Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On29 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Annalistique romaine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hermann Peter's Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae (1870–1914) was the authoritative edition of Roman historical fragments until it was supplanted by Martine Chassignet's L'Annalistique romaine (1996–2004)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Sorry about this. It's getting a little heated in the AfD thread and I just decided it'd be best to bring it up on the admin board. Since you launched the AfD, I thought I'd give you a head's up on this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
No problem; there's nothing wrong with keeping the diffs in, I just remove them to make it more clear that the article was checked. I'll close that section and check another one or two; at this rate we might be done tonight! WizardmanOperation Big Bear02:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
The user didn't write you directly after making some fixes, so I thought I'd drop you a note here. If you're on an extended break, I'll probably end up adding this to one of my lists of noms needing action for the DYK talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
BlueMoonset, I guess I'm back, some. Listen, I've looked over that article again, and I think it's best if you call on an expert--it's pretty big, and pretty technical, and it's not my field. Copyedits is the best I can do there. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's fine. Thanks for doing all that you did. I've added it to my latest WT:DYK list of older articles needing attention. So far no takers, but it's early days yet (and a holiday weekend for many). BTW, any chance you'll be able to take another look at June 16's Orgastic potency article at some point? Yngvadottir seems to think it's ready for another look. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I should add that if you do want to look at Orgastic potency, you should certainly first take a look at the Talk page discussion; Bali ultimate has some strong disagreements, and has also done a few edits to the article, removing a couple of sentences and their sources, which are characterized as starting a depuff process... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Drmies, never mind. Someone just came along and "boldly" closed the Orgastic potency nomination, rejecting it for DYK. Looks like it ran out of time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the note, BlueMoonset. I appreciate the effort you're putting in to get the more difficult articles accepted as well. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm yes; I thought that article on Metro had already been written--I've used it as a reference in some of the Dutch media articles I've written (at least, I think I did). I'd never heard of that Turkish Dutch columnist, but then van Gogh was shot a decade after I left. My friend, though, rode by on his bicycle minutes after it happened. This happened in my old neighborhood. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Drmies, remember this User talk:Drmies/Archive 34#Thank you!? IPs are at it again on both articles, any chance of re-protection of a month (two month for Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012 if possible)? Olympics where good by the way, now doing Paralympic duties; but feeling sad knowing I only have 4 shifts left to do. Got my name down for Glasgow 2014 already. Hope all is well with you! WesleyMouse11:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey, nice to see you again. Well, here's the word--I don't see enough disruption in Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012, but I saw plenty in 2013, and of course you wanted it the other way around. You can ask at RFPP, or maybe someone who sees this may have a different opinion. Sorry. But I'm glad to hear you're doing well--take it easy, Drmies (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Drmies for looking into these for me, I appreciate and value your help so much. And thanks for sorting out the Dutch map on the Junior article. We went through a massive RfC on the project talk page not so long ago, and there was support for including a location map of the host city on these articles - hence why they are slowly being rolled out across the annual pages. Including them seem to have been proven helpful to the general reader, and adding insight into the host city seems to be logical too. The same format was used on Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article and help that get to GA. But personally I think the maps benefit the adult contests better than the junior ones. Although I am open to suggestions. WesleyMouse14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Just noticed that you also removed the flag icon for the host broadcaster from the infobox (which personally I agree with your reason for removing them). Is there a standard practice for flagicons next to a host broadcaster? Only reason I ask is because all the ESC and JESC articles have them included, and I don't think they are appropriate for the purpose they are being used. In my opinion a national flag is for a country not a national broadcaster. I could do with clearing this one up better, as it would come in handy for improving all the articles. Template:Infobox Eurovision seems to state that a flagicon is mandatory practice. WesleyMouse14:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
See MOS:FLAG. The AVRO doesn't represent the country, just like ITV doesn't represent the UK (but the BBC might). In general, there should be no flags in infoboxes (except for things like military conflicts), and flags in general should only be used when countries are represented (boxing in Olympics, yes--MMA fights, no; cycling in Olympics, yes--cycling in Tour de France, no). I saw that that template includes a flag icon; you can take that up with Thumperward, who's been here long enough to know better. Good luck Wesley, Drmies (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Barnstar of Diligence
You helped in so many ways on these two CCIs, I can't begin to reiterate them; and CCI work is super boring, to most users, and thankless. Well, on this occasion here's a huge THANK YOU for you. Many helped out and this was a great example of wiki teamwork, especially this last several weeks where many got together to wrap this up. PumpkinSkytalk11:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I suggest you try and talk civily to new editors, without reverting to calling them "silly". The comment you referred to had been removed from the article 3 hours beforehand. I can see no evidence the editor is being deliberately disruptive, it looks more like they simply do not understand the etiquette of Wikipedia. Maybe you should try explaining, rather than laying down the law. Sionk (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Huh? I referred to their commentary. Whether it had been removed or not is beside the point. And now supposedly the subject wasn't even a parish anymore? I think the old sources refer to it as a parish because it was a parish--this seems indicative enough. I'm getting tired of dealing with this topic and this editor. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Drmies,
I just wanted to notify you that someone has vandalised the Lionel Messi page. Under the awards external links at the bottom of the page (below the "Footballer of the Year of Argentina" and above the "UEFA Club Footballer of the Year" links), someone has written "Messi es muy feo y juega pesimo" but I'm not sure how to remove that from the page, so I was wondering if you could take a look at it.
Thanks.
Messirulez (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Messi, but I don't see it--do you still see it? It's not in the text, you haven't removed it in your edits as far as I can see, so the only option I can think of is that it was in one of the individual templates that are transcluded in the article. I checked one of them but didn't see anything there. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Inch, Wigtownshire. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Inch Parish, Wigtownshire. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Inch Parish, Wigtownshire – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Sionk (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
"A parish in Wigtownshire until 1975. It was sometimes known as Inch and Saulseat parish. The parish of Saulseat was incorporated into Inch during the mid-seventeenth century. A medieval parish and a parish for both civil and religious purposes from the sixteenth century until 1975." From http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/search/index.php?action=do_search&id=890&p_name=INCH&p_type=PARISH&p_county1=Wigtownshire. Iridescent, you are free to clear this up one way or another. No one has yet said anything like this, and the text above, from what appears to be a very authoritative site, doesn't completely support it since it talks, possibly, about parishes in both senses: at the very least it supports a religious parish. Moreover, the magic year, for all the parishes similar to this one, is 1975, not 1929. But if you manage to make hay out of the article, and if you want to change content and title accordingly, please go ahead. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
1975 was when the district councils—which replaced the parishes—were themselves abolished; there's a summary of the parish-district-region progression on List of civil parishes in Scotland. (On a skim of the As and Bs, we have no articles specifically on a parish, so the obvious thing would be to delete the Parish article and just keep the town.)
I assure you, if I were "it" that link would be a nice shiny shade of red; except in a very limited number of cases like Chester Castle (parish)orLiberty of Norton Folgate where there's genuine historic significance, I don't think British civil parishes nor Irish townlands have any place on Wikipedia other than as entries in a list. I can certainly see the need for Middlesex; I can see legitimate reasons to keep Metropolitan Borough of Holborn; I can see no reason anyone would ever have an interest in St Andrew Holborn Above the Bars with St George the Martyr, nor any reason the content there wouldn't be considerably more useful as a paragraph in the parent article, where it could be compared-and-contrasted with its fellows. (If it weren't for the inevitable swarm of "keep, it exists" ARS-ers, I'd be tempted to merge that right now if I were still active.) – iridescent21:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Typing "parish Scotland" into the Wikipedia search function yields several articles beginning "X is a parish and a village in Scotland" or the like, but also a couple of articles saying "X is a parish in Scotland" or the like (Carnbee, Scotland and Cavers, Scottish Borders are the first two I noted). Since I know nothing about local government in Scotland this is the sum total of my contributions to this thread, beyond observing in passing that maybe we need some standarization, and again deploring Iridescent's being inactive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. NYBrad, that inactivity might be a good occasion for an RfMC ("Moral Comment"). Should I ask Jimbo for a raise for iridescent? Well, Iridescent, I'll tell you what. I moved that article from AfC on the assumption that it was the "other" kind of parish (and it seems more than likely that formerly the two were, to some extent, the same). Since we're talking about nothing but a former administrative division, it is indeed appropriate to remove it as a separate article and to merge whatever notable content there is to Wigtownshire, where it belongs. I will do so, and place a link to this discussion and to the summary in List of civil parishes in Scotland. As before, I reserve the right to be wrong and will try to do better next time. Iridescent, given your inactivity I thank you all the more for dropping by here. You might be pleased to know that I have made a delicious dry vodka martini, and since I'm out of olives I used capers, and I'm drinking to your health *clink* right now. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've been burned by this one before, and you will too. The "everything that's an identifiable geographic location must have its own article" brigade were responsible for this actually useful article being split into pointless segments, resulting in the Waddesdon Road railway station article which so irked TCO and pals. Arguing with the provisional wing of the ARS and their fellow-travellers is never worth the effort. – iridescent19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm I hope you're wrong. I used to get along fine with them, except for maybe one recent addition to the team. Hey, you're here again--thanks for dropping by. I get burned all the time, haha--but all too often by overzealous NPPers, rarely by the squad. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Can I ask a favor? I have been helping a new editor with a ship article, and noticed that he had started another ship article at Schuyler Otis Bland (T-AK-277) . . . and cut and paste moved it to USNS Schuyler Otis Bland (T-AK-277), then made the original into a redirect. The version at the later title has since been edited by others, and I've dropped a correct version of the "translated article" template onto its talkpage; he had attempted to add it to the talkpage of what's now the redirect. Textbook case of needing a histmerge; but I looked at the instructions, and I looked again, and I asked a friend on Skype if he could explain it to me, and he said "Get another admin to do it," and I have to agree. It's utterly beyond me :-( Could you possibly whip it into shape when you have time? No great urgency, and I apologize, but this computer stuff is hard :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
OK, this really only works here because it concerns a recent, uncomplicated article. Always check first to see if there are already deleted edits (in step 2) that you need to remove after all of this.
Thank you very much for doing that. I think it is quite beyond my ability without someone physically standing behind me calling out instructions. I was nerving myself to try, since it needed doing, but I would probably have made a huge and expensive mess. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was just reviewing your report when I got derailed by the Miliband vandalism, but you were taken care of by De728631. I particularly didn't like the combination of edit-warring and infringement. Nor did his edit summary make much sense, although your ES response was entertaining.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I've been involved with BLP vandalism, I think, in that article. Very exciting. Thanks for the note, Bbb--wasn't it obvious? Drmies (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
OK, "were" is what I thought. Could someone please tell this editor, who changed it to "was" and then reverted me when I changed it back. (I've had several back-and-forths with him about English usage, and his certainty about his understanding is a bit less than it probably should be.) Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
(ec) I hadn't thought about the second comma, but now that I look at it I'd prefer to get rid of it, since it's all one continuous thought after the first comma. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
US usage pretty much dictates such commas ("introductory material before the subject"). Malleus taught me that such commas are not necessary and a matter of taste, convention. BMK, that editor commented about the commas in the article; I haven't looked at that yet but it's worth checking out. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
(persisting) Yeah, but we were talking about the second comma. The first comma is after the "introductory material before the subject".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oops, my apologies. But something similar applies: it's a matter of taste. Most tastes, though, dictate that it should go, I think, including mine. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think it either needs to be re-written in the manner of the text in Drmies' link, or it should say "is", since it's described as a collection, and the singular form is used throughout the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Oh, but you're an admin, you are different from all the other simple and stupid [sorry: "idiot", cf. supra] editors. You're more, you're best on every conceivable topic and, thanks to your ideology, you have the perfect discernment on what are reliable sources or not. You should have told me earlier, you wouldn't have wasted my time. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I learned that "personal attacks and IP trolling" in Italian is "attacchi personali e trolling da IP". Please tell me what my ideology is; my psychoanalist is a structuralist and does not agree that I have an ideology. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Hmm I can't easily access JSTOR from home, so I'll have a look tomorrow. I don't know what the main source is for your text so I can't compare. I would, if I were you, tweak the "Mission" section, which is a bit close to whatever the original was. Brugge--it must be a lovely town. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Haven't found it (at a reasonable price). Starting university next week, so I have a couple other things to focus on. That and the Mrs wants me to watch InuYasha with her every night (3 to 6 episodes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lambeth Homilies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (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.
Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}}or{{ygm}} template.
Thanks. Your notifications are appreciated. In this case, however, it shouldn't affect me, since I'm not a Vectorian. Good thing too, as the "edit tools" toolbar which they're removing is something which I use all the time (although what I use is an "enhanced" version; maybe they're only removing the unenhanced version). I didn't read it too closely since it's not supposed to affect me, but I think some of what they're removing is stuff I've already removed for myself.
I also have no idea what anyone's talking about, including myself.
I have a tidbit which some may find shocking. Until a few weeks ago, when I learned about it on Jeopardy!, I didn't know who Dr. Blofeld was – not a clue that he had anything to do with James Bond. Drmies, I've seen you refer to Dr. Blofeld as "Ernst", and I guess I assumed this meant that you knew the user in Real Life and were calling him by his Real Name or something.
Yes, Dr. Mies was the lab assistant of John Snow, the epidemiologist who traced the source of a cholera outbreak in the Soho district of London. Mies would assist Snow in the application of ether and chloroform in Snow's primary occupation as one of the first anesthesiologists in London, but also helped him in the record keeping that was essential to tracing the locus of the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak. Mies' contribution is not well known, because his presence is London was, let us say, unofficial, but it's been well-known to choleraistas for some time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Another announcement for the crowd. WMF is turning on HTML5 in two weeks. This will cause the <font> tag to disappear. This may affect your signature if you do something fancy. If you need help to change to the different format, leave your name and Mandarax or I will help. Now back to my crying after Mandarax's Amy Pond statement above. Why are the Gods taking Amy away from me? Bgwhite (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ja Justice, goeienavond hier--half tien. Ik heb die discussie gezien, vorige week, en ik heb naar dat Merinews gekeken. Ik vind het moeilijk: het is meer dan een website, dat wel, maar citizen journalism blijft citizen journalism, zelfs met een editorial board (die niet zo groot is, eerlijk gezegd). Een essay in Studies in Women Writers (en een in Indian Women's Short Fiction) is op zichzelf ook niet zo behulpzaam: voor WP:PROF moet je niet gepubliceerd hebben maar moet er ook over je gepubliceerd zijn. Wat betreft die AfD, ik zou zelf neutraal gebleven zijn; ik hou er niet van om schrijvers te verwijderen, maar er valt niet echt aan de consensus te tornen. Als je verder wilt, dan zul je Deletion review moeten overwegen; de administrator zal zijn mening niet meer veranderen, denk ik. Het allerbeste, Drmies (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey Lady, thanks for that; I was actually going to do that yesterday. (BTW, I'm watching Bill Clinton speak, and that's always a pleasure--it's like watching some craftsman ply his trade when he's really good at it.) Anyway, yes and no: those MSS usually contain more, though Trinity doesn't, it seems, and neither does Lambeth--but then again, both contain Poema Morale, so they both do contain more, if only a little bit. As far as I'm concerned, those redirects are appropriate. Think about it: those manuscripts are really known for those collections of homilies, not for containing the Poema. Hey, thanks for all your help--there's a lot that goes into it. I'm not even sure about the categories, the overlap between Homiletics and Sermons. Along the way I felt I had to make Exemplar (textual criticism). And I'm wondering if we shouldn't have a set of categories for Medieval prose, in the different languages (maybe User:Mike Christie is watching...). Drmies (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry, That the only way I know how to make delete request(Re-added delete tag), and have done clear by admin to be notable in Wikipedia & you have to understand my English --Sasakubo1717 (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, that DVD article says it was shocking. But par for the course, maybe--in those days TV ads for shampoo showed breasticles, at least partly, and such imagery (of secondary sexual characteristics) was not unusual or shocking in its own right. I thought Pleuni Touw was pretty hot, though I never liked her first or her last name. Gotta go to a meeting; I'll get back to this later. Hey, thanks again for putting this on the map. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, coming from a North American background such imagery is rather shocking, especially for the 1970s (on network TV!). Snuck a peek at the scene online, and I'm surprised they didn't use a Dutch angle. That would have been really effective. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm trying to figure out what to do about these claims. Found this source [5] but don't know what it says about renaming. What I do know is that it gives some odd dates, eg『Maissa Waly Dione Mané, 44 ans de règne, 1185-1229』which doesn't coincide in date or length of reign with Tamsier's article Maad a Sinig Maysa Wali Jaxateh Manneh. And of course if this is a source for the renaming of the Kingdom of Sine, that doesn't make sense either. The other source is the Saar article we both have and I don't see where page 239 (at least this time Tamsier used the real page number instead of a pdf number) backs any renaming. Comments? Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see now what you mean. I'll look at it. What I can tell you is that the article (which is fairly interesting) gives a list of kings and their history provided by a member of the royal family. The second part is commentary on that list and on a number of other lists of names compiled over the last century and more. I'll look for a naming issue there and in other places. And I've done some cleaning on Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire and BIFAN is now a proper redirect. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
User:KWW has a personal vendetta against me. As you can see form his history that he has abused his administrative powers by giving people excessive blocks. As you can see from my edits that Much of my edits have been of good faith. User:KWW has no sense of professionalism. Please go through my edits and you will see that I have contributed with good faith, User:KWW has abused his powers. Please take this up with the Arbitraion committee and look into my case, as well as User: KWW. He is in deep violation of his powers. Personal vendetta has no place in wikipedia and especially Admin abuse/trolling.
Please, my block has been excessive, because of User:KWW. Can you help me by monitoring me and taking my case to the Arbitration committee, as well as User:KWW? Thank you (174.255.113.212 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC))Reply
I have no interest in helping someone with a sock record like yours. Some of your edits may be fine, but you go about it the wrong way. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You can consider what you will, and I hope you will consider my considerations. First of all, "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." So, basta. The ones I reverted were not ambiguous in the slightest, so I was correct (and you were not). Second, the invitation for them to return is made rather by reverting their good edits. That's obvious, and that's why you protected those articles (excessively, in my opinion). In general, you're not right just because they are wrong. Undermining? I've blocked two of those IPs already, so you can hardly put me in their camp, but if I can find a way to help stop, or contain, this three-year old vendetta I will. I have asked Materialscientist for his opinion; I have serious, serious problems with your actions here which only seem to escalate the problem. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Kevin, policy-wise you may block evading socks for any edit. You may also mass-revert their edits without examining, but this is your choice, and you may be reverted back by any third party (this won't constitute proxy editing). IP hopping maniacs can't be beaten single-handedly, so be reasonable and others will help. Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Reverting edits such as this is silly. You're asking them to come back and correct the mistake, since obviously no one else is doing it. You have no reason other than misguided principle to revert such an obvious correction--and there were many of those. Reverting them doesn't just invite them to come back, it also creates more work for other editors--not to mention the many articles you needlessly protected, asking them to come back in six months. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Drmies, dealing with IP hopping maniacs (I assume it is one of those, I don't know the case) is never easy; and mass-reverts/protections are practiced and are allowed by policy. I myself was mass-reverting when I couldn't quickly decide whether the edits were correct, but knew it was a sock. Here it just happened that at least two regulars came along and checked (I got involved by sheer chance), but often the editing area is nearly abandoned. That said, your post on Kevin's talk should have stopped him, or at least slowed him down. Materialscientist (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have no illusion that Dewan357 will suddenly walk away. I don't just get into these things as a revert war, though. His targets are semi-protected. His university is now soft-blocked. His home cable system is now soft-blocked. I'll watch all of his targets for newly created editors. Yes, this is an irritating process, but it's the only one that shows any degree of success. Picking though a banned editors edits in an effort to preserve the "good ones" encourages him far more than mass reversion. It also produces the impression in his mind that there are admins that support him, and the problem he has is that I have a "vendetta" against him. I treat him the way I do all block-evading editors, and I have no specific vendetta against Dewan357. You echoing his line of reasoning is one of the worst decisions you could have made.
And to both of you: no, you do not have the right to pick and choose through a list of reversions and restore them, as you do not have an independent reasons for making such edits. Neither of you would ever have noticed any of these articles had Dewan357 not edited them, thus, your reason for making the edit is not independent of his edit.—Kww(talk) 12:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've got to you because you've reverted some minor style correction in a major article. I knew about that style error from long ago, and was just waiting for an occasion to fix it along with other things (I don't spend edits on correcting commas); then saw an IP fixing it and you reverting him. So don't speculate, and don't read us our rights. Materialscientist (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That would be an independent reason. That's different from systematically examining every revert, which is what I would object to.—Kww(talk) 13:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
To be straight to the end, I didn't know you're an admin, and just followed my antivandalism routine: looked through your edits, went to your talk and saw the note by Drmies. So I was going through your edits, not IP edits, like it or not :-). Materialscientist (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Drmies, can you explain your independent reasons for the reverts you have performed? Which of these articles were on your watchlist, or have you previously shown an interest in? Or was your reasoning solely motivated by a desire to preserve useful edits performed by Dewan357?—Kww(talk) 15:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The text has now been added as a result of his edits. Basically Drmies accepts whatever WP:BURDEN arises from restoring the text, including any issues of introducing copyvio. If Drmies accepts the burden, with whatever that entails then there is no issue. It's his prerogative as an editor in good standing to try and improve articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
If he had wandered across the edits in articles he was interested in, that would be one thing. To systematically undo another admin's hours of work in order to preserve a banned editor's edits is quite another. And yes, Drmies, he is de-facto banned. No sane admin would unblock a person with a socking record like that one. Your edits have been highly disruptive, Drmies. I hope to never see you repeat such an activity.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
What does "de-facto banned" mean? I don't see it in "Types of ban" in the policy. It sounds a bit like your declaring that the editor is banned, which, of course, you can't do.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That business of "de-facto banned" remains to be seen, and your comment about unblocking is completely beside the point. I have no desire to unblock this person. But making mass reverts that make articles worse, and protecting a whole bunch of little-bitty articles for six months (and one of them indefinitely), that's disruptive. As an admin who has gone through the RfA process a couple of times, you should know that protecting is to be done sparingly. Your actions are simply silly, for reasons I have explained well enough, I think. I may or may not be done reverting some of the more disruptive ones, and your patronizing "hope" is therefore thwarted from the get-go. I used to have faith in your judgment; maybe your many detractors had a point. You're on a vendetta which doesn't help this project at all. Perhaps you could do with a reading of WP:DENY. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Bbb, search for "de facto ban" in the ANI and maybe AN archives: it should pop up often enough, as the claim that some indef-blocked editors are de facto banned even if they aren't banned de jure. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The definition of "de-facto ban" has always been an indefinitely-blocked editor that no reasonable admin would unblock. I was not meaning to imply that you would unblock him. You have, however, demonstrated no independent reasons for making your edits, though, and you are clearly attempting to champion his edits. I have started a formal banning discussion at WP:AN#Banning proposal for Dewan357 to get clarity on that point. On the later point, I simply ask you again to stop restoring a banned editors edits. I have not treated Dewan357 any differently than I treat any other block evading editor. The semi-protections have reached 6 months solely because of his persistence. I usually start at one week or one month, but they escalate. Surely you don't think a sockpuppeteer with a 3 year history is going to be dissuaded by a short protection?—Kww(talk) 17:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, I don't think they'll be dissuaded by a short protection, or by a six-month protection, or by indefinite protection. At this point it's just the two of you butting heads, with you having some measure of policy behind you and them having some common sense behind them. So you're both right and both wrong, in different areas. Following those edits, tracing them if you will, is easy enough by looking at that long lists of reverts you made, and I dare say that I looked at them more carefully you did. You go, "ah, a sock"; I go, "let's see if this edit improves the article or not." It's a fight you can't win, and the only thing we'll get out of it is a longer and longer SPI page and protection log. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Actually, in the face of unified opposition, they eventually give up. So long as they can play admins off against each other, they keep it up, and basically win.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Thanks, it does, but I'm not going to read all of the discussions (many). Being very rule-oriented, unless the policy changes to recognize "de facto" bans, I'm not going to accept that an indefinitely blocked editor is banned just because one or more people say they are. I acknowledge that for many certain "observed" practices may trump policy, but this is a rather significant trump.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
From WP:BAN:"In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". I would say that the contents of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357/Archive constitute community discussion. Also, from WP:BLOCK, "Only in extreme cases would there be no administrator who is willing to lift the block, which would effectively make the uncooperative editor banned by the community."—Kww(talk) 17:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I don't think that many folks here would consider such an SPI, which mainly consists of you pointing out socks and other editors adding IPs, community-wide discussion. It's not a board. If you want to start a discussion on banning this editor, that's fine--it's long overdue. I think your attitude and actions have been counterproductive. Bringing this up in a wider forum is a good idea (I didn't want to do it yesterday cause I wouldn't have good things to say), and if that forum proves me wrong, that's fine. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Although I support WP:DENY and have reverted a large number of edits by socks, I always try to be careful that I'm not making an article worse when I do that. I realise that in some ways that might encourage the blocked or banned editor, but I won't make an article worse by reverting an edit I might have added. And I see nothing wrong in restoring a reverted edit if it's a good one. As IRWolfie said, "If Drmies accepts the burden, with whatever that entails then there is no issue. It's his prerogative as an editor in good standing to try and improve articles." Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's the wrong section. Further down it says "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." Which backs my statement. I would note that mass reverts might reinstate material in violation of core polices, copyvio,etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Selective reading on your part, Dougweller. That section requires that the reverting editor have an independent reason for making the edit. Materialscientist passed that bar: he reinstated edits on articles that were on his watchlist in his normal editing area. Drmies has been unable to identify any independent reason for making edits to the articles in question.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I guess I missed something, perhaps you can quote the bit I missed please? I often find myself working on articles not on my watch list because I've been led there from something else I edited or an editor I encountered. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It is from the earlier section, my mistake. The requirement for making an edit on behalf of a banned editor is "that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.".—Kww(talk) 18:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That applies in a case where a banned editor -- and the editor in question is not banned -- has asked another editor to make an edit. It does not apply in those cases where a banned editor -- and the editor is question is not banned -- has had their edits reverted on the grounds of being banned, and another editor determines that the edit improves the encycylopedia and restores it. That's not proxying for a banned editor -- and the editor in question is not banned -- it's simply common sense and improving the encyclopedia. As mentioned above, the restoring editor takes on the WP:BURDEN of having made that edit, as if it was their own, but there is no requirement, no matter how the policy is twisted, that they have to have stumbled across the edit while taking a walk in the woods. The only requirement is that they be prepared to take on the responsibility for that edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. That all seems pretty obvious. I don't understand why Kww is suggesting that Drmies is acting as a proxy for anyone without providing evidence (and I don't believe for a minute that he is). Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Drmies is examining the articles and edits in question solely because I had reverted the edits. I'm not twisting policy at all to consider systematic undoing of reverts to be effectively proxying. I'm not for a moment suggesting that Drmies has ill intent. He doesn't. He sincerely considers his edits to have been beneficial. However, he undertook those edits solely because a banned editor had made them, and doing so completely undermines our banning and blocking policies.
People revert my reversions frequently. It's not at all uncommon for an editor on an article to see the reversion, look at it, and decide that the banned editor's version was better. I don't raise a peep about that. That's precisely the situation that the policy about taking ownership of the material is intended to cover. Not systematic restoration of edits, where the systematic nature of the restoration is to examine all reversions of edits by a particular banned editor and restore all those that meet with the editor's approval.—Kww(talk) 21:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
[ec] I don't think Kevin would suggest that I am acting as a proxy by invitation or some such thing. I think legalisms are being employed here to shift blame, and to move attention away from one set of questionable actions (his) to another (mine). If Kevin is really convinced that my actions are so questionable he could consider bringing them to the court of public opinion. In the meantime, I see no reason to undo positive edits. For all I know, these reverts have been going back and forth for years and maybe it wasn't even the initial culprit who made them--maybe they reverted someone else. But it doesn't matter on which turtle the current turtle is sitting: better articles is better, less disruption is better. This whack-a-mole is going nowhere. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Kevin, I said already that I have examined each and every revert I made. Unlike you, I didn't systematically restore anything. If you actually looked you'd see that. I undertook those edits because they improved the articles: anyone who looks at the reverts I made can see that, and it's not something you can even deny. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
KWW, why don't you start focusing on improving the encyclopedia rather than your petty desire to have productive edits remain reverted solely because they were made by an indefinitely blocked editor. Your interpretation of an independent interest is unnecessarily limited. Going through a banned users contribs to find those that are productive can be an independent interest. Your independent goal is to find those edits that are productive and restore them. Lacking an independent interest would be making edits directly on behalf of a banned editor. If you don't believe me, please read the entire quote "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." (Taken from WP:BAN, emphasis in the original)Frankly, I hope you leave the site because I feel that editors like you/positions like yours are the single largest problem facing Wikipedia. RyanVesey21:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Are you referring to "Lacking an independent interest would be making edits directly on behalf of a banned editor"? In this case, I referred to banned in that and the remaining half of my comment to make a broader point than what applied to this specific instance. RyanVesey21:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)I'll tone my comment down a bit and state that rather than leaving the site, KWW should be topic banned from dealing with the edits of banned users. There are more than enough editors willing to revert the edits of banned users and KWW's wikilawyering and overly strong stance of the issue causes him to fail to accept actions (by unbanned editors even) that improve the encyclopedia. RyanVesey21:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, I saw it, it's fine. Let's close this up and continue elsewhere if it needs continuing. I'm sure KWW has said most of what he wants to say and I have little to add. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On9 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alcatraz Gang, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Alcatraz Gang(member pictured) was a group of eleven American POWs singled out for extra harsh treatment by their North Vietnamese captors because of their fierce resistance to captivity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alcatraz Gang. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for helping at [6]. If you feel like taking on another pain in the neck, have a look at [7]. Anyway, I hope you're well, and didn't get too soaked by Isaac. Best, with virtual Belgian ales for your troubles, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ha, I was thinking about you the other day and wondering where you were. Thanks for the note; I hope you are doing well. I had one more quick run through that article but I prefer spending my time elsewhere. No, we didn't get much of a soaking, and I am in fact sipping on a Duvel while the cat is playing with a wooden toy mushroom the kids left out on the deck, a funny sound. I left a link on Mandarax's talk page you might be interested in as well: the invitation is, of course, outstanding for you as well. I hope you are well also. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'll look at Mandarax's talk. Well here, though humbled by the unexpected loss of several friends this summer. Our dogs are immense fun: outside, one chases down rodents and the other dispatches them. Indoors they're angels. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry to hear that, 76. All the best. I plucked your peacock a bit, of course. Oh, and the cat was also acquired as an anti-rodent measure, but she's still the size of a squirrel, albeit a slightly larger than usual one. Only slightly. Her name is Toasty: she was found under the hood of a car, having hitched a ride (to Auburn) and singed her tail. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Much appreciated. There's so much flat out bad prose that it's painful; I'd like to propose a new policy that recognizes poor writing as vandalism. Our dogs arrived in slightly less dramatic fashion, though both were rescued from shelters in Louisiana and trucked up here. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I suppose I was fishing for that. Doing more teaching and writing lately. I'd still like to read some of your work--if anything can be emailed to me I'd be most appreciative. Very best, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks. I've looked at it and a few other things, but off and on. I've been a bit busy and don't have as much time (and energy) as I'd like for the topic. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
You just blocked an IP for edit warring, but we now have a sock carrying out the same edits, same style. See here for the history. There is a sock puppet report, but the user is beyond 3rr again and generally looking disruptive. ----SnowdedTALK05:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It just happened so that I've blocked that user and am still watching this page, thus dropped a note (anyone willing to change the block duration please go ahead without asking me). Materialscientist (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've never been especially fond of Ayn Rand, but it's interesting to apply her teachings to Wikipedia. If some ignorant moron fellow editor compromises your vision for an article, you should be prepared to destroy that article rather than submit it to another editor's revisions. I mean, it seemed bad-ass when Howard Roark did it; and since rumor has it that Jimbo is an Objectivist himself, I'm sure he'd back you 100%. MastCellTalk19:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I remember sitting in a lecture by Rand many years ago at Yale. Bored silly, made a paper airplane and flew it. My seminar teacher sitting next to me (a grad student) thought it was appropriate (or at least funny). Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Mixed Drinks Barnstar
For your willingness to jump into the fray and mix any drink. Of course your contributions go well beyond those acknowledged by this barnstar, since you write about ales as well. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for closing that daft (and rather dishonest) ANI report
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
In other business, since you're around, would you mind flipping my autopatrolled and rollback bits? To save you checking I've created well over 100 new articles, and I've asked for the autopatrolled and rollback "rights" to be removed in the past on a matter of principle in regard to the way they can be removed. But I'm planning on creating a slew of articles on forgotten TV programmes and those who created them (two or three so far today), so it's kind of selfish to add unnecessarily to the new page patrollers work load.
It will be my pleasure, Malleus. *Ahem* I declare that this administrator is convinced that this editor is able to understand and properly implement the guidelines of et cetera. Note, a few conversations above, oblique references to (Dutch) TV shows from the 1970s; Crisco and I are creating a shared past. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oops, I may have accidentally given you admin rights. Try to delete Mongo's user page to see if I did. Happy editing, Malleus. PS: in your memory, how long ago was WW2? Drmies (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you have, I'll spend the next 5 minutes before I'm found out running amok; I always wanted to leave Wikipedia with a bang, not a whimper. :-)
Well, that's probably a trick question, but everyone here knows that the Second World War (not WWII, please) began in 1939, when the world with the exception of the US went to war. Had the US still been a colony in 1939 no doubt it too would recognise that's when the war began. Crisco is from the "Dutch East Indies" isn't he? As I said earlier to PoD, I'm amazed at what's been forgotten, and how much has changed, and the notion that there's nothing more to write about on Wikipedia. MalleusFatuorum00:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
No offense intended; I was typing surrounded by screaming children. But that's not what I mean, I meant no trick. For me, it was forty years ago, and it will always be forty years ago (it was that already before Joe Jackson sang that song). For my wife, fifty. That's what I meant--psychological memory. Here in the US, there is none. Most of my students don't know that there was ever a Vietnam War, er, conflict. They don't know that there was a "first" Iraq war recently.
No, Crisco is, I believe, a Canadian ex-pat now in Indonesia. We share various interests, but not a past--but with De Kris Pusaka he helped me recollect, and he may have created an interest of his own. Unless, of course, we share a past of colonialism, shared white guilt--but I don't know if he's white, haha.
Once more about the war: in that class that I'm teaching next semester, with Austerlitz on the syllabus (I told you about that once: it has a Manchester connection), I'm also teaching Suite française, which is remarkable and tragic. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
No offence taken; I assumed you were referring to the fact that the US didn't join the war until 1941. The war here had a profound effect on the lives of our parents and grandparents, bankrupted the country, and hastened the end of empire, so it's still well remembered here. I've occasionally thought it was completely irrational of Britain not to come to some kind of settlement with Germany, which I'm certain that Hitler expected. But anyway, you've reminded me that The Man in the Moone really ought to be put to bed. MalleusFatuorum00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You the man, Malleus--do what you think is best, and if I come back to it I'll just follow suit. I still have a bunch of articles at the office and there may be something useful among them. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
No wonder I had a buzzing in my ears. Check out Commons, there's a picture of me from when I did work with Wikimedia Indonesia as well as a couple of pictures from an Aussie get together. Both of those shows sound interesting enough to make me want to watch them, but... language barriers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sure thing, Anna. Since the Lady lives in another state and Moonriddengirl is avoiding me, you're my secret Wiki-love. Psst! Don't tell anyone! Drmies (talk)
I don't know what I did, Crisco, but I do know that she spent the entirety of Wikimania 2012 avoiding me. *Snif*. Bish, I may need some of that to take my mind off her. ♫...won't you be my number two...♫ Drmies (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Rockfang, I don't know you, I don't think. Dennis, I'll take a troutlet from you--but you have to admit (silently) that I was right. Sometimes you can see trouble coming a mile away, and it cannot be denied that the person misread my comment. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Can't teach an old dog new tricks, Dennis. That I manage to work with a copier, having upgraded from a mimeograph, should be considered a miracle. Still, you have a point: Mrs. Drmies is constantly amazed that I haven't been fired yet, though I will put one popular campus myth to rest: I NEVER told [name redacted], in the classroom, to "get the fuck out of my class"; I never even told him that outside of class, though it would have been excellent advice. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah, Drmies, many's the time such thoughts have played across my inner landscape, the actual verbalization suppressed by the goodness of my being, as well as by more practical considerations. Also the bracing realization that, though unlikely, there might be a student or two who felt similarly about moi. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I reckon I saw that too but paid no attention to it. I think you're right--I suppose those Linked things have some kind of status? If they do, go for it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've been given the task of editing/updating a page on Wikipedia immediately, if not sooner. With no prior experience using Wikipedia, I've attempted to "learn as I go". Throughout this afternoon my changes kept reverting back, so I had to rekey it. It all came to a head when an entire section that I had been working on for hours vanished. I discovered numerous revisions and revision requests to keep within the guidelines. I also found several messages from you regarding this. I wasn't trying to be persistent with my "funky colors", I couldn't understand why it kept reverting back.
Learning as I go obviously wasn't well thought out, but I now have a better understanding on the inner workings of Wikipedia. I will get all the revisions up to par as soon as possible.
Thanks
CatM58 (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm thanks for the note--I am glad you found the edit summaries and all that; we sometimes take for granted that new users may not always look at that. Well, you saw the messages and all, so that's good. But I see a problem. Your message indicates you have a conflict of interest, and the best advice I can give you is to stay away from the article. If, for instance, it turns out that your edits aren't neutral or in agreement with the policies that govern such an article (starting with WP:BLP, and including WP:NPOV), a big fat tag saying "Warning: Conflict of Interest" is likely to be placed on top of the article, and then no one wins. So, for everyone's sake, look at the policies and guidelines, and make sure your edits conform to them. When in doubt, feel free to ask me or anyone else (you're probably tired of me already)--you can type {{Help Me}} on your own talk page and some nicer person will come by ASAP. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I finally for that translation (from a month ago) completed (my translator was busy, then she went her break), emailed a copy to Uncle G, LoS, and you. Hope it helps. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Admin's Barnstar
I keep seeing you spout intelligence and common sense, at AN/I of all places. Please buck the trend and continue to do this. John (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When you spoke of "the lack of an official name and status" it became clear that you hadn't checked the facts. Please do check the appropriate maps and such and then you may close with statements that aren't, to be perfectly frank, clearly misinformed. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Chrisrus (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Totally agree. I don't see how anyone who looks into this issue properly, after coming in from an objective with an open mind and discounting the nationalist motives on both sides of the debate - as I and several others did for example - can come away with any other conclusion than that Bozcaada is both the official name of the Turkish island in question; and - more importantly for WP purposes - the name used in nearly every single map/atlas, modern guide book, media source and other reference work. The only vaguely plausible evidence the other way is a raw Google Book hit count, which merely reflects the fact that throughout the classical period, it was known as Tenedos, and that it features prominently in accounts of the Trojan War. All these arguments were thrashed out and sources were cited in the admittedly lengthy discussion. Your closing argument also gives too much weight to headcounts, which as you surely know, have nothing to do with these decisions. Chrisrus undoing the close perhaps wasn't the smartest move, but I can understand the incredulity that presumably led them to do it. N-HHtalk/edits21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Please check maps before closing. If you want to close again, do so without making statements that are clearly misinformed. No one who checked the maps would have said what you did when you spoke of "the lack of an official name and status".Chrisrus (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's s well-reasoned an objective response (though seasoned by some irritation with Chrisrus's immature behavior) to your charge that I am wrong because you are right because your arguments were good and your opponents, unlike you, had nationalist motives. My three-year old can come up with better than that. Chrisrus, I tried to explain this to you on your talk page already, but apparently unsuccessfully: the closer does not bring maps. Now you two play the part of the objective adult, and argue, if you can, how this RfC could close in anything but "no consensus to rename". Drmies (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've been playing the part of an objective adult ever since I first came across this RM, with no history of involvement in Greek-Turkish spats, a couple of weeks ago thanks. Actually, I said there were nationalist motives on both sides. It's not even about arguments. It's about what every map, media source, guide book and official source calls the place in 2012. This was not a Mumbai-Bombay close call. And the proposer did bring evidence from maps and atlases and myriad other sources, as did I. They even prepared two spreadsheets of analysis. It is shocking, almost unbelievable, that you claim they did not. As for consensus, of course there was not consensus if you mean unanimity or if one or two people relying on Homeric texts and assertions that "obviously Tenedos is the common name" are allowed to veto changes to ensure WP accuracy. I thought we had slightly more objective procedures than that. N-HHtalk/edits22:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I get the last word here, because I'm tired of it. This may be news to you, but the motion was to rename, to overturn a problematic and long-standing consensus. That takes broad agreement: possession is 9/10 of the law. There was no clear consensus to rename. That the others were wrong, that you are shocked, shocked!, that's par for the course. Then someone, who admits on that same talk page that they had never heard of the place, finds it acceptable to overturn an admin's decision with a simple "undo"--is that the company you want to keep? If you disagree, find a more appropriate way to voice it. That someone prepares a spreadsheet doesn't make them right, and clearly they didn't manage to win over so many supporters that a headcount (if we did such a thing) would have solved it. And that's the end of it: you and Chrisrus can get together and complain about whatever you want--I couldn't care less. At some point this matter will be picked up again, and if anyone needs reminding that an RfC was closed by an admin with "no consensus", I'm sure someone will remind them of that. Now, that's enough out of me, and out of you all (I'm not expecting an apology). I'm closing this discussion: whoever uncloses it will be rolled back. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It looks similar to me, but I have to say that the RfC was not as clear as could be. I think you should ask this question of the good folks on the talk page, one edit request at a time, as I think you have been doing. But I say that as an editor, not as the person who closed the RfC. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I hope my efforts are not gone to waste, are they? After all I have done WITHOUT renaming the article into "Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin", must I revert it back into this awful version? --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I knew I should have been clear when I made RfC. The failed proposed version was intended as part of "Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin". The current version falls within "Lilith Sternin", unless I'm wrong. The awful version falls within "Lilith Sternin", but it lacks real-world perspective. --George Ho (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I do agree that the awful version is indeed pretty awful. But again, I have to say that this should be taken up with the experts on the talk page. Good luck George. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
I previously protected Russian-speaking Ukraine for persistent political vandalism. It expires on September 14. The IPs have moved to the talk page with the same disruptive tirades. I have now blocked the talk page for one week (expires September 19). Is there a better way to handle this? The effect of protecting both is that non-auto-confirmed accounts cannot even make edit requests on the talk page for changes to the article. However, because the IPs are not the same, although they appear to be in the same range, I can't think of any other way to deal with the disruption short of a possible range block. I could also take this to WP:AN if you think that would be better.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, there's little to do. As you may know, I've said it often enough at ANI, I don't know much about range blocks so I have little to offer there. Protection is the only way, I think. Look at the Balkan articles: they're under restriction, but even with 1R and all that many of them are semi-protected. It's sad if even the talk page has to be protected, but that's the way it is, it seems. Some of those IPs may get accounts and get blocked; others may get accounts and turn into decent editors--I have more faith than Dennis does in the difference between IP editing and less anonymous editing. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I will leave the protection as is and extend it as necessary. If some other page stalker has a suggestion about the possibility of a range block, they can always dive in. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've never done this, never seen it done, it would probably give Jimbo an aneuerism (sorry, using a loaner computer with IE and no spellcheck), just thinking out loud. Semi-protect the article, semi-protect the talk page, and set up an unprotected talk subpage Talk:Russian-speaking Ukraine/Unprotected. Let the unprotected subpage be a free-for all, don't bother to try to police it for soapboxing, etc., because it is no longer disrupting the grownups on the real talk page. Any autoconfirmed editor looking for good karma could occasionally scan the subpage to see if there was anything worthwhile to transfer to the talk page. Any IP editor who really wanted to participate like a grownup could get an account and wait 4 days. If they act up on the page once they're autoconfirmed, block them immediately. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I hate to disagree with both Floq and Dennis in the same post, but I don't like it. First, it strikes me as more work than is warranted. Second, it feels like we're rewarding the disrupters by giving them their own little playground. Third, I don't see why we need to tolerate that kind of garbage anywhere on wikipedia, whether it is on an official talk page or an unofficial subpage, and whether it is indexed or not. I could probably come up with a few more reasons not to do it, but I'm tired. Of course, if I'm in a minority ...--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
A couple of editors have it for their talk page. I don't know what their experience with it is. I also hate to disagree with those two big shots, but it does seem like a lot of trouble. However, Bbb, one could argue it's an extension of AGF. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've used it on my talk page before, that's what gave me the idea, but I've never seen it done in articlespace (except something slightly similar at Talk:Muhammad/images) . It isn't much trouble; you create the page, and more or less forget about it. It works well, because (a) you can realistically say that legitimate IP editors have some way of affecting content, while (b) taking the fun away from the troublemakers. In short order, I predict you would get hardly any action on the unprotected page. It is certainly less trouble than a range block for me, but that's because I have absolutely no clue how to range block anything. If someone can do range blocks and there isn't a lot of collateral damage, by all means do that. It was just a suggestion. I may try it myself someday. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Generally agree that such problems have no easy solution. I ran into a very similar situation quite recently. The article was protected and the dispute finally went to the talk page. The worst disruptive user was blocked and just kep coming back with one sock after another with little to no attempt at concealement. I semid the talk page. He came back yet again with minimal attempt to disguise his continued socking and asked me to look into it further or whatever. Finally I filed an SPI despite the socks all being blocked on the hope that checkusers could link up the accounts and formulate a rangeblock, which they did. That finally stopped it for at least the last day or so. Part of the problem is that in these ethnic/religious disputes the level of acrimony is so high and our knowledge of what it is they are fighting about in the first place so low that there is little else to do. As to the unprotected talk subpage, I can see both sides of that. We don't want to reward infantile behavior but in the most extreme cases it may the only solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
In general, I dislike protecting anything; I'm sure a number of the regulars who submit to RPP gnash their teeth when I'm looking at that page. This is also at the bottom of my recent spat with Kww and his handling of the Dewan357 socks (well, IPs), where his particular way of dealing with it is to protect (for three months to indefinite) everything that those IPs/socks have touched. But that's another type of case, obviously. Floq, with "trouble" I didn't mean setting up the page (I've set up a talk page for a talk page in the past), it's that if we take it seriously we should look at the page somewhat regularly, otherwise there's no point, and maybe copy suggestions across. In other words, police it. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
OK, yes, it's more trouble in that respect. I guess my theory is that when the squabbling is confined to a lower-visibility page, it will peter out, and after a short time be relatively little work to separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't know, I haven't tried it, but that's what I suspect would happen. It's what usually happened with my unprotected user talk page; as soon as I did that, the trolls usually left, because they couldn't annoy me with the orange bar anymore. I could just check the page once a day to see if a legitimate IP editor had posted to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
My plan, at this point, is to let the protection expire on the article and talk pages as scheduled and then watch them. If there's continued disruption on either page, I will reapply protection. If another admin wants to do this differently and accept the responsibility for monitoring the situation, I'll bow out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago44 comments12 people in discussion
The current edition of WP:Signpost has a report on a recent study that analysed Wikipedia articles using the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, and basically concluded that most articles are too difficult for mere mortals to understand. As an example I put our developing opus (The Man in the Moone) through their online tool, and it came up with with a score of 49,[8] which they claim is borderline difficult to read. Mind you, I bet if they put their own report through the same test it'd fair even worse. MalleusFatuorum00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's interesting; thanks for that link. I want to take issue immediately with the desired average score for the project should be "standard"--it's an encyclopedia, and a certain level of technical proficiency isn't too much to ask, in my opinion. Holy shit, Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae scores 26! I won't claim it's beautiful prose, but it's not that hard, is it? Today's FA, Oldham, is a 49, but I'm looking for a 60-70 article. OK, one of the DYKs, United States Post Office (Yonkers, New York), is 57, so that's pretty close. I think I see one way of upping my own score--shorter sentences, but these long sentences I produce are a result of academic training, no doubt. Haha, you were right about the article: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-10/News and notes is a 36. The first two sections of the journal article score a 46; remarkable, since it includes their methodology; I suppose the lexicon is not part of the calculation.
Yes, this is very interesting. The note on US literacy is nice; I hope we won't aim for a readability dictated by the deplorable state of education in this country. Here's an anecdote, deriving from last night's meeting with my oldest daughter's new teacher.
In the US, kids can get library books, and then take quizzes on them, all designed to deliver scores via the Accelerated Reader software. Those books are categorized, and kids get the "appropriate" books for their age group. For Sippi, age 6, those are books that score around 1.9, if I remember correctly. (Her version of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a 4.2.) Now, make no mistake about it, this is the US so everything is a competition, and such scores help determine where you go and how you get there--like to the next Magnet school or back down to the regular schools, woefully underfunded, overcrowded, and underachieving. But this is the US, so we will pretend it's not about competition and skill and blah blah: everyone is a winner. You can do it!
So the problem is that Sippi, who read The Invention of Hugo Cabret in two days, will finish her 1.9 books (and those are nothing more than picture books) in the car on the way home, in less than ten minutes--and she is not allowed to take quizzes on higher-level books. She snuck in four quizzes on books in the 4-range yesterday; turns out she can't take more than three quizzes per week, so she's been breaking the rule and won't be allowed to do that anymore. In other words, the system seems designed to stop her from wanting to develop her reading skills, since taking AR quizzes is what these kids do, what they are trained for. How crazy is that? Tonight I told her, in summary, the end of book 11 of the Aeneid, of Arruns stalking and then killing Camilla, and Camilla's biography--she has no problem following that. And I have to keep her happy at the level of Knuffle Bunny: A Cautionary Tale, between 1 and 1.9, which she read two years ago. No one should be surprised, I guess, that our kids cain't read. Sorry for spinning such a long thread; my jaw dropped yesterday when I learned of all these rules and I haven't fully recovered. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I feel for Sippi. I really can't remember not being able to read. My mother was a great reader and taught me to read well before I started school. Which was fine, except that it made school pretty boring, surrounded by illiterates who thought the only use for a book was to prop up a dodgey table leg. Thankfully there were no silly quizes though. I lived in a small village as a child, and by the time I was 9 or 10 I bet I'd read pretty much every book in our little library. MalleusFatuorum03:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Can someone tell me something about the Flesch-Kincaid test, and what its validity is? It's very rare that I find a Wikipedia article to be difficult to read, and then only because it deals with technical information I'm not well-versed in. In my own editing, I frequently combine very short, single-concept sentences into compound sentences, because I find the "Hunka-hunka-do, hunka-hunka-do" rhythm of such composition very, very boring, and, in fact, not conducive to taking in information at all, so I'd hate to think that someone is going to come along and undo that work and make everything simplistic again because no one can understand how two related concepts can be joined together in a single sentence.
This may be a particular bugaboo of mine, but I'm concerned that our students learn too many facts, without learning what the connection is between them. In fact, we selected my son's middle school here in NYC because it held out the possibility of dealing with the just that: the way things are connected together, and what the facts mean, as opposed to (merely) what they are.
Is it possible that the F-K test is based on reduced expectations, and therefore contributes to a negative feedback loop that makes our prose simpler and simpler and our students stupider and stupider? Shouldn't we be pushing them up, instead of catering to their inabilities? What's the quote about "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, BMK--I dropped the link for the machine on the Facebook page of our Comp Director; maybe she'll have something useful to say. But a readability factor that doesn't take lexicon into the equation is missing something. Word length alone, though size matters, does not lexical difficulty make. Flesch–Kincaid readability test has a bit more info. I'll tell you one more thing about Sippi: her conduct grade goes down in classes where she's bored. Last year her teacher had a moment of brightness and figured out that if she was done with her work she should give her a book. Boom, that grade went up from C to A (she needed a B average to stay in school--it's that important). Oh, Malleus--all those numbers: apparently she is reading two grade levels higher than she should (whatever the proper word is), and this magnet school works one level above ordinary public schools. So while I'll claim that she's pretty smart, the other conclusion is that the great majority of kids are not reading hard and well enough, and don't really seem to be pushed. There is no reason for anyone over 4 to be stuck with Dr. Seuss (which scores -1.3; yes, "minus 1.3"), but that's where they're at I suppose. Let them do more difficult things and they'll do it. Kids love to be rewarded for meeting (or at least trying) a challenge, but they're not stupid and they can figure out whether something is a real challenge or not. For my girl, that's obviously math, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Drmies: Have you ever walked into the house or apartment of someone you know only casually, only to realize that there's not a single book anywhere? Perhaps I've gone too far the other way, with books threatening to push us out of our apartment, and another 12 boxes of them in storage (I miss them), but no books at all seems like a problem, even in the age of the Internets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Ha, many of the (undergrad) friends I had in college had no books. Many of my students read nothing at all. I still miss the books I left overseas--my Gerrit Komrij collection, a wonderful Malory facsimile illustrated by Aubrey Beardsley, and Hans Warren's diaries... But I teach one section this semester that's totally on the ball, and a bunch of them have read (parts of) the Illiad and the Odyssey, so it's not always so bad, and I hope that those well-read students help push the others in the class. What's your kid reading, BMK? Or were you talking about years ago? Drmies (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, my son (13) is a computer geek through-and-through, probably heading to be a programmer, so most of his time is spent online -- although his reading level is 3 grades above his actual grade, and if he gets into a book he'll blast through it pretty quickly. (Getting him a Kindle helped.) My daughter (25) is a reader, although mostly fantasy and anime. We've got the books from her youth sitting in piles in the bedroom right now, waiting for transfer to her. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sippi sounds a bit like me. I always found the reading, English comprehension and similar stuff to be a stroll in the park, and in retrospect I wish my schools had concentrated me more on mathematics, or I'd taken more of an interest myself. We used to have pounds shillings and pence in this country, as you may know, (12 pennies make a shilling, 20 shillings make a pound). For ages I simply didn't understand what was going on when you subtracted 3/6 from 10/4 – I think I must have been off school that day – and even now I sometimes wake in a sweat remembering a question from the headmaster of a new school: "How much would twelve 3+1⁄2 pence stamps cost?" I never really got to grips with your area though, English literature, which I'm trying to amends for here on Wikipedia a little bit. MalleusFatuorum03:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I remember collecting coins as a kid, and the English ones always threw me for a loop. We must have studied them, briefly, in English class; if we did, I never got it. It did confirm to me that you all are so quaint. The culture painted for us in French class was very much like ours. I'll tell her she might have a soulmate--and she certainly takes after me in that respect. I loved English, in part because our reading load was pretty heavy. I memorized the Beowulf selection; I still know it by heart. Well, I just got done grading a stack of Aeneid summaries, and this section (the good one) did really well; they're a joy to teach. BMK, have you tried feeding your boy The Once and Future King? I loved it--it's one of the books that made me a medievalist, in hindsight. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
There are few things that have ever confused me quite as much as the pre-decimal British currency system when I was reading Arthur Conan Doyle and Patrick O'Brian for the first time. I still don't quite get it; what's a "guinea"? Some of it probably has to do with inflation, though; I just can't think of "shillings" as both a small fraction of a pound and a significant amount of money. Recentism and all that, I suppose. Writ Keeper⚇♔05:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It was, for a while. Then people started buggering with the exchange rate (relative to gold). It moved around a bit but at some point became fixed as 21 shillings. No idea why that number was chosen but doubtless we have an article about it. If you are struggling with pre-decimal British currency then how do you fare with pecks and rods and chains? The latter being the length between the wickets on a cricket pitch, and none of them being connected with BDSM. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I guess it's not really any weirder than 16 ounces to the pound but 8 fluid ounces to a cup or any of the other customary measurements, when you think about it. Still seems weird that a term for a value so close to a pound still finds use. Oh well, we all have our quirks, I suppose. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔17:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It used to be fun to explain the currency to foreign visitors by saying that the guinea was the primary unit (showing an advert for some high-fashion item priced in guineas), then produce a "half-crown" (common coin worth 2s 6d, one-eighth of a pound) and explain it was worth five forty-secondths of a guinea. JohnCD (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Aaargh! No wonder no one took their vacation over there. OK, when I'm in the story, and I can't figure out how many ounces (liquid and otherwise) in a pound, I'll ask an old lady: they usually know. A lot of young people here don't seem to know. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
OK, I thought I could break the machine, but to my surprise Glas (book) scored a 37. I challenge anyone to read it and to come back here and claim they understood it and it made sense, and I'll call you a liar. I worked as hard as I could to make that article illegible and I will not be thwarted by an algorithm. Seriously, read it. "A Dutch commentator, recalling Derrida's observation that he wrote with two hands, the one commenting on the other, noted that the two-column format aims to open a space for what the individual texts excluded, in an auto-deconstructive mode" is just a sample. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I always took 'maths' as being 'mathematics' rather than a plural (and failed it anyway, giving up my enforced attempts when I reached the lowest grade possible). Maths is a subject in British schools, quite singularly... As to the measuring thing, I had a word processor once that could look for things like 'fog factor'. The passive voice was objected to by it, and the ways it suggested to get round this were quite cumbersome. I think this will also go away if we ignore it. As to the article, I won't go so far as to say that I find it readable, it is definitely much more so than the book appears to be. If you want something unreadable, look at some of the junk that appears at CSD or PNT. Peridon (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
[outdenting because I have no idea the correct indention level] What's so "accelerated" about a program that forbids reading above your prescribed level? LadyofShalott18:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I heard an interview once with an English author of physics books for kids. I don't remember his name now. (Malleus, Sitush - any clue?) Anyway it ticked me off because while the books are apparently quite popular in Britain, he can't get them published in the US, because our kids are too dumb - or so say American publishers, thus making a self-fulfilling prophecy. LadyofShalott18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
My last favorite show before I moved was Mastermind. You can't find an equivalent here--the formatting, with those stupid commercial breaks, already destroys the atmosphere, and the level is no doubt deemed too high, though I have plenty of friends who'd score well on it: they (the networks) are keeping us dumb as well. I found no reference to this story in our article Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show). Drmies (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to butt in here; I noticed it says "Florida state law requires insurance policies to have a reading ease of at least 45, to ensure that people can understand them." It doesn't bode well for this tool if the people who wrote it don't know what "at least" means! --John (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
No apology necessary, haha. You know what, though, I think that maybe we should have such requirements. I just learned that "making a spreadsheet doesn't mean you're right" means "you lied or tried to mislead". And how come you know so much about Florida? You don't live there, do you? I don't trust Floridians; they took all our coastline and refuse to put oil rigs there. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and, without going into nauseating detail, as a teacher and a parent I left California to return to Scotland mainly due to the woeful and parlous state of American education. It's a meritocracy, and is 50-100 years behind European education, and I speak from considerable hands-on experience, from both sides of the counter. If you meet an intelligent and well-educated American, odds-on they had a private education or they were very very lucky. It explains an awful lot about this project and how it runs. --John (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Malleus, I think most states require insurance, but that's not a given--and even in those that do, they don't really enforce it. Only recently did they start sending out apparently random notices asking you to provide proof of insurance, but it's not some automatic thing that you have to have that proof when you register your car or something. Incomprehensible. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Drive without insurance here in the UK and you're very likely to find your car impounded and crushed. In fact you don't even need to be driving it. If you own an uninsured car (such as my beautiful MGB GT for instance) you have to make an annual return declaring that it's kept off the road, and if you don't it'll be towed away and crushed. MalleusFatuorum21:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
And speaking of American education, I've never understood those sports scholarships. In what way is being more than 7 feet tall or impervious to pain a good way to choose undergraduates? MalleusFatuorum22:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You have to think of big-time college sports (primarily football, but basketball as well, and hockey in some places) not as extracurricular activities, but as major income-producers for the universities. They spend a lot on them, but a lot of their alumni giving is dependent on it as well. They are also a primary source of identity for the schools, which brings in students who are not involved in sports, and with the students comes tuition money. Given all that, trading education (which is what they've got to give away) for specialized athletic ability makes perfect sense. Of course, what doesn't make sense is why things got so out of hand that the tail is wagging the dog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Malleus, I've been here so long it's hard for me to explain it, and I don't want to use too many words. BMK is completely correct, of course--and most Americans would understand my saying "well, I went to school at Alabama, so duh." There's a t-shirt here, along the lines of "In the South, football is nothing like religion at all--it's much more important", and that "football" is college football, not the NFL. OK, one brief note: my very first class in the US, I'm teaching Dutch, and there's a guy in my class who between August and mid-September 1995 never got the book or did his homework; turns out he was biding his time during the 1995 NBA lockout--he was obviously not there to study anything , though he did quite well afterwards (and any American can tell you what "second pick" means in terms of money). I had to learn important terms like "college sports" and "draft" and all that; until that point I thought university meant something. Drmies (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I may have said this before somewhere on Wikipedia, but in my university, I had professors that took pride in the fact that they gave the big athletes passing grades, regardless of their performance in the classroom. I think that experience singlehandedly convinced me that college was pointless and that the best I could do there was keep my head down until I got the piece of paper at the end, rather than try to learn anything. Writ Keeper⚇♔06:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
One of the things I liked about MIT was that they had a lot of sports programs, but they're almost all intramural: dorms versus other dorms or fraternities, that kind of thing, and in the few sports they play other institutions (not football, but basketball, hockey and some others, I can't recall exactly what), they played junior colleges, so there was no chance of the programs getting out of hand. And, of course, there were absolutely no athletic scholarships of any kind. (I think even Harvard had some.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
One other point about big-time American college sports, you have to remember that many of the big name colleges are huge, with tens of thousands of students, so even if you put all the sports scholarship students together, they will rarely be a significant portion of the student population. (Of course, smaller colleges do athletic scholarships as well.) My wife's alma mater, the University of Central Florida, went in about 30 years from a small technical college to be the second-largest university in the US by enrollment, 58K+. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
(random outdent) This whole thread is one of the best I've read recently (though I haven't had time to read that many). Well, the stories about reading ability as a kid were great. The high point was mention of a variety of fantasy writers, and then things started wandering into something about insurance. I started to lose interest at that point... The readability scores, I wouldn't place much weight on those. It all depends on the audience you are writing for. The scary thing about reading is how many people are still functionally illiterate. In London, the Evening Standard has been running a reading campaign in schools after they uncovered shocking levels of reading ability in children and illiteracy in adults. Some of it is due to English as a second language, but some of it is due to the lack of reading material at home, the "walk into a house and wonder why there are no books" phenomenon. Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think an awful lot of it is to do with English as a second language. When we left west London for oop North, about 20 years ago now, there was hardly anyone in our street who could speak English with any fluency. I remember one day the postman put a note through the door saying he'd left a parcel addressed to us with our next-door neighbour. When I got home from work I went to collect it: a woman came to the door and read from a piece of paper: "I don't speak English. Please come back when my son has returned from school". MalleusFatuorum02:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
To avoid cluttering up Chrisrus' talk page, I thought I would contact here and encourage discussion on my talk page if you have responses to my questions. And they really are questions so we can maybe find some stability on the page. If you are fed up with it and don't want to respond, that is fine as well. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm asking politely if you could stop implying that the official name of Bozcaada is unclear or not established. No one believes this, not even the person who said this is saying it anymore. I'll take you through it. 1. The first thing to do when reading a treaty is figuring out what it does. Does the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne establish official names? No, there is no provision dealing with naming or official names. The treaty divided territory and agreed to peace. 2. OK, but maybe it is implied. A great test of this is to see if all the names have stuck. So are there any places mentioned in the treaty who go by different names now? Yes. Persia and Roumania are only the two most egregious. 3. Another way to see is if there are any later treaties that use a different name from the one in the treaty. Are there? Yep. It seems problematic to say that the Treaty of Lausanne either a. deals with official names, b. establishes official names or c. that it has not been replaced by newer relevant treaties. This may invoke a question of who usually establishes official names? Well the answer to that in international law is the sovereign government does. There is no source anywhere or anyone who has claimed that the islands are disputed, indeed it was for this reason that the discussion did not entertain the slash proposal Bozcaada/Tenedos. Still not convinced? Well, Turkish official usage? Still no? official Council of Europe report. No? United Nations. UNIDO. You would be hard pressed to find as recent, high level mentions of Tenedos from any international organization. Well, the evidence by your fellow admin Mike Cline, that the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency uses Bozcaada is about as official as they come. It was confusing (a point I take blame for not making clear in the discussion), but there is really no ground for claiming that the official name is unclear and the repetitions of it are not based on any evidence. Best. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, you're not politely asking anything--what you drop here is neither polite nor a question. What do you hope to achieve with messages like these? Don't answer that--in fact, don't respond. Please. There is a Move review where you can argue that I'm wrong. BTW, very little of the stuff you mention here can be brought up there since that discussion only concerns the evidence brought up in the Move request. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
It's The Coral Island, a book I loved as a kid, and one that William Golding has rather grudgingly admitted might just have been an influence on his Lord of the Flies. I've got access to the Highbeam stuff, which has been very useful, and I think I can knit a plausible GAN from that, but maybe you have access to some super-duper academic databases? MalleusFatuorum01:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's not a bad article, but you wouldn't have anything to do with that, of course--we wouldn't want to reward quality work. I have access to the MLA, or what used to be the MLA--it's got a fancier name now--and I have access to a kind of JSTOR-lite. At any rate, and I say this not really knowing what Highbeam is, that should provide plenty for any broadness of coverage we would ever require. Ha, I'm typing slowly--after watching The Big Lebowski at the local movie house (we are fortunate to have one), my (medieval) colleague and I had some delicious beers (we are fortunate enough to have a place that serves them--he had some wonderful Scottish ale). I have no doubt I should be able to find enough to beef up the Genre and style section, and probably to split toward an "Influence" section--there should be plenty on Genre and style given the preponderance of that kind of criticism since the 1950s, which is heavily indexed by JSTOR since taught as the most important mode in American literary criticism until the 1970s or 80s; likewise with Themes. At some point, depending on what sources I come up with, "Critical reception" will feature less Stevenson (who will have his spot in "Influence") and more modern cultural criticism, I expect--"juvenile literature", FW the term IW, is a pretty hip topic in academia these days and the MLA might provide some valuable sources there.
Sounds exciting, Malleus: maybe Sippi will care for it too. De scheepsjongens van Bontekoe, in the article for Johan Fabricius, is piped to Willem Ysbrandtsz. Bontekoe; the novel deserves its own article, and the statue described in Willem_Ysbrandtsz._Bontekoe#The_Cabin_Boys_of_Bontekoe_.28book.29 is where I used to play as a kid--and I have pictures of Sippin next to them from this summer. Oh, I'm being obtuse: it's the same story. "The story relates the adventures of three boys marooned on a South Pacific island, the only survivors of a shipwreck"--well, substitute Indonesia for the South Pacific island (Crisco, you listening?), and there's another one for "influence". I have family visiting the next two and a half weeks, so my WP time might be limited, but I'll let you know what I find. Drmies (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. There's obviously no rush, as I've been slowly nibbling away at this article for quite a while now. I think it's starting to shape up quite nicely though. One thing that surprised me was that there was a TV adaptation as recently as 2000. MalleusFatuorum14:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the article again, with fresher eyes, one of the things I'm most pleased about is that it's not overwhelmed by an overly detailed Plot summary section, something that seems all too common in Wikipedia's literature articles. MalleusFatuorum18:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I'm thinking of recreating the page William Karlsson (Swedish ice hockey player) now that he has achieved notability (by playing in Elitserien in 2012-13). I'm also going to add info about what club he is currently playing for. It seems like you deleted the William Karlsson article on May 5th - that was before he had achieved notability - so I thought I'd contact you before recreating the page. If there's any problems with this matter, feel free to contact me. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Andrew Kurish (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't get the history of the article. When you (Drmies) created it, it had a source, not for all of the material, but at least for some of it. Then, a later-banned user starting monkeying with it. Then, more recently, another editor redirected it supposedly based on "previous discussions and consensus" - where are those discussions? Now we have a prod tag because the original source to The Telegraph is no longer in the article. I'll leave it up to you what to do with the article, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, where to start. The person who prodded this should have checked the history. MickMacNee should have been more friendly. The editors in the history who turned this into an article again should have practiced more. The initial author should have written a better article with more references--and that referee should have done more notable things, like tweeting photographs of his dog tied to the roof of his car chewing on a birth certificate. I've restored the redirect; that seems the easiest thing to do. Thanks Bbb, Drmies (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You know, Bbb, it's time call a spade a spade: this was poor writing, and I'll tell you why. The first comma ("Mohamed Lahyani is a Swedish tennis umpire, who officiated...") is totally redundant. Removing it renders the indefinite article awkward--"a Swedish tennis umpire who officiated...", at least suggesting the possibility of there being more than one Swedish umpire who officiated etc. So, the indefinite article needs to go: "the Swedish umpire who officiated...", which limits the guy's career and personality to this one tennis match he officiated--his one fame to claim is one match. So Mick MacNee actually had a point: it's poor writing because it's not a notable subject. And thinking about this, I remember writing it, at my desk in my study behind my PC in our old house, and I remember pondering that comma. You know, I probably felt bad about that comma after I went to bed, and if I had been a more ethical person I would have put db-author on it. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
There is no "involved" here: it IS a BLP violation, and there is talk page agreement, and they've done it before. I left an ew-warning: the next violation results in a block, and if you happen to see it, block 'em. I really don't want to protect the article, semi or full, since right now it's only one edit warrior. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I know you're busy, so after a good faith request from Collect to block multiple IPs (not even in the same range) at WP:AIV, I semi-protected the article for a week. Feel free to change it and/or take a different route.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hello Drmies and Bbb23. In my opinion AGF has run out long ago. The IPs have been adding BLP violations. A longer semi would be justified, and blocking should be used if needed. There is still room for a calm and sensible discussion on the talk page about the matters not yet settled. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, everyone. Ed, I wish I shared your optimism about "the matters not yet settled." Some of the problematic content issues spill over into the Asma al-Assad article, which has, not surprisingly, seen its own share of controversy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Lahyani until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can you expand this? Andy the Grump has rather put me off it but I was looking forward to seeing "DYK that the leaning tower of Pisa suffers from erection problems" on the front page.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there my friend, longtime no "see" how's it going?
as you have tried (to no avail) to communicate with this chap, it's only fair i should notify of the following update, please read this message i sent to another user/admin (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GiantSnowman#User:Kolins_-_categories). Definitely looks like one of those "Let me wait in the dark for a few months, and when they forget about me i'll resume my deeds" situations, unfortunately.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since you participated in this discussion, and may have noticed I closed it, this is just a courtesy notice that on request I've reopened it. Further comments welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, Drmies, do you have any access to some sources by an M. Levey about "Adab al-Tabib", a ninth-century Islamic book on medical ethics? I'm working on it from Uncle G's list of unrepresented encyclopedic topics, but I'm hitting major writer's block (and just lack of time to work on it), and he seems to be the central source about the book. Thanks! Writ Keeper⚇♔20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes: Levey, Martin. "Medical Ethics of Medieval Islam with Special Reference to Al-Ruhāwī's "Practical Ethics of the Physician." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 57.3 (1967): 1-100. I found a few other hits for Adab al-Tabib in JSTOR; send me an email and I'll send you the PDFs. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
This stuff is...amazing. Thanks so much! I can't believe I was trying to write an article without this... I'll probably try to think up of some witty apropos wikilove tomorrow, but for now, I gotta dig into this stuff. Writ Keeper⚇♔02:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You can try WP:AIV, but usually such things are posted (and handled very quickly) at WP:ANI. I didn't see it until I went through the article history. Or ask your neighborhood administrator for advice: we usually take this stuff seriously. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's what happens at AfDs. People on both sides are passionate. You two are dealing with someone who knows less about Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements than about other things but that won't stop them--sometimes it's best to just refrain from commenting and let the rest of the community handle it. Thanks to both of you, Drmies (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Responded on their talk page. If it were a legitimate legal threat I'd have removed it; in my opinion it's not quite there yet. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
You must be a dog hater. How can you delete such a cute and lovable dog? First, they came for the cute, lovable puppies and I didn't speak up. Next, the came for Dr. Who, but it was too late. Bgwhite (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
...the book Adab al-Tabib, called the "crowning achievement" of early Islamic medical ethics, may have actually been written by a Christian?
Just moved this into mainspace, due mostly to your help. I'll probably nominate it for DYK later tonight, but in the meantime, what do you think? Writ Keeper⚇♔22:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
First of all, no, I had nothing to do with it. Second, nice sentence variation in the lead already; an appositive is always a good idea. I approve of singular they, but don't let Malleus hear of it. Wow. The rich helping to cover for the poor: don't let Romney hear of it. Writ Keeper, you have done excellent work: I am very impressed. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
One caveat: one wonders what modern Muslim scholarship has to say on the topic of his faith, but I guess the one non-Western source covers that angle at least to some extent. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
For the hook: tweak. We know who wrote it, right? Question is, was he a Christian ("was written by someone who may actually have been a Christian")? I note you didn't bring this source to the article: the author argues that he was Muslim, but there is an easier solution--he was both, probably or possibly a Christian at birth and a devout Muslim as the writer of the book. Author does not equal speaker: he may well have written a devoutly Islamic book without being a devout Muslim himself. That may well be splitting hairs, according to some who tend to view faith as monolithic, but if he's writing for a specific audience it would stand to reason that he sounds like one of them. (Consider that Whitman wrote temperance literature also...) Anyway, a tweak of some sort, that places the modality on his faith more than on his identity (I view the two as separate) would be helpful. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Totally agree with you about the hook. As far as the source I didn't use...the more I thought about it, the less convincing it became. I mean, he's using the very translation he's criticizing as his main source. How can one say with authority, "This translation is wrong, it says God when the original clearly meant Allah" without actually seeing the original? Not to mention using as your main source a translation into a language one doesn't have full grasp of (as evidenced by the state of the English in that paper)... I was second-guessing myself a bit for not using it, even if I found it unconvincing (would've mentioned it in my first post, had I not been pressed for time), so maybe I was pushing editorial discretion a bit too far. What would you say about it? Writ Keeper⚇♔01:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
A few other random thoughts: yeah, I'm a big fan of appositives, as you can see; also of the singular "they". It's always seemed the most natural choice for me, in both writing and reading. For hooks, what do you think of: "...that the author of Adab al-Tabib, called the "crowning achievement" in early Islamic medical ethics, may have actually been a Christian?" Oh yeah, and I only got a 40, worse than 72% of the rest of Wikipedia. Oh well. Writ Keeper⚇♔02:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think it is a possible contentious issue, one about ownership. Even a poor article can provide balance, and you can mirror that by the weight you give to it in the article. A brief "though one scholar claims he was never a Christian", or whatever the source allows, indicates the relative weight you attach to it, and then no one can claim you have excluded non-Western sources of which you were aware. I've checked JSTOR again, this time for the man, and sent you what is probably not that useful. Anyway, if you look at his article, you'll see that he's called "Arab Muslim" with a footnote, which indicates that someone is interested in the matter of identity. I think (since you're the expert now) that you should bring some balance to that article as well: Uncle G would certainly support such editorial morality. Your hook is fine; I wonder if adding "Nestorian" would be fun. I always thought of Uncle G as a kind of Nestor--certainly DGG is one. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Heh, glad it's not just me, then. I made the changes to both articles; I do feel better now that I'm not excluding the source, even though I'm even less convinced of its basic soundness (the author's argument that Al-Ruhawi is Muslim seems to be based on the assumption that Al-Ruhawi is Muslim). Anyway, I'm gonna put the DYK nom up; might not get to the quid pro quo until tomorrow though. Writ Keeper⚇♔03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
The first is that you accidentally used {[archive.... rather than {{archive... (square bracket rather than squiggly bracket) so the template was not activated as it would have been with two squiggly bracket. If you had not made that mistake then I would have left it alone.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for both the Talk comments and the semi-protection. The socks and others have been a pretty determined bunch since they created the article, and both will help. JohnInDC (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there o' great wiki-one! Don't know if i should take that one as a compliment or not, my summaries are indeed very off-putting at times. Yes i think logically, people with very poor English skills should edit in their language's WP (for their own comfort also i believe).
The counter-argument is, of course, i am noone to say where does a person edit or not edit, free will is a "supreme aspiration" and in this case an easy one to achieve. If User:MYS77 (and others) want(s) to edit in the English Wiki he does, period. If i want to cleanup after him, i do, noone is forcing me.
Glad we had this conversation, all the best from Portugal. How do you like this chap? An autoritarian figure for some (who don't know him in most cases), i'll never forget how he cried after leaving FC Barcelona in his second spell and how he kissed club player Emmanuel Amuneke in practice as a reward for a drill well executed...Good 'ole Aloysius...
What's with the name change? Yeah, van Gaal--coach during the glory years, at least those I witnessed. No, I didn't mean to say they were off-putting, not at all: I can see you're making a concerted effort to keep them clean, haha, but you do have a signature of sorts. I hope things with you are well over there; the last thing you told me wasn't so cheerful. Take care! Drmies (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I can use those powers for good and for evil, of course. I chose evil: full protection for three days. (Honestly, I didn't recognize the history: so many changes since my revert!) I don't like that edit for the same reason I reverted the earlier one, but I think this is a matter that you and Carol (who I think is level-headed) can hash out one way or another on the talk page. If the IP wished to talk there, great. If not, we know what's going on. To put it another way, if there is some consensus on the article about what that article should look like then it's easy to maintain that, with force if necessary--force here meaning semi-protection, for instance. I don't want to semi-protect now since that would appear to be favoring you over the IP, and I'm not prepared to do that (yet). I will block the IP for continuing to edit war, but obviously that won't do a damn bit of good. It's a bit of a pickle, of course. Oh, I see now that there has been discussion on the talk page. Listen to Carol: she makes sense and she's right. You're edit-warring yourself, but fortunately for you my math isn't very good, and you are choosing other means to work this out, even if belatedly. There is no use in angering others: the calmer you are the more likely you are to make your case.
The bottom line: it's always best to be able to say, truthfully, "see consensus on talk page"; then admins will have few doubts about reverting, blocking, protecting. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Can't say I've felt it as directly as you, but some things and figures from my childhood (Melissa Joan Hart, for example) look so different now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Heck, the Stones are turning 70... There should be laws against such things... Next thing you know, I'll start feeling creaky myself... BTW, never realized that Pleuni was from my hometown, although I know plenty of Touws (one of my mother's uncles, for example), and even a "Pleuntje". Anyway, not to be pedantic (words always followed by a pedantic remark...), wasn't the first nude scene on Dutch TV a sketch in "Hoepla!" with Phil Bloom? I remember the brouhaha and how much I regretted not to have seen that program... (I was 12 at the time :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
[ec] Yes, I think that calls for some tweaking in both articles. Hey, Guillaume, once upon a time one of the Emmanuelles was on TV... Crisco, I just looked at both and the difference is not entirely clear to me. "Pleuni Touw became the first actress to have a nude scene on Dutch television" (De Stille Kracht (television series)); "[De Stille Kracht] featured the first televised nude scene in Dutch history" (Pleuni Touw". I think you're contrasting "nude scene" with "nudity", correct? Drmies (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Get a hold of yourself. Who says I don't consider that vandalism? I note that that particular edit was followed by this one, nine minutes later--by an IP editor who is doing good work and who would be blocked from the article if it were semi-protected. "What floats your boat"--pff. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Regardless, the article has been a long target for vandalism and that particular edit was just a blatant case of that. How about this this and this? You don't consider these edits to justify protection of the article? Till03:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The first one was from a month ago, the second wasn't vandalism. If you're so keen on protecting BLPs you would acknowledge that the second edit removed unsourced material and in no way suggests an intent to disrupt the wiki. I'm sure you love that band, but for semi-protection there has to be plenty of recent disruption. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
"The first one was from a month ago" --> it doesn't matter when it was, vandalism on BLPs is never tolerated. I'm sure an editor of your experience would be aware of that. But whatever! Till04:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You want me to go and protect every single BLP that's ever been written? I'll take your last sneer as a compliment, thank you. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I guess you can help me from this IP user still breathing down my neck, I have already, discussed this on the person's talkpage about many autoconfirmed users with different users without vandalism, and use to do good, and that other user wasn't my user, as well I have discussed again to not furthur escalate the article as well with your deletion of Islamophobia sources from other articles, I am wanting to keep helping Wikipedia, but I can't focus with this user still provoking about the article, the discussion is closed, please give some incite.--GoShow (...............) 04:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am having a hard time trying to figure out what you're asking me or telling them. Are you editing while constantly logging in and out? That's really confusing. You have to drop a couple of things here--that autoconfirmed stuff is neither here nor there: IPs have a right to edit as well as you do. The other thing you have to do is drop this WP:STICK: the horse is dead, now walk away from the carcass. I've already wasted too much time on this dispute, and I hope that some administrator will come by and close the discussion. Nothing more will come of it, no one will get blocked over this soap opera thing or the other unpleasantries, at least not yet. Move on to some other article, find some fun elsewhere. They cannot harm you--if they follow you that's another matter, and we'll deal with that. For now, just ignore it, that's the best advice I can give you. Sayonara, Drmies (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You could jump in the Gironde, and that would settle one part of it. I tried to read it this morning at breakfast and I just gave it another shot. Some of the technicalities go way over my head, but I get the gist of some of the basic points, and IDNHT is written all over it. It seems that the French block has a rationale that might work here also. I don't know, Guillaume--considering that the discussion has been running for a while without gaining too much interest, I wonder, on the one hand, if you should take it elsewhere but, on the other, how much traction it would gain there. It would be nice if you got some more experts on these categorization matters, but if you don't find them on that talk page I don't know where you would. I do agree that you're dealing with a hardhead. Maybe some of the talk page stalkers are category experts? (I had a look at Category:Grandes écoles--odd that one finds a category where the main category page presents an argument for its own organization.) Drmies (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to have you read this at breakfast, that's cruel... I'm not quibbling with his arguments about『grandes écoles』and such. I'm objecting to the weird names that he chooses for his cats, such as『Grandes écoles (French mechanical & civil engineers, materials scientists)』for a category that is intended to group schools, not engineers/scientists and his obscurantist use of sortkeys of which only he seems to understand the rationale... I've posted notices on the WikiProject France and Categorization, but nobody seems to be interested. I guess I should just drop it and sooner or later somebody will clean up the mess that this guy is making. But I feel bad letting him continue unopposed, the longer he goes on, the more mess there will be to clean... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I saw that part, and I agree with you. I don't get the business of the sort keys. Mandarax is always my go-to man for complicated questions... Having to clean up a mess is indeed awful: I just hope someone will pick it up. Sorry, I'm just not much help here. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Better write it down and not with the original message, lest you miss it: nope, not looking good since the last time we spoke. As a matter of fact it's worse, as boredom as really found a niche in this tired soul, doing as he pleases (excuses :)). So i spend all day in WP, complaining and whining for the better part, but what could you expect of a 40-year old elderly trapped in a child's body?
WP is a wonderful place where you can meet wonderful people (and some bastards as well, have a look at the persecution i've been sujected to by a Colombian punk for a small run-in in Quique Flores TWO YEARS ago - you can see some of the (then-amicable) exchange of words in the article's talkpage - the last attacks seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.84.51.146, User:Xxxx693 and User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca are also some of his accounts), but i don't seem to realize how to operate properly within the site and just be an overall happier person, as you genuinely seem to be and i admire you for it. Why my self-imposed aggravation? Maybe due to the overhelming sadness, i think...
The name change? Well i heard about some of the dangers of editing with your real name, and also because i was hoping this would force me to undergo a change in behaviour, summarywise at least (not very successful there). Oddly enough, i was last tracked by the Colombian douche (what he is, nothing more nothing less, i did nothing to him for this harrassment, he also calls me a "crybaby faggot" ("maricona quejica", here's your Spanish lesson) for reporting vandals like him) AFTER the name change, not BEFORE! My userpage had to be protected indef because of this persecution and, if not for it being illegal (in this site) and preposterous, would like to do the same to my talkpage, just to shut this "person" up.
Wow, I didn't know she was still alive. I was listening to Neil Young in the car (I always am)--better to burn out than to fade away. That sounds nice until you actually get older, and then you just want it to last. I saw those sock investigations and was going to protect your user page but it's already done. Your talk page could be protected, but that happens only rarely. Do drop me a line if that joker comes back; if I'm on, I can do something quickly. This afternoon I'm off to the beach; you should do the same. I've never seen the Atlantic south of Biarritz but I'm sure it's lovely. Portugal, BTW, was the place of my favorite Dutch author's self-imposed exile, Gerrit Komrij. Take care Vasco--I'm going to keep calling you that, if you don't mind, because it's a pretty cool name. OH! Now I know! Because of your comments yesterday I had an Ajax dream: I was in De Meer Stadion with my wife (the stadium was demolished before I ever met her) watching a kind of highlight-reel of great Ajax goals; oddly enough Ruud Gullit was among those players. Ha, what fun. He had gotten old too: he was walking around the pitch with his hands in his pockets, and I was wondering, hey, do soccer shorts have pockets? Drmies (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
For your hard work on K-pop articles
For helping clean up one of the most problematic areas of the project. It is nice to see you around in an area notorious for its fancruft content and harsh editing conditions; where original research and edit-warring reign supreme and where sourced content is an unwelcome afterthought. I reached into my wiki-drawer for a refreshment and I thought that high-calorie (K-)pop should be replaced by something real. Thank you for patrolling this wasteland. Enjoy! Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις20:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hehe, thanks. You know, with a lot of them I can go back a few hundred edits in the history and pluck out the version where I did that member list the last time. No doubt I'll have to do this again in a few months. At some point maybe you and I and whoever else cares about quality should go to the K-pop project, if indeed there is one, and tell them how it is. Getting all the cruft out of those articles will be hard, esp. since my Korean is even worse than my Gaelic, but there may be a few things we can lay out there and get consensus on, which makes it easier to do other things, like rolling back and warning editors and stuff. Thanks for the beer! (I'm having a Duvel on the Florida coast, haha.) Drmies (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Belgian beer in an American setting? Another European gone astray. Or perhaps taste conquers all. I guess it depends on one's degree of optimism, or pessimism. At least you know better than try the water passing as domestic beer, which, unfortunately, is endemic to those areas. Regardless, your idea of a centralised board for this problematic area is worth pursuing. The only problem is that many wikiprojects are not very active so even if a K-pop project exists it may well be inactive. I'll check into this anyway and see what happens. Have a great time in the great ole USA, but stay away from the water local beer. :) Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις04:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Even without much participation such a discussion (even if it's between you and me) could be a good reference point. The water--I've lived here long enough to know that, but a Miller Lite on the beach at 10:30 AM, after a first swim, is not bad. Let me know about the board, please! Drmies (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, beer for breakfast. How could I forget that. Now that you mention it, I think you just gave the best context/excuse for drinking American beer and getting away with it, at least as long as you don't raise the subject too many times at your local microbrewery/pub. Anyway, I was checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture. Strangely the wikiproject Korea has all kinds of working groups but I couldn't find one dedicated specifically to music. Therefore I think the pop-culture task force may be the best bet. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Kirkcolm, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I've been asking all week for a material review and editing and such advice to address my own weaknesses on my own page, so that I can do better GA level articles and review GA level articles. Help as been non-existent. So when I found your comment, I felt like I was being attacked for not fixing something that wasn't required, less I make the nom mad. Its been rough lately, and its a long story. Sorry if my comment came off wrong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Chris, I think I said already at that review that I don't envy you there. No apologies necessary. If all of Wikipedia were easy and friendly... Now, I do think that at least a couple of things are required: good writing is part of the game. But making the nom mad, I think, shouldn't be your concern. Really, you're in charge; what you say should be done, and if a nominator isn't happy with it they can go find themselves another reviewer. I happen to be familiar with that editor's writing, also. Here's a thing you can do--if you're not sure, or if copyediting isn't your most outstanding quality, ask someone. I'll be glad to help out if I can, there's that Copy Editors Guild (I don't know if they work on request and if they good work), there's a bunch of other editors who are real good at proofreading and prose improvement. I think this is a shared duty between nominator and reviewer, but if for some reason that doesn't work so well there's other options--and having to hold up a GA for a week for one reason or another is not a big deal; it's not a race. Hey, I see your name all over the place; you do good work. Don't let comments from an old cranky person like me get you down. I'm having a really good Belgian beer, and I'm drinking to your health. Thanks for your note. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I was almost destroyed by what I think was a Belgian beer a few years ago in the Lake District. It was called Santa Claus beer, apparently because the monks who brewed it only did so on Christmas Day. It was more of a barley wine than a beer and so thick that you had to persuade it out of the bottle. MalleusFatuorum01:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah, thanks for the heads up. I'm trying to be active in lots of things. I try to tread lightly and its been one thing or another lately. I guess I could be a little more strict on the matter. And the copyediting advice, is a good thing, just what I need to bring the articles I am working on to GA or FA level. Crankiness, unfortunately, comes across easier then we intend it to. I tend to get walled up and stop contributing in an entire sector or for a period simply because I've irritated someone. I'm not as experienced as other people, but I've been trying to make sure I'm doing something right before I do a lot more of them. I'll hold off on doing anymore GA's until I figure out the swing of things I had before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion
I'm on the verge of putting this one up at GAN before moving on to The Man in the Moone. There's still a bit more to do, I know, but GAN isn't FAC. If you've got the time to have a quick read through that would be great. MalleusFatuorum23:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Impressive work, MF, thank you. There's something about the Dutheil remark, in the themes section. It's a modern critique unlikely to have been shared by the contemporary readership. To list it first among themes is thus a bit anachronistic, and it's probably more properly interpretation than anything else. I think it should go last in that section, and the text should indicate something about the context of that article--that it's modern criticism. Did you have anything contemporary, some review or other, that clearly stated what was seen as the novel's themes? If so, then a modern interpretation can be introduced with a sexy transition--"in contrast, modern interpretations of the novel claim to recognize an anxiety concerning...blah blah blah," you know how we critics write. I fiddled around with some commas; I see that you like them more than I thought you did.
As you may know, I'm bumming around on the beach, but I'll browse around. Well, you have that Questia now--have you found that to be helpful? I'll have a quick look at JSTOR after I finish my coffee. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I didn't know you were on a beach you bum, but I'm envious. I like the way you handled the Dutheil stuff, makes the point very well. And I've found the Questia stuff to be very helpful. I wouldn't have been able to carry on with this article without it. Have a long cold one on me. MalleusFatuorum02:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
If it doesn't pass GA in its current state there is something seriously wrong. Please note that I added the note using the standard way of referencing; you may have to tweak it. I know you got your preferred formatting, but now that there's a couple of journal articles and things with "subscription required" I would opt for putting all sources in a bibliography and keeping the footnotes with nothing but author and page, but that's me. I just sent you the Niemeyer article, and JSTOR came up with a wealth of sources, but my family wants me to play Klaverjas. I doubt that I'm sober enough to break any pots (as the Dutch say) but I have to play along. Haha, I went to the beer store and bought all but one of their bottles of Chimay. That was fun! Ciao, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I could probably bore for England on the subject of this book, but my aim is just for GAN, not the world's most comprehensive account of a novel that most people have never heard of. MalleusFatuorum03:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) Noticed the title on my watchlist, so here I am. I remember reading the book for the first time when I was in Class V (it was compulsory reading in Class VI for our reading comprehension course), and it was probably the first book that I read many times within the span of a few months. I remember that there was one very long review/analysis about it in The Hindu (the best source for literary reviews in India). It could be used to beef up the critical reception section (but I'm unable to find that review online, The Hindu web archives don't go as far back as the 1980s). If I'm not mistaken, the book was very well used by schools in India at one point in time (my school library had over a hundred copies with varying publication dates), and the info might be of use in the reception section (although I can't seem to find any online sources right now). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey Spiffy, fancy seeing you here! That is interesting stuff. I just added a note from College English; there's a ton of such journals publishing such articles on the use of certain books in classrooms, and that's the best kind of content for the influence section. We won't get Spiffy in there reading his thumbed old copy from the school library, but any reader can understand the influence of a book on a generation of readers from its inclusion in a list of "classics". Oh, I did something like that before--in Just David. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You've made some great additions, looking good now I think. I'm probably going to add a bit about the feminist perspective, but it's afternoon here now, and I'm popping out for a few beers with my brother. I may be gone some time. Enjoy the rest of your day. MalleusFatuorum13:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's very kind of you--I feel bad, making these occasional notes and then leaving the cleanup to you, but this isn't a very concentrated effort I can make at this time. Mrs. Drmies and I are actually headed into town, to the bank and the beer store, in that order. Last time I went beer shopping in Destin, Florida, I dropped a couple hundred dollars. The kids are on the beach with their grandmother, and I'll join them later. Don't know if I'll be back on Coral Island but I'll try. Malleus, my best wishes to your brother and to Mrs. Malleus (it's good to have a brother, and it's good to be married), and if you have too much fun Sitush will give you a ride back, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
There's something by Minnie Singh (U Pitt) about The Coral Island and Lord of the Flies, it's available behind one of those fancy login only sources, that I haven't applied for access to, you both might be able to find it. As an English teacher, she might have written about its use as a text book. Worth a try if you have the time. Doc, the other book for the class was The Scarlet Pimpernel which was so dull in comparison, especially for a 10 year old. I haven't been around much, busy with stuff outside of wiki and also just tired of dealing with all the poppycock peddlers roaming around India related articles. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ha, MF, I hope you enjoyed your beers with your brother. We ransacked the best beer store in the state, and then had lunch there--duck quesadillas with a lambic they had on tap. Nice to be without kids for a couple of hours, and the new addition slept throughout the trip. Wonderful. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Your additions are superb, but you're supposed to be on holiday man. I'm reminded of a spat I had with a former administrator, a schoolkid who'd nominated an article we'd both worked on at GAN. Basically he got pissy because he wanted to be able to take all the credit for the GA for himself, so he chastised me for making too many changes too quickly, and IIRC took me to the unlamented WQA when I called him a wanker. (I may have called him something else, can't remember now, but he was a wanker.) Who the Hell ever thought it would be a good idea to have schoolchildren as administrators? MalleusFatuorum20:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
{outdent}}Vacation is almost over, dear Malleus. Mom and I have been cleaning--leave it to two Dutch housewives to get a house clean. We're having a pound and a half of delicious Gulf shrimp (or prawns--there's an RfC still out on that, I believe) for lunch and then it's back on the road. Thanks for the compliment--you're too kind, esp. since that entire article is your work. And there's a lot more to be found, but that can wait for FA. Oh, I told Sippi about the book and I'll be ordering it for her. I don't know about them admins, dude. If a schoolchild is an administrator but acts like an adult I don't have a problem with it. I met some whippersnappers at various Wikipedia events who are much more mature than some older people I met, older than me even. And I know some recent admins who are probably more deserving of the bit than I am: I get cranky. I'm not naming any of those examples of course, haha. I followed that name, by the way--that's an odd story.
Well, I'm jealous you got to hang out with your brother: it's nice to have one. But I got to drink coffee and chat with my mother, which is a rare pleasure. Have a great day, Malleus. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've actually got two brothers, and two sisters. I think I'll have another read through this later evening and pop it up for GAN, then we can move on to The Man in the Moone before thinking about any potential FAC. MalleusFatuorum16:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I added a few more little thingies and made a tweak here and there. The last note I added, on parody for Lord of the Flies, probably is of more use in that article but I thought I'd park it here and then copy it later--I didn't see a good place to put it in that article. Hey, there's one ce I can't make: in what is now note 26, "Kundu 2006, p. 219.", there's a period which is not there in any of the other notes. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well now. That sucks. There doesn't seem to be a decent edition of the book on the market--it's all cheap reprints (not for a low price either) of out-of-copyright texts. I can't find anything by a reputable press. Our library has nothing by Ballantyne in the first place. Any suggestions from anyone? Lady, do you have resources and an eye for quality? Drmies (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, Drmies. The rape issue is going on again at this article because this editor has returned. The editor is removing the sources in the lead that refer to the incident as rape, and is using his or her own definition of rape. Not to mention, that his or her formatting of the lead looks like too much plot for the lead about this incident.
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Drmies, I see you have started a discussion about user Senor Cuete's edit wars recently. well it's happening again right now with his contribution, I already reported him [9] about this article Lords of the Night, as you can see I added more information properly sourced or formatted with my 9 o 10 books including theirs ISBNs, but this user appears don't be agree with my all references because they are mostly in Spanish (books) so then he removed ALL the content sourced, and revert it to his version using information from a website [10], so these are my references/books I use [11].- --Giggette (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Cuete is a gang term for gun and Senor Cuete can mean a gun that was used kill. A user name for killing somebody in a gang war is causing problems in edit wars. Boy, who would have guessed. I watch too much local news. I just won't mention cuete also means pot roast in Spanish. Hey Mr. roast... Bgwhite (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, you started a discussion, and I closed it since 3RR was not broken. I'll have a look at that revert, but I have little interest in the discussion of content that must take place. My brain is full and has little room for yet more gods; you two should take this up on the talk page and find a way to deal with it there. Drmies (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well according to MY Spanish-English dictionary it's from cuetear se - slang, to explode, blow up, kick the bucket, get drunk or die, etc. A cuete is therefore anything that makes a bang like fireworks (in Mexico fireworks rockets are called cuetes not cohetes), a gun or a lot of other things. Also it can be a break-down like my engine blew up - se cuete. Wikipedia discourages personal attacks like the one above. This segues into the fact that a consensus of authors has been reached in my favor in both disputes - both Gigette and beyondmyken cited unreliable sources, lied about what they said, edit warred and whined to you about getting reverted. Also Gigette lies when she says I cited www.pauahtun.org. She actually did it herself. Gigette is involved it rewriting all of the articles about Aztec mythology using sources are not authoritative, but written by minor figures, sometimes in a genre mixing fact and fiction, and frequently without citing primary sources. Yes, people are fighting this. Senor Cuete (talk)Senor Cuete
Sources not authoritative? (who says?), mixing fact and fiction? (where?), requently without citing primary sources?... Oh my lord, it seems you are not agree when people contributes with information properly sourced in articles about Aztec mythology using sources that you don't have, underestimating all my 9 books. --Giggette (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Well... It's taken me just over three years to accumulate 2000 edits on en.wiki, but I have finally hit that milestone. The relatively small quantity over that period, in my case, does not indicate merely occasional casual editing. A good number of these edits have been pre-drafted blocks of text that I have written offline, in the attempt to bring the relatively small number of articles that I have worked on up to "C' or "B" quality. (I have never submitted for GA review.) The edit count also does not reveal the sizeable number of hours of offline research that have gone into what has ultimately been uploaded.
For me, becoming an editor started when I saw a one-sided sensationalistic edit that you reverted back in 2009. I started editing with the mindset to provide correct information to the readership. Thank you for all of your help, advice and fun comments over the past three years! Doc2234 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You probably have a much higher usefulness-per-edit ratio than I do. Good edits do take a lot of time; I'm always surprised at how long it takes to write a two or three-sentence stub that's done properly, even if it's translated from another wiki. Well, thanks for your very nice note; it's nice to see that it's not always about scoring points and winning arguments. I placed the appropriate userbox on your user page; my good friend Mandarax will no doubt come by and put it right using wonderfully fancy syntax. I hope you have a great weekend: mine is going very well so far. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ha. That's about all I can say. Strange how these things come out of nowhere sometimes. You'd think that someone who's been here so long would behave better. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I give up, Wikipedia seems to be an aristocracy, where all my books appear to not be respected. I'm not vandalizing, only add properly referenced information. Thank you. --Giggette (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
To look into the article on Anselm of Canterbury and identify the supposed nine glaring errors mentioned in this piece [12] from the Baltimore Sun. Thought maybe you would either take a crack at it or at least know who to talk to. He also claims there is outright vandalism at Duns Scotus that has sat uncorrected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I can have a look but my time is a bit limited today and tomorrow. I think Ealdgyth (talk·contribs) is your best be anyway: she knows this stuff like nobody else here. Thanks, and good luck with this interesting query, Drmies (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's no secret that the Duns Scotis article is rubbish, as are pretty much all the philosophy articles; why not let Peter Damien back to help sort it out? MalleusFatuorum21:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't paying attention in 2010 and don't know what he did to get banned. I'm sure someone has one single convenient link. ;) I am not a fan of bans; they are necessary sometimes, I guess, but I don't like them. I don't know about this case, but I do know we need some expertise on this and other areas. I simply don't have any to offer here. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The short version is that he remains banned because he won't stop socking to try and prove his point. If he could cut it out for just a few months I think he could fairly easily get unbanned, but he seems to believe the socking policy should not apply to him because he is too important to be bound by it. Looks like someone who knows at least a bit about it now on scene and removing the problematic material. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not at all sure that's Peter Damien's position, and neither am I sure that getting himself unbanned would be as easy as you suggest. I'm reminded of the rather similar case of Ottava Rima, one of the most prolific of literature editors, who was banned for a year and then banned indefinitely for requesting a review of his ban after the year was (almost?) up. MalleusFatuorum04:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Do either of them want to come back, like officially and all that? There's different attitudes that can underlie socking, for instance. Personally I have no problem with Ottava Rima coming back (I don't think I was paying attention when he was indeffed; I'll have to look into that), if he's more cooperative than he was before. I had run-ins with him as well; at the same time I can't even hold a candle to his contributions to our lit coverage. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Eeh, I'll live. I'm kind of baconed out. Now, if the world were running out of prosciutto, that would be a real disaster. Roll Tide, Tide rolls! Drmies (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I really want to join some bacon of the month club--I'm not baconed out of specialty products since I've never had them, but they're expensive. Next thing I'm making, though, is rillettes: check this out. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
In reference to your deletion of what you call trivial fan material on the Alex Lambert page, I would argue that ALL of the material you deleted was well cited. The appearances and charitable contributions cited are significant accomplishments for a young up and coming musician. Although I didn't originally write the material in question, I would be willing to re-write it in a way that is, how shall I say, less exciting... I'll do my best to make it as dry as absolutely possible while maintaining the integrity of the information. I have reverted your deletion while I take the time necessary to make these extensive re-writes. I would be most grateful if you would give me a reasonable amount of time to complete them. Thank you AlexL fan (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
If those references are somehow made part of the main text, inserted where and only when relevant, sure. But this separate section was nothing but a list of accomplishments, basically. That it was well-verified doesn't matter: not everything that can be verified is worthy of inclusion. Such a section, unless it deals with specifically noteworthy events--say Woodstock or Live-Aid--is simply not of encyclopedic value, in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've finished my modifications and, coincidently, I did make them part of the main text. It seems as though we think alike. I understand your concerns about Wikipedia being a fansite and I've made every effort to minimize that appearance. If you have any other concerns, I'd be happy to discuss. AlexL fan (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your note. Great minds often think alike; maybe mine's not so small after all. Note the edit I made and the summary--I think that shows you where I'm at. Reliable secondary sources are required to prove a point about a given show; I didn't see them for that show. Thanks for your cooperative spirit: it is greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't see disruption that can't be controlled by regular means. It's clear that there's a kind of activism going on here and I'm glad you're keeping an eye on it. Any time it gets out of hand (violation of 3RR etc) the IP (or the next one) can be blocked. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I tend to agree. There is also sockpuppetry, but possibly by dynamic IP changes, which, although not malicious, still creates the types of problems registration seeks to avoid. Since using multiple accounts is normally forbidden because it creates confusion, this user should be advised to create one account and always log in. Then all their contribution history will be found in one place and editors won't think they are dealing with many different people. The extent of this problem (and the list is growing) can be seen below, and if this continues or they become more disruptive (blocks have been given), more blocks can be given and the articles in question semi-protected:
OK--now that's useful. I looked at the SPI and the ban discussion; I've semi-protected the FAN article indefinitely and wish you good luck on the deletion discussion. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
I know you just LOVE all things Bieber. In a new article, you can now read about his mom, Pattie Mallette, a best-selling writer. I'm sure you already have the book after he tweeted out the message.
Sniff, sniff. Amy's last episode is tomorrow. I have extra tissues for the bawling I will be doing. I just don't know how I will make it. Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Glad I stumbled upon this thread. First, my condolences BG, I know how much she means to you (to all of us). You can take comfort in the hottness of her replacement though. I have some episodes to catch up on when I get home (the season to date). Also perhaps the finale from last year (which one had Timmothy Dalton?) As for me, I am sitting in the Air China lounge in Beijing. I have a love-hate relationship with this airport. None of the fridges seem to work, which makes getting cold beer difficult. I'm drinking it on ice for now. I went to the Forbidden City this morning, and had the worst taxi driver ever. He got lost getting back to the hotel, Despite me giving him a business card with a map on the back. I had some Limey behind me at customs yesterday who was upset he had to fill out an arrivals card to get his bags to transfer (as one often does coming from Mongolia), quote of the day was his "effin communists". Tut tut. Just travel with only cary on like me and never have that problem, or follow the rules and deal with it. No need to be a hater. Maybe I wll see if I can get something stronger, to make up for the fact I will be in economy seating for 14+ hours....sigh. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Of course I forgot About the wedding! It was a lovely ceremony, and at the reception, instead of wine on the table they had bottles of vodka and warm beer. Guess which I chose. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ahh, sitting in my couch, legs propped up, dog by my side and most importantly, my wife to bed. Sorry, just drinking some diet coke. The window's open and I can hear the ducks quacking. I'm confused about the new companion as she was introduced in the first episode as a former human, now dalek. Not sure how they will work this out. She is very tech savvy. Timothy Dalton was two seasons ago. Last season's ending is where Amy became the Doctor's mother-in-law. I've also been enjoying the new Downton Abbey. Good time watching British shows right now. Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well I will have to wait and see. I have been out of country since the season started, but Mrs. Kelapstick was good enough to tape them for me. I have followed the series kind of roundaboutish, so I never know what happened when (rather appropriate for a show about time travel). I started with Matt Smith's first episode, then missed about half the season, finished the rest of it (along with the wedding of River Song, behave!), then started with the nineth doctors episodes, and onto the tenth doctor, I left Australia having just missed the last two episodes of the tenth doctor, and the regeneration. I had to download the rest of Matt Smith's first season to catch up. Also i am going to start on Torchwood when I get home I think. I am surprised that LoS isn't into this, seems right up her alley. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Mrs. Kelapstick sounds like a wonderful woman. Please don't talk about the Lady's alley in public; it's unbecoming. Did you have fun at the wedding, K? Tomorrow I'm making Mrs. Drmies an even happier woman when I drop my mother and her sister off at the airport. I'm not sure what else was going on in this thread--it sounded to me like George's impression of the MWTYH's speech--"blah blah, blah blah, blah bleededee blah." Drmies (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well I made it to Toronto and at least Air Canada knows to serve there beer cold and from a tap, rather than warm and from a can. The wedding was great, forbidden palace was awesome and a huge walk. Ever been to China? I love it. Anyway, I've said it once and I will say it again, you just don't know good tv. A man of your intellectual nature would love the doctor. Tut tut. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Make sure to schedule a trip to China (not mainland) next year, around... July, I think. Drmies, you too! (Also, MRG is waiting for the child support). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think she loves me anymore, Crisco. And I'll fly there if someone picks up the tab...I did feel kind of useless at the last Wikimania, though I enjoyed going there. You know I met real people? Writ Keeper is a real nice guy, and meeting DGG and spending time with him was a treat. The prize for hardest-rocking Wikipedian goes to Beeblebrox, of course. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Schedule and work commitments permitting I am going to look at heading down. It's cheap as chips to fly there from Ulaanbaatar, few hundred dollars maybe on the direct flight. Mrs. kelapstick is already upset I don't have much time off in the summer...so we shall see. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
July is pretty much when I have to get my visa, so I could kill two birds with one stone and go have bacon with the Doctor and Kelapstick in Hong Kong, then head to the embassy and pick up my visa so I can return to Indonesia. Of course, I'd focus a lot of my time on the conference... I would love to talk (or listen to someone talk) about what we're doing to cover non-Anglospheric areas, especially Indonesia (and Mongolia and the Netherlands). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there brother! How have you been? Where are you at the moment? I have a quick question. Can I use the coordinates of a town as the coordinates of an institution in that town? For example, can I use the coordinates of Isfana as the coordinates of a high-school there? Nataev (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey! I'm fine, how are you? Have you applied to a graduate program in the US yet? ;) Hey, I guess that's fine; I'm no expert in that field. For those kinds of things I often turn to Dr. Blofeld (talk·contribs); drop him a line. Good to hear from you--it was a real pleasure meeting you in DC. I'll toast you this afternoon at cocktail time. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your quick response! I'm doing fine, thanks. Back in Budapest to complete my MA. It was fun meeting you too! I will ask Dr. Blofeld as you suggested. Thank you again! Nataev (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yo, Drmies (and/or any talk page stalkers), could you do me a favor and keep half an eye on my talk page over the weekend? User:Kwalter123 has posted on it, with a mention of attorneys in regards to my removal of his (spamtastic copyvio) additions to Printz Board Credits. I've responded for the moment, and I certainly wouldn't consider it NLT territory or anything yet, but I'm out of town this weekend, so I might not be able to pay close attention to onwiki matters. I doubt it'll go that far at all really; I'd imagine the mention of attorneys is just in reference to copyright stuffs, but I'd rather not risk having a legal threat hanging around unnoticed on my talk page for longer than I'd have to. Thanks! P.S.- just had a pint of Irish stout at an Oktoberfest-themed beer garden; dunno if that's your thing or not, but I found it quite delicious. Cheers! Writ Keeper⚇♔04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate the help. And rest assured that I help out with issues on Wikipedia that are considered more important than whatever status of a fictional or celebrity couple. It's just that I'm not always the same IP when I do those things. 110.77.202.106 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I wasn't necessarily talking about you. Still, I appreciate the response. Let me know if the disruption continues--there wasn't much I could do except confirm that their edits were not helpful. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for clarifying. I thought that it was likely that you were speaking of any of us involved in a dispute regarding a fictional or celebrity couple. He's at it again.[14] Didn't even take your advice. 110.77.202.106 (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
This is not based on opinion. It is based on common sense. The IP editor has no idea what they are talking about to put such a ludicrous statement on that page, and I find it even more baffling that there are other editors who actually side with him. I have taken this to the Noticeboard, and hopefully that rubbish will be removed and this whole argument will be resolved without wasting too much time. Sancap (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Key characteristic of an edit-warrior is persisting in being right against consensus. WP works by way of consensus, and you better get used to it. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
[ec] I've reverted, and then I'm done there. I hope the warning template on your talk page contains enough information for you to realize what the consequences of reverting again are. Now, you've made some comments on the talk page; good. Discussion there will indicate where this should go. As for "noticeboard"--the very first noticeboard, if you continue, will be the noticeboard for edit-warring, if you aren't blocked before it gets there (I'm sure the IP knows how to report there). I'm saying this for your own good. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry I didn't intent to promote any particular sites - just put reference links to sites with information and hadn't noticed the promotion on the website. Tried to look for who posted the links but didn't find it. User:Shirt58 was very helpfull sent me some handy tips so I know a bit more now Xtraelv (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That is a thing of beauty, no doubt about it. Thanks for sharing; I'm proud of you. We had to settle for regular cheesy grits with eggs and bacon yesterday morning. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
"Better than sex with Berean Hunter" is probably what you meant to say. 'Cause I've had some sex in my life that leaves bacon in the dust. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, but it's like the difference between a human being and a pet. A pet gives you unconditional love. When have you ever known bacon to say, "Not tonight, dear, I have a headache"?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I've never told a human being, "Sorry, but I got a belly full of you." At least, not literally full. OK, I have said no on a couple of occasions, that's true. Still, bacon, I can get enough of. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it's betraying my age, but I'm with Dennis on this one; sometimes, food is better than sex. Remember the infamous scene in the movie Tom Jones? An example of merger.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That photo makes me want to eat my monitor, but that would be too crunch. It's a shame I'm going to be so close but not at the right time (or with the time) to enjoy some of it. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have removed mention of the Heche/DeGeneres pairing. No one commented on my reasoning posted on the talk page so it's safe to say the consensus is that the ludicrous statement gets removed. However I still think this is going to get removed again by that IP editor. Why did you close the discussion on the noticeboard? I posted there to receive back-up from admins and now they can't respond. I'll have to post on some kind of noticeboard if (and most likely) this ludicrous statement gets put back on. Could you please direct me to the appropriate noticeboard? Thank you. Sancap (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm at a loss for words. You were blocked for edit-warring and the moment you return, you pick up the edit war where you left it. You should not be surprised that since you were blocked for edit-warring then you will be blocked for edit-warring now. As for "noticeboard", as I mentioned there you were in the wrong place; ANI is not for content discussions. I'm not the first one to point out to you that you should discuss this on the talk page--when you return from your block. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yep, I was quite amazed by that as well. I notice that they posted at the RS noticeboard which does seem one way to take this as they are questioning the source. Hope you don't think you were stepping on your toes with the original block - given your revert I thought you probably considered yourself involved so I took a look. When I spotted the previous warning it became a bit of a no brainer. Dpmuk (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, such a posting is a start, sure. No, I took no offense at all, and was happy to see that I wasn't the only one thinking it had gone on long enough. And given recent events, COMPETENCE is more likely to ever come up than INVOLVED, so I saw no problem in blocking. I may leave them another note. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial artsParticipants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.
(talk page stalker) You didn't "refute" the points, you just expressed your disagreement. Consensus was clearly to keep the article. JamesBWatson (talk)
Well, sure, but actually I wasn't really stalking--I saw the edit on Recent changes. The editor has taken their case to Beeblebrox's talk page as well, and I trust that will be the end of it. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I imagine we will hear a smidgen more. Potentially he was given the objective as VP of Marketing to get SBT into Wikipedia. COI is ever a salutary lesson for folk. Somehow there is always a "Do you know who I am/We are?" conversation afterwards. And we do :) Fiddle Faddle (talk)
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi! Please be considerate of the people who are currently working on the article K-pop. They've actually just started. Just look what state the article was in a month ago. And then A1candidate came and the work started. The person who wrote the Hungarian Wikipedia article (that got featured) is either helping them or going to. I'm afraid the work on the article will stop now after what you did. Please let them continue and don't start a war if you get reversed. For example, in this edit you removed some important information, cause Seo Taiji and Boys are very important and it may well be that "Tell Me" by Wonder Girls too. Please advise them on the talk page (keeping in mind that their aim is to write a good article, not to spam with links to their favorite artists) instead of just removing everything. --Moscowconnection (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Cause I don't want to participate in writing the article. If I do, I'll spent too much time in Wikipedia. (Actually, I was planning to leave the English Wikipedia for a while to concentrate on other things.) The kid gloves because they can simply stop and leave. A1candidate already wanted to leave after a few reversals. Okay, I'll write them a short message on the talk page now. --Moscowconnection (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I wrote an inspirational message on the talk page: [16]. When the work on the article progresses, most of what you deleted will have to be removed again anyway. I think I will participate in the work too, but later. --Moscowconnection (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I left a note about something else and as you saw restored a thing or two. I looked at the Hungarian article, which looked pretty decent even in machine translation. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I noticed and replied. (The problem is that the YouTube views list is what people want most.) I think I'll restore half of what you deleted from the globalization section because I can't determine what's important and what's not. I will comment on the talk page. --Moscowconnection (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have created a new section at Wikiproject Korea: K-pop articles coordination. It could serve as an initial coordination place for K-pop articles and as a central reference point where the problems they face as a group of articles could be centrally addressed. It could also be expanded into a different subpage, something like a K-pop working group. You are, of course, welcome to create any such new subpage if you think it is necessary. This subsection is just a proposed starting place. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις17:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I can copy footnote 5 and tack it on the preceding sentence, but then I have two sentences in a row that end with a reference to footnote 5... Drmies (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done. {{db-a10}} could be used in the future. SmartSE (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.
Hello! Your submission of Leiden Glossary 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! Rosiestep (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply