User talk:Drmies/Archive 47

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello user Drmies. I am the original creator of this page. Thank you for your concerns. I have worked extensively with user GATechnical and several other users to make this new entry compliant. The page was originally rejected for not being unique or notable enough to warrant its own page. Much of the detail added relates to notable supporters over the years who are of great prominence including Walter Gretzky, Douglas Porter, Johnny Bower and many others.

The level of detail is meant to chronicle the club's history and is not intended to be promotional. Perhaps we can work on any of the semantics you find questionable. The detailed chronology is a factual representation of work completed. Service clubs by definition are agents of good works, so to construe a listing of good works as promotion is misguided. No offence.

Notable supporters alone I understand is not enough to justify a club's own page. However, the Milton club in particular is unique and notable among worldwide Rotary clubs for its demographics. The greatest of these demographic trends is increasing club membership while worldwide service club membership is decreasing, especially in North America. All of this is fact and supported by references in the article. For your information here is the notable attributes:

Situated in Milton, Ontario, the fastest growing community in Canada since 2001 (71.4% growth 2001-2006 and 56.4% growth 2006-2011), in one of the largest population concentrations in North America, southern Ontario's Golden Horseshoe, giving it explosive potential for membership growth (in six months club membership has grown by 30%). This is bucking worldwide trends as many clubs' membership numbers are in complete "freefall". Selected to be one of fewer than 200 clubs worldwide (0.0058% of all clubs) to participate in a Rotary International pilot program that supports member diversity by allowing the club to hold two weekly meetings via a satellite club instead of one (a breakfast meeting and a supper meeting) to attract different types of members (small business owners vs. commuting professionals). As a result the Milton club's membership is now 35% female and 17% visible minorities. Prior to 1990, the club was 100% white male Rotarians. For its early adoption among Rotary clubs and widespread, effective use of social media (Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, Website, etc.) For selecting one of the youngest club presidents in Rotary International for the 2014-2015 year who will be aged 31 by the time he holds office. Worldwide members under the age of 39 years old make up only 11% of total global membership.

From a purely objective standpoint, this club deserves its own page. Over two months of edits and justifications have been made in support of this page, not just by myself, but others as well who are unaffiliated with the club. I cannot see a flood of individual Rotary clubs being able to justify their own pages if that's the concern.

Thank you. Rod McLachlan (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Dear Mr. McLachlan, you are welcome to voice your support for the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rotary Club of Milton: deletion or retention will be a community decision. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Really? Ya always gotta make me go look stuff up? Ya couldn't have just said "posthaste"? Latin..German..Spanish..bla-bla-bla. Geesh. Too much work around this joint. — Ched :  ?  20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Ha, I looked it up myself to see if I would problematize anything, and saw that we have one meager occurrence. I'm telling you, though, that it's a perfectly normal expression in the motherland! Drmies (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't really know what I've done to leave this chap feeling aggrieved (I probably deleted an article about a YouTube artist he created under another account. Or something.) but seeing as he's just carried on with the hoax theory rubbish, I've indef blocked him. If you think this is a stupid idea, feel free to unblock as an older and wiser admin. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Older? possibly. Wiser? not likely. But I don't disagree. Fringe couple with threats coupled with edit-warring, basta. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

New favourite word... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

My father was fond of using it. He loved Italy, and it was his version of the Non du père. Would you believe we didn't have that redirect until just now? Das gibt's doch nicht! Drmies (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you could look at Perfect hash function and the editor whom I keep reverting and let me know your views. I'm about to block him, but I'd feel more comfortable doing so after someone else has looked at it. A few noes. He removed warnings from his talk page. He left a dissertation on my talk page that I removed because, among other things, it left an unholy mess. One of the things that really ticks me off is not only citing to himself (repeatedly), but when he added all those cites, he put the one pre-existing cite that wasn't his publication and moved it to the bottom. I suppose that shouldn't be dispositive, but it certainly doesn't help his credibility. Finally, the template warnings I've left him aren't the best; it's really a hybrid between spam links and self-promotion, but because the pubs aren't actual links, I've been using the promotional warning. A bit lazy on my part. I should probably have personalized the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Wow. This deserves a prize. I don't know, Bbb--I don't have the frustration of having had to deal with this editor and I can certainly understand your feeling the need for a block. Competence (in Wikipedia matters) appears to be lacking, yes, but I don't know if I'd block. Look, I just came out of two long classes and am not the most rational person at this moment. Maybe someone else can be nice enough to have a look: I have the feeling I can't see straight right now, possibly because I can't see straight right now. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Heh, he just left a demanding note on my talk page that I reinstate his edits immediately. I guess I didn't do it immediately enough for him because before a minute had elapsed, he'd reinstated his own edits. I could warn him about edit-warring, but although I haven't breached 3RR, I'm not much better than he is on that score. I know shit about the subject matter, and I'm not sure I have the energy to deal with him. I supposed I could report him somewhere - not sure where is best - but probably won't. Maybe one of your talk page stalkers will jump in, or maybe User:Glrx, who reverted once, will come back. I hope your vision improves. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Which is what happened. Both! Drmies (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Everyone helped - Glrx, BWilkins, and you - for which I'm grateful. I'm going off-wiki now to enjoy dinner and relax. Thanks a lot.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Bon appetit. Do you think you can beat chicken soup and dumplings (all homemade), with avocado and hot sauce? Drmies (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Drmies, I picked you because I saw you're currently editing. Could you please review the statements made by User:Lowkeyvisioninthis sequence of diffs? I believe that they probably merit revdel'ing, and that the editor should be warned. I'm quite involved myself, however, and so I can't act, and could very well be clouding my judgment. But I think that accusing 2 groups of being comparable to Nazis and the KKK, and asserting their absolute guilt of terrorism despite a lack of conviction on that is a problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Well, actually, I'm watching the Colbert Report (I'm a friend of the show). But you know. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Well. I suppose I'm a nay-sayer tonight. I don't think RevDel is appropriate here. Your editor is clearly soapboxing here, but I don't think it's "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive". I'll leave a note saying that. Sorry, Qwyrxian, if that's less than you hoped. Maybe Bbb is finished with dinner and will deliver a more stern judgment... Drmies (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know, I have posted the result of the discussion on the Arbcom noticeboard talk page.[1] The result was not to grant talk page access. The page has become very active, and I did not want you to miss the response. Thank you for your kind words. Risker (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Risker, I just saw that and left a note (a redundant one, I suppose) on Ottava's talk page. Thanks for letting me know. As an aside, I read a whoooole bunch of other stuff on that page. Can it be true that someone was blocked for linking to Wiki...acy? I mean, fo shizzle? Maybe it's too late and my brain is impaired. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • It's a long and complicated story and has more to do with *what* was linked and the message that accompanied the link. Speaking personally, and having been around long enough to have seen the damage caused to the project by the original BADSITES practices (not to mention the rebound popularity of the "forbidden" sites), I am not particularly in favour of knee-jerk removal of all links to such sites. On the other hand, I'm also pretty much opposed to providing them with much of a platform here, particularly given the poor quality of their blogs and the discourse in the forums. Unfortunately, WO has never really been terribly valuable as a criticism site, unlike Wikipedia Review in the 2008-2011 era. It's been pretty obvious for a while that a lot of the links people were adding that led back to WO pages were being inserted in the hope that they'd recruit more readers and participants. Guess they've got their wish now. Risker (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

TY from me as well Risker. I know I can be a real pain in the patuckus .. but I really do appreciate everything you do. — Ched :  ?  05:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree: Ched is a royal pain. Woof! Drmies (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

LOL ...yea .. tru dat ... and Thank you to Drmies. The efforts you go to in caring about others is a joy to see. (now hopefully I can find some OS person to suppress that) — Ched :  ?  06:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have been told that "Lentz' icons" is correct "at least in American English". Thoughts? Is this one of those not grammar, but style arguments? LadyofShalott 16:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, want to think about fully protecting Robert Lentz? Two other editors have (I think) each hit 3 revert in another matter. Because of my involvement (albeit not in that particular argument), I should not use the tools. LadyofShalott 16:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done Tell me to use my tool and I comply gladly. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just caught your double entendre. My fevered brain is slow on the uptake today. LadyofShalott 17:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

? Me? Drmies (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• In order: not that I know of (and see this). Of course. Yes. To answer the last: there is convention, which is an aspect of style. It suggests that "back in the day" an apostrophe alone was enough after a sibilant--one finds this in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, "Possessive Puzzles"--but the modern way of doing it is simply adding apostrophe+s (see Essentials of English Grammar 14.6). The Oxford English Grammar, 11.32, confirms the combination of the two and adds that Moses and Jesus are two exceptions since they already have two sibilants, and "traditionally" also Greek polysyllabic names that end in a sibilant (Aristophanes, Socrates). But in true descriptive fashion it also cites "Dickens' novels" and "Jones' children". To answer the real question, I have seen no evidence that this is allowed or current in American English, but "grammar", of course, provides no real answer. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks and thanks. LadyofShalott 16:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Could you clarify your answer? You see no evidence which way? Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • I have seen no evidence that "Lentz' icons" has currency in American English. That's not to say there's no evidence--but I haven't seen it. What I do know is that there is no rock-solid agreement on whether or not to use apostrophe+s after a sibilant, though it seems that consensus is that in general the s is to be used. But I'm a descriptive grammarian, if I'm a grammarian at all. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• This site indicates the division of thought about the issue now, apparently, but recommends against the usage of an additional s: [2]. This would be consistent with the usage taught to me in an American elementary school, which was that the apostrophe alone would be used after an s or z. But I still use "whom", which is rarely heard now. Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't see that recommendation at all--in fact, it seems to suggest the opposite by pointing out that it's "some writers" who advocate s-lessness. As far as I know, if there was any standard in the US, let's say in the days when you were in elementary school (wild guess), it would have been Strunk and White, and they do advocate the s. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • If it was their format back then, they might have changed. Consider this site, which make the s-less possessive normative, but accepts the other form: [3]. Ultimately, it does seem consistency is the major factor. Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • In matters where either is acceptable, we typically defer to the style/preference of the article creator. In this case, I am she. LadyofShalott 19:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• If only that were true, as I find that MOS:TIES gets quoted by many editors of a British or Australian persuasion in articles regarding their compatriots. But I can respect the MOS:RETAIN, certainly in this minor matter. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I usually choose to simply defer to the Lady, on the general principle that we're all fallible/fallen but she's more beautiful than me and a librarian to boot. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Hah, Drmies. Fair point, Daniel. FWIW (if anything) I'm also American, and the elementary school rule I learned was that a single word always takes apostrophe s; it didn't matter the ending letter/sound. <shrug> LadyofShalott 20:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

For what little it's worth, prescriptive grammar being almost always open to repudiation, there are two rival schools of thought on the possessive of words ending in sibilants: (1) Go consistently by form: if the word already ends in s, add only the apostrophe, otherwise add 's (Jesus', Felix's) (2) go by sound: if you say an extra syllable, add -s, otherwise add only the apostrophe (Jesus's (for most people, but pronunciation varies), Felix's, Lentz's, but Socrates', Moses', Melendez'). The false assumption that everyone says words the same has led to some of the conflicting advice, but version (1) has spawned an even more consistent version, the one the Lady was taught. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Deliberately and repeatedly linking to the same article that outed an editor, then pretending he didn't know what a functionary was referring to when they asked for him to stop, is trolling. MZM knew exactly what he was doing; any other editor would have been blocked for the same POINTyness. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• OK, thank you. What editor, say an editor like me, who cares about what articles look like and stuff like that, would want to touch any of this ArbCom stuff with a ten-foot pole? I read somewhere (won't say where, or who wrote it) that "[Editor X]'s gross misconduct here is more than ironic, given his vehemence in the [Editor Y] appeal case that [Editor Z] be banned for identifying to [Founder of Wikipedia W] [Editor Y]'s employer". We're running a soap opera here. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Not wanting to is a pretty sane response :) I tend to think of the role of arbitrator as "we deal with the drama so you don't have to." The majority of editors don't ever get involved in arbitration and happily tinker away improving articles, collaborating effectively and solve disputes on their own, and not giving a damn about the latest kerfluffle, and that's a good thing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

...for arbs :) --regentspark (comment) 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, for the project. We're supposedly here to build an encyclopedia, not to be a model community or a fucking debating society. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, RegentsPark, I'm more bothered by the professional drama mongerers, who may well have created the need for a Ministry of Truth. One ArbCom member was blasted somewhere for not having done much in the way of article creation--sure, but we have dozens of editors who frequent the boards, including the ArbCom boards, and don't write shit either, and the very fact that one can refer to "content admin" means--well, we all know what it means. David, I hope you see I'm not necessarily blaming ArbCom for the ArbCom stuff. I do think you should unblock MZ, by the way; I think in the long run such blocks do more harm than good. Actually, I know they do. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just kidding guys. Thought that was obvious. (Some of my best friends are arbs!) Sorry. Couldn't resist another quip!--regentspark (comment) 20:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alright, that's enough kidding out of you. RegentsPark, do you know that my first meaningful wiki-conversations were with you? It came out of disputes regarding Arundhati Roy. I'm glad at least one of my first encounters wasn't with an asshole, and I sure hope I didn't come across like an asshole to you. And as if pointing the way toward my future on Wikipedia, discussions about that article involved now-banned users and sock masters like Bharatveer and Mbhiii. Thanks for the help, way back when and still. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Oh my... eh, I know. We need "content arbitrators". Up for the challenge? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you mark this page for deletion per "Not an actual radio station per FCC records, does not enjoy the same notability other stations under WP:NMEDIA and prior consensus." Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Homer, I think you should just take this to AfD. I reverted to an earlier spam-free version. If you're a fan of terrible writing, this makes for good reading. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I wasn't sure with my restrictions, if I could take it to AfD. Didn't want to get in trouble. :) Also, been insanely busy off-line of late with a family emergency, which I hope is calming down. I will, though, post the page to AfD. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WODU, and done. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Have you been on a date with RadioFan yet? Drmies (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • LOL! :) I helped RadioFan over the years as he(?) learned the ropes, so he(?) kinda pops up wherever I am. He(?) has actually turne dinto a good editor in his own right. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I left a comment at this talk page DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC).Reply

• Thank you DGG: well put. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You know that discussion where someone refuses to listen...? All I can say is wow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Ha, I said I was done so I won't look at it again. Hey, MQS, nice of you to drop by! How have you been doing? Still kicking it West-Coast style? I had a new thing for dinner, a Korean dish, consisting of raw fish, hot rice, super hot sauce, and two metric tons of lettuce. I feel so healthy I could puke! Drmies (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Tasted as good as it sounds, huh? LadyofShalott 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Here's the thing, Lady: it was cheaper than what Mrs. Drmies ordered (score!), and I impressed her with my consumption of greens. But it was a chore. Odd, how eating 63 chicken wings (and bacon and cheese-covered fries) is easier than a big bowl of lettuce. But it was a fun thing to eat and it looked very colorful. Rosie ate the tofu and seaweed in her miso soup and Sip ate a tempura-fried sweet potato, so we made progress today. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • I like miso and tempura, and even lettuce. You can keep the raw fish though. LadyofShalott 02:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Really? And you're like totally hip and liberal! What is this world coming to... Hey, check it out... Drmies (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
          • Yeah, well... I continued my tour of various chicken soups tonight. Anyway, the poetry month sounds like fun. Are you introducing some/all of those folks? LadyofShalott 03:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
            • Hmm don't know yet. I think Barbara will probably introduce Walker (who is incredibly goodlooking), and she'll probably do the other event as well. She's a poet, after all: Barbara Wiedemann. I look forward to the last event--it's in an old Baptist church, now converted into a theater. I'll leave tickets for you and a date (maybe Amadscientist?) at the door. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are two e-mails Drmies.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Read 'em both. Thanks for being on the ball. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

And as a thank-you for helping remove that, here's something that needs little uncovering. With thanks to Bbb, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Have I mentioned I'm not straight. Hahaha. But thanks. As an artist I can still appreciate beauty in any form. --Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ooops--sorry, I thought you were a girl... Drmies (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I updated my gender a while back. (That makes Dennis laugh)--Amadscientist (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Funny: I expressed a similar desire to Mrs. Drmies the other day. She just raised an eyebrow; she no longer laughs at or with me. I see that you and Dennis are still in the bunny phase--lovely! (Messing with Dennis is one of my few joys here--besides peeking at 99's nipples.) Drmies (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

and I wonder if you'd realized that Category:Historical rape victims was G4 deleted 4 days after creation. LadyofShalott 19:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I don't know why that bothers me so much. I had another look at some of the arguments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#Category:Rape_victims and I don't buy the counter argument. Have you seen Category:Crime victims? I think that a discussion from 2007 really shouldn't be our guideline. I mean, some guy says, "blp concerns; not a defining characteristic of a person; it's an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". That would apply to any category involving people--and the tabloid comment was pulled out of somewhere where the sun don't shine. Apparently we can handle all kinds of BLP categories, including Jewishness, blackness, gayness, even gender (!), but not this one? There's some talk in the closing statement about Dekkappai (talk · contribs) who mentioned research--that was not played up enough. I think the category should exist even if solely for that reason: who were victims of this crime, in a given time and place, etc? Surely teachers have assigned, and readers and students have been interested in, cases like Lucretia and Artemisia Gentileschi and Tamar (2 Samuel) and Bathsheba (see [4]) and et cetera. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Clearly it's a category with which we'd have to be careful (as is that case for lots of categories). I'm not convinced by the deleting admin's statement that historical rape victims is identical to rape victims because "all rape victims are 'historical'". I don't think that washes. LadyofShalott 00:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • OK, Good Olfactory has given their blessing to recreation. Now here's the thing. What about that name? From where I'm sitting (across from the history department), "Historical" is a perfectly appropriate adjective for what I have in mind, but I wonder if that's universal. If I do recreate it I'll expand on that note. Any opinions on the name? Talk page stalkers? IP 99 et alia, do you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Nothing better than "historical" occurs to me, but I'm open to suggestion about that as well. I read the discussion on Good Olfactory's page, and I had just realized the deletion had taken place, and I use my watchlist all the time. The deletion was on Dec. 28 - it seems particularly easy for one line in a watchlist to be missed during that time of year. I only found it when I was paring down my list some today, and saw that the category was redlinked. LadyofShalott 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • As it stands, we have women (at least Artemisia Gentileschi, I haven't checked beyond her so far) in Category:Rape. That is in no way preferable to a proper category. LadyofShalott 03:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Category:Persons who were raped? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
          • Ugh, I can't really see that as an improvement, Crisco. LadyofShalott 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
            • Well, there's always Category:Rape victims. I agree with the deleting admin that "historical" was unnecessary. Who's to decide when something becomes historical? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
              • Heh, and the circle is completed. :) I don't particularly have a problem with that name. We were just trying to eliminate some of the reasons for objecting to the category when it existed as such. LadyofShalott 01:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
                • I'd support that category. You're right that "rape" isn't a good compromise. It's just too broad, and could hold rapists too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
                  • Oh, "historical" is not unnecessary at all, Criscinho. Have access to the OED? Meaning 1.b: "Having or likely to have great historical importance or fame". Yeah, yeah, editorial judgment and all that, subjective, sure--but I'd support a "dead for more than a century" clause. As a matter of fact, I support that for all topics. Seriously, Crisco, who decides? Reliable sources. In this case, books, big fat old leatherbound books. OK, "Rape victims" it is. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... dead for more than a century... that would be a somewhat sparse category considering our systemic bias. On a side note (somewhat tangentially related... very tangentially), I can't believe we don't have an article on the njai. Surely you, Drmies, as a Dutch man, are familiar with the njai? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• My native mistress is called "wifey", Crisco. Plus, we've been married almost ten years and I still haven't slept with any of my students or the secretary. Or any of my colleagues. Or the dean. Or the neighbor. Haha, I like to joke that the biggest weddings lead to the fastest divorces--we got married for $85, if I remember correctly. Hey, you know more about my culture than me. I'll have a look to see if I can find some easy sources, but my brain is a bit fried today. Besides the WP crap, I been reading academic articles on The Piano Teacher (novel),^{[disambiguation needed]} with lots of Lacan and psychoanalysis, and doing taxes. Hey, Chris, do you know any historical rape victims? You're in a part of the world whose culture I am much less familiar with. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • There's a case here that may be notable, as it was adapted for film and it started a polemic about the children of politicians getting away with pretty much everything (she was ultimately blamed), but I can't remember her name right now. It was a good twenty to thirty years ago and, if I'm not mistaken, happened here in Yogyakarta. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Sum Kuning, c. 1968. Film was Perawan Desa. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Hmm. Well, write it up... And what to do with the cases listed in Rape in India? That they are important hardly needs proof. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • I've got a (somewhat less depressing) article in the works. But one of my sources is on loan to a friend at the moment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Would the scope admit figures like Cassandra? davidiad { t } 02:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
          • Yes, that is exactly the kind of subject I had in mind. Please add the category, and to others you (you're a classicist!) can come up with. Ha, Rape of the Sabine Women isn't really eligible. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
          • Tell you what, going through a bunch of articles to see if the category is appropriate was an eye-opener. How many people know about Franca Viola?Drmies (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

... and as I knew would happen, the category didn't last a day at Cassandra.  davidiad { t } 22:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nope ... misread the diffs on my phone ... I still expect objections.  davidiad { t } 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Threat_from_Administrator Apparently it is a threat to tell a clueless SPA editor that persisting in a fruitless, pointless and baseless accusation might have consequences. Fladrif (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• The joys never end, Fladrif. Thanks for keeping me posted. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • By the way, you've been accused of using fowl language. You can't make this stuff up, you know. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't criticize another editor's spelling, grammar, punctuation or diction. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that you proofread anything before hitting "Save Page". Nor is there a Mendoza Line that requires that one's IQ exceed one's weight. There isn't even a requirement that one's IQ exceed one's age. Fladrif (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

99, you're making reference to the tits in my edit notice, no doubt. Fladrif, fortunately my IQ still exceeds my age, but not by much. I figure I got three or four more years. It's a tricky position anyway, since one is crushed from both sides, my IQ dropping by at least ten points every year: "I dare not move my dim eyes any way, / Despair behind, and death before doth cast / Such terror." Drmies (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Hey, we can't use fowl language? Chick**, *urk**, ***ble... by George, he's right! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Crisco, you're a motherfucker. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

No criticism of spelling intended, as it's not a cardinal sin anyway. And don't brag, Drmies. I'm quite certain my IQ's lower than yours. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Careful, Drmies. The whole fowl language thing might go tits up. People'll rail on you for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• (edit conflict) While you guys go on and on about birds and tits (as usual), has anyone ever looked at the "instructions" at WP:EAR? Does it say anywhere what kinds of problems are appropriate for the noticeboard? It does have a bullet about what NOT to post (typical of Wikipedia, btw), and even that is wrong, as one is not supposed to post conduct issues at WP:DRN (I'm gonna change that bullet).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Bbb, "as usual"? I think you're overexaggerating. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• I just discovered I have no clue how to change that bullet. Does anyone know what I have to edit to do it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Header Writ Keeper (t + c) 01:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• WK, you were too fast. :p [5] LadyofShalott 01:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• WK is a saint, a know-it-all saint. :-) Thanks to both of you. I'll have you know that on my own I found the editnotice applicable to EAR and changed that as well (same change).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Left a trail of breadcrumbs to ANI for Wombat.[6] Popcorn? Fladrif (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fowl language, eh? Clucking hell. - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• On the internet you can't flip someone the bird . 99.137.210.226 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• 99, it took Mrs. Drmies's sharp, young eyes to find the bird. It's a beaut! BTW, she's an English teacher and she's enjoying all your jokes immensely. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Mrs. Drmies is an English teacher? I didn't know that. So who teaches whom? Don't bother; I already know the answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• It's worse: her mother is one too! And they're both wrong, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Dear Mrs. Drmies, on Wikipedia we have an expression: "don't feed the trolls". My suggestion is you stop feeding Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Hey, all, have a look at the category question above and see what you think. Crisco, you're supposed to know something about content; consider the name please. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'll never forget this one, from when I was a kid [7]. Couldn't believe it, and who'd a thunk it: a Dolphin flipping the bird. By the way, Drmies, you actually let Mrs. read the posts on your talk page? Man, if Ms. 99 read mine it'd be curtains. I tell her I'm sexting with Ukrainian emigres. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

What was the term we use for, you know, the editors who retire in a huff and then unretire and then et cetera? I'm asking cause Mrs. Drmies is on a Baby Board (it's hilarious! I just learned about unicorns that shit rainbows!), where they use the expression "hairflip" for those who run off leaving lengthy messages and stuff. I wonder if we could start employing that term here. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why not? LadyofShalott 02:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Yeah, my unicorn poops rainbows"--that's what you say when someone talks about how perfect their life and babies and marriage and all are. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well there's an image that begs to be painted. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Dermis, I am trying to remove some inappropriate or unwanted content displayed on the Al Ahliyya Amman University page, which is intended to create a bad image about our institution. So please review the content which I have removed and accept the removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.167.139 (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I can't let you do that. See the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

From this link, we shall notice that each participating player was registered under the member associations (country), is this still inadequate to prove they are represent for the country rather than present individually? --Aleenf1 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't change matters. In many of those cases the national association may be involved, one way or another (if only for compliance with doping regulations etc), but that doesn't make it national representation in the way that the Olympics or a European/Asian/world tournament is. Note also that, if I read it correctly, you can have double teams with players of mixed nationalities. BTW, I have no intention of going through all those articles to pluck out the flags. Also, The tampan is still active as an IP editor; you may have noticed I blocked another one, and reinstated the first block on the registered account, now for two weeks. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can have mixed nationalities for doubles event, but it doesn't make sense if the players not represent for country. Read this, each tournament organiser (host association) will send an invitation letter to member associations rather than player itself, than only player can submit the entry to represent the member association. Make sense? --Aleenf1 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Drmies, first thank you for all of your help with User:The tampan. It is greatly appreciated. Second, regarding the flags, when players are announced at BWF Super Series events they are announced as "representing Denmark", etc. I do think displaying a players flag twice, as was done at 2013 BWF Super Series, is too much and you were right to remove them, but for the individual articles I do believe they belong given the BWF announces them as representatives of their country at BWF sanctioned events.--MorrisIV (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Morris--thing is, all athletes always get announced with their country, but that doesn't make it a national representation in the sense of MOS:FLAG. This matter came up in regard to MMA events not too long ago, and you can see the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts: search for "flag" and you'll find at least two mentions--one for infoboxes for individual athletes (I've removed a couple for badminton players already) and one for tables with results, where references is made to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons] (or, MOS:ICON). Now, I can grant you that there is much more international organization in badminton and other sports than in MMA, but I still do not believe that this is of the level of Olympics or World Championships. Plus, I read MOS:FLAGBIO conservatively. I am one of those editors who finds those flags needlessly distracting; they serve no purpose but evoke nationalistic feelings (hey! there was a Dutch player there!) and their colorful aspect takes away from the things that matter.

On a related note: the Badminton WikiProject has nothing on the topic. Maybe you guys should take this up and establish a guideline. There is an important RfC (yet to be closed), at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons--and if I do a rough reading, I see consensus leaning my way (you know now what my way is). Obviously, I won't be closing this RfC. :) Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Request_for_specific_linked_examples_for_further_discussion indicates where it might go. Anyway, take this up with your project and see what develops. It's a good idea to have a guideline, whichever way it might go. Thanks to both of you, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

BTW, consider keeping me posted if you run into The tampan editing from an IP address again. It's very irksome: I'm sure they could be a positive editor if they'd stop screwing around being incommunicado and persisting in rather stupid edits (they keep changing a Muhammad to a Mohammad, necessitating a redirect, for instance). Maybe one of you can bring them to the table. If they persist, it's an indef block waiting to happen, and semi-protection for all those articles they're working on. They need to abide by the MOS and by consensus, and they need to start doing edit summaries and communicating on talk pages. Chances are, it's another fifteen-year old who is bashful about communicating in a non-native language, but zealous enough to disrupt on a grand scale. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is clearly written in the guidelines, that flags should indicate the sportsperson's representative nationality. I have never seen an international sports competition on TV, in encyclopedias, simply everywhere, where the nationality is not listed. --Florentyna (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• The only thing that says is that the flag should indicate the representative nationality in case of doubt, dispute, et cetera. It doesn't say that there should be a flag, and you shouldn't be surprised to find that our guidelines aren't the same as those of other places. Then again, I don't see a lot of TV competitions where flag icons are used so frequently (well, excessively abundantly) as in some articles here. Please read the guidelines more carefully. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please don't forget to log the block of CSDarrow.--v/r - TP 17:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Gotcha--thanks. BTW, it seems that my block was pretty mild compared to some others... Drmies (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks. It is what it is. It's called uninvolved admin discretion for a reason and so your block can't really be determined mild because it's within the acceptable range :). I don't know your experience in enforcing article probation, but in the future you might check the log first. This one doesn't, but some probations specify a minimum restriction as well.--v/r - TP 17:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Will do. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey Drmies, hope all is well withy ou. Just wanted to give you a heads up that I issued a warningtoUser:186.207.133.169 after this edit. It was clear vandalism, so I issued what was essentially a Warn1 warning. I hope that this doesn't cross over any of my restrictions, if it does, I will revert it posthaste. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Homer! Always nice to see you. I had to do a bit of re-reading, including User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive12. Vandalism was one of the sticky points, but I think that your edits have been sufficiently boring (by which I mean not generating drama) that we can trust you with it. If needs be, re-read that discussion, as painful as it may be, keeping in mind that there were dissenters even last time, when I brought this up at ANI. If you can continue to live with 2R, and can be satisfied with giving templated vandalism warnings and the occasional report at AIV, then that's fine with me. I've been thinking about rollback--perhaps you can go through the normal channel to regain permission: that really should be a decision made by others, not by me. Thanks, and take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • LOL! My friends always said my liking radio stations (and radio station articles) were boring, now I have written proof. :) Though I never thought they were "sufficiently boring". LOL! :D Anywho, I don't think there will be a repeat performance by that editor or the need for further warning. I figure it was a bored kid using a proxy to removing things from Wikipedia. I will, though, forward any future edits to the page to you so I don't get close to 2RR, just to play it safe. :) Take Care and Have a Good Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I may not be in the right place, so please forgive me if you are the wrong admin to seek out. I was brought to your page because of a warning you sent to User:Johnny Squeaky for disruptive editing and personal attacks.

The point in dispute is the IPC section in the Medgar Evers article. User:Johnny Squeaky is trying to tag the section as trivia when it is in fact a presentation of some significant works that deal with Evers' death. Two other editors and I have removed the tag, and I have pointed out to this editor that there is a functional consensus not to include the tag. I have tried to engage this editor on the Talk page (under "Edits June 2011" because that is where JohnnySqueaky posted his remarks) and asked for a response, but he keeps overriding the reverts with assertions about IPC sections that are, at the very least, neither welcoming nor collaborative.

I am not requesting a block on this editor at all but rather an intervention in the editing of the article. There is a de facto consensus against this tag, and JohnnySqueaky is ignoring it. I'm not sure that this is an area in which you could be of help, but any assistance or advice you might be able to offer would be appreciated.Sensei48 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ĉu fakte vi nomo estas mallongigo de "DoktoroMi Esperas"? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Oranĝa MiĉjoReply

• No, it isn't--Uncle G proposed a fanciful reading of it; it's still somewhere in the archives. I'll look it up after taking care of some important business. Gracias! Drmies (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I've always though it was self-deprecating.  davidiad { t } 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Ha, that's how my German ex-gf joked about me, when all was still well. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin has a new SPA ranting excessively. He actually has some decent suggestions, but insists on making accusations of a cabal and bias. Hes single handedly doubled the length of the article talk page currently, with highly repetative rants and accusations. Could someone send a warning and some guidance his way? the suggestions from the article editors seem to not be going anywhere in that regard. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'll be glad to, but it'll take me a while: dinner is ready, and then it's bath time etc. Is Dennis on the clock? Drmies (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • will check. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Oh, you mean Betsyross--I though maybe you meant the IP. Whoa, yes that's a lot of ranting. I'll drop a warning of some sort, but it's likely you're dealing with another crusader who's already lost to the cause. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • I also left a note, then removed the double breaks on that talk page. It was making my eyes sad. Been a long hard day, going to grab a beer, hop into bed and watch an hour of TV with Mrs. Brown. This is the center of the peak of my busy time of year, I'm a bit cranky, so you don't want me around here too much anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Thanks Dennis. Hey, I'm watching Woody Woodpecker with the girls--they love it, and I enjoy it too. Take it easy, and give my regards to Mrs. Brown. Did you get the CD I sent you? Barry White's Greatest Hits?Drmies (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

obvious sockpuppetry from the betsy, if one of you would like to intervene. Based on the other policy violations, id go for an all around ban myself, but I suppose thats why im not an admin :) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Well, yeah, sure. I left the new one a note. Let's see if Dennis feels like blocking tomorrow. If y'all hadn't jumped on the latest comments, I'd just have reverted it as soapboxing. I don't know, Gaijin. I suppose you could start an SPI, which would have the advantage of making the next one easy to get rid off. Maybe I'm just tired of dealing with a**holes; damn, even my kids were nicer than some of the people I ran into here today. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betsyrossmadison did you drop your admin bit? (Just wondering why you keep defering to dennis) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Dennis is a real man, unlike me. Also, he has a sidejob at SPI, and he's a nicer guy. No, I blocked, I don't know, a half a dozen? a dozen? accounts and IPs today. It's like being an executioner--it gets a little bothersome after a while, and after a day full of bullshit I tend to stay on the safe side. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned you at ANI, Drmies. I think we are done helping them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well then, I've got a puzzle for you: Is Killwhitneydead notable, and likewise the mess of articles covering their albums? None are sourced, and all appear to be impressive copyright violations, or just blatant ads. Does the entire crop merit speedy or a group AfD? And how's the new fence coming? 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• You and deathcore? Never figured you as a fan of blast beats. I just bought a 2x400W amp, so I can handle it. I'm inclined to say scrap 'em all, after a quick look. I found Gunmetal Angel in one of the histories, and they know metal; my go-to guy is always Blackmetalbaz, whom I usually have to pull out of semi-retirement, but he always comes through. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Me? Nah. I thought deathcore was a high velocity weapon made from apples. By the way, don't look now (by which I mean: look), but LadyofShalott is the latest to inherit the abuse. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I saw--I won't pile on. Hey, I redirected all those albums. The Stocking Stuffher thing (what an offensive title) had a nice cover. Put the band article up at AfD and see what happens... Drmies (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• One caveat: if a band has a couple albums with a notable label, they're notable (so we had to keep Creepmime, despite the complete lack of secondary sources). But the notability of Tribunal Records is not yet a given--and a label is notable (you guessed it) if it has a couple of notable bands on their roster. Ha, that's how you build a walled garden. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• As long as I'm IPing I can't, but I can prod it, unless you think it may merit speedy. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Or you could just, ahem, register. No, speedy won't fly. Tell you what, I'll do it, since I am not convinced of their notability either. But you'll have to do the work on it. DYK that I actually ordered a Creepmime CD, just so I'd know? It sucks! That's how much I care for this place. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Ball's in your court, 99. Have fun with it. I'm going to drink some more delicious beer. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Per: walled garden, the founder of Tribunal Records is the lead singer of Killwhitneydead. It's the bountiful circle of life. As for research, I find myself constantly having to purchase books on nudes in art as part of my work. We all make sacrifices, you know. Enjoy the beer. You've earned it. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Sometimes lately I really wonder if I should hand the admin bit in. Then a really hideous username comes up on the screen, and I zap it. Maybe I just need to unwatch most of the drama boards. Or just not edit while still recovering from the flu. Bah humbug. (several edit conflicts. Also, your talk page is >300kb, Drmies. I might as well get out all my grumps.) LadyofShalott 03:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah? Well, at least I got the girls to bed, cleaned up the kitchen, did the dishes, prepared Liam's bottles for tomorrow, and folded a bunch of laundry. Your kitchen, dear Lady, still smells of the curry you made Saturday. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Better now, Lady? Give me half an hour and I'll be there to clean up your kitchen, make you some hot cocoa, and tug you in. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, thank you, very much. LadyofShalott 04:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• A good night's sleep may do wonders. I gotta run upstairs and look after a sick Mrs. Drmies. There's one more ANI case that warrants investigation, "Threat to an editor", and I hope that someone will look into it; it won't be me and it won't be you either, dear Lady. Natti natti, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I understand what you mean. I got your message and understand that those comments showed poor judgment and lack of maturity. I shall not make comments like that again. Thank you and have a great evening. OGBranniff (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

February 27, 2013 isn't "recent", friend? How do we, then, define "recent" on Wikipedia? That question being asked, I do approve of your gentle but firm efforts to reform the reprobates. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• "Recent" in terms of "block to prevent further disruption", which is the kind of thing ANI does. Also, my dear Cullen, I just stepped on a slug, not ten minutes ago. Do you know what that does to a man? (or a woman too, I suppose.) I no longer believe the universe is benevolent. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • As you know, I live in Northern California. You may not know that I live at the edge of an open space district of several hundred acres, inhabited by all sorts of interesting critters. When walking in the dark from car to front door, or the reverse, I will often hear an unmistakable "crack" as a snail's life ends under my sole. I console myself with the realization that other snails are being born, all around me. When it is light, I watch for them. Thanks for the clarification, which makes sense. As for the benevolence of the universe, it allows you and I to live for the time being. That is good enough for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • You might not have seen this, although March 7 might not qualify as recent enough any longer either. Quale (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • No, I didn't see it. It's fairly recent, but the only real offensive thing is the edit summary, but that refers to content and not to a person. That's a pretty important difference. But look, as far as I'm concerned the case is closed, and bygones should be bygones. Future infractions (but they'd have to be serious breaches of civility, not like the cruft comment) can be deemed blockable. For now, OGBranniff said they'd refrain from offensive comments, so let's take them at their word and apply our good faith policy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Admin:Drmies, I appreciate the warning you issued as result of the ANI. Just couple things: 1) I think it's easlier to let bygones be bygones, when one isn't the subject of the deprecating comments, for me, I'm not willing to let a bygone be a bygone due to this, for which there was no apology, and no notice by any Admin. This user has also called me "stupid", "lazy", "hypocritical blowhard", "kid", "junior high schooler", and "idiot", without provocation or retaliation from me in kind, and even after I've asked him to stop with the insults and names. 2) The problems with User:OGBranniff, alluded to by Quale at the ANI, extend beyond civility, but a lack of understanding of policy and a bullishness regarding what he thinks he knows, coupled with pointy agendas. Examples are his insistence Jimmy Wales would back him re his "sluts" comment and arguing WP:NOTCENSORED, and the superficial job he has done submitting 18 AfDs on British chess players without doing any of the prescribed legwork, without any article Talk discussions, without flagging any of the articles, and exaggerated claims and thoughtless insults regarding the existence of the articles in his noms (e.g. that women players aren't inherently notable; neither are Correspondence grandmasters; a claim a professional British poker player and author writes books "nobody buys", etc.) So for me, I see a pattern of just abuse of process, causing disruption. The user came on board also with a bad experience from independent website www.chess.com, knows the management people there, and has taken aggressive action eliminating any trace of that website in WP articles. (He also was blocked as a result of dialoging comments towards editors he deemed were coming from that website.) He also has tried to garner support from User:Forgot to put name, and User:Mkdw, in effort to construct some sort of cooperative battle-barrier in anticipation of perceived grieved chess.com users coming to WP to reverse his achievements eliminating references. I don't know about you, but all of this I see as battleground, and misuse of WP. Ok, thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Ihardlythinkso, this comment is of course unacceptable (but, again, they're old and thus not really actionable on ANI). I can't judge the chess.com claims--whether they're better than a MySpace page or not; they may be, though I don't see an editorial board, for instance. Anyway, the point about chess.com is not for discussion here. As I suggested elsewhere, consensus in the relevant project is the most useful tool for countering such arguments (if "arguments" is what they are--no doubt the two sides would see that differently), and a previous block is a tool as well. But all of this really points toward an RfC/U where, armed with a. consensus and b. diffs that disruptively counter that consensus (again, if those exist--I don't want to presume that I know) one can make a case of ongoing unreasonable behavior. A discussion on the talk page of the chess project can lead to that, also to avoid the charge of canvassing, ganging up, etc. I hope that helps. BTW, if it is true that the editor claimed that women chess players are to be somehow treated differently, that's a pretty crappy kind of claim. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Drmies. The reason I said that is because women chess players are treated differently. Female players have their own titles and the requirements to attain those female titles are lower than for the standard chess titles. It's much the same as women being allowed to tee from the "red" markers (which are closer to the hole) in golf. For a purely non-physical sport like Chess, however, the different standards for women mean that the women, in effect, are being treated differently. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OGBraniff, I am happy if I misunderstood. I hope that you are editing productively and inoffensively, and that you are well. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, yes, everything is copacetic here, thank you and I hope you are well also. OGBranniff (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the slug.

I'm looking to get some informal feedback, before I try posting something at Village Pump Ideas.

Any chance you could suggest how to improve Top_ten_editors? Someone has already suggested that identifying the editors with the most edits as the "Top" editors might not be wise. I get that, and look for better wording, although the linkage to Top Ten lists is appealing to me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Sphilbrick--thank you for your concern; the talking cure seems to be working a bit. I'll have a look--I'm sorry that I'm not yet familiar with the concept.

  OK, I'm familiar with the concept now. I think it's an interesting thought. I only recently clicked on "Contributors" in an article history, and it's meaningful information. That said, I also think that the number of edits isn't necessarily the most helpful thing. All too often I have to go back to add a [; I seem to miss that key stroke very often. Now, if you look at one of Malleus's FAs you'll see that those edits are in fact worthwhile individually, and conversely, Mandarax, with his gnomish edits, makes one edit per article and improves it immensely (and not always just in a technical sense). But the basic information of a top-ten list can be quite helpful; what it means may vary greatly from one article to the next. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am in full agreement that the list of the top ten, as measured by edit count, often won't match what we might consider to be the ten best contributors to the article.

However, I am going for low-hanging fruit. In fact, I'll use you as exhibit 1. You have more experience than 99.99935% per cent of editors, and even higher in the list of readers, yet, if I read your comment correctly, you didn't know how to easily find a list of the top contributors. If you didn't know that untill recently, it is quite fair to infer than almost everyone reading does not know either.

So while it would be nice to deliver a carefully constructed list of the best contributors to each article, with 4 million articles we could start today and not be finished until, well, by then there would be 10 million articles, so if we do anything bespoke, almost by definition, we will never be done.

On contrast, delivering a list of the top ten by edit count is something a bot could do. So, not wanting the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and knowing that the perfect, or even very good is literally unattainable, I propose that we do something crude, and easy, which would deliver a lot of value.

As a compromise, I'll accept that a better list could be created in some cases. Not million, but perhaps we could start with a modest subset, such as FA articles, or Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2orWikipedia:Vital articles or the top viewed articles, and do something specific for those articles.

I want to do something that gives useful information to readers, who often ask, "who wrote this?" and give some credit to hard-working volunteers. I think this could deliver on both, without a major effort.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I rewrote slightly to excise the word "top", and to include your point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm curious to see what this will look like. Thanks, and thanks for your efforts; please keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Michael Steiner (talk · contribs)

Adding useful biographical information, or spamming? Talk page stalkers' thoughts welcome. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Looks spammy to me. LadyofShalott 15:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Me, too, though some days I'm more circumspect in pulling the trigger. Would you recommend removing the mentions as both references and external links? Thanks, 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • I recommend looking carefully before you put your foot down outside the kitchen door. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • • What makes you think I've left the bathroom? 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • The external links definitely need to go. Whether that information is interesting enough to be incorporated into the article, I don't know, but it certainly shouldn't be doen the way he's done it, in a separate line all its own with another external link in the middle. (Also, dude, it's just a slug. I've stepped on 'em barefoot before; yeah it's not the post pleasant thing ever, but c'mon.) Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Uh, eeww. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
          • WK, I've done it barefoot as well. FYI, this comes after a night in which 3/5 of my family was puking. I mopped the downstairs bathroom just an hour ago. Can you imagine what puke looks like when it comes from the upper bunk bed, and hits the lower bunk bed, and all its bedclothes, and the linen drawer underneath, and inside of it, and even under it? That was at 2AM, and I didn't have my glasses on. Also, when I rinsed out a bucket of puke at 8AM, I discovered that my seven-year old still doesn't always flush the toilet after dropping off the Cosby kids. So, I've dealt with almost every kind of slime known to man these past 12 hours. Hey! I should make Jello--it's excellent for sick people, and how appropriate! Drmies (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• I remove agent's listings immediately. Wait: that's all they're doing--that's a spam-only account. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• What a rough night, though there must be some small enjoyment in the telling of it. Otherwise, meriting a barnstar for actions well beyond those expected of an admin. If Ms. 99 asks me to so much as wash a dish I invoke the importance of my work here, which has worldwide ramifications. Needless to say I'm very popular. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since you seem so keen to undo my edits, I'll unwatch the page. Hope you're happy; nothing like being more right consistently than other editors. Tchuss. Icarus of old (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Danke. It seemed like you had a bone to pick, and as it happened I disagreed with your edits. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Drmies, I would like to voluntarily give up the rollback right for the time being. As you know, I often edit with a "smart" phone touch screen. When reviewing my watch list, it is common to accidentally hit the wrong tiny button with my large fingertips. Visiting an unintended page is no problem. On the other hand, rollback accidents are irritating and embarrassing, so until I get a better mobile device, I would like to give up this tool. Can you take care of this for me? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Consider it done. A rollback accident is indeed embarrassing. I'll give it back any time you like. Thanks, my dear Cullen, and I hope you and yours are well. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Writ Keeper noticed this transaction, and offered me some spiffy CSS code that keeps rollback off my watch list but still enabled on other pages. Wow, how cool is that? So, when I need it, I will still have it, but accidental usage should be reduced to near zero. Just another reason why your talk page is a great place. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Wow. Writ Keeper is a magician. I wish he'd delete the main page in my name. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • For what it's worth, if your rollback of my comments here a little while ago was in any way troubling, it needn't be. We've all made similar mistakes, and as long as they're quickly rectified and constitute a small fraction of one's edits, nobody takes them to heart. Parenthetically, my comments weren't vital to the encyclopedia anyway. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • I was going to make the same watchlist suggestion, which works everywhere, but I have an additional safeguard just for your mobile devices. If you add the following to your common.js (or monobook.js or whatever), any rollback attempted from a mobile device will require confirmation:

      importScript('User:Mandarax/ConfirmMobileRollback.js');

      MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

      • That's pretty neat. I usually disable JS on my browsers (it slows page loading considerably otherwise, at least on my phone), so I tend to stick with CSS-only solutions for my phones. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Hey, yes. I'll give that one a go. I've been heard to say "FFS" when using my smartie, and some people think it means other than "Fat finger syndrome". - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
• a. 99, I rolled you back? My apologies. (If it's over a week ago I probably don't remember.) b. What on earth are you all talking about? Keep your CSS and JS and FFS to yourselves, please: this is a happy place. c. A real nice teacher got all the puke out of my youngest daughter's hair: now we've all got it except for me. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • No no no, Cullen. Keep up with things, it's your talk page. And enough with the puke. You don't hear me telling you every time one of the dogs craps indoors. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Seriously, I hope everyone at casa Drmies feels better soon. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes, it was me that rolled back 99etc, and then rolled back the rollback, and then started all this rollback talk. Thanks to all who have commented. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey Drmies! You don't show your face round the India stuff as much as once you did. Fancy a change? The last sentence of this talk page edit says『I wish if any other admin can come forward and say something on this !』If you or some other admin lurking here (since an admin is what they are insisting on) wants to trawl through Talk:Ezhava#Please_Edit_this_article_ASAP and the subsequent sections then opinions would be appreciated. Yes, WP:DR has been suggested. So has WP:GS/Caste. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It seems likely that at least one other admin has also commented as a consequence of this request; perhaps, two. I've no idea if it will make any difference but some people were asking for the views of admins and now they have some. Most likely, the claim will be that all are part of a Great Conspiracy Theory but, hey, that's what I pay you for. That last is intended as a joke, stalkers: no financial or personal gain has or will occur because of this thread. The stock market may go up or down. The only sure things in life are death and taxes. If you jump off a high cliff then you'll likely kill yourself. Like me, Drmies likes the occasional beer. Et cetera. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

He isn't the only one who does this (Creates alternate history userboxes) and I'd like a larger discussion. Do you think there is appropriate, or would you rather see it elsewhere? Also, I believe that Wikipedia:User pages is the appropriate guide.Naraht (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Wait--you don't believe he was just practicing? A larger discussion is fine with me though I'm not sure if it's necessary: it will depend on how many of those sandboxes you've run into. Have you put any up at MfD? And if you want to keep that MfD running, make a comment there. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, I believe that what he was doing was creating an Infobox for displaying elsewhere and I'm interested in a discussion as to exactly what in Wikipedia:User pages is the key reason under which it could be deleted (and I don't think there is one). I'd have gone with Oppose if the MFD had remained open. In short, if an Infobox is created for Abraham Lincoln presuming he completed his second term rather than being assasinated. I'll make a comment there.Naraht (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Naraht--Wikipedia:About the Sandbox offers users leeway to experiment. But when such experiments veer into the non-historical, fantastical, imaginary, etc., then, in my opinion, WP:NOTWEBHOST comes into play, where I find the shortcut WP:UP#GAMES--I wasn't yet aware of that particular section. It seems to me, then, that Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not might be a good venue. But I think that UP#GAMES section covers it sufficiently, though one might always quibble about the term "extensive". I brought a whole bunch of user pages to MfD a few weeks ago where that would have been a good shortcut to use. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheDutches/sandbox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:IDZeroNo/I.Z. (now deleted--a set of pages related to a highly non-notable artist), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nicholasiswhoa/sandbox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Worstcook/sandbox ("Fantasy Survivor"--there's a ton of those), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DiRkdARyL/Sandbox/Survivor: Tocantins (possibly a draft), and especially Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hornean/Archive/Favorite United States Major Sports Championships and other associated sub pages for {{User|Hornean]]--Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hornean/Archive/Favorite TV Shows and a ton of others I nominated on 16 February and all of which were deleted. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

A stub just for me. Other may have their wikidays, but I have a stub for myself, now. Thank you very much. If you ever come to Brussels (which seems not so improbable, me thinks), just ping me, I owe you at least one drink of your choice, and yes, even champagne. Lectonar (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Glad to be of service. I'd never even heard of it. I'm drinking one of Belgium's best, right now: Delirium Tremens. I have fond though blurry memories of Brussels, since I brought some really good hasj on that school trip, almost 30 years ago now. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, although I am not really a beer drinker, let me point you to the products of Westvleteren Brewery. I have acquired a gueuze tooth, so to speak, and I enjoy a strong beer from time to time, always going for one of the trappistes. Actually, I get chided for that by my German friends/colleagues, who always tell me that a beer not brewed according to the all so holy Reinheitsgebot is not even worth being used for cleaning the floor. Lectonar (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The last time you were involved in this article was in conjunction with a sock (since blocked). Now we have a problem with a new WP:SPA who keep insisting on adding material that is unreliably sourced (he clearly has an agenda). I've reverted the editor 3x in 3 days and left escalating warnings on his talk page. That hasn't stopped him. As he said on my talk page, he has to add "KNOWN fact[s]." I suppose I could block him (that was my threat) but don't feel comfortable doing so without another admin's view of the issue. I could also go to BLPN (the article is very messy and I keep thinking that one day I'll sit down and go through the entire thing with a scalpel). Anyway, if you have a moment ... --Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'm actually kind of watching Girl Slaves of Morgana Le Fay, which really needs an article. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I certainly wouldn't want to tear you away from that. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• With your daughters? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Cullen, don't be crazy. This is pretty steamy--but they don't get past second base. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Fortunately, we have Baseball metaphors for sex to assist you in the parental education function. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Flat what? We have an article on that? Why isn't it an FA yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I see Crisco didn't care for fifth base or its inventor. Hmm. You'll have to excuse me, but I'm about to apply my pruning shears to that article. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• No, no I didn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

A serious question - how do we reduce drama-mongering on Wikipedia? There's clearly a class of Wikipedians who exist primarily for the drama, the debate, the politics, the testosterone and adrenaline of the fight-or-flight-or-fuck response. What I'm interested in is cutting them off at the knees and leaving them out to wither in the sun, leaving content editors to continue to build an encyclopedia. Is there any way that you see that this can be done within the constraints of Wikipedia, or are we doomed to continue with unending cycle of drama-high drama-exhaustion which have been the norm ever since I can remember?

I've thought about closing down drama boards, I've thought about blocking editors whose contributions to Wikipedia space vastly outpace their contributions to article space, but I don't know what the answer is. I just worry that if we keep going on this way, eventually the project is going to implode when the weight of the irrelevant overwhelms the weight of the productive. Any thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I do think that we need to protect our functionaries (Arb, CU, OS), or there will be nobody left to do these jobs. I mean, I've criticized Arbs before when they've done something worthy of resigning, but the way that CU and OS holders have been treated, I wouldn't be too surprised if nobody wanted to apply during the upcoming appointment round. --Rschen7754 06:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It's literally a thankless job. The same is true of admins - and I thought that well before I became an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I respect (most) admins because they do a really difficult job; I respect (almost all) Arbs because they do an entirely impossible job; I would like to meet many of the drama board regulars and ArbCom commentators at a party, so I can sucker punch them in the gut and lay them up for a couple of days, so we'd get some respite from their constant crap - that's how angry they make me. In the long run, I'd rather find a way to reduce the drama, defang the commentators, and lower my blood pressure, while maintaining a healthy colloquy within the community about the administration of the project. How? This is a genuine cri de coeur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dude, it's only a website. Maybe you should consider some time away from the screen. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) We should get rid of all male editors under the age of 25. We'll probably lose a fair number of admins but that's the price one pays for testosterone reduction. Actually, I've found a good way to reduce the drama at ANI is either (a) ignore the topic or (b) close it immediately (and block anyone who reopens it). You should take a look at this discussion - I mean, really, someone always has to respond to the endless repetition of the same points. Many Wikipedians feel that the only good argument is one that is interminable.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Sir, I say sir, I resemble that remark. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Heh, you'll just have to get older faster before we implement my dastardly scheme.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Darn! 367 days to go... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Crisco, the Signpost says you are retiring. cross fingers, knock on wood, oh pretty please Is there any truth to this? Bgwhite (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• From the Signpost, not Wikipedia. Don't have the extra 3 to 4 hours a week to pull it together anymore... I want my Wikipedia time to be relatively refreshing, like when writing about kidnapping porn stars. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• (edit conflict) As you get older, you'll find that time goes by more quickly, which makes no sense, and you'll regret not enjoying the slower temporal progression of your youth. And if that sounds mildly patronizing and a bit pompous, suck it up. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, I already feel old. I was celebrating on the way home because I just got two sources that should help me complete a push to get Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari to FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• As someone who's in the past focused on adding content, and now primarily sifts through recent changes, I think undue drama is just one component that's a drag on the project. Vandalism, soapboxing, and promotion are all immense timesinks. Chekhov likened the usefulness of art critics to the artist as that of flies to a draft horse; so too the legions who abuse the site constitute a perpetual disruptive buzz. I've long thought the solution needs to be draconian: shut the site down to all but (arbitrary number here) between twenty and fifty thousand serious and able contributors worldwide, some assigned to specific topics, others 'free-ranging', and others overseeing the project for quality and neutrality. Paying them would be nice, but if the site is recognized as reflecting consistently high-level scholarship, some who won't dip their toe in the stream now may become interested as volunteers. We'll still need admins, if only to check the egos of academics. Yes, this means an end to 'anyone can edit'....thank goodness. If we're serious about quality trumping speed, then the project won't suffer if it waits a few days before posting news on a professional sports transaction or an actor's demise. Apologies for going on a tangent that departs from Beyond My Ken's point, but the issues are interconnected. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Now my youngest daughter is sick at home. She's very cute (incredibly cute), and she's feeling well enough to chatter incessantly: it's impossible to get anything done. Mind you, she's not here "to improve the project"; in this allegory the project is my work and she has her own agenda, which in the grand scheme of things is much more important of course. That latter part does not apply to the dramah mongerers, the professional boardgamers, etc., but that doesn't take away from the allegory. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'd venture her agenda is no less vital than Wiki's. Does that leave you as the only healthy person in the house? Maybe it's a credit to beer and satirical soft porn? 99.137.210.226 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• The dog is fine as well. I'm still overcoming stuff I picked up from the kids weeks ago. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• OK. BMK, we have an "up" on ANI, it seems. That's one thing, and it can be dealt with. A couple of admins get busy and handle things quickly, and the board is quieter again--I've done it, Bbb and Dennis and Crisco and others do it as well on a regular basis. ANI problems arise for a variety of reasons, though--some of them (see Ihardlythinkso's remarks, above) because they're not really ANI problems, or aren't presented as if they are, at least not initially. Much of the "juvenile" drama happens elsewhere, BTW--see, for instance, the wonderful contributions of Johnny Squeaky, with the attendant incessant lawyering, whining, and complaining about abuse admins. A problem with such cases is that if the admin is attacked personally they are less likely to take decisive action since that has the possibility of being perceived as retaliatory, which is the only reason I haven't blocked him indefinitely yet.

  A major ANI problem, right now, is of a more difficult nature and I have no easy answers. The spillover of the Cla68 mess and the subsequent (or otherwise related) indef block of MZMcBride and possibly the resignation of Hersfold (seriously, who'd want to be an Arb these days?) generates more drama, and more important drama, than all the juvenile delinquents put together. Some jerk makes an ass of himself and occupies a bunch of people's time, that's one thing--but with Hersfold gone we also lost an admin, an oversighter, a checkuser, and Dennis will know even better than most of us how necessary it is to have a bunch of those on the clock. And what inevitably happens is that all the old grievances are rehashed. Editor X had a problem with Arb Y, which means that X must comment at length about Y in the case of Editor Z, which again prompts Editor A, who was blocked for having baited X in the edit war over article 1 two years ago, to et cetera. I don't want to name names, but there's a whole bunch of such commentary right now, and I think there's some in the Demiurge thread as well. How to stop that? And then there's something else: some people have legitimate beef with past ArbCom decisions, and have lost faith in the system, and those people want to be heard in related threads, legitimately or not. I'm surprised that no one has brought up Scientology, Santorum, or Fae in the recent threads--keywords in Wikipedia's version of Godwin's law.

  We could: a. close ANI discussions quicker, but only after thorough investigation (no one has as yet looked into "Threat to an editor by User:LarryTr7", including me). b. back each other up in handling the juvenile delinquents; we're doing that already but we could do more. c. keep ANI for incidents and maybe steer more substantial cases to AN. d. keep the non-As off of AN if you catch my drift. Not so simple:

  ad a. one might feel that complaints/incidents are brushed off; some feel that way already and it might get worse. ad b. this might well reinforce the idea of a blue wall, a cadre, a cabal--again, some feel that way already etc. ad. c this requires a kind of steering committee, possibly, to ensure that decisions are made quickly and fairly. ad d. see ad b., but worse, haha.

  I can't help but feel that the real problems are in the complicated cases (note: "cases", not necessarily "editors") from recent past and present and in no particular order--Malleus, Demiurge, Cla68, Fae, Jack Merridew, AGK, diacritics, Cirt, Youreallycan, SHIVILITY, ... Do I need to go on? The problem lies either in our governance, or in the execution and application of our governance, or in the perception of the execution and application of our governance. The problem is ArbCom, by which I don't mean the members thereof (I personally don't have a problem with any of them, and appreciate their time and energy for that thankless job) or even the way in which they collaborate--but ArbCom's relation with the rest of the editors/admins and means of operation and definition of duties. And that is something I know nothing about, besides that it's not working.

  To improve a situation, choices have to be made and not all of those are pleasant. To return to my previous allegory, in order to have some peace and quiet to record these ramblings I resorted to shitty tactics: I put on a DVD of the Kronos Quartet and told my youngest she could play iPad but had to do it quietly--so she left the room. Now I can work, but I'm deprived of her delicious presence. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Good response. Now my broad rambling above re: what's wrong in general couldn't look more out of place. I'll just pick up my briefcase and go. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• No no, not at all. I agree with the spirit of your remarks, but there's a problem with the implementation (of a draconian version)--it would be the end of the joint... On the other hand, right now I'm advocating a kind of tinkering, and one may well ask if tinkering will suffice. I don't know, 99. I'm tired of all the nonsense and drama generated by the need for speed--some people called for my head over the Trayvon Martin ado, which still isn't finished, and look on the Sandy Hook talk page for some other recent time sinking. What you're proposing is a hardcore professionalization and that's been tried before; it didn't attract enough people for it to work. Oh, last time I said something about content in an apparently impolite manner I got my ass blocked, haha. How's that for drama.

• Thanks. I'm under the weather for the second time in a month, and just hoping I'll be okay to travel and teach by the weekend. I think the best thing that can be done when a high profile/late breaking article is overrun by warring users is to lock it down and let cooler heads prevail. But then, we live in a country where people react to a chipmunk farting by loading up on firearms. I didn't know the 'professional' approach had already been floated. Another utopian idea bites the dust. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• @Drmies: Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I really do believe that one of the fundamental problems underlying a lot of the ArbCom mess is that many editors - or at least many of the most vocal squawkers - really do not want governance in any meaningful sense. There's a profoundly libertarian streak which runs through the computer programming/online world, and it manifests itself here in the editors who object to pretty much anything ArbCom does. If I'm not mistaken, there was no equivalent to ArbCom in the original Wikipedia model, it was all supposed to (in some unexplained way) be self-governing through the interactions of the constituent editors, with Jimbo the benign god-king to be the final arbiter. There was no provision for the election (horror!) of a quasi-judicial body, because that would be too much like government, and libertarians don't believe in the efficacy of government. (I'm actually surprised that no one's done a poli-sci study of Wikipedia as a model for why libertarianism would be - as my son says - an "epic failure" at running a society were anyone nuts enough to allow that to happen.)

  As long as there are editors who don't believe in the system, regardless of who's an Arb, there's going to be the constant undermining of the Committee's authority. It may perhaps be the case that in trying not to wield their power as lightly as possible, ArbCom itself reinforces the conditions that allow that undermining to continue. If we're looking at Draconian solutions, it may be that ArbCom needs to be more heavy-handed in squelching that behavior - but, of course, the backlash would be fierce, requiring more application of power, etc. etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that the replacement of the potentially omnipotent (but usually benign) divine god-king by mere mortals with limited authority is part of the problem, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, to be fair, libertarianism wouldn't fail quite so epically if we humans weren't such assholes. Omnipotent benign kings wouldn't be so bad if we humans weren't so stupid. Basically, people are a problem. Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

As usual, when the car breaks down, the part that fails is the nut behind the wheel. Which for some reason reminds me of what Churchill said about democracy, that it was the worst possible political system, except for all the others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Writ Keeper, I think it's pretty fucking funny to hear an administrator use that kind of goddamn language on my talk page, you fuckhead. I'm going to slap a civility warning on your pimply ass: you will clean up your motherfucking language or it's the end of you. Also, sure, you got a point--and this is why we need government of one type or another. But not gun control, of course. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess that's just one more reason for Bbb to ban us all. We young'uns are so liberal--or is it libertine?--with our swears. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'm just happy anytime I see the word "monger" in any context. It's also been fun recently seeing how many users are demanding to see material that oversighters have removed. I know we all believe in transparency, but when it comes to handling privacy breaches transparency is obviously a bad thing. The community, as a whole, can't seem to tell its head from its ass on these sorts of topics. They want their privacy protected, they want libel and innuendo removed from BLPs, and they want to know all about it. Somehow they don't see the contradiction inherent in that position. And <gasp> I didn't even get elected to this thankless job, I was appointed by the evil arbcom! (I was a candidate in the last attempt at electing OS and CU users. It was a disaster in that it was a secret ballot with very little discussion beforehand. We had something like nine pre-vetted candidates and none of us got elected, leaving us with no idea why.) And now it's become to much for one of the arbs and they have handed in every tool they had. I'm not at all certain they will be the only holder of advanced permissions who feels like it isn't worth it anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• (added after edit conflict: my sincere sympathies to Beeblebrox, and to Hersfold.) Poor Drmies, maybe mocking a naïve viewpoint will be a fun distraction (and I'm going to declare upfront that I recently made my first and possibly last attempt to edit an article with Pending Changes in place - the interface defeated me and I got no sympathy at the noticeboard; some of us really are bad at this computer stuff) ... I have a rather different take on it. Yes, there are drama-mongers with nothing better to do than hang around AN/I. But overall, I see the main problem as bureaucratization. This is not supposed to be a professional gig (please don't limit editing to people who can prove their credentials. We'd lose almost all the new blood, including wild cards like me, and in fact almost all the Wikidragons and the highly valued contributors, like Malleus, were unknown quantities when they started) and familiarity with parliamentary procedure and forensic debate should not be required; they are precisely the wrong kind of model for collaborative writing, and they've become the de facto modes of interaction. I've been shouted down in a discussion because I "did not seek to persuade" the editor demanding changes. I find Arbcom pages incomprehensible, there's so much lawyer-speak and the procedures are so opaque. What happens at AN/I is an awful collision of those who have a problem - whether it's their fault or not - with those who know the bureaucracy inside out and those who think they do or who like power and/or want to be admins. Of course there isn't time for examining everyone's case in detail and of course we have to have a certain amount of trust in those who do know the case. But especially since WQA was shut down, and because of the reaction against "drama", AN/I either slices and dices rapidly and not always justly, or judders for an extended period with bad feelings on all sides. It's hard to overstate how off-putting this is for the common editor; nor is it an efficient way to deal with trouble-makers either by educating them or by minimizing the damage they do. It's the showiest, most bureaucratic and most arbitrary way to solve problems, and conflicts with the message that we want people to edit, and with the objectives of keeping both experienced and new editors. And the problem is systemic. I've been mulling over whether to put my head on the chopping block over something and have concluded I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of how to go about doing it .... namely: Requests for Comment closures are damned near irreversible, because consensus is sacrosanct here. However, determining consensus is a bit of a black art. (I intentionally blew that question on my RfA because I didn't want to allude to what I still consider a bad determination of consensus.) We currently have one (non-admin) editor of whom I am aware who has decided in disagreement with the guidelines that it is very important to close RfCs with a decision - more so than to be sure they are closed correctly. One close they made has apparently been basically ignored - but it's had the side effect of driving me away from a project, and I don't think I'm alone. I heard this last week about another of their closures where the RfC is apparently going to start again. There is no other recourse. This is bureaucratic procedures and those who have a high facility with or liking for them, impeding others' work. I have no idea whatsoever how to reverse this trend - I suspect the Foundation would fundamentally disagree with me, and I know process matters - but the more of this stuff there is, and the more we admins either tacitly or explicitly support this increasing lack of transparency/esae of use and increasing difficulty in getting things reverted, as opposed to using our tools and greater familiarity with the place to grease the wheels and quietly fix things, the more offputting Wikipedia is to those who primarily want to contribute. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well ,I do not know if this is already known widely, but I think it just might take a bit of pressure off WP:ANI....Lectonar (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

R to Yngvadottir, somewhat randomly--I'm curious about that RfC; feel free to email me details. I used to close them regularly and they are very important; I should get back to doing that since the backlog is still considerable. Ha, speaking of drama--closing RfCs can be a real dramah generator, and when they're disputed they really take all the fun out of it. I think I'm becoming an old guy--we're complaining a wee bit too much about decisions that are made at the level above (and I do as well, of course).

I agree with the ArbCom procedures comment: I don't understand them at all and I've not contributed to much there. I posted a question on a talk page there asking about Ottava; that was as involved as I know how to get. I spent some time talking about ANI because it's a fairly easy fix, in my opinion, but as I suggested the role of ArbCom and its place in the community is, in the grand scheme of things, much more important--but I have precious little to contribute there, and no one is really going to care about my opinion since I have so little experience. Beeblebrox, if you could fix that, that'd be great.

I'd like to see some instructions/governance for AN and ANI. I mentioned somewhere a while ago that ANI also should be for administrators only, unless editors are asked by special invitation. ANI used to be treated like a kiddy pool for would-be admins, and in all honesty some of the best recent admins have come "from" there (I don't want to mention any names, since I wish to preserve the anonymity of folks like Mr. Stradivarius, Bbb, WK, Sergecross, DE12345whatever, Mark Arsten, Giant Snowman...). So maybe ANI does have its function in that regard, and should remain open. But AN should, on the one hand, be used more and, on the other, be strictly (more or less) for admins. OK, I'm rambling, and that's also because all the girls are here, they're healthy, and we're doing homework. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Yngvadottir, thanks for the homework exercise. Amazingly I didn't participate, though I closed something else there, something much easier. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• As usual, I appear to have my head in a tunnel. I did NOT know that Hersfold had resigned and I'm very sorry to hear it. Otherwise, I have read all of the posts above, and as much as I value the analyses of many of the contributors, I wonder if anything will actually change. I remain, as always, a cynic. On a brighter note, I'm glad Drmies's girls are healthy again. Where would we all be without the ongoing updates of Drmies's family?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• You'd be nowhere, Bbb. They are in fact healthy. Here's a distraction from drama: my wife got a call from the PE teacher tonight. Apparently my oldest (7) has been taking cough drops at school--yes, it's like unto using cocaine. As it happens, cough drops are now regulated and must be dispensed by the school nurse, and only on a doctor's prescription (I'm not kidding). So my daughter wrote a note, trying to imitate my wife's handwriting, which said that it was OK for her to take cough drops. So, my 7-year old is guilty of forgery in order to obtain access to controlled substances. I'm kind of proud of her. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Two important questions: (1) What cough drops was she taking? and (2) Did she have a cough? Of course, she can exercise her fifth amendment right not to incriminate herself. I think you should complain to the cough drop industry. Long live Ricola, the (imported) cough drop of the privileged.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• (talk page stalker) I have been silently reading this discussion for a while now and was trying to restrain myself from chiming in, but I must say that I started laughing out loud when I read that your seven year daughter forged your wife's signature so she could have a coughdrop. That's a pretty resourceful young lady if I do say so myself. Go Phightins! 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Bbb, my head was in a tunnel as well. Malleus left the building a few weeks ago. I'd not been checking in on his talk page, and I missed the scrambling of the password. Go Phightins, I want that piece of paper and I'll secretly frame it. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Remarkable ingenuity for a 7-year old! Go Phightins! 02:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Zero-tolerance absolutism in our schools is a scourge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Well, look at our current situation in real government. Is it really any surprise that we have trouble making things work? The reasons for those problems are basically the same. People typically lack open-mindedness.--The Devil's Advocate</fon> _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • If by "our" you mean in the United States, the problem is essentially the same as I described above about Wikipedia, and it has little to do with "open-mindedness." The American system at the Federal level is biased towards two parties and systemically discourages having multiple small parties. Of the two parties as they now exist, one essentially does not trust government or believe in its ability to get things done, and therefore doesn't really care much about shutting it down or obstructing its operation, and the other can't get a strong enough grip on power to take bold steps to alleviate problems. Hence, deadlock, and constant bitching from the anti-government party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

On the flip side, three good old editors returned in the last month. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Reply