User talk:Drmies/Archive 78

All those alternative listings are NOT an excuse for more iTunes links. I found them and added them. And know-it-alls like you love to mess these kinda shits. iTunes is one of the most VALID source for tracklisting in here. I can copy-paste them back, you know? But let's see how you'd response and in the end how your so-called fix which you attempt due to your belief you're a F*re*KING master wikipedia user would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkisnis (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, happy new year to you too. In case anyone cares, we're talking about this spam list. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Actually Drmies you are a Master Editor III. Tough loss last night... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks K-stick, I appreciate it. We're all a bit depressed. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • You can take solace in the Oregon beating Ohio on the 12th.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • That is no solace to me, K. We should not have lost: our own fault. I let that one guy go and he ran it in, and I wasn't able to convert on 3rd down on those seven or eight drives where we could have scored. Maybe by 2017 I'll have forgotten. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • Happy new year then. But let's not forget: almost most of it wasn't spam. Like Japan, Spain etc. bonus tracks... I can add it but I don't want to deal iwth wikipedia's monkey business. Because everyone here does the sh*t however they want. So you better fix your page's US Bonus Tracks. They are not even that order. Just check the album at stores like JP one. You'll get what I'm talking about. Just do that a few click, would you? (Note 1: Wow what was that kelapstick? Do your sycophant thing somewhere else please. Even if you weren't doing that it seemed like it because. If not so, sorry. He may be a good editor with some ranks, yeah. But that wasn't the point.2: And what about lyre Hafspajen? Please play somewhere else. Do you even check the page I'm talking about? Duh. Nevermind...) 88.230.129.248 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
          • My dear 88.230.129.248, you would do well to get your head out of your ass, and understand when someone is making light of a crass comment (such as due to your belief you're a F*re*KING master wikipedia user). The tough loss comment was regarding the Crimson Tide's loss to the Buckeyes, we are all a bit saddened. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
            • I got what loss is about but it doesn't have anything to with what I said. Making light of it or not. It is not about head in ass. It is about that I do not like being interrupted. As you may call I can be crass at those times, I am sorry I can't be that elite. I am not idiot or something like it. God. See where the topic came. Anyway as I said what I was trying to say, I am done. So now I wish you people to have a nice day as I try to more nice... Dkisnis (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
              • kelapstick, I'm glad you know what's going on. I haven't had a clue since halftime--and thank you for your kind words. I'm sure even Volunteer Marek is in a bad mood these days, and I sympathize with him. Dkisnis, happy new year to you. May you never end up in the "loss" column. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
                • Yes, it was a sad day for the state of Alabama. And now all the SEC haters are gonna be yapping even more than before (and somewhat rightly so, SEC defenses don't seem to be what they once were).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
                  • I'm just glad Canada is wholloping Slovakia in the IIHF junior series. Looks like we will be taking on the Soviets tomorrow. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 02:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

First: Happy New Year! Next: When you have a moment, could you take a look at this report [1] and advise as to whether or not it is an issue worthy of an AN/I? So far, it seems to have been ignored. As of today, the IP is continuing with the same behavior outlined in the report, by the way. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

List of North American professional sports teams by type of name is fascinating (and was grossly incomplete until I got hold of it). I had to move it, apparently someone thought Toronto, Montreal, etc. were in the US. Would the Calgary Flames fall under disasters, or should a fire-based section be created? Should this be expanded to include the Canadian Football League? Would the Winnipeg Blue Bombers fall under Weapons? Is a Roughrider an occupation or a type of person? Should Type of Person be sub-sectioned to for Native Americans and royalty? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year! There are a bunch of kpop-related AFDs that have been listed in the last few days. Take a look! ^_^ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Korea Shinyang-i (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think I made a mistake. I was looking at GLAM (band) and in the lead the name was written "Glam blah blah (often stylized as GLAM) blah blah" and so I moved the page to Glam (band). But now I've read back through the article again and notice it says "GLAM" is an acronym for "Girls Be Ambitious" (which really doesn't make a lot of sense, but ok LOL). So I shouldn't have moved it probably. How do I fix it without breaking something? *sob* Thank you Shinyang-i (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Shinyang-i: That's how it's usually titled on pages so no worries. Similar to Shinee instead of SHINee, or Big Bang instead of BIGBANG. The only times I think the page name should be capitalized is if it has periods in between (like B.A.P, periods emphasized). Tibbydibby (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's what I thought at first, but then I realized it's an acronym (but with no periods).  :/ Shinyang-i (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alain Guionnet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Front National. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

(It seems that this thread was archived while I was writing my reply; here it is)

• • Thank you for getting back to me on the RfA concerns. I'd appreciate your advice on how should I explain "my admin role". You say that "certainly ArbCom was quite clear, quite clear". I assume you are referring to "has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list were involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view." That does sound pretty damning, doesn't it? Now, let me try to explain it, and as noted I'll strongly appreciate your suggestion on how can I word it better to make sure I am being neutral, open, unbiased, etc., whether I should discuss this in my future RfA, and if so, in what length, format, etc. I certainly have been struggling with it for quite a while.
  • Ok, now - onto that incident. Note he single diff: [2] from September 16, 2009. The two numbers next to it [20090915-0602][20090915-0610] refer to two emails (from September 15, so the preceding day) that form the entirety of evidence here. The first of those emails is from me, responding to the email request from another editor. Although ArbCom didn't hotlink to those emails, they are still available online (with all of their outing contents, which was never of much concerns to the community). In any case, let me save you the trouble of looking for them. The first email [20090915-0602] is from me, a reply to another editor:
    • Email subject: "[WPM] Advice is sought on situation". Email content:
      • Hillock65 (talk · contribs): "Russian brigades keep targeting an article that I created 2 years ago: Battle_of_Konotop The main dispute is that they try to diminish the extent of their own defeat at Konotop by changing numbers and shifting emphasis elsewhere. Sporadic attacks were manageable. Lately, however, there appeared a concerted effort of at least two Russian editors. One of them is well established, the other is a newly created account. I was wondering if this is the same editor creating another account to bypass 3RR? How can I deal with this single purpose account and editor? Thanks."
      • My reply: "Since most of the edits are from IPs/newly registered editors, I slapped a semi-protection on it instead of reverting"
    • [20090915-0610]: This is the second email quoted by ArbCom as evidence. Why - I am not sure, as it is not either an email by me, or even a reply to my prior (or any other of mine) emails. Another editor replies to Hillock65 and states that he will revert the said article to his version.
  • Now, let's review the second piece of evidence, which is the edit history of the article (something that the ArbCom didn't believe was worthwhile). If you wouldn't mind humoring me, however:
    • The edit warring can be seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Konotop&offset=&limit=500&action=history . It started on September 13, and involved a revert war between Hillock65 and Voyevoda (talk · contribs) (now, this is looking a bit into the future, but: October 31, 2011 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked Voyevoda (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (persistent battleground editing, edit-warring and personal attacks)). Voyevoda soon received assistance from SPA HenrichB (talk · contribs) (November 1, 2009 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked HenrichB (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (tag team revert-warring, obvious proxying for blocked user User:Voyevoda)). Then there was one revert from User:Volunteer Marek, and two IP's warring started warring. At which time I stepped in and in my admin capacity I slapped a semi-protection. Please note that the semi-protected version was not the one that Hillock65 preferred, I just slapped the protection as soon as I could to keep the IP/SPas at bay.
    • This constitutes the entirety of evidence for "Piotrus has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list were involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view".
      • Please note here that I used a single tool (semi-protection) in a single dispute. ArbCom, nonetheless, used the plural "tools" and "disputes".
    • Let's go back to the article's history for a moment. Edit warring between editors continued (without any involvement from me). On October 4, Will Beback protected this page for two weeks, starting a discussion thread on the talk page. As soon as the protection lapsed, edit warring resumed. On November 2, Future Perfect at Sunrise protected the page for three months. Occasional spats continued afterward, through they seem to have ended with Voyevoda's permban.
  • I do think that the semi-protection I added to the article, while improper due to breech of Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED, was otherwise in-line with what other admins would have done (in fact, two respected admins protected the article later). Nonetheless, looking back at this I realize that I should have referred Hillock to Wikipedia:Requests for protection rather than handling it myself, since I failed UNINVOLVED. I since have a policy that I decline any requests for me to comment or make any on-wiki edit I receive by email or by otherwise private form of communication.
  • Now, I hope this answers the question of "my role as an admin during the EEML affair", as well as the topic of "abuse of admin tools", more clearly. Please let me know if you have any questions. If not, I'd love to hear from you how I can "explain that EEML business" - in particularly the "abuse of admin tools" issue - better. Perhaps I could say, in my future RfAdmin statement, something like "regarding the 'abuse of admin tools' during the 2009 EEML case, I acknowledge I semi-protected a single article in violation of WP:UNINVOLVED, and since that case, I have a policy of not doing any on-wiki edits if I receive a request to do so off-wiki. If I was to regain admin tools, I'd certainly think twice before taking any admin action, to make sure UNINVOLVED is respected". Do you think this would be sufficient? Please let me know if this is not good enough. What else would you like to know, and what else should I say? (PS. As before - if you reply here, please WP:ECHO me - thank you). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
• User:Piotrus, it may well be that that is indeed all it is--but what I was reading and citing is what ArbCom wrote up, and I am not going to second-guess their conclusions when I am not even sure I am looking at what they were looking at. This is something that you cannot ask every individual RfA voter to consider. I appreciate your explanation, of course, but your policy cannot be evaluated by any outsider (that's a matter of course) and thus sounds good, but may not have much substance. If you ever want to allay these particular concerns, you'd have to get the Arbs to confirm this account, I suppose. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time. Best, and please see what you can do for Paweł Dembski, Drmies (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you for your continued attention. To be clear: am I to understand that you think I am not suited to be an administrator, unless ArbCom revises it's 2009 ruling? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Batter? I thought it was brandy with raisins or something like that. And that pear: it grew there! Drmies (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Correct. You are very intelligent. They put the bottle on the tree while the pear is small and fix so it stays there . Later they just pull it of and put brandy on top. Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Drmies, if you see a need, then please make an opinion on User talk: Shinyang-i's talk page. I'm out of words.--TerryAlex (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I can see that, haha. Oh, I don't know what I should add; I think it's all been said there. But I see now there's a "team"; I suppose that's something. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is something in nl:Messe solennelle en l'honneur de Sainte-Cécile that should be also in St. Cecilia Mass? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just found this No. MERCY (trainee) and I can't even figure out what it is. It's a TV show about (surprise surprise) making a new kpop group...I think? But the article seems to be trivia about the contestants on the show, and the article's title makes no sense. Or is it saying the article is about the "trainees"? I just...my brain hurts too much now. Do we go through AFD for this? Is there another procedure since it's so "WTF"? I'd have never even known it existed if it hadn't been for the Wikproject Korea's "new articles bot" thingy. Please help. LOL Shinyang-i (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Good point. I cleaned it up some--but what that title is supposed to mean is anyone's guess. I think someone was simply trying to stick everything they knew about Yoonho into something. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ooh ooh, another issue. I found another new article here Yook sungjae. The author took such time and care withe the article he/she didn't even capitalize his name. Anyway, this article was previously redirected to BtoB (band) here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yook Sungjae. Does this new one need to be AFD'd? Redirected? I don't know the procedure. *slinks off* Shinyang-i (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, it's complicated. First of all, a BLP PROD would be very valid here. Second, if this version is very much like the deleted version, then it could be re-deleted. I chose option number three, a redirect with an explanation. If that's challenged we can always decide on option one or I can go into the history of the deleted article to see if it's substantially different. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. Can you please have a look at The Low Countries before (1600-1609) and during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621). It was created with a single edit a few days ago from an editor who did not edit Wikipedia before. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• …if you've got a spare fortnight. Reminds me of Flann O'Brien's the man who knows how to pack- he packs your suitcase for you- arriving at the hotel you find your case now contains the kitchen sink, next door's dog and a wedding dress, but no razor or socks. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • OhMagioladitis, I don't know what to say. That was certainly one mammoth edit, but that article--plus, it's written in what Xanty knows is called steenkolenengels. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

(Not original, my daughter found it):

""I hope that in this year to come, you make mistakes.

Because if you are making mistakes, then you are making new things, trying new things, learning, living, pushing yourself, changing yourself, changing your world. You're doing things you've never done before, and more importantly, you're Doing Something.

So that's my wish for you, and all of us, and my wish for myself. Make New Mistakes. Make glorious, amazing mistakes. Make mistakes nobody's ever made before. Don't freeze, don't stop, don't worry that it isn't good enough, or it isn't perfect, whatever it is: art, or love, or work or family or life.

Whatever it is you're scared of doing, Do it.

Make your mistakes, next year and forever." — Neil Gaiman"

And thanks for the zebra.

Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• That's nice Dougweller, thank you--nicely found. Doing Something is a good idea, yes. I really kind of like Gaiman, by the way, though I am somewhat embarrassed to admit it. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, I did that (I'm so pleased to have real bacon right now). Now, question: do you know any Wikipedians who speak Ukranian or Russian? We need subtitles for a video up at FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Can't the Babel categories tell you that? I don't know, Crisco; none come to mind. Sorry, I'm feeling a bit jaded right now. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Jaded? Crap... everyone's getting jaded...  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • (or splenetic. See below.) I bugged poor Ymblanter about it and he's posted a transcript and translation at the nomination. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Of course you should. Hafspajen (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't follow. This is an invitation (no obligation) to you. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 01:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?Hafspajen (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I don't know, Haf. Are they complete assholes who have totally missed out on the "we're in this together" bit? I think that's the first question to ask. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article No. MERCY (trainee) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. MERCY (trainee) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tibbydibby (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

A big thank you for the barnstar. Like I told TerryAlex, all the negativity kind of hit me at once, and it was overwhelming. I'm just not used to this type of conflict, but I will work harder. Thank you again! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do apologize! I am new to this and was laboring under the assumption that what I did in the sandbox section was for my eyes only as an experimental medium. Please excuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Rubble1927 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, you put it in mainspace, not in a sandbox. Whether this is allowed in a sandbox is another matter, but it's better than what you had before. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This newly made article Baekyeol exists for the sole purpose of implying heavily that some fans have reason to believe the existence of a relationship between these two guys. Obviously the subject itself is unfit for an article, but can it go through a faster process under BLP violations? I read through the alternatives to AFD and I just can't tell (no experience with it). Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. So they're boyfriends? Drmies (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Try WP:G10, but I am not a "speedy" expert. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Oh Cullen, some good faith, for the love of God! It's a spiritual union! Maybe! I tried A7--let's see if an admin agrees to treat a supposed "supercouple" as a living entity. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OMG! I hope I don't get pegged as a homophobe out of this kerfuffle. After all, some of my best friends are . . . . oh, forget about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You know what, Cullen, I missed that this half-full glass may have been filled in the shower (!). Maybe G10 is valid, though it's impossible to say. I'll add it, and will let the patrolling admin make the call. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You guys crack me up. I say if Yoonjae don't get their own couples' article, no one shall!!1! (some TVXQ-as-5 memoirs, there) But seriously, thanks for taking the reins on that. ^^ Shinyang-i (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you show me any consensus whatsoever for unilaterally overriding my block? Or are you simply committed to enabling this editor?—Kww(talk) 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Your block was wrong. You can call me an enabler, and if you do I can call you an abusive admin who's got it in for this one guy and seeks any reason to block and hit mass rollback. I believe Yngvadottir might agree with my unblock, but I do that only on the strength of ESP. Get over it, Kevin: let it go. There's plenty of real bad people you can block, and plenty of ways in which your good qualities can come up. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

People that lie in order to become unblocked are bad people, even if their edits are good. When he violates his 0RR restriction, will you say "naughty naughty", or will you let this strange tolerance you have for his behaviour go, block him, and help enforce his block in the future?—Kww(talk) 06:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

In most cases, I find it very difficult to comment on a person's soul based on a few edits they make on a website. An admin claiming "block evasion" when the person wasn't blocked and so wasn't evading one, what am I to make of that? Drmies (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'll thank you not to edit my talk page comments in the future. Your friendship with the editor in question is clear, but editing my comments (while subsequently leaving his own alone above them!) does nothing but show your bias in the conflict. Thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Don't thank me, since I will remove such personal attacks. Eric Corbett has said nothing--at least not there!--that in any way compares to your rather childish taunts on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
• What the hell are you talking about? an accidental bit of formatting allows you to remove my comment there? No, and I will remove your taunts again, and warn you for it--for the record. Drmies (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Adding quote tags to obscure a header doesn't exactly qualify as a "comment". That's simple formatting obstruction. You want to hide comments, go ahead. But you aren't going to be editing my comments without a revert. And I'm sorry, you can't be serious—have you been following his recent edit summaries and comments? You've got to be kidding—this guy is absolutely notorious for personal attacks and childish insults and then threatening to quit Wikipedia whenever someone attempts to block him. It's happened over and over. He's probably the most famous editor on Wikipedia for this sort of nonsense. This hardly qualifies as a "personal attack" to note. It seems that your blockers are on for your friend Corbett. I've seen you behave similarly before, utterly ignoring any insults he's made in favor of attacking whoever he may be attacking. I'm sure others have noticed as well—this isn't a good way to build articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Don't be stupid--"hiding comments"? Sheesh--what do you think we are here--five? It's a fucking typo, which you should know about since you restored one in your opening insult: "they page". "Formatting obstruction"--what does that even mean? It's as inane as your original "Comment Editing" title for this section.

Now, I see that you removed my lovely, partly hand-crafted NPA warning from your talk page: I suppose that's not hiding the evidence? Not a formatting obstruction? Eh? Don't answer that, at least not here. Drmies (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't take it as a threat, more as just nonsense from an involved user defending the nonsense (Undines as goddesses, a nonexistent folklore tradition, etc.) posted by his pal. As a result, I deleted it from my talk page, which I have ever right to do. Don't you have better things to do than pick an internet fight when Corbett goes on yet another rampage? :bloodofox: (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wait--why do you say I'm threatening you when you don't take something as a threat? Sorry, that makes no sense. However, I gladly accept your apology about that nonsensical "formatting obstruction" accusation; I'm happy you see the error of your ways. Also, I told you not to answer it here, didn't I? Don't answer that either. Drmies (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Where's this "rampage" I've supposedly gone on? The reason you didn't find any comments of mine that compare to Bloodofox's "childish taunts" is that I didn't make any. Anywhere. Eric Corbett 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know, and kudos. He is right about one thing, though--I have better things to do. 2666, an article on one of the best novels of our time, is in very poor shape. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That article certainly needs some work. Eric Corbett 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

:PS: I'd be curious to know how you would field a question like this?Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

in Template:Infobox political party the results bars are seperated to far vertically from each other, the original version looked aesthetically better can you please help me? hello?! Dannis243 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, I'm the wrong person to ask. I don't know graphics and I can't see what you mean on my little iPhone. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• That is exactly what we had for breakfast! It's Rosie's birthday and she requested flat pancakes. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bless you. Send her regards. Hafspajen (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You blocked László Vazulvonal of Stockholm for a week. It would appear that he's been evading his block, so I've extended the block to a fortnight from today and hard-blocked his IP address to match. Just FYI. All the best and a belated happy new year, my friend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• That was bound to happen--I think I pinged another admin about that a day or two ago. Thanks for taking care of matters, and a happy new year to you too, Harry. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I felt like that last time I tried reading the GamerGate Arbcom case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will feel like this if Phil leaves Wiki. Created Grey Passion, just to illustrate how I feel. Dedicate it to Xanty and Drmies. Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Why thank you! Grey passion, giant despair...it must be January...I hope some knight is not doing it with Mrs. Drmies up in a pear tree... Drmies (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Where is the pear tree comes from, suddenly? Hafspajen (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Merchant's Tale. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• January 33 is Don't worry be happy day Hafspajen (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Byt the way Yobot is crazy [3] Hafspajen (talk) 18

09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The bot just tagged a poodle for Category:living people. Hafspajen (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Ricky attended the Poodle Club of America show in April 2014 and afterwards travelled to Peru to be exhibited in South America." Not surprised the bot tagged him. Afterglow Rabid Quadrepedial (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, it is clearly stated that he is a poodle Best In Show at Crufts. By the way, there is nothing wrong with the Afterglow Maverick Sabre. If they mess up my account with this globalization, I might change my username to Afterglow Maverick Sabre. Sounds stylish. Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe to Afterglow Sugar Daddy. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or Yakee A Dangerous Liaison. If I take Araki Fabulous Willy, I might get blocked for controversial username. Hafspajen (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think Boduf Pistols At Dawn with Afterglow might get you blocked as well. Araki Superbulous Pussy (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Drmies, can these three new articles: List of K-pop Debut (1990s), List of K-pop Debut (2000s), List of K-pop Debut (2010s) be speedy deleted or do they have to go through a AFD?--TerryAlex (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I was deleting them while you were typing this up. Yes, A10 is the appropriate CSD tag. But look at the username--either a typical throwaway K-pop account (I saw another one just a few minutes ago) or a sock. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rather than constantly reverting what I have spent time editing (with good reason), can you see the talk page as I have made clear reasons for my reasons for editing. The current edition is dire.--86.144.245.7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• That talk page is, indeed, where you should convince other editors--not me; I don't watch the show, never have, and looking at those articles gives me a headache. I have, however, semi-protected it since you've been edit-warring for quite some time, with at least two different IPs, to get this stuff in. I do, however, appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, someone has a new section on WP:EAR that request for unreliable and questionable sources. Hope don't get mad. By the way, WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE does not listed Muumuse, and I think Muumuse is considered questionable source. 115.164.81.230 (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not much of an Avril Lavigne fan. Someone at that board will get to it, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I live in a Napa Valley subdivision named "La Vigne". Does that count? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• As a "coincidence", sure. Maybe you've heard this story already, Cullen--it's amazing. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is not the spleen Beaudelaire meant. Can anyone direct me to right link? Hafspajen (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can't see one. Beaudelaire's usage is slightly different to the English "vent one's spleen"- there's no Wiki page on "spleen" as an emotion. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Five Poems by Baudelaire

Written by Charles Baudelaire

Spleen: When a Heavy Lid of Low Sky…

When a heavy lid of low sky

covers a soul moaning with ennui and fright,

and the whole horizon is rounded by

a black day pouring down, sadder than any night;

When the earth is turned to a muggy dungeon

where Hope is the shadow of a bat, feeling

with feeble, flapping wings along the grunge on

walls and bumping its head against a putrid ceiling;

When the crawling spiders of scattershot rains

drop cold bars that imprison us,

water trickles along the channels in our brains,

and the people around us feel poisonous—

the bells speak out suddenly with fury

and lance the sky with dreadful howls,

and frightened strays and exiles, sorry

and homeless, rage from deep within their bowels.

Long hearses roll, slow, silent, hypnotic,

through my soul. Hope, defeated, cries

out its atrocious anguish—despotic.

A black hood slides over my ferocious eyes.

• That's spleen.-

...Hafspajen (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

"The sight of South Wigston on a wet and foggy Sunday afternoon in November is an experience one is glad to have had. It reaches the rock bottom of English provincial life; and there is something profoundly moving about it."- William George Hoskins. That's ennui. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

 Hafspajen (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Baudelaire is rather modern for me to offer much help, and in English "splenetic" seems to denote wrath, but I believe the best link is Humorism, which associates it with melancholy. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

French has borrowed the word "spleen" to mean something like sadness, melancholy; I think it is a somewhat literary term. But I was tracking down an article with the help of the picture. Le Spleen de ParisHafspajen (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• We don't have an article on spleen, the real spleen? That's...odd. Maybe a K-pop artist can sing that song, and we'll have it in no time. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cat's foot iron claw

Neuro-surgeons scream for more

At paranoia's poison door.

Twenty first century schizoid man.

(cue long instrumental break involving mellotron, bicycle chains and out-of-tune violin)

Blood rack barbed wire

Politicians' funeral pyre

Innocents raped with napalm fire

Twenty first century schizoid man.

(cue long lunar note)

laces laces laces

blue cheese faces

Mayflower child met uh

25th century quaker

she’s uh pickin’ poppies

bringin them into her hue

(band realise they don't know who the fat bastard growling into the microphone is)

Lucid tentacles test ‘n sleeved

‘n joined ‘n jointed jade pointed

Diamond back patterns

Neon meate dream of a …

(band run from stage)

Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

WHAT? Elephant Talk? Hafspajen (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

IP 200 is still stirring up trouble.[4] You unblocked them. Please supervise them properly or they will inevitably be reblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, that's nice, Jehochman. I try not to think of people as messes or subjects, but sure. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

blocked in late 2012: user: Ved from Victoria Institutions

please take a look at user: Leprof 7272 and see note I left on the "Ved from Victoria Institutions" TP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leprof_7272

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_culture#Source_review_begun

Thanks HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OK. First of all, you're User:HammerFilmFan. The "Ved" you're talking about is User:Ved036. That took a few minutes; now let's move on. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Also, I didn't block them--that was SpacemanSpiff, who on that same page is called a "nut". I merely revoked talk page access--I suppose I must have had a good reason for that.

  (Much later:) I looked at a whole bunch of edits, and I don't see it. The only thing I might could see--besides the admittedly odd "interaction" via Talk:Western culture--is the use of all-caps, but they're not the only ones to abuse that. They ran into Randykitty a while ago--perhaps they can have a look and give you a third opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Wrong... kind... of doctor? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Maybe so, but still one step up from you, Master Crisco. :) Drmies (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Those school vandal IPs (ipv6) just moved to a new IP and repeated their vandalism.[5] The newest IP probably makes a rangeblock difficult since it would be a very wide range I think (although I am not an IPv6 expert) but could we perhaps protect the page? They seem fairly persistent. Hope you are having a good new year and enjoying your school break Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, I don't know how that works anyway. I semi-protected for a while--ha, maybe we should have a redirect to this page, WP:RFPP2. Some of us remember WP:ANI2.0. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just pinged you because you had already dealt with some of the IPs in question. Apologies if you think I should have taken it through normal channels. thanks for dealing it in any case. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Don't be silly Gaijin--it was my pleasure. You know where to send the check. BTW, all you admins who want to get paid per block: hang out at UAA for a day or two. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This new article GOT7 Awards and nominations duplicates an existing one List of awards and nominations received by Got7. Does it need to go through AFD or is there some other process? Thanks!! Shinyang-i (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) We have a speedy deletion category for new articles that duplicate existing topics, so I've deleted it under that criterion and let the creator know. The criteria are here and under A10 you'll see the tags you can apply if you see such a situation again. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much, @Yngvadottir:. I'll use that information in the future! The various deletion methods can be a little overwhelming to someone who hasn't used them before. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wait--I have a deja-vu feeling here. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I technically didn't say "fat jerk", just "jerk". But in any case, I assumed (correctly, I gather) that it would be taken in the spirit intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, technically I may have wished you a zebra, but what I really wished you was a heap of zebra DUNG. For you to sit on, so you're nice and warm. Hey, school's back in! Finally the house is a bit quiet! Drmies (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • The only thing the confuses me is why I keep logging back in ... anyway, whether Drmies is a jerk, or a fat jerk, is clearly a matter of great import -- I anticipate a long WP:VPM discussion, followed by an WP:RFC, with three WP:ANI threads arguing about conduct during the RFC, followed by a protest of the close of the RFC at WP:AN, resulting in a request for a three-admin closing panel, followed by a subsequent WP:AC case. That should take us until next November or so. NE Ent 02:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Confusion, like virtue, is its own reward. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • Ent, I appreciate your logging in, I do. Few people wax as poetic with our alphabet soup as you do. Boris, your deep wisdom, clearly gained from having spent years in absolute solitude on the internet, is a balm for my soul. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Advertising? Self-privacy intrusion with oversight needed? I don't know! HELP.

The case is in fact the whole list of edits from Monirulsultant. Because the extremely poor English I am not sure if he is promoting a hotel or looking for a job. I will revert the edits on talk pages to stay on the safe side. The Banner talk 19:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you sir. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• • You're welcome! The Banner talk 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Een frikandel--da's toch ook toevallig, want it zit net te Facebooken met de enige man in de wereld die ik ken die frikandellen eet (een Limburgse Duitser in Amsterdam--het moet ook niet gekker worden). En die man was gisteravond op de Dam met 18000 anderen--il est Charlie aussi. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • LOL, ik heb ze laatst toevallig gevonden hier in Ierland. Echte halal kipfrikandellen. Inderdaad, gevonden in een soort Arabische kruidenier.   The Banner talk 20:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • (1) That meal looks good. (2) Drmies, have you ever tried running your Dutch through Google Translate to see what it gives as the equivalent English? It needs improvement at natural languages. LadyofShalott 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • Have some of the American version sent down to you from Michigan - Dutch Dawg Frikandellen. Note the Alabama spelling of the canine namesake. I'll try some if they pass the Mies-en-place test. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • Geoff, that is AMAZEBALLS. (Sorry, it's a word Cullen328 taught me.) I mean, not the frikandellen, but the promise of the rest of that site. I'm afraid to look at the shipping costs. In other news, and Banner, maybe you have some info on the topic, word on the skreet (that's "street" for young people) is that anijsblokjes don't exist anymore. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • Holy moly Geoff. That's just mean, to put that in front of me. They have kroketten and bitterballen! And cheeses! But the shipping...for $100 it's $15.99. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
          • I plead innocent and request a jury trial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tito☸Dutta 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I saw, Tito, but I don't have an answer yet. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'd like to apply for page protection for some of these articles that I have to revert every single day either because editors insist on all caps and over-wikilinking, or because some editors insist on continually re-adding fan-run awards and awards by allkpop and such, expressly forbidden in the wikiproject's MOS. I don't know if you need that much detail or if "edit-warring" is enough. I looked at the page with instructions but uh I don't feel like I'd do it correctly, and there seem to be various levels of protection. Can you help? There are many problematic articles but I think these are the worst:

• List of awards and nominations received by Got7 - continual re-addition of fan awards
• List of awards and nominations received by Beast - ditto
• Jackson Wang - ditto plus "Got7" all-caps wars

Thank you, and if this is the kind of thing I could probably do myself, any pointers would be nice so I don't have to bug you. Thanks!! Shinyang-i (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought every single K-Pop editor has a sober, level-headed understanding of all our policies, guidelines and especially the Manual of style, but I guess that I was wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know, it's a real shock, huh. Illusions shattered! Shinyang-i (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cullen, if I were you I'd lay off the magic sauce before coming up with crazy talk like that. Shinyang-i, you're better off going to WP:RPP, formatting a request is a little confusing if it's your first one, and admins do check through an article's history sometimes, but if you come armed with diffs, you'll get a result within about 24 hours in my experience. To make a diff, go the page history (example), click on "prev" for each edit you think is a problem, copy and paste the contents of the location bar in your browser (example) surrounded by a single square bracket either side, and there's your diff. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Shinyang-i, I have a pull-down menu that allows me to report directly. I did not add diffs (sorry Ritchie) but gave a brief prose explanation. I'd do it myself, but you-know-who has alleged that I have an unhealthy interest in the boys of Got7 (sure). RFPP was frequently backlogged until recently; I think Samwalton9 and Ged_UK have grabbed that bull by the horns pretty decently: there isn't any unanswered request besides mine right now: outstanding work, Sam and Ged, thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks :) I've done 40 on my own before now! I try and clear it out when ever I'm on, it's pretty well all I do these days. GedUK  12:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I supported Sam's RfA after grilling him a bit, so his eagerness to clear out RPP is just the sort of news I welcome. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
• I didn't see Jackson Wang on the requests list and I just reverted it again. It's a daily thing. Sigh. Any chance of requesting it? Sick of IP editors hiding behind anonymity. Thank you, as always! Shinyang-i (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if I'm being a bit hypersensitive, but could an admin strike this edit summmary calling me a troll? I don't being like accused of having an anti-US bias when Mrs 333 comes from Louisianna and my stepkids come from San Diego via Rochester, NY. Or should I just ignore it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I'd ignore it- you've trespassed on a bureaucratic reservation  - six departments (one mis-spelled), 365 task forces and a map. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought when that happened you got a big red light and a voice saying "awooga, awooga". Or maybe that's the checkout at Sainsbury's. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, yeah, it's not really disruptive enough to be struck. It's just a jerky comment and I'd leave it be. At least now you know, next time you run into this editor, what you're dealing with. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, as a direct result of that comment, I've found a new article to improve and created another one. So it's not actually bad at all, all things considered. I think my beef with this guy is he's just turned up unannounced in conversations I've had recently and played the "outraged third party" - at least when the Best Known For IP calls me an asshole, I know exactly why. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see that you are cleverly incorporating a reference to the question I just asked on Facebook, since you are clearly alluding to Paradise Lost, Bk 1: "If then his Providence / Out of our evil seek to bring forth good, / Our labour must be to pervert that end". Don't say Satan didn't warn you. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

What can I say - it must be the influence of that zebra. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was personally disappointed to see the particular edit summary that started this thread, though I don't think anyone disputes that it was ill-advised.

But I find it hard to blame him for losing his cool when for years you've been making edgy comments like suggesting that I be topic banned from that WikiProject that I helped to start[6], and even recently suggesting that the project be merged with other ones, and other further comments: [7][8]

Which I wish you wouldn't make; besides making things unpleasant for the rest of us at the project (and from my perspective, who seems to be working againstus), it distracts from the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. To be honest, I don't exactly recall how this "feud" started, it's been so long ago and too much has happened since then, though I suspect that things got off on the wrong foot. What do you think about trying to put this in the past, in the spirit of "what Wikimedia is supposed to be, people working together"? --Rschen7754 05:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It would be wonderful if all editors on such projects and on both sides of such disputes would abandon jabbing at each other, and instead focus on improving the encyclopedia. But I am an old idealist, and energetic young editors seem to "get off" on such trivial disputes. Please grow up soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

All things considered, the main beef – if we're using that word – that I have with Ritchie333 is that he always seems to be trying to influence the guidelines of the U.S. Roads WikiProject despite not actually doing much (if any) work within that project. I don't know if that's actually against any rules, but it grinds my gears. I've let it go for a while, but recently I've let my emotions get the best of me. I am sorry for my earlier comments. TCN7JM 19:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@TCN7JM: Don't worry about it. I think we all get a bit grumpy sometimes, just part of text communication and human nature. I do have a bit of a reputation now as a tough nut on GA reviews and I'll call people out when I don't think reviews will produce as good an article as they could, but it ain't personal and never has been. In your case, that Mississippi highway article is at DYK in absolute good faith. Now, the Doctor likes to keep an informal and relaxed fort around here, pull up a beer (but not Pauwel Kwak) and stick your feet up. Oh, and thankyou for the heads up on Sporcle, particularly the line ""We actively and methodically search out new and innovative ways to prevent our users from getting any work done whatsoever." Sounds a bit like the WMF (ooooh, miaow). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I certainly missed a lot of excitement. Rschen, you are an old-timer and you're always welcome here, even if you're not as German as your name suggests. Ritchie, I see, made that comment over a year ago and I am sure he feels different now and would not say something like that again. (If he would, I'd wish him good luck. The other day I typed an address into my Prius's road map and, as usual, it couldn't find it--but this time it blinked a new message: "ASK RSCHEN".) Now, it's Saturday evening and the Panthers are playing: I suggest we all root against Auburn and have another beer. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good day. Hope your New Year is starting out well!

Rather than stringing this out over more than one editor's talk page, I'm also asking User:HJ Mitchell, User:Bbb23, and User:EdJohnston to take part as well. All of you have been wise guides for me previously (I would include User:Dennis Brown in the list, but apparently, he is on a Wikibreak).

I have a question regarding RfCs/dispute resoluution. In the past, I have noted different results when posting an RfC at an article talk page versus going to a third party resolution or dispute resolution noticeboard. It's my desire to see as little drama and back-and-forth arguing as possible over getting a resolution for these two talk page discussions [9], [10]. So far, the as-little-drama-as-possible-theory hasn't been working and I'm pretty frustrated. Your opinions on how to get unbiased and non-shark-circling opinions from others and where to best get it would be greatly appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. I read most of the talk page material but not the article. My participation in dispute resolution is limited to yelling at someone on their talk page or simply abusively blocking them--though on occasion I have sought RfC, in which I am a big believer. I do not have much experience in the mediation boards.

  An RfC is an excellent tool to answer a relatively minor question. One can post on a project page to say that there's an RfC happening (I don't think it's required) and thus invite greater participation. You and Coretheapple go back a ways, a believe--their calling your comment a "wall of text" is needlessly pejorative, and your response ("you are so rude") isn't helpful, of course. RfCs should propose specific wording, and contributions should respect that and provide specific evidence; sometimes that helps editors to keep it neutral. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Am pondering your response and will wait for anyone else to respond (if they have the time and inclination to do so). While pondering and waiting, I feel it necessary to add some context to my "you are so rude" comment. It was a result of the comments listed here (from an AN3 [11]) in one of my "walls of text" referred to as a "rant" by Core:

"I have repeatedly tried to work with and reason with Coretheapple at the article talk page. His choice has been to make several personal attacks, even after I have asked him to stop doing so and instead talk only about bettering the article. Along with wrongly referring to himself and another editor trading talk page comments in the middle of the night over a span of an hour or so "consensus", his attacks and rude comments to me have been peppered with statements such as, "you have not read and/or comprehended"; "Please stop wasting everybody's time"; "we are adding relevant details, and this is clearly relevant, amply sourced, above dispute--except by you. Again, why are you wasting everybody's time"; "why are you wasting everybody's time"; "This discussion is utterly pointless...Please stop wasting people's time.". When I first went to Core's talk page early on when I was confused by one of his edit summaries, he answered rudely there as well: "And haven't you anything better to do than waste people's time? (page/section link here [12]). Yesterday, at Jimmy Wales' talk page he referred to me in the following manner: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see diff: [13]). I have tried numerous times to work with Coretheapple yesterday, last night, today, on the article talk page. I've asked him to stop being rude and personally attacking me. I've even thanked him (via the "Send Thanks" option) for an edit today that was a particularly good addition. In spite of all this, Coretheapple chooses to remain tendentious, rude, angry, uncivil and non-collegial. All of this, in my opinion, shows that he not only refuses to work with me, but that this report isn't really about edit warring, it's about someone he has chosen to dislike editing an article he's taken an interest in. If it were the opposite, it stands to reason that he would have changed his tone hours ago based on the discussion I keep trying to have with him at the article talk page."

Plainly put, I was sick of the preceding garbage comments directed at me and "you are so rude" was a frustrated response and, in my opinion, justified. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

My recommendation is to stop trying to justify the "you're so rude" comment, since that will get you nowhere with the other highly experienced editor. Also, it is not justified. Instead, apologize, try to see their point of view, and attempt to work out a compromise. Your user page and user talk page declarations do not exempt you from the expectation that you will edit in a collaborative fashion. Just say something nice, and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but no, I will not be apologizing for calling out the editor as rude, when that is exactly what they had been repeatedly over a 24 hour period before I told them they were behaving rudely. I said nice things, reached out to that editor plenty, and still the rudeness continued (and continued on past my calling out of his behavior and into today, actually). Truly, I don't recall seeing policy stating Wikipedia editors are supposed to be attacked rudely time and again and never call out that rudeness. Or the policy where we're supposed to always turn the other cheek while the attacking editor is allowed to continue in their rude and uncivil behavior. I also don't recall asking you to comment. Yes, I know Drmies has talk page stalkers and this is a community and all in the community are welcome to comment, etc., but really -- your comments are neither helpful nor relevant to the situation. Then again, maybe you are trying to be helpful, but I'm just not seeing it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Drmies, I thought about your advice re: an RfC and have decided just a little longer to see if things can be worked out at the article talk page. If things don't improve, I will probably go the RfC route. Thanks, as always, for your assistance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how to answer you back, maybe this is how. This is joshualeefreeman or amovrvs. For some reason, it forwards my joshualeefreeman page to my other one amovrvs. It's been doing this for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshualeefreeman (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Long Distance Call (Muddy Waters song) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am the only main dog editor nowadays ... wonder what you think about this: a newly added list, that looks broken somehow too, here at Herding dog. Bit bothersome, so I will now come often to your page with this kind of problems, of course. Hafspajen (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

AND I need some major second oppinion at the Silver Labrador controversy, at Talk:Labrador Retriever Somebody is pushing for a colour not accepted by Kennel clubbs, and tagging article, previously rewritten article to sounds completely different as it is. Now no discussion, sources ignored. If I put back what it was before I might be in editwar. Hafspajen (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

And there a weird IP running around writing accept as edit summary on dog articles, doing all kinds of weird and not weird things. I need Phil back. Hafspajen (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• ARR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:B:AC80:7B6:9CA6:DC0:260E:346E

• That's two out of three. I'm not going to duke it out with Jehochman on a matter I know nothing about, but I hope that the verified truth prevails. Woof, Drmies (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thanks. That was fun... . Have you noticed that weird image   they used? About the last, well, I gave him EVERY possible reference that exists. It should work, I hope. Hafspajen (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Arr. Pink   dogs?? Hafspajen (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Look where that file is being used. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I skimmed that article real quick and we need to translate it. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

HUH? Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The links will be a challenge :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Links, recht, links, recht, ein stunde ficken, drei tage dicken. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

What I meant, it was that for almost 48 hours now, the Alaskan Malamute are PINK; because nobody patrols dog articles properly any more. Hafspajen (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia states: The usual colors are various shades of pink and gray and white, sable and white, black and white, seal and white, red and white, or solid white. Hafspajen (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Mies, if translating, how about Dame in wit. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portret_van_Annie_Hall_in_Lissadell,_Kenley,_Surrey. The Dutch are the only one who have an article on it. Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, when I feel sad I usually write an article nowadays, or nominate something. Lady in white would that do? File:Toorop Dame in wit.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Woman in white?Hafspajen (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Lady in white (Toorop) Hafspajen (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Haha, much appreciated. And I'll tell you something else: they are delicious when soaked in coffee. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I got confused there- thought "Nice Koekjes" were something to do with Nice biscuits. The article doesn't actually say how "Nice" is pronounced- "A packet of Neece biscuits please"- shopkeeper looks confused "Niece biscuits?"- "Ahem- a packet of Nice biscuits please" "Yes, certainly. What nice biscuits would you like?". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was assessing articles and ran across a situation. The article Youjeen was merged to Cherry Filter at some point, but somehow Talk:Youjeen still exists. Are you able to tell what happened? Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes: merging is not the same as moving. If you move a page typically the talk page goes with it. In this case (asWhpq can tell you) the content was merged, which means that the "original" page and its associated talk page are still where they were. It's not a big problem, and as far as I'm concerned you can leave it--you could put a note on that old talk page with a link to the merge discussion and the redirect target. Maybe that will solve the next problem also. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here's another one: T-ara N4 goes to T-ara but Talk:T-ara N4 still exists. Is this the kind of thing I can fix myself so I don't have to bug you? Shinyang-i (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, for your note. I know you're probably not even interested, but I hope you don't mind entertaining a cathartic reply from me here so as to lessen the drama in ANI.

You're right, I probably do need to be a big kid. I understand ANI is not Solomon's Temple. However, I hope you understand how really difficult it was for me getting blocked, not for the accusations made against me in this latest ANI, but for the way I responded to the accusation (using links to sections instead of diffs). It was absolutely my fault for doing that and PBS has, since then, kindly shown me how to link to diffs that have been archived. But it's still very, very difficult to be dragged to ANI repeatedly, each time have it dismissed for no cause, and then finally end up having your entire future at WP junked for something you did in an ANI in which you never wanted to be involved in the first place. In the previous reports I was being hit with, and that were being dismissed, I practically begged for a topic ban against filing reports against me. But that was never determined necessary and the reports kept coming and coming. And even then none of them stuck - but I got blocked for finally reacting.

And after all that, to then come back with my freshly minted scarlet letter only to immediately, without any break or let-up, start being needled with a steady stream of [X article you wrote is now being patrolled] alerts just made me feel like I'm being WP:DEPEed. Document★Error 16:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• DocumentError, my comment applies to your opponent as well. Thing is, it is perfectly possible that they are in fact stalking you, but the problem is that it's couched in a narrative that wants to be a novel. Do you want a complete indictment of their character, or do you want them to stop following you to new pages? Two very difference charges with (likely) different outcomes. People say "you can't always get what you want at ANI" and that's generally true--but if I ask Santa Claus for sex two or three times a week (not with him, obviously) and that I don't have to do the dishes anymore, I should know I'm going to be disappointed. If I ask for a pair of socks and a bottle of whiskey, I am more likely to get what I ask for.

  Now, I don't know the history of your block exactly and I don't know if it matters. Stick to the narrow case. Is your block relevant to that case? Is Legacypac's foolish disagreement with (that's foolish by definition, of course) relevant? Drmies (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

But what I want to know is what plans Drmies has for whiskey and socks together. I mean the socks are obvious, to put on your head right? and then the whiskey I imagine might be to help build the courage to go outside with a sock on your head. CorporateM (Talk) 17:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Clearly, Corp, you are neither a fan nor an imitator of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will never think of socks the same way. Also, if that is what the sock is for, I don't what to know what you'll do with some whiskey in you. CorporateM (Talk) 01:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You raise valid points. Honestly, I'm obviously too raw after what happened to detach myself enough to fairly answer the two questions you posed. I realize this isn't your problem and apologize for pinging you. It's probably best if I exit stage left. Again, my sincere apologies for involving you. A respectful clarification, he's not my opponent as we don't edit the same articles and I've never considered any WP edits to be "winner/loser" propositions. I believe I acted like a big kid (as you correctly note we should) by ignoring the repeated ANIs that were shotgunned at me, all without action. It was precisely because I didn't engage in a robust enough back-and-forth in his most recent ANI that I was blocked. You're not supposed to be able to throw ANIs ad infinitum against another editor to see if one sticks (and one never did stick - I was blocked for not being thorough enough in my defense of an ANI that ended up being unactioned like all others had been before it; specifically for linking to sections instead of taking the time to dig-up diffs). I know enough that any block is a scarlet letter and portends the end of your WP career; it may as well have been an indef.

The other diffs I included (and they were only just a few as I had to truncate the list for brevity) only to show specifically that I had already long done what you suggested: turn the other cheek. For months I did that as I was savaged by him (like other editors have been) with a string of insults so questionable any other editor would have been blocked on first instance. I came to ANI with clean hands and a request for help after absorbing this without respite. Even just the edited version of his Talk page is a parade of cautions and third and fourth "final warnings" he's received as a result of his ongoing entanglements with other editors. And yet I, who has never had a disagreement with any other WP editor, never a ban or block, am left being shown the exit because I didn't properly format my defense in the latest frivolous ANI he slapped me with. Anyway, sorry for being long-winded (and possibly sounding snippy, which is not my intent). I just feel this needs to be recorded in hope the next guy might be spared the pounding myself and those who went before me have received. At the end of the day, I should never have got involved in the ISIL articles for the 2 weeks I was there. Document★Error 18:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re the Kelpie and Undine, I see nothing to be gained by further discussion with either KiyoweaporBloodofox, whose agenda is quite clearly to provoke me into breaching my ArbCom sanction. You in the meantime have allowed both of them to make personal attacks against me. Yours, unimpressed. Eric Corbett 20:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Eric, I don't know what you are referring to. Did anything happen? I see nothing new. "Allowed"? Well. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You and Eric might remember this one, I've opened a Wikipedia:Peer review/Bramshill House/archive1.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, you can always start annoying me, if nothing else. Here are some ideas... Hafspajen (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Interesting. 1-4 work for Dutchland as well, and for 5 all you have to do is replace "Midsummer" with "Sinterklaas" (and argue something about Zwarte Piet--it's always wrong). Drmies (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Oh, 6-10 work also, pretty much. Yep, we're just like the Swedes (maybe that should be #11). Drmies (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lady in white (Toorop). To honor Drmies. Hafspajen (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

'What is THIS? User:Drmies/Pink Poodle? 19:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Hafspajen (talk)

I cut that bit out about the wine glass being the only patch of colour cos' there's red blobs on the carpet and blue and white china. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

wWell, maybe the only PROIMINENT PATCH OF .. (oops uppercase) Hafspajen (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The thing I linked to above. A German joke :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is that called WP: .... you have to have some basic knowledge when editing. Hafspajen (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is this a quiz? CIR! Drmies (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The only German joke I know is: How many Germans does it take to screw in a light bulb? One, we are very efficient, and don't have a sense of humour.

I am not sure if that is funny, or offensive, or both. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• How many Bavarians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? I don't know. How do they get their fat backsides inside the lightbulb? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

+ the punch-line of a particular genre of joke that probably needs no context:

Peter (no relation to Saint Peter or Zwarte Piet) in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• ARR, this is when you start discussing serious things with a bunch of unserious guys. WP:NOTHERE?This guy doesn't have a clue. Hafspajen (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• @Xantho: My brother: "these puns fucking suck". I enjoyed it though.

@Drmies: love the pink poodle thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Pink Poodle's diet differs significantly from that of all other Canidae: they are almost all vegetarian and subsist on muesli and Swedes. Well, indeed. Hafspajen (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if I can actually spin out a genuine article on the Pink cat, given I have found four unrelated news stories [14][15][16][17] .... or have I finally gone completely insane? @Northamerica1000:, this sort of stuff is in your area of expertise, isn't it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Psst. NA is an admin now and not allowed to mess with content. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Ritchie333, I can't believe you left out Snagglepuss, tsk tsk. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Drmies Hello, How are you? I love your zebra1 I received a message that you sent me a message, but I did not receive the message. Thank you. (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC))Reply

Vgleer is back again. He's posting links to his stupid website on all the users' pages he possibly can before getting blocked.

• Cool cool like ice tea
• Cmdm4sd40595jdndks - that ID is probably him too, though I can't say for sure

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyang-i (talk • contribs)

• They're both blocked already; no wonder the boy is pissed at Materialscientist too--thanks for taking care of it, MS. I'm pretty sure that most people know how to take his comments, so I'm not so worried about his little website. Now, his MySpace, that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you still work on new pages? Do you get frustrated that the notability guidelines for musicians take too long to read. Well, you need The Dumpy test!The Gents seem to pass it, so do Drmies' favourites Rubberen Robbie - what else, I wonder? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great Ritchie, since looking at that page, I was drawn back to an article I wrote years ago, which has since lead me onto some marginally (or not at all) notable bands, singers, and albums. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've just reminded myself of the wonderfully titled Cheers Elephant actually Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was about to post something about a band that's been playing since the 1990s, and have released 13 studio and live albums, but there was an edit conflict, and then their bass guitarist knocked on my door, and I had to hide what I wrote damn quick. Saved by the ec. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Forget it. I don't care any more. Hafspajen (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Whole article probably needs a good trim- it seems to be claiming that the American bulldog is descended from bulldogs brought over by immigrants during a period of mass emigration from the West Midlands of England to the south of North America after the English Civil War. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe. Now I have been called an ignorant racist because I said that Pedro I of Brazil was tanned. You and I Mies, can build and expand the very interesting and exciting Wiki-drama-Wikipedia club of editors who have been falsely accused by racism. I think I prefer dogs from above if I have to chose. Hafspajen (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, remember I was called an antisemite? Drmies (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
• OK, holy shit. Redacted and warned. Wow. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well; good morning. And thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

What does this De doorbraak van de St. Anthonisdijk in 1651-tDe doorbraak van de St. Anthonisdijk bij Houtewael in de nacht van 5 op 6 maart 1651 say? It is about the dam crashing , righ? Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• For the article : Jan Asselijn ... Henry Booth, 1st Earl of Warrington (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It says the St. Anthony's dyke at Houtewael burst in the night of 5–6 March 1651. Presumably that's what the folks are pointing at. The noun to use in titling the pic would be "The dyke breach". (I think. I don't really read Dutch.) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• AQnd : File:'De wanhebbelijke liefde', misschien de scène van de weduwnaar Joost bij Lucia, 2de toneel uit het gelijknamige stuk van C J van der Lijn Rijksmuseum SK-A-4099.jpeg ... ? Hafspajen (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

90.217.221.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Well, they're back with another IP, 90.217.158.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and are pulling the exact same type of stuntasbefore. Trying to hide it with some vaguely productive edits, but not exactly succeeding. I don't want the pages semi protected, because it means I can very easily catch the vandal before they do too much damage elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• They've been blocked by Favonian, but this is just a head's up that we still need to keep an eye out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, the integrity of the project is probably best served with protection, but that would mean just about every car article. A rangeblock would be nice. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Exactly, and although my watchlist is growing with the things they've attacked, there's only so much I can do. I do wonder how big that range would be though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Bigger than a Skoda, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies, how are you?

I don't get this last warning... I was the one fixing all the mess in these two pages mentioned above, and I'm the wrong one? Okay then.

Ah, and please, if you could semi-protect them, it would be great. I had to restore a full intro in Tyler's page today, aside from fixing his infobox.

Thanks in advance, MYS77 ^✉ 02:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for being comprehensive. Happy week, MYS77 ^✉ 02:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I didn't see enough on Josh Dun to semi-protect, but I did the other one. Hey, you can't go around calling these people "douches", and besides, at least one of the two IP edits seemed like a good-faith effort to me. I threw a couple of blocks around, by the way. I have some serious doubts about Dun's notability. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, but the genre thing about these guys are a lot confused. That's why I included a comment in Joseph's page. What's the problem about Dun? He's not like any band drummer at all? Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 02:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

He's barely notable outside his band. The coverage is quite slim--that he's part of some hot couple seems to be the only source of genuine coverage. I mean, stuff like this, that's nothing. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure they were more into the media in 2013, when they released Vessel (also, I know that some articles about them from the Alt. Press exist) or in 2012 when they signed with Fueled. However, it's on you, mate. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 03:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

To replace the one that was hidden in the process of hiding the conspiracy.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks! Which particular conspiracy was that? I've already had two or three this morning. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may have noticed the recent ArbCom ruling regarding seeking additional eyes on this topic area. I note that you have had previous discussion with others regarding the topic, and that you have some degree of familiarity with it, so your input, if you were to see fit to offer it, would be more than welcome. Also, there is an ANI thread regarding the matter as well, and if you would be interested in offering any input there that would be more than welcome as well. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Ha, see the "conspiracy" note, one kitten above. Anything exciting happening? Drmies (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, there is discussion at the article talk page about moving it to Landmark Forum, which DaveApter among others is objecting to. I've contacted several people to maybe get together a group to do a sort of committee to review the relevant found sources for the possibility of maybe getting together a sort of RfC, more or less along the lines of a proposal for a "comment" committee (not a "content" committee), more or less as per Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content? which might be able, if successful the first few times, to maybe make it easier to get some contentious topics adequately dealt with. Maybe. Also, there are at ANI and at ARCA multiple requests that one or another editor be sanctioned or banned from the topic or that "something be done" in a far from clear way. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• John, let me say something though. I'm looking at the move request, and I'll look at the other stuff later. I lost interest in the ArbCom case so I don't know exactly what happened (very little, I think); but DaveApter was apparently not topic-banned from the article. I recognized his POV very early on and did in fact argue (must have been ages ago, on my talk page) that he should be topic-banned, but I do not feel strongly about that anymore--the last few months of my involvement with these articles I thought he was fine (that may have changed; I'll find out, I suppose). What I will not allow (in my capacity as Big Bad Administrator) is that he's treated like shit. You and Astynax are just on the right side, I think, but only just; you will note, perhaps, that I just removed Legacypac's last comment, which is far on the other side of acceptable: and I'm pinging Legacypac so they know.

  I'll say this again, for all who care: I have no interest in the club or its products. I don't care for any cult, unless it's devoted to bacon or Saint Boniface, but that doesn't mean I'm "against" the topic, one way or another. I treat the article like I would treat that on any other company or its products--with observance to our guidelines. I have no problem acting as an administrator since I consider myself uninvolved (per WP:INVOLVED). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• BTW, John, this move request isn't particularly difficult, it seems to me, and I will be glad to close it when that time comes. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That article could use some updating from a neutral party. I am not such a neutral party. Anyone interested? LadyofShalott 18:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I did the cleanup; I think that's a start. :) Drmies (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks!! If you've seen any of my recent posts, you know why I'm recusing myself from serious work on this article. :) LadyofShalott 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Sorry, I haven't checked your MySpace in a while. I did, however, just do a quick check of the UAB directory. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can we make a regular wikilove with Pink Poodle? Not fair that we only have kittens. I think a Pink Poodle would be really nice. Or several puppies and a pink Poodle. Hafspajen (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

... is sitting on your hands the only thing that you can do. The Banner talk 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Kinda.  Hafspajen (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

...with much pink feelings.....

Best wishes from Haffy for a happy and healthy 2015
Hafspajen (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Got your message. I will let the Afd run its course. Edward321 (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. I think I know where it's headed. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, can you give me some more information about the 3RR policy? I've read some discussions before that if you're right, it doesn't matter if you violate 3RR, and only the person in the wrong does. Other places I've seen that anyone who violates 3RR can get in trouble, period. Can you explain a bit more or is it really subject to personal interpretation? The issue is violation of WP:ELOFFICIAL. She wants to have extra links for SNS because kpop. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear lord, this girl is going to file a dispute resolution request. I hate Wikipedia. No wonder nothing ever gets accomplished in kpop. Can anyone please jump into this discussion before she goes over the edge? Shinyang-i (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, she decided to "compromise" by doing exactly what I told her to. WTF, I don't get people. Shinyang-i (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

(talkpage-stalker)Hi Shinyang-i. Wikipedia is a wonderful accomplishment, and can be a wonderful place, but it can also be distinctly frustrating. I think you're experiencing the latter. I have some answers for you, and some food for thought. I'm not sure how happy you're going to be with the latter, but I've got a soapbox here and I'm not going to waste a perfectly good opportunity to get on top of it. Wikis are built on top of collaboration. The premise is that every edit that is not vandalism is an attempt to improve the content of the encyclopedia. Even if the edit doesn't actually succeed in improving the encyclopedia, it is done to improve it nontheless. That means you can use it. If someone makes an edit you don't agree with, the best thing to do is to turn it in to a change you do agree with. The best way to view an edit you don't agree with is as an opening bid in a proposal to improve an article. In some cases the only way to change it in to something you can agree with is to completely revert the change they made. Reverts however give rise to re-reverts. It can be easily seen that if two people disagree, and the only tool they find to come to a point where they can live with the situation only with a revert of the previous edit, no progress is being made. It's just reverting back and forth. This situation is called an edit war, and doesn't generally have a positive outcome, and is therefor not allowed. Reverts can be seen as the anti-thesis of the wiki idea. That's why the three revert rule has been invented. There can be disagreement over whether something is edit warring or not, but the three revert rule is a bright line, after which there can be no further arguing. If you pass 3RR, you're definitely edit warring. Regardless of who's wrong or right, no progress is being made, so for 3RR it doesn't matter at all of you're right or not. The person whom you're edit warring with probably thinks they're equally right anyway, or they wouldn't have made the change in the first place. Because all rules have a single exception, this one has two. The first is obvious WP:vandalism. I linked the term here, because it's not completely obvious what it means. Vandalism requires bad faith. An edit is only vandalism if the aim of the edit is not to improve wikipedia. That's not always immediately clear, so only obvious vandalism reverts are exempt from the 3RR. The second one is WP:BLP. Because of the influence wikipedia can have on real peoples lives, biographies of living people require special attention. It's still bad for Wikipedia to allow breaking the 3RR for biographies for living people, but we find that it is more important to prevent real harm to real humans than it is that an article develops well. I hope that explains reverting and 3RR. This was written from a bit of an utopian perspective, and the situation on the ground is far murkier than the ideal I described. Nonetheless, it's a good standard to try and uphold.

As for compromising by doing exactly what you said, well, that's a great outcome, isn't it? People have a tendency not to want to 'lose' disputes, even if there really is no losing involved when everybody is happy with the outcome. People don't like losing face; it's a fact of life. If you want that somebody does something it's an extremely bad idea to have the road to that solution be having them admit they were wrong (or even that you were right). People don't like that, and will resist that road. In this case, the road to avoid losing face seems to have been claiming compromising. That's fine. If you make your goals into other peoples victories, they will work towards it rather than against it. Allowing somebody else their victory is a low price for your goals. Since your goals were co-aligned in the first place - they both were improving wikipedia - doubly so. I hope you can take away something useful from this long rambling rant. Please, don't despair, but have fun editing. We're building Wikipedia together. That's something to be proud of. If you can have fun in the mean time, this time, everybody wins. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the pep talk, but it was a bit more cut and dry than that. I removed her excessive links per WP:ELOFFICIAL and she reverted me, bitched at my talk page about how I was wrong. She kind of implied she was adding extra links because the sponsors of the event wanted it done that way, which really torked me off. (I didn't accuse her of a COI because the article is pretty NPOV and adequately sourced in secondary media.) I showed her the policy, reverted her reversion, and she continued to just say that she would revert, while never talking about the policy to which I pointed her. Then she threatened me (twice), again refusing to talk about the actual issue. Once she "compromised", at the same time she insulted me again saying I do "grunt work". So yeah, not a lot of sympathy or patience from me on this one. Kpop is a huge mess and a constant frustration. I'm all for constructive edits, but most of what goes on is people with a personal stake in the article crying because they want to use WP to actively promote kpop. There's little "progress" involved. But thank you, anyway. I've actually given a similar talk to many kpop editors who constantly accuse others of being "haters", having racial/nationalistic goals, and of various other ulterior motives. It never makes a dent but I often continue to do it anyway. So yeah, my faith in Wikipedia gets low sometimes. Glad people like you are around.  :) Shinyang-i (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pff, practical concerns have no place up here in my ivory utopian tower ;) Everyone has their own things they easily shrug off, and they get really annoyed by. I remember being accused of racism by someone who was just flailing accusations wildly that I should have just shrugged off, but which I experienced as really hurtful. Once things get personal, it's really hard to get "back to business" and the strategy of allowing others their victories if it works towards your goals becomes really difficult to pull of. Things like "the sponsors want X" is one of those things that irk me too, and I've noticed that my initial reaction tend to be "that's nice, but we don't care", and after that it takes a whole lot of effort for me to assume good faith towards that person, which I don't always succeed in. I agree with you that you're in a situation where little compromise or progress can be found; either the link is included or it isn't (it still doesn't exempt you from edit warring, which I really understand is frustrating in this case). Bonnielou2013, I invite you to read the above as well (don't feel obliged to agree or to comment if you don't want to; if you just read it for yourself I'd already be happy, and if you don't want to, that's fine too. I know I tend to ramble) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Meneer Hoekstra, thanks for weighing in: I fully endorse your words and sentiments. I could not, however, help but notice you dropped a few things on your way in, and I picked them up for you--here they are, <p><p><p><p><p><p><p><p>. There may have been more. :) Drmies (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, there they are! I only had one left when I arrived here, which I put somewhere in the middle as a last-ditch effort. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Martijn Hoekstra, Drmies, Shinyang-i - I'm pleased to see that Shinyang-i was able to rally an informal "dispute resolution" forum, at my suggestion, although it was resolved before your discussion got underway. It appears that I acquiesced, but after reading the policy Wikipedia:External links through, I will look to other pages that I have created and bring them up to specs for WP standards. As most newbies do with WP, I struggled for months in my Sandbox and uploaded my first article in December 2013, a year ago, just getting the basics down. WP is a huge Bible of dos and dont's (or you will forever be banished to hell!) and I admit to learning by example - rather than ploughing thru all the intricate language. This page Wikipedia:Uploading images even has a tag "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand." In the real world, ignorance of the law does not mean you are exempt from committing a crime. However, this is WP, and things are done, ideally, by consensus and agreement. At this point in time, I think the "Undo" edit button should be BOLD and in RED letters - it is not for the common user, (ie. - me) and I realized this a while ago - if it didn't exist - we would have to tediously search for the prior edits, cut and paste, or re-create the deletions. This would provide a cooling down period, when egos are miffed, or mistakes are made. I learn from example, and recently saw another Editor get criticism for not adding an "Edit Summary" - so I learned what that was - since I had never added one - but now do. I think that each of us interested in WP and willing to stick in there (what, 15% of editors are women, and the amounts of patrolling editors and administrators are falling - per media reports?) do so because we're both meticulous bores and, also, because we like people. I'll admit this time that I had based my "External Links" standards on what I had seen, and since I have admitted that my hobby or penchant is K-pop - then it's obvious I've been looking at some lagging standards - in other K-pop pages. When I have free time, I sometimes add references to pages that have 1 or none, fix bad links, typos, or try to rescue pages nominated for Deletion - without weighing in on the Discussion pages - I am not an expert. As to any COI - yes, in general, I have a soft spot in my heart for those enterprising and often poorly paid K-pop idols - but mostly I just like the music - and try to keep my nose clean by writing NPOV pages, one sentence at a time. I think our choice of subjects gives us away - I am not writing about rocket science - I am writing about K-pop. I don't have an ax to grind for any of the industry, and forgot myself when referencing KOCCA's outreach efforts, in my talk with Shinyang-i. Yes, the fan language does sometimes overlap inappropriately, but I think I have a broader history of non-partisan behavior on WP. I respond to other Editors, listen and have feed-back. I think we might have benefited this time if Shinyang-i had discussed the deletions with me. She indicates it is not necessary - but I have found this the common accepted standard among both friendly and distant Editors. I also refrain from the use of bad language on WP talk pages, re: her use of "WTF" and "Bitched" - although you may find my language different among friends, on casual social media. Thanks for your insight into our little misunderstanding. I'm far too old to learn new tricks, and pride myself that I can partially negotiate this jungle called WP; and if it includes sticking to the rules, compromising, and admitting my mistakes - I can do that, too. Thanks--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bonnielou2013, thank you so much for coming here and pouring your heart out.I don't have time to respond properly to you at this moment, and might not have time to respond until tomorrow afternoon/evening CET, but if the good drmies will allow more time and space on his speakeasy I'll still give this the time and consideration it deserves.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Anything goes, meneer Hoekstra, as long as it's done in impeccable prose. Bonnielou, please pick up some of Martijn's paragraph breaks--it's very hard to read this long paragraph. Also, no one is ever banished to hell: as Shinyang can tell you, many editors find it easy to keep coming back to this place. I yield the floor. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Martijn Hoekstra, thank you already for your time, you're very thoughtful.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Drmies, you didn't ping me, but I saw your note to me. If you prefer, I can be equally verbose in slang and colloquialisms. You and I haven't broken the ice enough in our relationship to let our hair down, but if you would feel more comfortable, just go on and call me a "do**chebag", I'm a big girl. (said with a very broad friendly smile on my face!) There - ice broken! Re: paragraphs - I try to follow style, and didn't want to make Martijn Hoekstra uncomfortable.

As to asking Shinyang-i about WP users not being banished to hell, I might have terrorized her enough for now. And, with sincerity, I do appreciate the so-called "grunt" work of tidying up WP articles and getting loads of complaints about it - I certainly don't have the patience, or personality to do it. As I said previously, we are all needed.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to refrain from making another long rant as I intended to do earlier. But I will make an observation. You're both clearly have the best of intentions. And still, Shinyang-i said your behaviour was very frustrating to them to the point of saying "I hate Wikipedia", and I don't believe for a single moment you intended for that. At the same time I read plenty of frustration in your post, which I can't imagine being Shinyang-i's intention either. So how can we avoid that? A thing that can help you is that you are not your edits. If someone critizes or even complains about your edits they are not critisising you.

This is especially important in Wikipedia. We're asking wikipedians to be bold in their edits, and at the same time, we put a lot of scrutiny on the edits. The un-intuitive notion that an edit you don't agree with is still a good edit is the central point. People are welcome to try things out, and make all the mistakes in the world, with the understanding that their mistakes will be undone, and they will be told why they are mistakes. Not to banish anyone to hell, but to help them make their next edit better. Receiving feedback is hard. Try to make it work for you.

Secondly, express your frustration. If somebodies edits are frustrating you, please, please also give feedback on that. Let them know their edits are frustrating to you. Tell them what you're struggling with. Nine out of ten times, they will help you, because people are awesome like that. Giving feedback is about as hard as receiving it - I know, I'm not good at it myself, but if we neglect to do it, and do it well, Wikipedia will fall apart. For too long we've fostered a culture where criticism is not done, and repressing frustration with one other is the norm, until the dam breaks, and we turn in to a lynchmob. We have to put a stop to that.

Lastly, you say that Shinyang-i should have talked to you earlier. I agree. But hindsight is 20/20. The corollary to that is that you should have discussed it earlier with them. It turns out that this became a medium-sized rant. I guess I can live with that, and I hope it contains something that can help you on Wikipedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This event is ancient history to me. However, I will never, ever initiate a talk page discussion to remove a couple of extra links when it's cut-and-dry policy and can be easily explained in an edit summary. If I did that, I would do nothing but write talk page messages all day on articles with editors who, for the most part, don't read talk pages and would argue until the cows came home. Most kpop editors do not care about policy or are way too lazy to look for it, and trying to talk out every teensy non-debatable thing with them is utterly pointless. No way will I ever ask for permission or try to "get a consensus" for something as tiny as removing a link that violates a very easy-to-find and easy-to-understand policy. Editors need to take a teensy bit of responsibility for what they post. It is the responsibility of the person adding information to ensure it conforms to Wikipedia standards, not the responsibility of the one removing it to prove it doesn't. Editors need to do some legwork on their own when they see something's been removed, not just rush to whoever removed to protest. And if the remover tells them why it was changed (even if already stated in the edit summary), again, that person needs to go do the legwork instead of again complaining. No sympathy. NONE. bonnielou says she didn't even know about edit summaries until recently. They're explained on like page 1 of the "how to edit Wikipedia" instructions that every editor is supposed to read, and is present at the bottom of the screen every single time she edits a page. So if all of this somehow makes me a bad editor, then so be it. Pretty sure I've never banished anyone to hell, don't appreciate the implication(?) that I have. Let's just drop this, because in the two minutes it's taken me to type this, probably 20 kpop articles have been unproductively edited with violating garbage and now I have to go deal with that. Yeah, kpop really is that bad. Shinyang-i (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It pains me to hear that Shinyang-i. I believe making wikipedia a non-toxic place, and helping other editors out so they can help better is worth more of our time than that, but you're under no obligation to help me with that. Regardless, happy editing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, so do I. That's why I'm nice to people until they act like (I removed the not-so-nice name) who argue for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile, I just cleaned up many dozens of kpop navbox templates, every single one of which was in violation of the navbox parameters. No way was I gonna leave a message on all the talk pages asking for their permission to get rid of their rule-breaking garbage. Ten seconds on WP:NAV would have told them the right way to do it, but like so many other kpop editors, they didn't bother to look. Now they're all done correctly. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies, thanks for your even-handed comments at WP:ARCA, and for your constructive intervention at the discussion at talk:Landmark Worldwide. There are two issues that deeply puzzle me and I would be really grateful if you would give me some feedback on them.

The first is that you have again stated "Dave Apter's COI is a matter of record". I am honestly of the opinion that I have nothing that could reasonably be described as a conflict of interest, still less that it is "a matter of record". Apart from yourself, the only people who have made that accusation are editors that are openly hostile towards me and who have been trying to push negative viewpoints regarding Landmark. As I have every respect for your impartiality and for your commitment to the policies of Wikipedia, I am greatly troubled that you have come to this conclusion. I would appreciate it if you would explain your reasoning, and I would like to reach a shared understanding, even if that involves a revision of my view of myself.

Secondly, I am puzzled by what appears to me to be a gross asymmetry of attitudes towards personal attacks. On the one hand I made a single ill-judged comment about Theodore Tiger (which I have acknowledged and which I regret), and a storm breaks out with a chorus demanding my head on a plate. On the other hand, I have been subjected to a stream of vindictive accusations and personal attacks on a daily basis for months from John Carter, Astynax, Lithistman, and now Legacypac; and nobody blinks an eye. Every attempt I have made to get this resolved results in a stream of counter-attacks and repetitions of the original unfounded charges, rather than any attempt to address the issue. I would really appreciate your perspective on this, and any advice or suggestions you have. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Dave, real quick: I do believe that your COI is a matter of record since you have stated on-wiki at the very least that you've taken their classes (or whatever those things are) and, if I recall correctly, that you view the outfit favorably. That's all it means. A COI does not automatically mean one cannot edit objectively or that one shouldn't be editing in a certain field--if that were the case I shouldn't be editing beer articles and Dr. K. shouldn't be editing K-pop (although his love for the music is so obvious that his very user name proves it). You may have noticed that I initially considered you be excluded from the area; I do not feel that way anymore. I think you have a COI, and I think it's not much of a problem (and I think ArbCom agrees).

  As for the personal attacks--well, if you made amends (I need to look at that comment more carefully) that's great, and as far as I'm concerned that can be the end of it. I do not know everything that's going on on the other side, although you will have seen I have removed one personal attack and discussed it with the editor. So it's not the case that nobody blinks an eye: I blinked once already, but I can't blink at what I don't see. I trust, though, that those editors will be on their best behavior. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much. DaveApter (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you have a moment would you mind taking a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Continual_abuse_and_harassment_by_John_Carter . My original request was closed an hour later on an (I think mistaken) assumption that "the matter was being handled by Arbcom". John re-opened the discussion and I have responded, but we just seem to be going round in circles. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I removed the entire mention--I think it's trivial, and even if that name is properly verified (Amazon links don't count, Hafs, and are frowned upon) it adds nothing to the article. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Never mind is fixed. Let's dance instead. Hafspajen (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

PS. Still, I doubt it is called spamming. Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

And concentrate on Tito. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tito_Torbellino&diff=next&oldid=642721770. This editor: states. I LOVE ANNA SANTAMARIA, By LEO VELAZCO. Or something like that. Hafspajen (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Such homely little scenes you left me. I saw a video of a baby pig that slid on ice, but apparently I am not allowed to go out and buy a pig, so I think a donkey is certainly out of the question. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You have some excellent American litterature you can read on the subject: Winning Through Intimidation, How You Can Find Happiness During the Collapse of Western Civilization, Million Dollar Habits and To Be or Not to Be Intimidated?: That is the Question and Action!: Nothing Happens Until Something Moves... by Robert Ringer. Hafspajen (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Funny how so many books are Number 1 Bestsellers!!! in a leading bookshop in Wankers Corner, Oregon. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Hafspajen, you should take down the image of the livestock. Considering what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is alleging about me at ANI, that could be considered fairly provocative imagery...!! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• EH? I really don't think it is that sexy... Hafspajen (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Scalhotrod - Puddletown   est oppidum comitatus Dorcestria e in Anglia meridioccidentali situm. Ibi nundinae et mercatus tenebantur ab anno 130 . Hafspajen (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Guess he thinks it's not so obvious this way, but of course it still is: Warez men be 4o3, Donner of dones, Vitomanes 1. When a brand new account has nothing on its record except undoing my edits, it's pretty telling. LOL Shinyang-i (talk)

Make that four names: Henry sluffs. Thanks so much! Shinyang-i (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Five: Drinarivven. Think I got them all now. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Materialscientist, what do you think--did Shinyang get them all? Philippe (WMF), has the legal team been weaponized? Drmies (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Those were the five that undid my edits. Maybe he went after someone else too, though lately I seem to be his favorite target. Shinyang-i (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• If that's the case, ask your boss if they received a letter (with fake name and story, of course) from Vgleer. That's devotion! :) Drmies (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_Frederik_Jan_Floris_Jacob_van_Omphal Herman Antonie de Bloeme ... Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hafspajen, this is the most boring article you've had me translate so far. You should get The Banner to do it. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

YIPPIEEEE!!!!! Sorry. I mean. But it is a NICE picture... Hafspajen (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

He's not that boring- he commandeered a regiment, so he's like the Captain of Kopenick. Michel van Rijn (art smuggler) also hasn't got an article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about the article, Xantophant--booooooring. Also, I don't know what a regiment is, or a colonel, or a lieutenant-colonel, or an aide-de-camp, which is why I was dishonorably discharged from MILHIST after one night of barrel duty. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Disappointing announcement: I am very picky in my choice of articles.   The Banner talk 10:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

But there are good chances he will be a featured picture. Hafspajen (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Nitramrekcap is back, this time as 2.27.131.84 and 2.27.132.49. His edits at Talk:Cambridge Apostles are in my opinion a clear give-away. To freshen up your memory: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Enough is enough. The Banner talk 23:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Haha, you know my memory. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Thing is, Banner, what do you want me to do? I semi'ed Gerald Shove, and I suppose I can semi that talk page--in fact, I'll go ahead and do that. But I can hardly block those two (or three) IPs; there's little point to it. How 'bout next time you just revert, let me know, and I'll see if semi-protection is sensible? And when is the last time you ate kapucijners? Drmies (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I did nothing on the articles, was waiting on your reply first.
  • It is no comment on your memory. I just know that you are a busy man and the case was in August.
  • Goodie, I haven't eaten them in Ireland. So, it would be at least 8 years and ten months ago!   The Banner talk 23:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Got some in the oven right now, with Conecuh sausage. We call 'em "shelled field peas" here and I tell you what, you dress 'em up with some bell pepper and other stuff, they look a hell of a lot better than that nasty grey stuff we got in the old country. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

As per your suggestion, [18] I have pointed CombatWombat42 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. [19] Edward321 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks--I was afraid I might not have been explicit enough. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes of course, the elliptical and indirect communication style for which the Dutch are well known. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• ?Drmies (talk)

WeAreAllStars is now accusing me of hounding for attempting to discuss reliable sources on the talk page.[20] Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Lft thm a nt. Thx. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Esteemed Drmies, sorry for taking up your busy time, but I was wondering could you possibly either give me some of your highly regarded advice on this dispute here, or alternatively tell me where to look for advice. Basically I'm being prevented from creating shortcuts to sections on my home page here, here, and here, by a user who deletes them on the basis of rules that explicitly say that shortcuts are an exception to the rule that redirects from article space are not allowed. He may even be right but just quoting the wrong rules, but as a result I feel somewhat abused (to put it mildly), and I also feel that if he is right then the rules need amending to make this clear and to prevent others having the same unpleasant and time-wasting experience in future - but I can't currently try to do that, as I have no evidence that he is right. I should perhaps mention that I suspect it's also possible that the real but unstated problem is the content of one or more of the sections on my home page, in which case it might help if somebody just said so. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your help, Drmies. And I really loved your stopped clock comment :) However I have at least temporarily removed it to avoid unnecessarily annoying Bgwhite, whom I'm expecting back on my page. But if you prefer me to restore it, please just let me know and I will restore it ASAP. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Bgwhite knows what I think about him, but thanks for your diplomacy. :) Drmies (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply