[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:Drmies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davidiad (talk | contribs) at 06:03, 20 November 2013 (→‎Them lovebirds). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Caspar David Friedrich, The Sea of Ice. Dæmon and creator, chasing and being chased.


Big mess at Colon cleansing

Words fail me! Geoff Who, me? 23:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dat title though... Oo Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is Wikipedia at its most bizarrely and exponentially dysfunctional. A (female) new editor shows up with a bunch of inappopriate, promotional edits. A more established editor offers to help and advocates for her on the article talkpage... while taking advantage of the interaction to hit on the new editor repeatedly and creepily. The way this was handled by DangerMouse is pretty shameful. A reputable volunteer organization would shitcan someone in a heartbeat for that sort of boundary violation. I feel very bad for the new editor - while her content concerns were way off-base, it's appalling that her concerns were used as a pretext to flirt with her. MastCell Talk 23:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw that section, and was reminded to buy fiber pills at Publix. Those are expensive, by the way. Whoa, MastCell--is this handled already? I'm waiting for dinner to warm up so I'm a bit pressed for time. You know the rules: block first, then ban, then ask questions. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really think it's been handled; I'm involved, so I'm not really free to act as an admin here. It's a little hard to make sense of everything, since neither editor has the clearest communication style, but I think User:Alexbrn's summary in the AN/I thread is pretty thorough. There's more on Alexbrn's talkpage, for instance this, which is worth looking at should you have the time/inclination to get involved. Again, while I think that the new editor came here for the wrong reasons, the reception she got is really disappointing and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. MastCell Talk 00:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • MastCell, I don't like blocking for level-4 stupidity, and this is the closest I've gotten. I commented at the ANI thread after looking over a couple of the issues and diffs. No doubt there's more that could be said, and perhaps action that could be taken. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Drmies, I like the dogs over here! (Men will use any pretext for flirtation. Just sayin' ! I asked an old Wikifriend once why I got hit on so often in email from guys who have never seen a picture of me and have no idea if I weigh 300 lbs or whatever ... he explained to me how guys' imaginations work ... something about it doesn't matter if I really weigh 300 lbs, and that not being the point ... anyway ... could you put up a chocolate lab, pls ??) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I don't do the canine decoration around here. Warrington does. I betcha a lot of "guys" like 300-pound women; I cannot easily recap the conversation I was privy to in the Y today, but the speaker was a 300+ pound woman, and it had something to do with male companions and odd requests by additional male companions. It's weird, this internet thing--I remember getting hit on by some woman from Fresno in one of the old Napster chat rooms. Anyways, if you want to...know what I'm saying...chat a bit...he he he...you can find me on IRC...my handle [is that the word they use for that?] is Dr. Lovemachine... Drmies (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I finally caught up there-- see my message below. It wasn't at all funny, and oversight is not done. I hate IRC btw-- don't know what it is, where to find it, how to use it, just know it's the place where abusive blocks and meatpuppetry are cooked up. Glad MastCell cleaned up that mess of an article. Best, 16:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't remember if I had ever posted here before, so went looking ... and found this. I'm a genius. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not hit on that user! And I have told her over, and over, and over what to do! And I complimented on IRC, and she laughed at it, anyway , I am done with the drama, retiring for good from WMF. You can block me or whatever as you please, I have apologized for it you're just making it a bigger scene. Doc James read the emails, and he know what I have done, and what I am talking about. Danger^Mouse (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at some fucking articles

Do you have an interest in Fucking Machines? I personally know Madarax does. If so, you can help out a good article nominee. To tired out, especially after your colon cleansing, you can watch a bunch of people Fuck in the comfort of your own home. After you are done watching, you can help out a featured article nominee. Bgwhite (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck my old boots, that's one detailed article! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--how's your colon?

I have emailed the entire copy paste of my conversation with that user to Doc James, and Oversight, and I will not longer engage with that user or on that article, moving on, had this discussion with ^Darkwind^ as well, the user got my email on IRC, and I should have stopped somewhere in the e-mail, you will understand it better, once you get hold of it. Danger^Mouse (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't send it to me: I don't want to read it. The things you outline above are requisite steps, but it is more important to me that you do not allow yourself to get into such situations in the first place. Based on what I know about this case (which is as much as I want to know), I think you should stay away from off-wiki channels of communication about on-wiki stuff: stay out of IRC is my advice. You're not the first one to get into trouble over it, and you won't be the last, but you can make sure it doesn't happen to you again. There's plenty of other chatrooms on the internet, and plenty of other topics to chat about. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I went too deep, won't be repeated. And I have apologized for it.- Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thank you. Mind you, other admins and editors may feel differently: I am speaking for myself here, and I will leave to someone else to decide whether to close the ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you Drmies, by the way good to see you again, well next time hopefully without any sort of drama on my part. -Danger^Mouse (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IDangerMouse, Sandy, below, pointed out that you need to go back and make sure you caught all the examples and identified them to an oversighter. I revdeleted one example on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, which needs to be oversighted as well. Please do that as soon as you can, and as thoroughly as you can. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally took the time to catch up on this, see that it wasn't funny at all, see that MastCell and Doc James cleaned up the article ... and was easily able to find the person's name, which has not been oversighted. Somebody isn't done cleaning up after themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you both. I couldn't find anything. Going to bed. And I am confused about numbers etc..Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found this >>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colon_cleansing&diff=prev&oldid=580329301 Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that's dealt with already. Numbers? Sandy, I'm glad I made such an impact. Tell your dh I'm happy for him. And it's not just boys--Sippi likes to tell stories about a snake that circled the bowl. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
curse you, drmies ... I actually spent some real time in a Wilderness Area as a child ... ya know, with real rattlesnakes and shit ... and I have ample experience with outhouses, and phobias about snakes in them. I shall unwatch if you continue to taunt with stories on women's accomplishments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Running?

I was wondering if you'd like to alienate yourself from just about everybody and permanently sour your Wiki experience (and possibly all other aspects of your life) by being an arbitrator for a couple of years. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the shameless act of flirtation, but beware, Turandot has 3 questions for candidates ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go Bulldogs! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For shits and giggles I read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam/Questions. That's a lot of questions, even after Floq avoided the hard ones (haha!). Can I just sign my name and say per Floq? (Gerda, I would probably give a very similar answer to yours...) Drmies (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would love competition :) Secret account 18:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the draft-Drmies-movement. (Of course, if you win, you become dead to us all, as Anthony mentioned in the first part. :-)   You can absolutely skip answering the vast series of questions; that will lose you some votes, but this is a horrible dirty job that nobody wants, so that may not matter much, with all the open seats. But my advice is to treat every question as an opportunity: answer them as if they were the question you *wished* had been asked, not necessarily as they *were* asked. <grin> p.s. Okay, it's a ton of work, but you should try to answer all the questions that aren't repetitive... feel free to be terse (grammarz is SO not important heer), and to say "per above" if the same question keeps coming up again and again, o'course. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might even appreciate someone who answers "XYZ gave a good answer" with a link to there, saves me reading time and tells me who has similar thoughts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider it. Though I would prefer that you answered at least my questions :) --Rschen7754 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I ran last year I found the tedious mountain of questions that almost nobody actually reads the answers to to be the most annoying part of the entire experience. The field is indeed looking a bit thin, and given recent developments this seems like a good year for "ArbCom outsiders" to be running. Of course as a functionary I would expect preferential treatment if you did get elected. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The questions are just like the "evidence" presented at ArbCom cases. Nobody bothers to read it, not even the arbitrators, everyone comes with their preconceptions and votes accordingly. Eric Corbett 21:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Eric--I give the Arbs a bit more credit than that. How about I be a refreshingly new candidate who promises to break the system wide open from the inside and really makes a difference, really makes your vote count and your voice heard? Yes! I'm so different from all the others! <hugs puppie> I think I promised puppies to everyone when I ran from the board, and I didn't win that either. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. You can predict the outcome of pretty much any case based on the arbitrators involved, without troubling yourself by looking at the evidence. Eric Corbett 22:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, if you would look at evidence you would make THE difference to what I experienced, go for it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, stop being so shy about your poor result last time. Man up and stand this time, then everyone will see that fine young men like yourself are more thoughtful than the sillies who pretend to be involved. I certainly didn't think any less of you after the results of the last competition in which you participated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it wasn't that poor! Wasn't I the next in line? I'm still trying to figure out if I'm hurt over losing or relieved over not winning. But not winning is never fun, of course. I appreciate the note, though, Demiurge--thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think many of the reservations people had about WMF Board were that you only edit the English Wikipedia. That concern is not relevant in this one. --Rschen7754 02:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely possible. But I also got the feeling that there was an inside crowd there, and I'll leave it at that. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say I'd advise against it, for the sake of your sanity, & that of your family, & the contributions we'd lose. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Floquenbeam, Anthonyhcole, Gerda Arendt, Demiurge1000, Beeblebrox, et al--there's still another day or so to go, and I did draft a nomination, but I think that we have a decent bunch of editors running this time. Plus, I'm pretty busy this coming week, just when I need to answer a bunch of questions. So I think it's best to bow out for this time--and I am doing so in the utmost appreciation of all y'all's sentiments, expressed here and via email. I'll take the time to reflect more carefully on what ArbCom is and does, and what it doesn't do, and whether I can be a net positive next time around. Eric, you never know: things might change for the better. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a shame to lose a good arb, but it's great to keep a good admin. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I respect your decision, it really would be nice to have more than eight candidates running for the eight open slots, and especially if one of them was you. Go Phightins! 01:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • besides, we need to have some good candidates for next year... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know, that's really nice of you all to say, but I'm still not sure if this is something I want to or can do. And so you have no ground for saying I'd be a good candidate. I'm somewhat surprised that Floquenbeam is running, and I hope that ArbCom isn't as disenchanting as Johnbod and others have suggested. No, I need to do a bit more homework--read the recent cases (yes Gerda) and motions, and figure out what gets accepted and why, and what I think ArbCom is and should be. And the all-important questions: what about Kiefer, and what about civility? (I'm sort of kidding.) Drmies (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you could spend your first year in the company of User:Newyorkbrad - I can't think of a better mentor - or holder of corporate memory. (I won't think less of you if you change your mind now and nominate - most people are helpless in the face of my powers of persuasion.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a valid point Anthony. I couldn't think of a better one either. But this die has been cast, I'm afraid, given the time of the semester, exacerbated by some incomprehensible scheduling decisions made here. One sometimes gets the feeling that it's always fourth and eighteen in the AU system. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. Perhaps there will be a last minute rush of candidacies, as for the WMF board. We need some suckers, as not all the current lot will get enough support. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite multiple last-minute additions, I still felt the field was a bit thin, so ....groan... I threw my hat in again. I blame you. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moorkop

Just what the doctor ordered

Am I too late for breakfast or too early for dessert? Geoff Who, me? 17:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ooooh now that's tasty. With that, you're always right on time. My mom called today. She's visiting this month and wondered if she should bring the Zwarte Piet outfits (I'm sure you get the connection) for the kids that she found on sale somewhere. How do you explain to a Dutch woman what the ins and outs are of dressing up kids, in blackface, in Alabama? Drmies (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Gun Ri Massacre

This article might be interesting to you:

Ealdgyth - Talk 18:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is interesting, thanks, though I really don't want to inject myself in the article. I hope we have "Historiography of X" articles for all events. The Bateman paragraph has an interesting opening sentence: "Perhaps the one area where ordinary Koreans are allowed a role in their history is as victims". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh go ahead and inject yourself. That way the two battling editors would leave me alone. Besides, I have total confidence in your ability to innoculate the article appropriately; you're a quicker study than I am for this sort of thing. BTW, what about having the chocolate cupcakes pastries as the editing picture instead of the chocolate lab?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on now--they're not cupcakes, since they are filled with whipped cream. It doesn't get much more decadent than that. What Ealdgyth sent is a review article, which is what Wikipedia editors don't read (or use) often enough: it's the kind of article that will help establish whether something is an RS or not, and in this case the Bateman book fits the bill. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, will they leave my chocolate lab alone already ???? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, I was having a hard time finding nice choc lab shots--Mr. Wetso was the best I could do. Yours are cute! Bbb, I know (well, I figured you were some kind of corporate dude or dudette), and if you're ever interested I'll be glad to send it to you. Hint for all you young people not even thinking about middle age: now's the time to start realizing that it's history you've always wanted to study, and the best way to study history is to study historiography. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, put the fucking laptop down and turn on ESPN. Fourth quarter, dude. We're only up by 13. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Enough with the flirting. Down, boy, down!

Are you in the mood to sort out a lead for William Beach Thomas and perhaps tighten up the prose a little? You know that I am crap at this but no worries if you'd rather not. I've got a few journals to re-read but there aren't likely to be any many additions/removals to the text now. - Sitush (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took a crack at copy editing the lead. Please revert at will. I detect a disturbing undertone in the article, as if a Wikipedian wants to portray the fellow in a bad light. But perhaps it is Cullen328 who is the biased one. Here in California, we call a guy who advocates creation of national parks, protection of rural beauty, and appreciation of nature a "liberal". Perhaps in the United Kingdom, the correct term is "reactionary". Perhaps. But I see a bit of an agenda here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read the rest of the article, Cullen, and afterward, and when you read the historians who studied the love of nature that was so important, you'll see that "reactionary" is in fact objectively true for cats like that. Besides, there is a reference in the article (published by Manchester UP) which I'll accept on good faith but, if you like, I'll get the book through ILL and get more specific.

You're thinking of people like Muir and all that, and that's fine, but in Europe that kind of love of nature takes place in a very different political context: it is essentially reactionary. "Love of nature" doesn't become "progressive" in Europe until--I don't know, those naked boys doing gymnastics in Nazi Germany? Your note on national parks is instructive as well: I don't know how old the concept of national park is in Europe, but it's newer than and nothing like the Roosevelt idea in all its size and beauty and grandeur. "Love of the countryside" for someone like Beach Thomas is not necessarily love of the great wild Rocky Mountains--it's more likely to be love of an English countryside in which you could go hunt foxes while peons served you sherry. Correct me if I'm wrong, Sitush. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the rest of the article and I understand the points you are making. On the other hand, William Morris, one of the leading 19th century English socialists, advocated (it seems to me) somewhat similar ideas about nature, preservation and rural living. I am somewhat familiar with the history and inherent limitations of national parks in the UK, since that is closely associated with the history of rock climbing and British mountaineering. I've never previously heard that described as a "reactionary" movement, but perhaps I'm wrong. The Lake District and Peak District come to mind. So, I would like to see some excellent sourcing of the term "reactionary" which I consider to be highly POV terminology requiring excellent sourcing. Repetition intentional. Perhaps he really was a reactionary. If so, I should be convinced of that after reading the article, and I'm not so far. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both, for the work on the lead. That gave me the necessary impetus. I'll see if I can firm up the rural stuff - I have a house in the countryside and much prefer it to life in the city, I used to reguarly walk up to 40 miles a day with a tent on my back and I've done my share of climbing the wrong way up the big rocks of Britain. I think it is safe to say that I'm not deliberately skewing things against the man, although the sources may be. His appears to have been an paternalist romanticism and it fits perfectly well with, for example, those who mourned the passing of the English country house in the inter-war years: you cannot easily underestimate the long-term socio-economic and political effects of WWI. He seems very much to have been in the mode of Thomas Gray's Elegy in a Country Churchyard when the reality was nearer to Goldsmith's The Deserted Village. Oh, and he did write about fox hunting! - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tried to get a full view of this (around p. 100) using a proxy into the US version of GBooks. It still shows snippet view - can either of you see it in full? - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing but snippets. If you like I can try and get something through ILL, but I'll need article title and inclusive page numbers. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how reliable it would be but it appears in part to be a critique of Massingham vs Thomas. There is a copy for sale in Ireland at the moment but I'm not forking out for it, so if you'd be prepared to try ILL then the details are Musty, John (March 1985). "H. J. Massingham and W. Beach Thomas". Antiquarian Book Monthly Review. 12 (3 (Issue 131)): 94–102.. I am looking at buying A War of Individuals: Bloomsbury Attitudes to the Great War (2002), Jonathan Atkin - some people want £80+ for it but there is an Abebooks seller with 17 copies @ £5 each - might be a killing to be had there but I'm no speculator, so one copy will do me! - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, does the following quote help? It is from p. 21 of the cited Hemmings source:

The roots of the rural revival [movement] reach back to the end of [WW1]. The economy of the English countryside underwent a profound change between 1918 and 1928; one-quarter of English agricultural land changed ownership. Between the end of the war and 1920 alone, nearly 8 million acres were sold, signifying the largest-scale transfer of lands since the dissolution of the monasteries. While some attributed this loss of rural stability to the 'lost generation' of officers from the land-owning classes wiped out in the war, the less mythical but more likely cause involved the imposition of new and severe death duties combined with a depression in the agricultural economy. Within this economic climate, which fostered political debates about the merits of land nationalisation, rural revivalists mobilised their deeply nostalgic response. The English countryside could only be saved by the restoration of the village community. The socio-economic stability of this treasured social unit could be ensured by the revival of the great landlord estates or even the return of the peasantry, a virtuous group of imagined tenant-labourers who admired, without envying, their lords' wealth. While the pace of land exchange slowed in the 1930s and 1940s, the rural revival movement gathered strength with the threat and realisation of the renewal of modern war in 1939.

I'm wondering whether we have an article somewhere about this movement - it was pretty much a version of organicism. Their point was, in part, that the new landowners etc were speculators and not honour-bound custodians of the land. Beach Thomas even claimed that some land had become "prairie" because the new owners felt no duty to maintain it (someone, somewhere pointed out that he was being hyperbolic in his choice of adjective). - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interesting quote about the rural revival movement, Sitush, which is illuminating but in my view, doesn't support the usage of the term "reactionary" in this biography. Perhaps that is because I view the word "reactionary" as judgmental and highly POV, so I would prefer to see it referenced to more than one highly reliable source, and preferably in a quotation from a source instead of in Wikipedia's voice. I've done my own (probably inept) Google search for a source calling him a reactionary and have thusfar failed to find one. As for someone, somewhere accusing him of being hyperbolic in his use of the word "prairie", I would like to know more about the British connotations of that word in this fellow's professional lifetime, but even that nugget doesn't convince me. To be clear, I do readily accept the possibility that he may have been what in my opinion was a reactionary. Maybe he said "wog" and mocked Ghandi and wished Cornwallis had never surrendered, and that every building in Washington had been burned during the War of 1812, not just the White House. All I want is good solid convincing sourcing in a Wikipedia article, not what seems to me to be inference in Wikipedia's voice. Is that too much to ask? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afra and an ancient tree

Our Molly looks a little bit Winston Churchill as prime minister in 10 Downing Street, just a slight likness
Afra's new friend in heaven

Did Afra got out of the prison? Oh, Mies that place is closed, Konditorei in Lund, across from the church but look at this. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvilleken Warrington (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. Let's translate that for the English wiki. Afra, unrepentant, died of old age and you can find her in the archive. Her final words were, unsurprisingly, "woof--let me get at that cat..." followed by "screw a bunch of Norwegians". Drmies (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, let's translate that for the English wiki. And possibly a new DYK too. And you need a new puppy, imediately! well you skrue that puppy, as a Novegian would say. Hafspajen (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rumskulla oak begun. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a snippet about the oak being the location for the sex scenes in I Am Curious (Yellow) (with proper references, of course). We wouldn't want to leave that little bit out, would we? Thomas.W talk to me 17:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some good collaboration there, though I wish these municipalities would leave their pages up where they can be found. Those who still do DYK, feel free :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"DYK ... that the sex scenes in the controversial 1967 film I Am Curious (Yellow) where shot inside the Rumskulla oak, an oak tree that is more than 1,000 years old?" Thomas.W talk to me 19:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC) (unashamedly pushing my own minor contribution to the article...)[reply]
The DYK nomination's been done BUT I need Mandarax to drop by and sort the credits on it; I added Hafspajen as it was his idea - maybe Drmies should also be added as it originated on this talk page? Now I'm off to do some real work! SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I had seen the note on the nom asking someone to do it, and I took care of it, immediately after which I saw the notification that you'd mentioned me here. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Not only an excellent, prompt service but also done with a smile - the customer service on this page is superb ... feel free to change the image I submitted with the nom, some of the others in the article might re-produce better! SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't y'all even think about adding me, though I am more than pleased to be a facilitator. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
This made me laugh! Why, could it be such a Sheldon? Sam Sailor Sing 18:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I was all set to take credit for two conjectures that I clearly internalized from Casanova's article last time I read in 2008 or so. Luckily these aren't the point of my article, but you saved me from getting some egg on my face.  davidiad { t } 13:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glad to be of service, sir. I thought of you last night when I got my one special beer out of the fridge--I had accidentally bought a Nocturnum instead of a Tremens! Good thing it was good. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You bet that stuff's good. It's actually the lady's favorite beer now, which is funny because she used to be able to tolerate only low-alcohol American mega-brewery "lagers". They have a holiday Delirium out that's pretty festive, but not really to my liking.  davidiad { t } 18:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a bit of time...

...can you please take a look at these threads: [2], [3], [4]? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more background here. It's not the content dispute that's my concern - there was a clear consensus about that - but the behavior of the editor, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, your comma conveys meaning you probably didn't intend. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wish you hadn't made that final revert. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, completely correct.

Incidentally, I never claimed that the editor was making bad edits, just that he was following me, as he clearly was. If every time you open a new door, the same person is in the room, it hardly matters that he's dusting off your books in the living room the first time, and vacuuming your office carpet the second time, and making what smells like a yummy lasagna in the kitchen the third time, it's the fact that they are there that's creepy. Every time I turned around he'd pop up on my watchlist, on a article I'd just edited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, if you put it that way. (With ricotta or bechamel sauce? there is a wrong answer.) Well, let's hope that there will be plenty of sunlight between your edit histories. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(With intense fear of answering incorrectly) Ricotta, mozzarella, and grated paremsan and romano. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentially, this editor has had a history of edit-warring and generally being uncooperative; see his block log for details.
In reality, I was never insulting or harassing BMK. Basically, this editor is just making mountain out of a molehill. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 01:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with BMK's block log, and many's the time that I've been tempted to put the poor guy out of his misery. He just keeps coming back, like zombies or a bad penny. For the record, Epicgenius, you've been on my radar too today, at ANEW, purely by chance. I'm not sure why you reported 63.100.172.20 and not CanadianLinuxUser, or why you didn't check to see whether the IP was reported elsewhere already (they were, at AIV), or whether maybe they were correct in their edits and were incorrectly reverted. I think you should have a look at that section. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius has been blocked 24 hours for edit-warring on my talk page, where he's been asked not to post, but before that happened, he did it again. 200 West Street is an article he hasn't edited since May. I edited it, and he's the very next edit [5], with an edit summary suggestion that I shouldn't be "an asshole", which I actually don't understand because my edit on that article had nothing to do with him. (I had added a hatnote to the article two weeks ago, and he changed it from plain text to a template. Is it that I'm an "asshole" because I didn't use a template? I don't get it. My edit immediately before his was reverting a number change with no change of source, always a sign of possible sneaky number vandalism. Am I an "asshole" because of that?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you'd be an asshole, BMK. I hope they'll stay away from you--and vice versa of course. Can we let this go now and see if there's improvement ("daylight") between the two of you in the next few weeks? Drmies (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, fine with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really did intend that, but I got sucked it again, since Epicgenius made several hundred edits today using his alternate account User:Epicfailure 2, after taking steps to remove the connection between the accounts. Then he edited his own user page with a third account User:Ef alt, removing the connection between accounts, with an edit summary that said (paraphrasing) "Stop f***** lying, I'm not Epicgenius." The thing is, I have the diffs where Epicgenius affirmed that he was Epicfailure 2 in order to get rollback for that account, and the diffs where he affirmed that he was Ef alt to get that account confirmed.

This has all been reported to Bwilkins, who blocked him, and EdJohnston, who protected his talk page after the self-vandalism. (Ed didn't know it was Epicgenius doing it to himself, of course), so there's nothing I'm asking you to do, I'm just here to apologize for not staying out of it when I said I would - but his wierd behavior sucked me back into it again, which I already regret. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny is that I saw some Epicfailure edits go by on Recent changes and was wondering if it was the same person. Guess that question's answered now. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted outing

Hi Drmies. Thank you for your help with this this dispute. Unfortunately there's still a little remaining fallout. Prior to being blocked, one of this editor's socks engaged in a little extracurricular tit-for-tat with me over at Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an otherwise extremely quiet article. Now a brand-new editor has reverted me on the same page while attempting to out me in the edit comment. This might have been done in good faith in ignorance of WP:OUTING, or there might be a WP:SOCK/WP:BE/WP:HARASSMENT issue. Unfortunately it's impossible to know for sure, given the use of proxy servers. There is already some behavioral evidence for that, though it's not conclusive given the new account's brief editing history. In any case I have no appetite for confrontation and possibly false accusation. I'm just hoping you can help me erase the attempted outing. I read somewhere that's possible, though I've never dealt with this sort of issue before. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both you and Yngvadottir. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belen case

I just saw. It is indeed a mess. I did not realize it when I saw the AIV report. Thank you for fixing the article, but am unsure on what is next here. Neither the IP nor CanadianLinuxUser had been warned of 3RR so I am unsure what is the proper response other than a stern warning. Blocking LinuxUser now may not be fair as the EW has stopped. I considered now unblocking the IP and warning then saw they had already requested and been declined. I added a PageNotice to the article. Hopefully this will help in the future, or at least make a case for further blocking after they blatantly disregard it. What next? -- Alexf(talk) 23:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted there. Thx for the HU. -- Alexf(talk) 23:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Them lovebirds

MIES, could you please have a look at the PERSONAL section in Henk Timmer (footballer)? Just provide a translation for the first source (seems like the same verb of REF#2 in another tense, but i'm not going to bet on it of course) if you please.

If the dates on said sources are correct (2011, 2012), funny they only married then (and by the way, did they marry twice in one year? Must be really in love!), because that piece of information has been in his article since 2009 at least.

Thanks in advance with whatever you can provide (aquatic poetry is what i am seeing above as i write these words, majestic pose, or should i say "pawse"?), regards from Portugal --AL (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This was within my limited competence. "going to marry" vs. "married". And the 1st says they haven't set a date while the 2nd has stuff about her strapless wedding gown. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir/ma'am, whistle anytime you need anything wiki-wise! --AL (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aww you two, glad y'all could help each other. VASCO, you know what a Dutch oven is? My seven-year old apparently learned how to make them, on the couch, sitting next to me covered with a blanket, watching Chopped. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, what is it? If it's a sweet i want to know about that one! --AL (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speechless. Is that also a Niederlanshiche term? Drmies, you're a real parent if you're posting that. My cat Tinsel has perfected the recipe, by the way.  davidiad { t }

Extremely sensitive admin request

Drmies, you have mail, and though I know it is your typical policy not to conduct wiki-business through email, this is somewhat of an extenuating circumstance. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Go Phightins! 04:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German stalker vandal

He hasn't misbehaved for almost a whole day now, presumably because of this. Cute.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=582484875"