User talk:Drmies

Never knew or would have guessed that you were an Anti....

So that just tells me you are an excellent and non biased editor.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks--but I don't know that I am. I do know that there are plenty of excellent and non-biased editors here who put their responsibility toward the project before their own politics and opinions. In fact, look up this all-too long talk page and you'll see a dozen or more. Some of the best writers I've ever worked with are active here, and I think most of them understand that good (encyclopedic) writing is driven by things other than personal opinions. Still, I appreciate it; I hope that Spiffy's dog gave you an extra lick. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What's with the lack of references in Dutchy stuff?

I know the nl.wp tends to be sans refs frequently. I was just looking at Edison Award which rightfully is topped with an unreferenced tag. BTW, can you find a better ref for the Edison Award in this article? I want it for my new stub, Craig Hella Johnson. I'll look tomorrow, but I've stayed up way too late already. Gotta be awake to face the public again in the morning. LadyofShalott 05:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Face the public, milady? I dare say, it shouldn't be so difficult. All your faces are good ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Aw thanks, Crisco. I wish I could same the same for all the faces of the public. (Only certain ones provoke such commentary.) LadyofShalott 12:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Is that not good enough? I'm searching--but guess what, I had to use Google to find Google Advanced Search, which used to be a button on the search screen. This is the Edison website and should be reliable enough.

  I have nothing to offer on the quality of the Dutch wiki. It's sad and bad. You can go around and tag 90% of their articles as woefully unreferenced and unencyclopedically written. Compare Mathijs Bouman on our and their wikis and see the difference (granted, I worked extra hard on that one, since he's an old school friend and I got him up at DYK, but still). Have a gorgeous day! Drmies (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

3 October Festival and Rubberen Robbie would be easier to write if the Dutch equivalents had any sources, that's for sure. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, look at Robbie now. Turns out it was a can of worms. Funny--for weeks now I've had a few lines from their "Stars on 45" parody in my head ("onze luitenant stak de kazerne in brand"), and now you bring them up! Anyway, look at the article and see how important those guys actually were--quite amazing. Who knew they wrote "Een beetje verliefd", Andre Hazes's signature hit? So, how was the show? Did you play good? Had much beer? Groupies? Did Rubberen Robbie, or maybe Van Beukenstein play? Was Nils there? Drmies (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're planning to play 3 Oktober, don't try and drive one of these through the centre of Leiden

Nice one! The festival was utterly brilliant. Leiden is a lovely place, very hospitable crowd, good audience, everyone wanted to buy us a beer. I don't think Rubberen Robbie were there but Maximum Overdrive definitely were. Nils may or may not have been there for all I know - I spoke to so many people I couldn't keep up. But to say "their song "3 Oktoberrr" is a perennial favorite at the Leids 3 October Festival" is frankly an understatement. If you don't play it in your set, the crowd will sing it for you! We ended up doing an impromptu version of it as the last number at the last gig, realising we would not get away without doing so. We've been invited back next year, on the strict condition we play it! Mission between now and then is to learn enough Dutch to understand the lyrics - I can now pronounce "mooi" properly, so that's a step in the right direction I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the update. Nice to hear you had a good time. That song can't be too difficult to learn. Mooi! Drmies (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Garrejones44444777 and 'pets'?

Hello, Drmies!
Thanks for your Admin action in regards to Garrejones44444777 (talk · contribs) (Nb. All edits Tag: Mobile edit)

However I fear you have uncovered a nest of ducks! (or Bunnies & TweetyPies!)
Garrejones44444777 turns up on 2013-09-28, the day after Tweety1962compostion is indeffed as a sock of TweetiePie1947.

 Comment: These are all from the recent edit history of Person to Bunny:

• BugsBunny1957 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 27 September 2013. "Due to being out of date that was partially unavoidable so the cartoon was officially cancelled out of theaters" (Tag: Mobile edit)
  
• Tweety1962compostion (talk · contribs) different edits, but the name is similar (and mispelled too!) Already blocked as a sock of 'TweetiePie1947'
  
• TweetiePie1947 (talk · contribs) 17:16, 27 September 2013‎ " That was paritly unavoidable when April 1, 1960 was a expired date for the cartoon to be released." (Tag: Mobile edit)
  
• 205.223.222.48 (talk · contribs) See here "Canceled out of theaters due to Production of Music Difficulties " (Tag: Mobile edit)
  
• 208.163.137.16 (talk · contribs) See here "This Cartoon was officially cancelled out of theaters, mainly because [[Arthur Q. Bryan]] Died before the short could be released in 1959." part of larger edit
  
  •   Both IPs in Tallahassee, Florida [1] [2]

 Looks like a duck to me
So, not only is 'Garrejones44444777' disruptive, they are a sockpuppet and edit warring on multiple pages under different usernames and IPs.
If I should take this list elsewhere like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (WP:SPI) I'll do so. --220 of ^Borg 09:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)SPI does sound like the thing to do. LadyofShalott 12:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I did notice that, and going to SPI and requesting CU is the best thing to do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) M'lady (& Drmies) too late I found out there has already been an Edit warring (WP:AN3) case. (and I thought I was sooooo clever) Indefs handed out etc. did no good of course! Several new accounts, new IP and away we go again! (Damned busy page here!) 220 of ^Borg 14:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the joint is jumping (you're trying to edit the section, right, not the whole too-long page?). Yep, SPI will take care of that. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Another sock: BugsBunny1958oscarwinner (talk · contribs) Trivialist (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not anymore. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Garrejones44444777 is back at Person to Bunny‎‎, making the same dubious unsourced edits. Trivialist (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

word for anti-gun views

You said in your article talk post that you were not sure if there was a word for your position. Anti-gun covers it somewhat I think;but a word coined by some in the gun world is Hoplophobia although the "fear" part is probably (intentionally) insulting by those that use it, so I think you would probably not self-apply it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Haha, that sounds way too much like a sexual phobia. The note on it not occurring in the DSM is kind of funny. Hey, I appreciate the reference, and I realize my stance is a total pipe dream. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• One could entertain a fantasy of chasing Jeff Cooper down the street with a katana, whilst inviting him to invent a word for irrational fear of swords. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Chambara-phobia, Musashi-phobia or Mifune-phobia ? The last rolls off the tongue well. 220 of ^Borg 09:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• God, now I want to watch Soshi Okita, Burning Corpse of a Sword Master. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Schools

It's at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS - you can uncontentiously redirect such articles yourslef, no need to push them thru AfD. ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Right on. Thanks Kudpung. I hope you're doing well. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks, but still very busy in RL. I wonder actually how I find time to remain so active here, but I feel compelled... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Compelled, huh? A d d i c t i o n . . . Drmies (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think that's what we can say about a l l o f u s. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I could be driving home right now... OK, I will. I have this under control. I can stop anytime I want. Like right no— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

With reference to Yeats infobox removal

Hi Drmies,

I just wanted to apologize for creating that infobox on W. B. Yeat's bio page! I'm obviously a new user to Wikipedia and am still trying to get the hang of properly editing existing articles and creating new ones, and I am also still learning the proper decorum for doing so. I thought it was odd that such a monumental writer would not have an infobox yet, and now I can see that there is an obvious reason for why that is! It was a newbie mistake, and in the future I will be certain to check the talk page of any article I consider making an addition or edit too, as well as endeavor to be more careful with editing articles in general (especially major ones). Thank you for catching my mistake and for fixing it before anyone became too upset over it!

Sincerely,

• Davos, no need to apologize--none whatsoever. The thing is that infoboxes are kind of a hotly disputed item and a consensus was reached recently saying that (if I remember correctly) it's basically up to the main authors of the article. I looked for that discussion last night but couldn't find it before bedtime; one of the talk page stalkers may now. In short, the two opposing sides argued that, pro, infoboxes are really useful for a quick overview and, con, infoboxes are a kind of dumbing down and too often take up too much space. (The two sides may quibble with my off-the-top-of-my-head summary. I'm somewhere in the middle, I suppose.) But the Yeats article is also a Featured Article, and adding (or removing) an infobox is seen as a major change which would require discussion on the talk page, where I encourage you to post a note. Sorry, but you totally unwittingly and in perfect good faith stuck your editing pen in a hornet's nest (not one of my making, I might add.) Thanks for your note and for your edits. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah nice one geezer Basket _Feudalist 14:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• What I see is that the boxes are widely liked all over the project, but a few editors are so strongly against them that I was urged not to use the unspeakable word for a few months, which is sad since advanced data base search relies entirely on them, - Mr. Yeats will not be found. For how long? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not long; merely until Ireland is a land united and free. "lol" Basket _Feudalist 14:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Gerda, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. :) Seriously, you know I can't judge the validity of your argument, nor do I want to since you're great and I'm totally on the fence on the topic. I just didn't want our new editor to get into trouble over something they probably were totally unaware of. If they take it up on the talk page, and you are indeed correct, then that infobox will be there shortly, I have no doubt. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• BTW, I have no doubt that Yeats will continue to be found, more than 1000 times per day. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• As you are one of the many editors reasonable enough to avoid the hornet's nest altogether I should probably leave you alone ;) - However for enlightenment: 1) there are no "rules" against the unspeakable boxes, only essays. 2) I recently performed a similar revert. 3) I was not talking about views for Yeats, but for him showing in advanced queries of DBpedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• (Davos, Frau Arendt is a well-respected Big Shot Editor around these parts, and well worth listening to.) Where was that infobox discussion, if a discussion it was? Schoene Feierabend, Drmies (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• late, let's see: what discussion do you mean? The war is on since 2005, I was told, I feel like moving in a mine field. One day you see a decent discussion resulting in an infobox for a composer, a few days you try that same thing on Bach: explosion. One day you add one to Schubert's masses (we just sang No. 6, see my user), a few days you try the same thing on Mozart's Sparrow Mass: explosion. - When things got hot in operas, Ched started an arb case which resulted in four editors more or less gone and two restricted, as if we had too many editors. - I survived so far and approved this modest approach in an FAC. - In case you want to sample an enjoyable discussion I suggest Siegfried (opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't we just have an RfC or an ArbCom thing or something? Drmies (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't I just say so, an arb case leaving Wikipedia with four editors gone and two restricted. Only: it was called "infoboxes" but discussed behaviour, the older the more. (Don't look at what someone did last week, look at 2007.) See my talk for the link to the whole kafkaesque thing (look for arbitration or kafkaesque). But Siegfried is more entertaining, promised ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Some editors here might like to borrow something from my user page (which I borrowed from someone else). Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice--thanks. Hey, you don't get a lot of barnstars. Are you sure you're sucking up to the right people? Drmies (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I keep meaning to but never have time. And I don't move the few barnstars I do get on my talk page to my user page anyway. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

An expert eye required

When you get a spare moment, please would you take a glance at this and also this. I've placed {{RPA}} on the former as I do not take kindly to being threatened on Wikipedia. In the latter the same user also threatens to have me "blocked". A line has to be draw somewhere and their comments are clear words of attack. Thank you. Wesley Mᴥuse 15:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Your hypocricy [sic]" can be considered a personal attack, yes (refrain, אומנות!)--the rest of the two paragraphs, not so much. The threat of having someone blocked, well, one person's threat is another person's warning; I don't think any admin would consider those particular remarks as very offensive (or, alternately, very serious). I don't know what to tell you. I pinged אומנות and will repeat, drop that kind of language please. If you feel you want to make something of it, go to ANI--we don't have an etiquette noticeboard anymore, for better or for worse. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking into that situation, I really appreciate it. I wasn't too sure about the other two paragraphs, which is why I felt seeking a second opinion may be valid in case I was losing the plot. It does dishearten me somewhat that the user is trying to tar me with the brush of WP:FORUMSHOP and "contacting my friends for back up", just because I find comfort in seeking a second opinion on matters like this. After all is it not wise to speak to fellow Wikipedians on matters of this nature, than to go down to the local pub and talk to a bar tender over it? In my opinion, a Wikipedian would have more expert knowledge than someone who has never used Wikipedia in their life. Wesley Mᴥuse 18:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, but one man's asking for advice is another man's forum shopping, maybe. I don't agree with the "back up" phrasing, but I'd just let that slide and not bother me. Have fun at the pub. I wouldn't mind some shepherd's pie for lunch--and then maybe I'll know what it is. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• He obviously hasn't taken heed of your ping. I've just had another onslaught of abuse. I've seriously had enough of that kind of angst from the user, to the point that I have now asked that he refrain from conversing with me until he can learn to be more civil. Wesley Mᴥuse 04:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• And now there's this. It really needs to stop. Wesley Mᴥuse 04:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread

I don't disagree with you about moving it to a talk page. But Bbb23 asked me not to move it to his or her talk page. And Bbb23 has repeatedly sanctioned people for discussing it on the MRM talk page, so I can't put it there, either. Would you mind if I move it to yours?William Jockusch (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, yes I mind! This is a happy place, William. With due deference to Bbb23, I hereby give you my blessing to copy to the MRM talk page (I've been "monitoring" there as well), but don't be surprised if there's an avalanche of "heard it all before". Now, I don't believe Bbb has sanctioned anyone for merely discussing something. But discussing something and trolling, wikilawyering, soapboxing, etc are different things: I have no opinion on what has happened and what your account of a past experience vs. his account may be; in other words, I'll take both of you at your word and your good faith. But perhaps Bbb has something to say on the topic--great advantage of his comments is that he's typically brief, as you have noticed. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but I don't want a special blessing from anyone. The topic should be either fair game there, or not. Currently, it isn't, and I don't want to violate that, even with the blessings of an admin. So I've moved it here: [3]William Jockusch (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure, but that's hardly a high-traffic area. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Fancruft

Is this one of the worst cases of fancruft ever seen on Wikipedia? (I've pruned ca. 50k of it since then, but much more to go). - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• OK, it's not 50k, but how's this for cruft? Also, I am an idiot. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Holy shit Sitush--that's bad. I see that my old friend CorporateM tried his hand at it once but gave up quickly. Man! Drmies (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Of course you are an idiot. Only idiots put themselves through RfA. It could be argued that admin status is the idiot's badge of honour ;) - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, it is now ca. 100k removed. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I saw someone on Twitter complaining about the Stephen Tompkinson, but the article was so large and the promotion so inter-twined with the encyclopedic content, it would take quite a bit of time to cull through it. The other page about gaming peripherals was much easier. Almost all of it was unsourced or sourced to the company website, so it was easy to delete. CorporateM (Talk) 13:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, you have outdone me: I am proud of you, and thanks. Sitush, I'm reorganizing the article, removing individual section headings for individual shows/movies. I may not be able to finish this before my body gives out. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, Tompkinson has taken me several hours but I'm going to watchlist the thing - no way is that stuff going back in. Drmies, I noticed and have backed off - you have read my mind. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, that will be $5. I'm not as expensive as you - must be the admin premium ;-) (inside joke)CorporateM (Talk) 13:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Have you ever considered that maybe you should pay me appropriately because I have a Ph.D.? Granted, it's worth a hell of a lot less than a BS in accounting, but still, I worked for it... Drmies (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I thought a Ph.D. was BS.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's worth a lot more than your associate's degree, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Tell that to the doofus who bought it on e-Bay for a helluva lot of money. On the other hand, no one has bought my Ph.D. You want a second one?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• ... As is the claim that reading books constitutes "work" :P - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Over-qualified. I need spin doctors, not Ph.D.s ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 14:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• What about Dr. Spin? Best of both worlds there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Some while ago I did some editing on the topic of spin on the public relations article. It was interesting, because in the PR profession, we take offense to the term. We think it means lying. However, the generally accepted modern definition basically just means "not being neutral" which isn't really an ethical problem at all. PR pros aren't suppose to be neutral. I wonder if I am accidentally bias on Wikipedia, if that is also spin, or if it must be intentional to warrant such a derogatory term. I've been meaning to chip away at the sub-articles of public relations and have a decent draft of History of public relations up. I might take that one on next when I get a chance. CorporateM (Talk) 01:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• "History of public relations"? You know, I don't think you'd be considered COI there, even by some of the most hardcore people. Nobody says Drmies can't write about the Netherlands, after all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, I just got done with "De vogels van Holland". Thanks Crisco, but the Netherlands don't pay me for anything I do for them; some people fare much better. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Again with the Twittering, Drmies. Do we need "The Government of the Netherlands on Twitter" for more birds of Holland? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• If any of those tweets are from Pleuni Touw, sure. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Pleuni Touw on Twitter... does she even have an account? No idea. She's a Golden Girl now, though, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Fuck off, Crisco: that's blasphemy. Next thing you know you're telling me that Brigitte Bardot got old. Any other dreams you want to destroy? Drmies (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nah, she's still a young, nubile 80. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as a certain someone doesn't edit the article on Crisco I think we'll be ok :-p CorporateM (Talk) 05:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always thought you should change your user name to CorporateMF. That's right Jack. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't even think Crisco is available in Indonesia. I'd just go straight for "Yippee Ki Yay CorporateMF", I think. All names can be made better with Yippee Ki Yay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ultimate notorious editor

I noticed you unblocked this editor after Kww blocked him. [4] However, when I checked him, he shows up as  Confirmed as Buddhakahika (talk · contribs). Could you tell me why you think they aren't related? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that account was not related to Grounelzee except coincidentally, from what I could tell. I have never heard of Buddakahika before, so I have no opinion on the matter. I think Notory and Grounelzee aren't related because they were making very different edits (from the limited contributions I saw): Notory seemed like your typical run-of-the-mill POV editor who can't write English and thinks that Wikipedia is there to set something straight; Grounelzee is just a troll sock of a moderately more intelligent a**hole/LTV. But I say that based on only four edits by Notory. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey doc, I didn't see this conversation earlier, but when I saw your earlier unblock I checked Kww's page for any conversation and found the relevant discussion and therefore I'm sure you won't mind that I have now blocked the notorious one as a sock per the SPI findings of Reaper Eternal. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Spiff, Reaper--I only unblocked him because the block rationale was not valid, in my opinion. I didn't know all this other exciting stuff that you did. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Vgleer (talk · contribs) (a troll) and Buddhakahika (talk · contribs) (a pov-pusher) are definitely  Unrelated. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I admire your gift for summary, Reaper. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You never know. Vgleer may be an incarnation of Buddhakahika. Obviously a CU check could never identify such a relationship. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason my spidey-sense told me not to press that unblock button.—Kww(talk) 23:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol. It gives a brand new meaning to your friendly neighborhood socks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Meles (genus), Saint-Vallier, Drôme

Drmies, are you planning to come back to this review of Meles (genus), or should I call for a new reviewer? Please let me know (here or there is fine). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oops. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for finishing it. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry. I did look at it a few weeks ago and meant to check if the edits took care of the problem, but didn't. Thanks for the reminder. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hey Drmies, I went to Dianna earlier for help on a radio station article problem. She helped until she had to sign off for the night, she asked me to come to you for continued help, so I am. All the information you need to know is here on a post on her talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

...and I admit that I have broken 2RR, but only because I think we have moved from an edit conflict to POINTed editing by a user I believe is a sock of a blocked user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have no opinion on the latter comment, about socking. Try it out with an SPI, I'd say. As for the VARTV source, the best thing to do is to get a verdict of some sort from WP:RSN]] (and invite both of your opponents). Let me know if they revert again. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried to get the socks connected via CU, but too much time has elapsed to make a clear connection. As for the VARTV reference, I will explain that via email. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Honda D engine edits

hi. I'm not new on Wikipedia. However, even though I've been making edits for several years now, I still am not at the level others are. Forgive me, I just don't have the time (to learn all the tricks, techniques, or to create a profile, etc).
I've been making good additions to the "Honda D engine" page, specifically three engines which I know very much about: the D15B7, D15B8, and D15Z1. In addition to being a walking book of knowledge on these engines, I own a number of original specimens. Original meaning they came in the car that I bought brand new from the Honda dealer in the mid-1990's. Read this paragraph a few times until it sinks in that I actually know and care about these motors.
Here's the problem: a stubborn Swede, Mr.choppers, who doesn't even own a car(!), keeps removing my additions. He doesn't know anything about the D15B7, D15B8, or D15Z1. He just takes pride in being annoying. Aside from being a d**k, he seems fixated on two things: 1, that I use an "anonymous" IP address and 2, that I don't have any book references. I understand that sometimes vandals use random IP addresses, but it's obvious by my edits that I am no vandal or punk kid. What self-righteous and callous Mr.choppers has a difficult time understanding is that MOST of the D series page is unreferenced. [heh! I wish I made my additions years ago! they'd be taken for truth today.] Well here we are in the 21st century, and unfortunately Mr.choppers has singled me out. He's picking on me. This is called bullying. He could focus his time on real vandals. (or better yet, turning off his computer and walking outside for a while). Instead, he removes my good and true edits. Have a look at his behavior! The guy has no concern for an increase in D series info. He sees himself as a Wiki cop. He's obsessed with the book rules, whereas I'm just concerned with helping the world gain more knowledge on Honda engines, such as the D15B8, for example. It's ironic that you (from NL) and Mr.choppers (from SE) are undoing my edits to an engine ONLY AVAILABLE IN USA. Does anyone see the irony here?
(I should book a flight to Schipol and start undoing additions to van Gogh made by Dutchmen, or additions to Scania made by Swedes!)
Citations? References? Do I look like a librarian?? If you two Europeans REALLY want that, then you must go ALL OUT. Put a [?] mark after every single sentence of each engine. (Won't that look pretty - a little blue question mark everywhere?)
The general populous already knows that Wikipedia may not be 100% correct. It's called the internet! People accept that some things could be inaccurate, but we still use it anyway. Right?
On to my questions: may I ask why you sent me a message reading "Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Honda D engine." ? How are my additions disruptive? And why isn't the spotlight focused on Mr.choppers? Is it because he has a [drum roll] Wiki profile? With a "Bhasa Indonesia" translation?? (pfff!). This Mr.choppers guy truly has too much time on his hands, and is damaging the Honda community's available information, that Honda experts like myself contribute to.

For the record, here's what the D15B8 entry looked like before my edits (and how "Mr.stoppers" prefers it):

   Found in:
       1992–1995 Honda Civic CX (U.S. model)
           Displacement : 1,493 cc (91.1 cu in)
           Bore and Stroke : 75 mm × 84.5 mm (3.0 in × 3.33 in)
           Compression : 9.1:1
           Power : 70 hp (52.2 kW, 71.0 PS) at 4,500 rpm
           Torque : 83 lb·ft (11.5 kg/m, 113 Nm) at 2,800 rpm
           Limit : 5,800 rpm
           Valvetrain : SOHC eight-valve (two valves per cylinder)
           Fuel Control : OBD-1 MPFI

and here's what it looks like after my contributions:

   Found in:
       1992–1995 Honda Civic CX (U.S. model)
           Displacement : 1,493 cc (91.1 cu in)
           Bore and Stroke : 75 mm × 84.5 mm (3.0 in × 3.33 in)
           Compression : 9.1:1
           Power : 70 hp (52.2 kW, 71.0 PS) at 4,500 rpm
           Torque : 83 lb·ft (11.5 kg/m, 113 Nm) at 2,800 rpm
           Limit : 5,800 rpm
           Valvetrain : 8-valve SOHC (two valves per cylinder)
           Fuel Control : OBD-1 MPFI
           ECU Code: P05
           Cam Gear: 5-hole, 38-tooth
           Head codes: PM8-1, PM8-2

Which one looks better to you?

Take a day or two before you answer. Think. The spirit of Wikipedia is to help. And I care very much about adding info only when I know it to be true. Is it a crime for me to add a few details to three engines?

Thanks for your time. 24.136.28.106 (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

PS. the IP address I'm currently using is shared by at least four working adults, so blocking this address would prohibit myself and those others from potentially helping Wikipedia.

• Eh, well, thanks. Yes. That's an interesting mix of possible expertise and insulting crap. Keep edit warring, keep inserting unverified information, keep insulting other editors, and your IP address will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Making arguments to support original research and insulting other editors will not win any debates on Wikipedia. However, I note that you mentioned owning the original manuals to the cars these engines are in. Sources do not have to be available online and I would consider such primary sources from the manufacturer acceptable use for specifications, assuming another editor doesn't feel it is overly detailed. CorporateM (Talk) 14:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, you must be a sharper reader, or less distracted by the grandstanding. If such manuals can be cited, of course. They're primary sources (if they're from Honda), but that would be perfectly acceptable. The IP does not seem to have noticed that I'm not in the NL (not that it matters); in the interest of full disclosure I'll cop to driving a Camry on the US highways and roads, with a four-cylinder engine, specifications unknown to me. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ever the peacemaker, I see, Corporate. I swear, if even half of paid editors knew the rules as well as you do, controversy over COI editing would have been finished when there was still an article for every Pokemon species. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Experience and Wiki-knowledge help, but in the wrong hands they can make us a more successful POV pusher. Many of the skills required have nothing to do with Wikipedia, but with consulting, screening, etc. It would be nice if more PR agencies had a dedicated expert that knew our rules better than the average bear, but what would remain is the COI itself - they want something different than us and their ability to manage that is all that really matters - knowing the rules helps one do that.

Drmies' issue with Ogilvy is a familiar one. BrightLiners create a burden on the community to review our work, provide feedback and so on. The extent of that burden and the ratio of the burden to the value to our readers is important. I struggle to tread the line myself, because I need so much collaboration from editors on such a large number of articles and I can't take advantage of any single editor's kindness, so I try to spread it out and find editors with a natural interest in the subject. CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The networking here is a great skill to learn; I'm in the same position you're in, needing help from lots of people all the time. Speaking of help, I got to drive the wife's Honda tonight, with its charming V6 (and a working radio!). Nice. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I mainly refer to this character as "anonymous" because what else can I call him? A handle can be useful. I have also invited him (nicely and repeatedly) to simply provide sources and I even backhandedly offered assistance in spelling it out, if he could be bothered to pull out a manual from somewhere. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

komstigheden and futilities

What in the world is komstigheden? Google Translate is failing me, and I want a direct quote from this review of Njai Dasima. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• What, no date for the ad in De Indische Courant? Tsk tsk. OK. First things first, the author is "Alb. v[an] H.", right? And look above the image: it's "bijkomstigheden", which one could translate as "incidentals"; that is, random, trivial bits unrelated to the main action, which the review says are not found in the film--a positive mark, therefore. But you have that already in the article, I see: good guess. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• D'oh! That explains why nothing was showing up. Thank you, Dr. Dr. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:167.206.128.5

There's an intelligent looking request for unblocking there. Letting you know as it was you that blocked the IP this time. Peridon (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, no one would accuse Mangoeater1000 of not being intelligent. That's why I blocked the IP; see also DoRD's note on an earlier unblock request. So I'm not going to do anything about it, but thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Zimmermanh1997 is back...yet again

It is clear from this edit that User:Zimmermanh1997 is back. The IP being used traces back to Walkersville, Maryland, which is where all Zimmermanh1997 edits come from. I believe it might be time for a ban discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Go for it, Homer. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Okie Dokie, I will type one up and post it tomorrow. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Going for a Record

I posted this message (which I thought was polite) on User:Nasnema‎'s talk page concerning this revert made with HUGGLE. I got this response. I don't need to look up what "FO" means. While I did leave a snarky reply, it is clear that Nasnema is using HUGGLE waaay too quickly and not owning up to mistakes. Mistakes made while using HUGGLE (like TWINKLE) can cost the person their access to that program. I thought you might have a word with Nasnema about the HUGGLE use and the NPA violation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you are a liar. Nasnema  Chat  01:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Wait--who was called a damned liar here a few days ago? Can't an admin even go to Publix in peace? Crisco 1492, are you on the clock? (And check my recent edits!) Drmies (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• (That was me Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC))

• Well, you're in good company, BMK! Drmies (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• • • Sorry Drmies, I just post links to what is going on. Didn't know it would ping your phone. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I mentioned you in a post on ANI (concerning the above), which you can find here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• @Drmies: Do check your email when you have a free moment (no rush). Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure. Hey, no "ping" went off at the grocery store; I wouldn't know how to have that done anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ha, again, no worries. In fact, I had a great time at the store: I chatted with a guy and took his picture (unfortunately it's terrible, and by rights it shouldn't stay up for long...), and then exchanged beers with the guy in the checkout line behind me: he gave me a Newcastle Werewolf, and I gave him a Sweetwater Motorboat. And then I made pumpkin muffins for my youngest daughter to take to school. On top of that, I used an angle grinder for the first time in my life, to cut through an inch of reinforced concrete--you should see that bathroom. What a mess. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you can somehow connect your Watchlist (via RSS) to your email. The RSS feed on your email would "ping" on your phone telling you it had changed. How one would do that is waaaay beyond me. :) Punkin' muffins sound good, I'm a Banana Nut Bread person myself. This bakery in town makes some excellent Banana Nut Bread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not films, but...

Eh, at least it's an English publication. Article, TOC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here's another--Lilis Suryani. It's going to need a bit of work, obviously, but at least it has one solid reference. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• LOL. (Thanks). Jakarta Post has a biography, and I happen to have a free photograph of her I found last month (after this was submitted). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Article expanded. Apparently I was wrong about JP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wow Crisco--great work. I see that the Woodrich reference, which I found by chance somewhere, came in handy. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently it did, eh? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Rubberen Robbie at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Remington Arms

Hey. So I also just undid a number of revisions on the Remington Arms page that removed links. I nominated the page for protection WP:RFPP. If you want to second the nomination it might help? Thanks! --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, that's way too soon. I left a message for the user; let's talk first and shoot later. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This is on a topic I know nothing about ...

Someone pointed on my talkpage to Synthesizers.com, whose creator's name is identical with the company owner, and which has no independent sources ... all I have found so far is this, and I don't know whether that's a reliable source, or where to look for any that might be more obviously reliable. Pretty article, got reviewed in 2011, my question is do I tag it as possibly non-notable, AfD it, or can some more knowledgeable person identify a couple of refs to add so we can keep it? Yngvadottir (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Did you just guess that I owned a Moog and a Korg in the 1980s? Drmies (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • My studio (16-track, 2") had a Mini-moog, a Korg something or other, and two DX-7s, as well as (later) some rack-mounted synths. I think the coolest synth, though, was one I never had, the Buchla system used by Morton Subotnik. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • You know they're making the Korg MS-20 again? My brother should still have our old one, somewhere. You had two DX-7s?? Holy shit! And a Mini-Moog...you know you missed my birthday, but I accept a late present. If it's the Mini. (The old one, or the programmable version?) Drmies (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • All gone now, I'm afraid. In theory they're in the studio in my ex-partner's garage (and I still have half ownership of the equipment), but I don't even want to know what's actually still there after he went through some hard times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Come to think of it, the Mini-Moog was the contribution of a third partner, and his family took it when he died. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • After looking through a bunch of photos, I'm pretty sure it was a Korg M1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Wow--did you see those pictures? Looks like the old Moog modular systems! Quick, somebody play me some Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Dzaw, dzew dzew dzeeeuw... Drmies (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well, it's tough. He might be notable by hisself. I sure want one of those cabinets though. I can't find more than I already have. I'm sure there's more on dedicated websites/zines, but separating the wheat from the chaff might be hard. Perhaps searching model by model is the way to go. But right now, I'd say send it to AfD (or forget all about it...) and maybe some synth geek will dig up some stuff? Cool, though--lots of companies are making clones of old machines. There's a copy of Sequential Circuits' Prophet 5 out, for $5000 I think, and Moog is again building MiniMoogs, in all kinds of versions. Anyone up for remaking the Oberheim? One that doesn't detune or break down constantly? I think Eddie Van H. is in the market. Jump! Drmies (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I had the impression you knew something about this stuff :-) That's what the forum posts are all saying - that this is good recreation of vintage tech. I hope we can keep this article; I'll drag my feet in case any talkpage stalkers can dig anything up. Meanwhile you could try messaging the editor about his product line '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC) ... like y'all have started doing. Good :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Now I understand: you are referring to my cleanup, I suppose--if so, and you're using y'all as a singular, you're making the same mistake as Christopher Hitchens did. Plural only! He mentions "all y'all" as the plural, but that "all" is nothing more than the addition of a kind of emphasis. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • You and GoingBatty, though so far only you have added sources. I'm in a hopeful mood. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Good. You're in the clear. Hitchens is not. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• I've just dusted down my Yamaha S80 synthesiser, which has a really good church organ setting. Wish to God I could play the bloody thing though. Really must knuckle down to it rather than wasting my time on WP. Eric Corbett 17:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow--we should start a band. Rosie will come and play it for you. Sippi plays it even worse, but she'll sing (something about her loving the world) at the same time. I had two extra girls this morning to drop off at school; you wouldn't believe how much noise four girls, one microphone, a keyboard, a detuned guitar, and eight feet can make. Our cheap-ass Casio keyboard has a "learn how to play" thing, with a tiny LCD screen indicating the fingering--but I can't read it with my old eyes, and if I could, it's too fast for me. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

    I've always wanted to be able to play just one piece really well, maybe something by Chopin. That's surely not too much to ask. Eric Corbett 17:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Right! I've always wanted to sing like John Hyatt. I once said to a girlfriend that I'd give my left arm for that skill, and she scoffed at me--but then, she was a singer and knew that it wasn't hollow gestures and statements but hard work that can make someone a singer. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Eric, imagine being able to play this like this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rubberen Robbie

The DYK project (nominate) 09:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ref Desk ANI

Drmies, I have a lot of thoughts about the recent ANI obviously. For the sake of both our times and energies I'll leave it at:

• "Just because we're online and unpaid doesn't mean we can behave badly to each other...In fact, there's pretty much nowhere where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into...name-calling. The same applies here, too."
• "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them."

I did re-read my posts. My biggest fear was that the 4 diffs would multiply & be lost in a wave of confusing/cross current diffs as I'm left hanging there at a dynamically updating Refdesk. If I was muddled in that concern my apologies but if you re-read that whole ANI thread I took a lot of your responses as compounding the GLing in an UNCIVIL manner. I understand that at ANI I'm just another number & most concerns are loose, jovial & informal but that kind of response to a concern like mine could be construed as cruel, & was inaccurate (the whole point of an OP that starts a GL). At the refdesk: "We should in all cases strive to exceed the minimum standard of civility", the OPs contributions were obviously causing me several concerns with this. My intent is not to bog down in this matter I felt justified in bringing this to ANI but you have taught me some relevant things I will keep in mind in the future. My sincere hope is that we both can revise that ANI in the spirit of: *Asking yourself "How would I feel if someone said that to me?" is often not enough, many people can just brush things off, and it's water off a duck's back. To get a better perspective, ask yourself:

• "How would I feel if someone said that to someone I love who can't just "brush it off?" If you'd find that unacceptable, then don't say it. And, if you've already said it, strike it and apologise." ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• I saw no incivility on the part of your opponent. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "Opponent"?? . . . "saw no" (100% doesn't usually happen in human relations), I could say what needs to be said here but really the IP diffs & my posts above & our ANI interaction already do a searing job of it, nothing left to say. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • On rereading this rather rambling post I see now that you are actually accusing me of the same "gaslighting" which was denied in the ANI post. Now that's nice. Note that no one agreed with you that the IP should be punished--you could for an immediate block, remember. I still think that your answer was patronizing and not to the point, that your characterization of the IP's postings as uncivil was a gross exaggeration, and that starting an ANI thread was a non-starter, if you'll pardon the pun, and bitey to boot. What this nonsense on "saving marriages" has to do with anything is a mystery to me. Society should save marriages to prevent prostitution? Fo shizzle? And whose marriage--the prostitute's? The prostitute's parents? The john who pays for sex? The more I look at that entire discussion (and some other ones) the more I tend to think that...well. That particular thread was not your finest moment. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Endpoint (Band) page removal

Hello,

It was brought to our attention that an editor removed the entire history of the band Endpoint from it's page. The page was created by a well respected music journalist, Ryan Downey. It now reads like the band recorded a demo in 1987 and then vanished. However, it lists a number of releases after 1987, which looks very strange.

Endpoint was a band that has a well documented political and musical history. There are several books published with chapters dedicated to the history of the band, magazine articles, and websites with information regarding the band's past.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.54.22 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You do realize that anyone can edit here? Fix it! However, the page has been unreferenced for yoinks. I just did a quick search and found there is plenty of coverage in the Louisville Courier-Journal, but it's paywalled. I suspect you may be local or for some other reason have access to their archive - if so, please add references. Also please add these magazine articles and book chapters. You can do it a lot better than some non-knowledgeable editor like me. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bacon universe

I thought of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nice. And it's a Dream Focus hit: we have a hate-hate relationship. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John P. Hermann

Hello! Your submission of John P. Hermann 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! DoctorKubla (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Joan S. Picart

Having trouble with a SPA (may be the subject or affiliated with the subject) with an attitude. The article, even before her edits, was a mess. A couple of years ago you removed some of the mess, but ... The article has few watchers, so it gets little attention. It's on my watchlist, I think, because I declined an A7 early this year (kind of a shame but you do what you have to).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, you know. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Such good work and look at your "reward" (see below). I've made a few, mostly uncontroversial, changes to the article, but I'm hesitant to edit it more while you're "discussing" the content with BD.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

why did u delete my page?

why did u delete my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante20000 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Because no credible claim of importance was made. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like Dante20000 doesn't know how to play well with other people, since he re-created the article immediately as Jayne Grace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think that's the third time. Salt and pepper. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Salting won't cure (heh) the problem because Dante has used three different titles. If it continues, only blocking will stop it. You've warned him on his talk page, so hopefully he'll back off.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I realized that after I hit "save page", but I'm sure this will end it. Then again, the subject was 5'10"... Drmies (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

On the Appropriateness of Edits

Madame: (I believe you're a woman by your profile, I beg pardon if you are not).

You originally wrote

"You can't source biographical information to a book written by the subject herself, and "top of the class" and (unverified) "wrote columns for" is just resume-style fluff. In addition, you removed a review of one of her books--and such references are precisely what this article needs. Please click on some of the above links to learn what Wikipedia is, and what it isn't. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)"

I do not believe your assertion that an autobiography is not a source. Can you please state the basis for this? I am unaware of any rules judging the quality of ANY cited source; one simply cites what one believes affirms the claim made. Whether one believes the source is credible is a subjective issue; but a written source is a written source.

As for what is and is not appropriate for Wikipedia, I disagree with your assertions. I do not see you going through the webpages of politicians and deleting statements about to whom they are married? Who are you to say her bibliography should do without, for example, the gentleman to whom she is married? I feel you are offering great subjectivity on what you feel is relevant for an article and what is not.

I did accidentally remove one of her book reviews; a pity. In my efforts to undo some of your works (which did not remotely explain themselves, either; your edits vaguely spoke of how trite you personally found things, which is not a basis for deletion).

Despite our initial and apparent disagreements, I hope we may productively move to consensus.

04:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballroom Dancer 001 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) @Ballroom Dancer 001 - Please see WP:ABOUTSELF, "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Claims of achievements and honors needs to be sourced to an independent third party. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• My "subjective" opinions are based on what is commonly accepted in the best articles on Wikipedia. The name of a non-notable partner, or those of siblings, are not usually deemed noteworthy--and the partner's name was accompanied by an inline URL to their website, which suggests spamming. A person's autobiography is not usually deemed a reliable source for biographical information, and the information in question needs to be trimmed a bit more in order to be more neutral. The column writing will need to be verified by a secondary source, since the publications don't appear to be very notable and a secondary source might verify that they're worth mentioning; I also note that Asia Trend Magazine was used somewhere as a source, begging the question of editorial independence.

  You may not see where I go through politicians' articles (and those of artists, poets, writers, journalists, academics, musicians, etc), but they're there somewhere among the 140,000 edits I've made here. You may, of course, seek redress--one of the places where you can do so is WP:BLPN, for instance (click on it and you'll see). Now, my interest is to improve this article since the subject is clearly notable as an academic--but not as a ballroom dancer. And neutrality is an issue as well: Bbb (who is in fact an adult and a seasoned Wikipedia editor) signaled as much. We simply cannot allow those articles to become like resumes. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, you are using an ad hominem attack:

"Now, my interest is to improve this article since the subject is clearly notable as an academic--but not as a ballroom dancer."

My username is none of your concern. You know nothing about me; for all you know, I am your former Ph.D. advisor. Do not attack my interests as a sign that I am somehow mentally inferior.

The use of the URL was inappropriate, in retrospect, and that was a mistake. That should be removed. Statements about her family life, however, are not trivial. Is it trivial to know Lincoln's wife's name? There is nothing inappropriate about listing such things in a biographical page.

I would be happy to continue this discussion, but I think it would be more productive to move one point at a time, rather than write long paragraphs (hopefully move quicker to resolution of what is in there and what is not). Ballroom Dancer 001 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Huh? I'm not referring to you--I'm referring to the claims I removed in this edit. And no, you're not my Ph.D. director--he actually has an article here, with no fluff. It doesn't even say that he's an avid guitar player and plays the blues pretty good for an old white Yankee. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi Drmies. User:Crisco 1492 asked me to get a second opinion here and I thought I might see if you would do the honors. I drafted the History section, which contains several controversies regarding trademark disputes (in a dedicated sub-section) and a controversial sponsorship of Candlestick park. Since he moved the content to article-space, he asked me to to get an opinion from someone else about removing the now-redundant controversy sections. I suppose the question is whether they should be part of the company's history or called out in separate sections, since I presume the current overlap isn't something we would want. CorporateM (Talk) 15:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Snowden October 2013

Hey there. I've been taking a long-term (and possibly indefinite) break from Edward Snowden and related articles, but I stumbled onto an interesting article today that brought me back to it temporarily. While I was there I noticed the administrative dispute over Axxxion's conduct that led to a one-week full protection (unfortunately in my view). In any case, as that discussion is now closed, I want to pass my thoughts along for your future reference, take them or leave them. I was actively involved in editing the article back in June-July-early August. Although there were some heated discussions on the talk page, generally speaking there was relatively little edit warring -- until Axxxion gradually started making more and more edits against consensus, some of them massive in scale. By early August there was a critical mass of editors who were ignoring settled talk page discussions and running roughshod over the article. Axxxion wasn't the only one, but he was offender #1. At first I battled this development, but after a couple of weeks I gave up and decided to put the article (and Wikipedia) behind me. I eventually came back but decided to avoid the whole NSA mess.

I think Axxxion's (and other's, but most of all Axxxion's) WP:DE has driven away other editors. It drove me away, and based on the ANI thread it appears he/she doesn't seem to have any interest in editing in a collaborative manner. (E.g. "I appreciate your advice, Drmies, but there is no need for seeking consensus where the point is observing basic rules of this Resource.") It's unfortunate that his/her behavior has resulted in the collateral damage, damage that he/she actually supports (see here, here). I don't blame you for locking down the article but I don't think it gets to the root of the problem. Ultimately I think Axxxion deserves a temporary topic ban leading to indef if this behavior continues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dr. Felischman, I wish I could respond at greater length right now, but I can't. I do not disagree that Axxxion is disruptive, and that they disregard basic tenets of the project. The same applies, unfortunately, to the other side, at least in that particular conflict (though that side disregarded different things). I will be more than happy to have another look and/or to reassess the situation: of course I don't want knowledgeable editors of good will to be driven away. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• But wait (I found I had a few minutes to spare): it's only semi-protection, and it should run out soon (and mind you, it was Mark Arsten, not me, who applied that). Also, Axxion hasn't edited that article in the last 50 edits, going back to 1 October. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You must be looking at the wrong page. I see full protection, expiring tomorrow, and Axxxion having made lots of edits just before the full prot was turned on. And some editors (including Axxxion) are now suggesting long-term full prot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Btw I don't know who you're referring re "the other side," but if you're talking about Petrarchan, in my Snowden-editing days he/she could sometimes be unreasonable on the talk page, but not disruptive in the article itself. I don't recall any conduct problems, just some rather arguably extreme views. As for his/her conduct since mid-August, I don't know and frankly it doesn't matter much to me. All I'm saying is that Axxxion was disruptive back in August and apparently continues to be disruptive. It's not good for the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, just adding some facts here. My "extreme views" are backed by reliable sources and have the weight of the community behind them. I think this thread may be what the Dr is referring to(?) But my recollection of the timing behind your departure indicates it was my questioning that drove you away. In fact, it seemed in response to my asking for justification for the edit, where you removed Ed Snowden's White House petition information with the edit summary "recentism. You did not attempt to justify it, but simply said that you wouldn't be editing the page anymore. petrarchan47tc 19:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that was a particularly frustrating conversation between you and me, but it wasn't what drove me away. I'm happy to have that sort of give and take. What was really frustrating me was the edit warring and constant going against consensus by other editors. At least you had the good sense to participate on the talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well. I'm glad y'all are talking. Talking is good. Axxxion is talking a little bit too. You don't like full protection, of course, but at least it gets the talk page going. I'm thinking, though, that some oversight wouldn't be a bad thing; when I have the time, tomorrow or the day after, I'm going to look more carefully at the history to see what, if anything, needs to be done. OK, Mrs. Drmies wants to talk to me; I don't know why but I'll have to comply. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and my apologies for thinking you had turned on the full prot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You were right: it was full. But let's note that much is happening on the talk page; I hope it stays that way. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Psst

Bamischijf. Sounds yucky, and as you know I can't really read Dutch, I just fake it. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sounds and looks delicious, especially the doorhaalvloeistof bit. Noodles in half a door! (As you can tell, I read Dutch like a native.) I've added the appetizing image from the Dutch article. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC).

Nasnema

Nasnema is claiming (in a roundabout way) that he/she was hacked. Saying he was "on holiday" and was "greeted with all this" on his talk page when he got back.

If this is the case, and not an attempt to get out of trouble, I believe a temporary block needs to be put in place and a checkuser run on the account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if they changed their password then there can be no more abuse, right? But the ANI thread is still running; let's see what wiser people have to say (wiser than me). Drmies (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The cynical side of me is saying this is a scheme to get himself out of trouble. The CU would tell us if there was a hacking issue (solved by the changed password) or if he was trying to scheme his way out of trouble and deserves another block for wasting the community's time. Either way, I have looped both you and Ryan Vesey in on this one (since you both were apart of the ANI thread) and will let you all (and the other wiser people) hash it out from here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) If they're claiming to be hacked, then I think a CU should be run, to prove or disprove the claim. If Nasnema rejects the CU, then that's quite suspicious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like the CU proved Nasnema wrong, check the ANI thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wim T. Schippers

Hello! Your submission of Wim T. Schippers 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies, wasn't sure you'd seen this. There's an issue with one of the five articles nominated, but the other four have been passed; if you can take care of this, then the nomination will finally be ready for promotion. Hope you can take care of it soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm kind of in the middle of a 14th-c German poem about a crazy prince... :) Drmies (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was just talking about Schippers. I was in a museum and came across a huge installation consisting of metal tiles spread over a large area of the floor in the middle of the gallery. I watched as everybody carefully avoided stepping on it, as a guard stood watch. Naturally, I told my friend about Pindakaasvloer (although not by name, as who knows how it's pronounced?). Later I went back and read the sign, only to discover that walking on it was actually allowed. It was probably a little immature of me to then step on it just because I could. Oh well. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Mandarax, it's a trick. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would step on a piece of art, even it the instructions command you to walk on it. I mean, seriously. "Here, poop on the Mona Lisa. No, really, it's alright!" It's a test and you failed. Does JNW know about this? Drmies (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hell, you can't even get close enough to the Mona Lisa spit on it. It's behind glass, there's always a crowd around it, and if you're trying to defecate on it there's the logistics of aiming upward at an awkward angle. Oh, why do I even bother. The only thing that matters anymore is [5]. Everything else is ephemera. JNW (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Tchoff-tchoff, I think. You totally have your finger on the pulse, JNW--thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Hehe, an amusing logistical mental image, but one that I hope won't be lasting. BTW, for anyone planning a trip to Paris, don't waste your time trying to see and/or defecate on the Mona Lisa at the highly overrated Louvre; instead, go to the greatest museum in the world: Musée d'Orsay. Drmies, a few years ago, a different museum had an art installation that people could walk through, but visitors were required to put on special booties. And, as you may recall from my Burning Man saga, I've done much more than merely step on an art installation; I've drawn on it with colored pens. Oh, and nobody ever claimed I was in my right mind. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Literary Barnstar
		For teaching this fictional bird how to fly you are hereby awarded The Literary Barnstar. I regret, but Prussian orders are out of stock. De728631 (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you De, that's very nice of you. I'm reading Tor Ulven--there's an article worth expanding on an author worth reading. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your level head. Per a suggestion at the drama page, note: [6]. You've also been immortalized here. Your comment made my day! Montanabw^(talk) 17:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Montana, if you want to be fair, you'll link the outburst! So it's like putting on your hairshirt every time you see that dark blue link. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Esteemed immortalized admin with a level head, may I also sing my song of sixpence? I asked more than once if "page creation" is the same as "article creation". Looking at the immortalized example: who created this article? Right, Shirt58. And who created this one? - "I go and seek with longing" (article title translated) the answers which I expect will differ. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

They're not the same, as article creation is a subset of page creation. Eric Corbett 19:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me understand the "subset"? - No they are not same. For many Bach cantatas (not this one) I would have preferred to start from scratch, because I found something that I couldn't use but had to rewrite, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What I meant, for instance, was that you could create a page in your sandbox, but that wouldn't become an article until you'd moved it to article space. So articles are those pages in article space. Eric Corbett 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it. The problem now is that someone else created the first article BWV 49 in 2010, but I wrote estimated 95% of what is there now, including sourcing. (The one source in the original is not considered RS.) Who created this article? - Some think it's clear-cut that I didn't, and by adding an infobox violated arbcom restrictions. Clarification is requested, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The edit history clearly shows the article was created by Shirt58. It equally shows that since then you've done a great deal to improve it, but by a strict reading of the ArbCom sanction you ought not to have added an infobox. You ought to consider yourself lucky though, because I was once almost banned by ArbCom after someone requested clarification on whether or not I was allowed to prevent my RfA postings being moved to the RfA talk page. Since then of course I've taken very little interest in RfA; Wikipedia gets the administrators it deserves. It's black and white in your case though, you didn't create that article. Eric Corbett 21:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I often come across articles that are so bad it would be easier to get rid of them and start from scratch, but that's easier said than done unfortunately given the reluctance to delete anything from here. You'd have to be able to make a pretty strong case at AfD for instance. Eric Corbett 21:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Then let's spin the black and white version further: if I who wrote most of the content can't decide if that article gets an infobox, who else? In 2010, when the stub was created, there was no template yet. - If the stub had not existed, I would have created the article, - when I started writing Bach cantata articles, about half of them were red links. - Sometimes I wonder what our readers think, when they are confronted with the diversity of articles on the same topic, here ranging from GA such as BWV 103 (all with an infobox, naturally), "middle size" without infobox (Nikkimaria style) such as BWV 122, to stub (BWV 223). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

By and large Wikipedia doesn't care too much what the readers think, the aim is simply to avoid drama. If I were in charge of WP I'd change so many things your ears would bleed. Eric Corbett 23:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I care what readers think, and you do too. Yes, many articles deserve to be zapped and started afresh, but the deletion rules don't address article quality. This sucks for DYK creators as well; a smart DYK editor will create a sock to trim all the nonsense out of a bad article, and a week later the real account can show up to expand. Gerda, you know I have sympathy for you and your position, and I agree that there is something as the "moral" creator of an article, but yeah, that's not simple enough. And a rule/ruling that goes by "whoever created it..." lacks realism, but hey, the die is cast and the infobox war passed me by completely anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Esteemed topnotch editor, I don't want to template you, how's this? - What do you think of a new red cat for me? - I was told that I was restricted because of my poor judgement (simplified a bit), - I think mentorship would be better than content restriction, which ultimately hurts the readers, not me. Would you be willing to mentor me in case I wanted to enter an infobox discussion (certainly not anytime soon)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Gerda, I couldn't possibly "mentor" you, anymore than I can give suggestions to God about his creation. I have advice, of course, for you and God--comments and questions perceived as snarky or unrelated ruffle feathers. If I were in your position I would bite my tongue more. Sorry, I don't like giving suggestions to people who are wiser than me. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• I bit my tongue in Teh Case and said I would give no evidence against any user because I didn't want anybody to be sanctioned. By some logic that resulted in me being sanctioned, - someone had to be sanctioned. This can probably be perceived as too snarky? (I urge you to not get involved. If the socalled war passed you, good for you, remain innocent.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We can't have too much Ermutigung, - an article that might profit from your language skills, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, per this how would YOU Like to add a few infoboxes to some of Gerda's 5x expansions? Montanabw^(talk) 15:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. I guess I'm going to have to read all this stuff. Thanks Montana--I could have been riding horsies, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to read only a bit, perhaps start here, with the unanswered question by someone uninvolved who arrived late in the case (and for whom I will vote if he goes for arb), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lilis Suryani

The DYK project (nominate) 08:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Golden hour (medicine)

Hi Drmies, I see you've had discussions with this editor in the past; I've lately reverted their edits here [7], and notice other recent, self-references [8]. Any thoughts from you or your talk page watchers will be welcome. JNW (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• All this while I was at a family reunion in Mississippi. It should come as no surprise that, in an area where every one has a dozen guns, Obama is seen as Satan, and healthcare for everyone is frowned upon (even as they're complaining that their own plan doesn't cover what they need it to cover), there is no internet available. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I hope at least the chicken fried grits were good. Really, it's like you're baiting me to say nasty things about the south, and just after I've written a piece on this; I'm not a sucker for his work, but it's hard to knock that painting. How many times do I have to tell you to relocate northward? As for me, God Bless Obamacare. JNW (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I remember that. Thanks for bringing it back up. You know this is an unpaid position, right? How is everyone? Any naked women you want to show me? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Please, you wanna see my returns from last year? It's not like anyone's paying me for being an online pain in the ass. We're fine, thanks, though with the girls traveling they've dumped their dogs on us again, so we've got four in the house, which is absurd. I've actually had a fine time painting the foliage the last few weeks, then working on a nude in the studio. Big shift in the palette between the two, otherwise not much difference. Great model, a hefty gal with ink all over her, including a tattoo of a tree, so it's full circle or something. I hope you and yours are well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've given this unpaid volunteer business some more thought. I, for one, am happy to recommend you to the Wikimedia Foundation for a regular stipend. Of course, a modest kickback will be appreciated. I trust the new school year is off to a good start for all, and hope you are favored with shining students. Or at least a few who can stay awake. JNW (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone else

I'm not supposed to block editors who attack me. Then, of course, there's the WP:BLP violation at the Larry Klayman article (and the first attack in an edit summary), which actually bothers me more. I thought of semi-protecting the article, but that use of my tools is probably also ill-advised.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• An editor who acts like a moron needs to be blocked, and I see that's what you did. Same with semi-protection: if you haven't edited the article significantly, if you have no actual interest in the content, then do what needs to be done. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I didn't block the editor or semi-protect the article. One of your many wonderful stalkers blocked, and I requested semi-protection at RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• I thought you were talking about 76.31.208.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Oh, from editing their talk page. Gotcha. Still, go for it next time. INVOLVED wouldn't prevent you from it, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Lugnuts/Editnotice

Sorry to make another request, but could you or one of your many talk page stalkers evaluate this MfD for closure. I reverted the closure because it was so far out of bounds procedurally I couldn't stand it. Some editors are questioning my revert, but it would be helpful if it could be considered for early closure based on the recent history. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"Some editors are questioning my revert" WP:ADMINACCT seems to cover it. Again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a deletion discussion about a page in your user space. If that's not COI I don't know what is. This is not allowed. Period. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a conflict at all, when I've changed it and let the nominator know. But I guess policy of wasting everyone's time overides commmon sense. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• If you seriously see no conflict of interest in closing a deletion discussion of one of your user pages, then you are just as good an editor as I thought. Congratulations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh no! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like "no consensus to delete" as most people don't mind the new wording. The original was out of line, very much so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Closed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• No prob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wim T. Schippers

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gied Jaspars

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wim van der Linden

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hoepla

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, looking at this impressive quadruple, you should rather read (not the unanswered question mentioned above but) Patrice Chéreau, for Intimacy "which sparked a debate about unsimulated sex on screen" (for DYK, I chose something else) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Drmies! It sure took a long time to finally get reviewed, but it ended up doing spectacularly. With 16,797 total hits, it's the most viewed hook of the month! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! Thanks Mandarax! Drmies (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Makes me think ... should I change the hook for Chéreau? But I want to show the pic ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• The most important DYK rule is if you can work sex into a hook, do it.
• ... that Patrice Chéreau, who directed a 1976 production of Wagner's Ring Cycle (scene pictured) at the centenary Bayreuth Festival, also directed a film which "sparked a debate about unsimulated sex on screen"?
• It's an acceptable hook length of 197 characters; as usual, ten characters for (pictured) don't count. Personally, I would trim some of the details, but I suspect you'd like to include it all. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! I always wondered how I could get Hitler in a hook about a Bach cantata. What do you think of the shorter (?)

... that Patrice Chéreau, the stage director of the centenary Ring Cycle (scene pictured) in Bayreuth, directed the film Intimacy, which "sparked a debate about unsimulated sex on screen"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. The second most important DYK rule is "shorter is better". Drmies, sorry to clutter your talk page with this, but I prefer to keep discussions such as this off of nomination pages to avoid unnecessarily complicating and possibly delaying them. You know all too well about DYK delays. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Who wants to write an article, to shorten the hook further: Centenary Ring or what?? - Views for Chéreau are down to 800+, we need to do something ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Mandarax, the more the merrier. That does not of course apply to DYK hooks--ask Crisco 1492 about his ?, which he's advertising all over the place--including his own talk page, for crying out loud. Yes, sex sells--but what sells more, apparently is a f***ing octopus making fun of my soccer team. That almost made me give up DYK. BTW, why are we helping Gerda beef up her numbers? She can die happily with Kafka under her belt. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Eh now, that's my user page, not my talk page! (Haven't put "Shortest TFA" yet, have I?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• I believe Chéreau is still alive, so I will not say here what I think of his Ring, nor will I write an article about it. I'm sure you'll find someone more diplomatic to do so. Now that production in Kassel with tremendous amounts of neon and the Rhinemaidens on flying scooters ... Yngvadottir (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• You believe what? - He died 7 October (article writers would like you to read!), that's why we are here. I am not collecting numbers for me, but for him ;) (was close to 8k the day after he died). - I saw the scene, a lasting impression, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• I started Jahrhundertring myself, feel free to add. Would there be an English title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

[9] I was even thinking of dropping you a line about this, since notability seems a good bet, but the edits were just too self-serving. JNW (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You nearly scared me off with your user page...

File:Dainsyng.gif

Drmies user page is too scary to go alone, take this.

... but I still want to know how big the riot will be when I publish this on my talk page. Or is it better to publish this later, when I have finished my series about Michelin restaurants.

Ow, intention of the text is to show that I decide everything and the other party only has a role as supplier of information.The Banner talk 19:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Banner, are you stalking me? That's it. I'm replacing any Michelin ref of yours with a gayot one and visa versa. :) Drmies' user page once was much scarier. The page had his photo on it, but after too many people were scared to death, he had to remove it. Plus, the world supply of eye bleach was running low because of his photo. Bgwhite (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh, what? The Banner talk 20:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my sense of humour is a bit damaged tonight. Reason: the whole Dutch Wikipedia incrowd is angry. They have a system that each administrator is evaluated once a year and when receiving more than 4 objections, has to survive a confidence vote. A few longer serving but controversial administrators are now severely under attack. And suddenly a yet unidentified administrator filed an appeal to back up the two administrators on the secretive "modmail". Big row that grew even bigger when two sockpuppets published the story. The administrator behind the two sockpuppets is blocked, but now everybody is fighting about what to do with the vote in progress... The Banner talk 20:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. A new way was found to make Wikipedia even more political and maddening. It's bad enough keep the crazy straight on one language site, little alone two. You have my sympathies. Bgwhite (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There, that should make Drmies userpage less scary. :D - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Montanabw already tickled my humour by "complaining" about a massive SCOMN. With my vivid imagination it gave me a good laugh, something I needed. The Banner talk 21:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that reminds me. I still don't know why Montana was referring me to the Superior Court of Minnesota--I've only been in that state once, and I had forgotten to bring my coat. In March. Banner, they don't have stars, but Hell's Kitchen is a fun place to eat. Best thing on the breakfast menu: the cereal. (Yes! Not kidding.)

  As for the Dutch wiki, I may have mentioned before that they can... never mind. I don't understand the place or its readership. Or how it's run. That's oud zeer also, which you can see if you look at my (old) contributions there. Your story is fascinating: is there a summary somewhere, with diffs and names? Who was the evil admin?

  Finally--my user page? wut? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  • LOL, no summary yet. One administrator blocked OT and ready for desysop (Grmbl76), one admin hiding edits against the rules with threat of desysop (Natuur12), one admin blocking an admin for sockpopping with threath of desysop (JurgenNL), one admin canvassing (yet unknown, but the game "find the culprit" is ongoing), one not-so-nice admin failing the confidence vote now left in limbo (Robotje), one not-so-nice admin making the confidence vote left in limbo (MoiraMoira), a few slamming doors (a.o. RJB, Olivier Bommel). Distrust everywhere and a vote totally screwed. I'm a coward, I took a runner! Too messy there. The Banner talk 23:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Update: Canvassing admin finally confessed. I politely advised him to quit voluntarily or face a desysop. (MADe) One admin was disgusted with the situation and stepped down (Andre Engels). One admin at desysop after being cleared of misusing sockpuppets and unbanned. But the admins are shocked about the breach in their secret society so he must hang (Grmbl76). All admin up for a confidence vote are returned, strange enough after a massive turn out of admins and former admins. One admin making himself increasingly unpopular by starting a desysop. (JurgenNL) And one editor driving me mad by claiming that the original intention of the confidence-process is the only thing that is right and that the present use are gaming the system and WP:POINT actions. That guy doesn't see that something can change in 7 or 8 years time (Romaine) The Banner talk 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
      • That's exciting! Is anyone still left standing? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
        • It may be exciting to you - I am thanking my lucky stars I was manoeuvered into adminship here, not on some other Wild West Wikipedia. Sheesh. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Ha, they call this a personal attack? (For the outsiders: "What a sad creature you are.") Who knew that the Dutch wikipedians were such pussies. Mama, he frowned at me! Drmies (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
          • To put it mildly, they are great in using different measuring systems. The Banner talk 21:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Penis

Thanks for hatting this discussion from September. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a decision best arrived at by consensus (no "Penis Gallery" on the Talk Page). I think it would be best for a truly impartial and disinterested Editor to be Bold, pick an image, post it in the article and then discuss. As you looked over the discussion, did you see a good candidate for this task? (I'll pass!) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. How do you get that nice dog to appear on the Editing page? L.

(watching) whatever you want to present to your talk page guests goes to User talk:Liz/Editnotice, see for example mine, which includes a nod to the one who told me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda!

Weeeell, it's not so much hatting as closing an RfC. Look, if you want to go ahead and pick a penis, that's fine. You can't pick mine; it's already taken. No, I didn't see anything very good. The horny donkey, his was huge but it was too close to the body to make the point. That dog penis, brrr--that red thing is just too obscene. An RfC-ish kind of thing might be tedious but at least provides agreement. And some good things do come out of committees, like the King James Bible. Oh! Didn't you say you hadn't read Human penis? Perhaps you'd be interested in Love dart. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Damn. You know, I only went to this Talk Page because I was keeping up with L'Origine and he/she was active there. I really don't want to go through the Commons sea of penis photos. I don't want to pass the buck but I'll vote for anything that shifts the choice off my shoulders. I guess it's an RfC then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I just don't know. There's good arguments for an animal penis vs. a human statue vs. a drawing/schematic, and I couldn't possibly pick the best prick. Let's ask LadyofShalott what she thinks. Lady? Drmies (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate my headshot for best prick. I'll upload an 8 by 10 (width by length) glossy post-hasta. Another bilingual pun et cetera ...  davidiad { t } 05:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and questions

Thanks for the heads-up, Drmies. I was just in the middle of moving the article when you left your edit/comment. Article is now back in main space. Did I move it right? That is to say, is there a more accepted way of re-creating an article?

Also, since I have your attention, could you look at the article and the talk page and tell me if I missed anything. For instance, I added a Wikilink to the article from the article it had been (temporarily) merged with, but should I do anything else with that article/section. Also, can I move or remove the notices at the top of the talk page? Anything else I'm overlooking?

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the two histories needed merging, so that your contributions to the article are a part of the history. I took care of that. Next thing you need to do is submit it at WP:DYK, to get it on the front page: you have five days to do it in. Good luck with it; I hope you get lots of hits. Ask me if you have questions, and perhaps Mandarax will be nice enough to look over your shoulder like he does to me.

  No, the notices on the talk page should stay, but they don't do any harm. BTW, I saw GorillaWarfare mentioned on your talk page--she's great, and maybe you can in turn kick her in the rear so she'll do some more writing, not just vandal fighting. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. I just thought it was time to return the org to its own article. Am I required to submit it to DYK? And if so, are the instructions to do so on the link you provided?

Also, can you tell me or point me to the help page that tells how one merges history... Or maybe that's something only admins do? I'm trying to learn this stuff as I go, and I saw the history entries for your actions, but I couldn't figure out what actions created those entries. Hope my questions make sense. I have learned a lot in the last two months, but I still have lots to learn. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to do nuttin'. But DYK is exposure on the front page (that I think gets 20 million hits a day). For an organization. That you care for. Yes, the rules are on that page; the actual nomination is at WP:DYKN. Give it a shot.

History merging is an admin job, since part of the process (the way I did it) is deletion before restoration, so to speak. It is done to preserve all edits made to the article and it can get complicated. That injunction to preserve history is one of the reasons that copying and pasting shouldn't be done in article creation; some smart talk page stalker I'm sure has all the links at hand, but you really don't have to worry about it too much. That's what we get paid the big bucks for. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll give it a go. Oh! And I added this one today, too. Also, FWIW, I think the first three orgs listed under "Pro-gun control" at the bottom of both of those pages are obsolete and/or miscategorized, but I'm afraid to remove them. What do you think?

Tomorrow is the Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon, in case you're interested. Now I'll try to leave you alone for a while. Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I would tell you to scrap the mission, the membership, and most of the external links... OK, I removed Americans for Gun Safety Foundation already, see my edit summary. American Hunters and Shooters Association looks fishy but I can't see an obvious reason to remove it. Americans for Democratic Action was easy--their article says nothing about gun control. Now, if you have a good reason to remove the hunters, do it and explain why in an edit summary. Be bold. I don't know how Ada Lovelace is, but it's a pretty exciting last name. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

She was a mathematician who is now known as the world's first computer programmer; she wrote algorithms for Charles Babbage's mechanical computers. She was also Lord Byron's daughter, which probably would've been an even more interesting last name. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace is beloved by all nerds and geeks and elderly bookworms (like me) who want to counter Wikipedia's systemic bias, and encourage young women to enter careers in science and technology, and win Nobel Prizes, and save the planet, and so on. Ask SarahStierch, who won an Ada Lovelace award today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations to Sara. Good to know that we have editors that have accomplishments beyond our eyes here for such important issues. I feel a little small at the moment, but that's OK as I am not attempting to stand on anyones shoulders...just be proud and appreciative to be able to interact with people that deserve recognition in these manners. Thanks for the information Cullen!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at Maria Goeppert-Mayer to do a GA review, requested in that drive (someone created the review page after I got done with a first run-through; I asked them if I could take it). That was one impressive career; I read a few lines from her biography to Mrs. Drmies, and all we could do was sigh. It reminded me of the biography of Helen Vendler ("We don’t want any women here""--though our article on her is woefully underdeveloped and does her little justice. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That first one is a fascinating and inspiring life story, Drmies, though thank our lucky stars that those weapons she worked on with Edward Teller were never used in anger. All that unpaid work is like a "partial government shutdown" just for brilliant women. Thanks for your kind remarks, Mark Miller. Maybe was can hang out at a Sacramento museum or Davis edit-a-thon some time soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Maria Goeppert-Mayer/GA1

Thanks for your courteous note, please feel free to take this review. I hope our paths cross again! LT910001 (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK Ruud van Hemert

Hello! Your submission of Ruud van Hemert 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!

DYK for TopNotch

Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bacar Baldé

Hi there MIES, longtime no "see",

my last summary in this player's article will be self-explanatory. I think it's thus more appropriate to leave most of my last version.

Sorry for any inconvenience, keep up the great work and regards (if this is not the correct "order of feelings", we'll think of another one ;)) --AL (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Problem is the grammar, VASCO! Good to see you too, old friend. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism? where?

I have clearly asked at the corresponding talk page 10/11/2013 for the protection removal on PXE's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Preboot_Execution_Environment

I have given the reasons explaining why I consider the protection on that page only really protects Widefox and his abuse of power already reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Widefox_Abusive_editor_with_banning_power.

I can see the very same day 10/11/2013 you have set a protection on that page preventing "vandalism".

Let me ask you:

Are you accusing me of vandalism at WP PXE's page??

Are you protecting Widefox interests?

Because of the mentioned PXE page I have been systematically erased/banned/abused by some people here; are you one of them?

Please let all of us know why you do not remove the vandalism protection on WP PXE's page.213.37.84.214 (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• You asked for sanctions against Widefox here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#User:Widefox_Abusive_editor_with_banning_power.. I don't know if you kept up with it, but it was archived with no action taken against Widefox and some serious criticism against you. The thread you started on the talk page isn't going anywhere either. You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that just because you ask for something it should be given to you. Your edits were widely deemed to be disruptive and that's why the article is semi-protected, but blocking you might be a better solution. Consider this: if sem-protection runs out and you keep at it, you'll be blocked. If you make any more frivolous complaints and unwarranted accusations (like that I would be protecting Widefox's "interests", whatever those are--I have no idea and I don't care) you'll be blocked. You can play nice on the talk page and make suggestions that are in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines; have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't asked for "sanctions" against Widefox it is not my job to decide is he has to be sanctioned or not; I have just reported his actions and abuse against my person. Unfortunately I cannot see if it was "archived" with criticism against me; I want to read it; where is it? is this the way WP admins protect each other? are you also protecting Widefox here??

The thread I started on the talk page CLEARLY states what Widefox is doing on that page and CLEARLY states why there is not "vandalism" on that page; then I'm asking you: are you teaming up with Widefox when protecting that page and avoiding ME to edit adding the information I have clearly supported all this time?

I'm not asking ANYTHING but I just not to be HARASSED, BANNED, ERASED; I have added the necessary independent SUPPORT for editing that page; And you cannot call that DISRUPTIVE because it is not; What do you know about PXE in order to know if what I'm editing is or not disruptive? YOU ARE DEFINITELY THREATENING ME WITH MORE BLOCKING you are part of this game; you are definatelly protrecting Widefox 213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

31 hours? Aren't you admins allowed to block for 31 years? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Come back

If you're planning visiting Europe, try Setenil De Las Bodegas other pictures see also Setenil de las Bodegas. (From Drmies: WOW.)

I am probably crazy, but I went on a new trip to Europe. Back again. Warrington (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Depends on where you went. Maybe I am not completely neutral in this case, but visiting the Netherlands and Ireland is something I can always recommend. Although I also enjoyed my time in Paris, Barcelona and on Sardinia. The Banner talk 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Lovely! Nice places you chose . Did you like Sardinia? Sardinia is not that well known but wonderful... Warrington (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Where'd you go? And has my cousin in Goteborg visited you already? Drmies (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have been a number of times in the north-west corner of the island, including Argentiera. The Banner talk 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Budapest. Did your cousin visited while I was gone? Blast, bad luck... Warrington (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Nasnema

Nasnema has begun editing again. He reverted a number of edits yesterday using Twinkle. I've not seen any problematic reverts (other than that he isn't issuing warnings), but I'm curious as to whether or not you think those reverts are acceptable. Should he be using Twinkle's revert capability so soon after having rollback removed? Ryan Vesey 15:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that issuing warnings is important; I issued one for them, so to speak. The only troubling edit I see is this one--the typical unexplained, unverified IP edit followed by the typical unexplained revert. I do think that rollback and Huggle/Twinkle ought to be a kind of package deal: didn't we have some discussion over that on AN or ANI a while back? If you want to bring this up and argue on one of those forums that this user shouldn't be using those scripts (is that the right word?) while rollback is denied, I'd support that. But maybe some of the friendly stalkers know more about those technicalities. At any rate, simply reverting without explanation/warning is not a positive thing. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• He will have gotten a notification to this discussion. I'll wait and see if he'll show up here before taking it to another board. Hopefully he'll agree to step away from Twinkle as a revert tool for at least a month. Ryan Vesey 17:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy - the Julie Walters revert was a mistake. I do not think it was a disaster though. On the subject of warning users I do not think that warning an IP user hours after the event is worth bothering about especially if they have not made many edits. If there is vandalism there is no requirement to make any comment so I will not always do so. On the whole I think you will agree that my reversions are generally right with the odd slip-up now and again. It must run in the family here as with my resident delinquent who will not be able to access my account now. Nasnema  Chat  16:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nasnema, I hope the ANI thread showed you there was some good faith practiced or there might have been a serious block. The one slip, it's no big deal. It is, however, a good idea to leave (more) edit summaries, and even if it's hours later, the warning, if it is the correct one, tells other editors that the revert was done correctly and it tells the IP, if they're still around, what the problem was: in other words, I encourage you to leave them regardless of whether it was a few minutes or a few days. Especially with vandal IPs it's useful since ClueBot, if it reverts another edit, takes into account what's already been posted, and in escalating warnings admins will often not block if final warnings haven't been given--so if someone gives a level 1 warning but it's the fifth vandal edit, it'll take a few more edits (and disruption) than would've been necessary (if, of course, they take place in a limited timeframe). Hope you had a nice vacation; now it's back to the grindstone I suppose. There's homework, laundry, cleaning, files to catch up on, etc. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a good vacation although we should have all gone on it. A disaster really on the rebound. As for warnings if there is someone out to continually vandalise then there will be plenty of edits so a warning is necessary. However if it is just a one-off then not so sure that is appropriate especially if it an IP. Nasnema  Chat  23:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

crying to daddy

Sigh, would you take a look at this ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Copy_Editor, and this article talk thread Talk:Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimmerman_was_told_not_to_follow_Trayvon_Martin , and trout (or whatever other action you feel appropriate) whoever you feel deserves it? The Involved (tm) are clearly talking in circles at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I second that request Drmies. Please....but don't tell mom.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sure thing, my sons. I saw that thread earlier but had not yet felt the spirit move me. Please ping me if disruption continues. Now I gotta run and pick up my kid, though apparently the school is under lockdown: Gaijin, none of those problems with violence and lockdowns would happen, of course, if all children over the age of four and attending school would be issued a firearm. In my state, such a scheme might actually succeed. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Storm in a teacup, fortunately. Gaijin, keep me posted on that editor. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Glad things were quiet. Obviously you spoke in jest, but to jump down the rabbit hole : Obviously children do not have the necessary self control and judgement (or aim for that matter) to carry firearms, but I would certainly support more arming of teachers and administrators. In the school shootings (or in general) "when seconds count, police are only minutes away". One could argue towards the complete prohibition and retroactive confiscation of guns to address the issue, but as this is politically (and otherwise) unrealistic... "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time" (or alternatively, Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

My solution is cheaper and safer. :) Drmies (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you 213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Patrick Califia comment may need to be removed again

Hi, You assisted last time we had some offensive comments left on the talkpage. Could you have a look at this? Thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's bad enough for revdel, though I support your removal. Tell me, where did you bring this up the last time? I can't find it. Was it ANI? I left a note for the editor: the way forward is through conversation, and we (you, and I as well) should have started that last time. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I raised it at the BLP note board. I felt the comments were trolling in nature so i did not want to prolong anything but I support what you wrote. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

I know this is slightly outside of the articles you edit, but would you mind doing a PR on WTCF‎? I took that article to GAN back in July and it got reviewed today (it didn't pass). I am told that I need to work on the prose and how everything flows on the page. I have asked Wehwalt for a PR as well, so I can get different opinions on how things should look. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, well, those are pretty detailed comments. I'd start by having a look at how many sentences start with a date--that needs a change-up. Sentence variation. What the reviewer said about the lead applies to each individual section (and each individual paragraph) as well: try writing topic sentences for each section that introduces the content, before listing every detail. The reviewer is correct in that the article reads like a list; it needs to be turned into coherent prose, where sentences connect and paragraphs/sections are single units that are in turn connected and built towards a whole.

  I made a few tweaks to one section, but there's something I don't understand: Alex buys the channel, then sells it, then operates it? These are probably radio matters that I just don't get, like that time brokerage agreement. Perhaps explain that in a sentence or two? Drmies (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I have a habit of being chronological when I write, especially radio station articles. To answer your question, Alex Media built and launched the station, essentially to turn around and sell it for a considerable profit. Alex Media sold it to Timber Ridge, but it takes more than the exchange of money to buy a station. You have to file paperwork with the FCC, different applications, wait for them all to be approved, etc. With the government shutdown, that got backed up. Though, since it's launch, Timber Ridge has operated the station, but Alex Media has owned it. They are now just selling it to Timber Ridge. Confusing, I know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The article says the FCC sold the frequency. How can that be if there already is a station on that frequency? Auction 91: so this was part of some sort of well-known auction? Perhaps there's something more to be said or wikilinked there. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
      • The FCC determines areas that have a lack of radio signals and then sells those signals, as part of an auction, to the highest bidder. During Auction 91, Alex Media bought 103.3 (becoming WTCF). WLTK already existed on 103.3, but about 30 miles south in New Market, Virginia. Alex Media asked the FCC to allow WLTK to move to 102.9 (something the requesting station typically pays for). WLTK became 102.9 and WTCF became 103.3. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nasnema

I have been keeping an eye on his/her edits since they started editing again. They are back to reverting, this time with TWINKLE, and seem to be slowing down but are still making the same mistakes. He/She reverted this edit but a quick check of IMDb shows the anon was indeed correct. I'm not going to comment on Nasnema's page after their last little blow up at me, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. My apologizes for the double post. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Scroll up :) Ryan Vesey 00:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Day late, dollar short. :) Good catch Ryan. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

De re beerensio

So I'm stuck living out of a hotel in Little Rock for the next two to eight (or more) weeks bug testing the computer system meant to process the reformed Medicaid programs. Aside from being around some slightly professional people, the main benefit is that I'm near to the state's only decently stocked liquor stores. I've tracked down one that carries Gulden Draak and hope to hit it up tomorrow. Any other recommendations? I drink ales (pale or Belgian) and the more bitter lagers—stouts are only acceptable if more interesting than a chocolatey slurry. I hope all's well with everyone.  davidiad { t } 04:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wooohoooo so you screwed it up for Obamacare? Gulden Draak, MAN that is good. It's one of my favorites. Like Duvel, but better. I like Delirium Tremens, as you know. What you could do is buy all the brands of one variety. We had a tripel tasting party last year, and then a Christmas beer event. Have you tried tripels yet? Strong, complex, slightly sour sometimes--I haven't had a bad one, though I'd stay away from Kasteel. The yellow Chimay is a great standard to compare others too. There's two good American tripels as well, by Green Flash (? or is that the name?) and by...sounds like Crisco 1492...Cisco Brewers, yes. Of course a tripel tasting session requires a strong mind and body, and that you don't have to get up too early the next morning.

  Hey, good luck straightening all that out. It really matters to a lot of people. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• So I finally got my hands on the Draak (the last bottle in Little Rock, it seems), but the store didn't have as good a selection as I expected. I also finally broke down and bought a bottle of Ommegang's Three Philosophers, but for some reason I've always expected to be disappointed by that brewery. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I'll probably be asleep by the time I'd realize it was nasty if it is. It's a quadrupel (I link because the article is two-headed stub that could use some lovin'). The software testing is interesting ... and also of greater consequence than what I've been doing since I became a government drone. The time in the hotel has been a bit productive: two more articles submitted and a third on the way. My goal is to hit the first 2014 numbers of ZPE, the Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Mnemosyne and Hermes so that for a few months my name is everywhere and my stock will rise going forward.  davidiad { t } 00:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Weren't they allied with Duvel, one way or another? (Or Duvel's multinational owner...) Three Philosophers isn't bad, and they make a double which tastes very Belgian. Going forward--as in up, up and away? I'm toasting you with an Affligem Triple--at $9 for a big bottle it's a steal. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Going forward as in: remember Dave? That mother***er had it. Gulden Draak had some real -ness: consistent carbonation, a real body. Unfortunately, I drank them all. Started with Chimay yellow after dinner, followed with Gulden Draak and currently on the Three Philosophers. The lady was tired from teaching—didn't have a sip. I'm in no state to critique.  davidiad { t } 05:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Puppies

Warrington has given you some puppies! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever!

• Awww now who's going to clean up that mess? Did you empty the Budapest dog pound into the trunk of your Volvo Estate? Drmies (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Awww now who's complaining? Don't you have just as many babies at home? Warrington

SPIdey sense is tingling.

You recently welcomed user "Flin the flan warrior" (not linking him to avoid the ping). He showed up on my radar by editing the Michael.Haephrati talk page, which is on my watchlist and a known socker. Looking through the user contribs, its highly suspicious for a new user (though not necessarily haephrati, but such a random thing to hit?!) , with the first two edits on Jimbo's page, and then a series of weird edits, some labeled "test edit" where they delete some random bit of text, then revert themselves. (a few instances of that). I highly suspect that this user is doing some semi-innocuous edits to achieve autoconfirmed, and then is going to bust out the big guns. (also, the user appears to have some weird library of rare (and appropriate!) images they are adding to random articles. Obviously nothing actionable yet, and my sensors may be over-calibrated, but as you "touched em last" I thought I would ping you. I shall keep an eye on them. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• I thought they were just screwing around; I welcomed them also to have an edit in my history to remind me. Let's keep an eye on it, yes. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories

I will, thanks. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate it, Dereck Camacho. If you were an admin you could see the history of the category: it's been somewhat controversial, and the headnote was a kind of minimum standard to make it acceptable to the community. In a nutshell, there are BLP issues involved with categorizing someone as a rape victim. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A S'more for you!

	A S'more for you!
	Sorry 'bout the test edits. Flin the flan warrior (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Gavin Brown (musician)

It would have been nice for some advanced warning before you deleted all the information I added to Mr. Brown's page, which took hours to put up in the first place. You can clearly see that the page is in progress and I'm adding citations and improving sources all the time.

I deleted the paragraph from his Biography because it wasn't properly cited.

I deleted the sentence about his A/R work with Universal because he no longer does that.

I understand wiki is not the place for original research but I work for Mr. Brown so he tells me that certain information is no longer true or relevant, or is new so I add it and work on finding references to that information so it is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayolascribblez (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Whoa, I wish you hadn't told me you worked for the man, though I could have guessed that from your edits. Still, I thank you for your note.

  One at a time: yes, I can see you're trying to improve the article, but I do not agree that all such edits are an improvement. For starters, what you tell me the previous editors could have told you: you deleted all the prose from the article with the exception of the opening sentence. Not just "a" paragraph, all of it. That he no longer works at this or that job is immaterial: we're not a resume site, we're an encyclopedia. If he worked for some outfit (and it was verified by Billboard, apparently!), then his departure is no reason for removal. I'm not interested in "original research"--it's still a terrible article by our standards, but the lack of verification I signaled in my edit summaries is directly relevant to the reason I removed it, as anyone who looks at the edits can see. Most importantly, we don't do resumes and that's what this article had become.

  What I suggest you do, lest you wish the article be defaced by yet another tag (signaling a WP:COI) is that you find the sources that verify this or that notable production or song and write it into the article--write, not list. I don't see any reason why one would start with a list and then, maybe, come around to verifying it. An article should be started by an editor putting down legible prose and the references that back it up. One last thing, and this goes directly to your working for the man and what he tells you: "relevant" is not decided by the subject, which is what makes us an encyclopedia and not a glorified LinkedIn. What's relevant is decided by what the sources offer, in combination with editorial judgment. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)