Latest comment: 9 years ago95 comments21 people in discussion
This admin does not approve of the color scheme and dislikes the color purple, but cheers the general sentiment behind it. If joy comes from marriage, joy to the world.
I'm curious to see how your home state of Alabama (which only repealed their anti-miscegenation laws in 2000[2]) handles the new SCOTUS ruling. Personally, I'm celebrating my restored faith in American common sense. Due to my divorce, I told my coworkers that I would switch teams if homosexuality was really a choice, proving it wasn't. They were greatly disturbed by the very thought and not remotely amused, and now a bit suspect. North Carolina isn't so different, it seems. Regardless, a good day for equal rights. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
It is indeed. Was it mostly the southern states that were lagging behind in this? I read something on the BBC website that 37 states had already okayed things but it didn't specify either those or the exceptions. I've just got a gut feeling that the laggers would be in the south but perhaps I am stereotyping (and Utah would stereotypically also be a lagger, I guess). - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
It was mainly the south. Before 1967, it was illegal for a black person to marry, live with, have sex with a white person in the southeast US as well, it took the SCOTUS to change that. Gay sex acts were illegal in Texas and other states until about a decade ago, fixed by, (you guest it), SCOTUS. Gays being able to openly serve in the US military is one of the few things that didn't take the SCOTUS. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
If they want to legalize murder of any groups they want, or marriages of whatever groups they want, just let them do it instead of having a long drawn out faux debate beforehand. What the people think is irrelevant. Judges want to feel they are Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln and everything good, and that requires them to demonize. So just get rid of the evil democracy and the evil legislators, and let SCOTUS reign. Anyone object to that? It would be much more straightforward.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Of course, I know you too well to believe that it's not the primary joy. In any event, my head is intact, sorry to inform you. Whether our form of government is intact is another issue entirely.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you knew me at all, you'd know that the best thing about this ruling for me has been seeing the relationships of gay friends, acquaintances, and even total strangers finally recognized as equal and valid in the eyes of the law. But yes, I can't deny that the unhinged, histrionic, and apocalyptic responses from some segments of the political spectrum add a little bit of flavor to the occasion as well. I mean, you can't claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage is one step away from shutting down Congress and legalizing murder, and then expect me not to at least crack a smile, right? MastCellTalk18:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I expect you to have no appreciation of what a democracy or a republic or a constitution means, and how they have combined to benefit human civilization. And I expect you to exaggerate the merits of your own arguments, and trivialize those of people with whom you disagree. And I expect you to wear a stupid glistening smile for a few more days until you realize some other "horror" being committed by the American people that needs to be slapped down. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Anythingyouwant, you're welcome here in this happy place, but please be respectful of other visitors. Also, MastCell is categorized as a burnt-out admin, so both kid gloves and deferential word choice are appreciated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I know well what kind of an admin he is. Anyway, thanks Drmies for being such a welcoming host. Next time Mastcell calls me "unhinged, histrionic, and apocalyptic" then I will simply say something very polite and be done with it. I won't say "takes one to know one" or anything juvenile like that. Maybe just "have an exceptionally splendiferous day" or something along those lines.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, in a discussion on a court case etc., I'd hate to get all procedural, but a. it was a qualification of responses, not of people, and b. it is not clear to me at all that MastCell was specifically talking about you. I get plenty of unhinged, histrionic, and apocalyptic commentary in my Facebook feeds, and as far as I can tell MastCell was speaking generally. Carry on, I'm about to log off again. Wikipedia is no fun. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wow, that is kind of strong and angry. If we are slapping down yet more injustices of the American people (and there is plenty of stupidity to slap at), can we at least change cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule IV, and leave recreational use up to the individual states? Dennis Brown - 2¢18:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you can convince five of nine judges that LSD and heroin are beneficial then they will change them to Schedule IV for you, no problemo. Injustice makes me angry, and I thought what happened yesterday had some kindness and sweetness, but also a lot of injustice. Not the injustice of murder, but the unconstrained procedure used by the judges could be used in any context at all, and has been. To my mind, forcing the millions of people in a state to collectively stop using different words for different things (e.g. "marriage" and "civil union" depending upon the genders involved) reeks of thought control. Saying that those millions of people cannot choose to channel resources toward a particular social institution that has proven beneficial for millennia strikes me as likely to drastically increase the percentage of children who grow up without a mother and father. Pandering to pleas for dignity ignores that people were already free to live alone or with pretty much anyone they choose, and it denigrates the dignity of people who choose to live alone to say that they must be married in order to have dignity. Add to that the lack of judicial authority to do whatever they think is "right", and I am angry because of the foolishness and shortsightedness of that notion. Only eleven States had chosen democratically to install SSM, and all the rest is judges saying "our values are superior to yours." Anyway, I don't want to clutter up Drmies' page with unwanted policy discussions, so apologies to him if it is unwanted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Banner hung days before the 2005 Rainbow Gathering by the inhabitants of Richwood, West Virginia welcoming attendees
What amazed me was the number of people suggesting (on Twitter, naturally) that following the SCOTUS ruling, they would be moving to Canada. I have a standing request to CBSA to review all applicants' Twitter accounts prior to admitting them. A great day indeed Dennis. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Those people seeking to escape the US's recognition of same-sex marriages will have to run farther than Canada if they want a more intolerant environment. California, which is not part of the western US per Scalia, is considering a ban on opposite-sex marriages, some sort of affirmative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Stone ages? SpacemanSpiff, I am hurt. Now I have to go to the doctor and have my feelings checked for free. Bbb23, maybe Putin will take them in (and I have made similar jokes about the banning of opposite-sex marriage in Canada, a strict diet of granola bars, and mandatory biking everywhere, all to be implemented by the NDP should they ever gain power). --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Kelapstick, surely you know the difference between the stone ages and the middle ages? The middle ages is when they threw stones.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
They say that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, I say those in glass houses should change clothes in the basement. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)Citation please. Please tell me that is true, that would be delicious to watch play out in the media. Truth is, I can see someone actually wanting to introduce a bill that removes marriage as a civil act and "restore" it as a religious commitment. Some would rather lose the tax benefits rather than see "ho-mo-sexules" enjoy them. Dennis Brown - 2¢20:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I'm no expert, and I was going to make joke about missing chromosomes, but that would probably get taken the wrong way. I am just giddy to see equity, even if it does take the courts to do what the legislature (including the two years there was a majority Democrat Congress) should have done years ago. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
The Stoning Ages (as Bbb would have it) Kelapstick, not the Stone Ages -- I'm sure they were more accepting of homosexuality in the SA[citation needed] (I hope the MOS police don't see this, I'm sure I've capitalized the wrong letters somewhere). It must be refreshing to be able to get married in the 20+ states where you can still get fired for being gay though.—SpacemanSpiff21:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Of course they had authority, their only job is to take junketsaccept money from lobbyists pass legislation. They could have passed a bill granting 14th Amendment protection for same sex marriage, and wait out the SCOTUS fight. According to SCOTUS, the right already existed and has since Day 1 of the 14th Amendment, by virtue of the ruling. Congress could have done this 7 years ago, but my guess is that the "problem" is more valuable than the solution when you are trying to get campaign donations. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Congress passes laws - or at least they used to. They don't interpret the constitution. Thus, for example, they can pass a law that says that an employer may not discriminate against a person on the basis of race (Title VII). So, how would this law that you think they could have passed go? A government (state, municipal, anything except federal) cannot discriminate against couples based on their sex when issuing marriage licenses? Let's assume they can pass such a law. Of course, it's highly unlikely they would have, Senate democratic majority or no, but let's assume the improbable. They pass that law. Many states and local governments challenge the law claiming it's unconstitutional. It goes to all sorts of courts, state and federal, for the same joy ride that we've experienced already. What have we accomplished?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
The same thing we have today, only sooner. When they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the most sweeping pieces of civil rights since the Civil War, it caused a bunch of lawsuits that went to the Supreme Court. It is still the law of the land until overturned, and once upheld, it is beyond reach. But lawsuits are extremely common any time you give one group of people equality. Ironic. Dennis Brown - 2¢12:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Did you all read the final paragraph of Kennedy's opinion? It's so eloquent it's almost poetry.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
I had read it, it was eloquent indeed. And Bbb23, Congress has passed many Civil Rights Acts in the past, this could have easily been the same. But they weren't inspired to. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I thought the final paragraph of Scalia's dissent was equally well written.
Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments." With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
Legal polygamy may be next, and why not? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability” (quotes from the opinion of the court) serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships (based on Chief Justice Robert's dissent)? If the court can make their opinion law, as opposed to judging the current law, what's creating one more? Maybe the "climate" isn't right for that change today, but maybe in a few years if the right voices gain enough traction. (To clarify I don't take issue with same-sex unions now being legal in all 50 states, I take issue with how the institution became legal.)—Godsy(TALKCONT)02:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
RE:"with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence": In fact we were most forcefully reminded of that in Bush v. Gore - in which case, if I remember correctly, Scalia was part of that "bare majority of the Court".
I'm not sure why polygamy is illegal, from a secular point of view. Then, I don't know why we give tax breaks and such for being married either. The gubmint shouldn't be in the business of encouraging or discouraging marriage, nor keeping an inventory, and instead just recognizing it as a contract with no state sponsored benefits for the act. Let the married decide what religious significance there is on their own. That said, one spouse nearly killed me, the idea of 2 or more is not tempting. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
As mentioned in Flyer's link, historically polygamy has been a way of subjugating women. As (illegally) practiced today in the United States, it is also a way of exploiting underage girls; the practice usually involves older men taking wives as young as 14. --MelanieN alt (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
People disagree about issues like this. That is why we used to have a democracy to decide them. Instead we now have a dictatorship of five judges. I really do mourn for all we have lost here.Anythingyouwant (talk)
Melanie, I'm certainly not for subjugation, but the law hasn't stopped 14 year olds from being exploited (or women of any age) and technically, older men can still take women as wives if they are below 18 in most states, quite young with parental permission. Then you have cases like Elizabeth Smart, where the law didn't help her until it was too late. I'm not saying I'm for it, just that the law itself doesn't seem to actually prevent exploitation, which is already covered by other laws. ie: if a 40 year old woman wants to marry a man that is already married, and the existing wife is ok with that, I'm not sure the government has a community interest in preventing it. Instead, it is seemingly a religious reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, you're right that there are more direct ways of preventing subjugation of women and exploitation of children. It's just that the historical track record of polygamy gives it a bad feel to many. The ridiculous tthing about Christians citing "religious reasons" for opposing polygamy is that the Christian Bible is full of polygamy, practiced by revered figures like kings and patriarchs. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
The liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. That is SCOTUS's job, to interpret how it applies. The government has no right to restrict the activities of any citizen unless those activities pose an undue burden on the community as a whole. Any good old fashioned conservative should support that notion. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
And yet the clause contains more than just the word "liberty". It says, that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". Up until the 14th Amendment was ratified, no one dreamed that it meant in the 5th Amendment that judges have an absolute veto over every new law and every old law that they think infringes on liberty. After all, every law that ever landed someone in prison infringes upon liberty. If you seek the truth, you can start with Abraham Lincoln: "The Constitution itself impliedly admits that a person may be deprived of property by 'due process of law'...." What we have now, among five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, is a self-aggrandizing corruption of the clause.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". Starting with the Declaration of Independence, the entire foundation of the country was based on the idea that the government should leave man alone unless there is an overwhelming need to interfere. Infringing requires due process (taking your land for a highway, arresting you for a crime) but otherwise government that governs best, governs least.[3] Theoretically, SCOTUS is there to protect those ideals, even if they get it wrong from time to time. And I would note, that if you spend more time harping about State's Rights than you Individual Rights, it begins to look like a chip on your shoulder about the issue itself, ie: the LGBT community. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you will find it falls on deaf ears at Wikipedia. Regardless of the opinions of others, I'm thrilled that my gay friends now enjoy the same rights that I do. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
If people want to interpret what I say as anti-gay (which I am not), then it will come as no surprise given the muddled thinking here. I am anti-judicial-dictatorship and pro-democracy and pro-law. The Declaration of Independence is a great announcement in favor of "life liberty, and happiness", but it is not a law, much less a law superior to every other law in the United States, and even if it were a law there is nothing in the Declaration saying that SCOTUS may strike down any laws that it thinks make some people unhappy. Among other things, the Declaration blasted King George III for "abolishing our most valuable laws". So, you think that abolishment decision merely got transferred to five different unrepresentative people?
SCOTUS does not even have power to strike down legislation based upon the preamble to the Constitution; as they themselves have said, the preamble has "never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..."[4]
You have political and moral ideals, Dennis, which is great. But you want the Supreme Court to enforce them against your fellow citizens regardless of what your fellow citizens think or say or want, and regardless of what the law says. That's not so great. When our fundamental laws are dumbed down to the point where "SCOTUS is there to demand liberty" then we deserve the consequences.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
The hyperbolic denunciations of the court's decision in this case are strikingly similar to the objections raised against Brown v. Board of Education 61 years ago. It is almost as if the hysterical rhetoric of that era is being repurposed for defending today's discrimination. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Brown was among the Court's greatest decisions, and clothing every subsequent decision with that case's protective garb will undoubtedly allow the Supreme Court to do absolutely whatever it wants on any subject it wishes. Gay kids were not being segregated from other kids. Gay adults were not being barred from having whatever consenting partners they want, and calling themselves "married" if they wish. It may strike some people as discriminatory that some states wish to call some unions "marriage" and other unions "civil unions", but it is no less discriminatory to call some people "men" and other people "women". And when SCOTUS forbids the latter linguistic distinction, can we then stop saying that Brown allows them to do absolutely anything they want?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Gays were being denied the right to inherit. They were being denied other rights because they weren't "family". Until very recently, they were considered criminals in Texas and elsewhere, until this court found otherwise. Gays were denied dignity. That is exactly what the court's job is to do, insure equal protection under the law. I might agree with you on forced busing, but this is a clear case of equal protection under the law. Dennis Brown - 2¢19:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
When my sister's life partner, a retired college professor, died of a sudden heart attack, the inheritance my sister received was subject to high taxation. Had they been allowed to marry, the inheritance would have been tax free. Kennedy's decision (read it please) described the similar indignities suffered by the plaintiffs. These were grave injustices, and the failure of some to see it is telling. Cullen328Let's discuss it20:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Some of the states have done bad things, and I don't defend it one bit, but I do believe that society has been changing, and the structure of democracy is designed to eventually reflect those changes, especially in the presence of free speech which the courts are obviously charged with protecting. I do not agree that SCOTUS has been given carte blanche power to fix every error made by states, and I think Jim and Dennis would agree that SCOTUS has erred in the past (I'm assuming that you disagree with their 1973 dismissal of the gay marriage issue "for want of a substantial federal question"). The errors of legislatures can in principle be easily fixed, but the errors of SCOTUS are much more enduring because they serve for life, and are not even questioned about policy when they are confirmed in the first place. As to the tax rate of inheritences, perhaps all inheritences should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of marriage; the people who have the higher rate will always say that it's unjust, and maybe they are correct. The Court decided to rely this week almost entirely upon the Due Process Clause, as I understand their opinion, in contrast to the Equal Protection Clause. That was disingenuous, given that the Due Process Clause was never intended to cover such things (e.g. see above quoting Lincoln). But under the use-it-or-lose-it school of BS jurisprudence, they have kept the fiction of substantive due process alive. As you suggest, Dennis, the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) is more relevant. I won't go into detail now about the EPC, unless someone really really really wants me to, but there too one should look at the actual words of the clause; it's not a simple equality requirement, just like the Due Process Clause is not a simple liberty requirement. The judiciary has long treated the last three words of the Equal Protection Clause as nonexistent, as if it said that no state shall deny equal protection to any person within its jurisdiction. (If one looks carefully at the clause, it means pretty much what people like George Edmunds, Republican U.S. Senator from Vermont, said it meant on the eve of its ratification.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Do you also believe that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, and that states should not have been forced by the Supreme Court to recognize interracial marriages? Cullen328Let's discuss it20:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, I agree that Loving was correctly decided, and was a great decision. There were some big differences between that case and the one this week. One of the primary purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) was to put the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on a solid constitutional footing, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was subsequently re-enacted in 1870 for good measure. Much of that Act remains on the books today, and that Act forbade racist laws such as the one that the Supreme Court struck down in Loving.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
When Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia rules that the due process clause and the equal protection clause forbid the states from banning interracial marriage, you are just fine with that 48 years later. But when Anthony Kennedy, citing Loving several times, rules that the due process clause and the equal protection clause forbid the states from banning same sex marriage, you freak out, denounce the legal reasoning, and assert the end of democracy and the rise of a five person dictatorship. I simply do not understand. Cullen328Let's discuss it00:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Jim, in my entire life, going back more than half a century, I've never said one word against the decision in Loving. So, my support of the decision in Loving is not some revelation 48 years later, as you seem to be suggesting. The primary reason for the Civil War was to achieve equal rights for black people, and out of that war came statutes and constitutional amendments for similar purposes. The civil rights act of 1866 to which I referred above was explicitly about race, and it gave all citizens the same rights as "white citizens". And that statute has been in the United States code ever since. Now, I don't think it's difficult to see or difficult to understand that the Civil War was not about gay rights, nor was it about many other rights that one day might become a big issue. The statutes that arose out of the Civil War did not address gay rights, whereas they did address the rights of African-Americans. The decision in Loving was 100% correct, it had a proper basis in democratically-enacted laws (though the opinion that accompanied that decision was not what I would've written). In extremely stark contrast, there is no federal statute guaranteeing gay marriage. And, as I explained above, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause do not by themselves allow the judiciary to insist upon their own version of justice or equality in complete disregard for what the people have enacted through their legislatures. The contrary notion is called judicial supremacy or judicial dictatorship or what have you, and a large portion of the populace (including me) are outraged by the usurpation of power, which is no more legitimate than a diktat from any well-intentioned and benevolent dictator. I see no limits to this alleged power, which is far more disturbing than this particular decision. As the Chief Justice said this week, "Who do [they] think they are"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Anything, where you as up in arms over Citizens United v. FEC as you are over this? And while "gay marriage" wasn't enshrined in the constitution, equality was. Extending notions of "equality" go hand in hand with the development of human rights. To women, to blacks and other people of color, now to gays. It's hardly a matter of religious freedoms; it's a matter of civil equality. We had to "have" gay marriage for my colleague to be able to get a proper death certificate for his husband. (He was one of the plaintiffs in the Alabama case.) Your American system is odd and quirky and outdated and prone to stalemates; in the end, I don't care how civil rights are expanded as long as they are. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Just noticed this comment from you Drmies. I haven't studied the Citizens United case closely. So, I wasn't up in arms about it, and very likely wouldn't have been up in arms about it if I had given it the utmost Anythingyouwant analysis. The First Amendment explicitly guarantees free speech. So a group of people got together and financed an anti-Hillary-Clinton video. Can the government say, sorry, you're all going to jail? No. Is this a difficult question? The opponents of that ruling say it's not about free speech but about money. And the next cases could be about paper and pencils and telephones and ink and other things required for free speech. So I am strongly inclined to be supportive of that court opinion, because it closely followed the explicit text of the Constitution, which I think is a great, awesome, spectacular document that has done wonders for this country and for the world. The Constitution does not stop all bad things from happening, but overall it has served very well. I am very reluctant to toss it in the trash without a much better reason than Justice Kennedy recently described. I will keep fighting for it. If you go to Washington Square in NYC, there's a magnificent arch, atop which is engraved the following: "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair." That's what the Constitution is, for me. Equality in the abstract is an excellent concept, but you would never agree that person X should be treated exactly like person Y regardless of who they are and what they have done and what they want. If you haven't read the actual language of the Equal Protection Clause, please do. It does not say that equality shall take precedence over every state law. Such a statement would have been extremely ambiguous, thus giving practically unlimited power to the federal judiciary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you do go to Washington Square Park, you can retrace the steps of the first gay rights march, from the park to the Stonewall Inn a few blocks away in the wake of the 1969 Stonewall riots. In a very real sense, the road to equality and tolerance began in that park. In light of its role in the inception of modern gay rights movement, the inscription on the arch has a different resonance for me than it does, I suspect, for Anythingyouwant. MastCellTalk23:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the travel tip. I spent a couple weeks in 1980 in Greenwich Village, visiting an NYU frat house, previously owned by Edgar Allan Poe. I doubt the Stonewall Inn was a tourist site back then. I would have no hesitation visiting and admiring that place. Edgar Allan Poe inspires fear in me, but the Stonewall Inn does not. Anyway, take the last word if you like, MastCell. I think it's best (for me anyway) if we interact as little as possible (or nevermore).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Godsy, you want a supreme court, you got it. You can't say "5 judges' opinion" in this particular case, when it's always a number of judges rendering their opinion--that's what they're hired for. And in general, two words: Brown v. Board of Education. That was some activist judging, and it's a good thing it happened. Banner, who'd have thunk that the Irish would ever be considered progressive? Drmies (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Anything went into why Brown v. Board of Education was entirely different above, I don't think there's any reason for me to reiterate anything similar. I simply prefer how the Irish went about the issue. But alas, I'm happy for those who've just earned union rights. However, I think it's an abomination that the American people are losing control of certain powers given to them that are supposed to be inalienable, because the supreme court is abusing their power.—Godsy(TALKCONT)22:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I admit, what happened with the referendum was amazing. Thousands and thousand were flying back to Ireland just to vote. And not only from Scotland and London, but as far afield as Japan, Australia and New-Zealand. And usually, the younger voters are absent but this time many registered in time to be able to vote. According to newspaper articles (that I can't find now) staff at polling stations was surprised to see voters in school uniform. School kids convincing their grandparents to vote yes instead of the other way round. It was a massive, massive bandwagon. So the Westboro Baptist Church could make themselves into even bigger fools than they already were... The Bannertalk01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
...when you go away for the weekend, all the kids end up partying at your house. I drank all your Dennis drank all your booze and the pizza that was in the fridge, well... — Berean Hunter(talk)21:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Y'all caught me just as I was logging off again. I appreciate the notes, and I appreciate Kennedy's last paragraph. Very well written, though I think the confusion between love and marriage, and the constant confusion in the US about marriage as a sacrament (it's a civil ceremony, in my book), doesn't help things legally, though they help things politically. Now, I'm going to kiss a dude at Walmart (since there's no rebel flags there anymore) and get back to dinner. I love some of you very much, and if anyone wants to marry someone of the same gender in the US, power to you: I do gay weddings for half my usual rate. Hit me up on Tinder. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Interestingly enough, my (online) ordination with the Universal Life Church does not permit me to perform weddings in Canada, but would in the US. It also does not permit me to perform circumcisions (it explicitly says that). That's unfortunate, because that was going to be my gimmick.--kelapstick(bainuu) 00:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not interested in participating in Dennis Brown's inaugural circumcision frenzy, but I am curious, kelapstick. What was the tip-off that you weren't allowed to do it? DMacks (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
So, on one side here we have a bunch of supporters of the recent American same-sex ruling who are mostly admins on Wikipedia, and a few opponents who are all lowly, ordinary editors. I'm sure that this is entirely coincidental and not a reflection of any systemic discrimination that might exist on Wikipedia... 184.162.103.228 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I am rather curious to know what you mean by systemic discrimination? Is it now discriminatory to not be against same-sex marriage? Just because the US is late to the party doesn't mean that everyone else was wrong to arrive earlier. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm 100% against the court ruling. I'm also 100% for the ability of states to choose same sex marriage if that is the will of their people. So for me it's not as simple as being for or against SSM.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Anythingyouwant, I get the feeling we all know what you are for or against, from above. I'm as pro-state's rights as they come (Neo-Libertarian) but we used to have it where states got to decide if they had slaves or not. Or if whites and blacks could marry. Or if blacks could drink from "white" water fountains. Civil liberty isn't something that a state can "decide". Our very own Declaration of Independence made it clear: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." You pick whatever creator you want, but the right to be EQUAL is inherent to the fact that we exist, and the states shouldn't have the authority to remove these rights under the guise of "state's rights". Either we are all equal and free to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or we are not. The Supreme Court's primary duty is to ensure that we are. QED. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Equality is a highly subjective concept. I think admins should be treated equally to other editors. So should Justice Kennedy decree it? The Declaration of Independence is not a law. If it were, and judges are empowered to ensure happiness, then they have absolute power and no election or vote really makes any difference at all except theirs. It's a trite expression, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't doubt your intentions are good and honorable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Now you are being silly. The Pursuit in guaranteed, Happiness is not. And comparing Wikipedia, a private company, to the government? And ignoring the Declaration because it isn't "law"? So it is irrelevant? You've run out of arguments, I see, so I will just leave you to your own thoughts.Dennis Brown - 2¢22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with at least part of the IP user's characterization, and MelanieN's statement, though on the latter perhaps it's because I wasn't clear. I share Anythingyouwant's sentiment: "I'm 100% against the court ruling. I'm also 100% for the ability of states to choose same sex marriage if that is the will of their people. So for me it's not as simple as being for or against [same-sex marraige]". Perhaps Anything's example was silly Dennis Brown, but I think they were trying to make a point based on the IP's opening comment, not give a real example (as I think you probably know).—Godsy(TALKCONT)23:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
The "states' rights" argument has an unfortunate resonance, as you may or may not be aware, given its long history as a fig leaf and code phrase used to justify institutionalized discrimination. MastCellTalk23:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dennis, I was offline for awhile. I am happy to see that you care about actual text. Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment only forbids certain state action, and not private action. I didn’t realize that you wanted to adhere closely to the text of the Constitution; the Constitution's Supremacy Clause very clearly does not recognize the Declaration of Independence as a law: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." The Declaration of Independence is nowhere to be found there. If I have to stoop so low as to quote liberal icons on that point, okay I surrender....The Declaration of Independence “is not a law and therefore is not subjected to rigorous interpretation and enforcement”. Cuomo, Mario. Why Lincoln Matters: Now More Than Ever, p. 137 (Harcourt Press 2004). I already explained above that not even the Constitution’s preamble is judicially enforceable, and even cited a case for you folks.[5] How could the preamble not be a law, but the Declaration of Independence be a law? And, yes, the Declaration speaks of the "pursuit" of happiness. If that were a judicially enforceable limitation upon state and federal legislation, how long do you think it would take for the Court's liberal bloc to conclude that a law making people unhappy is an undue burden upon the pursuit of happiness? About a millisecond, I suggest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, thank you very much. Hey, I had nothing to do with that--I was already in the US in 2001. So I can't be proud of it, yet I feel good about it. But see, I'm already married, with a partner of some sex or other, so for me this doesn't matter, and by the time my kids grow up no one will care anymore. Where I'm headed, I'm more interested in the legality of assisted suicide, or voluntary euthanasia, or whatever you want to call it. Some of you know this: I watched my father go that way a few years ago. If he had been forced to live on, well, I don't know how to finish that sentence. And if it takes a bunch of unelected activist judges (ahem--the Supreme Court really isn't all that rock and roll), then that's just fine with me. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
If it makes anyone feel better, these unelected judicial dictators did hand down a couple of major victories for conservatives as well—insofar as decisions in favor of painful executions and unlimited mercury emissions are considered victories by the right ([6]). So don't worry; it's not just marriage equality and affordable healthcare. There's something for everyone. MastCellTalk19:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Bymotion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.
The case is the Eric Corbett/Gorrilla Warfare one, now titled "Arbitration enforcement". I'm just as much at a loss as you are to explain the "initiating" thing though. L235 is an arbcom clerk, I believe, and probably has no more idea what the arbs meant by "initate" than you or I do, you'll probably have to ask them directly. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Beeblebrox. I'd love to sit down with GW and chat. I hung out with her a bit in DC. I don't know where this anger comes from. I got some problems with some users, and I just stay away from them, certainly from their talk page; it makes everything better. Hope you're doing well. I'm getting a Confederate Flag tattooed on my butt, and it's half off if I bring a friend. You coming? Drmies (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Drmies, I suppose it's a good thing if your butt is half off, but that image is one I'm going to have a hard time getting rid of .--MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Nothing that a six-pack of PBR can't fix, Melanie. Beeblebrox, I was looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Evidence, where one remark I made was cited (bySjakkale, who I imagine is a volunteer in the civility brigade)--as evidence of "incessantly harrass[ing] and bull[ying]". If that's what disallows me from taking administrative action, that's stretching INVOLVED to its utmost limits. I suppose I appreciate that the Arbs are trying to contain possible shit storms, but, for instance, I've blocked RGloucester before, on a completely unrelated matter, and I have no interest in their interest in this Arb case (sorry, "his interest"--RGloucester does not accept singular they, so I'll pretend the masculine singular stands for the general). I don't foresee having to revisit this unblock, but I'm worried about the principle, given that these days letter of the law (as in Eric's most recent block, for instance) seems to be so much more important than the spirit. Later, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
It looks like what they want is for no admin who commented at all about this case take any new action regarding anyone else who has commented on it, for the duration of the case itself. I don't think they are looking to dig up old interactions or anything like that. They didn't like my solution at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Interesting option, Beeblebrox. Don't quite know what it might lead to, but the idea of a fire-free zone is very interesting. I think you and I have slightly different stands on the behavior etc., but I think we agree that it's the shit storm afterwards that's problematic. And you know, we give broad latitude to editors on their own talk page; I just don't see why we couldn't have done that here. Yeah, topic ban blah blah ArbCom real important, blah blah--but we admins are supposed to think about the benefit of the project. Giving him latitude on his own talk page doesn't make him any more "unblockable" then he already is supposed to be, but it does make watching his talk page less of an opportunity for some to shoot fish in a barrel. Thanks Beeblebrox, and thanks, as always, for stopping by. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
I'm not replying on that page, but since you addressed me there I will respond. There are not two sets of rules here; one for this little clique of yours and everyone else. Floq had no right to edit war. He even admits he edit warred. Therefore, it was admittedly not a personal attack that is a 3RR exemption. Got it? Weakly rationalizing if as a personal attack is frightening. I will not avoid "admin" areas because you feel I have no "business" there. You know me too well to even think that's worth considering. You know I have no fear of the cabal! I do not care if you slap each other on the back for breaking teh rulez while demonizing the alleged "bad kids" like me. You are administrators on this site. Act like it. Doctalk04:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Of course there are two sets of rules. For instance, I could block you; you can't block me. Whether Floq agrees it was an edit war or not has no bearing on the quality of the original comment. As for your "got it?", tsk tsk tsk. That's pretty disrespectful. And I never called you a "bad kid". I wouldn't want to call you a "bad kid"; you're neither bad nor a kid. Thanks Boris. And Doc, don't tell anyone on my talk page to piss off. Got it? You're insulting my guests. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
My bad on the "tone". You and Dennis and Diannaa (and a few more) I respect to the utmost, but only because you are much more understanding of foibles more than most. Namaste. Doctalk06:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion
Hello! There is a slow-motion edit war going on at the article Largest cities in Europe. Do any of you (particularly Europeans or Europe-lovers, I know you are out there) want to chime in? The issue is how to count the population of Istanbul: whether to count the population of the entire city, or only the population on the European side of the city. Any input at Talk:Largest cities in Europe to help resolve this edit war or develop consensus would be appreciated. Bragging rights are involved, since Istanbul is the largest city in Europe counting the entire city, and the second-largest counting only the European side. (Note that this page uses the population within city limits, not the metropolitan area.) I have full-protected the article for 24 hours hoping this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked, and I have warned a couple of people. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ha. No, that's too complicated for me. I'd ask Bbb23, who is much more urbanized than I am. BTW, that counting, that's incredibly difficult, I have learned--I think the Amsterdam article (and the Dutch sources) had four different ways of counting. Ah, the good old days, when only white property holders were included... Drmies (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I can't count that high. They all have too many people. Putting aside the disruption, my personal reaction to this sort of thing is who cares?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Can you count as high as the number of CSD nominated article I just deleted? Bbb, as usual, your personal reaction is immaterial, and also, even if the actual conflict isn't exciting, that there's editors fighting is always a cause for concern... Drmies (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't rebuking me balance it out? As for the disruption, Melanie can handle that nicely without any help from me. Last I looked I'm not obliged to mediate any content dispute. Don't want to, either. So there.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
No obligation intended or implied. Every subject here on Wikipedia has people who feel passionately about it and people who don't give two hoots. We are entitled to spend our energy where we want. I also asked at a couple of Wikiprojects, maybe the folks there give a rat's ass care about things like this. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
MelanieN, you locked it for 24 hours? I suppose I would have locked it for a week, long enough for an RfC. Onel5969 has weighed in on the talk page and makes a coherent argument; but the counterargument isn't bad either. If the other edit warrior doesn't respond, that's their loss--but an RfC, with a simple (but interesting!) question, should be easy enough. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that was an argument I didn't know existed. Perhaps I missed it in an earlier thread, and it's pretty good. Of course, based on my argument, I would say they shouldn't include the Asian portion on the country pages either. I'm giving it some thought before I reply. But I agree with Drmies, I'd block it for a week, since it's such a slow moving edit war.Onel5969TT me01:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your input; I'm always learning here. I hate to full-protect anything for more than a day or two, but maybe I'm too conservative. (According to comments above, a conservative admin is something that basically doesn't exist.) Pending expert input, my analysis was: one participant has posted his version seven times and been reverted by three separate users (real users, not socks); that looks to me like he does not have consensus on his side, and I so advised him on his talk page. But I'll wait and see what other input we get from the projects. Even these obscure, who-the-hell-cares arguments can be interesting. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
(Fascinated but disinterested talk page stalker) MelanieN You may want to fix reference #3 -- a weird one as it's a reference embedded in a note -- to replace the language template with "|lang=Turkish"; currently the template is transcluding the category in the citation. I hate editing through these red pages as even if I think something's minor someone else might not. —SpacemanSpiff04:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Spaceman. but I'm way out of my depth in dealing with a Turkish-language reference embedded in a footnote. Feel free to fix this if you can, red page or not. (See, that's why I posted here: not only does Drmies know everybody, but he has the BEST talk page stalkers.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Spiffy and I go way back. He was nice to me when humans still have tails and I will never forget it. Yes, sorry--I hate to be a know-it-all, but I'm always thinking, if I protect fully, what will happen when it's over? What can be done in the meantime? And my standard answer typically is an RfC. 24 hours usually isn't a lot, not for people to drop what they're doing and sort out their argument. Now, I hadn't counted (properly), but seven times, and three different editors, yeah, that's edit warring too, so they ought to thank you for being generous. But it's always better to settle things with consensus on the talk page and without blocking, or threatening to block, so let's hope it works out. I assume your "advise" was to stop edit warring? If the editor has any sense, they won't start this all over again when the protection runs out, and if their version is the current version (I hope not), you are more than welcome to revert, since no one is supposed to gain an advantage by edit warring. Happy days! Drmies (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Spaceman. Drmies, not only did I "advise" them to stop adding their version unless and until they get consensus, but a second person chimed in on their talk page to reinforce the advice. If they do it again after protection expires, they deserve the block. But of course I protected the WP:WRONG version; I believe that's one of the rules here. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
That may well be so, but I looked at the article and those unreferenced one-sentence things don't do anything for us. Or, there was no content to be merged. If you want to write that content, you have my blessing of course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for speedying Blank redirect999 and the other. Hard to say thanks when it is deleted (no talk page!) but appreciated. I am sure it was simply a good faith editor doing a three point turn, so all to the good to get rid of the hit at the kerb (or curb). Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sorry, I don't know whether this is the right place as I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia, none-the-less I just wanted to let you know, re: you're comment about my unblocking, I realise and accept that I'm on an extremely short leash. My actions and comments were unacceptable.
I would also like briefly to thank you very much for unblocking me, it was greatly appreciated and as per my request, I promise I shall not re-offend.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the ANorAE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I noticed you deleted a page under the rational of G4, I had contested that as had at least one other user. As the discussion from the previous deletion was no longer valid. It may or may not have been a candidate for deletion but it was not for speedy. Could you point me to the discussion for deletion of this specific article and the response to my contestation please. Or alternatively reinstate the article and list for deletion where a proper discussion can be had. thanks Paul Bradbury14:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
There are two relevant AfDs, maybe more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hudson River derby and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City derbies (both by the same user, and with basically the same arguments). Now, the text of the latest version wasn't really the same (and obviously games were played, as you indicated), but the arguments from the previous discussions still pertained--basically, unsourced and not a shred of evidence of notability. If the latest version had had at least one decent secondary source I probably wouldn't have deleted it. Tell you what, we'll ask GiantSnowman, who's also an admin and claims to know a bit about the sport. If he says restore, we'll restore--and then the next step is probably AfD. GS, what do you say? Drmies (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Drmies, long time no speak, hope you're well. I'm clearly INVOLVED here, having !voted 'delete' on both of those AFDs, however I see no evidence of any notability. However for the sake of completeness it might be worth restoring and taking to AFD? GiantSnowman18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Alright, here you go, Pbradbury. Snowman, always good seeing you. But I have to say, involved in the deletion discussion or not, I think you could have given your opinion on the G4: I have faith in your objectivity. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank-you, appreciate it, I will make an effort to improve the article with sources. I would say it has reached notability now, they lit up the Empire State Building after an online poll for either red (NY Red Bulls) or blue (NYCFC) for example. Paul Bradbury10:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Drmies! When you get the chance, could you please take a look at these recent additions to the article Max Schneider. I suspect that these additions are "Fancruft", despite being "sourced" (though to iTunes), and should be removed, but I'd appreciate it if an experienced Admin could take a look to confirm or not... Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for warning the user regarding the repeated changes to the Indian college rankings page. My final edit last night was on my mobile, so I couldn't easily access the warning templates, and didn't want to go to the trouble of finding them. I planned to do it this morning, but noticed you had stepped in first. So again, thank you for doing so. Hopefully they will stop now. Regards, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, sure thing. I haven't logged in in a while so I don't know if they've been at it again; last time I checked they hadn't. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
It looks like they were at it again over the weekend, but this time with a sockpuppet Shaleen19. But on a positive note, I have noticed a post to Shaleen Sharma's talk page stating why they think the content is objectionable. I have copied it over to the article's talk page, and hopefully we can now sort out the issue. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
How would you like to do a colleague a favor? He was a writer and then became an English lit prof at UW. Can you help clean up my literary deficiencies and take to DYK? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Purely out of revenge, CrazyAces489 nominated an article I created last month. [8] He's butt hurt because I CSD'd some articles previously deleted that he recreated and have voted to delete others. I'm fairly confident that it will survive or I wouldn't have written it, but I'd like to see an admin step in as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Here is my friendly suggestion, Niteshift36. Please don't say things like "Yes, I said you are butt hurt and run a crap factory", like you wrote at ANI. That sort of commentary is bound to inflame things. Constructive criticism of edits is fine, while obvious insults should be avoided. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
(talk page watcher) @Niteshift36: To add to what Cullen328 had to say, it's generally acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided the intent is to improve the quality of the discussion for better consensus. Be careful with requests of the nature and wording of yours above above, so it can't be viewed as canvassing. Though I'm uninvolved and uninformed about the situation between you and that other user, it's always good to assume good faith.—Godsy(TALKCONT)00:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the input. Just clarifying my intention here.
Yeah, "butt hurt" doesn't help much. Having said that, I do not believe that this nomination was perfectly on the level and have closed the AfD early. But Niteshift, you're starting to sound a bit like me--old and grumpy. What's the haps? And, ahem, eh, one more thing (and I'm taking my admin hat off now, for a moment), I'm about to make an edit to the article you might not like. Thanks everyone, Drmies (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is the same editor that said "I create so others can work" when we asked him to start sourcing articles correctly. So yeah, all my good faith is gone with him. Now, about that edit...All of those were sourced from sources independent of the subject. I can't contest removing the hospital one, but I think the Scripps one is pretty significant and is sourced from the charity itself. The scholarship one was covered by the school's publication, so it seems significant as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, that's not a good thing for anyone to say, obviously. As for Scripps etc., I'll take that with a secondary source. The danger with BLPs is...well, I don't have to tell you. As always, feel free to disagree with me. Stick the scholarship back in, if you like--that's not the biggest deal. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
The Bloomberg source also confirms the Scripps. So I'll note the second source as well. I was just trying to spread it around a little. Appreciate the help. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ucucha, I see you're less busy here than you used to be, but you're still listed as a DYK admin. Got a DYK here for something that may strike close to home to you--can you figure out what's supposed to be wrong here, besides an exaggerated reliance on rules etc.? Thanks, and hope you're well, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Drmies, as far as I can tell, DYKHousekeepingBot sent out false reports like this one to creators of dozens of perfectly fine nominations—this message is for when people create a nomination template but never add it to T:TDYK (aka step 3), which is not the case for this nomination or those many others. I don't know what caused the glitch, but there's nothing wrong with your nomination that should cause this message to be posted to your page or to the dozens of other pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This message is sent at 12:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
When you have time, can you please go over the article to ensure that it's neutral? An IP (now blocked) made several edits which I find are do not match with NPOV and not properly sourced. Thanks a lot.--Taeyebaar (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes those are it and this one too [9]. When you have time, take a review and see if it's neutral. I would make edit myself when I have time later, but it's always good to have multiple inputs for consensus. Thanks--Taeyebaar (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think the Dawson and D'Souza report should go, in its entirety, to be mentioned only if secondary sources discuss it. It is primary material, first of all, and secondly, that "History and methodology" is overly detailed and, because based on a primary source, not acceptable. I don't know if Voceditenore wrote that or not (and I just removed a paragraph they added, since--well, see the edit summary), but Wikipedia articles should have better sourcing and content than that. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Agree. I'm also not sure if the 'fixing my brain' documentary link in the external links section is acceptable (WP:EL) since these documentaries are made to promote the program. In my understanding it's just an advertisement.--Taeyebaar (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Lastly I don't think Douedge is an acceptable source, since his claims on brain research has been criticized and another individual pointed out that he's not trained in neuroscience. Maybe I should just add those instead of removing his reports, but I'll do it when I;m more available. Regards.--Taeyebaar (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Sorry But i am not agreeing with your sentences and statements , it is harsh and seems as a type of a Needless Criticize and speculations , i believe i am still retaining and attaining experience and skills, slipping over a decision i made , might say a minor misinterpretation is not a reason to Drop an Armageddon on me i devoted myself completely to Wikipedia , but now it seems a waste of time because the welcoming committee is perplexed over my doing , i nominated myself to an Adminship position , i hope i could at least help myself . --NikeThyrsus (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I didn't drop an Armageddon on you; I just said you weren't ready for rollback, though it is entirely possible that you will improve the average quality of our administrative corps. But yelling at the people who can grant rollback is probably not a good idea. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hey, watch it, first you call socks idiots and now you're putting down administrators (how far down, btw?). In any event, anyone who believes in the paranormal should be granted rollback. Says so in the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If I knew how to categorize it I would have. And there is no need for someone else to have done it since you obviously know where it belongs. And a default sort is irrelevant and redundant as a one word title will automatically be sorted according to the title. But I guess the fact that I might know enough about the subject and the necessity of a default sort escaped you. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wow, you're a real sweetheart. Hey, thanks for explaining that defaultsort thing! You could have done that in an edit summary of course. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
With the proper permit, everything falls into place on the wheel. Just have your papers in order and hand your ticket to the conductor. (I saw a passing reference in the Los Angeles Times and shouldn't have been surprised that wiki would have a nice article.) Now I'm all set, don't even need an advance directive should there be an unplanned ambulance ride - I've got my pass. GeoffWho, me? 22:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
This is one hell of a kitchen floor. I LOVE this tile.
Hi there my kind fellow user, how's it going?
Since I believe you can't unprotect the article if only for a few hours, you did not do it the first time I asked you, not going to cry about it (I would add tons of refs but whatever, I can wait two days), the following if you please: 1 - OBVIOUSLY, he did not score 46 under-21 goals, he scored in the vicinity of ZERO (lousy punks! You can't say "idiots" here, can you say "punks" or do we have to address these numbskulls as "your honour"?), please correct that infobox; 2 - add the following categories: "PORTUGAL UNDER-21 INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALLERS", "PORTUGUESE EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLERS" and "EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLERS IN ENGLAND"; 3 - intro: it has been decided left and right not to write the divisions/leagues of clubs anymore, so it should read "...who plays for English club SW as a forward".
The current "storyline" (to call it that) is also being displayed like a café or a blog ("...his most successful season up to date") but, like I said, I can wait two days, just do me those two favours I describe above if you please.
Well, I would do it for you, but I see that FreeRangeFrog just protected it, after what appears to be a barrage of edits. Did you know that FreeRangeFrog is raised on at least 3 square meters of swamp, without the use of antibiotics? Drmies (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks "a-many", i'll take care of the rest after the protection lifts! About FRF, wow that's impressive, and his userpage pic really attests to his accomplished happiness... --84.90.219.128 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Bizarrely, only humans and frogs edit Wikipedia- I've counted four frogs so far. Maybe a Species Gap Task Force should be set up. With workshops on how to talk to animals at Wikimedia events, in a non-speciest manner. 86.184.219.52 (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Says the invertebrate bottom feeder that licks soft food off the ocean floor. Extinct? That phylum may well extend to the Republican Party, where a big mouth is frequently confused with a backbone. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
The Cambrian Republican. Large predator with no need for a complex brain. Noted for mouthparts so large they were once assumed to belong to a separate animal altogether, and which are incapable of ever completely closing. Impressively complex eyes, the better to mind everyone else's business with. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Humor Barnstar!
It's been too long since I stalked your Talk page exclusively for humor. Although it's unfortunately sometimes at someone else's expense, we all need a good laugh from time to time CorporateM (Talk) 01:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's curious how people pick up on things; I've had two editors pick me up on whether Budweiser is brewed from rice and wood, and yet nobody notices ahem… some other things. Is Budweiser King of Beers not to be joked about? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On13 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Namwali Serpell, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Zambian writer Namwali Serpell, winner of the Caine Prize for African fiction in English, said she would share the prize money with the other nominees since "fiction is not a competitive sport"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Namwali Serpell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Drmies, it's been a while :) I've just discovered that the Oldsmobile 4-4-2 was the "victim" of a copy-paste move back in January, where the content was cut out of the previous location, Oldsmobile 442. Could you perform a history merge of these two articles please, and combine the two talk pages in the process? :) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)14:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Technically, both, at least if the article is to be believed. And sources seem to be completely mixed on which they choose to use. I'd personally stick it back at Oldsmobile 442, if only because that was the stable title for well over 10 years (and it may or may not make your life easier). Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)16:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I have just ?canvassed? a couple editors I knew were female to participate in an RFC about creating a sexual harassment policy. ALthough I was primarily trying to make sure we get a good turnout among a minority demographic of female editors, I figured you might also be interested in participating. It seems especially relevant since there was that storm a while back regarding what some felt was an over-sexualized comment you made, whereas yourself and others felt the response was overblown.
Hi Corp - I think you may be thinking of a contribution to Featured Content made by another editor, which was removed on the grounds it was sexist by someone who when challenged said that they'd showed it to some women who agreed it was sexist. There was a kerfuffle. Unfortunately the original contribution was made by an editor who had chosen not to reveal their gender, and who ended up backed into a corner. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Title VII has come to Wikipedia. God help us all. Can I file a lawsuit because the CU I'm currently running is harassing me based on administrative orientation? What about the fundamental right of same-sock marriage?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm polytheistic. Male gods, female gods, transgender gods, gay gods, bi gods, straight gods. Much better that way. In that way, I can address any concerns I have to a specialist. Ye gods!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since you have edited in a few minutes what I have spent hundreds of hours researching and learning to code, I hope you will indulge me if I momentarily undo your edits so that I can copy my code and take it elsewhere. After that, feel free to do as you please.
You can copy this by clicking on "Edit". Look, I'm sorry for undoing your work, but the thing is, this is an encyclopedia with certain guidelines. That you put something up doesn't mean you own it. For what it is that you want (I suppose), Wikia is probably a much better venue. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Please restore my original version so that I can copy my code - I cannot undo your edits unless I do it manually
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I understand. It seemed that you and I at least had a somewhat civilized understanding. Please do me a favor and read this in its entirety.
This person came out of nowhere and deleted everything - as I see you have. It went from what was originally a full article to a stub simply because you guys want to have what appears to be an over-the-top pissing contest to show who's boss.
When I went to start a talk session, this is what they have on their opening page:
"No talkback tags, prefs are set to automatically watch any page edited; if I commented on your talk page I'll see a reply.
Sending e-mail? Let me know here, as I do not check that account very often.
I prefer to hear only from actual Wikipedia editors here, just too suspicious of IP editors. Sorry.
I have disabled that bothersome ping notification. If you want my attention, either post here or revert me. :)"
Glad they added the smiley face, otherwise I might feel unwelcome.
I went to look at several other high school pages and the neutrality issues, fan pages, teacher names - all of the issue that you singled me out for - all all out there. What suddenly raised a red flag where everyone is shooting at my efforts? Why have I been so aggressively singled out? I feel I'm being treated unfairly and ultimately I don't know what makes anyone on here think that they have the last word.
Frankly, most school pages cite nothing, have little or no useful information that any encyclopedia would want to have. This kind of over-aggressive enforcement with rude, unjustified criticism to a retired newb who barely knows how to code is pretty disgraceful and elitist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinchdatail (talk • contribs)
It's simply way (way way way) too much detail for just a public high school. If the Wikipedia is supposed to be "the sum of all human knowledge", reflect for a moment that the "all" is not to be taken literally. Tarc (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Pinchdatail, I just made an edit or two and left a note on that talk page. Let's see what we can make of it. Writing is cutting, as I learned from my Doktervater many years ago, and the good thing is you provided a lot of material. We can't put back up the version that you made, but there's a lot of information that is acceptable. But first dinner. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Oh dear. Don't look now, but out old edit warring friend is back on Better Call Saul trying to push what are substantively the same edits as before. He seems to be on another tear, having just come off a block on another article. I reverted and asked him to discuss (the old thread is there), but he summarily reverted with nary an edit summary in sight. This is just a heads up, really, but give his recent pattern, things don't look promising. --Drmargi (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry either of you has to be bad cop, but I do believe it comes with the mop... Sigh. Thank you both. History says he wasn't going to stop. --Drmargi (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, talk page access can be revoked, but not for those comments. Just don't look at it--there's nothing there for you. If they place an unblock request an admin will come by and look at it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, well, they got a point. I never did take Freshman Comp, though I've taught it off an on for a few decades. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh, it's not much of a plan, but perhaps you recall (or can see in the history) what happened last time. There's really not much to discuss with the editor that hasn't been discussed before, and I'd rather not have half a dozen editors explaining to them how wrong they are. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Nice to meet you, Juan Riley. I do know a bit about Wikipedia and its standards and guidelines, despite the fact that I live in Alabama. Also, if with "third" you mean "third world", please be more considerate--that view (first, second, third world) is what I was brought up with, and like most things I learned it's quite outdated. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
When I'm annoyed with someone I pull out the pedantic/grammar nazi bit that almost everyone uses 1st/2nd/3rd wrong. (Not to say I'm annoyed with you, just dropping in ;) ) Most people use it as shorthand for poor/undeveloped, but the 1st world is US & allies. 2nd is Russia & allies, and 3rd is the remaining pawns. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Was, dear Gaijin, was. It was already problematic during the Cold War since it blended politics and economic development, the case of Cuba being an example. Nice to see you, by the way. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Stanleytux, the Port Harcourt was redirected for a clear reason: there were only five schools linked. The Lagos article is a bit different, since that, after pruning, has seventeen schools. (Plus, Lagos is almost twenty times the size.) I'm not sure why you reverted the edit, without explanation. If you want to be fair, then at least clean up the list to leave only the bluelinks (there's nothing else to leave since none of the entries were well-verified, as required by our list guidelines). What is clear, after my cleanup, is that lots of school articles need to be written--yet another example of bias (intentional or unintentional) among Wikipedia editors, or at least a kind of parochialism, and, on the other hand, our need to recruit editors worldwide to write decent content. I wrote up Kalingalinga the other day, and was surprised to find that really none of the neighborhoods of Lusaka had articles, but Wikipedia covers every damn hamburger joint in the USA. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
In the list above, I can only see 14 and not 17 blue-link entries. Also, I can't understand what you mean by I left you no explanation. Which other explanation is bigger than the message I left on your talk page which didn't get any response until after I reverted? Stanleytux (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Your comment here was a question about something else, and didn't say that, let alone explain why, you reverted those edits. With apologies for my miscount. Besides, what, is there like some time frame within which you expect editors to respond? Come on. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, just pointing out that you're offensive. You're sticking a shitty comment in something that doesn't concern you at all. Did you have to wait very long, watching this page, before you found an opportunity? Trollish behavior. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Well done catching and reporting the sock for ProudIrishAspie (aka, Mickey Featherstone). I have reviewed every article he contributed to on 18 July and removed all flags from infoboxes from his sock account edits. My head hurts and my eyes are blurry now. I may pick up tomorrow with the older edits, but I may need more bourbon. I was saddened to see that he's unrepentant and determined to continue ("I will never stop."). You were kind to point out that his energies could be used in so many other, better ways; I'm not feeling so kind as this is at least the fifth time he's done it. Spacini (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
It was an easy catch since, as you know better than anyone else, his edits are easily recognized. I always hope that such editors mend their ways and can come back in the fold, but I got a long lost of those. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I know he's not blocked, Berean Hunter. I thought about it today (yesterday?) and I suppose they should be, but I don't like kicking a guy when he's down, and at any rate he's not used that account in a long time. As for that account, the user name may suggest that, but their edits are quite different (perhaps they listened to me, haha). I do see competence issues with that editor. Perhaps CU should be run--I think I put that template on one of the socks, but I don't remember if it was ever done. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. It's a real treat, going through Recent changes. Racists, POV Aids deniers, schoolkids, COI promotion--there's a block in every page refresh. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
What is it with this account and edit conflicting with everyone? I comment or act on this particular account and I see a comment at almost the same time about it elsewhere. I think the place is haunted. But I've wastedspent some time looking through, and it seems ducky alright, so went ahead and sockblocked. —SpacemanSpiff15:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hey Drmies, wouldn't you like to respond to my e-mail, even if it's to tell me that you don't want to do what I asked? It would help with respect to my taking any action, and this issue has come up in another forum. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Support answering the email that I know nothing about. Because I liked the remark about polytheism being a good idea so that one can consult a specialist regarding spiritual matters.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Bbb23, a. Our email was down this morning, just as I was getting a call from database tech support from India--so no remote access to my PC to fix an issue. b. Mrs. Drmies is out of town and I got way too many mammals here, including a brand new puppy (Doug Weller failed to come by to take her out today). c. The kids just got out of the pool and I'm cooking dinner so yeah, hold on. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Is that other forum Wikipediocracy? I'll see what I can write up tonight. How much of a rush is this? Thanks, by the way, for the time you spent on this. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's been going on for a while, so I see no reason why it can't wait until tomorrow. No to Wikipediocracy. I never even look at Wikipediocracy unless someone "tells" me to. I can explain more after you e-mail. You are overloaded, aren't you? And shame on Doug for abdicating his puppy responsiblities. Bad Dougie.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Gerda, you have added ridiculous amounts of great content. Every time my NPR station plays classical music I think of you, just before I change to playing CDs. :) Drmies (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for making me smile, about ridiculous ;) - Readers can't see the colours any more ("may differ significantly from the current revision"), because one reader needs a ref that a choir is a chamber choir, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, that's fun. If FordPrefect42 hadn't moved it before starting the talk page discussion, Schonken's revert would have been clearly disruptive, even blockable (since he's been warned about such behavior). As it stands, I find Schonken's revert to be highly uncollegial. The talk page discussion doesn't seem to be going his way, and any final decision will depend on the outcome of that RM discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'll convey your kind words to my oh-so blunt axe... So this is the kind of article that brought a dozen editors before ArbCom? Seems a bit overblown, but I suppose I'm staying away from the mothership, that Austrian Institute. Funny--I never even knew Austria had an economy, let alone an exemplary one. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
In the case of 203.118.175.44, I think that it's probably justified since the warning came after a big enough number of clearly vandalistic edits. Same with the 86 IP--this is bad enough. I don't start with level 1, usually, unless it's clear that some relatively innocent thing was done, but clear-cut cases of vandalism aren't relatively innocent. Mandarax, time for your annual (and righteous) rant about the level-1 templates, and the welcome-vandal template... Drmies (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for reminding me, Drmies. In the three years since they litterally rammed those horrible level one warnings down our throats, I have never intentionally used any of them. Ihave accidentally issued two or three via careless Twinkle clicks. For anybody who detests them as much as I do, Double sharp has preserved the original warnings in userspace. With Twinkle's customized warnings option, these are as easy to use as the loathsome ones. Drmies, I agree with you that level one warnings should often be skipped over in favor of higher levels, but whenever I do issue one, it's always one of the originals.
The RfC that resulted in the change was deeply flawed. First of all, it was not mentioned at all in places where people who actually use the warnings, and might want to participate in the discussion, would see it, such as on the Twinkle talk page or a notice at the top of Watchlists. The most important issue with the RfC is that it was all based on a lie. A study was cited, with the results summarized in a way which I will charitably characterize as misleading. The claim was that the study showed that the new warnings shooed away the worst vandals but encouraged others to contribute constructively. What was conveniently omitted was the fact that their own study showed the opposite results for IPs. Well, in my experience, the vast majority of warnings are issued to IPs! While a link to the relevant study was provided, I doubt many people clicked through, and of those who did, I imagine that few really perused the results very carefully.
I could go on about the actual content of those horrendous warnings, but for the sake of brevity (oops, too late), I'll skip that. Ha! When you said it was time for my rant, I bet neither of us thought I'd actually end up doing it. So it goes. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM00:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I figured you would. Thanks for the reminder, which is useful for the younger viewers also. Yes, it wouldn't be the first time that such important changes are made without proper notifications, and I'm probably always the last one to know. For me also it's mostly IPs, and with registered accounts, that vandalize from the get-go, I have maybe one or two warnings worth of patience. And for serial 4chan type vandalism, I block immediately. Thanks Mandarax--it's always nice to see you. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Discussing me without notifying me :-) Yes, I have no patience with clear-cut vandals (harmless edits/test edits are not included in this), and will always issue a final warning if it the user has no constructive history. If it is an otherwise constructive user, I will reconsider (and probably not even template them), unless the edits looks like thisorthis, in which case the user IMO should be immediately indeffed.
Well, this isn't ANI; there is no notification requirement and I wouldn't want one. As for that editor, I revdeleted a bunch of their stuff--I can't understand why that wasn't done before, and 31 hours is pretty mild: I might have blocked indefinitely immediately. Please let me know if they make another such edit. Mandarax, can you supply the link to that RfC, if it doesn't hurt your soul too much? Drmies (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello
First of all, I want to know what's your business in editing Ali Chamseddine's page? Second, I got furious because I was working my ass off all day, getting references and reliable information, and then you (not that guy) come to remove everything. Third, I'm adding information with references, why on earth do you remove it if it's self explanatory. If you are too stupid to understand a phrase, others aren't. Stop messing with that page, seriously! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEmperor14 (talk • contribs)
Well, you don't own the page. Second, this is what you did--that's not a day's work. As for the sources, this is his doctoral dissertation and is thus not a reliable (secondary) source; the "Massive supergravity" article in Nuclear Physics B is one of his articles and this not secondary. But really, I don't see where I "removed everything"--au contraire, that is precisely what you did, at least two times. We are here to make articles better, not to blank articles out of anger. Please see WP:RS (and perhaps (WP:BLP) for the kinds of sources we need. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Woah, Harvey's is totally not a hot dog restaurant. It's a hamburger restaurant that may (I can't remember) sell hot dogs. Even the logo is of a hamburger. Sheesh. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
WHAT you know those flags meet (meat?) MOSFLAG, since those hot doggeries represent their respective countries at international competition. Admin abuse of the highest order. Let me go ping (pig?) Jimbo for immediate action. Hey, did I mention, only ten more days and it's six weeks holidays. Bring it on! --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)ReplyHot dog
Three weeks in you'll be begging for school to start again. But hang tight those last ten days, and hold on to your dreams. Hey, I'm trying an experiment--watching television shows. Yesterday I saw an episode of NCIS, which was duller than hell, and now I'm watching Hannibal, that TV show, cause they talked about the sound effects and music on the radio, and it looks very much like a TV show many people would consider deep and exciting. I may not be able to finish. OH! I missed Sharknado 3... Drmies (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh. The mass murderer targets families. The noble informer (cop?) has a family. Oh my, what could possibly happen. The son is taking the dogs out but they're howling, and only the viewer finds that strange. Oh dear this is terrifying in its predictability. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ironically, I never watched any of the sharknado movies. Just Avalance Sharks. Kids start back to school on the 3rd (including the youngest, full time), which means two whole weeks of uninterrupted PlayStation time all to myself. Actually I probably have some work to do on the trailer at that time, when they aren't around to step on paint. But a guy can dream, can't he? --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've been watching The Slow Meltdown of Khote. It's horrible- I've just got up to the bit where he's appealing to the inmates of a prison to help identify Triple B. The soundtrack's crap- Bagas Degol on a loop. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Literally, there's nothing under "Nominate for deletion". Not on my screen. "What links here/Related changes/Special pages/Permanent link/Page information/Nominate for deletion". You must have some gadget enabled that I don't--I spend as little time on Commons as I can, since I might get sanctorum-stains on my shirt. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Looks like it's not enabled on the Monobook skin, just Vector (which I use). Odd. I don't do much there, just upload pictures and leave, I try to avoid staying for too long. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Colors for Template:Infobox televsion season, etc.
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Doc, sorry about deleting your comment from my user talk page. I work a lot with Alakzi on unrelated template projects, I've had a productive relationship with Aussie at TfD and elsewhere, and I am friendly with you. That said, I'm playing this down the middle, and no good can come from publicly restarting the blame game. I hope you understand my perspective on this. I'm urging everyone to make the accommodations necessary to achieve the goal with no more blood-letting. That probably means that everyone -- myself included -- needs to bite their tongue. I will respond to the issues you raised on my talk page, either here or by email. Cheers, old man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, what can I say. I don't think I was slinging blame on anyone--I think it's quite clear that what I was commenting on was the principle of making accessibility-related issues. I have a dog in this fight, but it's accessibility--I'm not familiar with either of the two main players and, as I said, did not wish to comment on their methods. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
And, I don't disagree, Doc, but it did provide an excuse for the parties to start to rehash on my talk page, which was the last thing I wanted. I will respond to you via email later. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh, you don't have to do that--if you're trying to handle these hotheads you got more than enough on your plate. But please either tweak or remove that comment: you don't need to explain, and I don't like being listed as a "scab picker". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I was abstaining from commenting until a certain someone mentioned me by name a gajillion times in the space of two paragraphs. I'm sorry, but this equal blame stuff doesn't work on me. Alakzi (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry about that. For some reason, I thought I had tagged it for speedy deletion before but that it had been removed, but apparently I took it straight to AFD the first time (I have no clue why, although my suspicion is that all my other CSD/PROD tags had been removed for other articles created by that editor, so perhaps I just assumed it was going to be futile). I probably should've confirmed what my memory was telling me, but thank you for the quick closure. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, but a verified resume is still a resume... I need a nap, Spiffy, but I gotta go teach Othello. Please provide spiritual sustenance through prayer. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've always thought that Shakespeare and naps go hand in hand, but if you need a pick-me-up, that article's right there to help pull out whatever hair you've got left! In the meantime I shall pray to the Vulcans to use their powers on that article and you. —SpacemanSpiff18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
"Google searches in 2008, which can't even be accurate since the internet hadn't been invented"
Oh, I think the Grumpsterix is well aware of the concept of joke. And if not, here's one, from the Wikipedia archives (saved on 5 1/4 floppy disks): what does blue paint taste like? Drmies (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
In a way, yes, but it doesn't explain much, nor is it funny. It makes you sound smart, when the object of the joke is to make you realize you're dumb. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
You blinded me with science. Also, BD, you've been here on Wikipedia since before we were on the internet, I believe. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Whenever I see older closes getting cited, I try to let the closer know so they know that their hard work wasn't wasted. Thank you for quality, influential work at WP:ANRFC!Cunard (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Cunard, I did something useful? Stop the press! Thanks for your note--I'll follow the links and read what I supposedly said after a victory dance. Hey, you're pretty undervalued, as far as I am concerned, and I wish I had some youthful zeal left to help you. Thanks for all your good work here, and any time you want a sexy user page, Hafspajen and I will be happy to make you one. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Drmies, I had always had confidence in your sense of taste until this moment. How do I not have a sexy red hot user page right now? Nothing Hafspajen or you can create can be better than what I currently have.
I appreciate your kind words. I don't mind being undervalued as long as I don't have to deal with stuff like this every few months. In the most recent iteration, editors have said about my WP:ANRFC posts that I'm a spammer and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Over the years, I have had to reiterate many times why formal closures of RfC discussions are beneficial. Thankfully, unlike you I haven't lost my youthful zeal yet. Perhaps if you copy my beautiful user page, you will get back some of that youthful zeal? Cunard (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, Drmies. Considering this, I am wondering what would you have to say about this? :D By the way... I may be wrong, but I think that there is no policy about the matter of having a section with selected publications. Maybe it violates "No original research", because they are almost always just selections made by an editor of Wikipedia (but, in some cases, this could apply to external links too—and even to references when there is more than one that can cover a fact...). In most articles about mathematicians there is a section "Selected publications", normally listing the three or four most cited papers (sometimes, the section can establish notability of the individual—when the papers are very highly-cited, for example). I care about the section being removed, also because of the case of inconsistency and double-standard that results from the lack of a policy about this (some editors think these sections are okay, and others think that they should be removed ASAP)... Anyway, I won't reinsert it... Best wishes, sincerely --189.6.202.87 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I was totally with you, without even looking at the diffs, until you said "mathematics". Leave me out of that please--bad memories. Yes, the problem is always what the selection criteria are. I got one for you, but it typically only works for books: only list those that have a reference, like a review or something.
Now, having said all that, maybe we should start a worldwide RfC over this because, as I'm sure you know, for musical artists we don't do "selected discography"; we list everything they do. I have not yet solved that contradiction, which I struggle with. In general, in articles I write on scholars and writers, I list books (edited or written) that are referenced (with secondary sources--reviews, typically), and articles if they are verifiably important. Thanks, for the note and for the discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi! It's me. :D After approximately 2000 edits as IP since 2012, I've decided to register! (already used VisualEditor and HotCat and I'm happy!) Anyway I will need to reduce my activity at Wikipedia very soon, because I will be busy studying. I plan to make occasional edits, though. Best wishes! E. S. Rzatki (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Drmies, Hope all is well, Not sure if you're aware but the AFD hasn't closed properly Half of it's still open which would probably explain the !votes still, Thanks and Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk01:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Me either. Thanks for paying attention. Poor Cecil--I couldn't have killed him a second time. But aren't we right on the intersection of shit and reliable sourcing here? The good newspapers and media are writing on the animal and on top of that they're covering the Twitter and Facebook outrage--a perfect storm creating notability for a subject that in the old days...well, bd2412 can tell you about the days when an encyclopedia still fit on eleven clay tablets with cuneiform writing on it. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think we are and I wouldn't be surprised if some tool nominated it again tomorrow anyway!, Judging by the 2004/5 AFD's It seems like everything stayed regardless of notability and to a point it's a shame its all changed, Seems like we delete more article than keep them nowadays!. –Davey2010Talk01:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I don't think that was such a great close on Killing of Cecil the lion - you closed it very early while discussion was still on-going based on what you predicted the outcome would be. I don't see any urgent need to have stopped the discussion. The something good you are looking for is not a reason to end any discussion, nor is it a reason to keep anything. So yeah I do hope some "tool" will nominate it again. --ℕℱ01:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Of course discussion was still ongoing. If I had let it open it would have been ongoing for seven more days. Wanna guess what the inevitable outcome would be? (BTW, "tool" is not my word, and I agree with the nominator.) Drmies (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
If we can appoint one person to guess the outcome of discussion, why do we have a system of discussions at all. It is right that people's voice be heard - there is value in allowing the regulation number of days for a full discussion to be heard. Why shouldn't it? --ℕℱ01:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but what's the point of a discussion if it's pointless to discuss since the outcome is already clear? And I was going to let you guess what that outcome would be, but for me it's not a guess: no consensus--or, possibly, keep. Anyone can see that. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Have you invented a new category of close all of your own, the new speedy no consensus. If you can't see the illogicality of that, I'm honestly not sure I can help you much. --ℕℱ01:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for blocking Lmnodogsuphomie101 for their disruptive editing. You may now want to consider revoking their talk page access as well, because at this point, they are basically using it as a way to try to troll and insult me. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, I gotta tell you something about Carlos Gómez. Something like half of the last 50 edits are yours. So, a. careful, cause edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. b. especially in such cases, leave edit summaries--from looking at the history, I couldn't possibly tell who's right and who's wrong. And I don't know if you asked for semi-protection, but if you haven't, you should have; in the meantime, that's what I've done. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for protecting the page. I had requested it on WP:RFP and I was waiting for someone to answer it. Also, I'm aware of the edit warring policy, but honestly, isn't it worse to let incorrect information remain instead of reverting it, even if it has to be reverted a ton of times? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sure. RFPP is slow, I know--I tell you, it's a bitch to be on that particular barrel duty. The page itself is cumbersome, and edit warring is not so easy to spot if you're on the outside looking in--hence my note about edit summaries. If you say, every single time, "rm premature unsourced information" or something like that, at some point I'll start believing you and will take action more quickly.
As for your other question, I have no answer for that. You don't want to get blocked for edit warring, but you're not going to be blocked so easily, and probably not in such cases. But there are borderline issues; just ask two admins, Kww and TheRamblingMan, who had a serious disagreement about what could legitimately be removed, and what was disruptive blanking. And there's incorrect and incorrect. If someone adds to the Cecil article that he'd been caught raping leopards, that should probably be removed quickly. But you can ask yourself whether this disruption is worth getting in possible trouble over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Replace please hi (User talk:Drmies) I see you removed the page kobort koffa and stated your reason...Could you please further look into the matter again? references cited in tat page are not weak as Houh stated, and you mentioned that the player did not meet some guidelines, however, surferboy, the guy who accepted the page and had it published statd his reasons for making the exception. I see that you have done so many wonderful works on Wikipedia, and I hope you keep it up! Thanks for looking into the matter again, and lastly, the player is not only highly googled - proving nobility, but the news coverage are credible! Again thanks for looking into this carefully, and for the many good work done on here by you.Dksports2014 (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello Dksports2014. (I hope you're not also Sportsnation213 (talk·contribs), but CU will tell.) The AfD discussion is quite clear and boils down to "there is no evidence of notability" versus "just google him", and that never ends as a win for the Googlers. That Danish team is not apparently a fully professional outfit, thus your guy does not pass FOOTY, and no evidence is provided that he has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG (GiantSnowman can explain both in more detail, if need be). If you disagree and wish to take this further, there's Wikipedia:Deletion review--though, if my hunch is correct, you'll have to do so under a new account. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I am the IP who kept editing "Jeffrey Tucker." I did not know I was violating the rules by not registering account, and I apologize. That said, I don't know why my edits keep being removed. As you can see here, every assertion made in the removed paragraph is reliably-sourced. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Tucker&diff=672694431&oldid=672572811 . The user who is trying to remove it is a friend of Tucker's who worked for him. Please read the text that he removed, look at its sources, and add it back to the article. In liberty, John. Liberation25 (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Liberation25, which one? This, or this, or this one? all of them? Look, the problem is not the IP-editing--that's perfectly alright, certainly with me, though sometimes difficult (since I don't know which of the three you were--you don't have to tell me, because if you do, that IP can be connected to your account and you don't want that). The problem was the content of the edit, which is explained here and and herebyDickClarkMises (correctly) and on the talk page by Srich32977 (also correctly). The next problem, then, is the editing against consensus (esp. since this is a BLP) and the subsequent edit warring, which is why I had to protect the article. I hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Only an admin can perform it now, can you please move López Silva to "José López Silva"? I explain: yes, he is known by those two names, but keep in mind BOTH are surnames, it would be like having articles named "Rooney", "Casillas", "van Basten" or "Zidane".
So, my arguments don't hold any logic? BDFUTBOL presents the players always that way, Iker Casillas is also presented as "Casillas" there (see here http://www.bdfutbol.com/j/j1090.html) but is WP page is "Iker Casillas" not "Casillas", no? Both López and Silva are surnames, José is needed for "balance" purposes I wager.
Please note that at the English Wikipedia we apply article page names according to the name that is most widely used by reliable English-language sources. Especially when it comes to personal names or place names these names can differ substantially from names used by Spanish-language sources or Eastern European naming conventions for that matter. Therefore BDFutbol is not indicative in this case. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
My dear professor,
I am acutely aware that the (figurative) lynch mob is yapping and howling on social media, and if his name was mentioned only on sites like Twitter and the Daily Mail, I too would oppose keeping it out of the encyclopedia. And many are now claiming, without a shred of evidence, that Cecil was the world's most famous lion before his death. I know all that. I do not want to see the dentist (or the two Zimbabweans) to be vilified on this encyclopedia. But as I tried to point out, the dentist has attempted for many years to build a reputation and accomplish great and notable things in the sport of hunting big game animals by bow and arrow. I feel no need to express my personal opinion about that sport at this time. I just concluded that simply mentioning his name, already reported extensively, did him no further harm, and no harm to the encyclopedia. But your words and your thoughts have motivated me to try to think more deeply. I acknowledge that there are two sides to the issue and I value your observations. It is an ugly matter all the way around. Maybe after the knuckle dragging has ended, an actual academic will write about the incident in a broader treatment of the issues around wildlife preservation, and have that published as a book by a respected university press. Then, either you or I, or another caring editor, or all three of us, can improve the article. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
My dear Cullen, as I tried to indicate I'm very torn about all of this. And I'll tell you something else: when I die, I'd like for you to take over as me. I'm sure Beeblebrox can finagle something to slip that tool into your hands without your having to go through RfA. Then again, you'd probably get to 100 within a day. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
". . . the world's most famous lion?" Some of use are old enough to remember Elsa, and she was even more famous than a Disney cartoon character lion. BTW, is it now archaic or outdated to refer to a female lion as a "lioness?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I remember Elsa well, Dirtlawyer1. But I have yet to see a single solitary reliable source published before his death that discusses "Cecil the famous lion". I would like to be proven wrong, since I think that the article would be much stronger with some pre-death coverage of the allegedly famous Cecil. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I would have left the article title at "Killing of Cecil the lion," because I think the event and the ensuing fallout are far more likely to establish the subject's notability over the long-term. In my opinion, the lion itself is dangerously close to only being noteworthy as the victim in this story. There certainly was no worldwide coverage of the lion prior to its shooting. Unlike Elsa, Cecil was not world famous. But a more serious discussion about the article title can wait until the dust settles, emotions cool, and editors who have a better understanding of our guidelines can get a word in edgewise. In the mean time, I will be relatively content if we keep the article from becoming a social media board for posting every angry comment by someone with an opinion on the matter. I give it two to three weeks before the social media outrage ebbs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Any interest in taking a look here? I might have scared people off with such a large block of text. The original article was written by someone that was in a legal dispute with the company and I'm trying to put something more encyclopedic together with a financial connection. CorporateM (Talk) 00:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, the draft devotes far too much attention to REITs and RELPs, and I would like to see more attention paid to the services they offer their customers, mostly rented storage space. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Someone else approved the draft, but it prompted quite a bit of drama when it was passed as GA less than 24 hours afterwards. Here after another editor agreed that the criticisms added by Cullen could use some trimming, he went so far as to say that he will make it one of his ongoing goals as long as he's editing Wikipedia to prevent the content from being trimmed. Maybe it could use some of your comedic relief ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 00:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Corp, I suppose I should archive my talk page a bit so that a. I don't miss anything and b. I can ... well, you know, more easily ignore things. That's a lot of words there. I looked over the GA review, and reassessment. You must know that I have great respect for Cullen, and nine times out of ten I am happy to defer to him. (With you, Corp, I think I'm at seven out of ten or so.) In fact, he should probably just run the show, with the Lady and Moonriddengirl. Ah! I see the edit--this, I suppose. Well, Cullen's prose is better than what was there before... I do think that one reference is a bit thin.
I hope I haven't offended either one of you, or if I have, that I have offended both of you somewhat equally. I also think that the GA review was very...thin, and that the reviewer's comments, esp. to Cullen, were not collegial. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Did I mistreat him somewhere? I don't understand what I did to prompt so much drama. He just jumped into a random conversation on my Talk page that has nothing to do with him to say that I'm alluding he's a POV pusher and he's proud of it.[14] I have a pretty low tolerance for drama on my Talk page and will ban him from it if he continues, but why that would even be necessary just baffles me. He seems to be an experienced editor in good standing and I am not aware of any kind of bad blood between us. Not sure if we've even worked together before, but my memory is so terrible. What did I do? CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, Corp (sorry, just archived a bunch--feel free to edit and ping me if need be), I regret to say I haven't visited your talk page much. Cullen328 is one of the good ones, just like you are; I dare say it's probably a misunderstanding/miscommunication/whatever. And damn I wish I could get paid for this--also, for eating all the shit I have to eat. You know, every time I'm developing some enthusiasm for the project again, I get shat on, now over that Liz RfA, by someone I have (had?) a lot of respect for. Anyway, I'm just venting. If I were you I'd make a point of accidentally running into Cullen in the hotel lobby and getting a cup of coffee with him. You can talk about America, which I think you both love. All the best, to both. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have a lot of respect for CorporateM but confess that I am baffled that he claims to barely remember me, when we worked together intensively a few weeks ago on the GA review of George Meany. The only reason that I am involved with Public Storage is that CorporateM asked me several times to get involved. My goal is to ensure that well-referenced information of interest to consumers is kept in the article and that the article is not dominated by lengthy and arcane REIT information. As for the GA review of Public Storage and the performance of the reviewer then and since - well, words fail me. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayan Fenwick is bugging me. The subject is a 21-year-old player in small-town soccer teams. There are a fair number of local newspaper reports about him saying "he just got signed up for Hicksville United, the manager says this about him, here's a resume of his career to date." Technically I think he passes GNG based on that coverage, but most of the voters are saying "delete, the guy is just a routine minor player", which is completely true. Based on that summary, how would you close it? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
If the extent of the coverage is the reporting of those basic facts, without more in-depth discussion (which is what's called for), and if that coverage is local, then I think it might not satisfy the GNG. I read the local paper every day, and I put no stock in much of that coverage in terms of satisfying our requirements.
I had a real quick look at the discussion--it's very recent. I see now that Fenix down provided an overview and discussion of the sources, which is both a drag and a benefit to a closer. A drag, since we're obliged to look at it, and a boon, since it's...well, quite useful. I have learned that admins (at least some admins) really go for a discussion of sources. For instance, Salvidrim!'s comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry Dash will prove valuable to the closer, even if they're very cursory. Does that help? (I haven't done a headcount.) Come closing time I'll be happy to look at it again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I dunno. I like GNG because it avoids arguments about "importance". All that counts is the level of coverage. The local papers are reliable enough and provide significant coverage: "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. ... more than a trivial mention." But the general view is that the subject is not at all remarkable, so should not have an article. There must have been other cases like this... Aymatth2 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I'm looking to help revamp the Percy Jackson Task-force, a project dedicated to maintaining articles related to Rick Riordan and Percy Jackson & the Olympians. I noticed your edits the page Percy Jackson, and I wanted extend an offer of membership! To begin, I want to thank you for doing so much to cut down on the length of the article; this has been in the works for a long time. I also wanted to, very respectfully, request that you keep your edit descriptions on pages under the project's scope more neutral; unfortunately many of its pages are hotly debated by members of the "PJ fandom", and I would like to avoid unnecessary disputes. That said, I understood the points you were trying to make with those descriptions, and I appreciate your thorough explanations of what you did to the article with each edit.
If you're interested, I'd like to invite you to become a full member of the task-force; please note that the difficult requirements for membership are going to be lowered in the very near future, so you can join worry-free (I know they scared me away on the first try.). You can also become just a "supporter", if that's more your speed. Head on over to the project page if you'd like -- and no hard feelings if you don't. Thanks again in advance, and feel free to contact me on my Talk page. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
"also, of course Poseidon didn't stay with Sally, dummy; gods don't marry their love interests", "an article without secondary sources on a fictional character shouldn't have this much shit in the infobox" Nothing serious, it's just that, in my quest to revive this WikiProject, I've been tracking down formerly active editors, and have learned that several left because of arguments that started way too easily. Rather than play with fire, I'm trying to play it safe, though I will not comment again on anything you say. Just wanted to let you know. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, I don't want to offend, though there was a lot of shit in that infobox, and anyone who doesn't know that the gods simply screw and then don't call the next day hasn't read PJ or Ovid. You know, the easily-offended would be surprised at how many dirty words are actually found in real literature, but that's all by the by. Thanks, and I'll see--I don't know if I can be of much help, and if I can offer you a suggestion, it's to add reliable sources, preferably hyperlinked, to all those articles, so that poor schmucks like me have less work finding the proper sources. That would be make everyone's life a lot easier. Or, of course, a section in the Percy Jackson project page with a list of good sources... Drmies (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the sources problem is a real killer, and it takes so long just to fix one article. I like the idea of the "reliable sources" section on the project page; might actually get on that right now. Thanks again. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I don't protect Protestant churches, esp. not if they're dedicated to Luther! (Are you familiar with the extensive literature on Boniface vs. Luther in the 19th century? It's evidenced especially in church dedications.) Drmies (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for copy-editing and even going to the IP's talk anyway. No, I should some day read the literature. I sing at St. Boniface as you may remember, but listened to the Thomanerchor at the other ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I think your oppose on the Liz RfA was one of the best researched and most gently presented that I have ever seen. Maybe I'm not too old to learn something from that. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Kudpung: I appreciate that, especially from someone I consider something of a Nestor. It's difficult. I just read your oppose, and Softlavender's, and I am struck in both cases by the careful word choice. Clearly Liz is doing a lot of things right. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wow. Interesting. I'm listening to it right now--I love DeJohnette. And I think Jürgen Schweinebraden is a great name for you. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Jürgen Schweinebraden never cooperates! I did check the French Wiki article- it had some attendance figures, but not in a usable form (seemed to be an aggregate over a number of years). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
This can be both encyclopedic and fan stuff. I hate these lists, because they have a tendency to explode, and that with lousy sourcing. And in the old days, it was really something--but it's like awards (have you noticed how for each popstar half of the article is an award section? and how ubiquitous List of awards received by... is?): there's way too many of them, also since it's just another marketing tool. I mean, Epiphone makes a Tony Iommi SG model. It's less than $300 and I'd love to have one, and apparently it's a really good guitar. But the "signature" there means very little, besides that it's a black SG with cross inlays on the fretboard. And Tony Iommi is huge, and iconic, but many of those signature models are for...well, let's say, not the greatest of the great. A full list would be ridiculously big. (And in articles for guitar players, I'd demand a secondary sources, not a page from the Gibson catalog which is, of course, promotional, even if factual.)
Now, I just closed an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of websites using two-factor authentication, and there the "Y" variable ("List of X of Y") actually is something of an encyclopedic topic. Here, "signature model" is a redlink, and I think it should stay that way--if the typical guitar forum reader were to write it, it would be a list, not a thorough discussion of the meaning and function of "signature model" within fandom and guitar manufacture. So I'd lean towards deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
The trouble with lists is there seem to be no shortage of people who think FLCs are for other people and that adding unsourced and unverifiable fancruft is okay. I mean, look at the historyofList of Pink Floyd band members - I'm the only one to use a bloody edit summary. In fact, one might say those that can, do, those that can't put it in a list! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Driveby clarification to LadyofShalott; based on your comments here and on your WP:PROD nomination, you seem to think this is going to be a list of people who own a particular type of guitar. That's not what "signature model" means; it means that the guitarists have has a particular model of guitar named after them. (The Gibson Les Paul is by far the most famous.) FWIW, if you think this is cruft, you don't remember the old days when List of people by name was a thing. – iridescent16:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've deprodded it, renamed it and added two examples. If everybody tosses their "favourite" signature model guitar in (with a reliable source, thankyou) we should have a reasonable list, I think. PS: We still have "unfortunate" lists too. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ritchie333, I've actually found some of those "List of laws passed in year" redlink-farms quite useful. It's surprisingly hard to find straightforward and searchable lists of UK legislation passed in any given year before they started computerising it in 1988. (The official site was created from what was in force when it was created in 1991, and its coverage of laws that were repealed or amended before that date is patchy at best.) BTW, you do realise that by deprodding that article you're setting a precedent to keep nightmares like List of sportswear endorsed by footballers and List of celebrity shoes? (Yes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination) theoretically set that precedent already, but given that it was closed by a Horsey sock I doubt anyone would claim the precedent is binding.) – iridescent19:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Iridescent, I have never thought of the Les Paul as a "signature model". I suppose strictly speaking that's correct, but it's an odd thought. And man do I wish I had one. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I keep seeing the section title floating across my watchlist. Each time it reminds me of that classic for students everywhere: "Is this a question?" I believe a correct response is "Yes, if this is an answer". - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'll leave Johnny Smith and his Guild, Gibson and Heritage guitars to someone else, also the Epiphone Emperor guitar, named for the well-known axeman, Edward VIII. Men let your Wallis flop out, and women open your purses, Cause a man or a woman without a big eyed bean from Venus, Is suffering with the worstest of curses. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Trust me, we had a lot worse back in the old days. The people who talk about 2007 like it was the Wikipedia Golden Age tend to be those who don't remember it; it's not all that long since this and this were Featured Articles. (If anyone has a blinding urge to be ranted at by every pack of whackoes on both left and right simultaneously, List of LGBT slang terms would be greatly improved were it to turn red. Yes, it survived a rather—er—questionable AFD, but I'm not convinced anyone voting to keep it actually looked at the alleged "references", which in general make Urban Dictionary look like the Encyclopedia Galactica.) – iridescent20:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, Doc. What are the odds I can talk you into granting me the "file mover" permission? I've been at this for 6 years and 81,000 edits, and I've never had a controversial page move yet, even though I've moved dozens, if not hundreds that did not require the permission. On occasion, I do run into a random page that requires permission -- usually for reasons of overlapping redirects -- that I cannot move because I'm just a pleb in this empire. Today, I would like to move Center (gridiron football)toCenter (American and Canadian football), so that it is consistent with the titles of all other American and Canadian football player position articles (see Category:American football positions), but I can't. Any chance I can get a battlefield promotion from private to lance corporal, oh, Captain, my Captain? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'd say those odds are pretty good, but it's all hypothetical since I just did it. So now you're a peon (still) with an extra ribbon. Maybe you should run for admin. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Not this week, Doc, but thanks for the extra chevron. Well, actually, in the U.S. Marine Corps, a lance corporal doesn't even get an extra stripe, just crossed rifles under the PFC's single stripe . . . so, I'll try not to get too full of myself and move the main page or anything crazy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what the file mover right has got to do with moving articles or meta pages. I must be missing something obvious. Alakzi (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Your submission of De Stratemakeropzeeshow at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Snowman, always good seeing you. But I have to say, involved in the deletion discussion or not, I think you could have given your opinion on the G4: I have faith in your objectivity. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC) 
Reply
. Situations can be viewed in various ways, it's always good to err on the side of caution.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Arequest for comment has been filed concerning the username of NotAnOmbudsman (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Done. I didn't do the recordings--it got too boring. ;) Drmies (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Marjorie Proops 
. –Davey2010Talk 01:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply