Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.254.128.245 (talk) at 19:08, 8 April 2013 (→Thanks: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Here's something rather astonishing

I was just watching a BBC television programme, What Do Artists Do All Day, which featured a taxidermist called Polly Morgan. She built a replica of Gonsales's Engine complete with flying gansas, which apparently sold for about £90,000. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow...what did it look like? Real? You think it might have worked? Oh, I tried to find an edition of Godwin in Powell's but may not have looked in the right sections (the store occupies an entire city block). I don't want to read it online and I've asked my boss, but I was wondering what you were reading. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pity--the BBC iPlayer doesn't work on my side of the Atlantic... Drmies (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reading the online edition here. The Engine was only on screen for a second or two, but it looked very much like the book illustration. Would it have worked? I doubt it, as all of the "gansas" were stuffed. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished reading the book and topped up the Plot summary. The story ends rather abruptly in China with Gonsales sending a letter home to Spain, a bit odd really. The book is only 47 pages long, not 70 as I said earlier; the last part is an entirely different story, A Journey of Several English Merchants from Oratava in Teneriff ..., which is unconnected with Gonsales's story.
"The language Gonsales encounters on the Moon bears no relation to any language on Earth, and it takes him months to acquire enough fluency to communicate properly with the inhabitants." I'm not sure I entirely agree with this introduction to the Lunar language section. Gonsales makes the point that the Chinese spoken by the mandarins is very like the language spoken by the Lunars. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My boss doesn't have a copy. I'll keep looking. I'll check the source on the language bit. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK--I based this on a quote from Gonsales, early on, "because it hath no affinitie with any other that ever I heard." I overextended the range. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are. Thanks. I'm printing out the linked version; I wish I had an edited version, but I'm not about to drop $20 on the Broadview (a press which, by the way, I like a lot, and I'd trust their edition). Drmies (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is one slowly developing narrative. Foreseeing WiFi, though, is a nice touch. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus--on the topic of language, I came across this, Silbo Gomero language. Pity Gonsales wasn't temporarily delayed by those natives. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the section above I was wondering which Portland you were in, but Powell's nails it: OR. One of my favorite US cities and not just because I have some great friends there. Free public transportation, for one. And I'm a card-carrying member of a church there (the First Church of Elvis... :-)). Powell's is awesome, wish I could spend a few days or a week in there... (Although that might clutter up my house even more with books than is already the case). --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not free, Randy, but cheap: $5 for a day pass. I spent $150 at Powell's, almost all of it on modern fiction that "rubbishes romantic love" (Lust). Sex will never be the same again. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh no, did they change that? A few years ago it was still completely free (at least in the city center). Still, 5 bucks is indeed not much for a day pass. As for books, I'm afraid that my interests are rather limited apart from work-related stuff and newspapers: since I was 13, I only read science fiction (and my collection is now nearing 40 stretching meters... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read through the whole book now I'm rather puzzled by the introduction (page 6 of the 2nd edition), which says this: "... his going on board an India ship bound for Europe; his safe arrival in his own country, where he made his discoveries to the King of Spain, who held several cabinet councils to deliberate on a proper use of these discoveries", but none of that appears in the book. What do you think is going on? Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll finish reading tomorrow--today was a long day and my brain is fried (too much Herta Muller and leveling in Middle English). I am puzzled by the introduction as well and will look at it again when I'm done with the whole thing--it's one of the reasons I wanted to look at a modern edition, and I may order one through ILL. As a matter of fact, I was hoping the Wikipedia article would clear up one of the things that bothered me. The irony! Drmies (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That introduction also calls the gansas "geese", whereas Gonsales describes them as swans. My suspicion is that the introduction was written by the publisher, not by Godwin, trying to tie the two stories together, but I don't have access to the first edition. Of course nobody else does either, but that's by-the-by. Malleus Fatuorum 05:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You two have seen this article, right? I keep wondering whether he was thinking of the Sanskrit word that can refer either to a goose or a swan, hansa, but the date is so early it's more likely the answer lies in the Latin, which the article seems to say preceded the English? I went looking for discussion of the Latin version and found nowt. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting of comments

Sorry about the reformatting; I sometimes indent comments in order to make them easier for readers to discern at a glance. I didn't think you'd mind. Nightscream (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your note. Occasionally I like to stick my "keep" or "delete" in the swing of things, to make it look less like a vote and more like a conversation. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK...

that the banjo is a symphonic instrument? I saw the evidence tonight as the composer performed his Concerto for Banjo and Orchestra: The Imposter with the UGA Symphony Orchestra. It was followed by an encore of improvised variations on "Happy Birthday" + "Dueling Banjos" + "Theme from The Beverly Hillbillies" (and all that followed the orchestra's playing of Debussy and Bernstein). The universe conspired to make me hear this fine music by not having me work my usual evening this week and then throwing a free ticket at me. Life is good. LadyofShalott 02:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some cookies!

Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi Drmies, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted me?

I see you quoted me on your userpage. Would you mind removing it?--MONGO 18:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please send me a message or email regarding a deletion you processed, I would like some detail to prevent it from reoccurring pappat708 at Hotmail.com or on talk Thanks,--Pappat708 (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eine Frage

Though my first interaction with you wasn't so great on my end (for which I apologize), I have come with a question. Feel free to redirect me if you feel that's best. I'm trying to beef up Marlen Haushofer and her novel The Wall, but most of my sources are auf Deutsch. (I know the pages both need other work besides, citations, etc.) Now, I have no problem translating appropriate quotes for use from academic articles (from JSTOR and the like), but do you know how in the heck I would cite such a thing (my own translating of the material, that is)? I've looked around (maybe not enough), and all I can find is WP:NONENG, which basically just said it's okay to use Wikipedia-editor translations if others aren't available. Again, I'm sorry to bother you, and I apologize for my earlier brashness. I'm constantly trying to reign in the snark on my end, and sometimes I do a less than stellar job. Icarus of old (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I do this all the time. Summarise whenever possible; include the original in the footnote where you quote in your own translation, and where the statement may be surprising or contentious; use what English translations there are, as alternate renderings if you don't think they are so great; and footnote to what English sources there are, a bit more generously than you would based on what they add. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I appreciate it! Icarus of old (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have little to add to Yngvadottir's advice, except for this: thank you for your note, which was kind and gracious. I saw that you had made an edit to Lust, for which I thank you also: that article was unbecoming and you have made it better. Please feel free to drop by any time--and to correct me when I am wrong and admonish me when I'm impatient, which all the talk page stalkers know happens frequently. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MoscowConnection

He's over at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apparently I'm marked by 2channel. Being wiki-stalked, character assassination, wholesale reverts, just thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey 21:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grundläggande kunskaper

Jag vet ju att holländarna är fullkomligt tokiga med alla sina språk, men är inte "grundläggande kunskaper i svenska" att gå lite väl långt? Vad ska du ha dom till? Bishonen | talk 22:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

  • I take "basic" quite literally, dear Bish. "Basic" is advanced enough to understand (most of) what you just wrote; to get directions to Kävlinge and to learn that I mispronounced the initial sound (of course); to find the Pripps Blå in the supermarket; et cetera. I will gladly admit that I couldn't write a word of this in Swedish, and that my sj was meager (though not terrible--it's found in my uncle's family name). But hey, if I manage to seduce a woman in a given language, I'll consider that advanced. To be young and randy again... Drmies (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. The source of the family name is a red link even on the Swedish wiki: Skapar Viksjö, Borgholms kommun. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[/me is in a frenzy of envy at the sheer number of Drmies' babelboxes. Mentally lists the languages in which she herself might conceivably seduce someone. Would it be fair to include Danish and Norwegian? Yes! Why the hell not! But the list is still pathetically short.] Now I'm sad. But at least I'm still randy. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
"pathetically short..."--that's what she said, I suppose, in Swedish. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kiefer, we need to look into this. I thought all Pripps Bla was Lättöl--the article doesn't confirm that. Plus it needs a major overhaul. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Swedish beer (or what my Danish friends refer to as Swedish piss) comes in at least four alcohol-grades: Lättöl (2.2%, I think, available at university cafeterias), 2.8%, 3.5%, and higher (State monopoly). Fil has some alcohol, but printing it would benefit from scientific notation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text almost entirely quotes

...Mostly from plaques: 14th New Jersey Volunteer Infantry monument. What to do? LadyofShalott 03:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InSystems Corporation

Hey Drmies, I came across InSystems Corporation during NewPage patrol at Articles for creation/InSystems Corporation (in article space at that name). I moved it to the page it's at now but upon further inspection I'm not sure if it should perhaps be moved into AfC space. I can't find any evidence of it being in AfC space to begin with (looking at the authors contribs). I'm not quite sure what's happened but I suspect perhaps that the author has simply created the article and added the AfC tags to avoid it being deleted? I want to WP:AGF on this so I thought I'd ask an admin to take a looksee at it Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked User:Edgar181 to have a look at this and directed him here. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta tell ya, I know very little about AfC (anymore)--how things start, how they get moved, etc. I looked at the history but that's above my pay grade and my brain is clogged up today anyway. More important to me is the current state of the article and its subject, and it seems like a case of A7 to me. Thanks, and sorry I'm useless, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my first instinct was it was A7 material but I didn't want to step on the toes of a reviewer who had moved it. Could you delete the redirect at Articles for creation/InSystems Corporation and I'll see if I can chase up someone more familiar with the AfC process. Thanks for the help regardless, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it looks like this is what happened. The OP created it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/InSystems Corporation at first, which was correct. However, they saw the "Wikipedia talk:" and that didn't look right to them (judging by their summary of "Was in wrong section"), so they moved it into the mainspace article Articles for creation/InSystems Corporation, which was incorrect, but understandable since having drafts be placed in the Wikipedia talk namespace does look weird to the untrained observer. Then, the ArticlesForCreation bot came along and, seeing that a page was moved from its normal place in WT:AFC to mainspace, thought the article had been accepted, and (incorrectly) fixed up the request review template, to make it seem as if the article had been accepted. Then you came along, seeing that the article appeared to have been accepted (due to AFCBot's edits) and moved it to what would've been the correct title, removing the "Articles for creation/" prefix. Now, since the article is certainly not ready for primetime, I'd suggest reverting back to the edit before Abrooke moved it (this one), moving the page back to its original location at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/InSystems Corporation (which shouldn't require an admin; anyone should be able to move it over the redirect), reinstating any edits by Abrooke that might've been lost in the revert, and dropping Abrooke a line on their talk page, letting them know that, yes, "Wikipedia talk:" is the right place for it, despite how weird it looks. Cheers, Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC) (PS: I'd do it myself, but every time I try to help someone out with page moves, I get snark from a certain unnamed someone about my sex life, so no thanks. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WK, well done. BTW, it's quite understandable: that "talk" part is a bit confusing. You'd make a great detective and I promise you I will make no shitty remark about your sex life (which I couldn't anyway...) for another year. My apologies. Also, check your inbox--I sent you a flyer full of Romanian women who really, really love you. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A very odd sequence of events, good detective work. I've started moving it but I need an admin to delete Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/InSystems Corporation so I can move it back to there since that page exists as a redirect Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks for the help everyone Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's close enough; I'll go through and see if there are any redirects to untangle. As for teachers, well, that depends on the teacher. Most did, but some I challenged during class a bit too much for their comfort. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


bad edit conflicts. 3 or 4 4 or 5 times only on that page -.-...
By the way: we track wrongly moved pages at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wrongly moved submissions. mabdul 16:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - AfC submissions always go in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace because after a bit of kerfuffle years ago, it's the only way for IPs to create anything. Cheers to Mabdul for sorting it. And yes, it would be a prime candidate for the A7 blunderbuss in mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wouldn't 'A7 it simply because somebody paid very much for the company... mabdul 16:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see that. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Ben Domenech

I edited this article because it seems to have become a dumping ground for people who dislike Ben Domenech. The sections on his plagiarism and resignation are overly long and frequently repeat themselves. Considering the enormous number of dead links on this page, the plagiarism scandal and its fallout should probably be rewritten into a paragraph instead of nine. We should use the sources that still exist and are reliable. The Washington Post, NYTimes, and NRO articles are still mostly extant. Each should be cited once and left at that. I've covered some more of the problems below, but there are several things asserted on the Domenech bio that-- while they may be true-- are unsourced because of dead links.

Textual Problems: The New Ledger no longer exists.

  • "He was also involved in a journalism scandal that resulted in the removal of his work from The Washington Examiner when it was found he was paid by the Malay government to write opinion pieces without disclosing the relationship."

According to the articles linked (and the legal documents they linked to), Domenech was not hired by the Malaysian government, he was hired by consultants hired by corporations linked to the Malaysian government, specifically "APCO and the David All Group and FBC Media". Unless there is a quote to the contrary, we don't know what precisely Domenech knew, unfortunately. According to the Washington Examiner's editorial guidelines, his work should be removed from their site, because he was paid by a third party to write it. But, that is only referenced in cite 7. I contend that this should be moved into a "controversy/scandal" section below.

  • "Domenech said in his Washingtonpost.com bio that he was the youngest political appointee of the George W. Bush administration, although this claim could not be independently verified."

This is problematic, because it reflects information posted on the Washington Post, a good source, but it reflects information that he provided to the editorial staff. That being said, given the subsequent investigations of Domenech's writing, one would think that any lying on his part regarding his status as the "youngest political appointee" would be found out, which is why I removed the words "although this claim could not be independently verified", as it deviates from Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It may be best to erase the sentence entirely if there is any doubt.

The "Career" section should probably be broken up into "career before accusations", "scandal", and then "subsequent career" (some similar phrasing).

Ben Domenech has attracted a fair number of minor scandals. There are enough of them that I believe they warrant their own section. Perhaps a paragraph on the Washington Examiner/Coretta Scott King scandal (and the John Neuhaus scandal if we can find working sources) and another paragraph covering the plagiarism scandal.

Citation Errors:

  • 1- Dead link
  • 9- Dead link
  • 10- The first link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website. The second link works.
  • 11- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.
  • 12- His bio says no such thing, unfortunately. It'll need to be sourced elsewhere.
  • 14- Dead link
  • 17- Link goes to a personal blog.
  • 18- Dead link
  • 19- Dead Link
  • 20- Dead link
  • 25- Same as 23.
  • 26- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.
  • 27- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.
  • 28- This link redirects to the Flat Hat front page. I cannot find the story on the Flat Hat website.
  • 32- Dead link.
  • 34- Dead Link
  • 35- Dead link

This may be incomplete, but I think it's a start to cleaning up this page.

Bobby newmark81 (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Tomorrow I'll make sure to go over the article again and more clearly justify my edits. I'll include these on the talk page. Bobby newmark81 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cavalry and calling in thereof

Hey, Drmies, here's the situation. Plasmid203 (talk · contribs) (real name evidently Christine Clark) is a new user who's trying to create an article on Edgar S. Cahn. She is apparently a volunteer working for his organization, and has been tasked by him to write a sort of "autobiohgraphy by proxy" as the Wikipedia article. She had (or has) some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works, and I and another user (Jason Quinn (talk · contribs), if you're wondering) are talking things over. She's been pretty receptive, which is good; any insight you can provide her would be welcome, of course. More important, though, is the article itself. Mr. Cahn definitely seems notable to me, but the article just isn't up to scratch in my eyes. I've found what look to be pretty useful newspaper articles on Highbeam, and what I'd really like to do is work with Ms. Clark to make an article more in line with Wikipedia's policies. Obviously, being the total content weakling I am, I could use some help in this endeavor; would you (and/or any talk page stalkers) be interested in taking a look and/or pointing me at someone who would? I might have bitten off more than I can chew (I still curse the day they ran out of the free Highbeam account handouts 4 names before me). Writ Keeper (t + c) 03:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh, well, you know, I even turned down the sound on the TV for this. Did I ever tell you that, eh, you know, I don't really know what Highbeam is? Is it important? Can't we run Wikipedia powered by the local library, ILL, and JSTOR? (I like to aim high.) Also, who told you you could end a sentence with a (compounded!) preposition? Not Malleus! Drmies (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I merely follow in the footsteps of Fowler, that great god of grammar. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Sean Connery said in some movie, "What are you prepared to do?" Tackle Time banking? and Time-based currency? (Time Dollars is just a redirect, evidently not your subject's invention--if Wikipedia is a reliable source, as ref 8 of your subject's article suggests) Drmies (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is practice for your dissertation: prune. Also, there is no verification that they founded the Antioch School of Law. They may well have--neither our Wikipedia article on the subject or on the school verifies it. Answer: get back to basics. Can this basic fact by verified and established? If not, the whole section should be cut, since it's an unverified claim to greatness, if you will. Drmies (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • His faculty page at the UDC site gives: "A co-founder with his late wife Jean Camper Cahn of the Antioch School of Law, UDC-DCSL's predecessor; the first law school in the United States to educate law students primarily through clinical training in legal services to the poor."  davidiad { t } 11:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • The lead should summarize the main article, not linkspam for its subject. It needs to be trimmed to include only that which is verified. If this person is that notable you won't need Highbeam: Google Books and News should establish it. Bedtime, WK. Drmies (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd situation, second eyes

Some long time ago, I CSD/PRODDED/AFDed/something Bilal Khan (singer). It was later recreated, and I AFDed it, and that second AFD was heavily sockpuppeted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bilal_Khan_(singer). Today, a redirect appeared on my watchlist under that name, redirecting to Bilal Khan. That article was originally created PRIOR to the the article previously discussed, but on a different person with the same name. After the other article was deleted, the content of the second article was gutted, and replaced with content from the deleted article, which I find highly suspicious, especially as such heavy socking was involved in that article. I CSDed it g4, and the article creator reverted. I replaced it per CSD rules. It has subsequently been declined by Syrthiss. From the page history, I see that you have also interacted on this version of the article. What do you think is the proper action? I've read the sources now used, and they are really borderline imo. He was a contestant on a reality show but that does not satisfy music notability in itself. There are a few stories from http://tribune.com.pk/ linked. One does not mention him at all (but does mention two other unrelated people with the last name Khan). The other two mention him in passing. This is insufficient for musicbio IMO, but I don't want to just be a dick about it if i'm being swayed by the past history. Your opinion is welcome. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up just making an AFD again to get a wider point of view. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a favour

Would you mind renaming Catholic Emancipation to Catholic emancipation for me? I can't do it myself because of the redirect, and I'm insufficiently mature to be trusted with such magical powers. Apparently. Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Done. It seems silly that adding {{R from other capitalization}} in a second edit to the page should prevent you from moving another article over it... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. It's a small thing I know, but for some reason small things like that, which ought to be so easy to fix, grate on me. As does the fact that I'm not sufficiently trusted to do those small things myself. Especially since I doubt that even my worst enemy would claim that I've ever done anything to damage any article. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, broadly speaking. There are an awful lot of things only admins can do; and there are others who would be far more capable than me of, for example, merging histories (I have yet to dare try.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found merging histories easier than I feared, but I haven't had to do very difficult ones (with splits etc in them). Malleus, you are too optimistic: did you not duke it out with some editor over the inclusion of some minutiae in an article on a Manchester canal or waterway? Then again, maybe you're right: we can easily imagine what your next RfA will look like. If blocking were to be treated separately from deleting, for instance, we'd take some possible "personal" angles out of the bit, and your next RfA would pass with 80% or so. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks Ed. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I "dook it out" with one editor or another most every day it seems, but there will never be a "next RfA", under any circumstances. I find that I don't need snotty-nosed kids telling me how immature I am. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, Malleus, you don't want to say that small kids can say what you should do and hat not? mabdul 02:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The environment here is not one I'd like anyone to think I approved of. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for that sentence: has your account been hijacked? Or has the pro-Israel lobby infected you as well? Which reminds me: I picked up a little book, The Elements of Grammar, a style guide from the 60s or so. Guess what--it's not about grammar at all. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're a peach

I noticed that my name wasn't mentioned anywhere on your talk page, and that can not stand. I've been so scarce lately, I've been missing our occasional chats, which I always find helpful. I did find the time to snap some shots of the blossoms on my peach tree, which are coming out by the hundreds, and thought you might appreciate it. I do hope things are going well for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is mentioned every time anyone edits his talk page. The blossoms are pretty, but they're wasted on Drmies as he lives in an area that also has a real spring. You should've sent them to me (harumph). After all, I live in semi-desert where most of the non-desert flowers are imported/cultivated/computer generated.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to overcome my bitter, bitter jealousy of people who are already experiencing spring, so as not to violate WP:CIVIL. Your picture at right reminds me of an experience a few years ago, as I drove with my family from New England to Orlando in 2 days. The switch from winter to spring was accelerated dramatically, and every hour I spent driving corresponded to 2-3 days of seasonal progression. It was so quick it was disorienting; from snow on the ground, to signs of the first buds on the trees by the afternoon of the first day, new leaves and flowers (like these!) by the beginning of the second day, and full frontal greenery by the time we hit Atlanta. You're probably gardening already; I have to wait another month or so. (*wanders off muttering under his breath about how unfair the world is*) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the future, WP:CIVIL, or at least its traditional meaning, is suspended on this talk page. Besides, you have no reason to bitch; at least you have a spring, even if it's later.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, thanks for your note and the picture. That is lovely. It is indeed spring here though our garden probably does not look much like yours, and that fence is still not done (threw my back out a few weeks ago, and the cement comes in 50 pound bags). Floq, I don't know (or remember) where you live, but if that place has a fair tax code, decent gun laws, and bike lanes I'll trade with you. Do you know how to take care of a pool? Drmies (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, a colleague of mine posted a childhood photo on FB taken when she was 10; there's a beautiful "powder blue Ford Falcon convertible" in the background and it made me think of you. Floq, CIVIL is not enforced on this talk page, though it is a happy place, so incivility directed toward the wrong person is punishable, yes. But if you want to cuss at your climate, you have my blessing. Just don't think I chose to live in Alabama just to piss you off, or that I even really "chose" to live here. We go where the jobs are, as The Style Council told you years ago on Our Favourite Shop. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't going to be uncivil to the weather, I was considering being uncivil to Dennis. But I'll be good.
  • Fair taxes: Good lord no (well, depending on what you consider "fair")
  • Decent gun laws: Yes (well, depending on what you consider "decent")
  • Bike lanes: Better than average, but nowhere close to Portland-level.
As you can see from my user page, I'm a Pacific Northwest transplant, being held against my will in the Northeast due to my company's refusal to open a branch office in Seattle. Bastards. And yes, I know how to take care of a pool, but one of the happiest days of my life was selling the house with the pool, and buying one without a pool. Especially up here, where it's too cold to open before Memorial Day, it takes about a month to get it to turn from green to blue, and then it's a daily grind fucking with the chemicals, and then the leaves start falling into it and you have to close it up in September. 2.5 months of use for a year's worth of heartache. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sales tax, not so fair. Property tax, fair. Income tax, fair. Gun laws, completely restrictive. Portland, heavenly. I loved it. Between you, me, and the lamp post, I once interviewed with Reed College. I didn't get the job--but maybe that wasn't bad, in hindsight, since it was a one-year position. Send me the information and I'll write a letter to that bastard CEO of that bastard company. Pool, our girls have been swimming already; I'll be in next weekend, I suppose. There are visitors to this talk page who have listened to me whine about my green swamp; let's hope this year will be better. I think there's a pic in the archive somewhere. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Floq, lots of people with blue hair and RVs start up in Maine when the leaves start changing colors each fall, and then when they are at the peak, start driving south and camping out so they can enjoy a month of perfect leaf colors. Leafers running through NC on the way to their condo in Florida, doing what you experienced on purpose. Actually, kinda sounds like fun, as I like RVing, smores and outdoors in general. As for Alabama, Drmies, I go to our factory there from time to time, usually in July or August, to a factory in a town with one blinking light and no air conditioning. You guys have great winters, but brutal summers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-admitted socking

Hi, per User_talk:Sitush#Merging_of_Ramdasia_page_with_Chamar_page, TimesGerman is Bal537. I understand their concern regarding outing and they have not edited as Bal537 since 20 March. The problem is, they were using both accounts prior to that time and on the same article (Chamar). I thought I was dealing with two different people until their post on my talk page, and there is no indication on either user account that they have another account. Should Bal537 be blocked, bearing in mind their admission and their rationale? Just to prevent the thing being used at some point in the future. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's not right, but I'm not really sharp today and that business of dropping one account and starting another, I can't come up with the proper acronyms. It doesn't look, at first glance, that they used the two accounts to edit-war with you in that article, but that Bal account needs something done to it. Maybe Bbb23, who's much cleverer than me with policy, has an answer. Sorry Sitush--it's not a great day for me, haha, and I have only myself to blame. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor did more than drop one account and start another. Bal537 was created on January 30, 2008; it has 506 edits over the years. TimesGerman was created on July 6, 2012; it has 141 edits. The editor has used both accounts since July 6, 2012. I have no idea why, but I can't see any legitimate use for doing so. Short of opening a SPI, the best solution would be to connect the accounts per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. However, the editor claims they stopped using Bal537 "because someone was able to find my personal information using that" user name. Assuming good faith, perhaps the editor uses that name off-wiki. One thing you (Sitush) could do would be to watch the Bal537 account and make sure that the editor doesn't start using it again. If they do, I'd file a report. Someone who knows more about sock puppetry than I do may have more light to shed on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy editing

What's the best way to deal with sloppy editing? User:FoCuSandLeArN is making 100-300 edits a day and his work is exceptionally sloppy. He has "copy edited" 135 articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2013 and has reviewed a wopping 852 articles at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/March 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. His emphasis on speed and quantity has left his work qualityless. I've raised these issues on his talk page at User talk:FoCuSandLeArN#Comment regarding your articles (which links to User talk:Ironholds#Pull an autopatrolled tag?) and User talk:FoCuSandLeArN#Slow the heck down. He has no intention of attempting to contribute high quality work, instead he complains that he deserves respect. His sloppy editing is just as dangerous to the encyclopedia as vandalism is, possibly more so because vandals are reverted and work at a much slower rate. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. That is, by the way, an irritating user name--I've noticed that before. I think I had to type it once, and then a few times more. I've deleted the two copyvios you signaled and read the discussion on that other editor's talk page. I'd rather not post there, but there is no way in which any article "requires" empty sections. If you could make a list of say a half a dozen articles (in all) with some brief notes, that would be helpful. As for the Backlogging, you should probably take that up with the folks who run that show; they'd be the ones to utter judgment and decided what to do. For now, I will say that I share your concern. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do a real search through some articles tomorrow, but for now I'll just point out improper A1 tags here and here. Terrible copy edit here (didn't bold the title of the article in the opening sentence and wrote "food which especially made for Easter" He also left the title of the article misspelled in the body, which isn't acceptable in a copy edit, especially for an article that short. I'll run over to the GOCE and let them know what's up. Ryan Vesey 06:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, by the way I love this "Is this some kind of personal attack", boy this editor worries me more and more. Would it be reasonable to set a x edits a day limit if it comes down to a point where sanctions are necessary? Ryan Vesey 06:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose--but you'd have to set clear limits for them and get them approved by consensus on that talk page. Not an easy thing, Ryan--good luck with it. It is a worrisome list you made. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I've started collecting problematic edits at User:Ryan Vesey/Focusandlearn. I'm probably being a bit nitpicky in some instances. At what point should I take this from a one man job to the larger community? The issue was only recently brought up, so I'd assume we need to make sure similar edits continue into April, but is an RfC/U the first step here? Ryan Vesey 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted you

Hi Drmies. FYI, I quoted you here. Please correct me there if I misquoted you or quoted you out of context. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for removing the disruption.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me?

Disruptive how? I made a mistake, I was unaware that article passed GNG. Also I feel I am being harassed by a Pro-Israel person right now because of an AfD mistake. But I really resent you saying I made a disruptive edit, when it was a mistake and I didn't know it passed GNG. IronKnuckle (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I am not kidding you. You may want to walk by User_talk:The_Bushranger#Sockmaster and leave Bushranger some flowers, since they're nice enough to refrain from blocking you indefinitely. Nice little sock farm you have, by the way: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of IronKnuckle. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's old stuff. I have been calmly and unbiasedly editing MMA articles, and the safe act articles. I also noticed The Bushranger has this decal on his page saying he supports Israel. I feel there is a huge conflict of interest here, but Israel related articles should not get special treatment. Wikipedia is not a place for Zionism. IronKnuckle (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • IronKnuckle, where idiots like you get bullshit like that from is a never-ending source of amazement, if not amusement. Tell you what, I support Israel too--take that as an invitation to not come back to this talk page again. I can't believe I went to bat for you; that probably makes me an idiot too. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh no, Drmies, you are not an idiot. Instead, you are a good administrator who goes out of your way to assume good faith. In my estimation, this user has now used up his reservoir of that precious commodity, and I predict that his editing career here on Wikipedia may well be coming to an end. Peace to you, my friend. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the barn star. Happy as always to provide a morale boost. I was sitting down to a fishy dinner: spicy tuna sushi, grilled Albacore, salmon sashimi, plus asparagus and brown rice. When I finished and returned to the World's Greatest Encyclopedia, I saw that my crystal ball is still functioning. Bronze Knuckles is no longer with us. Some trajectories are SO obvious. Are you sure you aren't Jewish? Conspiracy theories would be neater if you only were. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, because AGF is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment. NE Ent 12:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IronKnuckle, gone? Good riddance. He was harder to dispose of than his namesake. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been beer blocked

You have been beer blocked for 48 hours for incivility. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are banned from all alcoholic beverages except warm Old Milwaukee this weekend, which really doesn't count as beer anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate telling you what you already know, which is why I try to inject a little humor in it, but in the interest of fairness to admin/nonadmin (as someone else has pointed out) I felt that an admin needed to address the issue without regard to the bit. Admin/nonadmin relations are a touchy subject around here (often, for good reason), so I try to insure we are even handed in how we address "problems". I'm pretty sure you already knew why I did what I did, but maybe that will clear it up for anyone who didn't: it was about parity for admin/nonadmin. Any admin who would have blocked any editor for that, well, they would have been overreacting on a grand scale. Speaking of Duke, my niece just got accepted at Duke, but think she is going to NC State. Valedictorian at a magnet school and she received one of the 48 full boat scholarships given by State. Oh, and niece on my wife's side, she obviously has none of my gene pool. Kid is scary smart. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melodrama much?

The ANI thread is a hint it's time to log off for a few days. In this part of the country it looks like a great weekend so I'll be following my own advice in a little bit. NE Ent 12:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

My comment was slightly tongue in cheek (as you were not actually blocked) and more intended to air my continuing grievances of the abuses that took place from a certain element. I regret that you took it personally; it was not intended to be a slam at you. My articles do attract people who are perhaps overly fixated at their point of view prevailing, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I regret that you took it personally." Aaahh, classic, can I add it to the essay? Bishonen | talk 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wehwalt, my apologies if I was too sensitive. I will tell you that I have been wondering, though, about that very same thing--the cabal, cadre, call it what you will. It is quite easy to abuse a position (one doesn't need to be an admin to have a coterie, of course--all one needs is a coterie of admins) to get done what one wants to. Calling attention to a problem is not abuse of such a position (which I'll define as something social: I'm friends with a lot of admins, and so are most other admins and longtime editors), but it is undoubtedly true that from someone like me (or you) such a call to attention is much easier heard than for other editors: we know where to go and who to talk to. The best that IronKnuckle (besides not escalating) thought he could do was yell, and yell some more. Now, he was wrong to begin with, but we see cases on AN and ANI where people who are initially right (in a content matter, for instance) think they have run out of options. And sometimes those people have irritating habits to begin with, and few friend...but jerkness is partly in the eye of the beholder, and does not in itself exclude someone from the project (within certain bounds, of course).

    I peruse the boards sometimes to see if folks are getting shafted, so to speak; it is instructive to follow AIV to see how quickly IP editors get shafted and called vandals, for instance. And those editors typically don't know anyone. So, tongue in cheek or not, I probably stand partially guilty as charged, yes. The moment I resort to calling in favors to solve an editing dispute or get someone blocked because I don't like them is the moment I should hand over the tool and get a clean start. I hope it doesn't come to that, and if it does I hope I still have an ethical bone in my body. Thanks for your note--and have I told you lately "thank you for producing so much quality content"? Thank you for producing so much quality content. Now, I got a paper to finish, and you usually have a plane to catch: have a nice weekend. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should lighten the mood at CfD

Thank you for setting up Category:Farts in literature. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 30 as I think a list would be better and sufficient. – Fayenatic London 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Facetiae, is "1471/1471" a typo? – Fayenatic London 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be. Yes, it is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi Drmies, I'm considering a first-ever: going to WP:DRV, but having no experience with DRV, I wonder whether my case is appropriate for it (as the DRV page seems to indicate it is only for discussions that ended with a deletion). Can you tell me whether this is suitable for DRV and, if not, which forum to go to? The relevant AFD is this one and the discussion with the (non-admin) closer (still waiting for their final answer) is here. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No forum necessary: the closure was inappropriate. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have reverted the AfD closure but I do not know (I'm not a neuroscientist, you know) if the AfD is (again) properly listed and categorized etc.--perhaps you are smart enough to check that and correct it if needs be. I'd hate to call on Writ Keeper again... Drmies (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George DuBoeuf Beaujolais

I'm most of the way through a bottle right now (because I enjoy French wine and I'm a cheap bastard) and was thinking of you. I feel really bad about beer blocking you earlier. I'm really sorry, I can get a bit hamfisted at times. If you promise to not call me an idiot, I will lift the block so you can enjoy a nice Belgian Tripel, or at the very least, a Heineken, although I wouldn't wish Heineken on anyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm trying to be a good boy. I had only one (delicious) beer yesterday, a Gulden Draak (and it is that good), and nothing yet today despite a little dip in the pool earlier. I do have some Heineken--at least it's better than Bud Lite. I do promise to not cuss at anyone in the near future. Also, that DuBoeuf Beaujolais isn't bad: I buy it also, on occasion. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I've been consuming (empty bottle now). I've sent the wife to get something "chocolate", anything, while I make some decaf. I'm not joking. It's been a rough week and I'm a bit fed up with the real world. I'm completely off the low carb wagon tonight, so who am I to judge. I did grill up some very nice center cut pork chops, zucchini and yellow squash for dinner. Stress really sucks, and I'm bathing in it. Thank god my wife is my best friend. And yes, George DuBoeuf is actually as good as it gets for $10 wine, my favorite cheap wine. Watching Scrubs on Netflicks (which shocked me, amazingly good) and waiting for whatever the wife brings back from Wally World. Fortunately, I'm also surrounded by two dogs who think I'm the coolest guy in the world because I just gave them pork chop bones. Dogs are the nicest people I known. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis, I must wonder a little about you... of all the people to think of when you're on your way to being drunk, you think of Drmies. Didn't you know? Jack Merridew is even more of a bad boy. (Just joking...) The dogs are smart... although I'd prefer the meat.
  • Drmies... Guinness. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if you look back in time, Drmies was my main mentor after I got the admin bit. Even though we are technically "equals", you ever forget the guy who held your hand when you first got your bit, and actually took the time to tell you when you were screwing up or doing ok. Anyone can agree with you, it takes a real friend to tell you when you are wrong, and do it without judging you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

68.60.232.105

Unless that's a fixed IP address, shouldn't those warnings stay so that the next one who get that IP has some clue what's going on? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • From what I understand it's only active unblock requests that can't be removed. As I said in my summary and at the ANI thread, they can't respond since I revoked that privilege. Don't feed the trolls, Bugs... Have a great weekend, Drmies (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally that's true, but for IP's it's more typical to leave the warnings in place, so in case some innocent person happens to get that IP next time, they'll know what's going on. Oh, well, whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't disagree; if it were up to me block notices would have to be left, or at the most archived. But I don't make the rules, Bugs. I've learned, when Twinkle guides me to an empty IP page, to check the history. I don't think ClueBot does that. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources‎‎

Saying that it is "incorrect" is not a policy-based reason.  Did you have a reason for re-opening this discussion?  Do you realize how bureaucrat it is to restore an article from a redirect to an article, while the article is at RfD, in order to get the article deleted as an article, while trying to prevent it's deletion as a redirect?  Do you not trust the outcome of RfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unscintillating, that was completely out of process. It had had a single !vote and was open a day, at most. Per WP:NAC, non-administrator closes should only be for uncontroversial ones which have been open for at least seven days. Give process its due... I'd have reverted the close if Drmies hadn't gotten there first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, check out WP:NACD: "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision was obvious and the closure was in-process.  It did not have any !votes at the time it was closed.  This is a good time for a speedy keep, before the community invests time.  IMO, no one is going to claim that this topic is notable, but if they do, they can improve the target article with the sources they find.  No one can reasonably claim that the topic is not covered in the encyclopedia, with reliable primary sources.  The AfD nominator has removed four primary sources I added to the target article, so don't be confused by the current state of the target article.  So there is no case for deletion, but RfD will overturn me if this is incorrect.  I checked WP:NACD, but there is no reason to prevent NAC's before seven days.  WP:NAC states, "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Deletion process page, which should be deferred to in case of inconsistency between that page and this one."  Non-admins both speedy keep and snow keep AfDs.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a good time for a speedy keep". Try reading the guideline. That was in no way time for a speedy keep. AFD also states, explicitly "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus"; this did not happen here, because you performed a speedy keep outside of policy. You were mistaken in closing it early, period. Accept that, as suggested by the guidelines. It's likely to end up a redirect anyways. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already explained the statement, "This is a good time for a speedy keep", because the community had not invested time.  This is my opinion, and is not something that the WP:SK guideline would cover, at least not that I know of, nor something you can refute by saying the opposite.  If you want to identify specific text at WP:SK, please do so.  AfD discussions that are closed with "speedy keep", "speedy delete", "procedural closure", or "snow keep" are not "normal" in the sense of lasting seven days.  This marks the second comment in which you've implied that non-admins don't close AfD discussions before seven days, but I've already explained that non-admins close AfD discussions as both speedy keep and with snow keep.  They also close as speedy delete, if you really want to get into the details.  An argument from authority is a well-known fallacy, and "my acceptance" is not at issue here.  In the previous discussion, your comments blurred a key difference between an essay and the guideline.  In this comment, you use the word "policy" without citing a policy.  It is one thing to say that admins have the right to re-open NAC, but do you think admins should be able to reopen discussions in disregard of WP:BUREAUCRACY, i.e., reopen NAC without a reason for doing so?  Drmies needs to respond here.  Why did he/she restore a redirect to an article so as to discuss deleting the article, when the redirect was already at RfD, and there was consensus that the topic was not notable?.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies was having dinner and socializing with a friend who told juicy stories. Crisco knows this stuff as well as I do, probably better. Now for the meat of this: are you really saying that there is no argument advanced in the nomination? (That's from Wikipedia:Speedy keep.) "New journal, too young to have become notable yet (only 1 issue published so far). No independent sources, not included in any selective major indexes. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Let's see: a. the journal is not notable; b. there are no independent sources; c. it is not included in any selective major indexes; d. it does not meet WP:NJournals; e. it does not meet WP:GNG. That's five.

    I don't see how any person could deny that there is an argument for deletion. Ergo, no speedy keep allowed. That's as clear as daylight, and so my revert of your incorrect closure was correct. BTW, it would have been correct had this NOT been an NAC, but it is; ergo, as Crisco says, you could expect an admin to exercise oversight. So, I have a reason for reopening it, and saying that I don't is hogwash.

    As for your claim about Randykitty removing primary links--well, that's neither here nor there, it does not affect this AfD and what you tried to do with it. I think I know what you were aiming for: a redirect. That's fine, but this is not the way to go about it, and what you have achieved is alerting admins (two now, maybe more) to a thoroughly incorrect NAC, shooting yourself in the foot with every message you post about it. You could have just waited for the AfD to close, you could have proposed a redirect--instead, you tried to bulldoze your way to one. I'm sorry, but Randykitty was correct in their nomination, and you were wrong in your NAC, as two people besides Randykitty have told you now. Time to move on; time to stop wasting time. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drmies, You haven't answered my questions, and escalatory words such as "hogwash", "shooting", and "bulldoze" do not promote a discussion.  Nor is talk about how many admins have been alerted, responsive to the questions I have asked.  Implying that I didn't know that administrators can close NAC will not sell to reviewers when they see that I immediately named four administrators on my talk page for the use of the nom.  The nom declined, and I followed up as the closer by opening the RfD.  Now then, can we go back to the questions I asked?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Unscintillating, you should realise that any NAC outside of the normal process, especially a "speedy keep" outside the guidelines, is liable to be reverted. Hopefully you don't make a habit out of bad NACs... there are people who get sanctioned for them. Another few essays for you: WP:STICK and WP:IDHT. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492, in my last comment to you I told you that " 'my acceptance' is not at issue here."  That which you want me to "realise" I've already told you was not at issue.  Why do you then complain against me with WP:IDHT?  How do I convince you that I've understood what you said on this point and already responded?  Sorry, but quoting the names of essays isn't advancing this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I find it interesting that you criticise me for "not pointing to a policy" when your reason for a speedy keep (the community has not invested time) is not included in the relevant guideline. IAR doesn't go that far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that is not what I said.  What I noted was, "In this comment, you use the word 'policy' without citing a policy."  I had thought that just the brief mention of the issue would convey useful feedback, but since it is causing confusion, your exact words were that I had "performed a speedy keep outside of policy."
As for the related point, again, sorry, but this is not what I said.  I have previously said, "I already explained the statement, 'This is a good time for a speedy keep', because the community had not invested time.  This is my opinion, and is not something that the WP:SK guideline would cover, at least not that I know of, nor something you can refute by saying the opposite.  If you want to identify specific text at WP:SK, please do so."  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logic escapes me. You closed the discussion using a rationale "Speedy Keep", with an explanation that is not consistent with the relevant guideline, thus rendering it an out of process close, liable to be reverted (as it was). You have been told this several times, but when you were told so you said the reversal itself "is not a policy-based reason"; you were later pointed to a guideline showing that admins will double check such non-admin closures, but did not comment on it, instead debating semantics over a comment made outside the applicable guideline (generally a show of a weak position, in my book at least). You see it fit to repost your closing rationale in the AFD, yet continuously state that your acceptance of the revert is not in question. I see a lot of ambiguity here, as if you know you are on unstable ground and yet insist that you were in the right with the NAC. Now I'll drop this, but you may want to reconsider your understanding of the NAC process; if you make a habit out of doing bad closes, I have no qualms with bringing you to ANI and having you topic banned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot I could say in response here, but the main themes would be that you've shown that you are not an authority on NAC, that I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful, and that your last post was neither trying to advance this discussion nor responsive to my previous post.  My initial questions to Drmies have still not been answered, and I hope you will encourage Drmies to answer these questions.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which it does, as I have told you before: you accused me of not adhering to WP:BEFORE without any ground. I had clearly said "No independent sources". Perhaps I should have added "found during a Google and GNews search" so that nobody could even try to misunderstand that, but I have made similarly-worded AfDs many times and this is the first time I get accused of ignoring BEFORE based on the wording of the nom. --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to talk to you more about this, but this is not the place, and starting a conversation by announcing a lack of good faith is considered WP:UNCIVIL.  Because Drmies stopped the RfD, we don't know if my closure would have been sustained at the RfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that an RfD is kind of the same as a DRV? And I'm not starting a conversation by announcing a lack of good faith. You did, and I only called you on it (above is not the first time I say this) when you continued digging your hole deeper. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the user's responses, my gut says that asking that question will only invite the user to respond in a nonsensical way. They were in the wrong, as three editors have told them already. If they wish to make it an issue, they may bring it to WP:ANI and wait for the WP:BOOMERANG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if my response is nonsense, to you or anyone else, at least it is polite to answer.  That makes two mentions of ANI in two posts from you, one "boomerang", and one "topic ban".  All of these escalatory comments came after you stated, "Now I'll drop this,..."  Would it not make more sense to answer the questions that I ask?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randykitty, I am not saying that RfD is some kind of DRV, I said that we won't know if my closure would have been sustained at the RfD.  On my talk page, I named four admins to whom you could have appealed my NAC, any one of whom had the authority to reopen the AfD.  In response, you said (among other things), "...I propose deletion".  In response, I opened the RfD.  The RfD would have had one of two outcomes, either keep or delete.  If my NAC was correct that there is no case for deletion, this would have come out in the discussion.  If the redirect had been deleted, my NAC would have been effectively overturned.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNSINCITLLATING, HERE WE GO ONE MORE TIME. Maybe I have your attention now.

  • "Did you have a reason for re-opening this discussion?"
    • Yes, I did! My reason was that your close sucked. It was incorrect. There was no valid rationale for the speedy keep you invoked.
  • "Do you realize how bureaucrat it is to restore an article from a redirect to an article, while the article is at RfD, in order to get the article deleted as an article, while trying to prevent it's deletion as a redirect?"
    • Loaded question. I don't have to realize anything of the sort, since your closure was out of process.
  • "Do you not trust the outcome of RfD?"
    • Eh? Does not pertain.

As for the uncivil part: yes, you showed a lack of good faith invoking SK. Randykitty did his homework, produced a well-formed deletion nomination with policy-based rationales, yet you chose to say that "no argument for deletion was advanced" by invoking SK. You're either saying that Randykitty didn't know what he typed or that what he typed was nonsense. I could invoke something else here, which appears to be affirmed by your initial NAC and by this jeremiad: competence.

There is a basic point here which you persist in not grasping in the slightest: your NAC was incorrect. What's "bureaucrat" about all this is you started an RfD for an R you created in hopes of, I presume, getting the R affirmed at RfD so that your NAC based on an SK criterion would be confirmed afterward. What I have done was revert your initial mistake, and all this yelling you're doing is just to cover up that mistake. You pointed Randykitty to some admins, well, Randykitty went to another admin. What's the big deal? The big deal is that the admin didn't agree with your initial NAC, and so you find yourself in a hole and you keep digging. And now it's over, and we are left with a big fat section whose only outcome is: you should be more careful with NACs, and if one of them is wrong you should acknowledge it. I don't know if you can move on, but I surely can. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the list of admins I suggested to RK, you were in the top six of admins I considered most likely to be predisposed to restoring the AfD.  However, in our past interactions, you have had problems with WP:Battleground and IDHT (diff), and shown the willingness to use obscenity to disrupt an ANI discussion (diff), so I decided not to list you.  Nonetheless, you are an admin and have the authority to do what you did.  That does not mean that your actions are not subject to review.
As for your closing comment about moving on, this appears to be a desire on your part to project that we have reached resolution in this conversation.  There is no deadline here.  You have volunteered to acting with "lack of good faith", and you have concerns that I have acted with the same.  The question is, are you willing to work on this?  Wikipedia:Dispute resolution states, "Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's imperative to the smooth running of any community."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow I always thought that talking implied listening. I guess I got something wrong there... As for Drmies' (and my) disruptive behavior, I strongly suggest that you either let it be or take us to ANI, because this discussion became fruitless quite a while ago. I hope you'll get rid of your bad wikilawyering affliction, their prognosis usually is not very good. --Randykitty (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia

I have just become aware of the existence of Metapedia. Holy crap.

  • "Wikipedia is a far-left and Judeocentric, multilingual wiki project, censured by an internal bureaucracy of tribal editing clans to conform to a largely neo-Marxist and Zionist viewpoint."
  • "Homosexualism is a psychopathology and subsection of Sexual Bolshevism which encourages human males to participate in abnormal "sexual" relations with each other. The modern idea began in decadent urban centres of liberal-capitalist Western Europe during the 19th century; the term "homosexual" was coined in 1869. The modern movement was politicised by Magnus Hirschfeld a Jewish Marxist, who used it as means to undermine gentile society; this was carried on by the likes of Wilhelm Reich of SEXPOL."
  • Miscegenation is widely reviled across the world, because it leads to the annihilation of racial integrity and to a coalescing of different racial stocks which destroys racial diversity. Wherever there racial diversity existed in the colonial world, anti-miscegenation laws were demanded."

Is this otherwise known as Klanepedia? These people are scary. LadyofShalott 00:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm blocked on Conservapedia until 2014. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush

...is a nice person
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I made a single request and again Sitush is at it again. You say I am the instigator? He takes part in historical revisionism of Lohara Dynasty- And for that I am a villan for trying to fix it? However, when he tramples over a page I am working on and citing - it doesnt matter to you. Is this fair? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

User_talk:Floquenbeam#Problematic non-retirement. Also, Writ Keeper's talk page. Also, Talk:Memon people. Also, WP:BURDEN, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV ... I could go on but WP:BLOCK might be useful after so much disruption. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lowkeyvision, I have no idea what you're talking about. What's happening on Lohara dynasty (mind your caps) is weeks old already, and accusing someone of historical revisionism is a pretty serious charge: in fact, it's a personal attack since you are claiming that Sitush is editing with an agenda, an agenda other than improving Wikipedia articles using reliable sources to the best of his ability. I presume that Boing!'s warning on your talk page is for that comment, and I fully agree with it. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it was for this. They've decided to take the rest of the day off, with leaves me with the conundrum of whether to revert their poor & non-consensus reinstatement at Memon people or leave it alone. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to fret: that was prima facie unacceptable. Enjoy your Sunday, Sitush; that's what I'm about to do. Hey, remember the good old days, when we could dig a dozen post holes and put that fence up in a weekend? One hole at a time, now.... Drmies (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor with an unusual way of collaborating

Hello Drmies,

This is not a rush, so please enjoy your family time. When you have a moment, please take a look: There is an editor called User:Maxschweitzer who is acting in a somewhat strange fashion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Francisco Soccer Football League, my talk page, Demiurge1000's talk page, and so on. The funny thing is that I supported his article at AfD, but am still diagnosed with dyslexia. Maybe the editor is right. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That'll teach you for looking at issues objectively. I blocked the editor for 48 hours for personal attacks. "Strange" doesn't begin to describe some of his posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bbb23. No good deed goes unpunished. That's why productive, long term editors need a masochistic streak. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I'm not sure that I've addressed all your concerns, but have a look when you get a chance. I'm still grappling with whether I can get the status quaestionis bit up to and including the work of Merkelbach and West without engaging in OR. I might have the book reviews to do it, and a couple fawning passages from a colloquium volume—a colloquium to which West wasn't invited, leading to one of the bitchiest reviews I've read: young scholar soandso "who deals with Ovid's Metamorphoses and uses the word 'rape' 68 times, might benefit from some sea air or a spell abroad. His dense, involuted essay is a product od the ant-hill, exemplifying a parochial style of criticism that to my mind bears no relation to the ancient creative process and so fails to illuminate ancient works with a true light." Meow.  davidiad { t } 19:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will have a look, when I have more than just a couple of minutes in between all kinds of things (including Milton and Samuel Johnson, who I'm liking less and less, and the defense of an apparently odd category: you should see what "historical" means to some). Thanks, and cheers, Drmies (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No rush. I'll take a look at the discussion sometime today once I get one of my things in—I'm up against a bit of a hard deadline. Our BLP policies are necessary, but shouldn't be a prophylactic that stymies work in topics that have nothing to do with living people. The path of least resistance might be a full system of parent and child categories.  davidiad { t } 19:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for all the time and help, Drmies. Hopefully in a year or so when it's ready for FA the overall prose will be smoother. A decent monograph on the Catalogue and Ovid is coming out in a month and 2 or 3 articles by a very, very handsome young Hellenist should be out by the end of the summer, so there will be room for expansion of some aspects that I've balked at embellishing because they'd require OR. I added my bit about the category: hopefully a sensible decision will be made.  davidiad { t } 04:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hehe, I wish that handsome young devil the best. Perhaps someone else (!) could read those publications and add them to Wikipedia articles, to boost that oh-so important W-index. I gave up on the category and created a list article; I can't read that discussion anymore. "History is what happened a second ago". Well, good work on the article, and good luck with the next step! Drmies (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you've got mail

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

I was looking for an Easter egg, but this isn't bad either (I always get a lot of them when I'm in the Netherlands, together with a bunch of cans of Unox erwtensoep). Sorry for dragging you into that mess that now is starting to take up a significant portion of your talk page.... Randykitty (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke Game

Drmies, I know you have eluded to watching Duke games on your talk. I was wondering if you saw that Louisville player's injury. Yikes! I hope he's all right. That looked awful. Go Phightins! 21:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly, that injury was terrible. It sucks even more that it had to happen on Easter. I wish the guy gets better. ZappaOMati 23:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rape victims

Category:Rape victims, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd literally like to tell you about this

Because of our previous/ongoing discussions, I thought I'd point out that today's Featured List literally mentions the misuse of the word "literally". It may be a little hard to get to on the Main Page – you'll have to scroll way down from Crisco's gigantic question mark. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, this is all too good to be true. The Fart football team is great. Schmuck is great too. Kudos to all you DYK volunteers! Fantastic. I'll look at the list in a moment, Mandarax--I'm metaphorically tied up with the kids. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rumsfeld line, actually, is great--nothing wrong with it. I use it at least once a year. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard there are four types of people: those who know what they know, know what they do not know, don't know what they know, and don't know what they don't know. But known knowns is catchier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, Crisco, you're just splattered all over the Main Page right now: the Featured Article, two DYKs, and you wrote the Featured List blurb. Good work! Oh, and if you try to shrink that "?", I'll call for your immediate desysopping. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PaR systems

the subsidiaries are key parts of the company as a whole. I am not at all affiliated with the company, and I did my best to make it neutral. if you feel that it isn't neutral, please say so before removing it. there is material out there, and I should probably add it. in particular, Jered and Ederer are part of the MCS project for the Chernobyl NSC. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 05:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any time an article lists products and services and there are no secondary sources to establish that those products and services are noteworthy, one has to question the neutrality of such an article. That's not saying anything about motives or affiliations. If those subsidiaries are relevant and noteworthy, secondary sources should say that they are--otherwise we're little more than a directory. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you don't know what "sourced" means. "Sourced" does not mean a link to some user-submitted company directory or to the company's own website, or to a [www.acibc.org/aboutus/sp_jered.pdf document by a subsidiary]. April Fools Day will be over tomorrow, at which time I'll see if you have really improved the references (and adjusted the text accordingly), as your tag promises. Mind you, you can't reinstate unreliable and promotional links and then tell the rest of the community to improve the references. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanie!

Want foundership ! ROARR!! bishzilla ROARR!! 15:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

  • [Bishzilla somewhat mollified. Goes to request Founder Flag from crats. Inspects birds.] Very small birds. Hardly worth trouble! Put up some turkeys and ostriches, 'Zilla eat them! bishzilla ROARR!! 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

DYK for Walter Baxter

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 18:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Autochecked users

Hello. I want to send a request if you'd be willing to grant the Autochecked users bit to me, if you don't mind. Nothing in particular, but I'm wanting to try out the new tool for myself. As for me, I've been editing at Wikipedia for many years, almost 7 years to be exact, and I've had plenty of experience with this wiki. If you have any inquiries for me, please leave a message. Thanks and a good day to you! —stay (sic)! 14:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What autochecked does is allow you to edit through both levels of pending changes (i.e. your edits don't require a reviewer or admin to approve them before they go live). PC1, which we are allowed to use, requires confirmation for IP editing and editing from new editors but nobody else. Thus, for PC1, autochecked doesn't provide any benefit that autoconfirmed (which all accounts get automatically when they reach 10 edits and four days old) already give, making it useless for PC1. In PC2, only autochecked, reviewer, and admin editors can edit the page directly, without requiring their edits be reviewed. Only reviewers and admins can actually do the reviewing for PC2. So, all autochecked does is allow one to bypass PC2 protection without giving one the ability to review others' edits. Like I said, since we're not supposed to be using PC2, autochecked should be worthless, but I think there are a few rouge admins who have placed PC2 on articles anyway, so there might be some slight benefit. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did that once and promptly got dragged over to AN, where all I could say was "eeeh I didn't know". Drmies (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper, thanks for the 411. But the only remaining question is, if it is considered useless, then why does it exist, and why did 8 other users gained the right? And where can I find one of these rogue admins? —stay (sic)! 17:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It exists because PC2 exists; should PC2 ever gain community consensus, autochecked will become useful. I can think of three reasons why the edit could be handed out: one, under the hood, the right is known as "autoreview" and the autopatrolled right is known as "autoreviewer"; this is pretty confusing and can lead to granting one when one means to grant the other (I did this myself earlier today while testing a script). The other is that an admin might not know what it is but give it to a user they trust completely anyway, just because; I know for certain that Drmies has done this before, and it's no big deal. The third is requests just like this. As for finding the rogue admins, I dunno; you can search through the ANI archives to find some instances, if you like. The last instance I remember involved using PC2 to protect the targets of Mangoeater1000 socks. It doesn't really matter though; autochecked is a passive right, as opposed to a tool of some sort, so once you get it, all you do is just proceed as normal. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't mind, can I has it? I'll give you a free cookie in return! —stay (sic)! 17:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were saying you should ask at the Permissions page. I very seldom dish out permissions either, except to obvious cases (declared alts. of people who already have the permissions, etc.) so I understand the reluctance. I'm sure it isn't personal, it is just best done by people who do it all the time. I'm sure they won't have any problem. Some of us just don't keep up with all the rules on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blackgaia02

Hi. I've been reviewing the unblock appeals at User talk:Blackgaia02, and it's pretty emotional stuff. I do feel this is someone who simply may not be able to work in a collaborative environment, but I'm a bit of a softie at heart and I always like to give people one last chance. If unblocked, I think it would have to be on the understanding that one more outburst would be the end. I'd also recommend seeking mentorship, but perhaps not mandating it because willing mentors are scarce these days and finding one might prove an impossible task. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a softie too. A mentor would be great--I can't be one, I have neither the time nor the temperament (I just told a former student that my current students "all hate my ass", and he agreed that this was probable). But I'm not opposed to a last-chance unblock (WP:ROPE and all), if you ask yourself a question and can answer it in the affirmative: has the user done us any good, besides the bad? Thanks Boing, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also don't have the time or temperament to mentor, and those I know who have the temperament really don't have the time. I've had a look over Blackgaia02's history, and it looks like they've done a reasonable amount of productive work - it's on things like My Little Pony and video games, which are not the most vital of academic topics, but they're also possibly amongst the least dangerous to set someone loose on. I think I'll post some suggestions and defer the decision for now - see how they respond first. Thanks for your thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, if they all hate your ass, you're probably doing something right. One of my former grad students was, at the time, rather unhappy with my mentoring (among other things, because I insisted that he wrote at least the first draft of his articles: "with my friends, their supervisors write the manuscripts, so why do I need to do all this"!) A few months ago I ran into him and he's now a junior faculty with his own students. And he told me that he tells them the same things that I used to tell him and that, after all, I had been right. I'm sure it will be the same with your students (although I hope it won't take them 10 years to arrive at this insight :-). --Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Waitwaitwait. As a grad student, your supervisors write your papers for you?! Maybe I should go back to school... Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm printing out flyers for a class I'm teaching next semester. There's a picture of an apparently naked but chocolate-covered Angelina Jolie on it, and one of Gerard Butler holding a sword whose hilt is right near where the dongle is located in most men. Guess what the topic is. And yes, I'm hoping that those pix will help fill up the class. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that you had a donkey. Presumably it brays unceasingly through lectures, upset at being dragged indoors and tied to a lectern, and that is why your students hate it. Enjoy the current discussion about professors and plagiarism on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Idea Barnstar

The Good Idea Barnstar
I wanted to thank you once again! I literally never would have written the Walter Baxter article (or even heard of this person) if you hadn't brought it to my attention. Learning about how this promising literary talent's spirit was broken and his writing career was tragically cut short by censorship was heartbreaking. I love that his story has now gained wide exposure here through DYK. And it couldn't have happened without your Good Idea! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable photo

Usually I can figure out this stuff myself, but crossing over from this Wikipedia to commons is throwing me off. This photo [1] looks more like an advertisement than anything. the file description sounds like a sales pitch. The editor claims it is his own work (maybe, maybe not) and has spammed it to a couple of articles (some with the ad, some without) and done little else on Wikipedia. Problem is, I can't figure out how to nominate it for deletion or as a PUF. Can you (or a talk page stalker) give me a hand? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it's on commons rather than en.wiki so you'll need to visit there. I suspect it's a copyvio, but I can't find another photo like it online. The alternative is to crop the web address out. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. What happens on Commons doesn't, unfortunately, stay on Commons, and we can't touch it. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are u an Admin??

Reply on my talk ASAP   Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • I R an admin too, and I went ahead and did this, not seeing your response. If you consider this wheel warring, Drmies, I'll ritually fall on my standard issue admin sword, and request a desysop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iz you all good admins? ... or a bad admins? — Ched :  ?  20:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All admins are bad, or are about to become bad, the ring will see to that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely there is One dressed in white? — Ched :  ?  20:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He wouldn't have been able to resist either, I think, but we always have Sam ....and I always thought about this whole admin-thing as being able to resist the dark side of the force....Lectonar (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Darth Vader you mean? Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually more like all Jedi; I think the trick is not to fall in love too much (in this case: with Wikipedia). Lectonar (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that to miss the fundamental point that Star Wars is essentially a story about a civil war among the Jedi? Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I always thought this civil-war story was only to get people to watch the films...guns blazing etc, but the films manage nonetheless to impart some philosophical ideas: e.g., how loving too much can corrupt you, and even if you start out with the best intentions, you end up being vulnerable and corrupted. Lectonar (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reason why Tolkien chose a Hobbit to be the bearer of the ring: Hobbits are small, defenceless and powerless, much like regular editors here. And given that administrators like Saruman can only be displaced by open conflict, it's best to keep the ring in the hands of someone too weak to use its power. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But if I remember correctly, they show resilience, much more so than than elves, dwarves or humans; their strength lies in other areas, I daresay a bit like Tom Bombadil's. Lectonar (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But elves, dwarves and humans have military structures that can be subverted, Hobbits don't. Admins also have military structures that can be subverted, sometimes known as blocking and wheel warring. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But see what becomes of the hobbits when they get these military structures (you will like this, of course: with bad leadership...) Lectonar (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's why you shouldn't have the ring (and neither should Aragorn and Kenobi fucked it all up to begin with, didn't he?).Volunteer Marek 21:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My sword is glowing! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, after getting the ring, many would start out with the desire to do good things, like Galadriel and Gandalf, but these two were wise enough to refuse the ring, knowing their own weakness. Lectonar (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "If we're going to take this analogy all the way to the bitter end ..." I'm up for that if you are Floquenbeam. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not clear what I'd be agreeing to... We're not going to end up dressing like dwarves or Klingons or rebels or something, or write fan fiction, or go to a convention of some kind, are we? To be honest, I'm still trying to figure out what the "ring" is here. Jimbo is the Emperor, right? Or Yoda? Sauron? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your adminship is the ring, the thing that corrupts you....Lectonar (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it corrupts other people, yes. Luckily for me, though, I only want to use my adminship for good. So I'm sure I'll be fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    best to keep the ring in the hands of someone too weak to use its power - I don't think the point was that Hobbits are "too weak to use its power". Rather the point was to put it in the hands of someone who appreciates the simple everyday business of life (good food, family gatherings, tidying up one's house etc.) enough so that the seduction of great power is not that great. To run with the analogy, you'd want Wikipedia-power in the hands of the people who care about quality food/articles much more than they care about acquiring trinkets of status or positions of authority (admin, arbcom). In other words, the people who should be admins and on ArbComs are exactly the ones who want it the least.Volunteer Marek 21:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, do all you ring bearers and ring critics and ring savants know whose message started this thread? And did you all happen to notice the second message I posted in this thread? Sheesh, a guy picks up his kid, goes to the store, starts dinner, cracks open a beer, and finds a whole Myspace page full of stuff about Star Trek! Also, I wanted this power purely for good, to help me improve my bacon-related articles. So I'm sure I'll be fine. Marek has a good point of course. Also, I'm cooking bacon. For on the salad, so it's healthy. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always thought there was something evil about putting bacon on salad. It's not obvious, because it's still bacon. And salad by itself, while bland, is fairly innocent. But I'm pretty sure that's how Melkor first corrupted Sauron. By putting freakin' bacon in his freakin' salad. One bacon bit at a time. And that way lies insanity.Volunteer Marek 01:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Star Trek????? Just because Obama says it doesn't mean it's okay! — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's certainly some form of film-based argument, whether that be Galaxy Wars or your Galaxy Quest. Because if it were book-based, the people asserting that "Hobbits are small, defenceless and powerless" would know about the Scouring of the Shire. These "powerless" Hobbits beat Saruman. One, rather famously, won't learn that from films. ☺

        Volunteer Marek's idea leads to The Man in the Shack, his cat, and the Six Black Ships, by the way. Be warned.

        Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per your request...

at ANI, it took me three tries, but I gave it a shot — Ched :  ?  20:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deeeeenniiiiiis - we need another one of those "beer blocks"; he called me a "terrible asshole" .. wait - there might be some wp:verifiable wP:reliable sources for that. Never mind. <Ched wonders whether or not he wants to be known as a "good" asshole> re:the link. Wow .. someone was sure pissed at you Drmies. — Ched :  ?  03:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are terrible at being an asshole--how could you have read that any other way? :) Drmies (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone misusing Twinkle

Hi Drmies.... I was just about to write admin Yunshui about this matter because he gave me some great help with a template problem I was having earlier today, but I just noticed that you counseled the editor I'm writing about, SergeantHippyZombie. And it just happens to be about the exact same issue, his misuse of Twinkle. I've never crossed paths with SHZ so I don't know him at all, but for unknown reasons - he left no edit summary - he restored a bunch of content that I previously removed from my talk page. It's strange because most of it was compliments and a barnstar I had received. Anyway, I reverted his revert of course and included the relevant guidelines in my edit summary. I didn't say anything to him about Twinkle because, to be honest, I don't know a lot about it other than I believe it's supposed to be used to revert vandalism. So SHZ either is just abusing that tool or he has no idea how to use it. And I see other editors have also complained about his use of it. Sorry to bother you with this, but I'm really glad your an admin so hopefully you can deal with this. Thanks a lot and have a great evening. :) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note. I see that you've already reverted. I'm not going to block over it, but it is a cause for concern. (I've not perused their other recent edits.) Was that ANI thread closed? If not, add to it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sometimes I wonder...

...how much the direction of a thread (particularly an ANI thread, but others too, like RfAs) is influenced by the first responder. Would this thread have gone differently if another of "that kind" of RC patroller had been the first to spot it and reply? Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the patroller, justifiably, with a stick. I smacked them with a big, muddy carrot. I hope I wasn't too gentle, but I wanted to ease the pain, just a bit. I hope you don't mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WK, that's one of the reasons I try to get to these things early, even though ANI is generally populated by good-willing people with common sense. ANI threads, like IP pages with a single warning on it, have a tendency to accumulate more of the same. There are few things that irritate me as much as IP editors getting shafted (stuff like anti-gay and antisemitic speech don't "irritate" me; that's way different). As Malleus said, that kind of blind trophy hunting does no one any favors: the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. And I say this as someone who started here making IP edits, and as someone with at least two perfectly secret IP talk pages full of warnings from possibly well-meaning but foolish, hasty editors. One of those pages, maybe both, has DYK credits on it, and still you get trigger-happy school kids Twinkling apparently on sight, even with serious BLP violations and promotional stuff. Ah well. Cullen, you're a nice guy. I wish I was as nice as you, and as tall. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer

Hi Drmies, I was wondering can you grant me reviewer priviledges? I look after biography of film actors and musicians from India and America and quite a few of them have pending changes and sometimes I cannot help but waiting for accepting and reverting of the changes by other users, since I donot have the priviledge. So I please request you to grant me this tool. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello IndianBio--best thing to do is to hop on over to [Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer]]. I could do this, I suppose, but they have more experience and I'd have to figure things out--the official way is a lot faster. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anxiety dream (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The Wanderer and Samuel Butler
Methought I Saw my Late Espoused Saint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Proserpine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Jeths, ANI, and a bot

I mentioned you at ANI. If you have a sec, take a look at two of my disambigs at the Jeths article. I have no idea whether the BUMA and Best ones are right. I suppose I could look more at the sources to figure it out, but I'm barely functional (no sleep).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lbrad2001 SPI

 Clerk note: Hi. If you have time, could you review the Lbrad2001 SPI and do any blocking you might consider appropriate now? The SPI was CU-declined, and it's been sitting around for a couple of weeks waiting for someone to take action. Since you left a comment before the CU-decline, I thought you might be in a good position to handle this one — but if you can't for some reason, let me know. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ IT

I am extremely wondered that why are you asking me for reliably published source while in the 'reference' section of this article all the proofs are allready available and provided by yourself.and before asking me for proof will you please tell me may i ask what is your authorised editor,s 'reliably published source' for claiming BANDA SINGH BAHADUR a 'brahman'.

I am providing here the copy paste matter from article,s 'Refrence section'.Please give special attention to this' ←←←←←←←←'(sign) as i make this sign to find easily the main element to save your precious time.


^ "Guru Gobind Singh - Harbans Singh - Google Books". Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 2013-03-18. ^ "A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838 - Khushwant Singh - Google Books". Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 2013-03-18. ^ Ganda, Singh (1990) [1935]. Life of Banda Singh Bahadur : based on contemporary and original records. Punjabi University/Khalsa College. p. 1. OCLC 25748134. "His father Ram Dev was an ordinary ploughman Rajput."←←←←←←←←←←← ^ Sambhi, Piara Singh; W Owen Cole (1990). A popular dictionary of Sikhism. Curzon. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-913215-51-7. OCLC 59977906. "Born as a Hindu Rajput←←←←←←←←←←, he was a Bairagi yogi until his conversion to Sikhism." ^ Seetal, Sohan Singh (1968). Prophet of man, Guru Gobind Singh. Lyall Book Depot. p. 366. OCLC 115772. "And he is commonly known as Banda Bahadur. Banda Singh was, by his birth, a master of the Rajput tradition←←←←←←←← and a dauntless temperament" ^ Chib, Sukhdev Singh (1977). Punjab. Light & Life Publishers. p. 15. OCLC 3768858. "Originally a Dogra Rajput←←←←←←← named Lachhman Das, Banda Bahadur was born in a farmer family at Rajouri." ^ Singh, Khazan (1970) [1914]. History of the Sikh Religion. Dept. of Languages, Punjab/Newal Kishore, Lahore. p. 211. OCLC 162514106. "He was the son of Ramdev, a Rajput."←←←←←←←←←← ^ Duggal, Kartar Singh (2001). Maharaja Ranjit Singh: The Last to Lay Arms. Abhinav Publications. p. 40. ISBN 978-81-7017-410-3. OCLC 48811299. "A Rajput ←←←←←←of the Dogra tribe, his real name was Lachhman Dev."←←←←←← ^ Malik, Arjan Dass (1975). An Indian guerilla war : the Sikh peoples war, 1699–1768. New York: Wiley. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-470-56576-6. OCLC 1339733. "Banda Bahadur was a Hindu Rajput←←←←←←← of Jammu province who had become a monk. He came in contact with Guru Gobind Singh in the south and embraced Sikhism." ^ Deol, Gurdev Singh (1972). Banda Bahadur. New Academic Pub. Co. p. 14. OCLC 730641. "Banda Bahadur was a Rajput←←←←←← and was a man of limited means." ^ Mahajan, Vidya Dhar (1964). India since 1526. S. Chand. p. 205. OCLC 3975743. "Banda Bahadur was a Dogra Rajput. He was born in 1670. His original name was Lachhman Dev←←←←←←←← and he was very fond of hunting. Later on he became a Bairagi and went away to Deccan." ^ Madhok, Balraj (1985). Punjab Problem, the Muslim Connection. Vision Books. p. 25. OCLC 12361473. "Banda Bahadur was the seion of a Rajput family←←←←←←← of Poonch area, now in Jammu and Kashmir State." ^ Singh, Mian Goverdhan (1982) [1932]. History of Himachal Pradesh. Yugbodh Pub. House. p. 141. OCLC 9063139. "He was a Dogra Rajput←←←←←←←/Khatri who was born at Rajouri in Kashmir." ^ P. N. Bali. History of Mohyals. ^ Hakim Rai. Legend of Lachman Das,disciple of Guru Gobind Singh

if this info. not seems to you enough for consider BANDA SINGH BAHADUR a rajput,it is enough to remove the surname 'BHARDWAJ'. So these were the published and verified proofs for supporting my claim.According to every historian he was a rajput. Have you find any single proof to claiming them a 'brahaman'.Then why are you insist on showing them a 'bhardwaj brahman'in introduction.I am not asking you to write their 'rajput',(which must be written) but asking you to at least not support a wrong fact. and also for your information i want to tell you as a common sikh that in common Sikh community we have no doubt that BANDA SINGH BAHADUR was from rajput cast.although everyone will wonder to read here them as a 'brahman'.So please do not provide wrong information to other peoples about Sikh history. Is this enough for correct the information.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.63.245 (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I posted this on article talk page but they removed it every time.i post here to just took this in matter to your knowledge.but i dont know why are you not interested .At least take a look of it.i had provided enough proof for support my claim.You can not leave this matter on just a regular editor.if he is insisted on putting the wrong info.,then where should i go.and i am providing proofs to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.61.243 (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not request for unblock me because i did nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.61.243 (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is now blocked too, for block evasion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BON SCOTT

Can you please explain your reason for undoing my edits which were referenced to the biography "Hell Ain't a Bad Place to be" especially since some of the original text was not referenced at all? What makes the biography and unreliable source? Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it doesn't appear to be a book published by a reputable press. The page you linked to was a website where one could order that book--so it's a commercial site. So the book does not appear to be notable (no reputable press), and the link is promotional. Besides, it appears to be a fairly unimportant matter how precisely he got his nickname. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- thanks for answering. The reference is for the biography "Hell Ain't a Bad Place to Be" by Mick Wall, published by Orion. Its a book, the URL is additional information. The origin of his name was already in the article, incorrect, unreferenced and had been there for some time. I don't understand why correcting the claim and referencing it is unimportant. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- thanks again, just learning at the moment and having trouble finding the correct reference syntax. Happy to leave that info on his name out but print media are using wiki as a source and therefore replicating incorrect claims. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irajeevwiki

At User talk:Irajeevwiki we seem to have some sort of acceptance, so would you be happy for me to unblock? I suspect there is a bit of a CIR issue here, but it's only a short block anyway and a bit of goodwill would probably not go amiss. I'll offer a bit of advice about consensus, and will recommend paying attention to Yogesh and perhaps asking him for advice when needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic flags

Your reverts are clearly POV, if not give a reason of the double standards between Libya & Iran. Only someone with political interests would talk about "Gaddafi regime" in Libya but do not say a word about a "Khomeini regime", "shia clerics regime" or whatever term you want. If you talk about a "regime" in one case, be fair and do the same in the other case. I dont know if they're apples or oranges, but what is crystal-clear is that both are fruits, so they had to be treated equally...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh, no. The one was an autocratic dictatorship run by one man, the other is...well, a different situation. If you don't know about apples and oranges in this particular case, you probably shouldn't be making the edits you're making. As I said, take it up on the talk page and don't accuse me of not being neutral here. That I would have a "political interest" here is a pretty dumb thing to say. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


April 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing to Wikipedia, as seen on Binsar Wildlife Sanctuary. It is considered disruptive editing and Wikipedia is a place of diverse perspectives and a site that requires citing sources. If you continue witch hunting for spam, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Alternatively, can you please explain how the other sources on Binsar Wildlife Sanctuary, which lead users to a page that advertises lawyers, mortgages, insurances, and travel destinations, (not set in India) are not spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNdude11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maduro

Drmies, please do what you think is appropriate based on this. You can also take a look at the latest here. I am WP:INVOLVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked 2 weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of you two could go look at User talk:The Banner. I need a second opinion for an unblock, and I'm about to quit for the night. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Dennis. I'll have a look at that other one. That little boy of mine can scream--you don't even know what real pain is. Bbb, I hate to disagree with you: I do not believe you are/were involved to the point where you couldn't act as an admin. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm like Bbb in that respect, once they start throwing around claims using my name, I would just prefer another admin look at it so I don't have to have my objectivity called into question. For me, it isn't about wrong or right, I simply don't want the hassle, and you know some contrarian WILL show up and file an ANI about it simply because they love the drama at ANI. I won't name names, we all know who they are. And thanks for looking at that talk page, I'm on the fence and always enjoy giving you the opportunity to look like the bad cop ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The IP apeared to be begging for a block. In any case, I think Bbb acted correctly in seeking a second opinion, although I'm sure he was busy preparing his part of the joint speech we were planning to deliver at Maduro's talkpage. I guess now, with the IP blocked, we have an added two weeks to really perfect it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I didn't want a second opinion. To me, the block was obvious. Drmies gets to the heart of it, whether I'm involved. I thought of the escape hatch in the last paragraph of WP:INVOLVED, but I had already declared myself involved because of Maduro, and now you had the IP going around complaining specifically about me. The two combined made me uncomfortable. I agree with both Drmies and with Dennis. I could have acted, but it might have created a headache, and so I came to ANI/2 for help. BTW, thanks, Dennnis. And now having blocked 99.'s socks (so to speak), I'm off to bed. I need rest before Dr.K.'s and my big speech (we can't wait 2 weeks, Dr.K. - I'll have forgotten everything that happened :-) ).--Bbb23 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you, Bbb. It's a good bet those socks will be back soon enough. I need a few hours of shuteye myself. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • What is this? Another 99xx sock or a bona fide editor? I'll assume the latter. In any case, I completely agree with your approach Bbb23, especially after the advertising 98xx did to your username and mine during their recent ballistic episode. However you have proven to be a tough taskmaster. Here I was trying to slack off from writing my part of the extrication speech for a couple of weeks, (thank you Dennis for that btw), and now you tell me the deadline is cut short. Whatever. You can't argue with your teammates. :) Good night to both of you. (Yes 99xx included, sock or no sock). Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, the message notification bar said I had "messages from many editors", and all nice ones. That 99 editor, I don't know. I think he's subversive, claiming to be an artist but editing all those company articles and CEO bios: I think he's a one-man anti-capitalist operation. By way of an update: I was off-wiki this morning not just because Mrs. Drmies insists that I be around mentally, but also to dig the last two post holes for the fence (well, the one fence--there's another one that needs repairing). The posts are set, the rest is simple. I wish Wayne Greenhaw had spent more money on the fence in the back, though. The cheap stuff doesn't last more than two decades. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr.K., as so often happens your jest went right over my head, because I take myself so gardam seriously sometimes. And Bbb and Drmies: what's it going to be? Am I a preppy or a subversive? Maybe something like George Plimpton or P. J. O' Rourke, who were/are a bit of both? Though my politics is left of P. J.'s. By the way, I wear argyle pj's. And I shot an elephant in my pajamas, where the Tuscaloosa. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Hi Drmies.
Two editors from nl.wikipedia have extended their stoush over to en.wikipedia.

Could you possibly have a little look into this?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a fine mess. I looked at the Dutch pages: they're not admins, and Borvo is blocked indefinitely for socking, claiming that because they had disclosed one sock account on their user page they didn't need to declare that again when both accounts participated in a discussion. A bit specious, and apparently they have almost a dozen other accounts (see their talk page. The block came from their ArbCom and specifically addresses a lack of acknowledgment; a few of the socks were sleepers so I assume they ran CU. I'll be back after I see what they're doing here. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've suggested they stop interacting. See my note there. I hope that'll be the end of it. Thanks Shirt. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My impacted wisdom tooth is playing up again and I'm a little bit muzzy on the paracetamol/codeine. What's more, I am Joan of Arc's second best chest of drawers singing "Bayan Ko" to my cat. Thank goodness my brother-in-law is Optimus Prime in disguise, and the Carlton Football Club is entirely made of cheese. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Hi Drmies. Can you please stop removing the flags from the kickboxing record box of the kickboxers? Thanks. Because some kickboxers aren't allowed to have created profiles and we need to remember the image in mind when we identify the nationality. It's very wrong, please stop. Though from the right box of the profiles it's ok to remove them! We already had this discussion. Illovecoffee (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about kickboxing, but at MMA we had a problem where some people wanted to stick flags on every person, even though WP:MOSFLAG says you probably shouldn't unless it is a table for an international competition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is because at MMA the majority have profiles having fought UFC. And they considered the flags can be removed. Delete only the info box flags! Illovecoffee (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that why? Flags are pretty, but the name will suffice to identify a country—whether we're talking about athletes or anyone else. The practice of including flags as a quick visual reference in brackets is a useful practice taken over from journalism and almanacs, and doesn't extend beyond that, hence the guideline cited by Dennis.  davidiad { t } 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • David, these days the world is cosmopolitan. In many cases you get wrong about nationalities. Moreover, we have all kind of imports in fighting sports. I don't see any problem with leaving the flags in the record box. But those from the info box which is positioned on the right must be removed. Cheers. Illovecoffee (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I love coffee too, but I love MOS:FLAG even more. No, all those flags should go, for all the reasons mentioned therein and some more. What applies wiki-wide, including MMA, should apply to esoteric activities like kickboxing as well. It's pretty basic, though I'd hate to put it like that: there is no national representation there, and those flags need to go. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Je besluit

Ik ben zachtsgezegd niet blij met je besluit, maar ik zal het wel opvolgen. Naar mijn mening bescherm je Wikiklaas i.p.v. hem op zijn vingers te tikken wegens het verwijderen en aanpassen van mijn bijdragen op zijn OP. Toen ik zoiets op wp:nl deed, kreeg ik meteen een moderator achter mij aan. Daarnaast stelde je From a quick perusal it seems to me that Borvo is here mostly to continue the spat you all had on the Dutch wiki, and that's not OK. Dit is onjuist, want er spelt eigenlijk geen conflict: Wikiklaas zit mij eenzijdig zwart te maken. In zijn bewoordingen is hij volledig onschuldig en is er geen sprake van een 'smear campaign' (zie mijn OP). Ik ben naar Wikiklaas's OP gegaan om hem te vertellen dat ik een zaak aan heb gespand bij de arbitragecommissie (die nog steeds niet op de zakenpagina staat wegens traagheid, wij hebben helaas geen klerken). Dat vond ik wel zo netjes. Met vriendelijke groet, --Borvo (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't wish to protect anyone or anything, except the smooth progress of our project. It seems pretty clear that there is a conflict, but sure. Out of curiosity's sake--what does OP mean? and is any of that related to the English wiki? Drmies (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dutch for 'overlegpagina' - TP --Borvo (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Well, whatever the merits or demerits of that case, we can't have that spilling over into this wiki. Good luck with your ArbCom case on the Dutch wiki. Drmies (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have been thinking about your decision, and I find it (after all) a good one. If I and Wikiklaas keep our mouths shut, the project won't see any more discussion. That's what counts. About the arbcom: the always-very-punctual-Germans/Dutch are this time very slow. Their guideline says they have to decide to accept or decline the case within 72 hours (has perhaps something to do with the three new members who were elected last month). It would really surprise me if they declined it, though you shoudn't take it for granted with the Arbitragecommissie --Borvo (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't stop

Wikiklaas didn't stop: see this page. --Borvo (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be-er?

So, you heading to Hong Kong in August? I'm sure we can find time for a be-e-er there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nooooh. Hong Kong is a bit far for me, and I am not really sure what to do at Wikimedia anyway. At least last time I had proposed a little presentation, though it wasn't accepted, and I was given luxury accommodations; but I'd hate to be going around begging this time when I can't offer anything in return. Are you going, then? Drmies (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well this is disappointing, Drmies, because I'll be going. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you are, Ed--but you actually are somebody, like Crisco. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you think you aren't? Silly Drmies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure we could think of something for you to do there, Drmies. Even if it was just sitting on the patio and looking good. Risker (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That I can do like few others; Risker, you are a very perceptive human being. As long as I get to stay in the hotel with the important people--not in the youth hostel. So twist my arm--sure I'll go. I look forward to hearing from the travel agents. :) Drmies (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I'm figuring out where I intend to stay and will tell you once I find out what the *real* rate is (rather than the highly speculative one I see on the Wikimania website). Not to say that I'm important, but I don't do the hostel thing, either. Risker (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I felt terrible when I saw my bed in Washington. Good thing Kevin Rutherford was there, and later Ed, for mental support. I've never been to that site of the world and I have to say the thought scares me a bit, though it would be very exciting. Ed, are you looking forward to it? Risker, have you been East before? Drmies (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • (talk page stalker) East is terrific - I spend about half my time there. And Hong Kong is a great place to visit -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've not been past the Pacific Ocean, more of a European traveler myself; however, I figured out a while ago that it is beneficial to me to pick activities that give me an excuse to go see a part of the world I've not visited before, so I'm up for this. You didn't stay in the youth hostel in DC, did you?? Risker (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes I did, for one night, until the WMF kindly moved me to the fancy place. I would not have survived more than one night in that hostel: I was getting ready to fly out early. (The travel account starts at User_talk:Drmies/Archive_34#Nice_to_meet_you.21 and contains lots of jokes at my expense and useful advice from, among others, Uncle G.) Memorable moments--a nightly visit to the United States Capitol with Guerilla Warfare and Ed and others, and a terrific dinner, maybe the best one I ever had, with Mike Cline (talk · contribs). And I met lots of nice people, like Piotrus and Johnbod and Rexx and (especially) WritKeeper, who was a most gracious host. But I don't have the budget to go anywhere this year and I don't think the WMF is going to send me a ticket out of the blue and totally undeserved.
      • Yeah, I'll be attending the conference. I just got the confirmation letter yesterday. Drmies, you are somebody. Not every page is titled ANI 2.0. Ooh, hostels. Just so long as the movies lied... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

hello, I am so sorry for the inconvenient posts about WP U2. It won't happen again. I'm new in this and sometimes I don't know what should I do or how. Please accept my apologies. Kind regards... Miss Bono (zootalk) 12:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Božidar Bobby Gabershek

Hi Drmies. Božidar Bobby Gabershek was created a few hours ago. It has a speedy deletion tag on it and the article creator, Zuti car has asked for it to be deleted.[5] There are also comments on the article's talk page. Is this something you or another admin can do? --76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you're a funny guy. Well, I think once the problems with the article were explained to him, he realized it wasn't worth the battle. Thus, his "just delete the page" concession. He was waving a proverbial white flag. ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: WereSpielChequers has already denied A7, rightly or wrongly, and I'm not going to override that. I think you should ask them to reconsider, mentioning the total lack of hits anywhere for this person. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other admin declined it based solely on an inappropriate peacock term ("highly distinguished"), which made it invalid. There's not a single RS to verify any of the claims, not does the existing content (even if assumed true) establish the subject's importance. I tried very hard to find even one good source, but came up empty. So did the editor who tagged it. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you won't override based on the overwhelming evidence, can you at least please write the declining admin and give him your opinion, and ask him if he would mind if you deleted it? :) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{done}} Drmies (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're cool. Thanks. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and my apologies for this apparent enforcement of the Blue Code of Silence. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Paryla

My pleasure, same as always. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the kind words on my talk page and for taking the time to talk to IPs and other new editors like you seem to do a lot of. Happy editing, 83.254.128.245 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=549376026"