I never thought I'd see a section anywhere called "block of Drmies" and now my history is full of such references. Time to re-evaluate what I'm not doing right here. In the meantime, happy new year to all, including IP vandals, socks and masters, IP99, abusive admins, non-abusive admins, allegedly enabling admins, abusive content contributors, bots, vandal bots, dramahmongererers, ArbCom members, Jimbo, Badmachine, the Lady, Mandarax, Bbb, Ironholds, Dennis, Mandarax (again), MF, Floquenbeam, MONGO, Scottywong, Dougweller, and everyone else. Try to keep it clean and remember we're supposed to be here to write articles and help others write articles. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I see you've been around this morning handling a Boobnipple. Take your time mending fences (and I mean that only in the literal sense). Enjoy your break, and I know you realize that there are tons of people (and yes, you can take that literally too!) who want to see you back on regular duty. HAppY NЄW YЄAR! • !ЯAЭY WЭИ YqqAH – MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
To continue my support of your attempts to gain youth cred, I have to point out Aymatth2's and Dr Blow-Dry's mistake with Riin Tamm (AfD discussion). Everyone knows that doing articles on scientists isn't hep and in the now, man. As you can see from User talk:Aymatth2#A New Year's present for you., Aymatth2 is even doing very dead scientists, which is even worse. And as you can also see from User talk:Aymatth2#Joseph Colt Bloodgood there's a whole load of very dead fellas, grandfathers and grandsons, with the same name that are leading Aymatth2 astray yet further. Very dead mayors aren't popular; and all these are only serving to lead Aymatth2 into contact with Poms who read noticeboards. Poms on noticeboards are things to be avoided.
Now you could do some more work on a K-Pop sub-unit of twee, and counter Pommiepedia bias. But that would be missing out on the Wikipedia editorship's mission to get every reality/talent show winner into Wikipedia. Rimas Valeikis, cartoonist, painter, and winner of Baltic Robinson, is absent, for example. As is his nieceMiglė Vilčiauskaitė, better known by her stage nameofMigloko, whose album is reasonably priced. Lithuanian pop culture is what you want if you want effective youth cred. Not that science, history, geography, and philosophy dren.
After all, the Wikipedia editorship at large wants pretty pictures of young pop singers, not boring things for squares. Only a square, man, would have Wikipedia tell the world (or at least tell Greg Bard) that Arvydas Juozaitis was a prominent member of Lietuvos Persitvarkymo Sąjūdis and a scholar who did his dissertation on Wilhelm Dilthey; and that his withdrawal from the 1989 election led to Algirdas Brazauskas winning his seat. Lithuanian history ain't where the cool cats are at, man.
Kloek, Els; Teeuwen, Nicole; Huisman, Marijke, eds. (1994). Women of the Golden Age: An International Debate on Women in Seventeenth-century Holland, England and Italy. Uitgeverij Verloren. ISBN9789065503831. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
But you are sneakily leading Dr mi estas into doing non-pop-culture topics, M. Cripes It's 1942. Next, you'll be having xem writing about Judith Leyster's The Proposition, which Amanda Cross turned into a short story. Then you'll be getting xem to write about bottom wiping in Dutch art, such as Jan Miense Molenaer's The Sense of Smell and Adriaen van de Venne's illustration of Johan de Brune's Emblemata (1624). I suggest that Dr mi estas rightly cast your begilded and beguiling temptations aside, as the insidious distractions from the pop culture of Lithuania that they are.
Hofrichter, Frima Fox (1975). "Judith Leyster's Proposition: Between Virtue and Vice". Feminist Art Journal. 4: 22–26. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Hofrichter, Frima Fox (1982). "Judith Leyster's Proposition: Between Virtue and Vice". In Broude, Norma; Garrard, Mary (eds.). Feminism and Art History. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 173–181. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Kahr, Madlyn Millner (1978). "Judith Leyster: The Rejected Offer". Dutch painting in the seventeenth century. Harper & Row. pp. 65–66. ISBN9780064335768. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Schama, Simon (1988). "In The Republic of Children". The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. University of California Press. ISBN9780520061477. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
van der Weij, Marleen (2003). ""A Good Man, Burgher, and Christian": the intended reader in Johan de Brune's Emblemata". In Adams, Alison; van der Weij, Marleen (eds.). Emblems of the Low Countries: Book Historical Perspective. Glasgow Emblem Studies. Vol. 8. Librairie Droz. ISBN9780852617854. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Westermann, Mariët (2005). "Texts and Images". A Worldly Art: The Dutch Republic, 1585–1718 (2nd ed.). Yale University Press. pp. 55–56. ISBN9780300107234. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Sure thing. I appreciate your note, given that the close (which is a bit muddled given the discussion) didn't really go your way. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, I had my opinion, but the issue wasn't nearly as important to me as it seemed to be to some other contributors. It was better to get it closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dr mi estas: Dear Onion Lady, fain I would cast off this veil of old age, and ugly hat and beard, and appear as young as the editors of K-Pop articles! But Providence stands athwart my efforts to gain youth cred, despite the sagely counsel of Uncle G. I find myself thinking about the 1960s and Noam Chomsky. Couldst thou write Rimas Valeikis, Miglė Vilčiauskaitė, and Migloko for me? Here's $5 for your trouble.
Onion Lady: Sir! How daredst thou approach me for such? I am a humble and Christian onion lady, whose onions are not tainted by the foul infamy of paid editing. Direct your elderly and infirm hands at the harlots, trollops, and bottom-wipers of Nederland, and trouble me no more for such base purposes as the popular culture of Lithuania.
Hi guys. This is not a chronic BLP issue. I've followed all rules and sourced and cited all quotes and comments. Mr. Hammond is simply not happy with posts if they have any negativity at all despite their validity and being sourcedWalledro (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)walledroReply
Oh, sorry, I thought you were referring to yourself. You're blocked, of course, for edit-warring, and being a repeat offender means this time it's indefinite. Also, I don't believe that the IP editor, Red Pen of Doom, and any of the other editors you've been duking it out with are dramatists. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Drmies. Now a follow up question, which can be taken to apply more generally than in this instance: does a talk page thread like this belong, or does it constitute another avenue for introducing BLP violations Talk:David Hammond (director)#old_allegations? As for formalities, I'm dressed in a tux. And just because I'm not a dramatist doesn't mean I don't like the occasional drama. Alas, poor Yorick, etc. 99.156.64.147 (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
OH WILL YOU PLEASE KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE F***ING SHAKESPEARE ALREADY? See, I can do drama too. I've deleted the section, simply. I don't think it's so bad it needs to be removed from the history. Did you ever raise hell about that 3R warning? I'll be glad to support (though it is old news, of course). Thank you kindly for this excursion, and my best wishes to you and yours, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hiding behind my lack of JSTORrery, eh? What are you doing mis-spelling Zinnewerck anyway? As you can see from the hyperlink in the section above Rimas Valeikis has made a statue of an angel with the horn in Vilnius. This is important pop culture that will garner you youth cred. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
As you've no doubt seen, your source probably meant page 17. But here you are falling into M. Cripes It's 1942's trap.
Fortunately, we won't have to look around for an expert to translate Dit lijf, wat ist, als stanck en mist? into English. It's translated on Schama 1988, p. 481. ☺
It seems fairly obvious to this onlooker. Drmies took the "List of" off the front of the title, exactly as stated in the RM nomination, but didn't take the "s" off the end, which wasn't explicitly stated and is easy to miss. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Glad to help, and for linking this topic ("My mom I love her 'cause she love me / Long gone are the times when she scrub me") to previous sections, where the need for the creation of Category:Bottom wiping is implied. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Hey, Drmies! I hope the Manchester Star was palatable, although since J. W., Lees stuff usually travels no more than 70 miles or so, the impact of a cross-Atlantic journey might have been considerable.
Got a query for you. I'd take it to WP:RSN but they now only deal with specific "is source A suitable for statement B in article C" stuff, rather than the more generalised issues. Can you take a quick look at this? It is hosted by the Govt. of India but, honestly, it reads like a poor hagiography to me and it cites no sources. I've also got no idea what merit attaches to the author and am pretty concerned about seeing it used at, for example, Kakori conspiracy and related biographical articles. Stalkers welcome! - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would say it's unacceptable for precisely the reasons you mention. Tone is hagiographical, sources are missing, editorial oversight is not indicated anywhere. If you need me to back you up on RSN I'll be glad to. Oh, we haven't had the Star yet; I'll let you know how it traveled. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You can find that text in volume 100 of the Encyclopaedia Indica, Sitush. It's also in the Encyclopaedia Of Indian War Of Independence (1857-1947), also published by Anmol. It has done the rounds, somewhat. It's even on User:Manoharshivum. You can read it here as well. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I have raised issues concerning plagiarism by EI on a few occasions, and by Anmol in general. There have been some clear instances where EI has printed stuff that had appeared elsewhere previously - eg: see this thread - but I only have a pretty limited view of EI content and so cannot do extensive checks to support an entry at WP:MF etc. That is, Mirrors and Forks, not Malleus. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
When a user has already reverted without discussion, then makes a statement like "And I'll be reverting your last edit tonight..."[1] while still not discussing the actual issue (or the alternatives presented), does that sound like a little system-gaming and intent to edit war? Or just my imagination? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I suppose BRD mandates that your opponent take it to the talk page and not revert (the second time) until there's a consensus. They didn't, and then you reverted their revert and removed some more. Your last move was either a 2R or a B in a new BRD cycle which could be followed by their 3R or the R in the next BRD cycle... I don't think their revert was the best way to go, and announcing a next one is not productive, certainly. I don't really want to weigh "Enjoy ruling your little realm, drill sergeant" against "sunshine", though I think the former is a bit worse than the latter, but it's best to not call names in the first place, of course. What this discussion needs is another set of eyes. FWIW, I think linking "water" (and the other terms) is completely overlinking, and I personally think that there's entirely too much detail ("trivia") in there, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to have a really strong opinion. Can you (two) find some folks in MilHist to weigh in/mediate? Drmies (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Best wishes for the New Year!
Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians!
I thought about it, but there's more stupidity in that comment than determination, in my estimation. If it happens again, feel free to drop me a line and maybe report it at RFPP at the same time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ha, that's before I saw this one. I blocked that IP as well, but my shift has come to an end. So, if it does happen again soon, report them and ask for protection; maybe the next admin is a proxy expert and can see if there's really something to it. Elockid is an expert in that matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
Have one too, this one from my bar called "The Anonymous Doofus"! Sorry to be out of glasses, big brawl last night, you'll have to drink from the keg :)
Vasco, Crisco is being poisoned by the remains of Dutch culture which, as you know, is a know-it-all kind of environment. Very bothersome sometimes. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well folks, i really thought it was D-O-O-F-U-S, but i can't be sure 100%, and that coming from the guy who "OWNS" the bar!! On the other hand Mies, in the words of this great man, "Can't we all just get along"? :)
Uncle, you may want to close that discussion. Mandarax, charming! I like the hell bit in there. But there's enough pale ales for me to enjoy, and it is probably opined correctly that it won't show up here anytime soon. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Note that I said "extremely expensive to obtain". That was figuring either importing or international travel costs into the equation. But I guess my perception of you desiring to try every expensive brew was an overestimation. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
But here the cost isn't anything to do with the quality, unlike the PBR 1844 (I was certain it had an article! PS: it's China Pabst Blue Ribbon), where, ahem, all the money goes into high-quality ingredients (it was a tasty beer, I have to say). What I want is to win the lottery and buy the Westvleteren brewery. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow, good mood overall people. Makes me wish i DID HAVE a real bar to invite you all for a couple (dozen) free rounds! From what i see Mandarax, lots of fans of this guy at that Austrian village ;) --AL (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have noticed your recent, very large, edits to the T-ara Wikipedia article. I don't see how having a chart of the members with a little bit of information about them is turning the page into a "full-blown fan site". Do you even read other Korean idol groups' pages? Almost all have charts like these. Anyways, I hardly see how those little bits of information turn the entire article in a fan site, it's not like it's hurting anyone and the information is confirmed by credible sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.123.88 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well then, let's agree to disagree. And yes, I do read other K-pop articles and have edited dozens if not hundreds of them. On average, they're worse than Pokemon. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
When you closed out the discussion on the format changes, you also closed out a huge section with a completely unrelated discussion going on about notability requirements. There is actually a request on another admin page requesting a mediator come in to come to a compromise on WP:NMMA.Willdawg111 (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just FYI: Edit notices can only be edited or removed by admins. I've gone ahead and blanked the editnotice. (Maybe I'm supposed to delete it? I dunno.) Writ Keeper⚇♔21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Psst, Writ Keeper, between you and me: I couldn't find it. You know I only recently discovered the user (talk) page edit notice, and Senra is smarter than me; I didn't know it was admin-only. Yes, blanking strikes me as appropriate. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Actually, it's technically admins and account creators that are allowed to modify editnotices. How that makes sense, and what account creator has to do with editnotices, are questions way above my pay grade, I guess. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion
Now that I have your attention... User:Roger Ellory has posted a pretty convincing unblock request on his talkpage, and after reviewing the history I'm inclined to oblige. He's agreed to stop editing his own bio, which seems to have been the only major issue with his editing, so I see no reason not to let him have another bite at the cherry. Is that cool with you? Yunshui雲水10:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yunshui, thanks for asking--I have no problem with you lifting the block. Crisco and Ed, these days I buy the 4-pound packs of Wright's (no relation to this guy, I believe) so I'm always ready to go. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm seeing this on my lunchbreak, and I'm having a BLT. I have to say, I didn't really like seeing "block of Drmies" in my watchlist either. LadyofShalott18:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
@TREBEK: what's the difference between a mallard with a cold and your mother? One's a sick duck and I don't remember the rest of the joke but your mother's a whore. Sean Connery⚇♔18:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ah that was delicious. I do like that Sean Connery--thanks for the remix, Dennis. Martin, very thoughtful of you. Let me point out in passing that the Chimay cheese is as good as you would expect. Anyway, I am glad that you all were having a bit of fun while I was slogging away, bringing home the bacon, doing my singing monkey act under the pretense of teaching the early English survey class. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
My heartfelt apologies to all who were concerned by the above header - hopefully a large order of bacon will assuage any bad feeling... Yunshui雲水22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Seems like a mere footnote now, but I unblocked Roger... Yunshui雲水
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. I recently noticed your major changes to the page of Wheeling Park High School. I am a school representative and spent many hours on our Wikipedia page. I would like to know your reasoning behind deleting most of my information that I worked on. We at the school do not appreciate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.22.182 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, I am sorry if you feel thusly, but this version of the article is not very encyclopedic. There is a controversy section consisting of non-notable incidents, an apparently exhaustive list of course offerings, a list containing non-notable 'notables', and in general the article reads (as the tag indicated) like an advertisements. If you wish to improve the article, there is a set of guidelines available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Once upon a time, we had an article that for six years looked roughly like like this. A person with a pseudonym had the bright idea of looking in books of anatomy, physiology, and (yes) Aristotle to see whether we could come up with something that was a little less an echo chamber of total ignorance on the subject, and found that there were bones and muscles and nerves and things to write about. Who knew? That person with the pseudonym is, alas, very busy.
So perhaps the people who enjoy the risqué on this user talk page can rise to the challenge and do the same thing with Crotch (AfD discussion). Remember that you may not cheat, like some person who spells xyr name completely wrong did, and write about the groin. Bonus points for the first person to realize that being less of an echo chamber of total ignorance means working in "narrow crotches", "knee timber", "included bark", "veneer", and other humorous words. Double bonus points to anyone who can find an excuse for citing the writing of L. S. Jankiewicz from Skierniewice.
Dr mi estas is of course excused games with a sicknote, here. It is well known that the ungrammatical Esperantist is a doktoro, not a kuracisto, and so has not the medical expertise to assist.
Hmm. A challenge indeed. May I point out that, while I don't know grammar and cain't spell my own name, I did clean crotches of both genders (well, sexes, I suppose) tonight and left them pink and clean. But this topic is way too sciency for me: I prefer them in between Aristotle and modern science, which is where we find Dante of course, and references to the groin are rare. Well...who was that, suffering from dropsy, duking it out with another soul? Dante is too interested in the gossipy fight and listen, after which Virgil rebukes him--"to want to hear such bickering is base"? It's a counterfeiter, and he has a groin issue, I believe. Also, groin, isn't that where a certain Catholic team just got kicked by a team from a state that can't get anything right but football and barbecue? Drmies (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
MacDaniels, Laurence Howland (1923). "The apple-tree crotch: histological studies and practical considerations". Bulletin of the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. 419. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Schuessler, Raymond (1952). "Bracing Saves Old Trees". Popular Mechanics. pp. 173–174. Tight V-crotches are a frequent source of trouble …{{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Gilman, Edward F. (2002). An Illustrated Guide to Pruning (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN9780766822719. This phenomenon has led to the misconception that branch angle is related to strength of attachment, which is untrue.{{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Draper, Danny B., ed. (2009). "Crotch". Dictionary for Managing Trees in Urban Environments. Csiro Publishing. p. 36. ISBN9780643096073. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |editor2-first= missing |editor2-last= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |edito2-last= ignored (help)
Lowe, Judy (1998). Ortho's All About Pruning. Ortho's All about Series. Meredith Books. p. 7. ISBN9780897214292. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Hartman, John R.; Pirone, Thomas P.; Sall, Mary Ann (2000). Pirone's Tree Maintenance (7th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN9780195119916. Split Crotches After some splitting, artificial supports can prevent further damage …{{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Catsambis, Alexis; Ford, Ben; Hamilton, Donny L., eds. (2011). "knee (knee timber)". The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology. Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology. Oxford University Press. ISBN9780195375176. … usually made from the crotch of a tree …{{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Jankiewicz, L. S. (1956). "The effect of auxins on crotch angles in apple trees". Bull. Acad. Polonaise Sci. Ser. 2 (4): 173–178. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Jankiewicz, L. S. (1964). "Mechanism of the crotch angle formation in apple trees. I. Crotches in the trees growing in a vertical and a horizontal positions". Acta agrobotanica. 15. Warsaw: 21–50. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Jankiewicz, L. S. (1970). "Mechanism of crotch angle formation in apple trees. II. Studies on the role of auxin". Acta agrobotanica. 23 (1): 171–181. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Williams, M.W.; Billingsley, H.B. (1970). "Increasing the number and crotch angles of primary branches of apple trees with cytokinins and gibberellic acid". J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 95 (5): 649–651. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
If any English Professors are sucked into Wikipedia, to fill the English Professor Vacuum on this user talk page, you might like to tell them the title of chapter 63ofMoby Dick. ☺
Enjoy the fact of the existence of the Instytut Sadownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa in Skierniewice. You're all gobsmacked to find that scientists put serious time and effort into the study of crotches, I expect.
I wonder why Uncle G likes to drop references here instead of on the talk page of the relevant article (or better yet by adding them to the article). LadyofShalott05:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. I have no answer for that. Perhaps he likes the exposure at ANI 2.0? BTW, those chapters from Moby-Dick were never really my favorites, which makes me think I must have missed something. But I got more different reading to do these days. Follow my blog, Lady! Drmies (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, it was Sunday, on your wall/timeline/whatever, and then again yesterday, and then again just now, where it says "THIS BLOG!!!!" Sheesh, what do I have to do to get some attention from you? Jump in the pool?? Drmies (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You said it Buster. Shit gets done here. Point me to one single decent article ANI has produced in the last month--though I did manage to get Rash promise out of a Deletion Review. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments12 people in discussion
Father and son before the game.
Everyone settle down. The world is about to stop turning; things will go back to normal again after the Tide rolls over Notre Dame. Should that fail to happen--well, then, I don't know. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I start to feel sorry for Notre Dame, and then I remember that all the people I've known that have gone to Notre Dame were giant dicks, and I go back to cackling evilly. Writ Keeper⚇♔02:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It never goes away. It just reverse-hibernates or something. Besides, it's quickly replaced by some other worthless sport.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ladies, if you can't roll with the Tide, go roll someplace else, like Requested Moves. Ed, friendly smack is always welcome, and it's just a game anyway. </pretense> Drmies (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad for all the 'Bama fans, but this game has all the earmarks of becoming ... boring. (Too onesided - I like a game that goes back and forth and stays close.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
My highlight so far is surely Brent Musberger's going off his nut over A.J. McCarron's girlfriend. Fathers, lock up your daughters, besportcoated septuagenarian sportscasters are on the prowl. davidiad.:τ03:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Drmies,
Given your recent edits at the bca page, I'd like to ask your opinion on the pie chart towards the bottom of the page in the "Risks of too much awareness" section. To me, it is pretty clearly logically flawed. I think it's self-evident and I don't have to explain it to you. In fact, I'm having a little bit of difficulty articulating it myself because it's just too obvious. But anyway, here goes: the point of awareness is not to give more funding to the disease than it deserves, it's to increase awareness, lower stigma, etc to a disease that is lacking in those areas. For example, there is no stigma for heart disease. Furthermore, there might be adequate funding for other diseases compared to BC, especially when you consider the effectiveness of funding (eg it might be implausible that research will help another disease, while scientists feel that BC research is valuable). Another complicating factor is the fact that BC is specific to women. Thus, it is considered more important in the context of the women's movement and feminism.
Please just take a look and if you have any thoughts, please let me know what you think. I don't want to be too bold over there, and I feel that your edits would be more effective and they would respond to you better anyway. Thanks. Charles35 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well--what are you asking? I thought you were going to point out the flaws of the pie chart, but you're talking about the section as a whole, it seems to me. The chart itself is not logically flawed--but there are other things wrong with it, IMO: I don't know where the numbers come from, and the whole thing seems like overload: what it boils down to is that the argument claims that too much money is spent on 2%, right? Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue, but if I had to go at it I would a. start a (brief) RfC on whether the pie chart is rhetorical overkill and thus undue; b. propose edits for a more neutral version of the section (terms like "now-regretted" are stated as fact and should be contextualized)--in that entire section it needs to be clear who says what, the weasel words need to be pruned, etc. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
In a sincere desire to help on this one I have engaged Charles35 (talk·contribs) on his talk-page here. On reflection, I perhaps should have created my analysis in User talk:Senra rather than User:Senra as Charles35 has responded in good faith inside my analysis. My intention was to help by adding my own view of the source paraphrasing of that section. Should I move it to User talk:Senra? --Senra (talk)16:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hi.. I see you have done large editing in Mnet Media, T-ara, Davichi, The SeeYa, etc pages. I have read your statement that you have read other K-Pop pages. I suppose you are not K-Pop fan. If you're thinking that you did is right and then you are in unfair because you should did the same thing to other K-Pop artists. What you've done has destroyed our K-Pop fans' effort to build comprehensive wiki. – Wihan Tan (talk) at 01:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You're totally wrong: I love K-pop. What I don't love is the persistent effort by hundreds if not thousands of editors who try to turn Wikipedia into a collection of fan pages. Besides, if you are truly a fan, you perhaps shouldn't be editing those pages since you have a conflict of interest: there's a problem with neutrality here, as is evident to every objective editor who looks at those pages. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
What conflict of interest? What problem with neutrality? Explain me. Please visit Girls Generation, 2NE1, and Big Bang pages. That's what I called an unfair. If you want to sweep what you think is unnecessary things, you shouldn't compromise whatsoever. Sweep all K-Pop artists. May I ask, are you YG Entertainment stan? Also where do we (K-Pop fans) want to read the comprehensive information if not here in Wikipedia? Thank you. – Wihan Tan (talk) at 02:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Fans have a tendency to write fan sites. That's a problem of neutrality. No, because I am editing a number of articles I am not obligated to edit all other articles. This has nothing to do with fairness. By the same token, you're being unfair by editing only K-pop and Lazio articles: other articles deserve your attention too. Finally, if you want to read comprehensive information, which includes everything a fan would want, I suggest you read allkpop.com and associated sites (like the company website): Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wihan Tan, there are many, many articles on Wikipedia. That someone edits a certain article or a group of articles does not obligate him/her to edit all other related articles. Even if that person undertakes such a task, it can take a while to get through all those articles. The alphabet soup reference that explains this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LadyofShalott05:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I get your point. "Fans have a tendency to write fan sites". For articles like Mnet and its artists within, there is nothing single fan site. I'm 100% sure about this. If you're pointing Daum Fan Cafe, it's not a fan site. Many Korean terms have different meaning than in Western terms. In Korean, Daum Fan Cafe is an official forum that created by own artist company. I even still don't understand why such official YouTube Channel or official Twitter are deleted by you. "I suggest you read allkpop.com and associated sites". I everyday always read Allkpop. Allkpop is very bias news portal. Mayority of its admins and mods are SM or YG stan. For your information, I'm into K-Pop since 2010. So I know all about Allkpop and other sites. "By the same token, you're being unfair by editing only K-pop and Lazio articles: other articles deserve your attention too". This is most ridiculous statement I ever read. So you have a problem I'm a tifosi of Lazio? I edit all pages related to Lazio just to update match results, players statistics, and so on. Who says I just put my interest in K-Pop and Lazio articles? Please check at the first place. I ever edited about movie, PSP, games. I will edit a page or article if I feel I need to edit it. – Wihan Tan (talk) at 16:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but you don't get it at all. You're accusing me of not editing all K-pop articles, and I ask you why you don't barely edit any articles. It's called tit-for-tat. "So you have a problem I'm a tifosi of Lazio?" *Sigh* No. I have a problem you can't read very well. You complain about my removing those redundant YouTube links; well, read WP:EL, which I always link to in edit summaries, like this one. What else? "Daum Fan Cafe is an official forum that created by own artist company"--yes, the very definition of the kind of source we shouldn't be using. See WP:RS. Your web portals and forums are PR machines for your bands. Now, I will edit a page or article if I feel I need to edit it, and that's all there is to it. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
And in regard to your recent edits: see WP:OVERLINK, item 2, for why you shouldn't link "South Korea", for instance. It doesn't hurt to actually know the rules of the game, as Aron Winter could have told you if you were old enough. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Dear Drmies,
I am Francisco X. Alarcon and I made some revisions of the titles of my Works because there were errors in the use of capital letters in the Spanish titles and errors in the actual titles. I added additional information on Life, Awards, and Works. I understand that there is a conflict of interest since I am the actual author and so the revisions and information I added were deleted. The information I added is basically neutral and I am sure could be useful to Wikipedia readers.
I have never edited, revised or added information to any Wikipedia page. Could someone (a Wikipedia editor) go over the information I posted below and maybe incorporate this information to the page. There are few US Latino/Chicano authors as Wikipedia entries.I wanted to be helpful. Since I write both in English and Spanish, maybe this page could also be available in Spanish. I am willing to help with the Spanish translation.
Please let me know if that is possible or how should I proceed.
Hello Francisco, minor revisions are no problem of course, and major ones aren't a problem either as long as the information is written in a neutral manner and properly referenced--with recourse to reliable sources (see WP:RS). The university website (was it UC Davis? That's a great place.) can verify some things, like a job position and such, but cannot be used to make qualitative statements. Part of the problem with a list of publications is that we're not for resumes, and lists of publications too often straddle that line or go over it. It can be assumed that Melville's works are worth listing exhaustively, but with living authors that's not always the case. My own standard is that those works can be listed that have been reviewed in academic journals and such, and that a reference should be given for those reviews (or whatever other articles discuss them); at the very least books should be published by a reputable press. That's a matter of judgment--but see Rolf Bremmer: no one would deny that Rodopi and Peeters are reputable, and I just added a review for one of his books. So, those are some of the practices that I endorse: article improvement is easy, in a way, if reliable sources discuss the subject.
As for Spanish, I am sure that the Spanish wikipedia would be happy to have that article in translation; create an account there and go for it. I'll be glad to help with the English version in whatever way I can, but you (since you know this best) will have to help first, by adding references to the articles, even if it's just a hyperlink to a newspaper article or a review. Don't worry about the formatting--we'll get that straightened out. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) There is precedent for this kind of thing; we did it with WOLfan112 (not that that ended well), but it wasn't without criticism. I vaguely remember other instances of this, but I'm not sure. I'd consider setting up an edit filter for this (which is normally how these kinds of things are done, I believe). Writ Keeper⚇♔18:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've only seen the edit filter done once and that was fairly controversial. In addition, the editor in question attempted to use the mood bar and caught a lot of heat for it. RyanVesey18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Ryan; I've granted the unblock with some conditions on the talk page. I'm sure there will be plenty of eyes on him. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure, that's reaching for it, but it sounds acceptable and not unattested. Now rewrite the lead of that article please--it's weird. No, I haven't read any more Gaiman since American Gods--and as you can read ON MY FRIGGING BLOG I'm busy with Suite Francaise, haha. Rash promise, it's a fun concept, isn't it? I thought Ryulong would be honored to have such a cool stub dedicated to him, but you can't please everyone, apparently. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Is it reaching for it? Gaiman knows his folklore, and having read the book, I can say that your description of the motif fits exactly what happens in the story. I'm pretty sure Gaiman knew exactly what he was doing there. </stepping off the Gaiman fangirl platform> Oh, and hush - I finally actually saw the link and pulled up your blog. It had a link to follow on Twitter, but that seemed to be a fake-out. Is that just there in case you have a Twitter account you want to link? I liked how your cherry trees answered the question you pretended not to answer. LadyofShalott04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ha, thanks for noticing that bit with the cherries. There is a link to follow on Twitter? I don't even know what that means. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
So I would have a Twitter channel and you would subscribe to it? No, haha. I'll tell you how that button and most of the other crap ("widgets"?) got there: Mrs. Drmies was laughing at me and grabbed my netbook to outfit the blog with stuff. She thinks I'm a Neanderthal, and as you know she's not that far off the mark. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
This is what you get for having a web log dedicated to frigging: entirely the wrong sorts of crotches and an article on rashes that is all about sex. As Wendy's would ask, so would any English Professors, if such were ever around on this user talk page so devoid of them: Where's the Tolkien?Where's the Classical Greek Mythology? (Holmes 2004, p. 258). Where's Aquinas's "iuramentum incautum"? (Green 2002, p. 294) And where's the link to beot?
Holmes, John R. (2004). "Oaths and Oathbreaking: Analogues of Old English Comitatus in Tolkien's Myth". In Chance, Jane (ed.). Tolkien and the Invention of Myth: A Reader (2nd ed.). University Press of Kentucky. ISBN9780813123011. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Green, Richard Firth (2002). "Rash Promises". A Crisis of Truth: Literature and Law in Ricardian England. The Middle Ages Series. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN9780812218091. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Cross, Tom Peete; Nitze, William Albert (1930). Lancelot and Guenevere: a study on the origins of courtly love. Modern philology monographs of the University of Chicago. Phaeton Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Duggan, Joseph J. (2001). The Romances of ChrÈtien de Troyes. Yale University Press. ISBN9780300083576. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Staines, David (1990). "Introduction". The complete romances Chrétien de Troyes. Indiana University Press. ISBN9780253354402. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Newstead, Helaine H. (1969). The Harp and the Rote: An Episode in the Tristan Legend and its Literary History. W. Clowes. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (also published in Romance Philology volume 22 pp. 463 et seq.)
Osborn, Marijane (2010). Nine Medieval Romances of Magic: Re-Rhymed in Modern English. Broadview Press. ISBN9781551119977. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Brewer, Derek (1983). "The Presentation of the Character of Lancelot: Crétien to Malory". In Barber, Richard (ed.). Arthurian Literature. Vol. 3. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN9780859911498. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Finlay, Alison (2001). "Skald Sagas in their Literary Context 2: Possible European Contexts". In Poole, Russell Gilbert (ed.). Skaldsagas: Text, Vocation, and Desire in the Icelandic Sagas of Poets. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde. Vol. 27 (2nd ed.). Walter de Gruyter. ISBN9783110169706. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
A simple search on allmusic for one chosen at random, Zombie Attack, proved no such thing, as there was zero prose description of the album on the resulting page. AFD is not for deciding whether redirects or articles should exist. It's for deciding deletion alone. It's in the name: Articles for deletion. Don't take things to AFD where an administrator using the deletion tool to remove a page and its entire edit history is not what you want. And don't try to force other people to do so. You're both using the edit tool, and the edit tool alone, so talk pages are the places to be. You would do well, Spada2, to put in the effort and find some documentation of these things that is more than a track listing, rather than edit warring for the wholly mistaken reason that AFD isn't involved. Wikipedia is not a directory of pop music albums. Uncle G (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
when an album is registered on allmusic you should be carefull and do simple search about it first as I did and found reliable reviews on blabbermouth and About.com, just added them to some of the articles you redirected, we're all here to improve wikipedia. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
What you added here is nothing but a tracklist that at best verifies the release date--in other words, it adds nothing substantial. A review on Blabbermouth adds nothing to that: despite the claims made on Blabbermouth (which combine OR with the word of the owner, and claims that being cited in a few articles makes it "an authority"), it is not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am unable to find much that will interest you in thrash metal music from Lithuania, so here instead:
Did you know … that although the creation of the first Lithuanian national opera is usually credited to Mikas Petrauskas by travel guides, for his 1906 Birutė, that honour properly falls to Jurgis Karnavičius's 1933 Gražina since Birutė is more properly a play with music?
Did you know … that the house shared by Mikas Petrauskas and his operatic tenor brother Kipras PetrauskasinKaunas is now the Mikas and Kipras Petrauskas Lithuanian Music Museum, and includes exhibits of the works of their friend Stasys Šimkus?
Did you know … that Kipras Petrauskas and his wife took care of violinist Danutė Pomerancaitė after she was smuggled out of the Kovno Ghetto in a sack of potatoes?
Did you know … that Danutė Pomerancaitė (a.k.a. Danutė Pomerancaitė-Mazurkevičienė, a.k.a. Dana Pomerants-Mazurkevich, a.k.a. Dana Mazurkevich) is the daughter of Daniel Pomerantz, renowned Lithuanian violinist and jazz musician?
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
...for the assist at Men's rights movement. I haven't been on for a few days, so I wasn't around to handle this one. I try to deal with these things before they get to ANI and blocks but I just wasn't here for that one. :-/ --KillerChihuahua22:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks, Shirt. I've been going through this user's contributions of today, and I'm not impressed. I'm glad someone else has written him. LadyofShalott03:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've deleted that page. It was a copyright violation of a Pokemon wiki, which releases its content under a non-commercial license, making it incompatible with ours. (Also, it wasn't attributed.) Writ Keeper⚇♔05:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks WK. Can you turn "This staircase make tourists up and down the tower will not bump into each other and stuck in it" into English? I've removed the BLP prod from Grzegorz Skawiński; Google delivered enough material in a few seconds to add two reliable sources. All you passing by: someone remarked that his BLP prods are OK, but they're also lazy. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ah, the user is 12. Writ Keeper, I saw your note--more delicately phrased than mine, as usual; thank you. You know, we could have put the entire Lithuanian metal scene on the map tonight. Drmies (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Probably something to the effect of: "The staircase is designed to accommodate tourists climbing up and down the tower at the same time." I don't think we really need to elaborate on the alternative of bumping into each other and getting stuck. Anyway, the kid is presumably asleep by now (probably in the Pacific time zone), so we should keep an eye on him tomorrow to see if he acknowledges the warnings. Frivolous deletions are not to be overlooked, and copyright violations are even worse, even from a 12-year-old. Writ Keeper⚇♔07:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'll get on it. Thanks Yngvadottir, that's helpful. I wrote it as a stub for something prompted by Ungcel, as you can talk from the weird citation format. I don't know what your degree is in (Cornell! I'm not worthy...), but I assume you know all that mytho-Germanic stuff better than I do, and it's incredibly important stuff. BTW, I'm teaching HEL this semester, which of course builds on those foundations, set up first by those German post-Napoleonic romantics. This reminds me I still need to write Nicholas Howe, whose Migration and Mythmaking in Anglo-Saxon England is mandatory reading in my (our?) field. I also need to write up Allen Frantzen, for Desire for Origins, which has everything to do with Ebel and his teachers. Thanks again--I guess I can get busy. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(Oxford and Cornell. I am a real ivory tower freak.) Here's the summary for Writ Keeper :-) He was a March violet (member # 3,144,638); immediately got into local party leadership, and the NS-Dozentenbund (I need to write that article) as soon as qualified by his Habilitation; became a confidant of Himmler's; started working for the Ahnenerbe in October '38 (but also lectured for the Amt Rosenberg!); joined the Waffen-SS shortly after the outbreak of war; served with the Totenkopf regiment on the Western Front and then resumed his teaching career in 1940; joined the regular SS in 1941, promoted to Untersturmführer that same year; after brief further active service, worked at HQ in the Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt, where he acquired increasing responsibility; he finished up as Ahnenerbe divisional head for "legal history of Germans in the East" (Oct. '42) and as a Hauptsturmführer ('43), after which he again returned to teaching. After the war he was stripped of his teaching position and imprisoned in one manner or another till '48, but he was a good enough lawyer (he trained as a lawyer at the same time as doing his doctorate and Habilitation) to get off with a judgment of "fellow traveler" in '49 (de. is not being terribly NPOV here). Meanwhile someone else had of course got his professorship. In 1952 the state ministry of culture got him another teaching position at the university and in 1954 he got the professorship back. He apparently appears in several works on law under the Third Reich. I will see what I can get ahold of :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Did you know … that dyeing the textiles of Sumba was traditionally the sole province of women, that the red "kombu" dye gives its name to "wai kombu" the name for the menses, and that the indigo dye made from Indigofera sumatrana was avoided by men and pregnant women, being left to women who are past child bearing age, because it was considered dangerous?
Did you know … that dyeing the textiles of Sumba is no longer the sole province of women, and that the concerns over indigo dye, and the special status of those who make and employ it, have been largely erased by the introduction of industrial dyeing processes?
Holy moly--I'm having a good look at Forshee's book, and that's a mammoth task (to read, digest, and regurgitate encyclopedically). That's not something for me, for now--sorry. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I would normally hat a discussion like that anywhere myself... but you should see the offsite complaints that happen whenever I hat a thread on that set of pages :p Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I just wanted to point out (redundantly) that you have this power. Whether you want to handle it is another matter, of course. It's always a pleasure to see you, Kevin. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You should get out here sooner or later, so that you can actually see me for once :p. Hell, if you get out during the upcoming semester I can probably fit a guest lecture from the notorious Dr Mies in my class (and yes, for some reason they let me teach now... at least about Wikipedia.) That one article in particular I tend to avoid hatting comments, since it just fuels the conspiracy theorists. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Good for you, Kevin. I'd love to go out there. I'll stop at Bbb23's house too, and see if ChildofMidnight is still around. Sure, I'll be glad to give a lecture there, and it being California I won't have to dress up. Happy days, and enjoy your conspiratorial penis, Drmies (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh kind Uncle G (heretofore referred to as Ungcle), the poor, miserable Cripes its 1942 has simply wished to grace this page with a history professor of good standing, to fill the vacuum, but what has the good doctor brought upon him? Morals! Morals, and the subservient implication that Cripes and his den of wards have none. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm a pacifist of the old brand. In short, I think all armed forces should be abolished, and someone with my attitudes shouldn't be living in this country, obviously. I also think guns are evil, and liberal shit like that. I find it repulsive that I'm practically and economically forced to support our bloated defense budget so they won't close the Air Force Base, which would send our local economy through the drain. I'm glad, though, that the pundits and the NRA are telling me that mental illness is the problem, not weapons, so the fact that my three-year old child started drawing "killing machines" a few weeks ago is just a coincidence, I'm sure. The interested reader is advised that I told her I don't like those--she changed them into "kissing machines", a shift that Derrida would have appreciated; if she makes a killing machine it only kills trash cans. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I love the "kissing machine" image. I'm with you on your horror that she was drawing "killing machines". I'm sure the culture in which we live has nothing to do with that. LadyofShalott17:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's liberal pinkos like you who retard the growth of their children by not encouraging them to draw killing machine pictures at an earlier age. When I lived in Atlanta, arguably more progressive than where you live, one of my colleagues, who like most southern males enjoyed acerbic teasing, told me how he had bought a gun as a Xmas gift for his two-year-old. I tried to stay poker-faced, knowing any reaction at all would please him no end, but it was tough.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'll never forget a student in a freshman lit class at Alabama (we were discussing Henry Reed's "Naming of Parts"), some pimply teenager, saying that he had an AK-47. I was dumbfounded, me, the naive European. Foolishly I thought that such weaponry was reserved for armed rebels and Russian soldiers. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
And there you have it, M. Cripes It's 1942. Try to have a simple discussion about an ordinary writing style matter, and a group of Americans will hijack it and turn it into a debate about guns. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Has Drmies become an American? This talk page ought to be renamed Digression Central. This particular thread just happened to devolve into a discussion (not really a debate) about guns.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ssht, I'm watching the Broncos. Of course I'm American. I watch college football in the fall, college basketball in the spring, and the Peyton Manning show in between. Also I'm twenty pounds overweight and drive a Camry. Crisco, why don't you take care of that DYK for me? Reopen it, approve it, run it on the front page. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
As I looked at it, I thought that it might end up In the news; then I checked the Main Page, and there it was. Sorry that that makes it ineligible for DYK. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM10:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oooops--I forgot that again? Mandarax, I saw the photo thingy; thanks for trying anyway. I noticed that the image was not on Commons and figured that had something to do with its status. Thanks for your help, as always-- Drmies (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello Drmies - the reason the article is not eligible for DYK is that it has already appeared on the front page in the ITN section, which is what Mandarax was referring to above. See Rule 1e of the eligibility criteria. Sorry if I didn't make this clearer when I endorsed Mandarax's X. Take care, Moswentotalky18:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, I disagree with the application of that rule (not with the rule). The full argument is on Mandarax's talk page, at "Template:Did you know nominations/Sakine Cansiz"--in summary, I wrote the article (after saving the redirect in the first place) and nominated it at DYK long before someone from ITN latched on to it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
On 12 January 2013, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Sakine Cansiz, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Could the person who nominated it for ITN reasonably have been expected to know about the DYK nomination? If it was transcluded to the article talk, then yes, they could be expected to know about it; I'm wondering if that was the case, or if it was an innocent mistake. What it reminds me of somewhat (though it's not quite the same) is when I'd worked up a decent article on the Ossabaw Island Hog in my sandbox, and when I went to move it, found that Steven Walling had created the article already. We'd started on our respective versions within a day or two of one another, neither with any idea of the other's project. LadyofShalott00:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Reasonably? Possibly, though hardly automatically. They could have checked the history, and the history of the editor, of course. I think my problem right now is with the application of the rule and the fact that no one from ITN (not that I know who they are) have commented on this. Actually, I don't have a problem right now at all (besides Peyton Manning throwing a pick in OT...), I'm just a little miffed. I mean, you saw how much work I put into that article. Here's the thing: I don't understand the rationale behind that rule in the first place. What are they trying to prevent? That editors take ITN as a cue to create better articles? What's wrong with that? Ed, Crisco, do you have an answer for that? Drmies (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I find myself in an unusual position. (TWSS!) I would definitely not characterize the ITN nomination as a "mistake". Anyone who writes an article on a topic which is in the news can reasonably expect that someone might try to get it on ITN. As I said above, I suspected that it might happen here, and I was not at all surprised to discover that it had already happened. As I said on my talk page, just try to enjoy the extended high-profile ITN exposure. Anybody can get an article on DYK, but you've now accomplished the more difficult task of quickly writing a quality article which made it to ITN.
As for how much work you put into the article... you should be pleased that you have the opportunity to showcase it on the Main Page for days rather than just an eight-hour DYK. I wasn't around when the rule was formulated, but presumably the rule is to ensure that DYK spotlights material which is new to the reader, not something which has already been on the Main Page for a week.
Incidentally, Lady, I have a somewhat similar story, but with a happy ending. I had an article in my userspace which I occasionally worked on in typical Mandarax slothful fashion. Then one day the article showed up on my watchlist (I always watchlist articles which I'm writing or considering writing). Turns out that someone had created an article which was nothing but a huge copyright violation. I CSD'd it, got to work, quickly completed my version, created it in article space, and turned it into my very first DYK. And yes, I somehow managed to allude to The Office twice today....MANdARAX•bИAM03:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
John McLaughlin (artist). If it weren't for that user's copyvio (combined with inspiration provided by Drmies), I might not have ever had the motivation to create DYK-worthy articles. That was a quick one – just two days after I nominated it, it was already on the Main Page. Now, as for that hog... was it in the news for some reason? Or on a list provided by WikiProject Bacon? Or was it just a freaky coincidence that you and someone else happened to independently write an article at about the same time on the same hog? MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM00:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Kind of a combination of list + freaky coincidence. The Bacon cup was in progress, and I was looking for an interesting article to work on for it. I looked at various redlinks in the list of domestic pig breeds, and found the OIH - both from the state in which I live, and with a fair amount written about it - turns out to be a breed with both an interesting history and useful as a medical analogue. Why Steven happened to pick it at the same time, I'm not sure - he wasn't working on the Bacon Cup, but I think he tends to work on a lot of agricultural topics. LadyofShalott00:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well you won't get a Did You Know out of German dollies at Snow baby (AfD discussion), even if it tells you that the encyclopaedia is missing an article on Modus Liebinc, one of the Cambridge Songs. Don't believe those English Professors who go on about the snow baby tale being alluded to in the Ludus Coventriae (ISBN9780520040816 p. 176). After all, what would Rosemary Woolf know? She doesn't even have the right name for the N-Town Plays.
You cannot suck Professor Woolf (ISBN9780299207502) into the English Professor Vacuum, Dr mi estas.
Whoa, Rosemary Woolf doesn't have an article? And neither does Jane Chance, whom you may find in the MLA also with the surname Nitzsche, if memory serves me right. That's a shame. BTW, I've used that book before to write biographies, and if I remember correctly GBooks gives only a very partial view, unfortunately. One of these days, Ungcel, I'll write all the medievalists up, including my former colleagues Roy Liuzza, who published a very legible translation of Beowulf with Broadview, and Thomas Heffernan, one of America's foremost experts on hagiography, indeed a father of the field. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You don't see a case for her? Are you getting your eyes checked regularly? She has two biographical chapters devoted to her, and I haven't even looked at JSTOR for reviews and stuff. Feel free to expand her current article, though. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Prioryman, I wish you could just let this go. It's just a DYK, and as you can read above, DYKs are not that important. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Would a WP:MOS familiar lurker confirm my conjecture that public house names, such as "The Rose and Crown" or "The Globe", should not be italicized within a Wikipedia main-space article? Note the clear and hopefully unambiguous qualification. He he--Senra (talk)15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Depressingly article 'quality' is not actually a criteria for inclusion in DYK. I have been doing some research in my spare time on past DYK articles, who created them, who reviewed, based against a few small indicators of 'quality' (prose punc & gram, accurate references etc), and it's very reviewer-specific. So far I have found the more 'interesting' DYKs tend to correlate fairly strongly with specific reviewers who look at things beyond rubber-stamping the DYK criteria (is the hook sourced, is it correct length). Likewise on the negative side, the more boring and low-quality articles tend to correlate with the checkbox 'this is what you must have to get a DYK' method. Personally I don't see it as a failing of the article editor/creator if a badly written DYK makes it to the main page. I see it as a failure of the reviewer and the process/community that runs DYK. I might actually publish the results when I have a decent (read 200+) sample size. Unfortunately the winter months are my busiest time of year so I have only sporadically been able to work on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm well, sure--but hold on, I didn't (I think) point at specific article creators or even more than one specific article in recent comments. I want to say that first, just to make matters clear: I actually don't know/remember/care who wrote Devil Tower's Road.
Moving right along, I think you're correct. In fact, I've had second, third, and fourth looks at articles just because I saw who the reviewer was, and of course at articles because I saw who the author was. One specific author comes to mind and you probably know who I'm talking about, and some who need not be named here. Those article authors are also not very good reviewers. One of the disadvantages of that QPQ process is of course that we get reviewers who aren't very seasoned and don't know what to look for, and for whom article quality is the last thing to pay attention to. (And, and I assume you read the discussion about Devil Tower's Road, it's of course ridiculous to state that quality is completely subjective.) I'm interested in your study; do keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I'm going to stick my oar in here, wisely or not. The DYK rules do include meeting Wikipedia's basic standards - which include adequate English, adequate topic coverage, adequate sourcing, and notability. This has been pointed out a few times on the project talk page but tends to get lost under waves of criticism of the project as a whole (it has never intended to be about quality per se, although one of its purposes is to help improve the nominated articles, especially those by new editors, and another is article improvement by expansion) or ignored in favor of whatever the current specific question is - such as whether translated articles are allowed (of course they are, but it still comes up repeatedly) rather than what standards those articles should meet (the same as non-translated articles). One of the problems is that the rules are not terribly clear; they were rewritten about a year ago but my impression is that that rewrite made the problem worse; clarifications got left out. I had actually volunteered to have a go at rewriting them, but things intervened (including another round of attacks on DYK that made it impolitic for an "insider" to present a rewrite of the rules while debate on DYK's purpose and governance was happening) and then I had to withdraw from participation at DYK in deference to a declaration of consensus that theoretically changes its entire basis. I think a lot of the people involved in DYK are quite well aware that reviews are uneven; there's been movement over the past couple of years on some of the rules, and I'm sure that was happening in times past, also, before I made a habit of reading that talkpage; quid pro quo was in my opinion an awful idea, but I believe DYK is now stuck with it (no better alternative and almost all the people who used to review articles before it was put in place are no longer involved with the project; and not all promoters check the articles, and nor do all admins who load prep sets into the queues. However, both promoters and admins are now more aware that they should do so, after a few go-arounds on the talk page; and I had the impression there was more team editing going on at DYK than formely, and that's the best way to help the editors who write poorly to do a better job. So I don't feel 100% guilty about having left the project. And I suspect a lot of what your study will reveal is actually kind of well known to some of the DYK regulars and that they've been continuing to try to deal with it in several ways. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Aha! I've spotted your cunning. The above is a secret are-you-good-enough-to-be-a-reviewer test. So … how many people have pointed you to wikt:criterion#English so far? You won't find any such people here at the source of the English Professor Vacuum, you know. After all, Greek is for Classicists. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just to clarify, when I assessed for 'quality' I stuck to pretty much basic things that were hard to claim are 'subjective'. 1. Proper referencing - statements of fact are sourced and the source supports the statement. Its no good if only the hook is sourced but the rest are rubbish. I lost count of how many stubs I saw that had 5+ references and only one (hook) was correctly used. I personally feel this is a real weakness of DYK, but I cant really support the 'DYK is not FA or GA!' mentality that means enforcing reading the article AND the sources. 2. Readability/basic sentence structure. Spelling for the most part I ignored if it was something minor, horridly constructed sentences not so much. I know my prose is not the best, but a sentence should at least make sense without you having to stop and think halfway through. 3. Layout, lede - body - appropriate picture (if present). I did not go down the 'is this article interesting?' route, too many potholes. (IMO I would say 50% of them were as boring as an accountant's holiday tour of the banking houses of Europe.) So what would the rest of you say makes a 'quality' article? (That is *not* part of the DYK criteria at the moment) I dont mean to a GA/FA standard, just what is currently lacking that would enforce mainpage viewers are not faced with shoddy work? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
An IP editor has been removing information from a page (not related to the Zimmermanh1997/Hollisz guy) and I posted this message on their talk page. Do you think it oversteps my unblock rules? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Is there a reference for that name? The editor makes a claim of correctness. Such matters are easily dealt with by adding a reference for the name: if they remove again then it's plain wrong, but I don't see any name in any of the links, except for Spotlight. In other words, what's your claim to correctness? Drmies (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
This is one of the most recent filings with the FCC. This one is signed by "Patrick M. Andras" as the "Manager and Member". Typically smaller stations are owned by a group of people with one person having a majority control, in this case Mr. Andras, who is called the manager (FCC-to-English translation, the owner). The entire group of members (could be as little as 2 or as many as 6 or more (I've seen 12+ in some filings) go by the name "Spotlight Broadcasting of New Orleans, LLC", but according to the FCC, Mr. Andras is the owner since he has majority control of the company. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Problem with that is that it's primary documentation, and it may be outdated by now. Or, you're both right, and you're both wrong. Your evidence is not secondary and may be outdated, their evidence is nothing at all. A matter to be taken to the talk page--and if it (and similar such things--I know you run into that all the time) isn't resolved there, then you should probably take it to a relevant Wikipedia project page or to AIV or DR, depending in what's going on. The usual restraint (re: "reverted vandalism") still applies, of course. On that note, I'm going to place a note on your talk page in a minute. Thanks Homer, Drmies (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
There is an FCC post from 2011, but it wasn't an electronic application/permit (which I could link to) only a paper application/permit (which is rare these days). So, I could very well be wrong, but I have to go on what I have. This is the part of the FCC that sucks. They stink at having an updated database of owners for stations, just a hard-to-read database of applications and permits you have to sift through and translate from Government-ese into English. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I see from his user talk that you thought it unlikely he'd be disruptive at AN. I removed his personal attack against TRM and my finger hovered heavily over the block button. I'm too busy to watch AN any further tonight, which perhaps is just as well. --Dweller (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Drmies, it appears I wasted your time in the long post you just made at AN. I hope that doesn't mean you take back the kitten. I unblocked him after he agreed to fully abide by the topic ban. The subject of modifying the topic ban is still open. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Rest assured, Drmies, I'm not avoiding you, but there just isn't that much available on him online, even in Romanian. Anyway, I did do a rewrite: see how you like that. I may restore the "works" section, although in less verbose form. - BiruitorulTalk01:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I didn't really want you to search around anyway, but I was hoping you could make something decent out of what was there, possibly pruning what wasn't reliably sourced etc. Thanks again, for your work and for your response. I hope you're well. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that Drmies is like every other asshole - I think he's a unique asshole. I don't quite get why he thinks his reputation has plummeted, though. Sure, he may no longer be attractive to people who demand purity, but then there's a whole other group who like those with more experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
At least it didn't roll into your block log without a word of warning. But you seem to be doing fine, Bbb, you're clean in all kinds of ways. Good for you. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I take a shower every day. But, seriously, I've been fretting about this ever since I went off-wiki yesterday evening, wondering if, god help me, you took me seriously when I said you were a unique asshole. I was serious about the unique part, but NOT about anything else. You can strike this if it embarrasses you, but you are a great editor, admin, and (most important) person, and about as far from being an asshole, no matter how it's defined, as I can imagine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm not embarrassed, Bbb, I'm flattered. Thanks for your kind words. You and Dennis and WK and others are part of a new wave of editors on whom the near future of Wikipedia depends, and you're all doing a great job. I'm pleased you let me hang out with you, and I'm thankful for all the help you've given me. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Apologies: when one sees editors being described as an "unique asshole", obvious implications are bound to be drawn. Now retracted. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Asshole was intended in a universal, self-deprecating manner, to convey the concept that humans are imperfect. (We even have a WP for that WP:NOTPERFECT). Some of are old enough to remember the insipid I'm OK, You're OK meme from the 70s -- I've long believed the truth is much more like I'm fucked up, you're fucked, deal with it -- again, not some sort of give up nihliism but rather an inclination to forgiveness and understanding.NE Ent14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion
Hey, Professor, and anyone else here who may speak English.... I have a question about a specific instance, but I'll apply the answer to my future editing in general. Someone complained that I removed a "the" from a DYK hook without discussion, changing "... that the Austrian tenor Karl Beck" to "... that Austrian tenor Karl Beck". As for the discussion part, I wouldn't clutter up the already-huge DYK nominations page with discussion about each of the many, many small but obviously correct edits I make there every day. But was I justified in making this change? The complaining user said:
I despise this writing style where things like "Austrian tenor" or "Venezuelan astrologer" or "English novelist" are treated as titles. They're not, they're simply descriptors.
Well, I agree that they're simply descriptors, but I disagree that omitting the "the" causes them to be treated as titles. If anything including the "the" could have that effect: "the Austrian tenor" could be interpreted as meaning that the guy holds the title as the only tenor who's Austrian. Simply saying "Austrian tenor" just means he's a tenor who's Austrian.
I think it reads better without "the". Another consideration is that when it comes to DYK, if a shorter hook works as well as or better than a longer one, the shorter one is almost always preferred. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, and sorry for cluttering up your talk page.... MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM03:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Meh, I probably have a slight preference for using the "the", but it would depend on the context, and I don't think I'd get upset either way. LadyofShalott04:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(ec) If I'm not mistaken, using "the" in a case such as this was standard English until Time magazine introduced a more streamlined style in the 1920s and '30s (although it might also have been used by tabloid journalists before that). Now, I would say that both are acceptable, but the sentence without the use of "the" sounds breezier and more informal, while the other might be more formal and therefore more encyclopedic. Regardless of that, I've used both forms in my editing, depending on what felt right to me.
Lady, please check your "meh"s at the Alabama border. Also, it may well be that it's more British English to leave the "the" off, but it's perfectly acceptable to do so. Unless you're dealing with Malleus, in which case you're always wrong. Anyway, I don't know what "descriptor" means. "The" is a determiner, whose function here is redundant since the name in the noun phrase "determines" the identity of "Austrian tenor". In fact, one could argue that "the" should be considered redundant. So don't worry Mandarax, keep doing what you're doing. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Lady for the opinion, BMK for the historical perspective (usually, "breezier and more informal" is the perfect tone for DYK), and Doc for the definitive, scholarly answer. The title/descriptor thing? I didn't get what he was trying to say, and I thought he was using "descriptor" as a synonym for "adjective" in reference to "Austrian", but after reading it over a few times I now think that's not what he meant at all (although I should know better than to assume anything), so I'd like to withdraw my statement that I agree about the descriptors.
The issue seemed so insignificant, but this is Wikipedia, where everything matters to someone, so thanks for the confirmation that I wasn't doing anything wrong. Incidentally, I do discuss any DYK change that I realistically think could be subject to dispute, but this one never occurred to me. Thanks again, everybody. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM09:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Concur with Dr. Another way to explain it is tThe" is a definite article, but we know which Austrian tenor we're talking about so we don't need it -- we also don't need that "that" either. NE Ent14:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if I delivered anything definitive, though I try to be scholarly. I was thinking about it this morning in the car again. "The" is made redundant because the name follows the noun phrase "Austrian tenor". If there were only one Austrian tenor, one could surround the name in commas but that would make "the" mandatory. It's an interesting set of complications, proving once again that grammar is more complicated than our high-school teachers may have supposed. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add me to the list of people who would remove "the" from "the Austrian tenor". In that context, I see "the" as a definite article -- and, thus, an indication that he is the only Austrian tenor. Since I assume that there is more than one tenor in Austria, I would remove the "the". If the phrase had been "the king of Sweden", I would not object to the inclusion of the definite article, since it is applicable there (countries normally have only one monarch at a time). --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Do you know Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website in the world? See, "that" is superfluous. Grammar Girlexplains that is used to restrict the meaning of a phrase. If you don't need to restrict, you don't need that "that". NE Ent15:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't recall saying it was grammatically required, but socially (however social Wikipedia can be) and traditionally. BTW, Onion Lady, sorry I didn't get around to those textiles yet. This kinda distracted me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No problem - I don't think it's in too much danger from 12-year-olds now. I'm not taking it on, so I can't fuss that you haven't yet. :) LadyofShalott16:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again for the responses. I'm not going to change the hook since the guy despises the construction without the "the", but I'll probably do so for other hooks I come across in the future. Regarding the "that"... there was a WT:DYK discussion (which I'm uncharacteristically not going to look up) about eliminating it. I was undecided until someone constructed a sample DYK set without it, and I saw that I much preferred it with the "that"; others agreed, and the consensus was to keep that "that". MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
There is no need for "that", of course. A common mistake (and I'm being a but judgmental here since I'm with Huddleston and Pullum) is the consideration that "that" in such sentences is a relative pronoun. It's not: in our DYK's, what follows "that" is not a relative clause; "that" is a conjunction since what follows is a content clause. See English_relative_clauses#Status_of_that--ha, I just checked the history of that article to see if I wrote the paragraph; I didn't. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
While it's interesting to read about "the impossibility of preceding it with a preposition," I didn't come here for that. NE Ent21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I didn't come here for either that or "that", either. That is, I didn't come here for that, or for this "that", I came here for that "that". The other "that". Writ Keeper⚇♔21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Drmies,
I see that you have completely removed the student life section from the University of Georgia's page. I have undone this move. I agree that the page is riddled with promotional bits, but the student life section was long standing and key to the university of Georgia. Especially the Greek portion. Please properly research UGA before removing any more information. It's much better for everyone if we remove promotional bits without losing on content. Many other university pages are like this.
Eh, no: you will not continue to keep this page as an advertisement for your institution. You could look at the section "Student life" at Harvard University--wait, there isn't one. Whatever information you reinstate, it better be neutrally written and sourced with secondary sources, reliable ones. I assume you're formerly known as UGAMD? Please see WP:NPOV, for instance. And please sign your messages so I don't get an edit conflict, thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I will surely remove all promotional language. Harvard University is not comparable to UGA, and therefore doesn't have a student life section. You will see such sections on comparable university pages. I appreciate your removal of certain fragments of the page. I agree, that CURO may have been self-promoting. The student life bit listing all the various groups was a little much as well. Thanks, DMB112 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, that's a start--but "Harvard University is not comparable to UGA" is nonsense. They're both American universities; it just happens that the Harvard article is pretty decent, and the UGA article is not. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
==
Hello,
I have reinstated several removed portions. They have been stripped of biased language and promotional content. Please review "Student Life" and "UGA Honors Program" and let me know what you think. I am wholly and entirely for a neutral view point. I understand your need to avoid bias. Please work with me before suddenly removing so much content from University of Georgia. I will surely comply. I kept the Student Government Association part because of it's unique involvement with University System of Georgia. Not all states and higher ed systems allow such involvement. It's good content, and I've included many internal links to support the content. I did cite the paragraph. I will further edit it. It's true, many universities have SGA and Honors programs, but these sections are relevant to the University of Georgia.
I kept UGA Miracle because it's a student organization unique to UGA. I have also removed some biased language from the "Rankings" portion of the page. I will continue to clean it up if need be.
Once again, please communicate with me before destroying so much content right away. I thought you were a bot. I am new to Wikipidea, and I haven't figured everything out quite yet. I receive emails from Wikipidea, and I'll respond promptly. DMB112 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
DMB, I'm not destroying anything. We have the right, indeed a moral obligation, to remove promotional content that keeps an article from being encyclopedic. Moreover, nothing is destroyed: it's still there in the history, and you know this since you reverted me at least once. That certain sections are relevant to the university is neither here nor there--well, it's certainly not relevant here, on Wikipedia. Same with "unique" student organizations (and I doubt very much that there is such a thing). Content needs to be neutral and verification from reliable sources is mandatory--and for such cases, if there is no secondary sourcing, it probably isn't relevant to the article. We are not the promotional branch of UGA or any other organization, and our information must be based on secondary or tertiary sources. That's the name of the game. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I saw that yesterday, but thanks for the note. I'll have another look but I don't care that much; what I noticed was the vandalism. Anyway, thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ok I try that but even some admins consider it reliable! anyway please let's end this argue cause you have sharp eyes and I want you to check Arsames (band) article, I seriously doubt the notability and I need exprienced editor to take care of it. I cant find any positive album reviews and the article written by the advertiser of the band! thanks in advance. please answer me here. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to pick a fight about anything, but we just can't have a dozen articles on non-notable (IMO, anyway) albums by a barely notable band. Moreover, I believe there's a bunch of socks behind the creation of those articles with the intent to promote the band. I'll have a look at at that band of yours if I have the time. Oh, Blabbermouth--I check in on its status regularly since it's cited all over the place and I keep hoping that they will make themselves reliable, but without proper editorial oversight, a move toward professionalization, that's not likely to happen. I think Blackmetalbaz (talk·contribs) agrees with me. Also, it doesn't really matter that admins might find something reliable or not: we don't have any extra weight in those areas. Any such weight comes from experience, not status. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Though I accepted only reluctantly, if I did at all. I'm not holding my breath for one thing I was waiting for. Which reminds me: you're one of the good guys. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Ed. I'm not doing much for your Signpost. What's the other editor you pinged doing? And again--what is it you want written? Feel free to email. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I saw your edits to the Perella Weinberg Partners page. Your argument about Wiki not being a directory makes sense, but some of those are key people in the company. Would the infobox be a more appropriate placement for these (as opposed to complete deletion)?
I also saw that you marked David Schiff (portfolio manager) for deletion. I was wondering why you would mark this for deletion and not Peter Weinberg, which has no references and less detail? I'm not looking to start a rumble here -- just looking for thoughts on how to make both pages work. Let me know - thanks! --Stlamanda (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello Stlamanda, thank you for your note. The infobox is not a better place--it would still have the same issues (per convention, no article no entry) and it would make for an awfully cluttered infobox. Convention is we list the notable ones, so that the list is an internal tool, for navigation from one Wikipedia article to another. I have not looked (yet) at Weinberg; you may well be right, but I'm not on a crusade here, so I didn't click on all the links to check out all the articles. We'll see how Schiff's deletion discussion goes (and you are welcome to contribute). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
We should make friends with these people. A birthday present from either one of them is the only way I'll ever get the Ferrari I deserve. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I have a serious factual beef with the blurb for today's featured picture, which I happened to see on someone's userpage. See here. But I hesitate to abuse my power to edit the Main Page by high-handedly changing it. What does one do in such situations? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Doktoro Mi Estas, being a Meat and Livestock Australia fan, will have no problem with your beef. But you might find that some of the fictional characters who inhabit xyr user talk page will complain that it isn't pork.
To continue this newly-begun tradition of baffling the denizens of the English Professor Vacuum with physics and technology and chemicals, I present the humble Rotolock valve (AfD discussion) for your edification. There, too, issues of nomenclature have raised their heads.
Doktoro, your Chameleon Arch has of course erased all knowledge of science from your brain, and I fully expected you to profess bafflement. It is Senra, mixing and matching astrophysical hypotheses, and M. Ingot's Army Brat Daughter, complaining that the main page got the Old Dwarfish words to "Gold Gold Gold Gold" wrong, who are pushing this intrusion of physics, technology, and chemicals into the English Professor Vacuum, and who should properly not be stymied by a simple HVAC stem service valve. That said, perhaps it is the fact that your service valves are not back-seated that is causing the continual failure of the English Professor Vacuum to suck any English professors onto this user talk page.
I suggest that you call an HVAC engineer, sit back, relax, and enjoy some more Migloko on YouTube.
Ungcel, I did what I could. My service valve has such a solid seating that there is little chance of leakage; the opposite, in fact. The lack of English professors on this here page is indicative of the general lack of English professors in this place, I'm afraid. I know of only a couple, maybe just one, and she works in an area well outside my expertise, voluntarily. Besides, I met her in real life and must have said something wrong to her, or she's just an elitist--have you seen her row of silver stars? Quite impressive. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you deleted large amounts of the page, saying that it was unverified. I put in some references for the Marching Band section, and reinserted it (I forgot that I had a Wikipedia account so it shows up as my IP address, 98.225.97.103). Do you think that the problem has been fixed? Kevince59 (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your message, Kevin. Two problems: much of the text was not neutral and not of great encyclopedic value, and two of the three links did not lead to reliable sources per WP:RS. I have trimmed the section a bit. Along the way I ran into a vocal opponent of your band and blocked them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No inconvenience whatsoever. Drop by anytime--and if I'm not around, there's a bunch of people who are a lot smarter and a lot nicer than me. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for closing that - I was just going to withdraw the nom anyway. I know AfD isn't supposed to be for article rescue, but by heck it's effective... There ought to be some way of getting articles discussed without the 'deletion' bit coming in - yes, there are talk pages, but who reads them? And you have to know the article's in existence first. BTW I knew you liked tits (mine are getting snowed on at the moment, and don't look very happy), but I didn't know you had dealings with stolen property.... Peridon (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
That fence has some kneecap issues right now, yes. Still haven't retrieved my collection of Favre-Leuba watches though. Yeah, I figured you wouldn't have a problem with the keep given how you wrote up the AfD and psst, between you and me--rrrright AfD is not for article improvement. I could have left you a note asking you to withdraw, but you've been here long enough, and I know you keep an eye on those things and that you are a more than reasonable editor. Let's call the improvement a fringe benefit in a low-stakes game. Thanks for your note Peridon, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion
Alright, I'll overlook your lack of response to my previous post here; perhaps the lack of offer of ale was to blame. Would appreciate your input on this one, an autobiography by a WP:SPA. Impressive resume, but it is a resume, with the requisite listing of publications and very few cites pertaining specifically to him; even the NYTimes links don't mention him. I take it he meets notability guidelines for an academic, but this began as a copyright violation, and continues to have the inherent COI issues. Do you think this is better addressed at BLP or COI noticeboard, or neither? Cheers, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Unless Drmies gets it all himself, I'd take it to the COI noticeboard. It's an autobiography that reads like a resume and uses a lot of press releases as sources. RyanVesey21:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(Talkpage stalker, after two edit conflicts :) Well, I've improved the lead by 200 %, I reckon. :-) Nice timestamps, Drmies! I guess that's the beauty of section editing. Bishonen | talk21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC).Reply
Oops, sorry Bish--didn't realize you were on the case as well. Yes, that was a master stroke of yours. Ryan, that's the next place we'll go, if the editor doesn't start sticking to the guidelines. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You know, I wonder if the, mm, main contributor who you have now addressed is aware that he has a talkpage. He has never edited it. You're not the first to tell him about COI. Bishonen | talk21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC).Reply
Yup. So maybe my final warning will not be heeded. We'll see. I noticed that 99 is still on the case: well done. NOW, for the real important matters: they had a sale at my beer dealer. I'm drinking an Almond '22 Torbata, marked down from $13 to $2. I also picked up a bunch of Maredsous, Einbecher, a few tripels, Troubadours... Two big bags full. Party's at my house tonight, 99. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
My money's on the subject to continue embellishing, though I've been wrong before. Thank you for pruning the other article, too, Drmies. I'd venture that punctuation is the first thing to go once you start draining the ale. Sounds like some kind of nasty euphemism.....Ms. 99 and I went out tonight with the (grown) kids, and I chose an oatmeal stout to go with the clams and linguini. Nothing like mixing the cultures. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I'd like that. As it happens there's an avocado on the kitchen island and I thought about sticking that in there, but it's not ripe yet. So, do you still pick up the tab for them kids? Or are they like, hey old man, this one's on me? And then you order three courses, not just one? I hope you enjoyed the family. My youngest was nice and vulnerable tonight: Captain John Smith got shot and she thought he was dead, so she needed lots of huggies. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Around here we're similarly distressed by developments at Downton Abbey. As for dinner tabs, we usually get them, without complaint. The kids work hard to get by, and we don't see them that often. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Don't you find this latest season of Downton Abbey to be significantly worse than the last? It's possible that I just don't remember the previous season well enough, but I've been yelling at the TV when watching the latest season - so many melodramatic subplots, all so shallow, trite, etc. I'm getting sick of all of the characters. I realize it's not supposed to be plausible, but if it's dramatically convincing, you at least forget how preposterous it is. And it's not ... dramatically convincing that is.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You may well be right. Since my bluff's been called, I confess to having watched only a few installments, which I've enjoyed modestly. Still, I can't imagine yelling at a public tv offering, much less one about a cultivated English clan. Have they no Jerry Springer in your area? 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of which, on mass transit early this morning, I was seated way too near a couple of buddies who talked loudly and with familiarity re: various approaches to distilling moonshine, Nascar, ESPN, firearms and gun magazines. And this was the train from Bridgeport to Grand Central Station. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's correct MediaWiki markup. By following a * with a : in the same position each time, you actually make each comment into a separate HTML list. Your :::::::::::::* right here, for example, generated the following in the actual HTML for the page:
And this ends up the case between every successive comment. Here's M. Cripes It's 1942's comment as it was with incorrectly mixed list markup:
<dl><dd><ul><li>With an English. Professor vacuum, there's, nobody to, bother us. — <ahref="/wiki/User:Crisco_1492"title="User:Crisco 1492">Crisco 1492</a> (<ahref="/wiki/User_talk:Crisco_1492"title="User talk:Crisco 1492">talk</a>) 23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)</li></ul>
And here it is with wikimarkup that doesn't mix lists:
<ul><li>With an English. Professor vacuum, there's, nobody to, bother us. — <ahref="/wiki/User:Crisco_1492"title="User:Crisco 1492">Crisco 1492</a> (<ahref="/wiki/User_talk:Crisco_1492"title="User talk:Crisco 1492">talk</a>) 23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
See the example of mixed lists at Help:List for how to do mixed lists properly when one does do mixed lists. If one is going to use mixed lists, one should at the very least follow the correct
*
*:
*::
*::*
*::*:
pattern where asterisks are not turned into colons. Of course, a colon produces a definition list (as you can see from all of the <dl><dd> sequences) lacking the term (<dt>) parts. This isn't really correct, either, since a conversation isn't a list of definitions. Asterisks produce <ul>, unordered, lists, which aren't perfect either but which are probably the best that HTML has.
On pages with lots of conversations, the amount of extra, unnecessary, and wrong HTML markup that gets generated when people incorrectly mix up the wikimarkup for lists, or do things like leave empty lines between list items, is a significant overhead. (There was a time when AFD had all of the open discussions on one page. One reason that we have the per-diem pages now, and that they are linked-to rather than transcluded on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, is that people's browsers and Internet connections simply didn't cope with the huge rendered pages that resulted.) Wikipedia:Accessibility deals with some other problems that this causes.
OK. I'll pretend I'm following. As I said below, I'm doing to coloncoloncolonasterisk thing so the bulleting still looks acceptable if one of these idiots throws in spurious br's or hard returns. Is there something magical about two colons and then an asterisk? Drmies (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm unsure if this is the place to respond directly to an edit of mine that Drmies undid, but here it goes:
You undid my edit on the Scopolamine page and cited my reference as not credible. What exactly is the criteria to determine credibility? Besides "noble language", I don't see why any of what's done in the documentary as being anything other than original investigative journalism. Does Vice have a history of making false claims? If so, where is this information available? If not, I reiterate: on what basis is the documentary not credible?Torvum (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Pardon the delay. In some more detail than my edit summary, my problem is this: a. your text seems to describe the documentary more than the subject of the article; b. bibliographical information is missing for this documentary; c. I have little reason to believe that Vice is the kind of source worth citing in an article like this. In fact, the magazine seems like the kind of popular magazine that branches out into serious journalism--but I have seen no evidence that its articles (let alone its documentaries) are worthwhile citing. Having said that, other sections and paragraphs in the article are in a lamentable state, and I can only hope that some editors will take advantage of the sources posted below by my uncle. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Proenza, Anne (1994-07-06). "L'arbre qui rend fou — En Colombie, une substance tirée du Datura arborea provoque des ravages sanitaires et alimente la violence urbaine". Le Monde (in French). p. 238. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Proenza, Anne (1994-07-21). "The Tree that Drives Colombians Mad". Guardian Weekly. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Proenza, Anne (1999). "The Tree that Drives Colombians Mad". In Jay, Mike (ed.). Artificial paradises: a drugs reader. Penguin. pp. 233–237. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Does Boobpedia already uncover this? "AU" calls for a bit of disambiguatin, but @Bamaboobs is clear enough. Thanks for the tip--this is great for a Friday night.
You mean I'm pretending to be a blind know-it-all? You don't know the truth about yourself! (BTW, Mr(s) Drmies took great offense when I posted about BamaBoobs on my Facebook page. I believe LadyofShalott volunteered herself to fill up that rather empty set of Bama boobs.) Where are you working on Boobs on Twitter? I expected to see at least a draft in your user space. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You may say I'm a dreamer, Lady. Note: today Kansas is playing Texas, and both of them are totally boobed. Maybe that's why that game is on TV, primetime on a major network. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ungcel, please don't interrupt. I'm reading an MMA RfC. It's a very special kind of torture, reserved--no doubt--for English teachers. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Interestingly, it was in a book by two English teachers — ISBN9780521555487 pp. 32–33 — that I found Proenza 1994 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFProenza1994 (help) quoted in full. I then had to confirm that it was indeed a genuine newspaper article.
I understand the torture of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts for English teachers. Having to continually read discussion contributions, by people participating in what is notionally an encyclopaedia writing project, that say things like "two advices", "editors dislikes", and "criteria was" would make one itch for the red purple pencil.
Well, yes and no. Those little errors (disagreement, typos, incorrect use of apostrophes etc) don't bother me so much--it's the sometimes incomprehensible syntax, the use of relative and other pronouns with unclear antecedents, and that sort of stuff. I suppose each field gets the editors it deserves, and the admins it is allowed to abuse. Also, I read your comments on asterisks, but Google was unable to translate it into something I could understand. What I do know is that an accidental hard return in between bulleted paragraphs is no biggie if the second of the two has a row of colons with an asterisk at the end, instead of a row of asterisks. You may think I'm foolish, but I prefer to think of myself as stubborn, as a man who doesn't yield easily. Also, my bedtime reading right now is The Maltese Falcon, and it's not bad at all. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for those info and giving me your time for discuss. Honestly I was surprised by getting those warning messages first, I though I was right about those undo things . I'm not new to Wikipedia, I know the rules but I still believe they are tough sometimes. Best wishes --MetalS-W (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Give it a shot. I've been looking but I can't find much coverage. Still, MSF has interviewed a couple of people and those interviews, in turn, were noted in other sources, so that's progress. As for the messages--wipe em off your page, no need to look at them anymore. It was nice talking to you and I wish you the best. Seriously, drop Baz a line: he's a nice guy, though he has terrible taste in music. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I expanded Costas Kadis a little bit with some education information and I'm curious as to whether or not they are significant enough to be included. Second, what exactly are they? I checked Academic certificate, but that's such a hodgepodge of different things that have the same English name that it's useless. RyanVesey04:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hey Ryan--courses he attended (post graduate courses are mentioned) are just resume information, as are, if you ask me, certificates. Most certificates anyway. Certificates are easily offered: they don't have to come from academically certified institutions, and if they do, they are not subject to the rules and guidelines set by accreditation agencies like Southern Association of Colleges and Schools--as far as I know, anyway. [Which reminds me: can a clever person place a "'Sacs' redirects here; for the accreditation agency known as SACS, please see blah blah?] So I wouldn't list certificates in someone's bio, unless it's significant in a provable way, like if some celebrity talks about the importance of the serial comma and we know they took a certificate in editing from a decent university (we're working on that certificate). But even in that case I wouldn't make that certificate part of the biographical section of the article. In this particular article, I would not mention them, esp. not since the sources aren't very independent of the subject. On a related note, we were hiring some big shot, like a provost or something (I have zero interest in those searches), and those people have 30-page resumes, bringing WP:FART to mind every other line. BTW, some of those people actually have articles on Wikipedia, which I promptly started cleaning up. Ungcel, do you have anything to add re:certificates? Drmies (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Why me?
I was very tempted to give you a response as if it had been written on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. But I decided instead to point out in English that the other source describes one of these courses as a training course. So the certificate mentioned is for the completion of a training course — at Cornell University, no less. (Aha! Now we know why the obviously conflicted about Cornell Doktoro Mi Estas is asking for a third opinion.) I think that you are better off leaving the various "certifigates" out of things for now.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You closed this WP:ANI six weeks ago. The other party in that dispute has now violated that ruling here and here. Can you offer some direction, Drmies, as to how he/she might be notified and reminded of the terms of WP:IBAN? Thanks.Tristan noir (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just wanted to let you know that the AN thread about the reduction in my restrictions was archived without a closing admin making a final decision. Not sure what you want to do there. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Zwijgen is instemmen, Homer. I wasn't really expecting a formal close, but there is a clear consensus that you're fine. Happy editing and stay out of trouble, including with that Zimmerman editor. Wait--did I see this correctly, there's a Bob Dylan biopic out? Drmies (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yup, it's called "I'm Not There", though it is from 2007 (unless there is another). Now time for a little Rainy Day Women ♯12 &35. :) As for the restrictions, no problem with the 2RR, and not problem with the keeping-of-the-nose-clear, and I will just direct anything related Zimmermanh1997/Hollisz to you and let you handle the reverts and whatnot. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Am I able to revert multiple changes in one edit? An editor (Bir89 (talk·contribs)) has used two contiguous edits (here and here) to make, what I believe to be, incorrect changes to Ely and Littleport riots of 1816. According to the WP:MOS guideline, specifically WP:DATESNO, we do not use ordinal suffixes to dates. Before a well-meaning lurker fixes this, and at the risk of WP:OWN, I would prefer to learn how to do it myself, if I am able. In addition, is it possible to fix multiple non-contiguous edits? --Senra (talk)10:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
By simple dint of editing the old version, and being careful about reinstating intervening changes, yes. You don't have rollback rights, so you don't have the "rollback: 2 edits" tool that people with rollback rights have. But rollback and undo are conveniences. One can still make exactly the same edits without them. Also note that the rollback tool, which doesn't give one the option of providing an edit summary, is not for situations such as this. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Drmies, could you perhaps have a look at the recent history of this article and the comments that I posted on User talk:Yoko Hashimoto and User talk:Mallneck. I have now done several reverts and although I think that I technically am still adhering to 3RR, I'm on the border of going over it... I think that if I would revert the latest edit, this would fall under reverting vandalism, but others may see this differently. Thanks for your frank opinion, as always. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
You have a clear COI on this issue, and if you "ban" me I will make a complaint as to that. You need to step back and let a different Admin handle this. =//= Johnny Squeaky17:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for bringing more attention to your problematic editing. Good luck with your complaint. Things will certainly improve for you once you realize you are wrong and that when you're in a hole you need to stop digging. I've asked for other admins to look into this, and I think I know where that will go. Roll tide, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry you feel the way you do, it's a very ARROGANT view. Your own words are disrespectful and taunting. This is the kind of behavior that an Admin can have? You seem to have an elitist “no one can touch me” view, but actually I’m not surprised. It is people like you who drive editors away from Wikipedia. =//= Johnny Squeaky17:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hello again; another onslaught of poorly sourced promotional edits for your amusement, this time at Charles Eisenstein. I've tacked up the templates, brought this to the BLP board, issued warnings to two accounts, to no avail. I dunno, maybe next stop page protection. Thanks for any help you can provide. Cheers, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's not like I have anything better to do. I'm beginning to think that you drop by here only to look at my tits, kinda like I used to drop by Crisco's talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
First of all, you chose this lousy administrative position. And for that we're all grateful. And you made me laugh. Really, I respect your mind. Really. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not after this: start an SPI, that's the way to go right now. Sacredresonance, Orangehues, MarieGoodwin, and mention the IP--let's clear the air a bit. In the meantime, I'll semi-protect for BLP reasons and suspicions of socking. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
For reasons lost in the mists of time, I have this on my watchlist. It seems to me that his "notability" rests on a red-linked book, which the article is aimed at promoting. I'm quite happy to swing the SD axe, but given that you and another admin have both edited this article, should I curb my bloodlust? Jimfbleak - talk to me?10:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The Admin's Barnstar
Like you really need another one of these. Still, you're practically fishing for this, and somewhere the guidelines must say something about keeping the admins happy. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Sakine Cansiz at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Done. I also added the image as you requested on the nomination page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
. And I can see on your userpage you are still doing the Tiresias thing. At the risk of heteronormativitism, I must say that your husband might possibly be very happy to have a wife so well versed in College football.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
