User talk:Drmies/Archive 86

Kind sir, can you please check if the references #7 and #8 in this player's article are correct as far as the translation of the Dutch titles is concerned. Somehow, it does not sound right to me (in that case, damn you again Google translator!), but maybe my ear is just being silly...

Kind regards, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I'd say "The Real Renato Neto" for the second one; otherwise they look fine to me. Hope you're doing well, AL! Drmies (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick deletion for Food in Loyola, would you check Apnashorkot? Looks pretty tricky, although it is correct that there is nothing like "Apnashorkot", and the actual city is known as Shorkot. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Drmies! Since you know everything and everybody (I know that because it says so on my talk page), maybe you could recommend somebody to close the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gareth Davies. It's a tricky one, because it should really result in a merger of the subject page with a DAB page, including a full or partial history merge. Any thoughts? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, we can procrastinate for another day since Dirtlawyer1 offered you a deal. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Looks to me like you need to split the history, and then merge the DAB history back to the non-dab history. Tricky but not impossible.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Regardless of the outcome of that discussion that should probably be done, it doesn't look as though he would be the primary topic.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Well, we could just move the dab page to the "main" page, restore the "main" page history, and revert to the proper version (this one, maybe). "Deleting" the hoax article (if that is what it is) is no different than reverting vandalism, and doesn't require deletion of edits, necessarily.
      • It's a simple enough case to merge the pre-2013 history with the DAB page without including the new article. If the article is kept it should be done, if the article is deleted it should be done. I am against moving a page mid-AfD, something always gets bunged up when closing, like only deleting the redirect (CoM was bad for that). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • You know what, I'm just going to do that. You (Melanie) and Dirtlawyer can go ahead and rewrite the one for the rugby player. K-stick, I'll let you clean up the mess. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • FYI, I spent about 45 minutes looking to determine this guy's notability about 10 days ago. One thing I took away from that search is that there are a surprising number of people named Gareth Davies, most of them Brits. Even if we were to find three or four solid articles to establish his notability, there is no way he is the primary topic for this title. I suggest y'all figure out how fix the edit history, because that needs to happen regardless of whether this particular guy is saved as an article topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • I really wish you hadn't, now it's way more complex... ah well, I will have a look. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
          • K-stick, there is no problem. The possibly hoaxy part doesn't need to be removed from the history. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
            • Just because it doesn't have to, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be. Ah well, I will give into your expertise and my laziness. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Done. Hey Dirtlawyer, I have a theory, and just to test it--you're American, right? How many people called "Mike Davis" do you know, and how many of them are good people? Drmies (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • None known personally. but I've encountered a few. It's kind of a generic American-sounding name -- sounds like a "good guy" name, someone you would have as a teammate, fraternity brother, neighbor, coworker, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Hmm, thanks. That's valuable data. In my experience they're really good ole boys, a bit on the conservative side for my taste. I do have an anecdote or two about Mike Davises, but right now I'm interested if any of the talk page watchers have anything to add. I think this is a topic, though I admit it's a bit FRINGEy. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • I don't know any Mike Davises. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I knew W.T.H. "Willie" Davis, Welsh teenage flyhalf notable for his performance for Swansea against the All Blacks in 1935… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

A "Mike Davis" sounds like someone who would be a chip off the old block. Just my few cents. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Drmies, I should have known you would make it look easy. In fact, I did know. That's why I asked you. @Dirtlawyer1:, no, I don't accept your deal, and I'm not going to spend half an hour looking for information about an obscure rugby player named Gareth Davies, just because somebody made up a hoax article under that name. And it WAS a hoax, done so clumsily that they didn't even change the access dates when they copied the references from the actual player. I'm not giving that much satisfaction to a hoaxer. But have fun looking. As for the name Mike Davis - both are so common it's impossible to generalize. "Davis" is a very common last name and covers the whole demographic spectrum here, rich, poor, black, white. As for "Mike", again, it's too common to make a rule. "Mike" can be a politician, a school teacher, a plumber, a bartender, a Hells Angel, you name it. (Incidentally, I know a married couple, man and woman, who are both named Michael. He goes by Mike, she goes by Michael. They're both lawyers.) While I know dozens of people named Mike or Michael, I don't know a single Gareth. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I notice that you merged the Marathon (chocolate bar) article into Curly Wurly.

Unfortunately, you didn't include the hatnote in the original article which covers the case of the unrelated UK Marathon chocolate bar. (This is necessary because "Marathon (chocolate bar)" could plausibly refer to either).

When updating and modifying articles like this, please take care to ensure that any necessary disambiguation is preserved; either you could have pointed Marathon (chocolate bar) back to the dab page itself- updating links where necessary- or include the dab in the Curly Wurly page as I've done.

FWIW, I'm not 100% convinced that the US Marathon article *should* have been merged into Curly Wurly, since it's a different product, but that's a separate issue.

Ubcule (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OMG. Thank you for setting me straight! Drmies (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

No need for that vaguely sarcastic response. Now that I notice you're an administrator (which I hadn't yesterday) it's obvious that you probably found this patronising.

However, I normally take these things at face value and assume the omission was made in good faith by someone who didn't know better. (This does happen, even with users who've been around for some time).

If nothing else, it leaves things open for the recipient to say "Thanks, but I already knew that, it was just an oversight/mistake" or "it was because (whatever reason)".

If there was a good reason the dab wasn't fixed up, then fair enough, or if you think there was a better way to have brought this to your attention, then I'd appreciate your suggestion.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

A UK confectionery outrage! NOT ONLY DID IT "Keep you going-going-going with peanut power!!" BUT IT ALSO "Comes up peanuts, slice after slice!!". (Well yeah ok, that's what they say about Drmies too, I guess, but never mind.) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. also keeps your hunger at bayReply

Martin, your peanuts are flying way over my head, and I'm not allowed to watch YouTube videos anymore. Ubcule, you're correct: I did find it patronizing! That has little to do with my status; it's just a matter of your tone. But it's all good. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"snickers" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now the wheels have well and truly fallen off. Roberta Benigni (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, this is great. More nudge, nudge, wink, wink innuendo from women pretending to be men pretending to be women. For shame, "Roberta". Sue Gardenia (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ratón, sister, ratón. Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

It's not been a good day - Charles Kennedy has passed away and I've just done my first indef block. I think I may go and cry in a corner now. I have been around this place for far too long now - last I night I dreamed I was blocked for violating WP:3RRonIreland for adding a blank space four times in 24 hours, and kept hitting "watchlist" repeatedly waiting for an unblock request. I need to lay off the cheese at bedtime. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not near as good as my recent dream where I went camping with Joseph Stalin, apparently he uses a MacBook, in case you were interested. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will not talk about last night night's dreams, - my simple dreams here are old and known (an even older one is linked from my user page), - and I feel not sad, sorry, even made someone smile today. Good block, Ritchie, and good attempt to unblock. - Drmies, in case you read anyway: enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• PooPooPeePee? Well. What a strange dream--was the overlinking part of it? Because if it was I'll have to invade that dream and give you a handwritten warning for disruption. Gerda, I'm looking at a little box of Oud Kampen and I might light one tonight, with a little glass of something. K-stick, you've been reading 2666, no doubt, and were inspired by the dream Amalfitano had about Boris Yeltsin. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

one more dream: the talk archive that Hafspajen decorated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Why is it that the rouge administrators like Ritchie always block the brilliant content creators like XXx PooPooPepe xXx? It is so unfair but what else can you expect from a guy who includes half of 666 in his username? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• If I could get the mobile app to work I'd have blocked him already. Ritchie is that new kind of admin--hasn't written a single article, wouldn't know FA or GA if it bit him on the ass... 84.107.75.239 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• And now you mention it, I keeping getting these recurring nightmares where I suffer "Freud egg on my Facebook". But I put it down to my massive over-indulgence with coke. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC) ... oh no! not "rouge administrators" again!? Reply

• Now look here Mr 84.107 (can I call you that), I have recently acquired the Ordnance Survey Outdoor Leisure Map of Body Parts, and I can clearly see "arse" and "elbow" and I am attempting to work out through accurate pinpointing which is which. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I must admit that my Middle Eastern geography is a bit of a low point. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Outdoor Leisure. The representation on this map of any orifice is no evidence of the existence of a right of way. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The entire British Empire was built on cups of tea, not buggering anything that moves (unless you were in public school that is). Make tea not love. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Instead of bantering around, why don't y'all write up Poop and Pee Menuet properly? I can't rightly figure out if Willem WilminkorHans Dorresteijn wrote the lyrics. Drmies (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've seen worse. Anyway, banter, yes ... can somebody remind me why I haven't taken In the Land of Grey and Pink to GA? It looks good to go bar a bit of a shave and a haircut. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Probably too busy fannying around getting it onto the Augusta leader board. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Look this is the only thing happening on my Watchlist and has been for hours if not days, but that doesn't mean I want to read this nonsense. Boys! Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Lavvy, I meant "cradocking around". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Softlavender, but the nonsense isn't mine. I just keep churning out content. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

If by churning out content you mean watering down the truth with anti-American-ness, then sure. It's American Ninja Warrior after all. I'm starting to really not want to watch this page anymore...but it needs it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Try your hand on the late nl:Albert West... The Banner talk 16:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, die is dood? He, ik vond een stapel James Last LPs op mijn moeders zolder--heb jij interesse? Drmies (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, ik heb geen LP-speler. Gesneuveld bij mijn emigratie. The Banner talk 20:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"The Old Dutch Churn" - available here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Reply

• I'm still working on Ritchie333's getting bent out of shape over his first indefinite block. Lucky for me I never block anyone. My stats say otherwise, but that's just to make me look good. Drmies told me when he nominated me that I would have his support only if for each block I created a new article. Inasmuch as I'm one of those criminal administrators who don't know how to spell the word content, I refrained from blocking anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm also a little puzzled that Ritchie found his first indefinite block to be troubling. No need, Ritchie; that was a righteous block if ever there was one, and any admin would be proud to have done it. I say this as an admin who is only a few months "older" than you, and who was initially terrified of my tools for fear I might block someone accidentally. I don't set out to do blocks, but sometimes you just gotta do it - and not lose any sleep over it. My stats counter tells me I have issued four blocks, that's about one a month. I can't remember the details but I don't regret any of them. Pass the rouge, please... --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't add fake obstacles on the American Ninja Warrior page. Whenever I do add an obstacle, I give proof. Read my previous edits to see that I did add proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonNolan64 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I didn't say anything about fake. I just said that the stuff you kept adding was utter shite, and that you're edit warring. All of this is a complete waste of my time. And since you didn't sign I'll probably get a notification for an edit conflict, and will have to waste even more time. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear doc, you wouldn't happen to have an English reference for Vlokken, the chocolate flakes used as sandwich topping/filling in the beautiful country, would you? Even the Dutch reference books I found seem to be more concerned with dandruff than culinary exploration. Cheers! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Geoff, what a lovely question, on such an important topic--though I've always liked muisjes better than vlokken, there's something very appealing about their...airiness. No, I don't have anything at hand--I wonder if "chocoladevlokken" is a useful search term. But it's late in the beautiful country and I still have a novel to finish: a demain? Drmies (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It's tomorrow, now. And that gets me a long way toward some references - not just "flakes," "chocolate flakes!" Rescued me from the fields of dandruff. Thanks! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Busy day, Geoff. IJsselmeer, Schellinkhout, Westvleteren (the beer)... I did think of you, momentarily, when I bought a pack of gestampte muisjes to take home... Drmies (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It never ceases to amaze me how poor coverage of such factual stuff seems to be. Nothing in Google books, nothing--not even dry factoids about regulations and whatnot... Drmies (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I wish I could read Dutch, though I can parse out the title of this gem: Is dat normaal, dockter?. Any book with a chapter titled "Beschuit mit muisjes" has got to be good! Enjoy that anise-sugary goodness! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hell, I ran out of fucks to give a long time ago. Seriously though, everything OK? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had a few left but I wasted them at DYK. Apparently I had to state explicitly that I checked all the Five Points of the Executive Review Submission form; I've always thought that to be completely silly. I guess I'm becoming old and jaded: I figured that after 334 DYKs my "OK" should be enough. How you doin, Homer? I just went for a swim in the IJsselmeer, and before you know it it's beer time here! Drmies (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I haven't messed with DYK since they changed it all around. I know a few editors (you included) who have slowly backed off, or stopped altogether, doing DYKs. Kinda sad, since folks doing DYKs were also updating articles or creating new ones.

All is good here. Enjoying the first sunny day in the past week. From Monday to Friday was cold, gloomy, and rainy. Typically I don't mind it, but it was getting a little old. Sunny, 79 and a nice breeze. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yngvadottir is one of those, and they're sorely missed. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dravecky (talk · contribs) is another. He would update radio station articles and then put them up for DYK. He still does the updating, so it isn't a total loss to the project. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Riff Raff (rapper) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Drmies, yesterday you talked with me on behalf of Sitush, you do not know exactly what is the reality of Kerala's castes and castes among the Christians and their history so you speak. How can you direct "Cheramar Christians" to "Pulayar", since these two are entirely different? The fact is that when the Cheramars or Pulayars embrace Christianity they become "Cheramar Christians" not Pulayar or Pulayas. Don't make comments without knowing the reality and facts.--Peter Thomas Olickal 03:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olickal Peter Thomas (talk • contribs)

• Take it up on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This seemed like a pretty obvious Request Edit to me, putting things in chronological order and has been in the queue for over a month. Since you have some familiarity with the article, I thought maybe you could take a look if you have a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 06:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• |answered=yes :) Drmies (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I started another string here, but not as a Request Edit, since some time should be given for Nomo to provide any comments, etc. but still your response would be welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I hope you are enjoying your vacation: it would seem that the kids have tipped you out of the hammock. When you return, I'd appreciate your thoughts regarding whether it should be pay heed toorpay heed ofinthis section of another crappy redlink elimination exercise. I'd ask Eric but he is on that daft enforced vacation. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I always thought it was "to", but it took me forever to understand that "putting out" means "putting in". And I still think that "doozy" sounds like something small, minor, easy. No doubt Xanty will weigh in shortly; they have good sense. Yes, poor Eric--well, poor English Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm… dunno, whether I've got good sense. I would've thought pay heed to but in the sense of pay heed to their prejudices rather than pay heed to them. Damn, lunch calls Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Pay heed to, take heed of- maybe take heed of them (the brewers) ? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• That's better. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, but it's undeserved. I love only dog, and that one is a lot better-looking than those pugs. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

As a rule, I'm not in favor of removing talk page access to blocked editors but a quick visit to this editor's talk page quickly showed me there are exceptions to every rule. As the blocking admin, I thought you might check it out when you have a moment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. I saw Tide rolls already looked at it. If others would leave that editor alone, there probably wouldn't be much to discuss. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies,

2015 Note for Vote Scam is an really valid article. Its need separate page since it involvles many people. I request you to restore the page. Before you did redirect someone has made it balnk. Please check history of it. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I know, because I reverted the blanking before I made the redirect. In my opinion this isn't sufficient for a standalone article. You are welcome to revert that editorial (not administrative) decision, but if you do I will propose it be deleted, and then we'll see what other editors think. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, I would like to know what is the exact reason for not sufficient for being article ? Please check this its a current major issue in Indian states Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. For time being i am restoring the page. Lets see what other eitors will decide. I request you to see this issue presence in google .Rasulnrasul (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Note for Vote Scam. Also, we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

do u think User:Andyjsmith is a girls blouse that thin skinned? 118.93.90.74 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• If you want to be taken seriously, strt tlkng lk n dlt. But no, I do not think anyone is a girl's blouse. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

That is one of the more inane things I've seen a troll say. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Careful, Liz; if you ever want to run for admin, you'll find that such obvious truths can become controversial. I mean "controversial", of course. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can't see how that could be controversial but, you know, Wikipedia is a place where people make mountains out of very small molehills. I shouldn't second-guess what people will take issue with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You mean Liz isn't already an admin? If I had known that I wouldn't have been so nice to her. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good point! Yeah, I'm waiting to see that RfA go live. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Liz: If someday after loading up on Jack Daniels and psilocybin you decide it would be such a great idea to be an admin, let me know. I don't necessarily watch RfA. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, @Short Brigade Harvester Boris:, but wouldn't that be canvassing? I will say that this move is a possibility although I'm trying to develop the thick skin I imagine I'll need. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Drmies, I just wanted to say I share your frustration with "edit conflicts"...   Would you happen to know if the implementation FLOW will eliminate edit conflicts from happening anymore? (A quick search didn't turn up anything.) Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• IJBall, I'm the wrong person to ask. By the way, I totally approve of your name; it makes me think of such deliciousness as Zatte. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please mark as patrolled all new pages you tag. Thanks. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 21:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is that, like, a rule now? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I would, I suppose, but I really have no idea what all that is. "Curate" means something very different for me--I think. And didn't something happen automatically, back in the day, once a kickass editor like me or The Brox had edited it? Drmies (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not 100% convinced that this is not a hoax. What are your thoughts? Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Author of an unpublished history of Crete, and President of the literary society of Kastro, according to Literature and Society in Renaissance CretebyDavid Holton. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Glad you could settle that definitively. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Gamaliel, I was thinking about pinging you since I saw you in the history. That's a lot of new accounts and the "educational assignment" template I placed was just a guess--none of the editors have talk page messages or contact with an instructor or mentor. I blocked one of those accounts for vandalism. I also thought of locking the article since all those tiny edits are somewhat disruptive. You'll note that some of those editors edited articles with similar titles. 'Tis all a bit strange. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• A classroom assignment would explain all the new accounts, some with what appear to be real names, all editing this particular article and not much else. If it is a classroom assignment, though, why are they all tweaking the same article and making what appear to be zero content additions. Very confusing. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yep. It's indicative of someone doing a little assignment without support from the education people, which is always a bad idea. We could ping Meester Hyland and see if he has an opinion... Drmies (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not one of ours. A few of the accounts also edited Milton, Glasgow (though only a few), so they may be from there. But that's not something I'd stake any money on. I can talk to some of them to see who might be behind it and try to get them onboard but students are (understandably) reluctant to tell a stranger where they're from IRL. To answer Gamaliel's question, some classroom assignments work on only one article (a common strategy for lower level undergrad classes with lots of students). Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's possible that the Academy of the Weird (L’ Accademia degli Stravaganti) actually existed. There appears to be an article on Italian WP referring to Accademia degli Svegliati, which (machine translated) suggests that there were a few oddly-named academies. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Gamaliel, Adam (Wiki Ed), et alia--this is perhaps some kind of answer. I've been handing out blocks like candy. And there's Vulturii Textila Lugoj. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may remember List of South Korean idol groups (2010s), which was converted to a simple list article in December after a discussion on WikiProject Korea. Ever since then, IPs are constantly adding non-links, redlinks and disambiguation pages to the list. Would it be appropriate to request semi-protection in this case? Random86 (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yep, it would, but it's already done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hope your vacation is going well. Mines coming up.
So I'd like to see if you'd mind giving an outside opinion on the Sean Hannity article.
The Reader's Digest version: Before Hannity became a nationally syndicated host, he had a smaller local show in NJ. He allowed a caller "Hal from North Bergen" to call in "frequently" (something nobody can quantify). Turns out, he was Hal Turner, a neo-nazi and general scumbag. Later, he called into the show to announce an ill-fated run for Congress. Turner later claimed that he and Hannity were "friends", though Hannity denies it and there's not evidence beyond Turner's word. In 2008, a Black Panther guest on the show brought it up and a couple of partisan sources made noise about it for a few minutes and then dropped it. The mainstream media largely ignored it. It was removed from the article a few years ago because it was guilt by association and being given undue weight because it wasn't really notable to Hannity's bio. Now a SPA is demanding that it be put back in. I have BLP reservations and UNDUE concerns. He demands this "truth" be put into the article. As far as I know, you have no political hindrences....... if you have time, I'd appreciate it if you'd look in and see if you think I'm off base. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Ah, my favorite person in the world...I mean you, not SH. How much more pleasant this world would be without guys like him on TV. Sure, I'll have a look. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• OK Niteshift, I had a look at this paragraph--there may be more stuff but this is the most recent. It was restored by Cwobeel, whom I'm pinging out of courtesy. I have no problem with the first half, which appears to be properly sourced, though the wording in the article is not neutral enough: we cannot say Hannity accommodated this Nazi, since that's way too not-neutral. We can say that one source calls it that, of course, and Springer is reliable enough that we can take that appellation seriously. But the second part, the Black Panther part, that cannot stand--it's far, far from neutral and contains pretty blatant synthesis or OR ("in contradictory terms") which could never be derived like a plot description from the primary source. So, the Nazi is in and the Black Panther is out, as far as I'm concerned. My god, what a collection. Cwobeel, Niteshift, I hope you can work this out between the two of you: you're both fairly reasonable people. And yeah, vacation is over... Drmies (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the once over. I still think the incident is being given too much weight. The source is pretty partisan, which makes using their appellation a problem to me. If it was something more mainstream, I might be more agreeable. To me, this is like I said in another discussion, it may be appropriate for the article about his show, but not so much his bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, if it hadn't been an academic publisher (or at least one that claims to be that) I would have felt differently. The Nation is of course completely neutral and beyond reproach--I still remember given you that subscription for your birthday. Seriously, though, they're pretty decent as a reliable source though, again, I think our article needs to make very clear who uses what kind of language. Also, if it hadn't been a high-profile Nazi... thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The subscription was well-received. Many fish were tightly wrapped because of that generous gift. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm stalking Drmies talk page here, not you Niteshift36. Anyway, if this wasn't a BLP maybe there'd be some reason to include some "neutrally worded" version of that para. But since it is a BLP I think junking the whole thing is the proper thing to do. In other words I agree with Niteshift36 here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, we all stalk Drmies. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You won't hurt my feelings by junking it--I've never thought we should include everything that can be sourced. See the Hastert history, for instance! Drmies (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if my initial post about Hastert wasn't as clear as it should have been. Incidentally, I've only been involved with the lead there, not with the rest of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• No problem. I've done some pruning in the article, by the way. I think you should go ahead and scrap the entire paragraph. Attempting to balance stuff for BLP purposes is a lot more problematic than not getting into a hot mess in the first place--we probably shouldn't have allegations in there in the first place. On second thought, I should just have scrapped the entire paragraph. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you're probably right, but the thing is I'll get reverted, just like your edits to the body of the article have been. Hence the BLPN consensus-building exercise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You know, it's like when the vultures smell a dead body. Thanks for your efforts at the noticeboard. Feel free to cite me as supporting such an edit. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Will do. I've made the edit, and I give it five minutes tops to be reverted.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Carnivals in all the blue states are installing two dimensional Denny Hastert target posters in all their shooting galleries. That's how it goes in the 21st century. Same as the 20th, so it seems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I keep forgetting which color is which, Cullen--sad, since in this country there's only two anyway. Must be more exciting in that place where Kelapstick sometimes lives. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Colours and politics? Well there is blue (conservative/centre-right), red (liberal/centre-left), orange (uber-left), green (who drive the same sort of car as you do doc), and the other blue (quebec separatist). The greens have never held a seat federally and the quebec separatists don't run outside quebec (for obvious reasons), so really there is only three colours. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Colors", K-stick, COLORS. We're all Americans here. (Sounds more exciting than our options, BTW. Of course, we could have red, white, and blue in one if the Sons of Confederate Veterans got their act together.) Drmies (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Many colors are taken, yet many remain available. I just hope Denny's remains unscathed, I love that place. Breakfast 24 hours (and no move requests if you want to linger).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Brr. My brief vacation did nothing to lighten my waist load, and the thought of eating at Denny's makes my buttons pop off. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm the admin of http://soglia.org/, website from which i am using as a base to build an initial article for SOGLIA. I have updated the licence of the content of the website to Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International. Can i keep editing with the same text? Thank you in advance (and sorry for my bad english). Glnchile (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• No worries about bad English. But while copyright issues are a prime reason for deletion, that doesn't mean that if there is a proper license the text can just be added to an article: text in Wikipedia articles needs to be neutral and properly verified with reliable sources. I suggest you have a look at WP:FIRST, and see what reliable secondary evidence you can muster to write up something that is acceptable as encyclopedic: not every organization is automatically notable. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd like to expand on Doc's answer, if that's okay with the both of you.
  • First of all, no, sorry, that's not enough of a copyright release for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is licensed under the CC-BY-SA (i.e. Creative Commons with the Share-Alike clause, Attribution clause, and nothing else). In order to accept donated material, it has to be released under a license that's strictly no more restrictive than CC-BY-SA; it may be less restrictive, but it can't be more, in the sense that there can be no strings attached that CC-BY-SA itself doesn't attach. Unfortunately, your inclusion of the Noncommercial clause is one such string, as the NC clause is a restriction that our CC-BY-SA doesn't have.
  • Second, the copyright issue, though it is the most pressing problem, isn't the only one with your page. You see, Wikipedia isn't meant to have articles on every conceivable subject under the sun. Rather, we try to have articles only on subjects that we consider notable. To that end, we seek to include pages that are backed by reliable sources that are independent of each other and the subject. The thing is that verifiability of our articles via references to reliable sources is the only way we can even begin to say that our articles are accurate and neutral (and even then, it's an uphill battle). So, even disregarding the copyright issues, your article wasn't really suitable for Wikipedia as written, because it wasn't backed by any sources. We'd be looking for things like newspaper articles that discuss your organization in some length and are published by fairly creditable organizations unrelated to your own. Without any sources like that, your article probably just isn't right for Wikipedia, and even with them, it would probably be better to write the article from the sources, rather than trying to make the sources fit the article.
  • Further reading, if you'd like: notability (particularly the general notability guideline for a clearer idea of what we're looking for), verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point-of-view. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

...for blocking User:Wikidawg11. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• My pleasure. And there was an IP attached to that name as well. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just the other day I noticed the addition of a general article for spit cakes. This is a subject near and dear to my heart, so I'd like to thank you and User:Hafspajen for taking the time. Let me know if you have any questions about cakes, or suggestions for my spit cake website. Cheers! Ushanka (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ohhh... that kind of spit! I have to say, "spit cake" is about the most unappetizing name for a food item I have ever come across. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had spotted dick earlier. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your nose for dick is famous. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

On my last edit on University of North Dakota, you said not a newspaper...what exactly do you mean by that? Bige010 (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Answered on User talk:Sandcherry. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

and I missed it, - I think this 1910 image would match those on your user page, but picked a different one to decorate my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching the latest incarnation. I am keeping a list of their attempts to create this article; that makes 14 that I know of, created by a sockmaster and 6 socks. I loved your comment about "madness". --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The GA Cup starts soon, apparently. One person who is keen to take part has just passed Babur as a GA. Aside from the tweaks to the article that I have done thus far, I'm also documenting more serious issues at Talk:Babur#Uzbek_sources. This is scary: when people are awarded competition points for things done then I'd imagine that standards might sometimes drop a little. How low can they go? Have you any idea whether the issue of standards has ever been a cause for concern in relation to these competitions? - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I think the whole idea of competition simply invites cutting corners. I have no evidence for this, but I've never participated in any of them, except for the Bacon cup of course. I'd ask this Sandy lady from Georgia... Drmies (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I've also never participated and, yes, "invites cutting corners" hits the spot. The reviewer has now commented - apparently "After the battle Babur occupied Delhi and Agra, seated himself on the throne of Lodi and laid the foundation of the Mughal Rule in India, but it was yet to be established and Babur was yet to become the ruler of India, as new contenders for the throne like, Rana Sanga, who rose to challenge his rule." and the like reads well in their opinion. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Ahem. That's challenged. What is the antecedent for "it"? And the last part of the sentence is simply ungrammatical and mispunctuated. Besides, it's ugly. One "yet" ought to be enough. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Last year there was a lot of this. There were articles being advanced to GA with virtually no review, just "check, check, check, passed!" This year the Powers That Be tightened up the rules (requiring a certain word-length of GA reviews for instance). But people who want to cut corners to win a "prize" are always going to find ways to do so. Note that you can click "reassess" at the top of the page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I might just hit that "reassess". One of the outstanding potential flaws with the article is that it relies quite heavily on a popularising "historian" (Abraham Eraly, published by Penguin) and ignores the heavyweight academics published by university presses. It did claim the latter to be sources until I moved the stuff into the further reading section because they were not in fact cited.

  This is only the start of the problems, I suspect, as the nominator and reviewer have combined on other articles. I'm just not sure whether going nuclear by hitting that "reassess" option will just create a lot of angst. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I've given a reply at the GA Cup talk page - I agree that this article should not have passed in its current state. If this happens frequently during the GA Cup then the user(s) in question will receive a warning before facing disqualification as this is a breach of the rules. This will be taken seriously as the competition is meant to encourage quality reviews and reduce backlog, I hope this doesn't happen again... JAGUAR  21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I don't know anything about this cup...but there's no nominator necessary? If it's that easy, someone should go through my articles and just promote them. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Last time, we did have a problem with someone passing articles simply to earn points for the competition, without any real review. We stayed on top it, dealt with the situation, and eventually the person in question dropped out, probably because he knew that we were about to disqualify him. That's always the danger with competitions like the GA Cup and the WikiCup, but I can attest that the benefits far outweighed the drawbacks, which is why we're doing it again. I think that I speak for all of the judges when I say that we promise to do our best to look out for this kind of thing again. And no, Drmies, that's not how it works. Someone nominates an article, and then another editor chooses it from the queue and reviews it, and if he or she is competing in the GA Cup, he or she can enter it for points. Then a judge comes around and checks the entry to ensure that all rules are being followed. The GA Cup was widely successful our first time out, so there's no reason to think that it won't be again. Hey, come join us and compete! You'll have fun, I swear! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

And just to make one more thing clear, every single review submitted that is part of the GA Cup will be reviewed by a judge to ensure it is up to par. May sound like a lot of work but this is the main reason why we have so many judges this year.--Dom497 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all for your comments. I trust that these judges are above reproach, that they are seasoned GA reviewers, and of such wealth they can't be bought. Sitush and I would make poor candidates since we're totally on the take, being poor as churchmice. No, Christine, I'd love to get more ribbons and stuff, but I'm too old and socialistic for competitions, and I really don't participate in them if there's a chance of my not winning. Thanks, though! (BTW, I asked about the nominator since I didn't see one in the GA review we'd been talking about--it went straight to review mode.) Drmies (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wish to correct some misinformation and inaccurate data given on the page I attempted to edit. I belong to the immediately family of the person whose page I tried to edit. And the write-up that was last added as copied and pasted as you said, was from our own words... It was copied from my own personal account, and it was written and composed by me and my family... The immediate family of the person involved. We hope you can and will help us make the proper corrections to be able to provide the public with a more factual and accurate details about the person featured on the page we tried to edit. Thank you very much. We are hoping for your kind consideration and cooperation on this matter. Godspeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Survivor327 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I appreciate the warm greetings, Survivor327; same to you. But the content you added was clearly published elsewhere and thus is a copyright violation. It was written by Rina Jimenez-David, and the page has a clear copyright notice at the bottom. You are welcome to edit the article, but you will have to do it in your own words, give proper attribution, and provide reliable sources for the material. Thank you, and all the best, Drmies (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Drmies. Yes, I admit the first article I added was from an article posted in the Inquirer and was written by the aforementioned columnist, but the second write I added, which was also deleted, were from our own words, me and our family members. It was an autobiography we wrote to provide the public with a more comprehensive and accurate information. Below is a link to the page of the write up I mentioned. Please feel free to visit and view it. And let me know if it's acceptable to be added. Thank you very much again. And more power to you, Drmies. Godspeed. https://www.facebook.com/notes/rely-silayan/this-biography-is-an-incomplete-first-attempt-to-chronicle-the-life-passion-acco/278941000289 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Survivor327 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I confess I'm not good at these things, but what exactly is a Polish dissident? See, e.g., here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Have a look at Soviet dissidents. It used to be a badge of honor. If you look at the extensive categorization in that article it should be clear that there is considerable overlap, and I suppose one problem is that "dissident" was typically the kind of appellation given by the media. In other words, it's not easy to say what it was "exactly"--it may not have been anything "exactly". I mean, it's not as "verifiable" as a category for someone who's been locked up or killed for political reasons. Some spent time in jail, some didn't, so all you can look for is some newspaper article or other, possibly written by someone who just threw the term around cause it sounded good (it did). But this is a part of history that is quickly being forgotten in all the important and much more encyclopedic excitement over Caitlyn Jenner and the CMT awards and goal-line technology and CNN on Twitter. Who still knows what Charter 77 was? Democracy Now (East Germany) is a pathetic little stub, yet this morning I saw an article on a character from a comic book whose article is 100k. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Does that make you a Wikipedia dissident?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Just an idiot, probably. Hey, Bbb, I need you to swing by this afternoon and help me with this stupid iPhone-PC connection problem. After syncing with iTunes (which I hate doing) all of a sudden my PC netbook recognized my iPhone, which is what I wanted in the first place so I can remove photos from my phone, but now that stupid iTunes program managed to put every single picture I have on my phone. And I can't erase them except manually. Screw it, screw you Californians and your hip Apple shit. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I'm apparently smart enough not to use an iPhone, despite the fact that I live in California. And hip I'm not. I do have a dumbphone, but I turn it on only once a year (just to make sure it works).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Coral Island --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've worked on improving Shinhwa discography for some time now, pretty much by myself. As you know, there are few Good or Featured articles in kpop (only one discography, which actually has major failings), and thus it has been difficult to figure out the proper way to do those elements of the article that are pretty Korea-specific, as well as to come up with a lead. However, I did my best and put it through Peer Review, after which point I had no idea what to do but list it for FL consideration. Random86 graciously helped with some table syntax issues and thus far has been the only reviewer. He/she added helpful comments but I doubt will ever declare support or opposition due to some possibly hurtful treatment received during a past FL review. That's it; no one else has touched it at all. Editors who typically chime in at that venue have commented on articles listed both before and after mine, but have steadfastly avoided the poor Shinhwa discography. Maybe it's so horrible that they don't even want to "go there", but if that's the case I'd like to know so I can improve it further and become a better editor. I realize both discographies and k-pop articles are disliked there, but I'd still like a shot. I've never done whole-article improvement before and I thought a discog would be a good stepping stone into that world; I did this whole process in good faith. That said, the article is likely to fail FL based entirely on non-participation; as an editor that is wholly unhelpful in terms of understanding article improvement. I'm afraid to ask any individuals for reviews for fear of being accused of canvassing and I'm not sure who I'd poke anyway. Do you have any suggestions? Does anyone reading this feel like reviewing it? If so, this sincere editor would be very appreciative. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Shinyang, glad to see you're still here. I ran into one little sock of our old friend the other day; otherwise it's been quiet. I think you should ask some seasoned editors--Dan56 is the first one who comes to mind. You can have a quick look at the FA review on the talk page for Kronos Quartet discography, but it's possible that all those reviewers have joined the choir invisible already. (I'd look myself but I'm busy with kitchen prep.) Good luck--I'll have a look later, when I can. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Eh, I'm sort of around; just came to wrap up my Shinhwa stuff and trying to avoid everything else. Have been busy at Wikidata, though, working on Korean names. I'd previously asked Dan56 to look at the article, back before I even put it up for peer review, but he said he doesn't know much about discogs. It's been a big strike-out. I don't know if it's appropriate to ask for help on the FL Nominations talk page or to ask some of the editors who often review FL nominees. And by the way, I think it's wholly unfair that you're having a lovely vacation somewhere while I'm sweating things out in beach-free misery. Ha ha, hope you're having fun! Shinyang-i (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks (genuinely) for taking the time to look over the Take It Easy Chicken page. While the page is need of work, its notability can be traced to a chart position. The song was a a hit as Two EP. This was referenced in the article. Perhaps it should be renamed Two EP? However, when I created the page chose to have one page for the song and the EP instead of two. Do you agree that an undo is acceptable? Chadwholovedme (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Chad, thanks for your note. I have to disagree: notability does not come from charting alone (see WP:NALBUM etc.); a notable album or song has to pass the GNG requirements, and because it failed those (in the current condition) I redirected it (and a few others). Restoring them as fine, but if you wish that to stick you'll have to add multiple references to reliable sources: discussion of the record/release/song etc. from the press. It is entirely possible that this is not a hard thing to do. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• its been a disappointing wikipedia experience, since I created many pages for this group with the intention that others might contribute useful information, but since opening few other users have added to the pages. I'll keep working through it. thanks anyway Chadwholovedme (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Would this reference [1] help and remove the appearance of promotion? Further, I'm not sure I understand why the inclusion of writing a forward for a book on her father is not appropriate for the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It's certainly better. But this whole thing smacks of namedropping for the movie, like it's Disney-endorsed. If there were an article for the book I could see it--but I don't see why it should be in the article for the movie, and I don't really see why it should be in the article for her either: does it add anything to the biography? I don't think so. It's not worth making a fuss over, and I won't, but it does nothing to improve an already very weak article. Thanks for your note--always nice seeing you. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thanks--always nice seeing you, as well. Now that I think about it, I guess the article on Disney Miller really is weak, and almost makes me wonder if it is an article that will ever become more than it is. Even further, is it an article that should even exist or does it exist simply due to WP:INHERITED? I'll have to ponder this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Good question. Google Books isn't all that forthcoming--plenty of mentions, of course. She was involved with her father's legacy, that much is clear: [2], [3], [4], etc. This sounds kind of exciting--of course we all know that ole Walt was a freemason and probably responsible for 9/11 and all that. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I've been on the fence for a while myself as to whether she warrants a separate article or should be merged into Disney family. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

After some Googling and a few additions I think I'm convinced she should stay. She's certainly much more notable than some one-hit wonder. Winkelvi, SNUGGUMS, please help me in improving that article some more. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, then! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Trying to figure out what to describe her as in the lead other than Walt's daughter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Aren'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&diff=prev&oldid=666404081t there hidden messages and racism in Walt's masterpiece, Fantasia and Mickey is actually a symbol for his involvement in the Illuminati? ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

For sorting out those two articles - appreciated ----Snowded ^TALK 21:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Sure thing. Don't know if I did much good--that Cynefin article needs some work still; it's way too technical, and I didn't "get" it until I hit the word "Heimat". Thanks, and congrats again on that marvelous font, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • There is a maori equivalent as well (with a reference) on the talk page which I just added in. If you need anything else just ask, I'm trying to keep out of it as much as I can but happy to supply material or references. Interestingly the desire to emphasise the commercial aspects on Dave Snowden seems to be an obsession of some editors. And yes I am really fond of the font! ----Snowded ^TALK 22:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes, I noticed that, and I'm very much on the fence about the most recent edit in that article. I will have another look at it today. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • Thanks, its not a big issue, all academics have to make money these days and I've always sat uneasily in both academic and practitioner camps. Complexity theory mandates understanding through action so it is more or less mandated! So acknowledging that is fine, but in the context of the previous warning it jarred a little. I mildly disagree with the deletion of the citation award on Cynefin mind you. In terms of notability what counts is peer recognition. The fact that there are two articles which have both been recognised as leading articles by citation in third party sources is important. The HBR one as one of the 50 most cited, and recently the first Complex Acts as in the top five articles on Knowledge Management and designated as a 'classic' (I have the reference on that as it only came out two weeks ago). It doesn't make much difference overall, but it does clearly establish notability. But I will leave that to your judgement. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • I think that was in both articles, no? I think it can go into the biography if it's properly sourced--to an outside source. Without an independent source, which would establish it's worthwhile talking about, it looks a bit like a peacock feather. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
          • If its not needed for notability I'm relaxed but both are third party sources ----Snowded ^TALK 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

hope I'm doing this right. On Lana Turner, I was just trying to correct the error that gets repeated time and again by removing her confirmation names "Mildred Frances" from her birth name. Can you please do that? I mean in her autobiography, she clearly states what her birth certificate reads; although, she was trying to set the record straight on her age. cfdc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfdc49 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Almost, Cfdc49. You make a new section with ==New section==. As for Ms. Turner, you need to put that in an appropriate section. The lead is not an appropriate section. I don't know what you mean with "trying to set the record straight" but I'm not a fan. I think it's best if you take this up on the article talk page. I looked at the history and there's a couple of big shots that have edited that article, and I'll ping them--All Hallow's Wraith, Rich Farmbrough, DreamGuy will, no doubt, be happy to entertain you with cocktails and hors d'oeuvres on Talk:Lana Turner. Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I can go take a look... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC).Reply

You apologise for the slow service...two years ago you said you'd write something on Ed Linenthal if I would "give me a day or so". Time's up :-) The personal-homepage link I gave you in that discussion has rotten (but it was with his other departmental appointment, Religious Studies), but you can still consult his home page in my old department. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Midwesterners have longer memories than Southerners? What is this world coming to... Drmies (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Nyttend, Edward Linenthal is up, containing as many errors as I could make after a long day and with an almost empty battery--and no JSTOR access, mysteriously. So I had to settle for a couple of quick web hits. You can do much to improve it; it also needs categories, and it needs to be linked to from Indiana, Wisconsin, Santa Barbara etc. I wish I had time to read his work: it looks very interesting. I bet you he's friends with Philip Beidler. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Nyttend, I'll work on it some more if you'll nominate it for DYK. I'd do it myself, but I am sulkingly irritated with the process there. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• DYK? I suppose I can go through the process if that's the price for improvement, but there's a good reason that User:Nyttend/DYK hasn't been updated since 2013. I've added categories to the article, but I'm not particularly comfortable making significant changes to the article's content; his work has profoundly shaped my thinking and scholarly interests, and he was on my committee. If I remember rightly, he went to the University of Michigan: walk into his office (left side of the first floor of this building), and everything's maize and blue. He is somewhat opposed to the concept of collective memory, primarily because it implies a uniform societal memory that arises rather naturally, and instead teaches a related concept of "collected memories": his point is basically that different people have different perspectives on the basic concepts that are societally remembered, and that we as historians of memory ("history of memory" is something that might well be a good search term) need to consider these different perspectives when we're trying to construct an account of those memories. Many of us historians aren't fans of oral history, basically because it's not a written source, but his interests in memory make him quite open to it (following his suggestion, an oral history project was a large component of my seminar paper with him, and I found it quite rather attractive), and a quick Google search for <"oral history" "edward linenthal"> brings up pages like [5], [6], and [7] in the first page of results. Non-academic stuff: the only potentially relevant thing that comes to mind at the moment is that he identifies as Jewish. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• This is not the kind of COI you need to worry about, and I can prune your gushing afterward, if need be. You're much better equipped than I am to write that kind of content, and you probably have quicker access to the articles that discuss him. I'll forgive him (and you) the Michigan stuff. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The problem is that I don't know where to find most of this information: I learned this as one of his students, doing graduate work with him and participating in conversations over non-basar bechalav pizza (I learned that chicken pizza isn't kashrut, even though chickens don't produce milk) when he took graduate students to Mother Bears. Even if I find solid sources, it will be a lot harder for me to write properly from them, since it will be easy to expand what's in the source from what I know in person. What if you write from sources that I dig up? Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Then I'd have to write it! :) Also, this is really not my field--I'm not much of a historian, unfortunately. What the article could do is a few sentences, or a big paragraph, on each of these parks/memorials, and there'd be a hook in there as well, no doubt. Really, you worry too much about the "properly" bit. I'll see if I can do a bit more, but the rate just went up 20%. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• PS, see this short document, a two-page essay that he wrote as an epilogue for another scholar's book. Linenthal discusses his philosophy of memory, memories, and related subjects. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Az-ya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other than the obvious self-promotion, there's something odd about the articles he's creating. Many of the cited sources don't support what he says (I looked at some of the English ones). Too tedious for Mr. Lazy to sort out, but there are some less lazy editors who hang out here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Az-ya seems to be outing himself as the leader of a particular band. Azerbaijani bands are so obscure (to many of us) that a few missteps might be forgiven, unless you see something that is contrary-to-fact. One source for H.O.S.T. is at http://usip.org which is run by the US government. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Dictionary.com (and Merriam Webster) are not to be cited (online dictionaries are a joke)."

I was actually unaware of this. What is a good dictionary to cite, or just use in general for Wikipedia (to look-up/clarify the meaning of a word or for general editing purposes) to use, or that you would recommend? Preferably with free online access, if that's an option.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Godsy, I think for most purposes (simple explanation, a term paper, whatever) MW is fine, and so is American Heritage, and all the other usual suspects. I don't put much stock in Dictionary.com if only because it's free and I don't think you can make a good dictionary for free. Anyway, they're based on Random House, so it can't be all that bad. But the thing is, for something like "cisgendered", or whatever the term under discussion was, such dictionaries are simply not useful, because the very definition of those terms, if those definitions are to be meaningful, are so much context-bound and, for better or worse, connected to these modern times. For instance, Dictionary.com has nothing useful to say about the word "thug"--at least not about the way it is used in the US these days, and how it is perceived. The language of race and gender is very much in flux and I don't believe we can let the OED (that's the best, but it's not free) dictate what types of uses are valid or not.

  I'm very much caught between old ways and new ways here--I'm not as hip as I sometimes sound. I am grudgingly acknowledging that the world is much more complex than I ever thought, and much more complex than can easily be caught in dictionaries and grammar books. But the alternative is to hold on to ancient codifications of meaning and use to the point where dictionary meaning dictates, for instance, how a person is to feel about their race, gender, orientation, whatever. There is at least one such dinosaur on Wikipedia (one who thinks that non-native speakers shouldn't be editing here, haha), and on the opposite side (but they're so far away that they could never even see each other, if they even spoke the same English) are some who are prescriptivists in a newfangled, censorious way, who'd like to ban every naughty word thinking we'll all start being nice to each other if we can only speak nice words. I don't want to be on either side.

  Now, this wasn't your real question--rather, what is a good online dictionary? Well, I like (*blush*) wiktionary. But YMMV. Eric Corbett, Ritchie333, Sitush, SlimVirgin, LadyofShalott, any thoughts? I'm interested too. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Oxford English Dictionary is available on online, and that's what I'd rely on. Eric Corbett 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

But not for free, unfortunately... Drmies (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's free for me, as I live in the UK. ;-) Eric Corbett 23:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Many of us have online free access to it through institutional subscriptions or have print access (I bought a used copy of [8] a few years ago), so ask around at WP:REX or at talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"I don't think you can make a good dictionary for free" → "I like (*blush*) wiktionary"

Paradox! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• A paradox is a seeming contradiction, right? I like Wiktionary because I can change it if I don't agree (haha), and it doesn't flood me with advertising. What I've looked up so far, in the last two years, I've been quite impressed with. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I only wish I had access to the OED online. It's sadly not available in GALILEO. LadyofShalott 16:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry to bother you, but a user you blocked has been evading the block. Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while was still active, once unintentionall wrote a comment on my talk page without being logged in, it was this one: diff. See the IP and its geolocation. Another IP turned in those same Tesla discussions IP 141.136.243.205 with the exact same POV and exact same geolocation. Clear case of block evasion, right? FkpCascais (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I saw this on ANI (right?) yesterday or the day before and looked real quick, but the one IP had only one edit, on some Serbian talk page if I remember correctly, and I could not easily make the connection with Tesla. I did not check geolocate; it's not all that reliable from what I understand. Has ANI not dealt with it? Drmies (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, all done. Another IP active on Tesla had the same geolocation, and was blocked 48 h. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

[9] Accidentally moved an article into user space. Could use a mob on aisle 10 please.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• If you want a mob you should try ANI. I think I know how it happened: there's this pull-down menu in the move function; I've screwed that up once or twice myself. No worries--just regular housekeeping. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

LOL! I'm not User:Amadscientist anymore. No more mobs with pitchforks after the monster! Yes...er...I meant mop...but a mob on aisle 10 could do a quick macarana. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm a poor beta and don't understand things like that. And t'accuse the wrong person anyway, that "on" wasn't me! --Randykitty (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Look, in the Liberal Arts we don't have the budget that you third-stream financed betas do, so we have to be sparing with words. University Press = UP. That "on", I'm sure that was me, haha. I hope you are enjoying your adoptive country. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Ah, that verbosity! Just wanted to link them, although there may be redirects from UP, didn't check. I'm between grants at the moment (that's the optimistic take, assuming I'll get another one :-). The weather here is finally changing for the better. Hope your summer is starting well. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Summer started a while ago. It's been in the 90s for weeks, and I'm already two epics (Gilgamesh, Aeneid) and two tragedies (Oedipus, Antigone) into my summer semester. Good luck with your grants; perhaps you'll finally get to trade in the BX for a C5. I do hope the sun comes to warm your old bones some, Randykitty. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you please revert this change [10] and lock Transracial identity until the AfD has concluded? Artw has been removing sourced material without comment or discussion in such a selective way that it significantly re-frames the article to be a Rachel Dolezal fork, instead of a more holistic article on the concept. In its current iteration, I would also have !voted "Delete" because the article has been significantly massaged to purge any pre-Dolezal reference to the term such as to the aforementioned novel. Artw and I have previously had a run-in over fringe material involving UFO conspiracy theorists he was trying to preserve and I'm inclined to believe this is a tit-for-tat attempt at WP:GAMING the AfD. I don't want to get into an edit war with him and would just prefer new participants in the AfD have the opportunity to consider the article in an unvandalized state, instead of its "gamed" state as a Dolezal fork. BlueSalix (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I would stand by that edit, and no, I am not seeking to pick a fight with a user by making necessary edits to a controversial page. I would call on the user to recant both their claim of vandalism and their claim of stalking, both being obviously untrue. Artw (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

BlueSalix, I'm not going to. On the one hand, there really isn't an administrative reason to undo it since it's not obviously vandalism or something like that. On the other, such an edit isn't reason for protection since there's no edit warring on some grand scale. I can't comment on the stalking charge, and have no interest in pursuing both y'all's contributions to see if there's anything to it, but I will tell you that it's a serious charge, not to be made lightly. This is really a content matter--sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem, Drmies. After you sat smiling like Nero enjoying the gladiators as I was called "garbage," "kid," and "troll" in the AfD, I didn't really think you'd do anything here, but I wanted to get this on the record so I wasn't later accused of edit warring. And you were the only person who has used the word, or made the charge of, "stalking." Not me. After your decision to continue this Bachannal, though, by this weird Boomerang attempt, ArtW must have felt you had green-lit him to begin even more dramatic re-writing of this article to promote the "delete - because it's a fork" argument by any new participants who come to the AfD. He has since re-wrote all of the headers so that everything is grouped into a single "Rachel Dolezal" section [11]. I've undid this undiscussed edit and opened a RfC, though, I'm sure, in light of your implied thumbs-up he'll continue reverting the changes even over an active RfC, which will in turn prompt a long, drawn-out ANI that stretches for pages with a million diffs and "he said/she saids." Great job at proactively deescalating a conflict before it spirals out of control. BlueSalix (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I asked you who made those comments, you said no one did. I don't like Nero, not even in simile. You ask for my opinion, I gave it to you; what you give in return is hogwash, and I have nothing more to say to you. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well that's simply not true. Just for historical accuracy, you said "Hey, if someone called you that, I hope someone else warned them for it" (on the same page in which I was treated to said hole-ripping). I responded Naw, Drmies, no one did. [12] I'm not into drama so I don't personally care if editors use dehumanizing language to describe me as a person; it's only the internet. But when that kind-of language is excused and shrugged-off in a routine AfD by an admin such as yourself, it sends the signal that the "door's open." And we've seen the result: gaming of the AfD, and now - with your above comments - you've empowered Artw to ratchet up the terms he's using (he immediately went to my very rote RfC and started describing it as a "meltdown") which has further turned a professional edit discussion into a one-way mudslinging. I'm sure, within another 12 hours, I'll again be a "garbage" "kid." BlueSalix (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

So when you said "no one did" you were being facetious. Well, that's very helpful. See, you can be facetious all you want, but when I asked you who said what, I was being serious--you just didn't take me up on it, and now you're here complaining about something I could have done something about then. Yeah, abuse-enabling admin etc etc. Find someone else to police those RfCs and anything else you might get involved in. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Huh? When I said "no one did" I was answering your question if "someone else" had warned them: "No, Drmies, no one did." I don't know where you got I was being "facetious." I assure you, I don't take being called "garbage," a "troll," and a "kid" as a reason to LOL. I guess that's where we disagree. No worries. BlueSalix (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I asked if you were insulted: "no one did", you answered. It's your pretended disagreement with me that's facetious, and the consequences you drew from what one could call a misunderstanding. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

No: "Hey, if someone called you that, I hope someone else warned them for it" - Naw, Drmies, no one did. [13] You didn't ask if I was insulted (again: "Hey, if someone called you that, I hope someone else warned them for it"), you asked if someone "warned" them. I factually told you "no one did." Don't worry about it. Admin is a volunteer job. You can do, or not do, as much as you like. It's no big deal. Thanks for listening and sorry if I came-off as shrill; I was feeling a little down after all the name-calling and didn't mean to sound accusatorial. BlueSalix (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies.. The Namasudra article has been a subject of POV-pushing for years. I saw your observation regarding the dispute related to the name (Talk:Namasudra), and thought you may be aware of this. One particular editor 117.194.* is active all through the talk page and revision history, and has been disregarding our policies in spite of repeated explanations by Sitush, as evident from the talk page. It is really difficult to handle an errant IP editor, engaging in edit war and unsourced POV-pushing or vandalism, and that too for years. Would request you to please protect the page. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Done. You know what would be helpful? A brief report on the talk page, with a note from Sitush and other knowledgeable editors, that outlines the kinds of changes made by the IP and why they are not OK. I mean, I can see that easily for the one change sourced to a dissertation, but it's worthwhile adding some detail for their various changes. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes absolutely. Thanks a lot. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The information posted by a User on their Userpage can't be reliable. TripWire was previously PakSol. For a long time he declared himself as "This user is serving member of Pakistan Army". He even posted a pic of his uniform. Later on some his edits were mainly removing atrocities by Pakistan Army mentioned in Wikipedia and prevent any material being added to Wikipedia with reliable source if it states negative of Pakistan Army. Due to his username PakSol(COI), he changed his name. In some talk page comments he mentioned that he was there on Siachen glacier representing his Army, so he knows the truth. It can't be verified whether he is really in Pakistan Army. But it's not right that once a user will accept "I am in Army" and later on say "I am not in Army".--Cosmic  Emperor  06:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Why should I care if someone claims and/or denies being in some army or other? I'd rather no one be in any army, but that has little bearing on someone's edits--until a COI can be clearly proven, without recourse to what is as yet some abstract notion of "the truth". Drmies (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

In this case it's not possible to prove COI. I don't know him outside Wikipedia. I don't how COI is proved. Thanks.--Cosmic  Emperor  03:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Muisjes , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Objectivesea (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cheers back! Happy holiday and yes, don't read e-mails, they're bad for your health. In fact, don't even read this message :)

Keep it up --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article has been re-created and is at AfD for the fourth time. Your comments will be welcome. I am notifying everyone who contributed to the previous AfDs. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry--what article? Drmies (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies! Long time. :) Thanks for the protect. Should we make Scott Disick it into a redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life and protect the page? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Likewise--thanks for dropping by. I have no opinion on the matter--feel free to do whatever you think is right. All the best, Drmies (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'd do it. This will send clickers to a paragraph about Disick which they can expand and disuade them from bugging everyone to make it into an article. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry, I didn't see the duplicate heading above. Feel free to merge sections.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You have a special place in my heart and more than deserve one on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I request that you re-open this AfD so that all interested editors may have the opportunity to take part. The AfD was open for just a few hours. G4 does not apply, and the speedy delete close of this AfD was improper. Independent and significant articles about the subject (not Kim) such as DailyMail were shown to exist, demonstrating GNG - with many more to be put forward. Also, JohnCD notified all previous AfD contributors, but, because of the speedy close, they did not have a chance to contribute to the discussion. In the same spirit of notification, all contributors to the article (deleted history included) should have likewise been notified. Dolovis (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You can request all you like. There is no further discussion necessary since I assert that G4 does apply. I don't know if you have had the opportunity to compare the two versions, but I did have that, as an administrator. They are very much the same. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofScott Disick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dolovis (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, did someone put something odd in the water cooler in the Adminstrators' Assembly Hall? AN/I has a number of admin-on-admin threads -- very weird behavior going on. I think we might have to invent SuperAdmins to help keep the peace. BMK (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe the Justice League of Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think you should go over there and kick some admin butt. That'll put you in a good position for a coup d'etat that will make you the absolute ruler of Wikipedia, after which you can make a pretty good living off the graft and corruption connected with handing out ambassadorships and cabinet positions. BMK (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I can do with some graft. Is it really that bad? I was reading the Aeneid, getting ready for class tomorrow, and pontificating on the Stars n Bars on Facebook. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

BMK, I have the feeling not much will come out of it. Is anyone taking bets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.253.87 (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much!!!!! :)

Drjobrout (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies, I see you deleted Izumi_Tabata a few years ago. Tabatas have since gained massive popularity in fitness circles and coverage in the press. As such, Izumi_Tabata's profile has risen so I'm going to restart the article again, giving a clearer link to his work and it's relevance. Unless you still have any objections? Thanks --Battleofalma (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Man, I should try that. Sounds harsh. No, I don't have any innate objections, though it's going to take more than one single (good) reference. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you took a look at the Hugo Chavez article earlier and was wondering if we could get a different pair of eyes on the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt article. The article needs some fixes and I appreciate the previous edits you made, so if you have the time could you take a look at the article and the talk page? Hope you are enjoying your vacation as well!--ZiaLater (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:KAVEBEAR has been editing with an apperrant POV against subjects and situations I have been researching in a manner that has been demonstrated with reliable sources to be inaccurate to a point that I believe the editor is attempting some sort of POV pushing to discredit sources and history as some sort of back lash and personal attack on me and my own research and contributions. I discovered some issues recently win regard to the subject of Kaukauali'i, where the editor has replaced the term "lower" with such phrases as "lowly" or implies that the secondary caste families of Hawaii are the lowest form or rank when it isn't a rank or even a formal caste level. We have discussed this before and the article talk page and history of Aliʻi bear this out. The history of George Luther Kapeau is only a recent example of the POV this editor displays in a way to effect other articles of subjects etc.. It is as if the editor is just trying to push my buttons.

Since you (and talk page stalkers) can be relied on to be honest and even criticize what each side has done....this needs to come here before it goes anywhere else. I think you and others may be able to distill what the issue really is. I have no other choice but seek help. Nothing I have done over the past two years is working.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) My experience with KAVEBEAR is that as a resident of Hawaii he generally makes good and reliable edits concerning Hawaii. My experience with Mark is that as someone who does not live in Hawaii, he relies on certain specific available published sources when in fact the reality is often very different. The fact of the matter is that Hawaii is an extremely non-literate place, and its culture, traditions, history, and current reality are largely oral and visual. In addition, Hawaii is the remotest archipelago in the world. For those reasons, one cannot get a true and accurate understanding of Hawaiian history, culture, or current reality without actually living here, and living here for a large number of years. Most of the reality of Hawaii is never going to show up in official widely available published sources. Even the excellent PBS Hawaii documentaries are only aired in Hawaii. Mark, I know you do not agree with the above, and before I moved to Hawaii 13.5 years ago I might have agreed with you, but now I know better. Your understanding might be inaccurate and incomplete, through no probable fault of your own. I have a suggestion or two: If you reach an impasse, either post on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii, or call in a Hawaiian resident like Viriditas. From the diffs you've provided or mentioned above, I do not see any behavioral issues; I see simple content disagreements. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Mark, I'm not sure I see much of a behavioral issue; "some sort of back lash" is of course difficult to pin down. But Softlavender, one of the disputes here, I think, is precisely about a matter sourced to a published source. I left a note on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Softlavender, I take serious issue with a "fan" comment you made elsewhere on the project. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply