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 213.205.198.141 (talk) at 21:09, 12 June 2016 (→Hadith of najd: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


That's right y'all.

Another Victorian novel?

Hello again - I'm the person who suggested that you read Vanity Fair a few months ago, and I thought it would be courteous to refrain from suggesting anything else after that long read. But have you read Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford? It's a very short Victorian novel by one of my favorites from that era (I'm now rereading one of her darker ones, North and South) and one of the most appealing short novels I've ever read. (Elizabeth Gaskell's life of Charlotte Brontë is another marvel, but a bit longer.) Meanwhile, you've certainly got more pressing things to worry about, but if you've have another suggestion of something medieval that's as intriguing as the Lais of Marie de France, which you suggested last time. The Laiswere memorably strange and wonderful (and, it occurs to me, sometimes a bit like some of the stories in the Decameron), and if you've got more in the same general line, please do let me know. All best wishes, as before. - Macspaunday (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I'm ankle-deep in The Blithedale Romance, just having read The Scarlet Letter and The House of the Seven Gables. So it'll have to wait, and I have to tell you that I'm rereading Hawthorne because I'm reading Beneath the American Renaissance. In other words, I got a bunch of secondary and primary material to read: all of Dickinson, Melville, Whitman. I'm skipping Emerson, of course. But I'll see if I can pick up a copy of Cranford, and maybe it will tempt me enough. To return the favor...well...let me think on that a little bit. I assume you've read all your Chaucer, but you may not have read his Troilus which is, as far as I'm concerned, the greatest ME poem. Oh, wait, I got a weird one! Guillaume de Dole! It's weird, it's wacky, it's gender-bending, it has a certain Robin-Hood-in-Tights appeal, it's got sword fights and clever women...and poems! Drmies (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always had mixed feelings about Hawthorne; too many cheerful words hiding the dark vision underneath, but probably that's the point. But Guillaume du Dole - that sounds very intriguing. I read the "other" Roman de la Rose a few years ago and was marvelously startled by it - especially that ending, which means an awful lot that it doesn't quite say. I'm about to order that 1990s translation now. Thank you! - Macspaunday (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soothing balm

Reading some of the discussions here at Articles for Creation can be depressing at times. I think that you need something content related and non-arbitrated to cheer you up.

Did you know … that this is a concept in U.S. tax law? Wikipedia hasn't known for 7 years.

  • Hopkins, Bruce R. (2015). "Association of chirches". Hopkins' Nonprofit Law Dictionary. Wiley Nonprofit Law, Finance and Management Series. John Wiley & Sons. p. 35. ISBN 9781118996089. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Hopkins, Bruce R. (2015). The Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations (11 ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 319–320. ISBN 9781118874226. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • "Senate Report 107–211" (PDF). Committee Reports 107th Congress (2001–2002). United States Government Publishing Office: 51–52. 2002-06-16. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • My dear uncle: I was looking at this in the "view changes" mode. It's like the Matrix: I recognized it was you after your second sentence. I may need to unplug--but thanks for the suggestions! Drmies (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose next time I should look at the rest of the message; you did the searching already. Ah well, at least we'll always have Hopkins in common. Drmies (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Drmies, I would like to say that you are not inept despite what others say. In fact, I find that you are very good. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies dear, I do wish that people would use more meaningful section headers on this page, so that one might have an idea what the issue of the day might be, before coming here in haste lest there be a crisis. MPS1992 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue of the moment: Crusty old recalcitrant editor says "Hello" to Bigwig Drmies - Editor, Admin, Arbitrator, Adjudicator of Truth, Justice and the American Way

Hello Drmies. BMK (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. Clarity. Clarity is good. Irondome (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's what I call a crisis. A proper crisis! MPS1992 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help notirious Byond My Ken editor reverted my edit ?
You mean notorious, surely?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies is pretty gangsta, so more likely: The Notorious B.I.G.. My spell check actually accepted "gangsta"! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although reliable sources report that Drmies could use a big wig, there is no known evidence of his donning one. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the microagression Cullen. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite worried about microaggression. Some of my previous edits have been described as "similar to" microaggression. Is microaggression common on Wikipedia? MPS1992 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Microagression.Irondome (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was that a microaggression? OMG! MPS1992 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, who still waves his freak flag all over the Golden State, likes to remind me of the fact that my headhairy days are long gone. It's really a macroagression. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aggression? If you say so, boss. Truth be told, my affection for you is as large as it can possibly be for two old guys who have interacted online as encyclopedia editors for half a dozen years or so, and who once shot the breeze for a while face to face in Boston. If it is any consolation to you, my dad had "thinning hair" and openly envied my mop. Not administratorship, 'cause I ain't one, but my hair. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of my page watchers has escaped. There were all present at morning roll call but now one is missing. I suspect a tunnel was used. Red Cross parcels have been withheld from the remainder for a fortnight. Surrounding areas are being searched.

I will keep you up to date. Irondome (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to film at 11. BMK (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Loosely based on Stalag 17. Irondome (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps, Chicken Run? Geoff | Who, me? 17:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hi Drmies, you recently blocked User:Jaypeeboyadizas22 after I reported him to ANI. However, it seems he is still going as User:121.1.41.56, who has a significant editing overlap (Roman Jacinto and Philippine articles), and continues to remove the AfD template at Swinging the Kundiman. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to report this; do let me know if there is a more appropriate venue) Opencooper (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha, yes, where should this be reported? AIV maybe. I'll have a look--after morning workout and breakfast. I need to be muscled and well-fed before I take on evildoers. Drmies (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You work out? Seriously? Well fed I understand. I need to be well fed even when I grapple with gooddoers and neither-good-nor-evil-doers, but the only muscles I have are in my brain, and they don't function as well as they used to. I do try, though, to do 10 reps of thumb twiddling at least once a day.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta exercise the arm muscles too... Muffled Pocketed 13:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha thanks. The workouts actually look pretty fun, hope they went well. Opencooper (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, as you are an oversight, can you please delete https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=724096171 ? It is a personal attack and casting aspersions. Thanks. OldTraffordLover (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pistols at dawn is always fun. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pissheads at dawn have a bumbling charm I find. Irondome (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@OldTraffordLover: "you are an oversight" might be misconstrued by some. "You are an oversighter" may work better. Also, please see above for excellent examples of section titles better describing their contents. Just to mention, I have no opinion on the merits of Mancunian football teams -- I only happen to live here. But I am sure Old Trafford is very nice. MPS1992 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm, or, Oy vey

This article – List of new wave of British heavy metal bands – violates MOS:LISTS to the max. Most every band listed has no Wikipedia article. Can someone figure out what to do with it or how to TNT it? Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Wow.. Have you checked if they have articles which just haven't been wikilinked? For example, Toad the Wet Sprocket (ew) was unlinked, but Toad the Wet Sprocket does exist -- samtar talk or stalk 07:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not my yob, as the Mexicans say. Perhaps the solution is to tell the article creator (it was created only 10 months ago, from a single source) that that is his yob, and that he needs to either remove or link each of the listings, and that each listing must be an actual Wikipedia article. That would save the headache of an AfD or other TNT effort. Softlavender (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comin' over here, takin' our yobs -- samtar talk or stalk 09:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the Mexicans say??? Wow... Muffled Pocketed 09:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another entry that needs to bite the dust. Apparently all of the non-blue-linked items have no wiki articles. We could just make a clean sweep, or instruct the article creator to do so, or AfD the article. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a minor microaggression. That reminds me of the time I flew Mexicana and couldn't get a moment's rest. Apparently the flight attendant made an announcement that if someone is sick, they can get an air sickness bag from the seat pocket in front of Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you guys are not familiar with Freddie Prinze or Chico and the Man. If you'd like a little education in Spanish, may I recommend ¿Que Hora Es?: Part 1, Part 2. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(watching, surprised:) So far I understood that while some people would argue that navboxes may only contain items that can be navigated to, items with articles that is, lists can have red links or items without any hope. See Max Reger works: many compositions that will never get an article. (see also move request, I am the only one who wants a short title for a new thing). List of composers by name has only people with an article (in any language), but this restriction is only because it would otherwise be endless. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing an article on the complete works of an extremely notable (and dead) composer with a List article, such as the second article you mentioned. List articles are subject to spam and are therefore restricted to Wikipedia articles only. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, your Max Reger is an eminently notable composer, and one can assume that his compositions are therefore notable also. With lists like the one we're talking about, no such assumption can be made about the individual entry--and thus the list can be just as endless as List of composers by name. The spam argument doesn't necessarily apply to all such articles, but it does for lists of business, hospitals, schools, vacuum cleaners, etc. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jazz Erotica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Holman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Doc Mice, I've fixed your embarrassing faux pas. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only softcore sax though! Muffled Pocketed 11:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martin. Which reminds me: one of my friends has this album ($250 on Ebay), which is why I wrote it up. On the back someone wrote "Bill Holman Octet"--clearly someone with an ax(e) to grind. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eight seems a bit many, but that's swing for you, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who knew! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the folks who hired Vince Guaraldi to score A Charlie Brown Christmas knew he had played on this? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only documentation that I could find for Voodoo Trombone Quartet (AfD discussion) said that it wasn't a quartet. Uncle G (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Doc, you is so darn hottttt! "tsssss"!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on List of new wave of British heavy metal bands

I found out that you decided to edit a list that I created, deleting content without any previous discussion. I am frankly annoyed by your behaviour and by your use of Wikipedia as a private social club. From a discussion above, it appears that a few editors decided that the List of new wave of British heavy metal bands is somewhat wrong, but you didn't have the decency of informing the main editor and creator about your concerns and to discuss your blunt modifications. That's what talk pages were made for. Good-bye to etiquette!

Like any other list, this one has a purpose, which is to put some order in a matter often discussed and argued about by music critics and fans. It was designed as a companion to the article about the new wave of British heavy metal, which was recently upgraded to FA status. It's true that most of the bands listed don't have an article, but this is not an index of articles on Wikipedia. Other lists on WP simply provide information in a listed format, like lists of TV series episodes or of band members. To blindly delete the content, would undermine the completeness of information the article wants to communicate. I found nowhere in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists the words "must include ONLY links to articles", so I don't think to be in violation of anything on that side. All of the listed bands have at least a reliable source (the Macmillan book) attached to their name. We can argue about notability, but not about the wrong use of sources, unless you don't think the published books cited as sources are all crap. But that would be another issue that we, as editors on WP, cannot face lightheartedly.

By the way, Chemical Ace is described by Macmillan as a band on the thin line between prog and hard rock. It was forcibly inserted in the NWOBHM, just as many other bands whose music genres bordered metal, but by modern standards would be classified in another way. Lewismaster (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only one who seems to treat anything as a private club is you, writing down a list explicitly copied from one single source, with complete disregard to convention. As for decency--don't come barging in here insulting me and then maybe expecting me to play nice and apologetic with you. How about this: I am sorry if your feelings got hurt by the regular editing process in this collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Softlavender, I believe this is all your fault. Blackmetalbaz, perhaps you can help out a fellow metalhead. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (from a webpage created in 2007) "101 rules of NWOBHM (New Wave of British Heavy Metal) 1. The more obscure the better [...] 6. When someone asks you what NWOBHM stands for, tell them something like "the best genre of music, ever." Make sure they still don't understand what it means." I've never heard of it, and I know someone who plays in a post-techno grunge Krautpop band just returned from a tour of Kosovo. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, blame the messenger. Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Flash Brewing Company

Hello good Dr, it's 99, dropping an article that you edited briefly in 2013. It's a press release tended by a few COI accounts. I've done some modest trimming, but wanted to give you a shot at this, and perhaps have a look at its main contributor. Hope you're well and enjoying a fine springtime, and a languorous summer break. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

99, I'll work on it too. I started a "History" section in the article. I wonder if it needs such a complete listing of all the beers. Geoff | Who, me? 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Very best, 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Geoff, if you look at my contributions on the Dutch wiki, you'll see a seasoned editor there reverting all my edits on this beer company's article--every individual beer there had an article, with nothing more than a Beeradvocate link, if that. The answer is, in my opinion, no: we don't do listings. We should clean up Brasserie d'Achouffe as well--aargh, Duvel bought that one as well! I also removed the list of awards. We need to get this together with a guideline. There are so many of these awards, for all the different kinds of beer, all throughout the year and all over the year--nothing means anything anymore. They need to go. 99, cheers: I'm having a very affordable and good American tripel: Victory Golden Monkey, a good deal at six for $12.99. I wish they paid me to say that. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Way more discerning, or esoteric, than I am. I was just happy to find a single remaining bottle of Leinenkugel Summer Shandy in the back of the fridge tonight. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And feeling hoppy, I broke out one of my last examples of Kalona (Iowa) Brewing Company's Sucha Mucha IPA last night. Not much distribution outside Iowa, but nice if you're in the area of U of I and in an IPA frame of mind. (I didn't get anything for this ad placement, either. It's just the thing to do around here where "no one knows your name.") Geoff | Who, me? 14:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Error: No article specified.
Muffled Pocketed 14:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tense of "survived by"

Hi Doc

Happy Summer. This stupid edit skirmish could use the input of a professional writer such as yourself. My survey of precedent sources (which is not exhaustive) indicates that (as suggested in the forum page that the antagonist linked to in the edit summary) "is" is used when the article is current reporting, and "was" is used when it's historical--and that the distinction of whether the survivors continue to survive is not relevant to the tense of the verb. Rather, it simply indicates whether the reporting is contemporaneous—NOTNEWS— or retrospective / for posterity (see my summary on talk page). Do you have a view? Wasn't able to find anything in Chicago Style (but I'm not a subscriber so can't be definitive).

Thoughts?

Thanks Bongomatic 08:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Since Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor an obituary repository, "is [or was] survived by" has no place in it. If the relatives are to be mentioned, the mention should be in another paragraph: a paragraph about his family (and since they are non-notable, it is immaterial whether any of them are alive or will be whenever the article may be read). If the information is lengthy enough, it can be in a separate "Personal Life" section. If the information is not even lengthy or notable enough to mention (or if the subject and/or article itself is not notable enough or lengthy enough for such information), just omit the part about the relatives completely. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Softlavender has a point, but in some cases (or many cases, I don't know) it may be too fine a point. I don't mind it here. The business of tense--I could look it up, but hey, I just don't know. The FA and GA writers will know--folks like Casliber and Ritchie333. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bongo is right that "is" should be used when the surviving relatives are still living, or "was" if they are all deceased, but Softlavender is also right that it's generally something we should not need to use. A well-written and comprehensive biography will have family details and cause of death in some detail, making a simple "survived by" clause that joins the two things together unnecessary. I've updated the article to make this argument superfluous. PS: It's nice to be called an "FA" writer despite having a 100% failure rate at FAC (the last attempt, The Beatles (album) didn't make it out of PR before I got bored) :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually @Ritchie333:, I was arguing the opposite. I was suggesting that "was" is to be used when an article written retrospectively and for posterity, without any concern whatsoever as to the status of the survivors at the time of writing. An encyclopedia article about someone who died a year ago should read the same (other than new facts) as about someone who died fifty years ago. It's only news articles that are explicitly contemporaneous with the death of the subject (I argue) that should use "is". Bongomatic 05:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Softlavender here. The phrase invariable indicate a copy from an obit or an attempt to write like an obit., and that's why we have the fundamental policy NOT OBITUARY. Normally the people include at least the spouse and children & parents is still living, and our practice is to list them under personal life if the person is more than borderline notable. If they include further relatives, normally they are not relevant to the article at all, unless the person is very famous. (Of course there are exceptions--two brothers who form a company) . I cannot immediately think of any example where the terms would be appropriately used. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excrement

Drmies can you block this [1] piece of shit? Irondome (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure! I block Nazis for free. I was watching the news, thinking how long it would be before we have an article on this. Meanwhile, recent suicide bombings in Turkey and Iraq do not get this instant coverage--on Wikipedia, and on three networks at the same time. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One place Turkey and Iraq were both mentioned, and highlighted in pink and red, was in a leaflet that I just received telling me to vote for the UK to leave the European Union. This is strange because neither have much to do with it. Turkey is a prospective EU member -- but not going to happen while Erdogan is in charge I think -- but Iraq is mostly a place for EU states' military intervention and arms sales, not potential membership. MPS1992 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Enoch was right. I 'ad that Dalai Lama in the back of the cab last week..Irondome (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I think you'll find that UK llamas are covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
See what I mean? They won't even let you live. I blame that Uber an'all, I mean its ruining the trade. Irondome (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martinevans - I'm trying hard to keep WP up-to-date on animal welfare legislation and that is one I think I have missed. If you had a Push-me-pull-you llama, how would you know how to transport it head first and what would the EU do about it if you got it wrong? Bring on the next 2 weeks! DrChrissy (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Who

A contribution to rock 'n' roll of Pete Townshend as a member of The Who is a contribution to rock 'n' roll of The Who. By your logic, no rock bands have contributed anything to rock 'n' roll, only individuals have. 72.43.153.30 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Whooooo are you? Whoo-whoo! Whoo whoo! Muffled Pocketed 15:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Perhaps it is Tommy DrChrissy (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't stop them from edit-warring it back in *sigh* [2] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere... Muffled Pocketed 14:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the descriptions better citations. In the section regarding the John Oliver segment, I replaced Huffington Post, Daily Beast, and Washington Post with New York Times, Times Magazine, and Wall Street Journal. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Sounds like the Post has gone downhll then! Muffled Pocketed 11:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Woody Paige

Back in August 2015, you indefinitely fully protected Woody Paige because of the severe sock puppetry by Jaredgk2008. There was an SPI open yesterday involving him vandalizing Hank Goldberg. I wondered if the protection on Hank Goldberg could be increased from semi protection to 30/500 protection because the protection policy for 30/500 protection says:

Extended confirmed protection may only be applied where authorized by the arbitration committee or in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption.

JamesBWatson agreed with me and raised protection on Hank Goldberg from semi to 30/500. Do you want to try lowering protection on Woody Paige from full to 30/500 because of what the protection policy says? —MRD2014 T C 14:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha. I asked you because you protected it. —MRD2014 T C 01:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you should tell MRD2014 to ask me, Drmies, since you protected the article, and I had nothing to do with it. I don't see the fact that I did something similar to a completely different article as somehow making me involved. However, since you have referred MRD2014 to me, I've looked at the history of the article. It is clear that semi-protection and block-a-mole totally failed to deal with the problem, and as far as I can see full protection and 30/500 protection are the only other options. Since 30/500 protection stands to cause less collateral damage, it seems to me that we ought to try that, and return to full protection only if it doesn't work. I'll go ahead and change the protection.
On a different issue, why do you assume that Jared is heterosexual? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JamesBWatson, you are correct: that is just an assumption and the less said about this person, the better. Listen, I didn't ask/ping you because of involvement--I asked you because of your expertise. I've been feeling a bit out of touch; in part it's ArbCom, maybe, but another part is this summer, with a different schedule and all that. I feel like my Wikipedia editing is more disjointed than it's ever been, so I'm finding myself relying more and more on others. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your Wikipedia editing is excellent, as always. The only problem is that you are distracted by your wonderful children, appealing swimming pools, and the elegant Dutch metrosexual jackets that you fancy. Otherwise, all is well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jacomijne Costers

On 11 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jacomijne Costers, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Augustinian nun Jacomijne Costers survived the plague in 1489 and wrote Visioen en exempel, recounting her vision of being led through hell and purgatory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jacomijne Costers. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jacomijne Costers), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our father in heaven...

...and our friend on Talk:Knanaya is back (Psthomas, in case you've forgotten). The article protection expired this past week (I've now reset it for another year), rangeblocks are out of the question so it'll be one long time sink. —SpacemanSpiff 02:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah. Ignore them on the talk page--RBI. Cuchullain, if you want to try and guide this editor along, as your talk page comment suggested, you have my blessing. If so, feel free to roll back my rollback. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're from Norway, right?

Can you figure out if this article – Iselilja (given name) – should exist or not? A name that less than 20 Norwegians sport [3]? The name is actually the cryptic title, Iselilja, of a 2004 album by the band Gåte. My thinking is the article should possibly be merged into that (or possibly outright deleted). Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Err I always thought Netherlands? Only 600 miles apart... Leerdammer rather than Lutefisk :) but you're probably correct in casting a doubtful eye on it- can the name really have been 'made up' a year ago, and yet have no meaning?!Muffled Pocketed 08:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How silly of me to forget. Drmies is Danish, of course. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Drmies is from Öland, he's written articles about Öländska lighthouses and stuff. Or Iceland — did anybody see Rams? Stark landscapes, silent men, made me think of Drmies. I've prodded Iselilja (given name). Bishonen | talk 11:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
They all look alike, Bish. Or perhaps I should say, you all look alike. Softlavender (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of najd

Why do you keep reinserting material from http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?55352-The-Hadith-of-Najd. The wiki article was created in 2006 whereas the blog that it is copying from was created in 2005. Clearly the wiki article is copying the blog.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=724983139"