reverted to. I'm not interested in a discussion with you; I'm interested in you getting a consensus on the talk page. Feel free to report me: I'm done here. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? My first was not totally unexplained. My explanation takes up half the freakin' talk page and was posted before I made the original edit. I note now that for some reason my comment in the edit box got deleted. No idea how that happened, my apologies. Nonetheless, there is a massive section on the talk page explaining the edits I made, and you made no attempt to look or start a new section to find consensus.

And you claimed that the sole reason why you reverted was because of some "unacceptable external links". Now you state that you are not reverting because of those links. So which is it? It;s kinda hard to find consensus when you keep changing your story on what it is you are actually objecting to. No?

And please, do get consensus on the talk page. I will be happy so long as you make an attempt to find consensus and don't simply keep reverting while posting abusive comments and refusing to discuss. That was why I opened the section with a full and detailed explanation of what I was doing and why, before I made any edits. Maybe you could have done the same rather than simply hurling insults?Mark Marathon (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"And you claimed that the sole reason why you reverted was because of some unacceptable external links'": No, I didn't. File your explanation on the AN3 noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Marathon, you behaved poorly. You used a stupid template instead of talking, and yes you made no mention in this entirely empty edit summary that you had in fact posted to the talk page 3 minutes beforehand. The simple words "see talk" speak volumes, use them, or be mistaken for a knee-jerk reverter in exactly the way that you have been mistaken for one. In fact, use edit summaries a lot more than you have been. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, here, but your article-space contributions history shows an overall lack of edit summaries, and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that you did so once again here, and finally got hit by some very common consequences.

And stop threatening to "report" people left, right, and centre. I see this is far from the only place where your interaction with someone has been on the lines of "Stop editing or I'll report you.". (See Talk:Eucalyptus#Exploding Trees, for example.) We are some of the people that get reported to.

Drmies, Mark Marathon really did, in fairness, place a challenge in the correct place, on the article's talk page, for an edit, before xe reverted it. Xe has made some points there that are at least worthy of addressing, as far as I can see. The wording may well need improvement. The question, of course, is whether the new version improves on what was already there and whether these problems are problems that were already there in the older text. The GA nomination dates from two years ago, and was quick failed, notice.

Uncle G (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle--the article is a GA nominee, according to the talk page, though it hasn't been picked up yet. But the new version was commented on at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries, and "explained fully" in this context (nomination, commentary by others, etc.) doesn't weigh half as much as "agreed upon" or even discussed (it takes two to discuss). I'm not happy with how this went or proud of myself, but note the time lapse between their first edit and my revert: I looked into the matter, the history of the article, and the history of the two editors in the article: Mark Marathon was hardly a major contributor, with only a half a dozen minor edits in the last year or so. I waited also before my final revert, hoping someone else would pick it up, but the edit warring template kind of pushed me a bit. As for improvement, I remarked on the EL section only as an example, but it was clear to me (not that that's particularly relevant in an edit war) that the new version was indeed improved. Anyway, I hope that everyone will talk on the talk page--not to each other, but with each other. Your gentle trouting is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I didn't know about the contest page until you mentioned it on Talk:Tree. So it's possible that Mark Marathon was in the same boat as I was. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but you wouldn't have made that grand revert. At least not without introducing your Harvard citations. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nichkhun

Oh, ok. Thank you. Mikepellerin (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Just be careful with the word "vandalism". Drmies (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tree

I notice that Mark Marathon did not like my rewrite of the article Tree. I am not sure if he was aware of the fact that in creating it I retained the content of the two main sections, turning them into articles named Record breaking trees and Tree health. My rewrite was meant to be an improvement in a "Core article" and had been approved here.

I have no desire to be involved in an edit war but I think the new version I wrote was a great improvement on the old one. There had been very few edits on the article for several months and I took a long time writing the new article in my userspace and had already nominated it for GA before it was reverted. How would you advise me to proceed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply proceed improving based on comments. I can't be much help, me and trees aren't really on good terms since I have this pine tree in my backyard that provides no shade and drops needles like crazy. Moreover, the squirrels are making a mess chewing up the cones and squirrels don't pick up after themselves, so we're sweeping the deck twice a day. UPDATE: well, it was reverted again. I've asked Dennis Brown to look into it (he commented on the war on the talk page) and I've asked Curtis Clark to comment on his revert, which I consider to be poor manners: again a revert without explanation. Let's wait and see what Dennis has to say--he has a level head. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman's comment

Hi,

I responded to your comment on my page there. I'm interested to here your response. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that comment and looked at all the Brushstrokes articles and the discussions yesterday, but I have little to contribute there. As for Wizardman's comment, yes, that's useful. I don't know if it will make a difference for TonyTheTiger who earlier said that, basically, the citation box guidelines don't say anything about length of quotes so it doesn't matter. I responded to his comment; he hasn't come back to it. But yes, I trust that we will be keeping a closer eye on this, and maybe Uncle G will stay on it as well. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Input

In short, for those quoted articles, the ones that don't have too many and have been fixed by a sold copyedit should be fine. If you actually are finding any where there are more quotes than prose, then it's a serious enough issue to warrant a GAR. I'll check what I can and look over portrait, will try to convert to prose what I can. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For page stalkers... twinkle replacement going live

Following is a partial quote from Okeyes/Ironside. The full message can be accessed from my talk page. Bug fixes will also be applied to New Patrol Page.

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :).

Now for some real news. A real doctor (not that Drmies kind) holding a dead Amy Pond. I need to go cry now. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bg. I know why you're crying--as a friend of Mandarax, that image, that artwork, must hurt like the Dickens. My condolences to Amy Pond's parents for their loss. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now! Has working on Wikipedia taught you nothing? Why are you sourcing reports of death to unsubstantiated tabloid gossip? Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle, I thought about commenting on that but then in this age of American-style niceness that would be too judgmental. We might hurt someone's feelings. After all, evolution is just another theory, for example, and that it's written up in textbooks is not more authoritative than this written up in The Sun. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps she has simply swooned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh she is surely dead. You see, my wife might read this, she would know her rival is dead, and actually be nice to me for awhile. But, I know Amy does live and therefore will be the continuing object of my ~~stalking~~ affection. Bgwhite (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bg, there will be no wife-bashing on my talk page. Why don't you get a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey and tickle her unexpectedly? Maybe smack her around some and play that pony game? Who knows what it might lead to. (Uncle, is this reliable?) Or consider taking her to Ireland for the weekend. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, right. In nine months, the streets will suddenly be jammed with baby transport devices, all because of a mommy porn boom. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you want to give M. White Background here something non tabloid press related to do, then why not get xem to take advantage of all that JSTORrery, Tex-Mex Lexus, and Main Beaming that xe claims to have, and read the inaccessible sources mentioned at User talk:Uncle G#Pokémon and Locke? Then xe can help with a biography of a person that is currently based upon a report of his death. Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANALTHRUST

Why did you ban User:ANALTHRUST? Please reply on my account. Pengmunk (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That username is not appropriate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no: I blocked it in the first place as a vandalism-only account. Some kinds of vandalism shouldn't even be a one-time thing--like everything involving you-know-what. But the user name is plenty of reason to block, yes. BTW, two more things: I blocked them--banning is a community decision and not necessary in a case like this. Second, that user page you created for them, that was a pretty dumb thing to do and you're lucky I didn't block you. I understand anger, but come on: don't respond to stupid vandalism with anti-gay slurs. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jasper, would VAGINALTHRUST be OK with you? ;) Drmies (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heck no, especially in all-caps.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pengmunk expands a section of on threats to a species of elephant with random Pokémon twaddle, adds a Pokémon section to Culture of Guyana with a similar change here, and does this and this and we're not thinking that there might be two vandalism accounts? Uncle G (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, hadn't seen that. I quashed that user page they made and looked into Zoosmell Pooplord or whatever it was, and to my surprise that turned out to have some validity to it--after that I didn't look further. Thanks for doing so. Keep in mind, though, that Pokemon takes up about one-third of Wikipedia's bandwidth--don't piss the Poke-editors off or we're all out of a job. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at regular and deleted contribs, this was a no brainer VOA block. There is no ambiguity as to the reason they were here. Hint: It wasn't to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side: We got an article on Donald Locke out of it. Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that quote on Trophies of Empire 1 a bit longish? Drmies (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK...

DYK... that the town of Babylon, NY has a Wikipedia article comprising 8475 bytes of information, while one of its hamlets has an article remaining over 5.4 times that size? LadyofShalott 01:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about that Lady...Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia...I think you're getting desperate... Did you watch those two Dutch women slaughter the competition in the 50m freestyle today? We have a 25% chance for a gold medal tomorrow! Drmies (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And did you see this revert? Caution: click only if you have hyperspeed internet. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, how about this, User:Drmies/Wyandanch? Still a bit long, but feel free to move it... Drmies (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, shall I move it and do a history merge, or do you just want to copy it over? LadyofShalott 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mwaah, either way. Proper is to merge it, I guess, but I don't need to rack up my edit count. If you do it the history reflects that it wasn't just me doing it--and I hope you agree with my edits. BTW, DYK that he'll be here in a couple of days? Drmies (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh, I've boffed this. First I moved your version (with one small edit by myself) to Wyandanch instead of Wyandanch, New York. I've restored the redirect. However, along the way I learned that I could not do a deletion, move the new text and then undelete the rest of the edits, because there are over 5000 edits in the history, and only a steward can delete an article with that many edits. So to reiterate my question from above in modified form: do we get a steward to do the move properly (albeit now from the history of Wyandanch), or do you just want to copy over your text to the the article, and then I'll redo my minor edit? Sorry. <headesk> LadyofShalott 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry also for being slow on the uptake! I had to figure out who "he" meant. Do y'all have a name picked? LadyofShalott 01:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the Thief page edit

On August 3, 2012, I clearly put sources and links on this page, yet you continue to delete it. Please note the sources before deleting the page again. I have put a lot of time in it, and find it rude when you keep deleting it! This is an unsigned band, so twitter sources would be valid in this case :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushour144 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For an unsigned band very little is actually valid. Please see WP:RS. Besides that, you restored a bunch of other unverified information, lowering the quality of the article. Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, and we can only include what is verifiable by recourse to reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So a tweet from the actual band and band members would not be valid? Sorry for coming off so harsh, but it just seems that so much stuff is put on wikipedia that is assumed, and is never erased, but when I provide actual information that came directly from the band (although it doesn't meet the standards of a user operated "encyclopedia", it is deleted?) I only wish to provide fans of this band who go on their wikipedia with accurate and up to date information. This information, unfortunately only comes from twitter, which is "unreliable", although very reliable to anyone who knows anything about the unsigned music scene haha! If you wish to delete it, I guess you have the power. But it just seems unjust since this information is clearly valid, for anyone who clicks the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushour144 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, such sources are not usually considered valid. There is another problem here: as far as I can tell the band isn't even notable by our standards (WP:BAND)--no record deal, no hits, no coverage in reliable sources. AltPress may have posted on them a few times (the one link goes nowhere, and this kind of "article" is hardly "significant coverage" as required by our guidelines. This is by no means limited to this article, as you suggested: Dance Gavin Dance is also full of unverified statements, announcements, and trivial information. And Rushhour, please sign your messages: I get an edit conflict every time I try to respond to you because a bot intervenes and signs for you. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry for not signing, I am new to this! And, no this band has never had a record deal, hits, etc. If that deems what it means to be a band, then I really would be upset with Wikipedia, guidelines or not. No, this band may not have any coverage like popular bands, but they are huge in the independent scene, but that is beside the point. I did not create this page, nor do I know who, but the fact that someone went to all that effort to create a band with "no coverage" must show something. But if the page does not meet your standards, delete it, but know that this information is all valid and 100% truth. The sources may not meet wikipedia standards, but they are probably a lot more valid then what is on other pages that are "deemed valid". If anything, Wikipedia should work on a seperate "band" section for independent bands with no coverage, label, hits, etc. Their are plenty of bands that people should know about (and are on here) that are in danger of being deleted due to not meeting wikipedia standards (although the information is valid, because it comes straight from the band). Perhaps a seperate section for bands whose sources come from "unreliable" sources, but would be acceptable in the sense that this is the only information available. It may sound silly, but their are so many bands that deserve to be on here, regardless of if they are on a label or have hits...a band shouldn't be deemed successful based on that anyways, but I digress. Thank you for your time, sorry again if I came off as rude. But this is a band that I care about dearly, and seeing my information be deleted and their entire page threatened because of "rules" that sets limits on what a band is, is upsetting. But I understand that this is a professional website, and if a band or page (who is clearly more talented then any band signed with "hits") does not meet those standards of the site, then the page should be deleted. Thank you for taking the time to make sure this site is maintained, I truly commend you for that :)Rushour144 (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rushhour, no need to apologize. I hope you understand the problem with the article. I can't delete the article--that's a community decision--and don't wish to. What I wish is a better article. If you can write that, with recourse to reliable sources, power to you. That they're back together again may be reported on in days or weeks to come; that's great, then you can add it. If you want to improve the article, go ahead and do so: search the archives of notable publications (there's a lot more besides Rolling Stone, but that Punkthread forum or whatever it was is probably not one of them: forums rarely are). There's a couple of users who know lots about bands--User:TenPoundHammer comes to mind, and you could ask them to help you out. Good luck, and keep on rocking, Drmies (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks a lot! I will do so. As of right now, there is nothing, so I will go ahead and delete that information with the unreliable sources...clear some stress and ease haha! I totally understand the problem! Take care!Rushour144 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for grandiose delusions

Hello. Could you please review my nomination of grandiose delusions which I posted on August 1st? I am anxiously waiting for it to be reviewed, but I need this for a school project, and am afraid I do not have much time to wait. Thank you very much for your time if you choose to do so. Carina1205 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulanito dispute

Good evening. I would like to first apologies for the my involuntary misuse of my Wiki- account. I'm learning as I go. I have been in the process of inputting information regarding the artist Fulanito and have been involved in an edit war with his former partner. Now I am aware of how to solidify the authenticity of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdugo27 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if anyone had seen it before I did and warned you two of edit-warring I would have blocked both y'all's accounts. But it's over now so no worries. I don't know if that other account was really the former partner or not and I don't really care; they're blocked right now. Please look at the links in that template and realize that edit-warring is edit-warring even if you think you're right. Now, that article needs some attention: it needs reliable sources, lots of them. The protection is only for a few hours, but I urge you to be very careful lest you also are suspected of having a conflict of interest with it. I've asked another admin to look at the article and will point them to this as well--Discospinster, is it fair to unprotect knowing that one of the two is not blocked and can go right back to it, their opponent being blocked? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the article should stay protected as originally arranged, and that User:Verdugo27 should open up a discussion on the article's talk page. This article conflict has apparently been going on for some time and I don't foresee it ending even though the other user is blocked (the user could come back under a different name). It needs to be made clear on the talk page exactly what the contentious issue is, and other editors may try to help work it out, but only if they know exactly what's going on. Anyway, that's my 2₵. ... discospinster _talk 03:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insight. I have started a discussion Talk to help get things cleared. I'm anticipating that the other user will make attempts at editing the article. At its current state, i'd like to transfer that information over to the talk page. Would that be ok? /-----\/-----\ 03:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Discospinster. I also think that user will be back; let's hope they will be back in a more productive manner. Verdugo, yes, this sort of stuff needs to be hammered out on the talk page. Let me know if disruption returns, and don't fall for the edit-warring trap again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, As we had anticipated. The other user has returned under another user name and has altered the page. I will now take this to the Talk page and hopefully it will make its way to the main page with accuracy and integrity. --/-----\/-----\ 16:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The page has been vandalized again By the user (Fulanitoreal is 740Boyz). --Verdugo27 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. It has come to my attention that the Fulanito page has been altered by the same user (Fulanitoreal), who so happens to be 740Boyz. I did not want to get into an edit war once again, but he has been vandalizing the page once again,and will continue to do so. I ask that you take a closer look into this. I apologies for taking up your time in this matter. I will make my daily attempt to edit the last entry, and do not intend to violate the Three-revert rule, but would just want to point out that this user has once again vandalized the page despite your warning. Thank you, and have a good night.--*** Verdugo27***_talk 05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contributions - new user

Hi. You sent me this message. This was my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia so this is all new to me.

"Hello, I'm Drmies. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Ely, Minnesota, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)"

Then you removed the following "External Links" from the page for "Ely, Minnesota". These links were on Wikipedia before I viewed and added to the article. Now they are gone.

Many of these were mentioned directly in the article and I feel were rightly added (by other contributors before me) so that readers can further investigate items mentioned in the article.

Then I added some more resources which were deleted. I didn't really think that I was breaking the advertising/promotion rules. When viewing pages for other towns I have noticed a lot more links to events, attractions, etc than exist in the "Ely, Minnesota" article. Should I create a new category? For example "Arts".

How can I list area restaurants/dining without advertising? Maybe not include links? Should I also create a new category about restaurants? Below are my additions which you deleted.

SIR G's Italian Restaurant
Burntside Lodge
Ely Steakhouse
Front Porch Coffee and Tea Co.
Creek Ridge Lodge
Silver Rapids Lodge
Red Roof Custard
Oriental Orchid
Subway
Dairy Queen
Pizza Hut
Evergreen Restaurant
Organic Roots Bistro
Stony Ridge
The Chocolate Moose
Brittons Cafe
Rockwood

Thanks for helping me more accurately comply to Wikipedia's guidelines. I would really like to contribute to the "Ely, Minnesota" page and help the world learn even more about Ely than is currently on the page; especially now that links which used to be on the page are now deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.38.78 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't list any of these things. Sorry. See WP:EL. Drmies (talk)

Gianluigi Buffon

Hello, I did not add copyrighted material from another Wikipedia page. I didn't know how to place a link to the IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper award, so I posted an internal link to a Wikipedia page. I can remove this if that is a problem, but the other information does not violate any rules. Thanks. Messirulez (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found material in there that was copied from http://gianluigibuffon1.blogspot.com/. Besides that, a lot of the text you added was simply too wordy for an encyclopedic article. It included such phrases as "he has been described as 'An agile, commanding shot-stopper who is hugely experienced at the highest level'" which is awkward grammatically (passive construction) and contains unnecessary praise, and sentences full of punctuation errors and verbosity (such as "He was by this time, already considered a major prospect and in the summer of 2001, he was snatched up by Italian giants Juventus for a world-record goalkeeper's transfer fee of a reported £32.6 million"). We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a collection of praise and superlative, sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but not all of those edits were made by me. The "agile commanding shot-stopper" quote I found and is not an original description, therefore it is sourced. I've been in the process or cleaning the article up, but I'm not finished yet. I removed the link so now the page should ok. How would I post a link to the "World's Best Goalkeeper" sub heading of the IFFHS wikipedia article? That's what I was trying to do and I ended up posting an internal link, I didn't mean to violate any copyright regulations. Thanks. (Messirulez (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

No, it's not OK! I don't think you're paying attention at all: a lot of the text you added is copied from http://gianluigibuffon1.blogspot.com/, which is dated 2007. Plus, this is not a fansite, and the quality of your writing is, I'm sorry to say it, quite poor. Drmies (talk)

I do not want to begin a virtual argument, and I would appreciate it if you could be a bit more respectful, because I apologised to you for making the above mentioned mistake and violation; it was not intentional. As I have previously stated, I did not write a lot of the content of the article. The text copied from the source you listed was already there before I began editing this article; I'm not sure who added that. The edits I have made today were purely statistical (e.g. awards won each season, trophies won, etc.) If you will allow me, I can clean up this article because I agree that there is obvious bias and unnecessary journalistic jargon which should be removed. The article itself is fairly poor and limited in information at the moment and it would be beneficial if I were allowed to expand upon it, not using objective opinionated writing, but by adding some additional sourced or statistical information about the career of this goalkeeper. I appreciate your concern with regards to objectivity and bias. Regards. Messirulez (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I grant you that you did not introduce that; I'm trying to find out who did. But you did just restore it to the article. Look, you can edit away, but don't restore that information--and please try to keep it neutral. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. If that was the case then I think when I meant to revert the information I had added today, I must've clicked on the wrong date, or I might have another time; anyway, it most certainly wasn't intentional on my part, so I apologise for that, I wasn't aware that I had restored that information; I'm still fairly new on here therefore I do occasionally make errors. I will keep the additional information neutral and predominantly factual and statistical and I will continue to source information which cannot be verifiable through the use of links to other articles. Best. Messirulez (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I have a better idea what's going on with that blogspot content: you shifted it around some in a series if edits that somewhat confused me. That blogspot person must have copied it from our article, so please accept my apologies for that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, sorry about the misunderstanding! Thanks, regards! Messirulez (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, Messirulez: I should block you for your user name. The only one who rules is Cruijff--and after him, Maradona. Ha! Drmies (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I can only agree, I still have no idea as to why I decided upon such an immature sounding user name! Being a Juventus fan, I would have to add Platini to that list, he was sublime to watch, his football was pure poetry. Diego was also incredible, an unforgettable although very controversial player who is still idolised in Napoli. Unfortunately I never had the pleasure of watching the great Cruijff play; I doubt video clips do him justice, although fortunately it is known to everyone that he completely revolutionised football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messirulez (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that so well, when he had put on weight, and Napoli was sponsored by Mars--and he looked like a little Mars bar, haha. What an amazing player. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Grandiose delusions

Hello! A couple of days ago you left a comment on our article on Grandiose delusions. The edits have been made and we would appreciate your feedback :) Thankx for the review :) Zoono92 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drmies! could you please kindly look at the page again! Thank you Very Much :) Zoono92 (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Drmies. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon (talk • contribs) 09:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Youvan

An edit of yours is discussed here, so you may want to have a look. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it's going to be another great day at Wikipedia. Maybe I'll stay away today. Thanks Guillaume--note that I have no opinion on the guy's notability, I just don't want Wikipedia to be a repository of resumes. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on Simulation in entertainment

Hey, Drmies (and/or talk page staplers), could I get you to take a look at this article? I'm thinking if sending to AfD; there doesn't really seem to be a single coherent topic (I'd say that "simulation" in reference to video games is very different from "simulation" in reference to movies), and it looks probable that there's some OR there too (though I haven't examined the article and followed the sources in-depth yet), but I'm not super-solid on either of my reasons, and I'd like a second opinion. I wanna try out this whole "deletion as a last resort" thing. :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, WikiDan went ahead and nommed it first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined at AfC for those very reasons. I agree that it's not a good article--if anything, it's an essay, and I'm sure many of the individual parts are discussed elsewhere from a more technical point of view. But today is not my day, so I'm staying away from the AfD, haha. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EW

What's with edit warring on tree? Just 'cause you didn't hit 3rr doesn't mean you weren't getting into a gray area there. As Sarek said to the guy in the WQA preceding Mark M's. Nobody Ent 21:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Slings and Arrows Barnstar

The Slings and Arrows Barnstar

I'm awarding this special barnstar to you in recognition of your continuing excellence as an editor and administrator, no matter what's thrown at you. Keep up the good work! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you. I thought of you today while I was thinking of Jimi Hendrix, specifically this album, which I have at home on vinyl somewhere. And then I thought I should send the CD to you as a birthday gift, but I don't know what you're birthday is and you're incognito on Facebook. So the best I can do tonight is dedicate this delicious walnut pesto to you, which I just made. Thanks Mandarax, and I hope you have a splendid evening and delicious sleeps. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me. Pesto sounds great. Is that a regular pesto with walnuts substituted for the pine nuts, or is it a more radical variation? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, though I wonder if pine nuts are actually required--see Pesto#variations. This one had parsley and walnuts, no pine nuts or basil, but it came out of an Italian recipe book. Tell you what, I spent more than half an hour peeling skins off the walnuts: next time I'm using pine nuts. And there's plenty left since of course the girls wouldn't eat it. Mandarax, that is a wonderful barnstar you made: thank you very much. But there are others who've suffered more from an outrageous fortune than me... Drmies (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was wondering, as I've seen recipes which use parsley instead of basil. I've been through the Three Stages of Parsley: first, it was a garnish to be pushed aside, then it was an herb used in small amounts for seasoning, and finally, I recognize it as a delicious vegetable. Walnuts... hazelnuts... you put in a lot of labor in the kitchen for your family.
And yes, although you're certainly deserving of a barnstar, the title of this one is a bit of overkill. I just saw that you weren't having the best WikiDay, the "slings and arrows" popped into my head, and I thought it would make a semi-timely-Olympicsish barnstar (although shockingly few centaurs are participating this year). Plus I wanted to see if I could make one with two balanced images, which I've unsuccessfully tried before (tables give me headaches). Yes, others have had to deal with much more in the way of "slings and arrows"; hopefully you won't ever have to! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Mitchell article

hope this is the right way to respond. i got your message; i will trim trim trim joe (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)joe[reply]

DRMIES: it's me again. i am going to withdraw the article and write a biography on john f. mitchell. he is one of the great giants of the 20th century and i want to tell his story fully. joe (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)joe[reply]

Oh, I have no doubt that he is and I would love to see his article in here. Don't withdraw it! You'll do him honor with a nice article, albeit a briefer one than you'll publish elsewhere but with a much bigger readership. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

60.169.77.119

Are you aware of this going on on other wikis?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, no--I saw one of those nominations of yours go by on Recent changes and followed the trail. I have no magic powers on those wikis anyway, but I gotta say, that "ekingseo" rings a way-back-when bell. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just blocked him on MediaWiki.org, so it may be a good idea to do so here too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Why you revert my changes? I introduced explanations for my changes on talk pages. Name “Territory of Military Commander in Serbia” have support from only one source that is published in 1971 (it is 40 years old). Do you think that this is what someone should promote all over Wikipedia? That name is disputed by most users. Also, two users that do not agree with me have not say why they remove this description from pages: “area governed by the Military Administration in Serbia”. This is neutral description that do not promote any name for territory. There should be argument why neutral description is bad before revert. Nemambrata (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your link redirects to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, indicating that for the main issue there is no consensus for your wording. That your wording is neutral has yet to be established. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok ...

... I did get a chuckle out of that — Ched : ? 15:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, my work is not always in vain. It's not often that I get to mess with Dennis Brown, who is turning out to be a total asset. You know what gives me a chuckle? My daughter playing with our new baby kitten. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awww... In related matters, since you haven't said, I take it Mrs Drmies is still with child? LadyofShalott 01:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, yes. Apparently the kid is huge already and his hair is still growing. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Herdman

Hi Drmies,

Problematic editing continues - perhaps semi protection is in order? There's still some crap in there which I can't remove as I am on a Droid which bogs down when editing long text blocks. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got it Cullen--thanks for the note. BTW, they played a great match, and that they'd lose in the last minute of the added time of overtime was tragic. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the best, Drmies. As for the game - sorry, but I don't care. I'm not a fan of the sport. I am, however, a fan of our BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could tell you how I feel about that but I also value our BLP policy. Hey Cullen, would you like a nice project to rack up another DYK? I just created a stub for Michael Blakey (anthropologist) which has some potential for American history buffs. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I just noticed that red link turn blue. Interesting. I'll jump into it after I'm done earning filthy luchre for the day and am near a real computer. You work fast, but then again, you are a perfessor and all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Plus, I'm sitting in my office pretending to work. Actually, I'm mastering a new genre: how does one express to one's boss in writing that the work situation is f***ed up and he needs to do something about it, without getting personal? And why do medievalists get shafted with teaching mandatory linguistics classes that no student wants to take--in a system where the only evaluation of our teaching is the student's evaluation, with raises and promotion depending on it? Not a happy camper, Drmies (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I'm facing a similar situation at my job (the first part; can't really sympathize with the linguistics classes), and I think my approach is going to be "eff it, go for it and have another job lined up for afterwards". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah you young people, with thoughts of the future and all that... People like me, we look forward to retirement and Alzheimer's so that we may forget the evil we have done and suffered. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venting

The previous section is now too long to edit with a Droid. No need to apologize as venting is therapeutic. I could tell you about the life of a self-employed contractor in the Great Recession. Start with the disappearance of 80% of one's net t worth accumulated through a lifetime of hard work and fill in the details. But in the end, life is beautiful so I won't complain. I would rather write encyclopedia articles than sell my soul to be rich, but I'm just a sentimental fool. Sorry about the travails of academic life. Dudley Perkins (motorcyclist). - any DYK potential? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, you're a better man than I am. My dad lost a lot as well and he just kept on working, as does my stepfather. In the meantime, I did complain and am somewhat reticent to check my email, since I kept quiet for a long time and am not in the habit of making my case in a more or less formal manner. I do think of myself as a team player, but there seems to be no me in this team (and if you remember my last name and its pronunciation that's actually funny). All the best to you and yours, Cullen. Keep the faith! Drmies (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other people's problems are always much easier to solve than my own. You give me your boss's email, and I'll give you my boss's email, and I bet we can "solve" each other's problems without breaking a sweat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a wacky comedy movie about that recently? I would pay good money to see Drmies star in a remake. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1960s decor

You're a groovy editor, would you be interested in helping expand this? That wallpaper looks like it belongs in Austin Power's shag pad! Yeah baby yeah!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm that groovy, Dr. Blofeld. That's the kind of topic that needs a bit of help from someone who knows the stuff and can do more than search for a couple of keywords. Have you considered asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Interior design? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its not exactly my forte either, but I do like 60s nostalgia in general!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User interested in Nazi Germany

I tried to save a keep vote on this and found it was deleted. Maybe a little bit too fast? Yes, it seems that this user has debatable motives and yes, the swastika is a disturbing symbol to many. But the subject area is of great importance and should have extensive coverage in Wikipedia. Respectable writers like Hugh Trevor Roper and William Shirer spent years on it, and many good editors work on aspects. The template, both the swastika and the wording, seem to me a reasonable way to advertise an editor's interest in the subject, and no editor should be ashamed of expressing an interest. Interest does not mean support. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we should discourage, even indirectly, work on subjects that we find distasteful. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth, you're kidding, right? We're making infoboxes with swastikas on it to attract editors or express support? This goes well beyond distasteful. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not kidding at all. The swastika is the Nazi symbol, like the hammer and sickle for Communism, the cross for Christianity and so on. The swastika appears on the covers of many books on the subject. Interest in a subject has nothing to do with support for the subject. If I wanted to advertise interest, this seems like a reasonable box. Of course, some ignorant children and neo-nazis will put it one their pages for shock effect. That is just graffiti. So what? I don't connect the decision on the template with Neogeolegend's activity, which can be discussed separately. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The holocaust may not have been a singular event, but the swastika is singularly shocking as a symbol. This kind of use of that symbol is disruptive, and I was not the only one to think so. You don't advertise your interest in Nazi Germany by putting a swastika on your userpage unless you're... fill in the blank. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There have been been many brutally oppressive regimes, many that have systematically killed people they wanted to remove. Accurate, neutral and factual coverage is important, lest we forget. The subject is what is shocking, not the symbol. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bullshit. Let's agree to disagree. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Changed my mind - see below. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't no the reason, but why you were so fast with closing the discussion. even you deleted the templates Template:User respects Erwin Rommel and Template:User admirs Nazi uniforms, they were not part of deletion talks.--Neogeolegend (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC) ‎[reply]

No they weren't, and they were almost as wrong. You are free to act out your Nazi fetishism all over the interwebz, but not here. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Good decision invoking IAR for those templates, I endorse it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BMK. No doubt this will be on ANI soon. But you know, I don't feel bad about scrapping a swastika and some totally wrong leather fetishism. For the record, I also admired Rommel--when I was eight. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will open a discussion in admin notice board regarding a template i will be created, don't be so fast with deleting.--Neogeolegend (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating Nazi shit. You don't understand the situation you're in: you're going to get blocked over this nonsense and then you won't even be able to say here how much you admire Nazis, let alone illustrate it. But please go ahead and open that thread--the sooner the better. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be on Deletion Review soon. You can blame me for that... not because I disagree with you (I don't), but it sounded like questioning the deletion was what neogeo really wanted in the AN discussion, and that's the wrong page for that. LadyofShalott 04:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see whether Georgewilliamherbert is willing to help Neogeolegend with that. Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd been around at the time, I'd have said not to precipitately close the discussion. This is exactly the result. Go and read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Findings of fact and the timeline that it links to. This is a dance that we've collectively danced before here at Wikipedia, and speedy deletions have been part of it. I've made a prediction for Georgewilliamherbert that he'll get into a wheel war over the block tool, based in part upon the conversation between the two of you at User talk:Rtc being a repetition of history too. I hope that none of the administrators reading this will be the other side of that wheel war.

Aymatth2, it's all about lapel badges. That's what userboxes basically are. If one were, say, working as a volunteer in a charity shop, one would rightly expect that if one turned up to work with a lapel badge with the Nazi flag on it, one would receive incessant complaints from other volunteers, especially those from countries where such stuff is illegal. One would reasonably expect such protests if one turned up to work naked, or dressed as Freddy Krueger and carrying a chainsaw, or similar. And this would be the case even if one's volunteer job were working in the Nazi memorabilia (or old VHS horror movie tapes, or back issues of Nature) section of the shop. If one insisted upon retaining the flag, even though there were alternatives that were at least slightly more scholastically oriented, then one would cause even more protests. There's very much a distinction between the encyclopaedia content and a badge that one wears on one's lapel in public, on a high profile WWW site in front of the whole world, while writing it.

One of these days, I'll write that charity shop analogy page.

Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle, I think you know me well enough to know that I am not going to get into a wheel war. Deleting the boxes was already a step out of the ordinary for me. My prediction (it was not a threat), of not hearing the end of it, was based on what other editors would do if he were to block rtc or escalate this any more. Incidentally, after I deleted those boxes I got an email warning me not to perform administrative actions and I'll be charitable and pretend that the rather patronizing (and exaggerated) message was well-intended. I said clearly enough, I thought, that I'd leave it to others to block. BTW, German law was one of the things on my mind; where I'm from also this is enormously offensive and not comparable to a hammer and sickle. The lapel analogy is very apt, I think: one does not showboat the swastika, it's as simple as that. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neogeoland is blocked indef -- that was pretty much inevitable, considering how far beyond the pale he was. Certsinly it was entirely predictable, which begs the question why wasn't he blocked when the first issue came up, when it was apparent things were gong to end up this way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it really needs to be said - but I'll say it anyway: "You have my support". — Ched : ? 14:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although not an admin, for what its worth, I support your action. I believe the deletion of the user boxes, as they were written and presented was the right call in the end. As I said, it they were changed to reflect an interest in the historical study of the time, that would be different. It is too bad that Neo, would not heed the advise of others before crashing. Kierzek (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G has a good point on the lapel badges, so I strike my original comment. Whatever the wording, I would not wear a badge with a swastika or put one on my user page. It would offend too many people. I suppose if I had a deep interest in the subject I might have a userbox saying something like "This user is interested in the history of Nazi Germany." But even that would likely attract hate mail and fan mail, neither welcome. Given the sensitivity, even advertising an interest would be too controversial. Thinking it over, I have to support Drmies. Whatever it looks like, the box is useless. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aymatth, thanks for your note. I appreciate it. For reasons I cannot exactly fathom this is an issue that I easily get a bit temperamental over, as you noticed, and my apologies for overstepping the bounds of courtesy, if you think I did. And it's the swastika, not the declaration of interest--I am also interested in the history of Nazi Germany but the very thought of advertising that with a swastika would never occur to me. I understand the point that was made about some cultural differences but disagree with the implications thereof. Anyway, the box is gone, the user is gone--now we have to finish this article on a Finnish SS officer. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean the one who oli suomalainen pappi ja jääkärieverstiluutnantti, joka palveli myös SS-Obersturmbannführer-arvoisena Saksan Waffen-SS-joukoissa? I may take a look. But right now it is time for a beer. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - ;) Drmies (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know you've just stomped one bee and left the hive untouched, right? Mogism (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suppose that's a rhetorical question but I dispute the underlying assumption: this was a bee from a slightly different hive. But thanks for showing me the way to that nasty armpit of the body politic as advertised by people who have graduated from MySpace to Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ugh. When I closed that AN discussion I was unaware of the previous anti-Israel edits and all the other nazi stuff. I was operating under the assumption that this was just some misguided kid. (I mean really, admiring the nazi uniform?) Clearly there really was more going on that that . This is not the first time I have wondered why we have social/political userboxen in the first place. Have they ever had a positive effect on anything? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll admit I was in the same position as Beeblebrox. Until he reverted Uncle G's solution, on a cursory look I thought he was kind of getting a raw knee-jerk deal by everyone. It's only when I looked into it in a little more detail that it started getting more and more obvious. I did my pennance, though. More article space edits (non-automated!) in one day than I probably had the last 6 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Since this is Drmies' user talk page, centre of popular culture editing in Wikipedia, I will point out that you should learn to count down properly. Everyone who watches television fiction and then writes it up in Wikipedia as fact knows that 5…4…3…2… is the proper form. (I almost didn't look at our floor manager article to see whether it said this.) Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blakey (anthropologist)

Hello Good Sir,

I added a few references including his current job, as we wouldn't want to list him at his 20th century post. In all honesty, I have only dipped my right big toe into the topic. Let's both whale away at it, and make it a halfway decent article. Others strive for featured articles, but I only want the ones I work on to be informative and reasonably accurate. Now, I must retreat to the master suite, and pay attention to Mrs. Cullen, who sends warm wishes your way. Good night (or good morning, if you already sleep). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, my thanks to you. You have done excellent work, as usual. I hope you treated Mrs. Cullen right. Incidentally, today is our ninth wedding anniversary, and I'll be painting doors in the new baby room to show my appreciation. I'll put the article up at DYK and will see about expanding it. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Anniversary! I massaged my wife's arthritic hip, which was sore due to excessive work in the garden. Mrs. Cullen and I will celebrate our 31st anniversary in a few weeks. I am planning to take her to a restaurant where we ate from time to time in the early years of our marriage. Since it was and is a good restaurant, it is still open. I envy you the opportunity to watch your daughter play with the "baby kitten". My sons are adults and our cats are elderly, but the simple pleasures remain a delight. I am also delighted that you continue to bring little ones into the world. Doors need painting, and all that.

As to matters Wikipedian, I have continued expanding the article about the fellow who likes to ponder bones. He seems like a most worthy gentleman, and so I thank you for inviting me to pitch in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Oswal

Good evening Drmies, Seeking your advice yet again. The Pankaj Oswal page has had some attention this past week. It was marked for speedy deletion by one editor, then Eric Haugen moved to undo that action. Tonight there have been vast sections of the page removed by another editor. I have left a message on Eric Haugen talk page as he very recently visited the page. I have just read the lenghty comments regarding this article. Hmm, there were over 110 references attached to the page which I used to offer comprehensive information on the subject. I provided source material from a variety of places, not just newspapers in an attempt to supply correct information. Not every source is complete by itself, but when taken in conjunction with other material offers a detailed amount of information on the subject. For the main gist of the page, I have taken great care not to write anything which has not been supported by some source article. There are some minor facts gleaned from social pages which I did not think worth attaching. My thoughts are that some changes where probably needed, certainly I welcome additional sourced information, but what I see tonight is the desire to remove the article almost entirely. Off course, this is what you saw in April when you reinstated much of the article. Good sir, your thoughts this time round? Best regards A fair go (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear A fair go, good evening to you too. I have also just read those comments and I'm sorry, but I agree with at least the gist of it. There are too many bad sources mixed in with the good, and the tenor of the article is much too negative for compliance with our BLP policy. There are good sources that were cut, no doubt, but those can be reinstated in a rewrite--one that will do justice to the facts and be fair. As it stood, the article suffered from WP:UNDUE weight and a fair amount of WP:SYNTH. Qwyrxian is an editor in whom I have good faith: I hope you will take this important matter up with them on the talk page and refrain from taking giant steps. It's important to do this slowly and carefully. All the best to you, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Drmies, hehe..no I always look and ask questions before taking giant steps. I have left a message on the talk page. So reference material is judged in different ways..I understand that, but I very much wanted to find information from a selection of different sources rather than just newspapers. In my mind the combination of sources gave a better overall picture of the subject. Given this is the first wikipedia piece that I have edited, I attempted to stick to a middle ground, but with this subject there are hundreds of additional articles some of which are very funny. If I suffered any temptation it was the hilarious articles, but for the most part I refrained from including those in the references. On the talk page I have asked for the page to be restored with suggestions, example (citation required) because I can often supply other references. For what it is worth I think the page simply could have been improved with dialogue and changes rather than reduced to stub. Anyway, that's the way it pans out sometimes. Thankyou for your time. Best regards A fair go (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The process you outline would probably work in most cases except for one like this--a biography of a living person. We have to err on the side of caution here. Good luck with it! Drmies (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:211.26.243.21

Hi Drmies. Could you take a look at this page? I think the 76.* IP is trolling (as is clear if you look at the diff he refers to). Maybe page protection is in order? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted again and warned him in the active thread on Nawlin's talk page. I believe you're right on the trolling, but I'd rather not protect that user talk page until after a next time. What is it, Nazi week? Thanks Malik, Drmies (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what that guy did with those images was bad. I was glad to learn it wasn't Tenebrae's image. But all I did was ask the him a question. Nothing more. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded questions are always "more". I think you're looking for something to give you some kind of leverage on Talk:List of African-American firsts. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you "think" is just that. Pure speculation. And this guy's not even involved in A-A firsts. So that makes no sense. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Tenebrae. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, pure speculation. A conspiracy theory, nothing more. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't post here anymore unless it's to notify me of the next call to a dramaboard: I've already given you more consideration than you deserve, and I'm sure you feel the same way. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Questia

Sign up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't the O. J. Murdock article redirected?

Why wasn't the O. J. Murdock article redirected?--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dear Jax, because there was no redirect target indicated that I saw a mention of his name in. That "current roster" didn't list him, at least not that I saw. You are free to make your own redirect. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that O. J. Murdock should have been redirected to History_of_the_Tennessee_Titans#2012 with the page history in tact. Suppose that someone created a redirect to Tennessee_Titans#Current_roster while Murdock's name was listed there. The redirect would likely not have been deleted per WP:CHEAP. Murdock's name is mentioned at History_of_the_Tennessee_Titans#2012.--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much in that deletion discussion on the redirect. You are welcome to create it. Why the history should be retained, given the cited 1E concerns, is not entirely clear to me but you are free to seek redress at Deletion Review--you are, essentially, stating that my closing was incorrect, so DR is the way to go. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Michael Blakey (anthropologist): suggested editing of hook

No major concerns, except hook being a bit too verbose. See Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Blakey (anthropologist) Churn and change (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. By the way, I mentioned and linked to this article on Facebook, and Sue Gardiner and three other Wikipedians "liked" it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FerrerFour

Please consider extending the block and blocking Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the editor I wanted a second opinion on. No such luck on IRC and bbb23 was out the door. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've extended to a week and revoked talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dennis.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just so it's clear, I am not asking for the extension and no-talk-page access because FF insulted me. I could care less. It's because he insulted an editor, any editor, and in rather aggressive style.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had a bunch of leaky things to fix. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First it was your pool and now it's your "leaky things". You're gonna run out of plumbing-related excuses.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's still the pool also--it needs vacuuming again. I still have a leaky faucet downstairs and another upstairs, a recalcitrant kitchen faucet and spray head, and some outdoor irrigational thingies to contend with. But this latest leak at least provided the key to another mystery: the water damage to the foyer ceiling. In other news: the kids may be flea-infested thanks to a careless friend, and my wife washed my pants. With my phone in the pocket. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you won't be able to make any dirty calls. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought you were unblocking a toilet.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The leak I fixed was in the toilet tank, yes. Oh, also, the cat (supposedly an outside cat!) pissed in one of the kids' beds. But my colleague is coming by tonight and we'll be drinking ridiculously expensive beers. See "Venting", above: he's on the job market this year, and I'm looking too. Any of you need a resident medievalist? I'm not talking for less than $80,000. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, our budget this year for medievalists is $75,233 Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd grab it, Drmies. Translated into present dollars, depending on which medieval year you pick, it's a ton of money. You could afford to hire a plumber.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm too Dutch to hire someone to do what I can do myself. Thanks BMK, I'll look forward to the job ad in the MLA list. Drmies (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually advertise in the MLA list, since the job is to be a family medivalist. We just want you to be at our beck and call to sit by the fireside and regale us all with stories about the Middle Ages, to help us feel vastly superior to our ancestors. (Actually, you're lucky the job is still available -- would you believe that last year our accountant actually questioned whether we really needed a medivalist on the payroll at all? But my feeling is that you've got to counter the post-modernist guy we've got with something.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hairstyles in the 1980s

How about this? LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need expanding. I don't care what anyone says, the 1980s were the peak of American fashion, although my mullet was not nearly as bodacious as the example given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Dennis, I know you love showing off your mullet. Your photo has been making the internet rounds for years. Had to laugh at the scrunchies. My sister had hundreds of the those. Bgwhite (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was a musician in country and rock bands for many years, starting the 1980s. So, guilty as charged. At least I didn't have Conway Twitty hair, or the polyester suit. [2] Although I love his music... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I clicked on it with Mrs. Drmies sitting next to me. This has done irreparable damage to my marriage--I might never see another want to in her eyes. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tree

I don't believe any consensus has been reached on which version of Tree to retain. Mark Marathon has returned the page to its original version. Is this what you had in mind as the future of the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Wikipedia dictators

You'll enjoy watching this one. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, if anyone is turning this into a "centre of popular culture editing in Wikipedia", it's you, dear Uncle. BTW, breakfast is almost ready. What would you like on your pancake? Also: what a poor writer: "Yet another dictator and I suspect you´re American as well!"--strange shift of perspective, or maybe they think SineBot is really Sine and Bot, a dictator and an American, respectively. But Sine separate from Bot, that's like mac without cheese. Oops, I'm giving myself away as an American. Drmies (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mannus Franken

On 11 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mannus Franken, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1935 film Pareh bankrupted both of its directors, Albert Balink and Mannus Franken? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Albert Balink

On 11 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert Balink, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1935 film Pareh bankrupted both of its directors, Albert Balink and Mannus Franken? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Paul van Ass

On 11 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul van Ass, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Paul van Ass, the coach of the Dutch men's hockey team at the 2012 Olympics, generated controversy by not selecting "T&T" for the squad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul van Ass. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Stanford

Talk:Cliff Stanford#Additional Information with citations

JzG is happy. Please have a look and provide your opinion. Talk page watchers are also welcome, of course. Uncle G (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JzG's happiness matters, but yours is more important. Have you taken her to dinner yet? I thought of you yesterday: I had brought back one delicious bottle of Belgian beer from DC, which my colleague and I drank yesterday. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]