User talk:Drmies/Archive 104

Archive 100

←

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

→

Archive 110

The Mandelbrot Barnstar

		The Mandelbrot Barnstar
		I am pleased to award this special barnstar to you in recognition of the exemplary work done by you and the rest of the Arbitration Committee. I know the work is difficult and time-consuming, but I suspect that I haven't the slightest idea of how truly difficult and time-consuming it really is. To give some context about the nature of this particular barnstar.... Long ago and far away, I wrote a program on an ancient PC to create images of portions of the Mandelbrot set. I would select what I hoped would be a promising starting point but never knowing exactly what I'd end up with. Weeks later it would finally be done (I may be slightly misremembering quite how long it took), and I was always amazed and delighted at how beautiful it had ended up. (Of course, with modern-day equipment and software, I'm sure these can be computed in seconds, so the analogy can be shifted to something about complexity.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Mandarax, I'm going to accept this and feel proud, since I respect you and your dedication to our beautiful project immensely. I'm also going to add that a. ArbCom is far from perfect, though that's in large part to blame on structures and demands, and b. there's more than a few members on ArbCom who are so much more deserving of this award than I am. As for the Mandelbrot Set, I don't understand even the first sentence, but it is a good reminder--I still have some almond paste laying around, and it's getting to be time for Kerststol. Thank you Mandarax, Drmies (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'd never heard of kerststol, but it looks delicious. After I saw what it was, I realized the solution to what initially appeared to me as a mystery regarding your "reminder". Some day I'll bring a specially formed pastry to a gathering, and it will be referred to as the Mandarax-brought Mandelbrot-shaped Mandelbrodt. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• …which will be served at sunset. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

IP COI Edits

This IP editor admits to being affiliated with an apparent competitor called Tallyfy [1][2] (never heard of it before). After the article about their company was deleted[3] the editor went around prodding articles on more than a half-dozen competitors.[4] It came to my attention because they prodded the GA-rated article on Smartsheet I authored with a disclosed COI. They even prodded an open source company[5] (not likely to ever be deleted even if warranted), and a very notable software company called Pegasystems, which has $700 million in revenues and is clearly notable. Seemed like something worth flagging to... somebody, as I am obviously not in a position to deal with it due to COI. CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Corp. I think I undid all of them--please check me. I warned them, and if they do it again I will block. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring and spamming at Lovelyz

Hi doc. Hope everything is well on your side of the woods. We have spamming. edit-warring and copyvios at Lovelyz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The latest version is not as bad as the previously reverted ones but it would be ideal if you checked the article just in case. Thanks. Dr. K. 09:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of K-pop and its dedicated followers. I added a section on endorsements on the talk page to reach consensus as opposed to engage in edit-warring. Karst (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well now--we have Dr. K and Karst on K-pop. Something smells skunky here. Y'all's good hand-bad hand accounts should seriously stop alliterating; it's supremely out of fashion. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

At least we were not editing K.Will. And I can assure you, I hold neither a doctorate (yet) nor am I an electrical engineer. Karst (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus

Can you cite anyone other than ROB or Swarm who thinks this was a good block. The Rambling Man, @Sphilbrick:, the administrator who unblocked me and more thought other wise. What you are really intending with your edit is to shut down a conversation that might endanger your fellow administrator. Did you read anything Sphilbrick wrote like 'I think something other than "William. you're unblocked, so just shrug it off and get back to editing" should be the next step.' or 'The block of an established editor came with no warning, and no justification. If that is now the definition of a good block, I'm outa here.' ??

• I didn't say it was a good block. I said "There is no consensus that this was a bad block", which is correct. And I did read what Sphilbrick wrote; those are valuable comments. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Why close the thread after what Sphilbrick said except to protect your fellow administrator. And as for the consensus I disagree and the conversation was still onging? Do I have to make an Arbcom case to get people to address the bullshit that happened today? I should have done it with Orlady two years ago. If this thread isn't reopened, I will try my luck with Arbcom....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • William, first of all, a bit of good faith. I understand you're pissed cause you got blocked, but take it easy. It's over, and like me you can take comfort in the thought it was a bad block, etc. So this "to protect your fellow administrator", ahem. Well. Second, a few opinions were expressed, and if this goes on it will end up as a much longer thread with the same conclusion. It was not a bad block--it was an unwise block, maybe, a block that some of us would not have made, but it was not a crazy block. As for the alleged rollback abuse, maybe--but you're missing the point here. Cryptic was chastised in that thread and I hope they took note of it. You may have missed my criticism of Cryptic in my close, but I am sure they did not. Also, reverting an admin in such a situation is foolish, not to mention irritating, disruptive, and a timesink. Also, I don't see why you have to bring Orlady into this. Finally, this was ANI. There was no "incident" which required an admin's intervention. You're better off bringing it up at AN--but if I were you I'd do so with a bit less anger. Or go right ahead and take it to ArbCom, like everyone else seems to be doing: those lazy bums have nothing to do there anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

[6] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

OS

Thanks! Felsic2 (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• No problem, Felsic. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Help

How would you suggest a helpful way of getting that image down? The user who uploaded it has been blocked and banned not long after they uploaded it, for editing and vandalizing. That image was not taken here and I don't see how it can stay without a reliable source. I'm clueless about the whole wikipedia thing TBH, so sorry if I am doing this wrong. Undetermined21 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC) undetermined21

• OK, this is a start. Thanks.

  First of all, the image (File:Mississippi White Knights in Poplarville.jpg) is still with "us", on Wikipedia--it was flagged to be moved to Commons and that would complicate everything. I removed that suggestion so we can keep it local, for now. Second, you (plural--also Anonymous79261 and that editor with two different IPv6 addresses--I sure hope y'all are not the same person) need to clearly indicate what the problem is. That it's "not representative" may well be true but it's not an argument for deletion. I have the feeling that y'all are concerned with Poplarville's public image, or perhaps with the public image of someone in the photo (the white dude without the mask?), but that in itself is also not a valid reason for deletion--at least not for us. Yes, I know that user is blocked (talk page watchers, we're talking about User:God Save the South, a sock of User:Confederate till Death--you can't make this shit up), but that also doesn't mean the image is somehow invalid.

  Now, if you're suggesting that somehow this was not in the place in which the uploader said it was, that's a different thing--but I don't see how we would have a reason to not believe it was where they said it was. So you really need to formulate a good reason for deletion. But this is also where my knowledge has run its course, and I'll call in an expert: Crisco 1492, what do you make of this? Drmies (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Undetermined21: I did some searching and I'm afraid that statue in the background, with the historic marker next to it, looks an awful lot like the Pearl River County Courthouse. But it does seem unfair that that's the first Google image result I get when I search for Poplarville, Mississippi, and that they are using it in their faked-up infobox. The solution I would suggest is, get out in the streets in Poplarville, take a bunch of nice photos of the place, upload them to Commons, and create a category there for Poplarville. Then make an external link in the article to that category, and insert a representative photo—maybe of the courthouse, I don't know the place so I can't really make a suggestion—in the infobox of the article, above the locator map. That should cause Google eventually to use that image in their box. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Y--that's exciting. Road trip! Drmies (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't find anything on Flickr that had the proper license, but I don't know Flickr that well. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've done the steps that I can do from here: I've created the category on Commons, populated it with the two pictures Commons has, and put the courthouse one in the article infobox. Over to the locals now. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It will be a while before I go to MS again. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank y'all. It definitely has everything to do with the image of Poplarville, so any help appreciated. Drmies I edited once without an ID then made an ID last night, so anonymous wasn't me, my IP showed up on the first one. Is there anyway making an edit stating Poplarville isn't affiliated with the KKK, they can hold rallies anywhere, legally. This town is so small you know when someone flushes the toilet, not joking. As for the guy without the mask don't know him, we know everyone. I'm going to do my best with what is suggested for adding pics, learn as I go. Poplarville has Pearl River Community College, Blueberry Jubilee pics, and street pics already on google if anyone can help me with those. I can verify them. If any of y'all decide to make a road trip to Poplarville it is a nice town and everyone is friendly, not too much to do but eat,and local school sports, have some festivals here and there the big one is the blueberry jubilee in June, lol. FYI I may have done this twice, don't see my first one. sorry. Undetermined21 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi All. Just got word of this from Drmies . I teach Writing with Wikipedia at the University of Mississippi. I will ask my students and colleagues to see if we can get some more representative images of Poplarville in to the Commons. Bob Cummings (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, Undetermined, that Klan rally in 2007 was a pretty big deal, apparently--according to the papers/internet ([7]). We can't wish that away anymore than we can wish racism out of the south in the first place; I'm sure Bob Cummings knows about this too, and he has probably read as many freshman papers as I have involving the Klan and the Rebel Flag. Noteworthy how "Latin immigration" was one of the focal points of that rally; it goes to show that the Klan doesn't discriminate in discriminating. On the bright side, that crowd was pretty well behaved when these masked clowns got their moment in the spotlight--despite the N-word provocations. Haha, black folk in the audience are just ridiculing the guy. Out of evil good will come forth, maybe. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps Poplarville could become a tourism destination for anti-racist clowns. With a yearly clownfest organized in co-operation with the blueberry jubilee? MPS1992 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That video 100% without a doubt was NOT poplarville. The Klan can host a Rally ANYWHERE, doesn't mean the residents condone it. No wonder it is so hard to get a reliable source anywhere these days. Undetermined21 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Look at the arch door.

Oh, you're sure about that? I didn't look so carefully for that--I was more interested in how the crowd responded. With remarkable calm! I really enjoyed seeing that, esp. since I know a bit about Mississippi, having married into it. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, if we don't foresee using this image in an actual encyclopedia article, we should delete it. What potential article does anyone see using this for? WP:UNDUE would argue against having it in the Poplarville, Mississippi article, and the Klan article has enough photos that I can't see adding this one. This was a typical klan rally, it's not like this rally is going to get an article. We aren't Commons; if there's no potential encyclopedic use, we shouldn't host it. However, this would require a deletion discussion which seems like a lot of work.

But lucky us: Doesn't WP:CSD#G5 apply? He created the file while indef blocked. Easy-peasy.

If nobody buys that argument (which I think is the best way to handle it), at the very least, we could rename it from File:Mississippi White Knights in Poplarville.jpg to File:Mississippi White Knights rally.jpg, which might help with the Google "infobox" problem.

Normally, I'd say problems like this are Google problems not Wikipedia problems. But since it's Google's "infobox" image because it's on Wikipedia, and we're hosting an image that some troll uploaded that is frankly never going to be used in an encyclopedia article, I'd say it's a Wikipedia problem too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Floq, I hadn't even thought about that--I was probably stuck in the Commons way of thinking, where "possible encyclopedic use" is NEVER a concern. But that's how it is proposed for deletion now, I believe. Sure, renaming it is valid, and of course putting it in the Poplarville article would be a ridiculous act--but as a Klan photo I can see its use. (I don't know how much of those there are; I haven't looked for them and I aim to keep it that way.) Now, the deletion discussion is going on and I certainly don't mind applying IAR here if it doesn't get deleted. One more thing, though: if it's moved to Commons, would it still show up in the same way in that Google box? I just don't know those things. Thanks for weighing in, Drmies (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Funny photo! Mr Gumby, Norman Bates, and two boneheads wearing niqabs and burqas. The rest of them look like some weird Rainbow Nation. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've only logged on. That looks like a heck of a pickle. I am not sure "unencyclopedic" would apply to this, especially if 1) the location is correctly identified, and 2) the rally had coverage. Yes, it could perhaps be anywhere, but that's not much of an argument. The fact that this image shows up in the Google "infobox" is concerning. I do hope replacing it reduces the image's prominence. I agree that it would be better for us to get many more representative images of Poplarville.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not appearing in the Google infobox any more, though it does still come up first for me in image search. I'm afraid I've put it to use elsewhere in the encyclopedia; I think that other than getting us other photos of Poplarville, what's needed now is to rename it. Undetermined21 has left a nice thankyou note on their user talk, indicating that many of the folks there joined in to try to fix this; I think that's great and I hope we get to keep them all as editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Well

It seems some blue-footed booby dropped off a major social media site. LadyofShalott 04:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is this a cryptic crossword? Because I'm not very good at them. How many letters? And what's the first letter? Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Longish story. The little titmouse only tweets privately now. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. Sorry (as I can only imagine something unpleasant led to it). LadyofShalott 06:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Novels etc.

Hey Drmies - and thank you for the update. You're right about the complications of North and South, but things start moving fairly quickly when you get to the end. Did I mention that I finally finished my latest reading of it? A lot more people die off, but you won't miss them much (and there's one whom I really didn't miss at all), but it's worth ploughing on. I've got the Mabinogion on my shelf but haven't started yet. I got detoured into the (relatively) new translations of Kafka: The Trial and The Castle, which I'm working through now. I think these are books that seem a lot better in one's twenties and thirties than afterwards; the repetitions and predictability become more obvious.

I promise not to urge Sir Walter Scott on you, though I keep meaning to go back to him. Still, modern Scottish writing can be a lot of fun. Neil M. Gunn ought to be better-known outside Scotland; The Silver Darlings is well worth a read, and The Drinking Well is terrific. Can't the same of the very popular Lewis Grassic Gibbon. And please don't offer me a taste of haggis. Once was enough.

Probably you're deep in the semester, as I am. BTW, I once heard Paul de Man give a lecture (one of the ones that became a famous essay, the one with the pun about "Archie Debunker"). It was a very strange experience, but that's a story for another post. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Quick note cause I'm at a party: I got Scott covered, haha. Thanks. Later! Drmies (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Alright Macspaunday, that novel moved toward its conclusion very quickly. There should have been a volume 3, with a trip to Spain, a wedding, a honeymoon (no! the honeymoon is the trip to Spain!), a scene or two at a cemetery, a dinner party with Thornton and Margaret and Higgins... So who didn't you miss? Mr. Bell? Haha, speaking of reading then and now, have you ever read Koestler's Darkness at Noon? I found it actually held up pretty good thirty years after... Anyway, thanks for the Gaskell suggestion. I am glad I read those books. I will have forgotten them soon (my memory...), and then I will get to read them again in a few years. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Split.

• "In December 1944 Koestler travelled to Palestine [...] There he had a clandestine meeting with Menachem Begin, the head of the Irgun terrorist organisation, who was wanted by the British and had a 500-pound bounty on his head." Traveller steps into a railway carriage and discovers a man with a large toad squatting on his head. "Blimey mate! What's that?" "I don't know, it started off as a wart on my bum." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I knew you would be the first to respond; you did not disappoint. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Once upon a time -- rather recently, actually -- I was sure that I completely understood all Europeans! Now I am lost again. MPS1992 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Alright Macspaunday--in the meantime I read Spring Came On Forever, which I came up on by chance--I was at a stranger's house, and their book case must have been inherited from a parent, so I asked to borrow a book. As it turns out there was another person at the party who, like me, started top left and had the intention of reading the whole wall; I'll skip the Dean Koontz, though. Anyway, turned out to be a pretty decent novel, a tearjerker in places. Next up is Bruno Schulz, suggested to me by another Wikipedian. And all that so I don't have to continue reading De Man, I'm sad to say. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Dutch

Hi. You're Dutch? Debresser (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Used to be. If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hahah - dank u JarrahTree 16:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Netherlands has strict rules on its nationality. Which reminds me, I have to renew my passport next year. Karst (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Oeps--thanks for the reminder. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ow goodie. November this year. Time to travel to the other side of the country... The Banner talk 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes. A trip down to Merrion Road. Enjoy!. Karst (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, nice to meet you then. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You might want to put {{User Dutch}} on your userpage. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• “if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere." A dog-whistle quote from Theresa May, eejit-in-chief of the shrinking island of Perfidious Albion. As we have gender-neutral, maybe we should have ethnicity-neutral. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Why in the world would a person want to belie their gender, ethnicity, faith or whatever? It is part of what makes us who we are. Debresser (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Erhard Milch. Crimean Karaites. etc. etc. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand there is also Jews in Nazi Germany, but regularly, I mean. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Especially after reading Peter Brown's The Myth of Nations I'm kind of done with nationhood and citizenship. Sure, it makes us--in part--what we are, but there is so much more. I have edited Danilo Kiš, for instance, with the express purpose of leaving out "nationhood" or citizenship because a. it's really quite complicated in his case and b. what was more important for his biography is the language that was his home. For me, English is my home more than Dutch is; I don't like it, necessarily, but it's the way it is. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• My ethnic group has the words "whilst" and "amongst" in its lexicon Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah we still haven't beaten that out of y'all, have we. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been half of one kind and half of another kind all my life, in both language and nationality, and still don't really know what I am... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I read and write in English more than I do in Dutch too, and I left Holland more than half a lifetime ago. But it still is a defining part of me. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

On identity politics and this wonderful kaleidoscopic world, I'll just put this link here: "I wanted to be bigger than Bill Gates — but I fell in love with the blues". And note that our coverage of the Bay Area blues scene is woeful. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of EuroMayDay

The article EuroMayDay has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article fails WP:N and has zero references (WP:V). Based on some research, it looks like a defunct holiday that was never really notable in distinction from May day. I can't find any evidence that this has been celebrated since 2014.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

User:Drmies, I recognized your name in the edit history of this page and thought you might like to provide some input on the PROD. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Haha, thanks for checking. I really only have one comment: "PROD2". Drmies (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Quick question and then some

If I'm in a dispute resolution forum like AE, and I mention someone (not in a flattering way), and accordingly ping that person, is there any reason why that would be inadequate notification? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Turning off pings is an option which many people use. MPS1992 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well, if you're filing a complaint against them you should notify them properly. Pinging is not generally considered to be a proper notification. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

All good to know, thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You were talking about that "under the bus" comment by Mr X, I suppose? I saw that in passing when I was reading over the request. I didn't read your entire set of comments, but IIRC you mentioned them but didn't really charge them with anything, so I think that their response was unwarranted. I talk bad about people behind their back all the time--it's much more fun that way. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it was Alice Roosevelt Longworth who said something like, "If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all to me --- above a whisper."🍿Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll consider my response I presume.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I already did. Sorry, Anything, but I really don't see your point, nor do I understand why you let it get this far. Fighting over "rape" was worth it, as I think I indicated on the talk page as well, but this wasn't. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  I edited and lengthened my response at AE, so I'll just repeat it here in case you missed the lengthened version: "I stand by what I said too. It's like putting in the lead of your BLP that you're a convicted criminal because you once committed a slight misdemeanor. Technically correct but grossly and unnecessarily misleading. Got it now? People see 'sexual assault' and very often think 'rape'."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I saw, and I got it, but I don't believe that. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Believe it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• The number of sources that say "sexual assault" is overwhelming ([8], [9], [10], [11], etc.) and you're clutching at straws with the argument that "sexual assault" makes people think rape (unjustly) just because it's a broad term. Mind you, some of the things that are being described aren't kissing at all. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• The number is overwhelming, and my willingness to put "sexual assault" into the lead is overwhelming as long as we indicate what we mean by it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You're either misunderstanding, Drmies, or incorrect for some other reason. "While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...." ‪Paludi, Michele. Campus Action Against Sexual Assault, p. 56 (‬ABC-CLIO, 2016) (actually a chapter by others in that book). No one here has offered any evidence suggesting that "sexual assault" is not usually seen as rape. And even if it were not usually seen as rape, it is always seen as possibly rape. I expected more of you, doctor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Anything, WP is not like real-life lawyering, in which you may feel that you have a duty to your client to try out even the most far-fetched and illogical theories just in case they advance the client's cause. Even if you, personally, were confused about the difference between assault and rape, and despite the fact that any of us could dig up some tenuous interpretation of statutory language to confuse the issue, you know that WP must reflect how the topic is discussed in Reliable Sources -- sources, btw, that fully understand the legal issues and the importance of clear language in their reporting. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As you know, virtually all the reliable sources that discuss these things as "sexual assault" allegations specify what kind of sexual assault allegations. You (and unfortunately Drmies) have supported excluding the latter information from the lead, which is really not just cherry-picking, but fraudulent and slanderous and partisan cherry-picking that distorts what the reliable sources say, in my opinion. You might as well write anything whatsoever in a BLP, and then claim that every letter you used was also used in a reliable source about the same person.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As you know, the article text makes clear exactly what Trump is alleged to have done, so I think whitewashing the lede is kind of pointless to begin with. I forget for the moment whether the article relates in detail Trump's boast about pussy-grabbing and non-consesual kissing, but at any rate the article text does relate clearly what RS say and mean wrt assault (per my remark above). Now, unlike in a court of law -- where it's often possible for attorneys or witnesses to get away with lies, and where it's sometimes possible to confuse tired, distracted, or ignorant jurors, WP is inhabited by the best and the brightest! Here we have editors skilled in applying policy and insisting on Verification. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You ought to know very well that I am not trying to whitewash anything. And you also know very well that WP:LEAD says "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read....The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic."[12]. SPECIFICO, I don't find it useful to speak with you further about this, because I don't think you know how to listen.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Anythingyouwant, please don't make me a party in your edit war, and please don't speak condescendingly. Perhaps you expected more of me--well, I suppose those who agreed with me at the AE request expected more from you, a seasoned editor. As for the semantics, well, "it is always seen as possibly rape": on the other hand, "rape" doesn't always mean what you suggest it means. Just ask the lock. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Your opposition to sanctions for explicitly and also suggestively writing that Trump is accused of rape has absolutely nothing to do with the extremely remote possibility that any reader will understand the word "rape" to mean a seizure having nothing to do with sexual intercourse. Right? (And I haughtily deny any condescension!)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't oppose any "suggestive" writing, as far as I know. Sorry, but the point has been argued to death now. I understand you don't want to accept it. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• You oppose sanctions for suggesting allegations of rape in the lead, and instead you support sanctions for removing that suggestion from the lead. And you cite some trivial obsolete definition of the word "rape". No, I don't accept blatant politically-motivated propaganda in Wikipedia articles. Good day (and week and year).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm scratching my head, wondering what you are trying to achieve here. Are you pestering those who agreed with me also? Or am I that special to you? Do you think your continued commenting (and that is a euphemism) will make me change my mind? Maybe being even more condescending might be even more effective? Do you do this every time you're on the losing end of an argument? Does it ever work? Drmies (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe she thinks you can be persuaded to address some major concerns meaningfully, as admin conditions require, namely:

• Most sources list the primary definition of of "sexual assault" as rape, i.e. penetrative, which is not the case here
• None of the cited sources use "sexual assault" without qualifying it, whereas the text she removed from the article did
• The filer of the complaint violated an arbitration remedy to insert the removed text, which you refuse to address despite specific and repeated requests

It gives the impression you're more interested in editors' political leanings than their actions, which one hopes you'd be eager to correct. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And your attempt is even worse. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What Lambden said. Plus:

• Are you pestering those who agreed with me also?
  • No.
• Or am I that special to you?
  • Yes, I have had high regard for you. Plus you're leading the way in this thing. Plus you once told me it's fine to bug decision-makers at their user talk pages.
• Do you think your continued commenting (and that is a euphemism) will make me change my mind?
  • At first I did. Now I don't.
• Maybe being even more condescending might be even more effective?
  • I already haughtily denied that.
• Do you do this every time you're on the losing end of an argument?
  • Nope.
• Does it ever work?
  • Yes, it gives me the satisfaction of making sure I did everything possible to be as clear as possible. Just like it gives me satisfaction to say that the bird of paradise should fly up your nose.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anything and James J. Lambden. You are wasting time here. This is very simple. (1) Please do not violate revert rules on any pages. Period. (2) If you want to refer to a policy, such as WP:BLP, you should really read and understand that policy. (3) Do not bring unjustified complaints about other users to WP:AE only to withdraw them. (4) Do not do WP:Forum shopping. (5) WP:Dead horse. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

tiny, quotidian triumphs

De Avonden, English translation to be published November 3. The translator wasn't credited in the article, so it's probably Google or Bing. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• It deserves its place in the canon. Het proza van Reve, dat is leven. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Publisher gives the name: Sam Garrett. Hmm. [13], [14], [15], [16]. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

muddiness and clarity

Certainly not up to summary level of justice, or even capital offence case construction, more of a a suspicion of widespread misuse -[17] I hope it might go to the core of the issues, massive parent/child cat combination creating a system of complicated category issues - by no means the main culprit on wp en, but lets not go down that road JarrahTree 03:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I was quite dissappointed my favourite category/sort whizzes seem to be absent for some time - I am sure if they had been active they would have some interesting things to say. I do hope you are able to understand the issue now, as I do value your opinion, and the problem with so many eds they seem to have no appreciation of how confused category work can stuff things up, the Indonesian project has the legacy of something similar - we might never get rid of the problem once it has been created. JarrahTree 03:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

wow that was a quick draw, I didnt even have my holster in the same room... cheers JarrahTree 03:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Glenn Rhee

Hello good Dr, any chance you can lock this article? Thanks and best regards from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• I figured it was you had that little run-in with that 11-year old. I'm sorry it took all of six minutes to block that XXX. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Quite alright. Much appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that awful show started again, didn't it. I saw someone in a trailer and some other guy with an axe, and there was a head that was still jawing. And then there were humans killing other humans. Forgive me--I went back to watching the football game. My old friend tedder is a huge Seahawks fan, I'm sure. Anyway, those articles, where no one seems to understand the difference between "article on a character" and "blank slate to list every little plot detail", should all be brought to within 10k. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Amen on all counts. Tonight I watched some British serials on PBS with Mrs. 99; not very good, but age appropriate, I suppose. I hardly even care about football anymore. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, like that show about that guy who has no food and goes hunting and tries to shoot a rabbit and then falls down the hill? Yeah, I don't like comedy... This football game isn't terrible. But stewed rabbit is better, no doubt. Please tell Mrs. 99 I said hi, and that I wish her the best. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what we were watching. I wasn't terribly taken with the plot, but I'd watch almost anything to be next to Mrs. 99. Consider your sentiments forwarded. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

For the record, not a Seahawks fan. See also. :) tedder (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• So noted. That turned out to be a strange, strange game, didn't it. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oh tedder, that is pretty good. I like the note about sacrifice and ritual. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI and AE

Hi Drmies,

Seeing that there are two reports filed against me, one at AE, and one at ANI, I'm a bit confused on how to proceed from here.

1. Do I need to respond to both, or could they just be merged into one (AE)? AE would make sense since even at ANI the filing party is referring to ARBMAC.
2. I need a few days to respond (not later than Friday). Would that be OK?

Best. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni: Dear DevilWearsBrioni, I have requested now the closure of the ANI discussion since it is pointless to have the same discussion on two different boards. You should just reply on the AE where the discussion has been moved. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Inter-Collegiate Business Competition

Hi Drmies and talk page stalkers, I come across articles like this and roll my eyes, and not just metaphorically. Anyone want to take a crack at further clean-up? Makes a claim to notability, but for all the labor intensive content, nothing is sourced. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• One thought I have is whether this is indeed notable enough for a stand alone, or would be better redirected to Stephen J.R. Smith School of Business. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I'm usually hesitant to redirect an article that's been around for that long, which is why I ask for other opinions. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. I understand the sentiment--but if something is thus crufty, and this unverified... Drmies (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes. Also the redirect option didn't occur to me until after the back-and-forth had occurred. Given the COI history of the article, I wouldn't be surprised if it's restored. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hans John Hansen

Looking at the history of Hans John Hansen one of the editors was that person-so it is probably a SPA there and the same person. Wgolf (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, one of the edit summaries said so. Mind you, not in a funny way, though they claimed they were a comedian. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Another headscratcher

Herman Basudde, which I came across in surveying the edit history of its creator. Shall I just remove everything, or is an AfD appropriate? I'm hesitant out of respect for the subject, but this is a memorial. Talk page stalkers welcome. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think you should make a real article out of it. [18], [19], [20]. What also needs rewriting is his former companion, Paulo Kafeero. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think those references help establish notability, but as passing mentions they're small help for fleshing out a biography. 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah I know. There's more in Google News, but very little from the Western media. I wonder if this is the kind of music Westerners care for. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Care for or not, adding non-Western subjects is problematic if there's lack of coverage in this hemisphere, a situation that's complicated by the gentleman's having lived some time ago. And then there's the additional obstacle of the article's creator. Take deletion off the table, and it's still a bit in limbo. 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I just saw--nice pruning. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Jambo jambo mzungus! "kind of music Westerners care for"- Frank Gossner, WOMAD etc. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you maybe help out?

Hey I'm having some trouble with another user on Shinee's page, apparently the opinion of an unbiased reporter who is reviewing the group is less relevant than the opinion of their own label. I don't want to start an edit war so a second opinion who can clarify this argument would be helpful.--Thebestwinter (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, is management now openly editing the article? Thanks--I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much I just saw it. I appreciate the help although it's a shame I thought it was a trustworthy user.--Thebestwinter (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    • It's worse than that, Thebestwinter--where do you think I've been the last 45 minutes? Answer: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Requiem II. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

See AE comment in my own section

Hey Drmies. Regarding your request here. I've already modified the user's ban, as noted in my own section. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ed, thank you so much, and my apologies for the oversight. I'll go ahead and close it. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 October

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

• On the Darren Espanto page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Stop looking at cats, check this page and fix the errors highlighted immediately. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Xanthomelanoussprog, thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Something a bit related

Seeing you are following the anime/manga chat, I wanted to bring up Zentradi. Kronnang Dunn has uploaded multiple non free images for that article, and has undone my edits in the past despite my attempts to explain our copyright policy. Any advice? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) directed at... whoever thinks they know the answer... On a somewhat related topic, I was recently going through a bunch of stuff I had in storage and came across some old action figures from the Robotech/ExoSquad crossover series, including some of the Zentradi mechs. (I collected this stuff for a while in the early 90's) I was surprised to find no images of any of these figures, and indeed only five images of any action figures of any kind on Commons. I would have thought that with all the other geeks on wp there would be tons of such images. Is there some trademark/copyright issue that prohibits uploading images of action figures? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You can't upload a photo of a copyright action figure, any more than you can upload a photograph of a page from a copyrighted book. See Commons:Derivative works for chapter-and-verse. ‑ Iridescent 21:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(add) In fact, this specific situation is explained at COM:TOYS. ‑ Iridescent 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to look closer at this after I'm done with a few things that need doing, but can I just say that my boy is dressed as Luigi for Halloween, who apparently has something to do with SuperMario, and he looks as cute as can be? Drmies (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to take your word for it, as we wouldn't want you to get sued by Nintendo... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ha, well, he looked great. And while trick-or-treating he ran into Mario! There's a photo to prove it, which I won't publish. To the parents: I am sure I don't have to tell you how gross it is to clean up the after-trick-or-treating puke, mostly chocolate. Yay for holidays. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

D+H article deletion

Hi! I will start by disclaiming that I'm an intern (paid) working for D+H's PR firm, Kaiser Lachance Communications. They recently tried to update their Wikipedia page, but failed to meet community standards and were nominated for deletion, which you completed (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D%2BH). I've been working with them to identify ways to improve the article, remove biased or promotional language and add more information on the company's notability, including more news sources rather than press releases. Would you be willing to discuss reopening the article or reviewing the new one I have drafted to see if it meets Wikipedia's standards? Thanks! M.stanoeva (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Paid? Benefits too? I hope so! Well, the idea is that an AfD discussion doesn't just look at the article in the current state, but at the topic. "Delete" supposedly means that in this case the firm isn't notable, not that the article wasn't good enough. That's the theory at least. But you know what, CorporateM owes me a small favor since I just did him a good turn (well, he suggested I do Wikipedia a good turn), and he knows COI editing better than most people, being on the other side; perhaps he has some good advice for you. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Their website says the company has 5,500 employees, $1.5 billion in annual revenues, and 150 years in business. As Drmies implies, often editors say something is "not notable" because it is the only criteria for deleting articles technically, but really the reason is that there is almost nothing in the article worth keeping for an encyclopedia. Because the article has been deleted previously, there is a strong presumption against you. I would start out at the position that AfC really should start at, which is determining if the company qualifies for an article at all. As a rule of thumb, you need two national sources (books, national press, etc.), where the company is the subject of the article and covered in-depth. These shouldn't be short blurbs, mentions, quotes, etc. but biographical profiles that talk about what the company is famous for, their history, and so on. In most cases, no such sources exist at all and companies spin a lot of cycles trying to create an article that meets Wikipedia's standards, whereas in reality the topic itself is forbidden from the site. CorporateM (Talk) 12:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

PR firms really should have a Wikipedia manual thrown at them first before they even contemplate entering the fray here. On second thought, they should just stick to Talk pages. Karst (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Benefits? I wish. Thanks for the info Drmies and CorporateM. Will let the client know and see if they can meet those criteria. M.stanoeva (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Here are two articles about D+H that appeared in two of Canada's national newspapers: http://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/investors-buy-into-davis-hendersons-transformational-deal http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/cheque-please-a-canadian-play-on-the-us-recovery/article16420184/, as well as an article from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-30/dh-to-buy-financial-software-maker-fundtech-for-1-25-billion. Would these demonstrate notability? M.stanoeva (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• @M.stanoeva: in my opinion, that looks very promising, especially the first one you link. User:CorporateM may be able to give a more experienced evaluation. MPS1992 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Sorry to bother again, Drmies. Just wondering what you would advise based on the articles I posted above. M.stanoeva (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• M.stanoeva, I think you got three solid sources there, much more than trivial mentions. Well done. I hope you fare well in your internship. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Drmies Great, thanks for the feedback. Would you suggest I start building a new page based on that in drafts and have an editor look it over, or should I try to get the old one up again and update that? M.stanoeva (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel bullied

Hello, as childish as this might seem, but I really feel bullied from a former accident. Back then, I was talked to as if Im in a Syrian secret service agency! ("Do not post any more material about the case I closed, either at ANI, my Talk page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia")

Now, I opened a new case and it was closed within half an hour by the same admin. I do not ask you to re-open it, nor to annul his "verdict". But the way he handled it is so bad. Before presenting the new case, I asked for advice at the talk page and I was told that the evidence isnt based only on IPs but also on behavior. I brought an evidence in the new case but the admin just looked at the IP! and considered that there is no convincing proof for meat puppetry although the evidence presented is anything but unconvincing.

I will remove the pages from my watch-list and congrats, a one purpose account with strong ideology will take control over the articles. Im tired of the constant IPs and accounts emerging suddenly to support his edits and nothing can be done about them. This is so bad. Please, I am not asking for any action and I do not wish for any action. I just needed to let it out cause I feel really weak now. Cheers and you can delete this message (not that you need a permission) if you think it is not suitable.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, as you know I looked at that the first time around, and I just refreshed my memory. Bbb was strict in his word choice, but you've been here a while, and so I assume he assumed that you knew about outing. Now, I see that Bbb has responded at the SPI, so I assume this isn't over yet--but I tell you, if the SPI "investigator" doesn't think there is enough behavioral evidence, then that's it. Laying a guilt trip on Bbb or me about what will happen to the articles is kind of a low blow: the better way is to make a better case. BTW, Bbb said "odd case and odd presentation of evidence" or words to that effect--I agree. What those two blocked socks are doing in there is not clear to me (please don't explain it here), and your evidence/presentation only related to the IP, as far as I can tell. So I understand the comments by Bbb. Also, please understand that things that may be crystal clear to you aren't always crystal clear to outsiders, and that's part of the difficult. You are asking us to make huge decisions--blocking--based on things that we may not know as well as you do, or see in a different light. That's why explanations are always so important. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No guilt was laid on you really and I dont wanna guilt anyone. You were nice the last time so I felt like I could let it out to you cause sometimes, Wikipedia feels like a dictatorship. Thanks for understanding and sorry for bothering you. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was: look at the sentence that contains the word "congrats". If nothing else happens at the SPI and there continue to be problems, you could consider different options--ANI or maybe arbitration. I looked into the situation a bit but not being all too familiar with the material I couldn't easily see whether there was POV editing etc. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but the congrats was aimed at the way Wikipedia in general handles those organized groups pushing their ideas in articles, not at you or a particular admin. As for my options, I took the easy way and removed the pages from my watch list. Let them edit as they wish, no point of stopping them cause even when you block one of them, another will come and you need to have a headache for another 2 months and so and so (1A2Z is only the last incarnation of a series of editors who all have the same style, edit from germany, and who came to that article for a year now. Im done).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

fractional reserve banking

Hi,

I saw that you made edits to fractional reserve banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but my edits there were hardly content related, and "fractional" only reminds me of the relationship between my salary and my debt. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

not vandalism, but drip drip drip

Hi Dr, this small item may be the last I drop on you for awhile. This is an IP that mostly adds unsourced birth dates to BLPs [21]. I reported to AIV and this wasn't found actionable; instead I was counseled to try to engage the account. I appreciate the letter of the law, but am disappointed by the lack of spirit. This is, for me, one of the ways in which the standards are degraded. Maybe I'm off, but the laxness I've observed in stopping this sort of editing--which unchecked tends to drag on until dozens and hundreds of such edits accumulate across the site from just one account--is discouraging. That said, thanks for listening. I'm determined to take a long vacation, but always appreciate your presence here. Very best, 99. 2601:188:1:AEA0:254F:3247:6BA4:7C70 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• My hero Ponyo already blocked, with a reason I agree with: "persistent addition of unsourced content". I can't find your report or the response to it. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look through the AIV history to try to find the decline, however the addition of unsupported full dates of birth (often based on the very unreliable IMDb) is a huge pain in the ass for our BLP subjects. It came up repeatedly when I was active at OTRS and it was embarrassing that I couldn't explain why we allow editors to add dates without reliable verification. WP:DOB is policy for a good reason. The IP was warned, continued, and was blocked as a result.<steps off soapbox>.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the replies. Here's my last correspondence on the matter at AIV, which followed the reply to my report: [22]. It's pretty much done me in, which is okay. Need to spend time in other pursuits. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The initial report: [23]. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

And here, hours later, was the administrative reply [24]. There it sat, until it was deleted many more hours later. In the intervening time no other administrator saw a problem. So I'm just through with it. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, Jayron32 totally outranks me, so I can't go up against him--but I agree with Ponyo's verdict. Don't be through with it--that luxury is reserved for young people. Thanks for all your good work keeping the place clean. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That's okay. One thing I don't intend is to start brush fires between administrators; I'm oblivious to rankings anyway. Much appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I don't mind a fight. Jayron32, you ready to rumble? Seriously, I think the IP had a good case here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Harassment

You seem to be around. Care blocking ‎2600:1000:b073:fb39:562d:2fe5:1c53:f02a (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and consider a few hours of semi for User:331dot's userspace? TimothyJosephWood 19:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Looking at the history of User talk:331dot, it's obvious that this is the blocked User:Portlandpie just editing, which is probably an account used by the Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll, editing logged out. Unfortunately they seem to have considerably more than a /64 range at their disposal, so I've merely semi'd 331dot's talk (Floq has blocked the IPs). Bishonen | talk 19:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC).

Thank you very much. :) 331dot (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed all this excitement. Antisemitic troll, that's quite a moniker. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you ready

for this year's edition of the friendliest rivalry in the SEC? Lizard (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is ever ready for that, or they're lying. Strange to go to Death Valley and not find Les Miles there--passing strange. I heard some of those Cajuns were talking smack about Alabama; I have no doubt that Tide rolls's Twitter is on fire. And I think Tide rolls still remembers that old joke about why the LSU players are still in New Orleans after the 2012 BCS National Championship Game. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• I just looked at that Game of the Century article again. That was one scary game, but it's always nice to get a rematch. I think one of the last times I was back in Tuscaloosa LSU beat us in overtime with a TD pass--maybe 2006 or 2007. On the bright side, LSU fans were always the BEST. I loved them--they were polite and friendly even when completely hammered, and even after a loss. But we always played some two-step and zydeco for them in our bar on the Strip. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Twitter? WTF is that? Remember, I'm old. Tiderolls 13:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• So, over the last bunch of elections, apparently if Bama wins, so do the Democrats; if LSU, then the Republicans. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Go, Tide. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!

Thank you for taking the time to close that... Whatever "that" was. Much appreciated. If after reading it you have any feedback for me I am all ears. Thanks! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• If I have feedback after reading that entire thread, you'll be the first to know, I promise. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE Review my Article

i greatly appreciate Your Numerous Contribution to the Wikipedia community , i Doff my hat for you . and i look up to great Wikipedians like you for guidance . please with due respect , i humbly wish to seek for your help in reviewing and article by name Olagist, which has You marked for speedy deletion . please kindly review or possible help remove the Deletion Tag . which i believe the Article is wikipedia worthy due to its Contribution to the Nigerian Education Sector . thanks in Anticipation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebilz (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Mikebilz, you came to the right place, and I appreciate the recognition. Oh, Olagist--the website! Yes, I did mark that, sorry, because the article didn't make any kind of claim to importance, nor did it offer references to reliable sources to verify any claims of importance. I think it would be a good idea if you were to try WP:FIRST for your next article. Now, I hope you don't mind, but I removed those pleas for help you made--the article is gone now, so they don't really serve a purpose anymore. Best to start from scratch. Thanks again for your note, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please i want to ask if it will be proper to channel any proposed article to you for review and publication to forestall future speedy deletion ? Mikebilz (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• WP:FIRST includes a review mechanism--that's the way to go. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Close a thread?

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait, sorry. You don't need to close anything. Fut.Perf already did. You can still read my email if you like and do with it what you wish. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I did! It was exhilarating! Haha thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

AN Comment

Thanks for your advice you left here. It's definitely something I'll do if the RFA ends successfully. I'm not the type of person to take a measure that drastically if there's a question posed like this, but consensus was pretty clar that the edit summary was over the top. (And I didn't comment but I concur, that was too much). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I just happened to run into that right after I saw your RfA, and thought you might take an interest in it. As you can tell, I'm still learning the job. Ha, I ran into another one--I suppose I should ask these questions at RfA: what about this user name, User:Grammer Nazi? or User talk:Friendlyneighbourhoodgay? or Rickinbaltimorê should not be an àcdmin, who was revealed by CU to also be I put my peniz im your moms mouth? OK those last two are easy, but the first two, not so: judgment calls. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Grammer Nazi? Well isn't that an insult to Frasier? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

UAA

Thanx, schmuck - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• U R welcome! Drmies (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Miss Cosmopolitan

Hi Drmies (or any well-equipped TPS). Is there anything that can be done about the sock-hydra at Miss Cosmopolitan, like maybe salting the article or blocking some obvious socks? If I'm not mistaken, there are now three new editors with a sudden uncanny interest in this article. - MrX 17:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Salted. I could run CU but there's not much point to that, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks very much Drmies!- MrX 18:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ILL of Famine and household coping strategies

Hey Drmies, tks for all your help. Have you heard back about that ILL? Tks again!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Remind me of the title--my ILLIAD screen is completely full. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Famine and household coping strategies  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Found it. Did I get an email from you? I don't see one with your username in it. Sorry, my memory is really getting bad. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
      • You may have been confused by the fact that I have changed my username a few times. :-) Email sent.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Is there an easy way to get an interaction ban between me and Kleuske? She is definitely introducing a grudge from the Dutch Wikipedia here. And she is always poking for a block, often based on selective reading, when she has the chance. Very annoying and disturbing.

By the way, on the Dutch Wikipedia I was highly critical about the extremely blunt way she treated newcomers. She was so angry about that, that she filed a case at the ArbCom to get me blocked. That failed but the ArbCom did, on my request, instate an interaction ban. That made her extremely angry but it did do the trick of calming the waters... The Banner talk 08:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• An easy way? I don't think so, unless it's imposed maybe by way of discretionary sanctions. I don't know Kleuske, I don't think, though it's a pretty cool name, and I do have a fondness for Dutch women, and not just cause one of them was nice enough to birth me. Sorry, I don't think I can be of much help here. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Too bad. Than I have to endure her behaviour. The Banner talk 18:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Travis Alexander

I know it's a nit, but can you look at this hyphen issue? I don't mind if you think I'm wrong, but in my view hyphenating it is crazy. Still, I can't edit-war with the other user over it, even though he is calling me a troll. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Professional editor/copyeditor/proofreader here. It's correct to hyphenate "gas-can return" here, because otherwise in the phrase "gas can return" the word "can" looks like a verb. Hyphenating it makes it clear that "gas can" is a compound-noun adjective. Softlavender (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing worse than a professional. :-) The word "can" can't reasonably look like a verb in the context. In any event, I've revised the language in the article to avoid the hyphen. Personally I think the revision is better than the original version without the hyphen and the modified version with the hyphen, but I suppose we'll see how invested the other user is in their precious hyphen.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Gas can indeed return, and that can be dangerous. Also dangerous, making compound nouns like "gas can return". Now, I probably would hyphenate it, but I would never come up with a term like that. As for compound-noun adjective, as a professional nitpicker I'd call it a compound noun used adjectivally, but hey, it's a football Saturday, and if Bbb are nitpicking over anything it's whether Leonard Fournette is going to cross midfield or not today. What do you say, Tide rolls? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Fournette will probably run for 140 yards. I'm thinking it'll take 40 carries, though, and therin lies the rub. If Bama's pass rush shows up Fournette will not be enough. Tiderolls 18:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In the Tolkien trilogy, one of the characters says that all paths lead to the Withywindle. With you all paths lead to football. And that's the Leonard-Fournette truth.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Withywindle, Old Hobbitish for Tuscaloosa. Tiderolls 18:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Tolkien was a wise man. He looked great in houndstooth, too. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Alexandria's Genesis

Hello Drmies, in the past you protected Alexandria's Genesis from creation. I just want you to know I have a small draft in my sandbox that I would like to create. The subject has been mentioned by one notable news site and hoaxes can sometimes are notable for example: Shabbos App. I just want you to know before I trigger some alarm on Wikipedia if it's alright with you to create the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not Drmies, but I think the information about the mutation having been fabricated in 1998 as a back-story for fan-art connected with some animated television series, should come earlier in the article, rather than relying on the reader spotting the single word "fictitious" and then remembering to apply it to sentences such as "Years later, Augustine would give birth to other girls who inherited her genetics and exceed a hundred years lifespan".

People at WT:MEDICINE may perhaps have stronger views than I do. MPS1992 (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and create it, please don't block me. :( — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't block you. Drmies is probably too busy earning his huge salary to block you. The people at WT:MEDICINE are probably too busy dealing with bigger problems to notice, although of course they should all watchlist this talkpage just in order to make things simpler. I do hope my thoughts were useful in some way, though. Have fun! MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• JudeccaXIII, I've already met my block quota for today. I'd like to know what the "notable news site" is--it sure as hell can't be Medhealthdaily, which sounds like Worldnetdaily in name and in content--"Over the years, there has been a significant amount of controversy over the existence of Alexandria’s Genesis. Some attribute this condition to an urban legend or a myth that has grown over time. According to scientists, the condition does not current exist. The speculation that surrounds this topic makes it an interesting point of debate." No, it does not exist, and speculation about its existence does not exist, and even if it did that would not make this an interesting point of debate, and even if it were an interesting point of debate it wouldn't necessarily be of any kind of real-world value. We used to discuss whether Brand X redeemed Phil Collins, and that's also not encyclopedic. And if you are right about this fiction thing, then Medhealthdaily's next sentence, "This condition is thought to be a genetic mutation..." is even worse, since it's not "thought" to be that. Poor writing, the downfall of our civilization. Anyway, I suppose your "notable" one is Snopes? But if that story is correct, this is nothing but a meme and you need to rewrite the lead to reflect that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Drmies, just want to say thanks for protecting the Picarones article. (N0n3up (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC))

• Sure thing. What a mess, huh. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You're telling me, some articles like that I keep watch have been swarming with vandals recently. And an admin's job must be a pain in the bum too I assume, there's always a troll out there to revert or block. (N0n3up (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

Billy the Angel

Looks like he's evaded the block via User:Yet another sockpuppet of BillyAngel. Feinoha ^Talk 03:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:Materialscientist so I guess there's nothing to do then. Feinoha ^Talk 03:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer

Hi Dr, if you or another admin sees this promptly, could you block the vandal and perhaps protect the page? Definitely rev/delete the edits, too. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Holy moly. Who says shit like that? Materialscientist already blocked, for which I thank him, and I'll start cleanup. This is scary stuff, 99. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • My thanks to you both. Meh, the reason the Internet sucks: it's amplified that sort of bilge. AT least there are cat videos. 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • And Christmas stories! Drmies (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh you're no fun--you insist on finding real teachable moments, and none of them are my online essays. By the way, watched the family in Corfu installment this evening with Mrs. 99, and was hooked. 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
        • You're just terribly old-fashioned. You should get a servant--like a footman. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
          • That's an insulting thing to say. You'll be hearing from my manservant, who will inform you of the time and place of our duel. 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
            • [insert witty Hamilton reference] Drmies (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• It was another Hamilton whose actions led to the ban on handguns in the UK. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Cervantes' Exemplary Stories

A lesson in and against laughing.

Hello again, Drmies. This is a quick note to recommend Cervantes' Exemplary Stories, which I had never read before, and which are spectacularly wonderful in the way that Don Quixote is wonderful. Excitement! Variety! Plenitude! Adventure! Depth! Everything you could want. I've only read about a third of them, and I'm told that the best is yet to come. If you've read them a dozen times already, feel free to pity my ignorance. If not, you won't regret trying them. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Macspaunday, I will get right on it, though there is a line ahead of Cervantes. For reasons unknown I am reading The Silmarillion, and after that it's Bruno Schulz, recommended to me by a fellow Wikipedian. BTW, I can assume you are familiar with the scurrilous work of Pietro Aretino, no? Drmies (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pietro Aretino is on the far-too-lengthy list of authors I know I should read. The WP page makes him look even more interesting than I guessed. I'm pretty certain I've got at least one play (?) of his at home (am away this week), and will put it next to Cervantes on the optional-reading table. Thank you! - Macspaunday (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

iKon

Hey you were very helpful last time (thanks you again btw.) so I would like to ask you something regarding the site yg-life. Many articles with YG groups (for example iKon) use this site to cite a source. At first I thought it was a fansite so I removed it but another user told me it's an official site which is apparently true, the website provides translations of Korean news articles to international fans. But what I would like to know is if it's okay to use this site for wikipedia? As far as I can see the website does not link to the original article or mentions an author and it is a website operated by the music label for their own artists. Some articles here on wikipedia only use this site as a relibale source like iKon, the page has almost no references left now that I removed these sources. I've checked out this site as well but it looks like the sources haven't been updated or discussed in a long time. According to Identifying reliable sources I would say the site falls under "Questionable and self-published sources" but I'm not sure, I'm not doing this for long. Anyway I would need a second opinion before I removed the source from more sites or add it back again.--Thebestwinter (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thebestwinter, the problem is that too many K-pop editors accept that every single factoid is worth mentioning (in clear violation of WP:FART), and thus everything that's "official" is acceptable to them. They fail to grasp that editorial discretion should be exercised, lest we get those well-known litanies of factoids, and that reliable secondary sources need to help determine what's in and what's out--so not K-pop portals, not fan sites, not official websites, and not translators of news releases. This YG site is just another industry site, which one can call official--but it's not a secondary source, though it tries to look like one. In other words, it might confirm whether some person has this or that blood type, or this or that favorite color, but it cannot be used to state that such information should ever be in an article. Does that help? Thanks for the pointer, by the way. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you this helps a lot. I'll improve these articles as soon as I can but for now I'll simply remove these sources when I see some and hope the other K-pop editors try to help instead to add random fansites and twitter accounts. Nowadays there are many reliable sources in English especially for new groups so I really don't understand why some editors still use random fansites, blogs, allkpop, soompi etc. Anyway I still have so much to learn, it's the first time I participate on wikipedia. Also I'm afraid my English is a bit rusty after I moved to Germany and my Korean is very limited but I'll do what I can to help.--Thebestwinter (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Related?

User: Judtojud [25]

edit: [26]

edit: [27]

• User: [28]

edits: [29]

[30]

• User: [31]

edit:[32]

• User:[33] and

[34] and more in edit history

edit:[35]

There may be more.... and someone may already be dealing with this. I'll push off and leave to experts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

A football puzzle for the brains trust here

Our article on West Brook High School doesn't mention that they won the state 5A football championship in their first year of existence, or make any use of this tremendous source. After I got through picking my jaw off the floor, and tracked it down on GoogleBooks because Texas Monthly's archive is a bait and switch ([36]), I decided I had to write up Hebert High School. In the course of doing that, I discovered that our article on Hebert's, then West Brook's, football coach is a chimera: see Talk:Alexander Durley#Composite. The article wasn't even mentioned in the discussion at the inconclusive mass AfD, and doesn't do either Durley justice. So the question I put before y'all here is: are a math prof and SWAC hall of fame college football coach whose birth and death dates appear irrecoverable and a twice state-winning high school football coach who got an obituary article in the papers (and bearing in mind the importance of the high-school game in Texas) equally notable, in which case I'll split both articles and reference them as best I am able, or should it be AfD time for the current sad mix-up that has the man starting as a head coach at TSU at the age of 12? (Of course I ask partly in the hope that someone can find a reference or two that I couldn't.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: There's now a separate Alexander Durley (high-school coach), and thanks to Wikiproject College Football, Alexander Durley is vastly better. If anyone AfDs the high-school coach, please let me know. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

SockofShawn

Indeed a sock. I don't know if you've run into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gonzales John. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thiyya

THIYYA WIKIPEDIA PAGE IS REDIRECTED TO EZHAVA. THIYYA ARE NOT EZHAVA.WE HAVE ENOUGH PROOFS FOR THAT. PLEASE UNDO REDIRECTING TO EZHAVA PAGE. Kadathanadan chekavar (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'll cite the admin who protected it: "see Talk:Ezhava, Archive 7, for instance". And please stop yelling. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • All your base are belong to us. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Better to be a dog in a peaceful time, than to be a human in a chaotic (warring) period. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, all too true. We are living in interesting times. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

A talk page for ethnic slurs?

Almost completely unsourced [37] and unrelated to the article here [38]. Maybe there's a rationale for its presence, but I'm missing it. Sorry, but this would normally elicit little patience, and today it seems especially offensive. Thanks to Dr and talk page stalkers. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell it was moved years ago from article space and the main article was re-started. I've never seen that before and I don't get why people are still editing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it as WP:CSD#G6 as it served no apparent purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox. 2601:188:1:AEA0:8D0A:6D57:2982:44AD (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks all. Beeblebrox, you old cracker, I made some tweaks to the article--please see what you think. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Mansel G. Blackford

I've moved Mansel G. Blackford to my userspace as you were destroying the article. Please leave me alone.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know what you mean. Improving text and templates is not "destroying". It is possibly the best referenced and worst-written academic biography I've ever seen; congrats on getting all the JSTOR hits in. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Look what I just found in Recent changes--[39]. Same thing. In academia we don't list publishers for journals: they simply don't matter, unless we're talking about something with an obscure title published by a professional organization. Saves much space too, which is good in combating global warming, which some scientists say exists. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You should've discussed what you didn't like on the talkpage first. Really, I freaked out. You've been quite hostile regarding Clinton and I have to wonder how you came across my new article?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• There is no requirement that I discuss basic edits. I'm not "hostile regarding Clinton", I think--though I'm not quite sure what the phrase means. You can wonder all you like, though you don't have to: the magic words are "Recent changes". I have a particular interest in academic biographies, having written a fair number of them. Boring stuff, sometimes! Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You were in the process of removing whole chunks of information. Yes, the article is a work in progress and I've requested an account on WP:OUP to add more from a book. But removing referenced info makes things worse, not better. It was completely counterproductive. I agree that we need a summary of what each book says, but after that we should also keep the book reviews as it shows notability. Also, ideally, we could add what each reviewer said.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have suggestions to improve the article, I am happy to hear them, but not by removing referenced information.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I left all the references; what I removed was the numbingly repetitive "was reviewed by professor X from institute Y in journal Z". Please point out where I removed a reference, and see the note above on the redundant publisher's information. You can look it up in the MLA as well, or the APA. Zigzig, I don't know who you are or where you come from, but I am in fact the kind of person who writes those kinds of reviews in such journals, and I've written plenty of these articles on Wikipedia. There comes a time to understand that you're not always running into rookies. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In my private life, I have published such reviews too. But this is Wikipedia. We don't necessarily follow MLA or APA guidelines. We follow WP guidelines. Are you making it up? If so, please stop!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there an official WP policy against citing publishers for journals that you can show me please? You were not just removing that though, you were also removing the names of the reviewers, etc. The whole thing. Very discouraging.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No I wasn't, and I actually added wikilinks to the journal names in your citation templates, and the authorlinks as well. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The authorlinks are good, but I had already wikified the authors and the journals in the body of the text (where they belong), and you were removing the reviewers's affiliations, which is very important: it's not the same thing if a book was reviewed by a professor at Harvard or the University of Southern Mississippi.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not how we write such articles here--certainly not if all you do is simply list reviews. If you're going to say something meaningful and quote from the review or so, that's a different matter, but that is not what you were doing. Your question about my making it up is insulting. Now, Southern Miss isn't that bad a school, and your comment smacks a bit of argumentum ad verecundiam--plus, it's not entirely correct. If the prof from Southern Miss reviews a book in Speculum and a prof from Harvard in the journal of the Rocky Mountain MLA, then the first one weighs more heavily. But seriously, you need to look at that article objectively, at section User:Zigzig20s/Mansel_G._Blackford#Career. Read it out loud and tell me how enjoyable that reading is. What you have is a list of titles and reviews, just with a thousand more needless words--and because you list the books below as well, you have two lists. I also saw you restored "served as an emeritus"--this is simply not how these words are used in academia. "Serving" is done on committees. Being a professor is a job. Being an emeritus is an honor. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please show me the WP policy regarding academic biographies?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if we have a policy that says "you must write digestible prose"--that's common sense, it seems to me. Or, show me the policy that says your version is somehow right. As for the "serves" stuff--there's a dictionary for that, besides experience. Now, you moved that thing back to user space and reverted my edits without justification. If that is how you wish to do collaborative editing, you really have no business coming here to complain. If you want to improve an article, I'm all ears, but that's not what you're here for. And please stay on topic: you started with some weird allegation related to Clinton, which you never took back or explained or apologized for. I think I have answered every single question you asked, and you just keep moving along from one odd complaint to another--enough already. You're wasting your time here, and mine as well. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't discourage other editors. I have been editing Wikipedia for a decade and I am one of the most active Wikipedians. If there is no official WP policy regarding academic biographies, then you have an opinion regarding academic book reviews but so do I. Yes, I've had to salvage the article in my userspace for the time being, because you were removing referenced content without following any specific WP policy apparently, but I'll want to move it back to mainspace eventually--perhaps once I've had a chance to add more content via WP:OUP. Sorry this has been such an unproductive exchange. I would appreciate it if you left me alone now. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Zigzig20s, I'm pretty active too. I reject the notion that you had to "salvage" something--it's prima facie a ridiculous charge especially since I didn't remove any information. You could charge me with removing useless duplicate information, but I think even you understand where that would go. As for leaving you alone--I think you perhaps don't realize that you keep making these false attacks (of vandalism, of removing information, blah blah blah) on me on my talk page. It says "User talk:Drmies" here. You're more than welcome to drop by in this happy place anytime you like, but you're like the guest who doesn't wipe their feet and leaves dog poop marks on the rug, and then complains that the hallway smells like shit. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not grant you that authority!

I have found your comment with the talk page of x86, but I am sorry to say that I never grant you any authority to say something like that! The only right you have is to shut your door! You have no right to tell me what I do! Let me wait that expire, I would change it too! I am in patience, and I did is right. Sorry, idiot!

Best Regards, Aaron Janagewen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.149.34 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Aaron, I didn't leave a comment, but I appreciate your apology: it means a lot. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I only show my apology towards ladies or female, even what they did is wrong. If you are a lady, single or not, I would love to make apology. Or else, what you did is wrong! You removed my words, my positive words. Anyway, that is ok. --- Aaron Janagewen (owe millions thanks towards software HideMyIP, which enable me to write anything here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.110.183 (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh! But you said "sorry"! As it happens I may well be a ladies or female. So please do apologize, and accept my heartfelt acceptance. Hey, listen, you handsome devil, you've been socking here for two years with your chatter about computer chips or whatever. Can you maybe start signing your posts? Awesome! These edit conflicts are irritating. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Also, I get $5 for an IP block, so keep em coming. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Only $5? I thought Administrators made the big bucks. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you are so lucky! I would tell you that there is nobody paying me for anything, I just make completely devotion. So I do not care whether you block this IP or not! I am just living in the world of other spices just with similar appearances. This time I obtain an IP from UK, where I love most of all. If one has his previous life, I believe I were British in my last life. But I give you another $5 this time, next time, would you please invite me a cup of coffee on your land? --- Aaron Janagewen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.107.109 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

the world of other spices just with similar appearances sounds like a riddle to me. Where's Bilbo? I feel like I am rapidly becoming British in my current life, never mind any previous lives. MPS1992 (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The spice must flow. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• By the power vested in me as Visitor To This Thread, I hereby grant Drmies the authority to revert edits on, and place edit-protection on, Talk:x86. There, that should settle it. Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Look, Softlavender, you won't grant anyone anything until you make completely devotion, you pagan. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Brian Hinman

Hi Dr and talk page stalkers; this bio has recently been edited by a new account that appears to take a promotional interest in its subjects. Most recently they've dropped a lot of patents into this article, and though I'd like to remove them, am uncertain as to rationale and policy. Any help appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dr. Have a good weekend. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to learn to use the "new section" button

Drmies my name is jack oneal you made a comment about the kristin conzet article. I know Kristin Conzet. And with the new american bible translation, it is actually the first one to come to existence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JACKONEAL (talk • contribs)

• JACKONEAL, thank you for your note. I do not know Kriston Conzet, but I do know that you shouldn't be adding such information unless a. it is relevant (this isn't, yet) and b. it is well-verified. As for the Seven seals, I don't know what you mean with "the first one to come to existence". The NAV is obviously not the first translation of the bible, and it is certainly not the first version of the bible. Before you make such changes, you should discuss on teh talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. I don't know exactly what this means, but I'll ask on Reddit, where they helped me come up with a good password last time. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Here is my password suggestion for you, free of charge: "J1mb0G0tHack3d". Case sensitive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Your vandalism of Fred Meyer article

I added one word to the products section of the Fred Meyer article to show that the store sells firearms. I, apparently like you, would prefer that the store not carry guns. You deleted the entire products sold section about an hour later. Wikipedia exists to spread knowledge, not hide it. And as a practical matter, if more people knew Fred's carries firearms, maybe action will be taken about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.167.254.52 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, this is a content dispute, and is most certainly not vandalism. Please refrain from making ridiculous accusations of vandalism. I oppose restoring this unreferenced content, as does Drmies. Your "call to action" is contrary to Wikipedia's purposes as a neutral encyclopedia. We do not exist to promote activism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Cullen, I bought a whole bunch of dried beans and now, apparently, I'm a "prepper". So yeah, I should buy some guns too, before that liberal Trump takes them away. (He used to believe in gun control, right?) Drmies (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Mrs. Cullen thinks that we should support the Bill of Rights by buying a couple of matching "his and hers" firearms, just in case the Trumpies decide to attack our estate. That, plus donations to the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. As for your dried bean purchase, there is a very chic boutique in Napa called Rancho Gordo that specializes in selling nothing but gourmet dried beans. What a business model, huh? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Must be a business model that's working- they've sold out of a few types of beans, including Yellow Indian Woman Bean. "Easily one of the staff's favorite beans." Methane is lighter than air, so if you're visiting the shop remember to crawl on the floor like you would in an airplane fire. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• That's the perfect two-in-one deal for preppers. Buy a pack of beans and get free biogas on top. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• I never knew there was such a variety in beans. I got some chickpea soup with chorizo waiting for me at home--dried and then soaked and cooked chickpeas do have a different texture. Anybody want some more beans? Drmies (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Drmies.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Evlekis

Hello. Thanks for changing the block settings for MATT TAMMOCK, but unfortunately there are more of them. I nominated a number of attack pages on the talk pages of blocked socks for speedy deletion earlier today (check the deleted content...), and since Evlekis obviously checks in to see what I'm doing every day he quickly noticed, and showed that he still has the passwords for his old socks, and re-uses his old blocked socks to create new attack pages. So would you mind removing talk page access for them all? The latest batch of such re-used socks that I have found are Bravo Baby Burt, Blankawanka, Garaganap, Martin Number 1, Gold Bold and Sold, Samways Special Offer, More of the stuff, Mike the Mean Man Masters and Sugar Jack Johnson. The reason he's now re-using his old socks is that there's currently little else he can do, since there's a fresh 3-month range-block on his usual IPs, and a big one too (94.196.0.0/16...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Well, TPA removal is only $2 a pop, but it's worth it; as a prepper, I need to be saving. Did they tag you in those talk page posts? That would be nice of them. I didn't really read what they said--Radiohead is the only outfit that gets to intersperse letters with periods. Children shouldn't be on the internet. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was mentioned in all of them, along with a whole bunch of other people here. But he didn't ping any of us, even though it looks like he did, since he didn't sign his posts, so I found them through the standard WP search function. Which is fairly easy if you know what search terms to use. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this stalking?

Hi, sorry to bother you but can you take a look at this and see if hounding/stalking is about to happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Joseph#Nashef I checked out recent contributions to see what the fuss was about, while there I made an edit. Now I am being told that he will check out my edits " to seek out conflict." Isn't that the definition of hounding? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think Nableezy is just pissed at you and is returning the favor, though with some strong words thrown in to raise the rhetorical temperature. Seriously, sure, that's not OK, if that's what they're really going to do--Nableezy, tone it down please. But what started it in the first place? What's the diff where they're accusing you of abusing rollback? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• What started it is Nableezy accused Debresser of violating 1RR. So I went through most recent history to see what the fuss was about. I came upon this page and made some edits, including adding a filmography table. I didn't seek out conflict. As I come upon the page, I made a change. He is stating on the record he is seeking out conflict and will go through my edits. Isn't that a chilling effect? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Please do something about this. I don't need to have this over my head every time I edit. I didn't do anything wrong and this is just bringing conflict into everything. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

this is the rollback violation. The first section of the talk page is the discussion that settled this back in 2010 with Avraham. Note that Debresser, who Sir Joseph was looking to support at another article, had never edited this. Yes, that was me pissed, though I have not returned the favor. I did not actually plan to go through this users contributions, was just demonstrating why somebody might find that annoying and hopefully causing the user to look at his actions with the perspective of having them turned around on him. nableezy - 17:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is you continuing to Not assume good faith.You are already putting defense into my intentions when all I did was just be curious and see what the fuss is all about. You are casting aspersions and creating a chilling effect. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, I do not believe that rollback was justified in that edit, certainly not without an edit summary. As for the content, that talk page discussion is less than clear and it's kind of old. It sucks to have to advice RfC for every such thing, but I advice RfD for this such thing. And I take Nableezy at their good faith, that they're not actually trying to harass you, though the remark, in a heated area, was uncalled for. Nor do I believe that you were trying to harass them, though your revert, setting aside rollback for now, was equally ill-advised. Thank you both, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Multiple articles

Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, I'm heading out now, and if anyone can clean up and protect these articles tonight, the one from persistent promotion, the other from vandalism, I'd appreciate it. Carol Vorderman and TIMWE. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected both pages, since I judged the disruption to be severe enough. 2601, you do know this will lock you out too, right? Vanamonde (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Vanamonde93. I anticipate that someone associated with TIMWE will have at it again after protection lapses--they seem to be in it for the long haul. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde93. This IP editor has a legion of socks and minions, like me and Mandarax, to do their dirty work for them. And all we get in return are hazy screen shots of oil paintings of nudes--but it's better than nothing. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And a fine minion you are. Now, I've offered lobster rolls and ale multiple times, should you ever journey from your irrevocably red state to this blue one. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I remember those. I wish. But my job is here, among the people, blah blah blah. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kurtis ^(talk) 21:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Drmies, I'm sorry if I'm starting to become a pest, but did you receive either of the emails I sent you? Kurtis ^(talk) 01:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep, and responded to both of them. Check your spam box? Or maybe I've been hacked too. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Strange... it landed in my junk folder. I have no idea why that could be. In any case, I replied to your second response, but I'll deal with your first one after I sleep. ;)

Tapad edit-warring

What 78.26 means

Original GA-ranked version of the article here. An IP added the same content here, here and again here. I reverted here and another editor reverted here.

I am affiliated with the company and brought the article up to GA status with a COI. I am especially concerned about other editors adding promotional, poorly-sourced content as here, because people tend to blame the COI editor for that kind of editing, even when it wasn't me! However, I also cannot continue reverting boldly under WP:COI and have no way of communicating with the IP. Additionally, my providing a warning might be seen as COI bullying/ownership (or whatever excuse editors use to assume bad faith against COIs) and felt it may be best to simply draw attention to the issue. Maybe you or one of your watchers can jump in. CorporateM (Talk) 17:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw 78.26 was on the job--thanks. I would have no problem with your revert citing "unreliable since dependent source; rv promotional error", or words to that effect, and you can leave the IP a warning. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, woops! I thought 78.26 was just a random IP and it turns out they are an admin with a functional Talk page and all the bells and whistles. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• 78.26, what's the 26, assuming that 78 is 78rpm? Drmies (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's the exact speed of a "78 rpm", record, i.e. 78.26 rpm. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Only in the US, in Europe it was different. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sound_recording_and_reproduction#78_RPM_gear_ratio_claim for the discussion that is linked to his talk page. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your talk page stalkers have it right, 78.26 is the precise speed of most "78s" in the Western Hemisphere. Of course, pre-1920 the speed varied anywhere from 62 to 90 rpm, particularly in the very early years of disc recording. But "Approximately somewhere around a mean of 78 but with a variance of +/- 20%" is a worse user name than 78.26, so I haven't changed it . By the way, CorporateM, thanks for your work on this. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It all falls into place now. My European background betrays me: you have a period where I would have used a comma (albeit a long time ago--back when I also had a record player). "78.26" to me, as it did to Corp, suggested an IP address, lopped off for convenience sake. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a topic of some discussion at my RfA, but surprisingly the consensus was that I should keep this username since I've had it so long. When I first saw periods instead of the "correct" commas used to mark thousands places on the catalog numbers of European pressings, it confused the heck out of me, myopic American that I am. I wonder how that got reversed between continents anyway, Decimal mark and Full stop explains what, but not why. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My local record shop has a plentiful supply of 78s, were were playing some old Elvis ones from the late 50s, which must have been one of the last of the major production line runs before everyone went over to 45s. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That is certainly true for the United States, where major labels stopped 78s in 1958, and the last 78s for pop music by minor labels (usually R&B) were made about 1960. It was generally about 1959 in Canada and 1960 in the UK. In the US 78s were made for the Hispanic market (particularly for Puerto Ricans) as late as 1966, and for the kiddie-record market as late as 1972. Pop music 78s were made as late as the early 1970s in India and South America, making for some VERY expensive Beatles artifacts. The "latest" 78 debate is a great source of online debate and unreliable research. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

78 (if I may), ours is not to reason why--ours is but to do and die. It's like in linguistics. We can date and explain the Great Vowel Shift, but there is no reason for it. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of recently created articles

Why did you delete my recently created redirects to United states? I feel these terms are used to refer to the country often. The articles I speak of are Good ol' US of A and Good ol US of A wt401 (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Because, in my opinion, these aren't very useful redirects. If someone knows "Good ole US of A" one can safely assume, I think, that they got the "USA" part. Besides, US of A is already a redirect. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• "If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

My temper at AIV and ANI

Hi Dr, any insight you may provide re: my twin reports here [40] and here [41] will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam already blocked the one you reported. Sorry, gotta run. Orooonoko. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete a majority of the content on my new article, Astroneer? I had many sources to back it up, but I have to work on and off because of learning at school. I am going to revert it back and I am going to add most of the sources in the next few minutes, during study hall. All of the stuff I wrote was confirmed, it isn't speculative. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Because what you wrote is plot summary/game guide, which really is of no relevance to a game that's not even out yet. If you have sources, write about development, release, critiques, etc. And that "frequent comparison" you mentioned--a game that's not out is not easily "frequently compared". As I said, there are decent sources out there that may give some relevant information. Summary is not what this article needs: it needs verified information that help establish notability. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, we have another "winner", one that you have blocked before: User talk:66.204.41.62 Regards,  William Harris |talk  04:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, but that was ten days ago. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Drmies. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• hQEMA2QkJvdKSHi2AQf9EGeaEbAzljXrROQv3RiTeUNyDyBJnbKUJbdpdbSPHg2M

BsNGm9ylvBJkVyVc39WmniVgYcdKcOf7/la8BL4IdN1v7SIfSAq5BgAWT2UX+CEK L/ic+9bmk+TSEoRWEQKZCfihCEY5pzkgMqe1s1At5Kp5/UFjaaJQ25KDQ2oOVno3 Q4mzV1ca4bd+zSQ+SMuUodA/9Bub+N+d+obC7E1WVcTiLrRN2esYWTUeYDKswvsG hZG3lr+NGumUKNvYBQ26S4N4DGnED1nxPyiMMJPmOXTjH1KRG3Ui32dbX6o48iDn gwyHPuk2o+3taNMmQzDhYRg1vgsCbMtlE5C0i872rdLpAbMOR+psC4jxUUEqNu7d uExI9t9pxJ/Kd8h+LyJVcje3mC2ECRcc3koZb9TtqVs7h7aRUHcPwRE7J9K7k2mL qw7wZCctEIdH687ljVNOsllGeKGTRxmnv5Hap6hKLCTyrHQmjMok7O368m0RakSp 8hKgU2wbskxxhQ/eLex60F6uyM/f2xEUEsoFCqlXPjipYZoiiZBVI9Rley2GN0Mv vOYsBOhO35HPKkjI2ezG3s0g4jjz7hd/XRjj0hD7TcQCUuFOgJd/xlorrd9+OLvN pB0XgpBC8fc48JKdAcrVYo7GhmLOJQIEoAaupab6ax3B7Mrarq00KFC7M8nyD3h8 /H5Vj6IZTfLlKy/5mGMZKXd/HIAL2d/0f7pfS/yPfJenToUbvyig/NQNabtKYX+m zjM6lznpr4lUQnvRizUAJoNkomTPZ/CrCVw6gv/cW7tw4OR6UdwNS84GLJB6yoeI z1FAA0p9KER+/ETNSym9NhfzxWtLCE4U5jY00P7QMkpmQc2bfze117VIIt91sIlR bIchORlXFUbkv0bZe9dByqN5o1WIApkOKUd01ouklgxeQrG9US3gpWmMgovV9Zz7 +I+Pre2X//mWtXMeLf9dEDHgvbs6yV3ByrDH+JkuLlmd5WU4IOMzeLR3wArp8dbs 3PhFGE4T5DRjtexJoygG96DAHLv6bBNjR4sHGc9JqEF7csh7SA5Uz/3Bz+hUDSvI Q73qY6v4t03meV20zzbn3aw0ZkH+9K22S7Xn1PWlxSVzBIwfiFzk6pgvxCzunTNq kVcyemJ/j6OctYBrGPq+il5tGjMRcYfqCz1ym9h1suN/egEN9hKYGp5HNiXQG4Ju 855eOBZv3qhRW2i0L31lUbrOcDxkjQuNeToBSqbnWXG9bzpZo/eD8AKYOe1ZDn49 hJcYnCBf2OF+4dCFN8EcnWgkvKpA0pMOgam5/gC/4ezd8JpxEYKdDwM2WUH7IY8= =sj78! Drmies (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

hCEY5pzkyq hFGOcDxkjQ GhmLO? MPS1992 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Blaggle blaggle (I think). Drmies (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Kan-je me helpen?

I was just in the middle of rescuing Fenna Vanhoutte, but I could really do with somebody with a more than tenuous grasp of Dutch to parse this source and see if there's anything in there that can be used to expand the one-liner that's currently there. Can you give us a hand? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any more in there that can help you--the tenth place already is. She trained with Johan Musseeuw, but I don't know what that might mean. Hey, did you hear about Rabobank's sex parties? Including collaborative masturbation and brothels? It's in the new book by/about Thomas Dekker (cyclist). Drmies (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. I should not have Googled that. And I still have an account with that bank. Karst (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Rabowank? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh please! Karst (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it was the professional cycling team that was previously sponsored by Rabobank that had sex parties, not the bank clerks. Rabobank stopped sponsoring them in 2012, AFAIK without saying why, but it could have been because of their odd "team-building" practices. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me, when the subject of sex rears its ugly head, all Brits retreat in fear for the nearest cup of tea. (Or is it just me?) Although I've got some more book sources to find out exactly what Victor Hervey, 6th Marquess of Bristol got up to that caused his second wife to say "if you want to screw hookers when you are married, you make damn sure you are not caught" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that seems perfectly sensible to me? Karst (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure they could spell "impending doping scandal" in Dutch. Karst, so did I--back when they wrote their name in full, haha. I was five or six, trying to read and pronounce "Raiffeissen". Are you old enough to remember when we had bankboekjes? I have a hunch Trijnstel had one. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm of a 1971 vintage. I do remember my dad referring to them as the 'Boerenleenbank' with a degree of disdain. Mr. Dekker is now being called a sensationalist, the presentation this evening will be interesting. Karst (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A fine year that was. My younger brother turned 1. I do believe there was no disdain in my family: the Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank was around the corner, and since my father came from a long line of day laborers "boer" was a step up. Have a towel at hand tonight in case it gets too much--imagining all those well-trained bodies fornicating to their heart's content. And man I used to be such a big fan of Boogerd, thinking for a long time he could win the Tour. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So when are you publishing your memoirs? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Karst? When? Mine were under contract with Kok in Kampen, until they started reading the thing. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to write home about at my end. Boogert? Always thought it was a bit of a lightweight. And perhaps he was. Bible belt eh? I'll probably be tramping around that part of the world towards the end of the year. Will report back. Karst (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop talking about Dutchland. Now I want patat. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ehm, I know they were used years ago, but afaik I didn't have one. Trijnstel_talk 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh I enjoyed looking at it. It had my name, and stamps. Do you guys still have vaccinatieboekjes? Drmies (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, those things still exist. :-) Mine should be somewhere... Trijnstel_talk 23:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected

Hey, Doc! Hope you don't mind, I have semiprotected this page for two days. From your edits here you seem to be rather tolerant of invaders, so if you want to unprotect yourself, go ahead. (And blame 7+6, they requested it.) Hope you had a great Thanksgiving! --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not a "they."

Other than that, it's not my WP:User page, so whatever is fine with me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You and Sro23

Go and brag about me all you want, I don't insault anyone. You admins insault us and blame us! 2600:1000:B072:1024:D13A:8D8A:A953:2F7B (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not bragging about you. You are simply being disruptive, and we will try to stop you as much as we can from inflicting damage to the project. If you could play by the rules, we wouldn't be doing this. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are, I already learned the truth about you abusive admins. You threaten people and attack them with theatening messages! 2600:1000:B02C:7247:DDB8:45A6:6A9A:168F (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example here on this blog. http://g-liu.com/blog/2009/08/why-i-really-hate-wikipedia-administrators/ 2600:1000:B02C:7247:DDB8:45A6:6A9A:168F (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• If you think someone ranting on a blog is of any relevance at all you really have no business being here. You should really be on Wikia, with your excessive interest in unverified minutiae. You're Bigshowandkane64, right? And you're complaining under the name "Anthony" on that blog? (Ha, you mention I called you an idiot! Sweet.) At some point you'll have to realize that your work doesn't pass quality control. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE#SageRad

Hello Doctor. This AE request was put on hold for a month and has recently been reopened. Your name is already in the admin section from the October discussion, and you may want to take another look to see if your position is affected by the newly-filed material, especially the response from User:SageRad. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Ed. My comment must be the shortest in that entire (re)thread. I'm just going to leave it be. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

My edits

Why have you blanked me here? Bazsorc (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• I explained in the edit summary. I consider that content to be chatty, more like a personal opinion than encyclopedic content. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Everything I added came straight out of New Essays on human Understanding, a relaible source which I added. Bazsorc (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

So that entire paragraph is pulled from Leibniz? Including "...such as those found in mythology, pork pies, legends, and fairy tales are created by us from other salted peanuts they possess"? Drmies (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit

Actually chuckled at the edit summary, but that is correct. One reportedly entered the building (with the car) with a gun, and the other with a machete. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• I may have missed a comma in there. Either way, the rest of the edit was troubled. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Abuse and insults

I was insulted and abused by User:Cagwinn, a blocked user who has also threatened to continue edit warring once he is unblocked. Despite him insulting me profusely and calling me insane (despite asking me for my sources), an admin called User:Doug Weller is trying to waive the insults and saying it's "my fault" for not leaving when Cagwinn said I was "harassing" him (despite asking me for my sources and immediately insulting me afterwards). Cagwinn seems to have known Doug Weller would be biased towards me, as he specifically pinged him to "have me dealt with". He expressed wishes of me being banned from Wikipedia for showing him sources that prove him wrong. I'm asking you as an impartial source to act as is required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cagwinn UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:UtherPendrogn. Just as a bystander here, it seems that Cagwinn is currently blocked, and you are not. After clicking on some of the few links that you provided, I am still puzzled as to how this situation is unacceptable to you. It is OK if you choose not to indulge my curiosity by explaining. MPS1992 (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC) MPS1992 (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• UtherPendrogn, I'm not sure you are ready for this: you linked to the talk page, where I see that Cagwinn removed one of your posts, which you reinstated with additional commentary; further on down I see them telling you to stay off their talk page, which you obviously did not comply with. I suggest you do NOT post there anymore until Cagwinn tells you it's OK to do so, or I will block you for harassment. While they shouldn't call you insane, you had no business being there yanking a blocked editor's chain. The content issue is of little interest to me; if you ever want to get an answer out of them, leave them alone. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not yanking anyone's chain. UtherPendrogn (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Leave them alone. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I objectively didn't, you can't really disagree. And I have left them alone, I have for the past 16-17 hours, so that order makes no sense. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

And maybe he should leave me alone, and not slander me in his unblock message, ask me for sources, then insult me and call me a troll, insane, and stupid after I give him the sources he asked for?UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is getting stupid. They're blocked. You're leaving your insults all over the place--even in edit summaries in article edits. I just left you another note on ANI after I discovered you'd hounded them on Maelgwn Gwynedd. You want a medal for having left them alone for a couple of hours? Those edit summaries are there forever. And if you go to someone's talk page, someone who is blocked, and harass them, don't be surprised if you get called a troll, because you were acting like one. Do not respond here now: I am not interested in your defense. You can make your case at ANI, and hope that the next admin who runs into your comments is in as felicitous a mood as I am. Drmies (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't hound them, I am interested in British History and the Celtic period. I edited Maelgwn Gwynedd without even knowing Cagwinn had ever been to the page. I did not hound them, they rudely undid my edits calling it OS research nonsense and then calling me an idiot and a vandal. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Felicitous mood"? Well, at least you have a sense of humour. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Cstwct

Hi Drmies. I am wondering if you or any of your talk page watchers might be able to help Cstwct out since she's having a slew of difficulties involving AfD, COI, privacy concerns, copyrights, etc. She's not a new editor per se, but is an SPA, who was creating/editing articles about people she has a personal connection to. I've been trying to help her out on my user talk, her user talk, and Talk:William Tunberg (artist), but I'm running out of ways to keep saying the same things over and over again. I believe she means well, but is just overwhelmed by and frustrated with Wikipedia and believes she is being hounded by other editors. She seems to feel that she's been bitten to a certain degree, so maybe a fresh perspective can help her better understand things or correct any good-faith mistakes made by myself or others trying to help her. There may also be some oversight and BLP issues involved that require tools that are currently above my pay grade. Thanks in adavance for any assistance that you or your talk page watchers can provide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Artist installs 300-pound 16-foot-high cross, barely anchored to the floor in a plywood sleeve, in a church in an earthquake zone and then boasts that God intervened to save the cross from water damage when the rest of His house was virtually destroyed in the 1994 quake. "I think God intervened in this situation simply to make a point about icons and things that symbolize God's presence" wrote the artist. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• Marchjuly, discussion seems to be mostly positive right now, no? Drmies (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think things have settled down a bit. The AfD was closed as a keep and Cstwct hopefully no longer has any concerns about "bad-bots" getting her or her family's personal information from Wikipedia. Thank you and thanks to any of your talk page watchers who helped out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like my previous post might have been a little too hopeful. I thought the close of the AfD as a keep would have resolved most things, but it seems to have only created a new set of issues. Perhaps you or someone else would be willing to take a shot at explaining things and addressing her concerns? I've been trying, but have not been very successful at it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page, and I saw that one edit where they replaced names with initials. I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what their problem is, or what you think I should explain. The man is notable, so he has an article. So his name is already "out there", which it already was (on the internet) since there are online articles discussing him. BTW I suppose you don't want me to ping them? That seems a bit unfair. Thanks for trying to help them, Drmies (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify things better. Cstwct has a declared COI with William Tunberg (artist) and Alfred Shaheen. She was not aware of WP:COI when she created/edited the articles, but seems to understand and accept that she does now. Some personal info she accidentally posted was revdel'd with this edit, which in turn made her worried that "bad bots" are going to somehow get her and her family's information and use it inappropriately. She also seems to feel that the AfD discussion/talk page discussions of the Tunberg article might be seen by potential clients googling him and thus damage his reputation. So, she's gone around changing names to initials in her posts to prevent any bad-bots or search engines from picking up any mention (especially anything in a negative context) of Tunberg or Shaheen or her on Wikipedia. The last thing she tried to do was move the {{Old AfD}} template to a "less noticeable" location on the Tunberg article's talk page. FWIW, I think she means well, but I also think her main concern is the reputations of Tunberg and Shaheen. I've tried addressing this with her and guiding her to various policy pages and noticeboards which deal with these kinds of things, but I don't think I've been very successful in doing so. I am also wondering whether WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is a possibility since she has previously mentioned (perhaps out of frustration) at User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/November#Please immediately delete the WT and AS articles and User talk:Marchjuly#WT - AfD discussion that it might be better if the articles were deleted. It really wasn't my intent to dump a load of fresh drama on your user talk for others to clean up, but you and your watchers have been very helpful to me in the past. I'm happy to continue trying to help Cstwct, but feel I'm not making progress as quickly as she would like and thus only adding to her frustration with Wikipedia. So, I thought someone else might have better luck.-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: I didn't ping Cstwct in my posts for basically the same reason. She expressed that she was feeling harassed and targeted and I didn't want to add to those feelings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• The editor wrote that in the 1960s Tunberg exhibited "carved body parts" in "epoxy boxes" (without a citation), and then there's the bit about the Veteran's Memorial "political firestorm". I've added a description of the design, which the editor didn't bother with. I never heard of Tunberg before this, and now I know never to walk within 20 yards of any of his doors or crosses in case they fall over. Incidentally, Reagan was a member of the congregation in the earthquake-hit church. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits Xanthomelanoussprog. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Re. Pm master

Seeing as you blocked Pm master for 48 hours yesterday, I thought you might be interested in hearing that Finlay McWalter has since raised the possibility of a compromised account. Check out his ANI post. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Baconheimian again?

I came upon this while playing around with Special:NewPagesFeed. Dunno if you remember your prior interaction with this user or not. Some quick poking around reveals that they're back editing within the past few days and nothing appears wrong on that end. However, Jermster darude (talk · contribs) appeared around the same time, creating the same sort of phony election-related content that Baconheimian was doing before you warned them; Gore Vs McCain 2000, nominated as a G3, was specifically what caught my attention. Just thought I'd let you know; I haven't had a full-time connection in months and was knocked off my wi-fi connection eleventeen times in the last hour or two, so I probably won't be back today or maybe also tomorrow. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm thanks. I'll keep an eye out. Got Charter too? :) Drmies (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not whoever you are talking about. The page I created was for something that I was working on. I needed to take a screencap of a wikibox for it, and I can't do it on a phone, so I created the page. I am not sure how to delete pages I make, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jermster darude (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. The page was deleted--for instructions on how to get that done, if it ever happens again, see WP:G7. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI making edits hidden

Drmies, I'm going to guess you accidentally threw too wide of a net on those changes. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, you guessed wrong... I wish. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, could you tell me why you removed my edits? Hobit (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • ? I didn't remove anything besides an IP address. Look at the history and you'll see why I had to go back dozens of edits. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Ah, my misunderstanding about how things work. Thank you. Hobit (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
        • No problem, Hobit. Carry on! Drmies (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

More

I got your message about the Filip Mitrovic article. Sorry if I didn't do it the right way; I'm new at this. Can you tell me the right way to change the category from "Serbian Singer" to "American Composer". This still hasn't been changed back, but I want to follow the correct protocol. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwitt (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't understand--he's not listed as "Serbian singer". Drmies (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Horowitzagency

I was just getting ready to report that account for apparent promotional editing, but you got there first. Thanks! Is there any reason not to revert all their edits? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I BLP PRODded that Lin article--probably to find that some editors regard the IMDB as reliable, haha. The guy may well be notable and the article not irredeemable. I've looked at a few of their edits and pruned an article on a lawyer. But I'll gladly let you judge for yourself! Drmies (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What I noticed was that guy Lin's named added to a film article infobox -- but he's an exec. producer, thus not allowed in the infobox. I'll look for other edits of that sort. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds good. Say hi to Bonnie Charlie. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Will do! I'm actually named for him -- my ancestors (both Irish and Scots) fought at Culloden. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

2.25.27.199

You just blocked 2.25.27.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 31 hours for vandalism. Now they seem to be disrupting their own Talk Page. DarkKnight2149 04:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just look the other way. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I don't know why they shouldn't be able to remove that shared IP template. What's the big deal? Drmies (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that that was a violation of a policy. Am I incorrect in that regard? DarkKnight2149 04:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh I don't know; I've never been that interested in that. You may well be right. I've seen editors who insist that those kinds of templates cannot be removed, but I don't know if they really knew, and I never thought to look it up. But ask yourself what the benefits are of having that template, and what the benefits are of worrying about it. :) Drmies (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Probably not worth the effort to continuously remove it. DarkKnight2149 04:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I used to get upset about it too, and then I realized I was only generating some kind of vengeance-driven emotion--like, you vandal, you have no right to do anything. A righteous feeling, perhaps, but also a pretty useless one. Now, I used to think that for instance block templates shouldn't be removed, but then again--what's the point of it? Let them vent a little, maybe it'll cool them off. Anyway, thanks--this was an irritating one and I'm glad I got to stop it, momentarily. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Delhi Metro

please can you unprotect Delhi Metro? Dsffddfsfdssfsfd (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Dsffddfsfdssfsfd: Hi there. It's rather unlikely that anybody will be willing to unprotect the page, as it was being severely disrupted by sockpuppets. Why not use the talk page to request the change you want made, and place {{edit semi-protected}} above your request, so that somebody sees it? Or even better, stick around making constructive contributions elsewhere until you're able to edit that particular page? Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Becambuisness, you really need to find a new hobby. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Lulz, what did I stumble into here? Vanamonde (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Becambuisness... Drmies (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Resurgent article

As closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination) as delete, you might be interested in Ankit Love, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. PamD 16:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

Thanks for protecting Jimmy Swaggart. I was purposefully not doing so in order to quickly block the socks as soon as they edited the article. But what you did was the right thing. And I can't oppose that ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Something to be said for both approaches, but this ass seemed to take it one article at a time. Thanks for the note, and be like coach Saban: keep calling your own shots. :) Drmies (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Advice on style

A joy forever.
Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No, not my personal style, which is beyond reproach. I culled the biographical descriptions from a list of notables [42]; was I either wrong or overzealous? I can't imagine the need to add net worth to these lists. Thanks, Dr and talk page stalkers. 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• It is almost beyond reproach. BTW I really enjoyed that wonderful nude of Kelapstick on display at the Canadian Museum of Semi-Modern Art. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I truly have no idea whether a nude image of another esteemed editor is something I want to see. The thing is, once these things are seen, they're quite difficult to unsee (I'm sure this isn't where you wanted this to go, but I just read a piece in this week's New Yorker about a lawyer who goes after purveyors of revenge porn. I can't believe I live in a world where there's such a thing as revenge porn. Or President-elect Trump). And semi-modern art is so passe. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • 99, I couldn't agree more, on all points--except on that about Kelapstick's male beauty, which is truly magnificent--or so I'm told by Mrs. Kelapstick. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Why does it have to be male beauty doc, why can't it just be beauty. That's sexist, and I feel objectified. I am deleting you from my Snapchat friends list. 99, I don't know if I have ever been called esteemed before, presumably that's a compliment, thank you. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Another medievalist

Do you have access to the festschrift for Gale Owen-Crocker? OCLC 948738994. The one copy in my interlibrary loan consortium is out, and I'm hoping it contains a capsule biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• No. It's odd. The one big state library has online access--but not for me, from the satellite. The other has an entry for it, but--and I've never seen this before--no bibliographic information. Wait: I see it now, both are e-books. In other words, I can't get them through our local group of libraries since there are no paper copies in the state. (Yeah, digital humanities...) Oh, wait, I see what you're doing: you want to write up her article. Let me know if you want to order it. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Blast, they're doing that more and more. That's why I hunted down the OCLC for the print edition. I think being head of the Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies at Manchester University and having done pots of stuff for textile studies qualifies her; I have found [43], [44] (non-RS) and of course [45], and I believe unofficially we use having a festschrift as a rule of thumb for notability too. I haven't yet looked hard at JSTOR or tried to find newspaper mentions, but I wouldn't be surprised if both those searches fail. So maybe better if someone who does have access to the e-book (IIRC there's at least one Wikipedian who's at that state university?) can tell us whether it contains a biography, or better yet write her up if they agree; unless you see something in the contents that would make it worth ordering. (I'm intrigued by her religion book, but didn't see anything in the contents related to that interest of mine.) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries: I sent out a note on the Ansax listserv; perhaps that will produce a result. In the meantime, I don't know why I haven't written her up before since I am convinced of her notability. Certainly her Four Funerals has received a fair number of academic reviews, and I have no doubt that you will find this to be the case for her other books. She is, as far as I know, the expert on Anglo-Saxon dress and textiles. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope we can find more to put in there, but thanks for your work on that article. Now as for institutions with which I have no affiliation whatsoever: I've done a brush-up on Nora K. Chadwick, but it's really pretty weak. Since I am already late for bed, could you and those of your talk-page watchers with JSTOR access please add some reviews for her publications? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If you'll email me a list of what you want (via Email this user) I can send you pdfs. EEng 23:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I fitted some work on the article around the chaos in which I live on- and off-line. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Appeals awaiting response from blocked user.

Hi ! I am Wikipedia user:niranjandeshmukh. I have placed an unblock appeal on UTRS. The appeal number is 16932. This webpage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Requests_for_unblock) says that my appeal is awaiting a response from me. I have not received any question through email or any other means. It says "AWAITING_USER". To do what ? Please enlighten me. I write to you because you have an active account on UTRS & I thought you might be knowing about this. User:niranjandeshmukh (106.209.164.77 (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

• I don't. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Phone Losers of America

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Dr and talk page stalkers; there's not a lot to this article that's either sourced or significant, but I suspect that its adherents are a zealous crew. Any thoughts about how much to cut, or whether this satisfies notability to begin with? Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yep--prune, and then see what's left. There's a few newspaper articles, but it may well be that it really doesn't add up to GNG. I've seen things like this before; I can't remember, but it was another prank call outfit which also sold tapes or CDs of the calls, on Wikipedia. It took a while to get rid of it. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. You literally cut a large unsourced section just as I was doing the same. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Oops. Sorry for the edit conflict--I was going for the low-hanging fruit. BTW, the article I meant was linked in that one: Tube Bar something. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I saw that one a long time ago... Drmies (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

... and talking of "low hanging fruit".... an entire article about two grapes?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe...but well, you know... [46], [47], [48] ("grape divide", haha), [49], [50], [51]... Drmies (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Your offer of additional sources will be much appreciated, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm giving you the opportunity to get this up to GA status and the front page...! Drmies (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As long as we're making bad produce-related puns, thank you, Dr, for the above advice to prune. I've done so, which is sure to be raisin objections from crank call devotees. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You jest, my dear man. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I try to stay with topics that are currant. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You have a real plum job, there. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I fear I'm getting crushed here, as I'm just too sloe to keep up. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plum sauce, anyone?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously...

• Between you and me, here in the privacy of your talk page, I recognize I should have chosen my words more carefully [52]. In future I'll try to be less of a prick. EEng 19:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• I agree. I was trying to handle it somewhat delicately with my emendation but I'm not real good at that. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I should let you know that I mentioned this (Dalí partin') at Opabinia's talk page. (Did you just agree that EEng is a prick?) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't rightly know why you decided to post that there, with that "one of your colleagues" bit. Did you go back to ANI and settle this in a way you think is better? It's easy to criticize, Tryptofish--if I fail, I'm not surprised since it's happened before, but patronizing me is not going to improve me. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing your comment here, I went back and struck what I posted at her talk page. My apologies. And please remember: this. I understand that ArbCom and adminning can be rather soul-crushing sometimes, and that humor does not work well in digital form. I guess it got more Dalí-esque than I had intended. I wish you the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't see your link right now, Tryptofish, but I appreciate the note, and I'm sorry for being cranky. I did strenuously object to that usage, but again, I can make no claim to having "solved" anything in an acceptable manner. I try to handle things in ways I think are helpful given the context and the editor (EEng I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm making a case study out of you), and frequently it does not work. You may know that I prefer talking to blocking; it's just that talking is actually more difficult. You'd think I'd have learned better how to do that after all these years here, in the classroom, in a marriage, in the world. Still learning. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries. (The link is to my 2015 ArbCom voter guide, where I said nice things about you. And I even went and fixed the oozer-boxen on your user page.) I imagine that serving on ArbCom comes with so many annoyances that crankiness ends up being inevitable. In any case, it's all good with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What's so funny about Biggus Dickus?

Syncophant. EEng 22:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

And Drmies and I both agree that you are a prick, even if less of one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

See right. EEng 23:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see correctly. Why wouldn't I? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sea also

See also left. EEng 23:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's time to block EEng again. And all this in a talk section titled "Seriously..."? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And what's more, I am not a syncopated elephant. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Rex Lee

Hi Dr and page stalkers, I requested more eyes on this at the BLP noticeboard, but it's not juicy enough to get any response there. So, lucky you: I think most of the bio is a puff job, but want further thoughts before clear-cutting. It's become a list of case opinions, interpretations and even cases handled as an attorney, a really impressive and probably WP:COI collection of content, much of which seems to rely on primary sources. As in similarly bloated bios on authors and academics, I suspect career highlights can be trimmed to a handful, and left in prose form. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hm. I think it's wrong to call it a puff job. I confess I don't know quite what to call it, except for a detailed study of judicial opinion that relies on interpretations of court documents. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• This article is the origin of the term indigestible mass. EEng 21:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• He don't like "stare decisis effect" (explained here with a handy Venn diagram). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Rex Lee

Hi Dr and page stalkers, I requested more eyes on this at the BLP noticeboard, but it's not juicy enough to get any response there. So, lucky you: I think most of the bio is a puff job, but want further thoughts before clear-cutting. It's become a list of case opinions, interpretations and even cases handled as an attorney, a really impressive and probably WP:COI collection of content, much of which seems to rely on primary sources. As in similarly bloated bios on authors and academics, I suspect career highlights can be trimmed to a handful, and left in prose form. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hm. I think it's wrong to call it a puff job. I confess I don't know quite what to call it, except for a detailed study of judicial opinion that relies on interpretations of court documents. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• This article is the origin of the term indigestible mass. EEng 21:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• He don't like "stare decisis effect" (explained here with a handy Venn diagram). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hatchimals Deletion

Hi, I was trying to figure out what the heck "hatchimals" are, given their prominence in the news as being sold out everywhere. I noticed that you were the last admin to delete a "hatchimals" article. If I end up doing the research to figure out what the heck hatchimals are, what do you need to prevent that article from being deleted. Topkai22 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Two things, basically--the article needs to be rewritten neutrally (it was spam), and it needs to have reliable sources. I just ran a quick check on Google News, and it seems that there is likely more than enough to write up a decent draft; I'm betting that this thing passes the GNG, our notability guidelines. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• And I guess I'm on my way to WalMart to get one. Or two. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Protective or paranoia. Is JuanRiley back?

Hi Drmies, I don't want to sound ridiculous but I get the feeling that now-indefinitely blocked User:JuanRiley might be lurking on my edits as an IP. After being blocked indefinitely, I've been receiving messages and reverts from IP's more than I usually would. Is there anything I can do? (N0n3up (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC))

• Well I don't know--are there specific ones that trouble you? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Well for one, I've been receiving lots of notifications relating IP's rather than actual users as usual. Specially after JuanRiley has been indefinitely blocked. Here are some of the edits in the following articles: My talk page:[53] wouldn't consider this as JuanRiley but is still one of the many IP's or maybe it's JuanRiley taking a stealth approach; Carthage:[54]; Imperialism:[55]; Battle of Collecchio:[56],[57]. Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid but then again JuanRiley had a tendency to be constant and disruptive on his edits.

Oh, and if you could, can you protect Battle of Collecchio if it's not too much to ask? I've invited the IP to use the talk page and even sent a message here on the IP's talk page, yet the IP's address constantly changes and seems to refuse to discuss and prefer to edit war. (N0n3up (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC))

Thank you Drmies, and sorry for the troubles. (N0n3up (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC))

N0n3up, BTW, I asked for advice from the CU email list a few days ago, but haven't heard back yet. Let me know if they come back again. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. (N0n3up (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC))

Tho do let me know about the CU result cause I'm curious if it's really him. (N0n3up (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC))