User talk:Drmies/Archive 14

Take a look at the "automated archival" section.--Cannibaloki 00:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Drmies prefers to wait until I complain about not being able to navigate it on my iPod, however since my iPod is broken, I have been unable to live up to my end of the bargain. What do you think doc, Nevada and Bama in a bowl game this year?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  LOL--Cannibaloki 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Y'all is just too funny. K, I am unwilling to talk about football. Remember, the South? You don't talk about my momma, and you don't rub salt in football wounds. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey I am just happy they beat Boisie State, you had BCS last year didn't you, and we lost to SMU in Hawaii, is SMU even a real school?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whoa, they beat Boise State? Wow... Drmies (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

As Drmies probably knows, SMU is proud host to the George W. Bush Presidential Library. FredoMurphy (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

@kelapstick - Dunno, ask Doak WalkerorEric Dickerson. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

@Doc, they did indeed. Snuck by at the end. @Fred, I will have to check it out next time I am in Texas, do you think they will have the last two Stieg Larsson books, I just finished The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo a few weeks ago. @Eagles, Touché...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have been neutral when I wrote about Fidel Castro. I lived 30 years in Cuba, so I lived all the thing that I wrote. I'm so sorry for bother you, but I've written the reality that the government of Cuba does not show— Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipetoledo (talk • contribs)

• Sorry, but commenting on the evil of his government on the talk page of his article, that's not OK here, and the history of Talk:Fidel Castro shows that I'm not the only one to think so. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• The inserted passage clearly states that the Fischer story is a rumor, not a fact. There's a citation for the rumor. It's not being proposed as a fact. So it doesn't make any sense to remove it on the ground that it's not a fact. Bigfoot doesn't exist. It's just rumor. But there's still a wikipedia page on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegadfly1 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Yeah, that doesn't fly. Some guy says, "did you know that..." to which Chris Squire says, "ahem, eh, no." That's not enough to qualify. Besides, the belief that Bigfoot exists has been written about in notable sources, and that does not apply here. If you want to publicize this kind of trivia, do it on www.yesfans.com. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Not sure we should trust the perceptual reports of inebriated Appalachians at 3am more than the research of a trained reporter, but I guess I'll take your word on that! Thegadfly1 (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Thegadfly1Reply
      • Sorry I seemed inebriated. Or Appalachian. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I didn't understand the problem?[1] The phrase nation at a university is more correct than in, right? If not, then you should edit the names of articles on Finnish and Swedish nations, too. -- Frous (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think I'll have the dscussion here. -- Frous (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• You had added Nations at Scottish universities. There is no such article. That's all I was saying. I see now that there is a Nations in Scottish universities--so add that to the "See also" section. I don't know which preposition is right and which one isn't; a discussion on the naming of articles is a different matter. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The naming of articles is a difficult matter. It isn't just one of your holiday games. LadyofShalott 00:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Drmies, so my mistake in your opinion was that I redirected the page to a new page like half a minute too late, i.e. the link was red for that 0.5 min? If the current policy is this bureaucratic, I'll censor the rest of this sentence... -.- --

LadyofShalott, sorry, I don't speak/write English natively and I'm not familiar with T.S. Eliot's works, so could you please explain that in words of one syllable. :) (explain in words of one syllable is the only English equivalent I know for the Finnish vääntää rautalangasta[2], lit. "to wrench from iron wire" meaning "to explain in very simple words". If you have a better saying, please let me know:). -- Frous (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Frous, but I have no idea what you're saying. You inserted a redlink, Nations at Scottish universities, into Nation (university)'s "See also" section, here. I removed it here, because there is no such article and you don't put redlinks in "See also" sections. You inserted another redlink here, and stuck the same redlink back in the "See also" section here, saying "yes there is [such an article]". There wasn't, obviously. Then you're talking about making a redirect half a minute later, but you didn't--there is no "new page" and there is no new name for the article Nations in Scottish universities. This is the third time that I am trying to explain to you that you shouldn't put redlinks in "See also" sections, and there are no more ways in which I can say it. You can claim that rules are bureaucratic and that may be so, but this one is pretty simple: don't put redlinked articles in "See also" sections. Here it is, from WP:ALSO: "The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)." This has taken too much time already. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Frous, I was just making a (rather lame) joke. There's no need to worry further about my comment at all. LadyofShalott 16:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason this article is at Father Sangermano rather than Vincentius Sangermano?LadyofShalott 00:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes there is. I only found out long after I started the article that he had a first name, that's one, and second, he seems to be known mostly as "Father Sangermano," though one also finds "San Germano." If I remember correctly, I first found a reference with "V" in it, and later one (a less noticeable one) with his entire name. Wanna rename him? Drmies (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'll go ahead and do so. I figured there must be a good reason you'd done that. LadyofShalott 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm I don't always like our naming conventions, T.S. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

At least we have redirects, so an article can "have three different names" (or however many). It appears there's a disambiguation page at San Germano. Perhaps he should be linked from there? LadyofShalott 01:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

When you reverted Hebburn to the same edition I was in the process of reverting to, you gave my Twinkle all sorts of weird errors. Keep up the good work, and good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. Your Twinkle and mine should go out on a date and set things straight. I'll buy them popcorn if need be. I think I've found that I am sometimes in conflict with Huggle users, but I'm too much of a luddite to really figure it out. Take care, and thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Drmies, the last change you made is a very good one. Now the whole paragraph sits well, including the wikified names. I have though a quick suggestion, if you will:

In May 2010, Bastos and radio host Doug Anderson organized a concert at which a number of notable South African artists (incl. Farryl Purkiss, Merseystate, and Wendy Oldfield) performed to help raise funds for the victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, at the Baxter Concert Hall in Cape Town.

I think that would be a final touch-up. Agreed? I see, you also changed the name of the subject, that's very nice. His official web site is on his name, which is Lionel Bastos. Well, I just improved that very article and I'm done; unless something new comes up.

A question: I felt really said that you did post something about me on BMK's talk page. You could communicate with me directly, instead. You also said "I find their comments almost illegible, and I can't figure out who said what in response to what." Who are "them" Drmies? What is it you can't decipher? I hope you are not insinuating something, are you? Before I form an opinion, I just wanted to be sure.:-) Cheers and thank you again. _{Fusion Is the} Future 20:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Fusion, I hope you don't mind, but I've edited the layout of your comments a bit, in a manner which I think is more conventional and more conducive to reading, esp. if it involves a conversation, with two or more partners. (Note that I've bulleted my response; a next editor might use two asterisks for a further indent.) To the point: "Their" comes from my usage of Singular they; I'm a firm believer in it. I left a note on BMK's talk page because I wanted someone else's input on my interaction with you, and I felt that I had communicated with you enough to where such a second opinion would be warranted. There's nothing going on behind your back: all our edits are part of our history and accessible to anyone anyway, as you know, since you traced me there. ;) I hope this clears it up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Oh (note: one asterisk, since I'm still replying to you), go ahead and make that edit to Bastos--you don't need my or anyone else's permission! Drmies (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

"I left a note on BMK's talk page because I wanted someone else's input..."

Drmies, BMK is not "someone else." He falsely incriminated me at the ANI, where no actions were taken. He was not the right person to ask. Since you referred to your age, at my talk page, you should know better.:-) I, myself, would never do this to you. You really hurt me Drmies. Evenly, don't you trust your own judgment? Besides, what was wrong with my interactions with you? Didn't we come to an agreement? A sincere apology would make it.:-) Cheers. _{Fusion Is the} Future 19:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't feel the need to apologize for anything here. You did not read my remarks carefully, and I think we're done. Good day. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, as a not-born-yesterday baby-boomer, actually, as one of the earliest baby-boomers who saw the light, I am proud of being part of the divine movements, including the Woodstock manifestations propelled by telling-like-it-is music, that affected/changed the course of the societies of the world, for the better.

• That includes having a good grasp of the knowledge-wisdom, and understanding.
• That includes being straight-forward honest, and respectful.
• That includes having ability to suppress the evil-ego which has, otherwise, devilish skills to take over the minds of the human beings, and run for a mass-destruction, not only in real life, but also on the Internet, under the concealed identity.

So, being involved with the human psychology, it is to my interest to read carefully and understand each and every word's being said by others, and the motive behind it. Your words are not an exception; indeed, very easy to understand. As I mentioned above, you hurt me. Hence, a sincere apology would be nice, and it would not make you weaker, rather stronger. I am here to contribute Wikipedia by improving the articles, and I profoundly value the importance of seeking consensus.

It's not a winning-losing thing Drmies. It's the thing we call "Doing it right." Would you agree?:-) Cheers. _{Fusion Is the} Future 10:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I hurt you by using singular they? You gots to be kidding. Oh, stop patronizing me, while you're at it. For someone who yaks so much you're a bad reader: "what was wrong with my interactions with you?" you asked, all the time missing the point, that I was asking BMK, who is a highly respected and experienced editor here and whose opinion I value highly, if I did anything wrong in my interactions with you. I like BMK. They do good work and they have common sense. Like I said, we're done here, unless you wish to add an apology for taking up time and server space. Everything else I will see as an invitation to archive this discussion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Where would the line be for something like this considering missing white woman syndrome? Can kinda see arguments on both sides but really dont see a situation where we would need an article for every single one that shows up, especially with no outside notability.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, thanks for leading me to another hornet's nest. I think that WP:NOTNEWS applies in many of those cases; it seems to me that a lot of editors get to creating articles with their second cup of coffee and the newspaper in front of their computer monitor. Thanks for the note! Drmies (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Your welcome!...lolWolfstorm000 (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lieber Drmies, Sie haben mir vorher auch mal geholfen. Bitte helfen Sie mir bei der Seite Yılmaz Onay. CorenSearcBot hat mir ein Nachricht gesendet. Aber ich habe kein Paste-Copy gemacht. Von der türkischen und deutschen Seiten übersetze ich dieses Artikel. Vielen Dank für Ihre Mühe.--Gemalmaz ^ileti 12:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Ich habe an der Diskussionseite des Yılmaz Onay's so was geschrieben. Ob ich es richtig gemacht habe, bitte teilen Sie mit: "(CorenSearchBot is in error. No text copy-pasted from the said Internet site http://www.turkish-lit.boun.edu.tr/author.asp?CharSet=Turkish&ID=220"Reply

With all due respect, I remove the tag. Thank you.--Gemalmaz ileti 15:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)). --Gemalmaz ^ileti 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Gemalmaz, thanks for your note. I looked at the tag and the version of the article at the time, and I don't see any problems, but I'm going to ask an expert how this may have happened. As far as I can tell, the bot was in error and you removed the tag in an appropriate manner--realize, though, that I'm not truly the expert here, and I'll get back to you (keep your eye on this section for updates or explanations). In the meantime, feel free to drop me a line anytime, and hey, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! The field of Turkish culture is seriously underdeveloped, and I am grateful for your contributions. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Pardon me, I watch LadyofShalott's talk page and thought I might get here quicker. It looks like a simple false positive to me. They're quite common and the people who deal with the articles it flags (they're reported to WP:SCV) know that, so you shouln't have anything to worry about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks HJ, for stalking my beloved Lady's page and for weighing in. Your answer is appreciated and I'm dropping a note on Gemalmaz's page. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Just stopping by to concur. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm finally here, and it looks like you all have covered it. Just to reiterate, the bot does sometimes have false positives, and it is fine to remove them when that happens, as in this case. LadyofShalott 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Than you Drmies and LadyofShalot.--Gemalmaz ^ileti 21:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cher Drmies,

Merci beaucoup for reverting vandalism on my page.

Bon weekend!

--Frania W. (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• De rien, Frania. A la prochaine, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sincerely hope that there will be no "prochaine" & that we meet again under better circumstances - however, it is such circumstances that make us realize that we have "anges gardiens" & who they are.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• That's nice to hear. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I appreciate your comment and interest!

To be honest, I'm not thoroughly acquainted with the process of canonisation and its evolution. The way I understand the sentences in Andreev (Андреев), I tend to think it was some later copies of his biography that introduced the reference to sainthood because "Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian scholars and clerics were convinced that only a universally recognised Christian authority could write in this manner" [Andreev, p. 210]. Also, I don't believe Cosmas is currently recognised as a saint by any Orthodox church. I don't think it's very likely that he was at one point canonised and then somehow forgotten about :)

Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Todor, that's just the thing--it's perfectly possible for someone to have been a saint and then become forgotten. It's a fascinating history. The quote you just gave is indicative of a way of thinking about saints: if someone acts in a certain way, they must have been a saint. But to cut a long story short, before the twelfth/thirteenth century it really doesn't make a lot of sense to speak of a canonization process since there really wasn't one. Making Saints: How The Catholic Church Determines Who Becomes A Saint, Who Doesn't, And Why is kind of a fun read in that regard. Maybe you can start a movement to have him canonized? You'd be a saintmaker, an interesting profession. Sorry, I gotta go. Thanks for writing fun articles and for dropping me a line! Drmies (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

What would we need to do to better prepare a standard for obviously questionable article type? Not only with ones related to missing white woman syndrome but ones relating to failed and entrapped terrorists such as Mohamed Osman Mohamud and Farooque Ahmed? I seriously think there needs to be a standard or a guideline to judge when something along these lines is notable. IMO if nothing happens, there isnt a good reason to have a stand-alone article about someone who did nothing but get caught. Obviously others feel differently, but the arguments from both sides have merits. It almost seems like its coming down to whoever has the most people on one side since there is no thresh hold to cross. Hope I made your day again...lol. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've nominated 23 Minutes In Hell, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Metro, that's real nice--but that's way too much credit. I added your name as a "DYKmake", if only for the record, since you did most of the work. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
• BTW, you did a really nice job. Thanks! As a sidenote, I just got done teaching a slightly different version--not a NYT bestseller, I believe. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I started the GA review for the Land of the Green Plums at Talk:The Land of Green Plums/GA1. This should be a fun book to review, so I hope you are ready! Sadads (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Ready when you are. BTW, "fun"--it's a pretty bleak book, but with a beauty all of its own, a kind of a concrete beauty. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

See the comments I left on the review, and if we can do that bit of expansion and plot trimming, I think we will be in really good shape for the rest of the clean up for GA, Sadads (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Drmies, Just noticed. You made mass deletes and changes, including the core of the article, without discussing it first. Better seek consensus. I did restore it to the previous version. Please go to article's talk page and discuss, so that we can build consensus. That would be nice. Actually, I liked most of what you did. Still, discussing and building consensus, before making mass deletes and changes, is a good thing.

Here is the talk page, if you will.

And here I created a page consisting of your version. Let's compare the two versions, and discuss, and build consensus.

Thanks and cheers. _{Fusion Is the} Future 02:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Seriously, discuss regular editing with you? Seeking approval from you? Why don't you call for a conference to see if you can get a consensus for unverified tripe such as this, "After the attack, the group could not survive any longer"? What does that even mean? I invite anyone to look at the lead of your version and that of the one you butchered. Hey, at least you kept the "cleanup tag," which is a good thing considering the unverified trivia you stuck back in. I've already wasted too much time on you, and I've asked other editors for input at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Something else: stay off my talk page; your wikilawyerish attitude is giving me a headache. I tried to be nice to you, but to no avail, and I'm done. Don't bother responding here. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated that copy-pasted alternative draft for deletion, it seems to serve no useful purpose. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fusion is the future/A. Engin. pablo 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Ironically that's the better version. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well a better version, certainly, and I know that people usually keep their preferred version. You've done a fine job cleaning it up, let's see what happens next ... pablo 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lieber Drmies, die Seite Atilla Engin hatte ich angefangen zu schreiben und hatte ich Sie, wenn Sie sich erinnern, darum gebeten mir dabei zu helfen. Sie haben auch geholfen. Atilla Engin ist für die türkischen Jazz area ein wichtiger Person. Deshalb hatte ich ihn in der türkischen und deutschen Seite der Wikipedias geschrieben. Jetzt sehe ich es, dass Fusion ist Future hat sich in die Sache gemischt und sehr viele Probleme sind aufgetaucht. Bei dieses Problem habe ich vertrauen gegenüber Sie, weil Sie mir mehrmals geschrieben haben, dass Sie immer hilfsbereit sind. Ich glaube ernst, Sie bemühen sich für ein qualifizierte Wikipedia, sonst nichts. Hier ist das deutsches Artikel Atilla Engin auf Deutsch. Können Sie en Blick auf die deutschen Seite werfen? Wenn es so richtig ist, werde ich Engin, auf englischen Wikipedia, sowie in deutschen Format schreiben und Sie helfen mir bei der Grammatik bitte. Zur Zeit befinde ich mich in Ausland, sobald ich in die Türkei zurück komme, kann ich mich darum kümmern, dass das Artikel in englischen Wikipedia, so wie die deutschen Artikel steht. Viele Grüsse aus Roma --Gemalmaz ^ileti 07:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies. Thank you for your expansion. Your German is better, than my English. It is not bad. :) What are you thinking about German version of Atilla Engin page?--Gemalmaz ^ileti 15:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're fast, Gemalmaz. In the meantime, I dropped another active editor a note, here, asking for their opinion as well. I think the article certainly looks a lot better. As I said to Pablo, though, there is probably too much detail and some not-so-neutral language: I personally don't think that the second paragraph of "Leben und Wirken" can stand in the English wiki. But that aside, the German wiki has something on the Turkey years, even though it is sourced to something that wouldn't be acceptable here. Likewise, the USA years are covered much better on the German wiki, and I would urge you to add that to the English wiki. Don't worry about your English--it's fine, and there's always editors who can help, including me.

Still, the problem is always going to be sources. I think (others may disagree) that the article needs at least some expansion to cover these (important) Turkey and USA periods, even if the sourcing isn't perfect, but Pablo and I have been working hard to trim the article of what we consider unnecessary detail (see this edit, for instance), and such detail should not be reintroduced. We're on it. Thanks for your note. Oh, please run out and eat Carciofi alla giudia and a big plate full of Carbonara, and tell me how it was. Indulge--I'll be glad to send you some statin if you overdid it. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Carciofi alla giudia ist leider nur in Lazzio zu finden. Ich kehre morgen zurück und habe jetzt keine Zeit. Carbonara hatte ich schon mal gegessen. Das ist natürlich, so wie die alle andere italienischen Foods sehr delicates.Für Ihre Empfehlungen bedanke ich mich. Wenn ich wieder nach Rom komme, werde ich Carciofi probieren, natürlich alla giudia. :)--Gemalmaz ^ileti 15:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gemalmaz, I like you. You probably have a great taste in wine also. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I know I always bring such nice things to you so you always have something fun to look into, but I have an issue with another editors tone during an AfD. If you get a chance could you take a look and see if I am correct in feeling slightly insulted by this person? Thanks! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. Hey, you had asked about non-notable articles and deletion and all that--our notability guidelines usually lead to an answer in the end. Sometimes it's slow, and sometimes articles stay around much longer than they should, but that's the way it is. Consensus building can be a messy process, and not always to editors agree, but that also is the way it is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, it seems that way but I was actually referring to being called "lazy", "whining", "silly" and "poopyhead" by another editor after I posted an opinion that he apparently didnt like. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, I hadn't looked at that yet. Poopyhead? Is that better or worse than bootybutt? Drmies (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Lol, at least I apparently caught you in a good mood! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• But Wolfstorm, "fix or delete it," that's not very helpful. If it can be fixed, then it must be broken, and if it can be fixed to where it should be kept then it's a notable topic. An article should be deleted if the topic is non-notable, not (usually) if it's a bad article. If you mean that if someone doesn't fix it, it should be deleted--yeah, that someone could be you (or me) also. Usually editors take such a comment to mean "you fix it--the topic is notable, but I can't be bothered." Whether they are right or wrong isn't so much the issue; what matters is that you create an impression (which doesn't reflect you as an editor, I imagine) that you are not willing to pull the weight. Milowent, they've been around the block here, and when they said that they do plenty of that work they are right--Milowent is, as far as I'm concerned, a great editor who is a great benefit to the project, and you and I both can probably learn from them.

  Time to stop slinging mud, even silly mud ("poopyhead" can only be meant facetiously..., and Milowent's very first response to you was meant in the best of spirits), and get back to work. Make up with Milowent, one way or another, and take my word for it: the impression you create with that remark does you no justice. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Did so and explained my reasoning. Fix or delete wasnt supposed to sound the way it was taken, there were a lot of people stating they had references to use, but no one had used them. When I did a search myself I couldnt find anything better than was there, if that was all thats available it should have been deleted. If they had good sources they should have been adding them, not talking about them. Also, as I explained to Milowent I just went through a divorce where my ex continually called me lazy as a way to discredit me to the courts. Didnt work, but it raises my hackles pretty quickly. Thanks for the advice. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wolfstorm000, please see my comment directed towards your opinion at the AfD discussion. It is useful to ground your comments at AfD discussion in the relevant policies and guidelines. What I quoted comes straight off the AfD page at WP:BEFORE. ^Bongo_matic 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ummmm, obviously I wasnt the only delete vote since I was not the one to bring it up for deletion. Secondly, as I stated above, I did look for sources, didnt find any better than what was already being used, which were not strong enough to pass guidelines, otherwise it wouldnt have been at AfD to start with. Also, as was pointed out above, others had stated they had sources, all they had to do was put them in and the problem would have been fixed. And...... I did not cast an immediate delete, I stated if it cant be fixed then it should be deleted. So if sources are not added to bring it up then it would not meet policy, it reads as an advert. and has been cited as such, which is also grounds for deletion. And since I was not the one to bring to AfD, why would WP:BEFORE apply to me? Seriously, if you have a valid reason I do want to know. So which policy would be or would not be applicable? Wolfstorm000 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wolf, I'm not about to call you lazy, and neither is Bongo (though they have a mean streak, no doubt)--but Bongo is correct in pointing to that sentence from the AfD guidelines. If you believe that sources are not available, and that editing won't help, then delete should be your answer. "Fix" means, "could be fixed by means of regular editing." BTW, glad the tactic didn't work. I hope there's a football game on TV for you tonight, and that you got to keep a TV. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lol, honestly, I kept just about everything, including the kids which I have sole custody for. And as MD is one of the "mother first" states and Im the father, shows how well she did in her arguments. I did lose the apartment but have a 4 bedroom house now so :) No worries, my convo with Milowent went well and thats the only concern I had really. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good, I'm glad. MD? The Sot-Weed Factor (Cooke poem) still needs writing--see The Sot-Weed Factor for inspiration. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

First of all, you were the only delete "vote"—while the nominator is considered to opine "delete", it is implicit.

Second, you were the only person to say "fix or delete", which explicitly implies that the article can be fixed (especially in the context of the full-length PC World review from the Washington Post website that was mentioned by a previous "keep" opiner).

Third, it is reasonable to expect a good faith search for coverage in reliable third-party sources, which you clearly didn't make (or, if you did, then you do not have sufficient familiarity with the tools of the trade to come to a well-informed opinion)— see a Google news archive search and a Google Books search, each of which suggest notability on the first page of hits (the first hit of the news archive search is definitive). ^Bongo_matic 02:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok Drmies Ill keep it in mind, but right now Ive been working on getting photos to use for some of the historical articles around the area of Ellicott City and Elkridge for articles like the Thomas Viaduct, Patterson Viaduct and others since I have a personal interest in them and the kids like going there so its an all around enjoyable time for us. Again, Bongo if you have them, use them. I didnt find them so if they are good ones Im happy you found them. So far Milowent has added one that seems to be good. And, honestly, please dont use someone elses page to talk to me, use mine. It might be unreasonable but I talk to Drmies because I trust his opinion and hes usually pretty blunt about giving it to me and has been since we met on an article awhile ago when he told me to put the stick down... lol. Anyway, I dont want his page taken up for someone else talking to me. If you believe I am wrong in a policy discussion, fine. Im not going to argue over it. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If an article is so bad that deleting it improves the encyclopedia then a fix or delete opinion seems perfectly reasonable no matter what the self-appointed nabobs proclaim. FredoMurphy (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, that's neither here nor there. Unless you are calling me a self-appointed nabob, of course, in which case it's here. But I don't know what a nabob is and I'm not about to click that link, since I don't know where your wikilinks have been. Rather than dropping nuggets of wisdom here, why don't you go and fix 2010 SEC Championship Game by adding some references to reliable sources, in nice citation templates? I thought you cared. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• "since I don't know where your wikilinks have been." Sorry, I had to lawl.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfstorm000 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hey I noticed this flipping through the DRV pages Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 8. Its a random comment in the middle of the page unattached to anything. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It isn't encouraging that an intellectualoid thinks an article about a sporting event shouldn't note the leading participants and should serve only as a directory page with broadcast scheduling. And since personal animus, ignorance and bias leads the the dishonest and corrupt members of the clerisy here to remove content and delete articles (no matter how well referenced or significant), I tend to be judicious with my time. Cheerios! FredoMurphy (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, thank you for your kind words! Such flattery...are you fishing for a barnstar? Drmies (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have other ideas for how a barnstar (and a Heisman for that matter) might best be utilized. FredoMurphy (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Psst! Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Gracias. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
• BTW, this Libb Thims stuff (and his own website and video), that's real interesting stuff. Still, beter kwijt dan rijk, as a Dutch person might say. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
• I see! Drmies (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • See User talk:Silver seren#Article rescue 2010-12-09 too. Uncle G (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The DYK project (nominate) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you have seen the most recent comment, Sadads (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The reinsertion was accidental: not sure how it happened. The "vandalism" was the name "Holly Wolly Munroe", which was actually just "Holly Munroe".—Kww(talk) 15:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Gotcha. Thanks. Hey, are you alternating, yes space or no space between "KWW" and "talk"? I thought I saw you somewhere else with a space. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you see that, it would be forged.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am sitting in the Maple Leaf Lounge in Toronto. I am flying first class to Beijing (flew it home last time), when the time comes, I don't know if I can go back to economy...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• On the road again? Well, K-stick, it's difficult, I'm sure, after living this life of luxury. You'll remember that flight when you're sitting in a yurt drinking some fermented horseblood. Enjoy the Khorkhog!Drmies (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  done

Good work in removing the BLP tag, as the man died 10 years ago and BLP does not apply, how did the tagger not even check? The article has now been 5x expanded from 535 characters (93 words) to 3607 characters (615 words). Care to suggest a suitable DYK? Here's mine Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Haha, you know, I was pretty sure the guy was dead--but the problem was I couldn't find an obit or anything else! I'm putting the kids to bed and then I'll have a look. Thanks MQS! Drmies (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I think that the pictorial evidence[3] showing the man actually painting alongside his wife will be ignored by Hollywood now that he's dead, in a stampede to cash in on his ex-wife recently reviving the big-eye motif. Even in light of the 1984 suit which he lost as a slander suit... and not as a "who created big-eyes" suit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • And more: People G-Nwws Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Now, wasn't that fun? And all because of that big red button on top of this talk page. Thanks again for your help--you did great work. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Inre your DYK Alt hook... there were two challenges from his ex-wife for "paint-offs" and one ordered by the Honolulu judge during the 1986 slander suit. Walter pointedly ignored the ones from his ex in 1970 and 1984, and acting as his own attorney when ordered to paint by a judge in 1986, declined with a claim of a sore shoulder. Perhaps not so much "losing" a paint-off... as repeatedly refusing to participate, and thus losing by default. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • My phrasing wasn't great. I tweaked it--I think reinserting "court-ordered" might help make the case. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
          • Re-tweaked the Alt again myself.[4] While his declining to paint resulted in a judgement against him, as he claimed poverty, he never actually paid anything... so it "cost" him nothing but reputation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

MIES, VASCO here,

What i meant in my summary in this player (it was me with my anon IP) is that User:GiantSnowman told me that if the infobox stayed how it was it would seem as though he was on loan from NOBODY, hence i had to put parent club (Sporting Clube de Portugal) first. Please leave my change be.

Kind regards from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Sure thing. I saw that you had made the previous edit, and I did not want anyone to destroy your fine work. Take it easy, and good talking to you! Drmies (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Drmies, I am pleased to meet you. I was wondering how i should change my user page to make it more stunning. I know it is not orthodox. My goal was to make it very much linked (encyclopedically) and artistic (as progressive as possible), I started wikipedia with too much idealism, i guess. Now, a user page is open to experimentation also, i suppose. I agree mine is rather extreme, but i have the same feeling of "extreme" when reading whatever user page i can find. Sign of the time, i would say. In fact, your remark of my page being inappropriate rings a bell for me. You must be right. I am only trying to be a wikipedian most modernly. Bye bye. --Robertgrassi (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

looks like a COI problem. Perhaps this user might consider moving his article work to a sandbox? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Robert, nice to meet you too. Thanks for your note. Michael, you are right: that is the way to go, move it to User:Robertgrassi/sandbox. Still, is that entirely appropriate? Is this an article that is being worked on, or is it, well, like MySpace?

Robert, there are lots of things one can do with one's user space, but they can't be "like an article" in the way in which you have it. Moreover, it seems to have little to do with Robertgrassi as an editor, and everything with Robert Grassi the musician. Couple that with the fact that you have made few edits outside of that user page, and you get the impression that Wikipedia is not really used for the proper purposes. But feel free to make your case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertgrassi, where other editors will, no doubt, weigh in as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'm copying this whole conversation to the MfD page where we can continue it properly. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks for your message. I'll see what I can do in the following weeks. I don't have much time for wikipedia, unfortunately and I am spending almost all of it writing about the Napoleonic Wars. But I'll have a look at what I can find about Maria Baciu in a while. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for your note! I appreciate your help. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be too many active Romanian WP editors, so whatever you can do would be great. Baciu is probably not the greatest poet your country has ever produced, but still we should have a decent article on you. If you know of any Romanian editors who are interested in literature, please let them know that Romanian writers are underrepresented here. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Once again, you've inspired me to take action. The Big Red Button at the top of this page got me thinking that I'd never fixed an unsourced BLP, or even done any major work on a BLP. I knew there were a few names of living people on my watchlist, and I found one without any references (it could not have been selected by pressing your button, as it didn't have the proper tag), then expanded and referenced it. Chantal Joffe is not my best work, but it's certainly an improvement. BTW, I don't normally go around quoting Ronald Reagan. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, that's an awful phrase--and that smirk, that paternalistic smile during his delivery...I'm glad the button helped. I've been doing a couple a day (I didn't keep a list) and it's been fun. I skip athletes, usually--they're kind of boring. Oh, very often, I run into you, where you did your gnomish work. You are omnipresent.

  It's nice to see that pretty green signature of yours again. Speaking of green: I'm making broccoli soup, and while I'm waiting, I'm drinking a delicious Leffe. Thanks for the note! I have news for you as well, soon. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Wow, a couple a day. Good job! I agree with you about many athlete articles, except for the "kind of" part. It's nice to know you think my signature is "pretty". I used to change it frequently til I settled on the current one. Some of them were just too gaudy. Oooh, a teaser.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Damn you, Mandarax! I was going to surprise you with a DYK nom, but I see you gave yourself a belated Sinterklaas present already. (BTW, great work.) Wait--unsourced BLPs require only 2x expansion?? Drmies (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Sorry! But thanks for the thought (and for the "great work"). Yes, the 2x unsourced BLP rule is brand new. I bet that'll be incentive for you to turn some of those "couple a day" into DYKs, on your way to achieving your second hundred. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Oh, I don't know--there's a GA nomination to be worked on, and it's finals time. Also, my boss had a terrible idea, which he thinks is a great idea, and it's going to take a lot of time. But I'm glad I know that rule now. I did actually go over a dozen or so that I looked at--but they're all fairly uninteresting people (to me). Drmies (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Anne Rouse (AfD discussion)
• Template:Search for (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"MLA/LION"? Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I recommend you withdraw Anne Rouse from AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Ernst, thank you, though there is no need to be snippy. As you can see, I added two references to the article before I nominated it. Uncle, those searches only go so far: for the Google 2000s News search, there are no hits for our poet; for the 1990s, there is one. The Google book search delivers Crossing Boundaries--an anthology giving one single poem by her. I grant you that I had not found it, though one might well ask how important that anthology is. The only other hit from the book searhc is this, unviewable for me, and from the snippet here not exactly substantial. At any rate, Ernst has added plenty, for which I thank you, Dr.; in the meantime, forgive me if you found more than I did. Uncle, MLA/LION--that's the authoritative database of the Modern Language Association, searchable through Literature Online. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I wasn't telling you to use the searches, I was pointing to the template. ☺ So the MLA is what I thought it was. LION wasn't, though. Alas, the latter isn't particularly forthcoming as to how to construct a URL for a search, if that is even possible. (Several of the things that I've wanted to add to the template have turned out to not have ways to encode searches as URLs.) Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Snippy, offended? Eh, I don't follow.. I thought I had actually been very contained in my response. See my comments on the Guatemalan model page. I agree with you about the Guatemalan model and solid web sources for Anne Rouse are not spectacular, granted. I merely asked you to withdraw the AFD given the evidence of coverage in multiple publications, which you've done, no probs. Us evil doctors must look out for one another. Would I prefer it if you asked me to expand an article or suggest a deletion to myself first, yes I would, but it still has the same effect I guess. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I was missing the "hey what's up, how's the family...in regards to..." No big deal, just unexpected. Listen, I've been perusing the article for a DYK hook, but I find it hard to come up with something that has interest and solid sourcing. This women's anthology, that doesn't provide much of a hook. I made some minor copy edits, though. Again, good work, thanks, and I am impressed with the poetry publications you must have on your bookshelf. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Right...the model was yours, not the poet. Got confused there--been doing too many of them (not models, not poets...). Sorry, I though you were defensive because I nominated Rouse, which I thought you created--but you didn't, and I misinterpreted your remark. Should have looked harder before I responded. My apologies, evil doctor. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

No worries fellow evil one. I know you often expand articles yourself and often save articles from the chop so I was a little surprised to see the Anne Rouse article there given the coverage in google books, as I say its not spectacular but google books is usually a good way to assess notability I think unless it is a very current topic/or on a very obscure country... Actually I'd say that a women called Jacqueline Anne Rouse is probably more notable... She was a noted black reformer.. I'll consider creating that some time..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, I saw that--dozens of hits. [Again, I found nothing useful through Gbooks! I still wonder where you got your information!]. I'm about to give a final exam and I'm taking my laptop; maybe I'll get started on JAR. She should make for a nice DYK. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Final exam eh? Well I've become quite adept at finding sources. You have to go further than a simple name search. Different combinations brings up different results. Like a Anne Rouse poet etc. Anortė Mackelaitė also has a very poor initial web coverage but genuine sources are out there in the books and Lithuanian encyclopedias which indiciate she is notable. That was also up for the chop. The important thing is that in turn it identified a very notable church, the tallest in Lithuania which she has designed the glass windows for which Nvvchar and I are currently writing. I do think there are thousands of non notable articles on here but I do think that often the articles being nominated are not the right ones. A browse through Category:Moroccan footballers would be a good start for a mass AFD!! Some people probably think I'm an extreme inclusionist but I'm genuinely not, I think a few minutes research goes a long way to deciding what or what is not suitable for wikipedia. I like nothing more than plentiful google book hits to support articles, those are the real meat if you known what I mean. If I had my way I'd AFD hundreds of the one line sports sub stubs and dubious COI US businessmen stubs we have on here.

Good luck with the Jacqueline article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Athletes, businessmen, and Pokemon... BTW, she's a scholar of, rather than a participant in the civil rights movement, but I made a start. Later, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • And I finished. There isn't much else there for us--but maybe you can dig up more. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the assistance with the Harry M. Rubin page. It feels as though the page was created by either the subject himself or someone close to him. I've been trying to neutralize, but, it's been a bit of a challenge, with a number of editors seemingly personally invested in the article. Thanks again. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. About that link that you restored: I would like to see a more independent source for that information--secondary sourcing is what Wikipedia is all about. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Paddy the Wanderer,. Since you had some involvement with the Paddy the Wanderer, redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Drmies (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you just Twinkle yourself? Isn't that illegal in Alabama?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow! Apparently I did! No wonder I feel dirty. Hey, did you see the dog's article? Another great contribution from a first-time editor. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You've asked my opinion on your DYK reviewing. I am very pleased actually. It would be great if you found it interesting and did it for pleasure rather than obligation. As you might notice, there is some fun(ny junk) there at times :-). You can just scroll through that long page and cherry pick what you like. Materialscientist (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Scientist. I had done a little bit of work there about a year ago, after which I respect you all even more. (And I think the DYK stuff is a lot of fun.) There is some grumbling here and there about the quality of some of the articles, and I've noticed that some (non-DYK) editors are taking a greater interest in proofing the nominations. I made some comments on one of Daniel Case's nominations and I hope it was constructive--Daniel has a thousand times the edits and experience that I have, of course. I myself am helped greatly by some of the editors here: PamD, LadyofShalott, Mandarax, Bongo, K-stick, if you read this, that's you: thanks.

Scientist, I'll do what I can, and please holler at me if I can do a better job or if I'm too harsh. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Guy spent the last year trying to promote someone I presume is himself. You'd think he would have gotten the message.  :) Anyway, always glad to help. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have a lengthy record of diffs demonstrating Lima/Esoglou's consistent bad behaviour, and repeated objections from several independent editors. I am actually in the process of preparing an RfC. I can understand you wanting to protect him because you think people are being nasty to him, but I believe it's important for you to actually learn more about the background to the situation and understand why so many editors have objected repeatedly to his editing behaviour, over the last two years. I have spent weeks discussing individual edits with him on Talk pages just to reach some kind of agreement before making edits, but even after agreement is reached he will later turn around and re-edit the article once he thinks I'm not looking anymore, and then repeat all his original objections, even after other editors have dismissed them. In one case, four independent editors agreed with my edits (Swampyank, Leadwind, Sankari, woofboy), and rejected Esoglou's, at which point Esoglou finally agreed to let my edits pass without reverting them. However, since those editors are no longer active at the page, he is now contesting the edit all over again. This is standard behaviour for Lima/Esoglou. I spend hours researching proper WP:RS to add to articles, and typically add 20-30 WP:RS to lengthy articles which are in need of proper referencing, and I do not appreciate having that effort sabotaged by POV editors (Lima/Esoglou is Catholic, and four independent editors have noted that he repeatedly pushes Catholic POV).--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• That may be so, but I wish you would make your case in civilized language. As I just noted on the talk page (Talk:Theoria), "You have no redeeming value whatsoever" is a personal attack, plain and simple. Have they ever been reported for these edits at AN/I? Did anything come of it? I am leaving another note, for the RfC, on the article talk page, which is where we should have this discussion. For the record, I don't know Esouglu (or any of the other editors you mention) from Adam. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• • I am really, really trying to hold my temper here. I had a run-in yesterday with this user and I loathe the thought of blocking an established user, but these attacks are going to stop one way or another. If I act now, I'm going to lower the boom way too hard. I would definitely bring this up at ANI. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

My response to your objections to this DYK nomination has been posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_16

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for helping on Operation Broken Trust; please go ahead and make changes as you see fit.Ekem (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. To be honest, you've already covered the major concerns for the article in your reviews, and I don't have anything more to add. There has been a "Repeat: Request for re-evaluation," and I'm just going to let another reviewer look at it. - PM800 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. I think that's the best way to go. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi I am trying to set up this page - but it keeps getting deleted. I am the administrator of our website and some of the details are going to be similar to our wikipedia article.. I don't understand why it keeps on getting deleted when the bot is referencing our own website and saying we are copywrite infringing on ourselves??? Sionkooc (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC) please can it be undeleted... ? Sionkooc (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, but I don't think so. Mind you, I am not an administrator, and I did not delete it. However, I did nominate if for deletion the second time. The first time it was nominated as a copyright infringement (if the material you copy is your own, that needs to be proven--see Wikipedia:Copyrights). Now, that you say "referencing our own website" proves a clear conflict of interest, and that is not a good thing. I nominated it since it was advertising and in no way met the requirements of an encyclopedic article. Please see Wikipedia:CSD#G11. The administrator who deleted it can be contacted at User talk:Phantomsteve. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I read your message. What kind of references would you like?

Do you consider that the original article is ok as-is anyway? It only has two references and both are vendors of that system. PS. Is this the correct way to reply to your message on my talk page or should I post there? James 80.176.88.36 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• James, this is fine. You are responding to my edit specifically, so my talk page is a good venue. If we were to continue, we'd do it on the talk page of the article, but in the meantime something else came up of some urgency (and your comment above confirms my opinion): please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V4 Engine Management System and feel free to comment on the article/subject as a whole (you may want to have a look at WP:N also, for general remarks about 'notability'). Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I think that page might have been deleted once before? James 80.176.88.36 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Also this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VEMS has some of the same problems. 80.176.88.36 (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You've been here for quite some time, you should know better than this, even if they edits violate policy(re: The Fourth Kind).— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry Daedalus, but are you referring to this text, in a "controversy" section? "It is rumored that the interactive agency Earthbound Media Group, located in Irvine, CA, is responsible for this guerrilla marketing strategy as a third party agency hired by NBC." That is crap--weaselish and unverified. Or this--"Many names used in the film are revealed to be aliases in order to protect the identities of those involved"? Also weaselish and unverified, and making in-universe commentary in an in-universe section. The article has a long history of having such claims that blur reality and fiction, which is exactly what the movie intended, and such commentary makes a mockery of the very idea of the encyclopedia. BTW, I'm not commenting on the editor (nor on the edit! just on the text)--I don't even know who put it in there. But thank you for your comment; I will try to be more delicate in the future when removing stuff that violates policy. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter what I'm referring to, what matters is it's a personal attack, something you should know better about.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It does matter what you're referring to, of course. And as I explained, apparently unsuccessfully, in my opinion referring to crap as crap is not a personal attack, since the crapper is not addressed as such. I thought I knew a little bit about these things, but you probably have more first-hand experience in these matters: saying that a person lied in an edit summary or "doesn't know shit" about something, that is a personal attack. If I were to address you personally for dropping unasked for, paternalizing comments on my talk page, that could be called a personal attack, of course--but someone else might call it a reasonable response. To stay on the safe side, I'll again thank you for your guidance. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. Diff 1[5]
2. Diff 2[6]
3. Diff 3[7]
4. Diff 4[8]

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Please report such matters at the proper venue, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Administrators will have to decide on this. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's already an administrator editing on the article User:Richardshusr. I am asking you since you have already had a failed report about the edit warring this section to please post this one, since you are so concerned about the behavior. You expressed concern and involvement and I am now asking you in good faith for your comments to now please post a report on this behavior. I have already provided you with diffs that show I have already reported Esoglou for 3rr at least twice in the past and got no response. So again please follow up with a report of this behavior since you know better then me how to handle it as your instructions above indicate. Where is your resolve to stamp out this type of behavior or is it only bad when I engage in this type of behavior? Because right now no one has said anything to Lima/Esoglou about this and it happened TODAY. PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE HELP. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• LoveMonkey, I expressed concern over the level of uncivility. I don't know what you mean with "a failed report about the edit warring"--I never filed such a report. I asked for others to look into "personal attacks, uncivil behavior", as my heading said. I don't know what you mean with "failed"; I wasn't looking for anyone to get blocked, I was asking for someone to have a look. You may have noticed that User:DGG weighed in, and that User:PMDrive1061 has an interest in the matter also. I am not about to post anything on the edit-warring board; it's your accusation, you deal with it. And I never commented on your editing on the article, only on the uncivil remarks you and another editor dropped on Talk:Theoria. Finally, "is it only bad when I engage in this type of behavior?" I don't even know who you are, and I am not about to get involved in a content dispute. If you are right, then the truth (or verifiability) will set you free. File the report, and see if anyone will take it on. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

how is it too opinionized that i wrote sakuraba was one of the greatest of all time? any true mma fan will tell u that. if i cant write that then take off that fedors considerd by many to be the greatest. u wikipedia guys should practice what u preach, thats y noone trust this site 4 information anymore. thats all im sayn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.56.184 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

N there also many current fighters and analysist such as bas rutten, urijah faber, setphan bonnar and stephen quadros, and many others who will agree that sakuraba is one of the all time greats. just in case u wanna get picky and say there are fighters and analysist that have said this for fedor in defense of the fedor paige. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.56.184 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Good luck figuring this out. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Found it. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your initial sources... your nicer DYK hook. So this hopefuly should correct an oversight. Next time I screw up a DYK nom like this, please be sure to add yourself as Author2. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Atlanta Neighborhood Union at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cúchullain ^t/c 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to ask my opinion or be afraid - go on and edit! I'll correct if I see something odd, but I actually know not much more about that topic than you :-) It is one of those semi-translated FA/GA articles from other wikis, that I do sometimes. Cheers and thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I find it difficult sometimes to drag myself away from literal German, in word choice and syntax. You should have seen early versions of Lessing Theater--in comparison, Peroxide should win a Booker Prize. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, this is one of my problems - de.wiki has many well-composed FA/GA articles, but it is a hassle for me to translate them, relying only on my Dutch (my German is rather poor). Another problem is that their prose and references are often too bad for FA status, by my measures. Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kind of frightening that peroxide is mainly fiction. ^Bongo_matic 07:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

?Drmies (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi... I noticed this diff and your edit summary about Mo and MO. FYI, Mo stands for the metallic element molybdenum and MO is the abbreviation for molecular orbital. As far as I can see on a quick check, the capitalisations are correct. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Ed, thank you so much for looking at it and for getting back to me. I'm glad I didn't mess with those terms. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

User_talk:Peter71947#Talkback_4

For you, I think. Was a 'helpme'.  Chzz  ►  01:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Knock Knock, wondering how you are doing on the Themes section on The Land of Green Plums (GA review is at Talk:The Land of Green Plums/GA1). And Happy Holidays! Sadads (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Sadads, I meant to leave you a note but I had to roast a beast today. The stuff is at my office, campus is closed, the in-laws are here--need I go on? I'll get back on it next week or so, following your suggestion of enlarging those three elements into a larger themes section. It shall be done. Hey, Merry Christmas to you too! I hope you got a new bike as well; my daughters were very happy with theirs. Did you ask for a dollhouse? Drmies (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • No I got mostly clothes and a trip to california with my girlfriend, I am pretty happy with those. Hope you got what you wanted to. Looking forward to the work in a week or so :) Sadads (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I note that you removed quite a bit from the Mortenson article today. Maybe these large changes should be discussed on the article's talk page? I'm finding a number of your exclusions to be questionable (not in a bad way - it's just that I question why you removed some stuff but not other stuff) and am hoping for an explanation so I can understand your rationale. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, in all honesty, I wonder why so much of the subject's resume was in the article in the first place. I'll be happy to respond to questions about individual edits, but one quick answer to your parenthetical question is that I think 75% or more of the content ought to be removed for being fluff. I held back because some of it at least appears to be verified, though that doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

My question was largely directed at the removal of some honorary degrees, yet not others. Would you elaborate on your rationale? Thx Lhb1239 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I only left the one that had a verification of sorts through a press release from the university: "Greg Mortenson...will deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree at Colby's 188th Commencement ceremonies on Sunday, May 24, 2009." The others were not verified, and the one from Lewis and Clark was supposedly verified via a 30-minute YouTube clip of which I watched about half without finding the claim (it's primary evidence anyway). On the one hand, the list consisted of unverified BLP information, and that's really a no-no; on the other, the encyclopedic value (even if verified) of such a list is highly questionable and in my opinion such a list really just promotes the subject. I saw you placed a COI tag on one IP's talk page, for which I thank you; like you, I think that there are editors at work who have too close a connection to the subject. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay - that all certainly makes sense. If it was Mortenson (or his wife) behind the IP address page I placed the conflict of interest concern on, I doubt he will continue with making changes to the article page. It could be someone from Bozeman who knows him, though as Bozeman is a pretty small town. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt here. Thanks so much for the rply. I appreciate you taking the time to do so. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Not at all. If I seemed a bit defensive, chalk it up to extensive experience in dealing with vanity articles, which sometimes can be frustrated by all-too involved editors; my apologies if you thought I treated you like one. There are bad biographical articles and good ones, and this is a bad one, still--too many unverified details and a narrative that has too much 'human interest', such as in a piece of text I deleted about his sick sister. That sort of thing could be journalistic, but without proper verification and unless written in a thoroughly objective, neutral style, it's not encyclopedic. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I added citation to most of the degrees that I could find, I wish that the three or four that are missing citation be left there, and I will add them as I get access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.156.16 (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Thomas Spreiter and Inkamana Abbey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Responded at DYK. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I dare say that story has been told about a number of people. After all, I myself had personally come across it before. Nevertheless, it seems to have made Lippert famous, at least locally, and now he's part of the local lore in this little corner of the Hunsrück, and therefore notable; so I thought him worthy of inclusion.Kelisi (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi - since we last spoke, citations, verification of sources etc have been put in to try to clean up Clan of Xymox, remove puff etc. The thing is, there are really two parts to the article (being before and after the split of the band in question), and as you'll see on the discussion page, there is some "heat" regarding that. Although it now appears that consensus has been reached on the first section, it's also clear that additions citations/ verifications/ removal of puff etc are still needed on the second part in order for the article to meet Wiki standards - and most importantly, to reach a point where the message box (at top of article) can be removed.

Could you advise on the protocol on how to proceed? Could you also advise on the correct procedure to encourage the editor working on that part of the article to improve the quality of the citations/ removal of puff/ correct grammar? Muso88 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Muso, the torture never stops. I'm at a loss--I've been doing copyedits and some fluff removal, but it is clear that there are a few editors who insist on linking everything to Amazon, and there's more than one editor with a COI here. The article needs, simply put, reliable sources: it does not have a single one. Besides, it mainly consists of a bunch of personnel changes and record releases, interspersed with unverified fluff (some of it with exclamation points). If you want to do anything to help the article, look for reliable sources. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - that was indeed something to behold.

Ok, in terms of citations, regarding the time Wolbert left the band, I've located a link to Billboard.com, where the relevant piece is: "..."Phoenix of My Heart" landed on the modern rock charts in 1991. However, the full-length Phoenix didn't do as well as Twist of Shadows. Wolbert departed from the band that year, replaced by bassist Mojca Zugna." Here's the link: [Clan of Xymox Biography]

This is backed up by a second reference in the Dutch Music Encyclopedia, which reads: 1993 Headclouds is released on the Zok Records label. By that time Anke Wolbert has already left the band. Here's that link: (click on 'Biography' to open for full article) [Clan Of Xymox (1983 - current)]

Another question for you, leading on from that; the remainder of the sentence reads: "which left PolyGram to release Metamorphosis (1992) and Headclouds (1993) independently". However, I noticed on the same page of the Dutch Music Encyclopaedia (see years 1991, 1992 and 1993 entries) that Metamorphosis (1992) and Headclouds (1993) were released not by Polygram, but by independent labels. Is this what you meant? Should the sentence read: "which left Xymox to release Metamorphosis (1992) and Headclouds (1993) independently". ? And if so, should the History time period read 1981 - 1991? (and Metamorphosis (1992) and Headclouds (1993) move to the next History section?

Thanks for your time and effort - your expertise is much appreciated. Muso88 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to say... Happy New Year! Muso88 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Muso, I made a minor edit for clarity. The sections, we can leave them or change them; I made them go up to 1993 because the source I used went up to 1993, and the rest is a mess. I'll have a look at your references later. Thanks, and Happy New Year to you too! Drmies (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Just curious, are IP or other users allowed to blank their talk pages to hide vandalism warnings? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• You're welcome. Yes they are. We are encouraged to take their blanking as indication that they read the notification. It's awkward in that one sometimes has to dig to see if someone's received a final warning yet. I might have left the message on your talk page, but the user seems to have a habit of leaving unclear, sarcastic, unsigned messages on the talk pages of users who reverted their edits--trolling, in other words. Hey, I saw you were being recruited for online ambassador? Good luck: we need nice and helpful people to spread the word. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice to see Huggle dig into the history to search for the string "final warning" or such.

Yes, that editor.... He actually dumped an url smack in the middle of a word, I guess as a ref. I rv'd with Huggle and then went and took the time to fix it.

Thanks for the good luck and the kind words, and thanks for the good info. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

One of your reasons for deleting that part of the article was due to the dead link. Now that we do have the link, you can delete it if you want. I certainly wouldn't mind it. Evenfiel (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

did you see that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.108.20 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• you can put this picture somewhere in the article and explain its relation to『FATİH』 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.108.20 (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • You can do that yourself as well--I don't know what 'fatih' is. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply