User talk:Drmies/Archive 74

Whatever happened to the girls?????????? Igelkottar numera?

Some doubt...

In the article Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century somebody added a long list of names. As far as I know, the list itself is copyright protected (see an edit note on the top of the page while editing). I am not sure if the edits fall foul of the copyright. Can you take a look (or send one of your henchwomen/henchmen in)? The Banner talk 19:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm that "somebody", and I believe it to not be a copyvio. Consider that the list came out as 100 separate articles by numerous different articles over more than a year, and who is on the list can be sourced merely from the titles of the articles without copying any one article extensively. I also agree with an IP who said that if the full list isn't in the article, there isn't really any point in this list. Deleting this as copyvio would mean that a lot of other stuff, such as The Greatest American list of the Discovery Channel, would also have to be deleted. I believe that that shouldn't happen. pbp 20:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for such an aggressive approach, Sir. Please tone down a bit. The Banner talk 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive? LOL. You're the one pestering Dr. Mies about this, not I. There's never been a consensus that it was a copyvio; DGG and other editors in the 2007 AfD (roughly contemporaneous with the removal of the full list) agree with me that it isn't, but for different reasons. Banner, your argument that it's a copyvio is weak because you have yet to point to a single source that presents the list in the manner it's presented on the page. You're probably going to have to find one in order to prove your copyvio allegation. pbp 20:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive, YES. Because you read so badly that you manage to turn "I am not sure if the edits fall foul of the copyright." into "You're probably going to have to find one in order to prove your copyvio allegation.". With so much bad faith, I am done. The Banner talk 21:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, merely pointing out that you're going to have to find a source that it's copied from to prove your copyvio allegations. pbp 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know, Banner. Y'all please play nice: I'm tired of listening to people yelling at me and at others. I don't know--I think that often such lists are accepted, but I don't know that for sure. If DGG spoke out on it, ping him--@DGG:. Or ping Moonriddengirl: @Moonriddengirl:, she's the real expert and she's on payroll, so she has to answer. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Let us see if they can take away my doubt, either this or that way. Off course, I hope that I was just overly cautious... The Banner talk 23:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • And I see now that the "ping" template comes with free punctuation. You learn something new every day. I also learned that I am part of various secret conspiracies, and that the things I do are probably organized behind the scenes--yay! So stay on my good side, Banner, I'm telling you. Let's see. Who else knows this stuff. Usually I ask Mandarax for all kinds of advice, but I think old age is creeping up on him. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Lists are evidently a gray area in copyright law, and I kind of hate it when they show up at WP:CP. It's a messy and unpleasant situation all around. We have an essay at Wikipedia:Copyright in lists which I authored with feedback from the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers - one of the examples of unacceptable uses, Time 100. :/ (The note about partial uses of such information at WP:NFC (Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text_2) was added based on her input.) I'm afraid that if this came up at WP:CP and I were handling that day, based on the legal information we have been given, I would remove it. (Prior to the feedback we received, I would have truncated it to the top 5, but I was cautioned that this might be no better, as the top of the list may constitute the "heart".) We have a number of such lists that don't include full rosters: Time's All-Time 100 Movies and Time's List of the 100 Best Novels, for instance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for weighing in, Moonriddengirl. I appreciate it, and I hope it is enough information for our editors. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

I'm staying out of this particular dispute (both the content dispute and the associated project-space drama), but since you pinged me at BLPN, might I suggest that keeping the thread alive by continuing to comment in a section that hasn't been edited in ~10 hours is not a good idea. Tempting as it may be, getting in the last word or keeping the thread alive after it has died a natural death isn't likely to progress anything. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Harry, the moment the guy stops repeating those allegations in every forum possible, I'll be done with it. But I thought it funny that they claimed you blocked them because the matter was so complex, so they bear you no ill will because, basically, you're not smart enough to see the complexity. But yeah, I guess I'm falling for his baiting, orchestrated with his buddies Zambelo and Viriditas. You got a point. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Avakian again

Enrealidad reverted the article again. This has been the issue for the past few years with this article, edits that aren't his nor comports with his idea of Avakian will always eventually be reverted. I don't know what the procedure is, but unless someone always checks the article, Enrealidad will make sure the article looks like the way he wrote it. How can one prevent this? --xcuref1endx (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• What you should consider doing is posting a note on WP:ANI saying that you want an uninvolved admin to look into the matter. Give diffs of their reverts, ping the folks on the talk page (KeithBob, Cullen, Cwobeel). Indicate, in three sentences, how their edits betray that they do not know how to write on Wikipedia, what kinds of sources are acceptable, what neutrality means. Point out how they are essentially an SPA with 148 edits, half of them on this article. Then, ask for someone to consider warning them in very strong words and consider mentioning WP:NOTHERE. I warned them for edit warring, but I reverted twice already and shouldn't do it anymore; still, if they do it again, you could take them to ANI then. But really, I'd start an ANI thread about this, quick and simple. If you don't mind, I'm going to stay away from ANI for a bit. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hedgehog

• Cute hedgehog, by the way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Favors

My good friend Drmies, could you perhaps drop in on Firewall_(physics) and revdel the appropriate recent revisions, semiprotect the page, and block the relevant IPs? Thanks much, Gaijin42 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ha! Abuser Drmies, you mean. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you only protected the page for one day. Could you perhaps do longer? If you look through the history, yo uwill see that the page just recently came off of protection, and the issues started up again immediately. This stuff has been going on for months now diff Gaijin42 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2014 (U-TC)

My bad, it wasn't immediately, the protection wore off some time ago. Still, it seems as though the guy has a decent level of patience. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha, good point. I made it a year. Take it easy Gaijin, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI closure

Hi Drmies, I just saw that you closed the ANI I opened [1] and was wondering if you could give a little guidance? First I want to thank you for acknowledging EllenCT's behavior is problematic. The question of what to do about it has seemed to vex the community for awhile now as this behavior has previously been brought up at ANI [2][3]and Arbcom[4] as I mentioned in the ANI post. Part of the problem is that extra drama seems to follow this user (especially seen in some of the oppose responses with either unrelated gender comments, additional COI accusations against me, or involved editors from previous disputes infusing additional drama sometimes on both sides). Then you have the massive amount of information that can be presented as evidence (and is needed to establish a pattern of disruptive behavior), yet easily muddled within a content dispute too. Both of those factors are evidenced even just by my ANI, and the cases I cited above. It's not easy to address to say the least. I was hoping at the least for a very direct statement to her to stop the COI/assuming bad faith issues (maybe that could still be specified a bit more in your closing comment if you think it would be warranted), but I'll defer to your decision to close now and see what happens either way. I mainly just want to see a stop to this behavior and the tendency to not hear users she's in a content dispute with that are trying to help her with our civility related policies and guidelines.

The main question I have is what to do if this behavior continues and to find consensus if this remains persistent given the above? There's a history of this behavior coming up again and again. Instead of having this behavior simply brought up at admin related venues getting the point across to stop it, the lack of a decision one way or another each time seems to instead buttress the behavior even further in her eyes as the behavior tends to continue. I've always hoped that simple talk or warnings would get the point across, but given the history, there's also a reasonable chance this behavior could land right back at ANI again someday (though I still hope that won't be the case). The thing that bothers me the most is that trying to respond to this behavior even in good faith seems to put the appearance of tendentiousness in my court no matter what I do, and feeling like my only option sometimes is to walk away points to a larger problem. Given what you've reviewed at the ANI before closing it, do you have any advice on how to proceed with civility issues if they continue to be an issue? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Kingofaces, first of all, thank you for your note--you didn't get what you wanted, perhaps, but you seem to accept it and that's a good thing. Let me answer in a couple of quick bullets--I choose that format since I've been grading business writing homework all evening. Paid editing, as my friend CorporateM might call it.
  • First of all, Robert McClenon's response is silly. ANI calls for evidence. If it's too long to read, go read War and Peace. Still, brevity is the soul of wit, and economy is a virtue. It's difficult to strike the right balance, but longer posts have a tendency to turn away a hungry audience that desires small bites for quick judgments.
  • Second, it wasn't me who established that there was a problem, it was the respondents in that thread--I just added a tiny little observation of my own.
  • On that note, the ones to advise you are probably those who had previous experience with that editor and responded from that experience. I don't believe I know this editor and I certainly don't know the subject matter.
  • Finally, given that we don't have a "civility board" anymore, and since ANI is more for single incidents than for patterns of behavior over longer periods. For such problems, WP:RFC/U is the first step. If all goes well, a recommendation of sorts comes out of that process, not a block or ban--but it is a step in a process and many editors consider that the first step when editor behavior is the problem.

    So I think an RfC/U is probably the way to go, but mind you, I'm something of a process wonk and I place perhaps more faith than others in RfCs. But go talk to someone who is familiar with the editor and the content area. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it concerning that an editor is pressured into disclosing personal information in order to dispel a baseless COI accusation. Editor Interaction Analyzer does not confirm stalking and some of the diffs in the complaint don't seem to prove what they were intended to prove. It's funny for a Wikipedian to insist that two regular english words, when combined, become some specific Wikipedia term and cannot be used in any other way, especially since anyone that is actually a "paid advocate" should just be banned if they are indeed "advocates". If there is legitimate evidence that a source is a front group, astroturf, or dare I say, paid advocacy, that is a good reason to disqualify the source, but that is the kind of claim we often see that is just plain made up to avoid sources the editor doesn't like. I think Drmies keeps mentioning my often being paid for my work, because he's a bit jealous. My articles may be excruciatingly boring, but I don't get paid enough to deal with these kinds of issues. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 06:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Jealous of someone who makes a decent living with their writing? Me? Never! (I'm assuming, of course, that you're awash with cash.) Drmies (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I hear the multitasking sentiment Drmies. I'm here on WP right now, but also peer-reviewing a journal manuscript. It's in decent shape so few edits and likely to be published, but at least you get paid for your edits. Thanks again for the advice. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, it's still business writing, Kingofaces. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh, both sides are true. The subjects I choose for volunteer projects are always more interesting, have no deadlines and don't require navigating a corporate bureaucracy. But my paid work allows me to spend devoted time in the middle of the "work day" on articles that would otherwise get no attention. As far as being "awash" with cash, Drmies probably gets paid more than I do in his dayjob, but I have little interest in expensive things and live comfortably. It's amazing that people will complain about being short on cash, when they are in the top 10% worldwide. You can't earn much money doing this sort of thing if you're not willing to take on the naughty stuff. CorporateM (Talk) 16:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Corp, I just learned that it takes the head of human resources here five weeks to make my annual salary. So yeah, wrong business. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarbajit Roy

You happy with the redirect being removed and the old version being restored? Forgot to tell you, made those oatmeal pancakes yesterday using an apple/cinnamon/sultana instant oatmeal packet, delicious. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

AHHH; souds WONDERFULL; Doug, I need something to eat, I just feel it. Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, I'm not happy with that at all. The old article was a piece of crap: it's a sequence of events that individually aren't very noteworthy to begin with. And if that editor is really a 60-year old Unitarian named Charles Duff (a US or UK expatriate living in Bremen?) then I'm a monkey's uncle: that particular English they wrote on Talk:Sarbajit Roy doesn't sound very likely. But I'll leave the decision-making part to you: I haven't even had lunch. Glad the pancakes worked out for you--and they're high in fiber! Please, no reports on the Bristol stool scale--tell it to SandyGeorgia. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was going to protect today. Possibly the blocked TheWikiIndian[5], sadly that's stale. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Regular shoutouts to Drmies are still heard from the bathroom in this household. Men will be boys. Wikipedia had one lasting effect on my life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion...

Lousy, half-assed attempt at mediation proved unsuccessful. Lack of goodwill on the one side, or the other, or both, or lack of skill on the mediator's part. Or just the general tendency to take everything personal, which is just proof of Wikipedia being a proper reflection of a typical US talk show or eight-grade class. With apologies. Scalhotrod, enjoy your break. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Drmies, Capeo's analysis notwithstanding (you may have to scroll down a bit), I'm wondering if maybe I should be the one to make a sacrifice and offer to stay off the site until the end of the Topic Ban in roughly the middle of January. I would continue to read the site and likely work on articles in my Sandbox, but stay away from Mainspace and of course Talk pages. The reasoning behind this is that it will present the opportunity for the situation to be evaluated somewhat clinically. If LB's behavior/attitude/viewpoint/[&/or]feelings suddenly changes by the lack of my presence, we may be better off for it. If not, its additional information to consider. Even if there is calm during my absence and the disruption returns when I do, that's still more information from which to draw conclusions. If the discussion can be closed giving everyone involved a respite and the opportunity to focus on far more important things, I'm offering to take a WikiBreak and let the chips fall where they may. I invite your thoughts on my suggestion? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC) I don't know, Cowboy. I wish you hadn't done this, but that's a long time ago. And I still can't picture you as joining some gender task force of your own volition, sorry. There is always the option of taking less than a break and just staying away--didn't Lightbreather say she'd leave you the porn? (Thrown in some beer and hot wings and ask the boys over...just what the porn articles need...) Sorry. I wish I had better things to offer, but there are so many of these bigger and smaller things going on, all related to editor behavior, that I wonder if this whole project shouldn't just be bought out by some company and run like a business. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, I did say that. If Scalhotrod will take his name off the GGTF member list, I will remove mine from the porn project member list. That would be a start. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Ha, but then you really have to leave boobcamp. No participation on project talk pages, etc. Dabbling with Trinity Loren (who wikilinks "marriage"???) is fine, but doing it low profile is best, and you can't touch articles he's been active in. I suppose WP:RSN on porn-related stuff is OK, for instance, but if you run into the Cowboy there you'll just have to pretend he's not there (and vice versa). God, it sounds like I'm writing up a contract. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Can I finish up the project I'm working on, removing lukeisback as a RS? Or would you be willing to finish that? Frankly, I'm disgusted with the job - been working on it two days - but I don't like to leave jobs unfinished. I would also like to put lukeisback on the blacklist, so it doesn't creep back into other articles. (The only place that I've intentionally left it is at Luke Ford.) I'd prefer to check these items off my to-do list, but if someone else takes over... Honestly, there are at least a half-dozen purely spam/promo sites I've come across the last couple of days that should not be RS for any bio. Yech. Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC) I have no problem with it if you want to finish that (I did a few a couple of days ago, but after Trinity I've had enough porn for the while): it's low-visibility, yet it's important. If Scalhotrod has a problem with it they can let you know (here or elsewhere), but I think he understands what's reliable and what's not well enough. For the blacklist, you can propose it on that page and see what happens; go for it. Yes, the sourcing is atrocious, in general. I have no answer for it. Googling those names is an immediate overload of hits (that my kids shouldn't see on the screen) of no value at all, but GBooks doesn't have that much material. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Lightbreather What exactly is your proposal? Just leaving the wikiproject pages themselves? Or removal from the entirety of the scope of the wikiproject? The former seems pretty pointless as not much actually happens on the actual wikiproject pages. In the latter, porn pages are obviously much easier to define than GGTF "owned" pages. would you consider anything related to feminism, and gender issues to be under that umbrella? It seems like that side is much more ambiguous and also wide ranging (and therefore more likely to be a source of conflicts and dispute over if the deal is being followed or not). On the other hand, if GGTF is considered just to be the immediate pages themselves where that group discusses its ideas for improving the wiki, but doesn't have articles under its purvue, it would be easier to see if things are kosherGaijin42 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC) C'mon, Gaijin. Do you mind?[6][7] Lightbreather (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC) [8] Gaijin42 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Lightbreather, Gaijin is a friend of the show, though not necessarily invited for this segment. I would not want to go too far into detail in setting parameters--Lord knows I don't even want to broker a deal. There is no deal. What we can have is an agreement that two editors are going to stay out of each other's way in two different projects. Scalhotrod will stay out of the gender bit (loosely defined? who cares--let's be generous and accommodating on all sides) and especially that one project; Lightbreather will finish her porn project and then move on to greener pastures. (The situations are opposite: porn, lousy, inactive project and tons of clearly defined articles; gender, difficult to define the articles, but the project is a hotbed of activity.) But what's more important than anything is that both simply keep their cool. That they don't complain immediately or almost immediately about what the other did. That they don't bring up the other in conversation, certainly not for assholish purposes. That they don't even suggest through their edits or comments that they are interested in the other. It's attitude and good will that will solve this, not contracts or demarcations. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Folks, all this horsetrading aside, I really don't see the purpose or real benefit of either LB or myself leaving any project. I too have articles that could be construed as being a part of the GGTF that I want to continue working on. I'm still of the belief that if I simply go away for a bit, true natures will be revealed or at least made a little more clear. Drmies, given everything I've said and the broad range of articles I've worked on (and created), I'm sorry that you think its so implausible that I have a genuine interest in the GGTF. But it is, what it is. That said, I wouldn't mind Robert McClenon explaining how he came to the conclusion that I joined the project just to get LB to quit or how that's possible unless he believes that there is some irrationality to LB's behavior. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Scalhotrod, as a sign of good faith I just removed my name from the porn project and I'm asking you, please, will you remove your name from the GGTF? Lightbreather (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Why did you add your name in the first place? Eric Corbett 21:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Already discussed numerous times elsewhere, E. My question is for Scal. Lightbreather (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC) If you're talking about this, no you did not. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Scalhotrod, leaving that project is a good-faith compromise and much less drastic than staying off altogether until January. Come on. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Folks, I've been off the site for 24 hours and I tried not to even think about the situation here and focus on other things. It was nice... (so after taking a nice deep breath) @Lightbreather, I consider the removal of your name from the project an empty gesture[9]. Through the comments and analysis in ANI (primarily between you and Capeo here, but others as well), I believe you joined the project out of spite directed specifically at me. This was subsequent to the egregiously sexist personal attack made during the ARE proceeding. That attack was ignored and because of that I feel you were emboldened (but not encouraged, I still have faith in the Admins) to go after other Editors such as Sue Rangell. Even in the midst of the current ANI, I noticed that you joined in on another aimed at Mike Searson. Someone who you seemingly get along with even though you have routinely disagreed on content in the past. I have come to believe that the reason you attack me so vehemently is the guilt and/or conflict that you feel regarding your own behavior. In my opinion, accusing the variety of Users on this site of all manner of wrongdoing somehow justifies your attacks and lack of good faith when dealing with others. As for the Project - tell ya what, if it makes YOU feel any better, take my name off the GGTF yourself and then mark it down however you'd like, a "win for you", "defeat for me", the "betterment of the GGTF", or just so you can feel better about yourself, but I'm not going to be the one to do it. You have been given so, so many opportunities to be the better person only to outright ignore them or worse yet, seemingly use them as justification to be vindictive. And not only have you tenaciously gone after other Editors who simply don't share your views, but you have made accusations about the Admins and their operation of the site, the policies and procedures of the site, the Editor community as a whole and its demographics, and to top if off you went and complained to its founder all the while claiming that you're trying to encourage civility on the site. If you don't stop, you're going to run out of people to be pissed off at... I'm still going to take a WikiBreak as I've described above because I think its the best course of action for the Wikipedia community. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Answer for Eric and anyone else who's interested Re the events surrounding my joining/leaving the porn project and my editing for the project: 19:41, 26 July 2014 [10] I was invited to join WP:GGTF. 19:55, 26 July 2014 [11] I joined GGTF. 09:01, 28 July 2014 [12] On incidents unrelated to GGTF, I notified an admin that Scalhotrod was stalking me, and I asked for help. 09:48 28 July 2014 [13][14] I invited two female editors to join GGTF. 10:37, 28 July 2014 [15] Scalhotrod joined GGTF. 15:55, 28 July 2014 [16] I left GGTF. 28-31 July 2014 I worked on some articles about women, one of which led me to articles on/related to colonialism, while I thought about what articles/group(s) I wanted to work on/with next. I decided to work on feminists and the harmful aspects of porn (since most WP porn content seems to be fan based). This led me to articles on Julie Bindel and Gail Dines among others (though I only worked on - minor work on - the former). 15:35, 31 July 2014 [17] I joined WP:FEM. 11:21, 1 August 2014‎ [18] I joined WP:PORN. 11:24, 1 August 2014 [19] I announced that I was a new member at the WP:PORN talk page and indicated two articles that I planned to create. 11:27, 1 August 2014 [20] I announced that I was a new member at the WP:FEM talk page and indicated the two articles that I planned to create. 12:04, 1 August 2014 [21] I started working on one of the articles. Between then and yesterday, I worked a lot on WP:PORN and porn articles. I made hundreds of edits that improved the project page and porn articles. Rather than speculate on my intentions, judge me by my work, and consider this question: How much work, how many edits, did Scalhotrod do on GGTF or on gender-centric articles between August 1 and September 25? Lightbreather (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)‎

• Looks like I made the right choice, but I wish she had done a bit more clean up and deleted the RFCU and not dragged me into her beef at artbitration with Eric. I did not know about the RFCU until I read about it here. I'm sticking to my Sandbox and the Pending changes list until January. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Trinity Loren

Thank heavens you showed up at that article. It is about the saddest thing I've ever read, and the sources, for the most part, are complete trash. Makes me ashamed to be a Wikipedian. Lightbreather (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was watching Recent Changes and your "boobcamp2000?" caught my eye. :) Drmies (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind cleaning that up? I honestly don't think but two of those sources is bio-worthy - and none for the kind of personal details it has. If I do any more than I have done, I'm likely to start up the posse who thinks that I want to censor WP. My god - this is someone's life we're talking about. Lightbreather (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I suppose I "censored" it pretty good then, and I tagged it too. Thanks--that was great. Please stay out of porn if it means I have to follow you there. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Dank u wel. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rodejong

Drmies and page stalkers, what do you think of this user page? It contains links to external sites where people can ask for bible study groups and such. Is this considered promotional? To me it looks a lot like proselytizing. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand, after being pointed out, that it was inappropriate. I would have find it respectful, if you just had asked me to delete it. Then I could sort it out myself. I feel I did not get the chance at all. I made a few changes again, as to easy find the links I often use when using my mobile. - I hope that you will respect my wishes to leave these be. - I would respectfully request that you give people a chance. We're not all stubborn and difficult people here on Wikipedia ;)

Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 23:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Ro, I suppose I could have left you a message. Ik was misschien een beetje gehaast, sorry. Zeg, als je toevallig Willy Bijvoet kent, doe hem de groeten. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tahash/Badger skins

Hi. You cleaned a sock nest here 2 years back. Are these 2 article recreates kosher? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wait--wait--badger skins? Fo shizzle? L'histoire se repete...I can't remember if CU was ever run, but let's find out. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Technical question

Sorry to bother. So I have been working on my project two days now, but when I do a search on "lukeisback" I still get 170 results, even though I have removed that WP:NOTRS from just about every article it was in (except, as I've said before, the Luke Ford article). Anyway, why do they continue to show up? Is there a way to purge them? If you don't know, could you point me to some WP-innards-savvy (not Gj42) colleague? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've noticed the same thing years ago already: it takes time to update, that's all. Not to worry. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A section called "technical question" on Drmies's talk page, and I don't get a ping?! That's it, I'm outta here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry Writ Keeper--I would have but I had to run home for a pest-control appointment. And that's not a technical matter. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Agreed. It certainly takes a few days for the normal search to update. Special:Linksearch is more up to date though and shows that there are still some live links in BLPs. SmartSE (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that special linksearch is cool! So many helpful tools that I don't know about. I waste a lot of time manually searching for things. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's always annoyed me that Special:Linksearch doesn't let you restrict your query to article-space (most of the results returned are from userspace or talkspace, and so not as relevant). I mean, it annoyed me enough that I wrote User:MastCell/el-search.js, a short piece of JavaScript that adds a box to Special:Linksearch allowing you to search only specific namespaces. You're welcome to use it, although it hasn't been tested and the code quality is at the level of works-for-me. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I shall try it. Mil gracias. Lightbreather (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll be having a go with that too. Thanks MastCell! SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_for_The_Devil.27s_Advocate.

Best,

jps (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, jps, long time no see. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Help

High up in the skies Dr Mies?

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Man Writing a Letter + Woman Reading a Letter.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hafspajen (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric Holder

Thanks. You just beat me too that. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sure thing, CBWeather--odd thing was, when I clicked "undo" the first time I saw a note that said "the edit is already undone", but that turned out not to be the case. Maybe the wiki is slow--I know my connection is. As a side note, no thanks--we had chicken and sweet potato waffles for dinner. As another side note, MONGO, what? That content was totally unacceptable! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that "the edit is already undone" notice before and it wasn't correct then. I think MONGO just didn't take the time to look at the sources properly. At first glance they look OK but they seem a bit biased. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You big mean admins protected the page before MONGO, just a Pawn in the game of life, could self revert...still, mistaken to revert first time...MONGO be extra careful, avoid blocks, unquiet meals making for ill digestions, etc.--MONGO 04:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Right on MONGO, thanks for your note. Shit happens, no worries. BTW, I may be mean but I'm totally impartial: while I approve of Holder's tenure and I'm sad to see him go, I have no love at all for that little mustache. And as a reader of Spivak I'm naturally suspicious of any Columbia U. grad. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, MONGO calls us mean and meanies while Drmies makes personal comment about Holder. Both blocked or have to eat seal liver, but I'm merciful so no bearded seals, as a penance. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

MONGO once also mean admin-type, till even bigger and meaner arbcom-types take tools away from MONGO...MONGO almost blocked all the then sitting members of arbcom just before losing toolbelt, thought hard about it, would have been ultimate troll move. Likely lead to immediate and permanent hardblock of MONGO account, but would have made MONGO infamous at least....hehehe. Best not to trust tools to deranged persons such as I because I might just use them!--MONGO 05:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

MONGO lie. MONGO no tell truth. Be many deranged persons with tools. Drmies deranged. CBWeather deranged. Me not deranged if I keep taking my 12 anti-psychotics. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• You lot missed Holder's prosection of eight government employees. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Malik and I deranged too. A least no beans for me at dinner. MONGO stink. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Different degrees of derangement....MONGO still most deranged and stinky.--MONGO 15:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Dirty and filthy! Yes! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarbajit Roy

I cant understand for life of me why you keep sending this article to India Against Corruption. Duffycharles (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. I thought he was supposed to be a big shot in that organization. Where else would you like me to send it? Drmies (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There is some content dispute over how Roy is connected to the IAC which is the subject of Wikipedia's article. Nevertheless, Roy is a notable person even without his IAC role, and is a well known / notable public interest advocate and RTI activist in India. So I suggest that you restore the Sarbajit Roy article so it can be improved to Wikipedia standards by auto-confirmed editors. Duffycharles (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Bob Avakian edit

I posted this on the Talk page for the "Bob Avakian" article and am also posting it on the Talk pages of individual editors who have commented on this recently.

Nobody has bothered responding to any of the criticisms I put up on the “Bob Avakian” talk page about edit by Keithbob and others, other than Keithbob saying that I should start a separate thread if I "have concerns about a specific sentence or source". No, it isn't a problem with one or two phrases or sources – I have concerns about the overall totality of the article as rewritten. It is inaccurate, possibly libelous around certain allegations of legal issues, and biased.

My criticisms are very specific, based on carefully locating and studying each one of the sources added to the article, researching the authors of those pieces, and looking at what I know of the actual facts. I have offered specific criticism and comments about different elements of the article. And I've raised concerns that this is very connected with the basic methodology that led to this – just find something that someone said, don't bother looking at whether they have any basis to say it, and then simply cite it as truth. This is precisely what leads to rumors and inaccurate summations being turned into "facts" when there is no basis for this.

Nobody has addressed any of this. Instead, the argument seems to be simply an empty call for "consensus" without dealing with the content of that concensus. Just because the majority of people say something doesn't make it true. Think about the fact that most people in this country question basic scientific understanding like evolution, or global warming.

Again, it is inappropriate and frankly irresponsible to simply remove an article that was the result of literally months and months of careful study of everything I could find on Avakian, whether supportive or critical, and carefully source every statement in it, and instead substitute a poorly researched, biased "substitute". It goes along with removing all of the content of Avakian's views and writings without any effort to even engage them. Again, readers of Wikipedia come here to find something accurate, reliable and informative. EnRealidad (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Which is why your version cannot stand. Look, there is nothing fancy about this. There is no "methodology" besides "look what's in the secondary sources and summarize". So don't be surprised that you're having difficulty getting answers, since a. it's all been explained a few times already and b. your long walls of text simply don't pertain, there is nothing to answer. I'm sorry, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. You are clearly not aware of or in agreement with how we're writing this encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Assistance Needed

I'm having a bit of an issue with User:Finkie13 and User:Radio247. Both accounts have edited the WSGS article almost exclusively. All of the edits made to the article are clear OR. I posted messages explaining OR and RS to the users.

Neither editor responded to my posts, but Finkie13 has not edited the article or any article since. Radio247, on the other hand, has. Twice while I have been writing this post and is on the verge of violating 3RR. Could you have a word with both, especially Radio247. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have also reverted the content as it appears to be a copyvio, which was copied from http://www.wsgs.com/mystery.htm - including the bare bracket numbers that are broken markers for what was likely refs at one time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: I just reported User:Radio247 for 3RR violation. I gave them a warning prior to doing so, so they were adequately warned.

@Barek: I thought that was a copyvio, but didn't have time to check, was working on the above linked 3RR report. Good catch. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If it were only edit warring, I would have left it to someone else at WP:AN3 to address; but as it also involved an apparent copyvio and they refused to discuss them, I have blocked the user for 72 hours.

Note - it is possible that the content on the radio stations website is itself a copy of older Wikipedia text - but I couldn't locate a version from earlier in our article with the same text. So it is most likely text that the radio station copied from some other as yet unidentified source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Barek: If you could, could you please mention your block of Radio247 on the 3RR report at AN3? I figure the WSGS page for the station's history is probably from personal stories and recollections. They ask for folks to email in their stories. That would essentially be second-hand original research and definitely not allowed. Hopefully Radio247 comes back willing to edit constructively. Thanks for you help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Mistaken

This is the context of the current AN discussion about the The Devil's Advocate (TDA) following your block on them. You're mistaken about a couple things. In regard to your comment on TDA talk page [22], AN is not "their" (admin's) board, despite the name, any more than a catfish is a cat (despite the name). Maybe it should be but it's not, as indicated by the header Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and arbcom policy, which used to explicitly call AN a "community board" [[23] The block on Devil's Advocate -- which has come to my attention because the current ban discussion -- was inappropriate per WP:INVOLVED because hatting -- as the template documentation clearly states, is an editor action, not an admin one (it doesn't require sysop permissions to hat something).

I'm kind of embarrassed to bring the last point up, but it might save you grief down the road: While any Wikipedian with a lick of common sense would realize, referring to folks who vote in Rfas as "idiots" [24] is a harmless rhetorical device, unfortunately the current wiki political correctness, as least in some areas of Wikipedia, have recently gotten another admin in hot water: the TL;DR version is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Sexology_.28TParis.29 but the short version is TParis used the phrase "for the morons who can't read" on WP:AE and got a discretionary sanction logged warning for it (how stupid is that?) NE Ent 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Don't be embarrassed, Ent, and thank you for your note. I'm sometimes embarrassed enough to be an administrator, and in this and other recent cases, embarrassed enough to be a Wikipedia editor in the first place. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The return of the snake article vandal

Hi Drmies. Perhaps you remember me, I'm the IP that opened an ANI against the editor User:DendroNaja who is obsessed with snakes. after a short investigation by you and @User:Casliber, it was discovered he is a notorious multiple offender on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Disruptive.2C_authoritarian_editor_in_Snake_articles

He appealed the block after a 8 days. I was happy to inform the Admin there who he was dealing with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DendroNaja#Appeal

Guess what? he's back :) the new incarnation is User:DocSean

Check out his love for snake articles and...(drumroll plz) Temazepam.

I caught him because i was watching the Black mamba article, which is his biggest fetish, and he just made his first edit there. I'll ping @User talk:Materialscientist who seems to watch over that article too.

Thank you 79.176.26.46 (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• You're kidding. And this a day, or two, after the return of User:Paul Michael Heart, or Michael Paul Heart, or Hermitstudy, or whatever. Well, the ANI is not the thing to link to--the SPI is. Where is it? 23:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VeronicaPR/Archive 79.176.26.46 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I just blocked it as a pretty obvious sock....time to clean up I guess. How do I log on that page...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha, yes, I just put the dinner dishes away and found the SPI. Sebastian80's talk page makes for interesting reading; the funnest part (well, fun...) is good old Tnxman307's comment on 20 January (incidentally, my brother's birthday). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick work CasLiber. and thank you Drmies 79.176.26.46 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, all thanks are due to Casliber. Thanks for keeping an eye on that black mamba--yes, I believe "fetish" is the right word; I wonder if Sebastian/Veronica knows what a fetishist's favorite smell is. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Maupoleum

BB ^{(Bad Bishy)} in action

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mandarax, look at this! Drmies (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations – very impressive! I was going to add this to the Stats page but was too tired at the time and meant to get back to it. Thanks to Gerda for mentioning stats in regards to your double DYK below, because that jogged my memory about this one. I've now put it on the Stats page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Very impressive! Singing today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to certify RFCU

Would you please certify this RFCU? Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry Lightbreather, but I can't do that. I can agree that there are problems, but if I had been convinced he was hounding you I would have blocked him already. In fact, I had two good reasons to not block: a. I was not convinced (and in part that was because I did not want to read all the large swaths of text you two produced), and b. I did not want to act on behavior in my administrative capacity when I was more interested in trying to mediate. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple of your comments (That includes provocation and hounding/stalking...[25] and I still can't picture you as joining some gender task force of your own volition, sorry[26]) make it pretty clear that you do think that he harassed me in the recent past, and that he was supposed to stop, but I'm not gonna push it. As for large swaths of text - when I complain, whether it's in detail or succinctly, I abide by the policies and guidelines about where and how to do so... and I provide evidence. I think those are distinctions worth noting.

I do thank you for trying to address the problem. Lightbreather (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have thoughts and opinions, Lightbreather. But participating in this RfC would prevent me from taking administrative action in the future, and I want to keep that option open. Besides, and this may contradict what I just said, I am trying to scale back my commitments here altogether. Too frequently I'm either in the middle or I'm a punch bag or I'm having to act all authoritatively, and I am not enjoying it. So you'll have to find another certifier, but you need more people to comment in the first place. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you have never thought that I used you as a punching bag, though I know you have been in the middle of my and others' problems before, and I thank you again. As I said though, I'm not going to push it - meaning the RFCU, and my understanding is that without a second certifier it will die (be deleted) tomorrow, and that will be the end of that. Of course you already know this, but I'll say it again for anyone who might read this: I think the Wikipedia system for dealing with those who harass and attack does not work, contributes to the project being a hostile workplace, and costs the project otherwise good editors who cannot or will not work with loutish colleagues. Lightbreather (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Lightbreather, not you. I hope someone will certify it for you. And I do think that we have problems in dealing with editors, yes, though I wish I could put it in words. Or in policy. Or that I wasn't so conflicted about all this (and that). Drmies (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Barrowman

Sorry, I was building a deck when you archived. Barrowman played Captain Jack Harkness on Doctor Who, and its spinoff Torchwood. G'day sexy alien hunter. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Fascinating, K-stick. Is grilling season over already? I saw some kid in a commercial--oh! a Bank of America commercial, I just remembered--who looked just like your boy. Made me think of you. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well I am stuck in Saskatchewan until mid October, but it is always grilling season for me. I have been known to do up a steak when it is -40, although I try not to make a habit of it. I got a new BBQ at home, and have used it once, to cook hot dogs. To my knowledge none of my children have been in commercials, although who knows what they do when I am not around. Presently I am researching how to seek asylum in the Turks and Caicos Islands, will let you know how it goes. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Good luck with it, K-stick. I'm rooting for you. And you know I'll come over any time and help you with memo writing. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For you

	For No Reason at All
	..............no reason at all............................... ...........................................................................................................................................Hafspajen (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Good laugh

Louis Maurer, The American Admin - Always Ready, 1858

Drmies,

I got a good laugh out of your comment on ANI " The funny thing is that KoshVorlon typically seems a bit hot-headed in this forum ". Only response I can give to that is "Guilty as charged "  :) KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you know, I've been wondering if you'd been having a bee in your bonnet recently, but not this time. I do think that a topic ban is a bit drastic, and if it can be based on edit warring (and, really, disruption) on one single template, as poor as those edits are. I'm a big fan of RfC/U, which would call for a broader investigation and can, in the end, lead to a topic ban. But as I said on ANI, holy moly that template is problematic. See this. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Kosh, hoy headed? hell no, but should you go to Zahadoom, you will die Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sure Drmies has no idea what you're talking about. I haven't mentioned Babylon 5 in a long time, so I'd like to clarify something. I recently put a userbox on my page stating that Breaking Bad is the greatest work of entertainment ever produced. But B5 is certainly right up there, perhaps in second place. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, thanks for explaining that, Mandarax. I was already wondering if DS was delivering yet another of their potty-languaged diatribes, in anticipation of an indefinite block for saying "shit" somewhere. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Babylon 5 was awesome. Anyone who has not seen it should do so. It's in my top 3 with GBH and Edge of Darkness - hence Mrs. Begoon's description of me as an "old fart". Begoon ^talk 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines ... um, did you mean Z'ha'dum by chance ? (Just yanking your chain ) KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For a man who is shitfaced, I thought I did quite well, and as the taxi is now here, back to the pub, have fun everyone. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral eyes needed

Talk:John_Walsh_(U.S._politician)#Plagiarism_allegations_redux. Thought this was settled two months ago. Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on that issue and your contributions to an appropriate resolution (IMHO). Your calm and thoughtful approach is much appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Another ProudIrishAspie sock

You may recall our friend ProudIrishAspie, who has a fondness for Ireland, cursing at people, not responding to comments, and flooding military history articles with flags. In July, you blocked a sock of his, American Starkiller, which prompted a bit of hatred from him.

Now, he's back at it again, working as Darth Jadus, and he has clearly been warned about the flag thing several times by others. I'm going to ping Ian Rose here, because I'm infrequently on Wiki anymore, and Ian recently reverted Darth Irish Starkiller's edits on an article I monitor. I'm leaving this on your talk because you've death with both prior incarnations, and SockBanned the last. Any advice and/or assistance is appreciated! Cdtew (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also gonna drop a ping to BusterD because apparently he's had some recent difficulty from Darth Irish Starkiller. Cdtew (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at a few edits, but I gotta run for now. We really need an SPI. Thanks for the note, and I'm glad you stopped by our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have opened one up here. Feel free to contribute. Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Notifications, I was made aware of this thread (I'm on break for a few weeks). I had tried unusccessfully to get PIA to help with other tasks and had made a polite warning to Darth Jadus. I'll confess I hadn't noticed the User:American Starkiller episode. I don't have anything meaningful to add to the SPI but will keep my eyes open. My watchlist is filled with the sorts of pages where flag icons have been a problem. BusterD (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this Draft RFC?

Hi Drmies,

Crisco 1492 and I have been working on a draft RFC relating to the Violence Against Men category, and what rules should be there for its use. Crisco 1492 suggested I ping you to take a look as an uninvolved third party. See User_talk:Crisco_1492#Violence_against_men.2Fwomen_categories. The second version of the RFC draft, lower in the section, is where we are now.

Your input is most welcome. Mattnad (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I had a look, Mattnad, but that's a lot to chew on. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

• Thanks for that message: I appreciate it. As a good liberal I wish the world were more fixable. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Reply

Yes it does go some way to addressing the problem but not the lack of common sense shown by the NOT CENSORED brigade. WCM_email 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't rightly know how to answer that. Every time I think that I know for sure that I think WP ought not be "censored" I run into something that I think is just totally inappropriate. See the Jameis Winston article, "fuck her right in the pussy"--there is no need for such a quote, but when I removed it (leaving the link and a previous solution, "shouted an obscenity"), that got shouted down by way of "not censored" also. So, "not censored" all too often means "without any kind of editorial common sense and judgment". Not "all the news that's fit to print", but rather "everything that can be verified, no matter whether it's useful or not". Drmies (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix Marie

I'm concerned about your decision to delete the Phoenix Marie article. Only one editor voted delete, and the six others all voted keep. Your explanation of the decision also did not address the objection based on item #3 of WP:PORNBIO. I realize that it is your job to weigh the merits of the arguments and I can understand your reasoning, but it seems like you made the decision completely against the clear consensus. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, there's two deletes. The coverage mentioned by Davey2010, those three sources, they're nothing. I mean, this? Rebecca1990's rationale hinges on this award (those videos, that's also nothing--we do have some standards), and there is no rebuttal to the argument that it's handed out by a producer to his own product. Redsky and Samwinchester don't actually present anything, and the other two, including yours, are nothing but "per Rebecca". That this person would be "one of the biggest porn stars", for instance, that's just incredibly unlikely for all kinds of reasons. But you are welcome to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, and I wish you the best with it. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• While I could debate the facts of the discussion, my concern is more that you appear to have simply used your own judgment about the topic, ignoring the editors who participated in the discussion. As for myself, I could have elaborated my position, but I had assumed the consensus was already clear and it wasn't worth my time. I will take it to deletion review. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have used my judgment in the weighing of the pros and cons. Elaborating one's position is always a good idea. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Phoenix Marie

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Phoenix Marie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sammy1339 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom

In the midst of the BLPNAME dispute/discussion, you mentioned taking the situation to Arbcom. I'm largely unfamiliar with Arbcom, and other than what reading I just complete on its role in Wikipedia, I really know nothing about how it works or how to utilize it.

I still maintain that the names of non-notable minor children of article subjects should not have their names or other identifying information about them placed in articles. It's trivia, it does nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, and it's just filler. Plus, I believe BLPNAME is clear that such names and info should be removed from BLP articles. Obviously, others severely and loudly disagree. Over the last couple of years, I've seen several other admins and much more mature, responsible, and non-celebrity impressed editors defend and enforce BLPNAME as I have been. But, it seems that the trivia/fan fluff-loving editors are taking over the discussion. So, is Arbcom the place to go to solve this standoff once and for all? If so, I have no idea how to start. And, frankly, am afraid I would muck it up (I'm not so sure I'm the best person to bring it there). Any advice or assistance you can provide, I would be grateful for. Thanks, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Winkelvi: I would expect an WP:RFC would have to be held first before Arbcom agreed to hear a case. Frankly, I'm not impressed by your characterizations of editors. I support the inclusion of children's names in articles as standard biographical details like the name of a spouse or birth/death locations and I've been here a long time. Instead of resorting to ad hominems, have a look at our FA-status biographies like Nancy Cartwright, Bronwyn Bancroft, Antonin Scalia, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I was addressing Drmies specifically and he is quite familiar with what and to whom I am referring, it really matters not to me what you think of my "characterizations". I find them spot-on considering the instances and situations referenced above. And, just for the record, because something has already been done in opposition to policy doesn't make it acceptable nor does it nullify the associated policy. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• No fighting in the war room, please. Winkelvi, I didn't say I was going to take anything to ArbCom: I wouldn't know where to start. Ask NE Ent. NeilN has a point, of course; the Mighty ArbCom (pinging Beeblebrox, just because I can) is likely to say "thou shalt pursue RfC first", but it seems to me that such a discussion will most likely end in, hmm, let me check...wind from the southeast...dark clouds overhead...barometer dropping...blood raining from the sky...yes, no consensus it is.

  In short, I don't really know. Whatever I said, I hope I didn't say "take this to ArbCom right now" since there may be procedural steps, but what I intended was that it may have to be ArbCom who settles this. Thanks, to both of you--how both I characterize one of you as a great, kick-ass content editor and good admin material, and then each of you can think that the other guy is the schmuck! Or, let's leave characterizations out altogether, unless it is of my enemies of course. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, Winkelvi: ?, and ? Drmies (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• "[I]t seems to me that such a discussion will most likely end in, hmm, let me check...wind from the southeast...dark clouds overhead...barometer dropping...blood raining from the sky...yes, no consensus it is". Ok.. I certainly have the right talk page watch listed here! ;-) But seriously...been watching this dispute. I need to review BLP policy because I don't remember this mentioned as the OP insists, but could be wrong. Wait...did they really accuse you of harassment and making threats, tell you to stay off their talk page....and then post on yours. Well...alrighty then.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha-ha! No, I know you're not referring to me, Drmies. Which makes me the schmuck and definitely not admin material (I think I'm probably seen as more pain in the ass than "kick-ass"). Being still a very new editor who opens their mouth more than they should and doesn't have the best personal behavior filter due to my Asperger's, the label likely fits (more than I would like). Sorry I didn't explain myself better regarding my inquiry about Arbcom. You never gave the impression it was the place to go now or even in the immediate future, I felt you were really just saying that the issues raised were posing a conflict that wasn't going to be easily solved. Like I said, I'm really unfamiliar with Arbcom and didn't know if it was a viable possibility to solve the issue or not. That's why I came to you: advice and long-term editor wisdom. My big concern is that the "let's push our personal agendas through while shoving policy aside" mentality I observed surrounding several editors' behavior was disturbing, to say the least. It's becoming a prevailing attitude, I believe, that pop-culture and trivial "facts" are important inclusions in Wikipedia articles, putting the "encyclopedic" part of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be aside. This latest with the incorrect interpretation of BLPNAME (whether just a misunderstanding or intentional agenda pushing) is a good example. And it's going to get worse before it gets better, in my opinion. Which is why I would be interested in seeing this go to a higher level than star-struck/celebrity-loving community members commenting and forcing their will, policy and common sense be damned.

Thanks for the reply. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

See, the thing is, I agree with you on the narrow issue of the names, but if you wish to "win" this argument, it's a better tactic to try and win over your opponents than to paint them in a corner. As wrong as they are (this NeilN cat, he's never been right in his life, but I won't say that in public on my talk page), they still need to be taken seriously. Or at least one should try. Or, "personal agendas" instead of policy--well, BLPNAMES isn't all that clear and leaves room for discussion, so this argument works for your opponents as well... Neil, I don't think I'm terribly wrong in my prediction for how such an RfC would go. It's much harder to predict how ArbCom might feel--don't you think that they're just likely to kick it back and say that those are individual cased to be decided on by editorial consensus for the individual article? Drmies (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom is involved with behavior, not content. Unless editors' behavior is in question (disruptive editing, refusal to drop the stick - on either side) they're not going to decide content matters unless all other avenues have been exhausted and disruption is still occurring. If that happens, the case will probably go something like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images#Final_decision. Whacks for the disruptive editors and the community told to hold a RFC to clarify BLP policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• OK, two things. Mark Miller, I really did not appreciate all that potty talk on ANI. A little decorum please, and if you want to do something useful, just close that thread in a way that makes everyone happy. Winkelvi, I suppose you should consider following NeilN's advice and start an RfC on the talk page of the BLP policy (and with a note on BLPN, I suppose). I think you'll find that the discussion is going to derail or go nowhere, but maybe I'm wrong--I've been wrong before, often enough. Good luck with it, and let me know what you do. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, that was a little much for ANI. I was far too upset there to have been posting while still heated up over the ping. No excuses. That was just a lot of cussing.

To address the other issue of Chelsea's baby, BLPNAME actually seems to allow it with: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced". The baby was all over television news, both broadcast and cable news, newspapers and magazine online articles. Notablity is not inherited but this baby seems to have been born notable. The entire situation should be RFCd at the moment as this is similar in nature to the Hillary renaming situation in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Two things: Is anyone in the news caring about the baby today, and does knowing the name and birth date/birth location of the baby going to enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The core of BLP is do no harm. It doesn't harm anyone to mention the name if the parent has openly and willingly stated the name and reliable sources are provided. That said, I don't even think Chelsea is notable except as the daughter of a former President...and therefore think that the name of her baby is even less so. Point is, policy supports providing the name but I personally think it does nothing to enhance the article on Chelsea. Zzzzzzz.--MONGO 04:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I got your basic opinion of the subject from your calling her "Princess Chelsea" and referring to the baby as "it". But...there is more to her notability than just being the daughter of the Clintons.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A TPS's 2 cents: A person's kid's name (though not the kid's birthplace or exact date of birth) is considered pretty standard bio-data in real-world sources. I don't think we need to determine whether such information is "mere trivia" or answer the question of how the kid's name "enhances the reader's understanding" (analogously, how does knowing that Chelsea Clinton was born on Feb 27th, and not on March 3rd, help anyone know who she really is?). Instead, as a tertiary source we should look at the approach taken by other secondary and tertiary sources, and as far as I have seen most comprehensive biographies (or say, obituaries) do include the names of a person's immediate family-members.
That said, I do think we should exercise our editorial discretion in individual cases. For example, I'd think twice as hard before including say John Gotti's or John Hinkley's kids' names in their wikibios out of concern that such association may harm innocent individuals (haven't checked what the wikipedia pages actually do); ditto in cases where a person has tried to keep their family life particularly private (Michael Jackson?), or where a person is wiki-notable but not really a "public figure" (most professors, bureaucrats etc). But in Chelsea Clinton's case I don't see any such concerns arising. So unless the argument is that my subjective impression is incorrect and real world bios exclude such information, I'm not sure why we are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Abecedare (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I do think we have another storm in a teacup. The issue itself is valid enough, and there are credible, serious BLP concerns in some such articles, as Abecedare correctly points out, but it just got out of hand here. A recent BLP where I got involved was problematic in a similar way--a not so big issue that escalated in part because there was no clear conclusion to a talk page discussion, and before you know there's an edit war, protection, etc. This is why--and I keep hammering on this--it is so important to have solid discussion and an established consensus for such problems. In this case, I agree with the principle that we exclude names and other information, since it adds nothing to that thing which makes the subject notable. I mean, those people from 19 Kids and Counting (I was unfortunate enough to catch an episode of that--it shocked me), their primary business, besides real estate, is making babies, and if it hadn't been for them no one would know about them. That's not the case here, unless we want to claim Chelsea Clinton has a notable womb. But this whole matter, like so many others right now, is just getting out of hand. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Responding to that ping up there somewhere -- I don't think arbcom would take a case. BLP is currently covered by discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Current_areas_of_conflict, so admins have wide latitude to impose remedies which can only be overturned by consensus at WP:AN or WP:AE (or arbcom itself). Whether or not a Daily Mail is never or sometimes a reliable source is a content issue, so an RFC would be the appropriate way to go. NE Ent 00:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent--but I think we all know what the fireworks are going to look like if admins starting taking that latitude. If I were to block any of the editors I've been in conflict been recently for a BLP violation, the building will be too small. Thing is, ArbCom will simply have to assume authority, since no one gives a fuck about the authority of admins. Or we need to restore mutual trust, but I think we'll have a manned mission to Venus before that happens. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Okay_enough_-_Proposed_wording_of_RFC --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, please I need an admin help for threats on my talk page

Californische zeehaas

Zoo

I know as a linguist you more than likely hate lolcat speech. Not to make you more allergic, but I desperately need an admin and I have pinged you from Hafspajen's talk page. Cleanup aisle thirteen desperately needed on my talk page. Although I can be humourous, I am decidedly upset. I know nothing of this bad blood and I don't want any shed on my page. Please. This person must go from my page and not come back. I am not wearing my heart on my sleeve. Just not too well and easily threatened. Thank you Fylbecatulous talk 12:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

But what is this all about??? What Westgate Mall Attack Controversy?? I never edited anything like that. What, you stay away from me Hafs? When DID I EVER GET ON YOU to start with, Bgwhite, I don't get a thing. WHAT low-life like that SOB??? Yesh, saw the name calling but what did I or Fylbecatulous ever have to do with an article Westgate Mall Attack Controversy created by an user UduXus??? WHEN did Fylbecatulous or me ever interacted with Bgwhite on that article?? Drmies? Hafspajen (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't get a thing. And SOB - by urban dictionary gives me so of a bitch on that. Hafspajen (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is Bgwhite's Midwestern sense of humor, that is all. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Maybe it was late in the evening? Hafspajen (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

wist je dat de Californische zeehaas gebruikt wordt in onderzoek naar zenuwen vanwege zijn weinige, maar relatief grote zenuwenlichamen? Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Nee, ik had geen idee! "Zeehaas", that's a funny word. Is there also a Zeekonijn? Waterkonijn does exist (not just for Swamp rabbit, and it's not a rabbit, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• This blog discussed the cooking and cleaning thereof. Apparently the writer was going to treat the skins and turn it into thermal underwear. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A new DYK? I think the rabbit comes from the tiny ears... Hafspajen (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Link to Bgwhite Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No, I'm sure it comes from a desire for euphemism. See responses by the eaters here. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• It is probably the thyme sauce. Hafspajen (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And if you are Catholic and in Michigan.[27]. I just had venison steak in thyme butter. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dargnabbit, oi vay! Seems kinda harsh, don't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC) ... [28]

• That zeehaas thingy sure is bigger than your average wabbit. I had to check twice when I read 75 cm. Judging from the size that should rather be a little zeehond, but then that term is already occupied. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Zeepaard, zeeleeuw, zeekoe are already taken as well. Which reminds me: MS Zeehond needs an article; you, as a Fischkopf, probably know that ship well. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • nl:Zeehond (onderzeeboot uit 1943) (HMS Sturgeon (73S)); nl:Zeehond (onderzeeboot uit 1948) (HMS Tapir (P335)); and nl:Zeehond (onderzeeboot uit 1961) (HNLMS Zeehond (S809)) all have articles. Actually there is a problem with that first Dutch article; it has embedded footnote numbers in the text, and since it's not obviously derived from either the English or the German I'm not sure how to fix the problem. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry Mies, I'll have to pass on that one. Yngvadottir, did you check the edit history of that article? It includes this version with a numbered list of references. On another note: Dear J.A. Winck, how dare you depict a living being in a still life? You contradict all that I learned in art classes at school! De728631 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yngvadottir, if "smegma" is the most disgusting word in the language, "tapir" is the funniest. It's a word with a nose. De, please don't "Mies" me, since I know what it means in German, and I cannot bear the thought of a German giggling at me. Speaking of funny words--Auflauf, funny AND delicious! Y, my Zeehond is, unfortunately, not that big or cool. (It's a little old ship you can take zeehond tours with from Ameland to Vlieland.) I'll follow some of those links--thanks! Drmies (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, this is strange. This is not de Zeehond that Mrs. Drmies and I were on, with little baby Sippy. I'm very confused. De728631, I need you to investigate this, please. Off to Ameland you go. Finally, De, that version of that article you linked--this one--you should really scroll all the way down. :) Drmies (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Dear Drmies [sic!], I shall consider applying for project grants for a special mission to Ameland made by Wikipedia:WikiProject Frisia to investigate the riddle of the zeehond. And yes, I should've scrolled down there. That link doesn't work and I can't figure out what it possible means in Dutch, but from the looks of it it doesn't belong there. De728631 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
          • It means "Lick my arse" Yngvadottir (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes it does! Drmies (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Hafspajen (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

TY

Just got reported at WP:ANEW for daring to think WP:BLP decisions made at an RfC actually count for anything at all. Guess that will learn me. Editors can abrogate RfCs if they wish. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I saw the report and some of the talk page talk but haven't read all of the RfCs yet. This is yet another BLP that makes me want to stay away from BLPs and whatever happened in this case I thank you for your diligence (in the Winston article as well). Drmies (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I fear the silly seasonitis has struck Wikipedia again - we should simply lock down the political BLPs for a couple of months each time, as the material is getting more and more strident from some folks. And some of the comments make no pretense at actually trying to produce conservatively written biographies at all. Cheers - this may be my last post if the folks get the noose out. Collect (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure, though, what RfC. Mind you, that article history is so busy (and I so ignorant of the topic) that what's clear to you is like mud to me. In other words, I don't know if recent edits favored you or your opponents (I know, not a battleground and all, but you know what I mean). Dr. Old Man Mies suggests you disengage, and is now going to to lie down for a little bit. I hope you aren't blocked when I return, which hopefully will be much later. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you point me in the right direction

Something is technically wrong with my account and I seem to be Amadscientist again?-- Mark MillerAmadscientist (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Writ Keeper! {{U|WRIT KEEPER!!!}} Drmies (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I left a message on their talk page. At the moment I appear to be myself again. How long that will last is uncertain!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not WK but:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=User%3AAmadscientist

shows the account was auto-created today. That usually happens when you log onto another project where your SUL hasn't been renamed and then vist en-wp. See:

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/quentinv57-tools/tools/sulinfo.php?username=Amadscientist

Perhaps that gives a clue as to what happened? --RexxS (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhm....no.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've given a write-up on what I think happened on my talk page; hopefully it's helpful. There's good news and bad news in it, I'm afraid. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And yes, I am in countenance again; thank you, Drmies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, you're always my number one. RexxS, I know you as a punk rocker, a wild man, a fun guy, the kind of guy I'd warn my daughter about, if my daughter had been born four decades ago of course--when did you become a geek? It is not too late! Also, thanks y'all, for whatever you did or suggested, all of which goes well over my head. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If I had a daughter I would love RexxS as a son-in-law ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I recognise myself from the Good Doctor's description, but must say that I've always had a bit of geek in me. Even in my rock'n'roll days, you can see from this photo that I always wore a tie. --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I must say, I don't see much geek there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. Seriously? RexxS, that's you? What, you were a dancer? I'm trying to remember the name of that British band from the 90s which had a dancer on stage--they had a couple of hits, they all looked like stoners, and made some sort of groovy somewhat electronically inflected rock and roll. But that looks like a good show, man. (Maybe I'm thinking of the Stereo MCs, getting a few of the details wrong.) Drmies (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Went over mine as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about the Happy Mondays. The dancer was Bez. Never saw them live, sadly. --John (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

John, you are right as usual. Not much rock and roll in there, I suppose, but yes, Bez is who I had in mind. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

Looking for hedgehogs in the garden

no need to get the hump if your Suffy gets dumped - Suffy send me instead

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note that it's discussion Coat's behaviour, and not taking issue with any of your edits. Rather, I thank you for your attempts to ensure that it didn't reach this point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks for your intervention and support. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Well, Crisco, I think you want "prevent", not "ensure". I'm sad it had to go this far; haven't looked at the thread today and I kind of don't want to, but I wish you the best, and so does my hedgehog. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Prevent it from reaching this point... yeah, piss-poor notice I give you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Have you ever heard two hedgehogs "at it"? Loud grunting sounds, interspersed with shrieks of agony. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Better than pandas. Roar, roar, snore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, don't knock it until you try it *snore* the panda ₯’ 11:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! Mention an animal, and the animal arrives! Better than Double-nosed Andean Tiger Hounds. Snuffle, snuffle, woof. Waits expectantly. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Paging Mr. Snuffleupagus... Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

YES? Have to go, I am not free.. Hafspajen (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Gottago before the Common admin gets me ... just a short visit ... Suffy.

@Hafspajen: You seem to be good at finding images of odd things, so if you manage to find an image of a Glyptothorax (tiny little catfish), no matter which of the ~90 species it is, let me know. I'm creating a bunch of stub articles about Glyptothorax species, but have no images for illiterate WP "readers" to look at. Which seems to be important, judging by the tags that very quickly get added to the stubs. Thomas.W ^talk 19:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC) (I like the igelkott in the edit banner, BTW, I used to have them in my garden, where they spent the winters under the garden shed, but haven't seen any for a few years now.<sob>)

I can find them if they exist .... but the Glyptothorax looks like is missing from commons ... sob. Hafspajen (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Man Writing a Letter

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Woman Reading a Letter

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Great couple, missed the stats by only a few hits, similar to Gabriela in that respect. Today, we sing on our national holiday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not my work, Gerda--I can barely take any credit for this. Holiday--you mean the end of the Siege of Leiden? I believe Ritchie333 knows something about that. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I went to the 3 October Festival exactly a year ago today in Leiden and was surrounded by a crowd of drunken louts yelling out Rubberen Robbie's "Drei Oktober", and later had hutspot and herring in a pub, but that's kind of the extent of my capabilities. Still, it was a great weekend, and hopefully I'll get along to another festival again. It turns Leiden into the centre of the world - perhaps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It is your work, DrModest, unless you want to credit Metsu, of course. Hafspajen (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RealPlayer

I was wondering if I could borrow you to take a look at the second half of the Controversies section and the "Real Alternative" section.

Now that it's been said that I will take "a lot of attention"[29] it's unlikely anyone at COIN will be interested in helping. I believe all that should be needed is for a disinterested editor to do their own quick Google searches to see if legitimate sources can be found before axing. The types of sources supporting the material is stuff like FileHippo and Download.com, or things I would characterize as like self-citation spam from "clean your PC" type of sites. CorporateM (Talk) 18:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• OK, so usually when you drop one of these here (or, really, anytime I run into something on the other dramah board), I don't actually read what it is you want me to do; I look at the article first, and that's what I did here. The content I cut in my "controversy" edit can legitimately be cut at this point; it's not neutral and non-neutral content requires rigorous sourcing. Holy moly, BTW, what an enormous amount of boring, stupid, irrelevant detail on those versions and file formats and stuff. If I hadn't just baked a queso fresco marinated in olive oil, garlic, and oregano, I'd have chopped more. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'll look at the "alternative" later; it looks like I'll need to sharpen my pruning shears. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's how I do it as well. In my opinion really long bulleted lists should almost always be removed or summarized. It's extremely rare that list information is appropriate for an encyclopedia (though it is on occassion). Those two sections (you know the ones) could probably be axed as well. I haven't checked to see if there are sources available for the Access Restrictions section yet. Apparently user:FleetCommand merged the Real Alternative material here after an unsuccessful AFD in 2011[30] that had a landslide KEEP. However, none of the votes included any sources to support the claim of notability and I have found none on my own. I think consensus was in the wrong, FleetCommand had it right, and the article should have been deleted 3 years ago, but he did a merge instead to respect the incorrect AfD outcome. CorporateM (Talk) 00:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Son, saying "consensus was in the wrong" is figuratively an act of committing wiki-suicide. The so-called landslide was in 2006. My merger was in 2011. User:WikiLeon deleted Winamp Alternative in 2013. Consensus can change; so does norms, standards and sentiments. You see, if anyone create an article titled "The Left Shoe of Terry Myerson During Windows 10 Presentation", today, you won't succeed in getting it deleted in an AfD. Ten years from now however, I won't be surprised if you get away with speedy deleting Windows 10 itself. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• It is somewhat unusual to see an article deleted as A7 long after an AfD. I don't know who Terry Myerson is and I don't care much for shoes; either way, that content needs to be looked at carefully. Yes, it's funny if you look at the old AfDs--you'd never get away with them today, and some of the old "landslide KEEP"s clearly don't stand up. I had one a little while ago, the second or third AfD after years, and I think I won that case. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I would estimate (at least in COI situations) consensus gets it right about 60% of the time, which is to say mildly better than a coin flip. CorporateM (Talk) 03:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Elisabeth of Thuringia

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued removal of funny material from the drama board, as you did here. If you choose to continue, you may be mocked when editing without further notice. --John (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

He's not mocked already? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

He is, but not nearly enough. I am still reeling at his damned audacity in overtaking me here. If I didn't have great belief in Drmies' fundamental verligte I assure you he would have been mocked already. --John (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, considering that I'm a "moral moron" (who doesn't know what "censorship" means) and part of a flashmob (I have no idea how I joined that club), I guess I deserve a bit of mockery. Also, John, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on"--that's one of my favorite US English expressions. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been mocked temporarily while editing for not being a middle-class American college student. Once the mock has expired, you are welcome to bow down and worship me and the ground I walk on. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unmocked, you may create needless drama by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the founder's wise words first.

--John (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

"'ere mate, I 'ad that Eric Friggen Corbutt in the back of my cab last nite, matey, me ol' china, strike a light!" Scunthorpe Cabs (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

why not unmock? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, very well, I've unmocked. You uncivil content creators always band together against us wise admins. Drmies, go forth and sin no more. I am glad to see that those two jokers were suspended. I find the continual assumption of bad faith from certain users far more "toxic" than any amount of fucks and cunts but I suppose one's mileage may vary. --John (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• OK, "mocked" is funny, but "unmocked" is hilarious. Thank you all. And John, don't worry--there's plenty more where those came from. Martinevans, Z-Cars? That's so old that I hadn't even heard of it. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm just trying to visualise Drmies as part of a flashmob. Oh geez. What a mental image. Risker (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I know, Risker, I'm very very dangerous. I'm sorry--but your partner, should you have one, will understand--at least I've they've seen that Seinfeld episode.

Can I just point out that somebody from Scunthorpe would not be speaking in a cockney accent, unless you were being ironic. I remember a US TV show years ago that did an animated fight between Liam and Noel Gallagher - with cockney voices. Everyone knows they're born and bred Mancunians. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Mancuntians, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie, that sun has set, baby. There's Cockney, there's some Queenly English, there's Scottish, there's pirate talk, and that's all that matters on this side of the Atlantic. If you don't fit in one of those categories, you're out of luck. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a cockney free zone

Oh, please don't tell me your kids have to watch Ivor The Engine with subtitles - that would just be depressing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'll see if I can find that on YouTube for them--I've never heard of it. They enjoyed Professor Balthazar... Drmies (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is hilarious!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• An admin closure and a double hatting. I think that thread is secure but just incase maybe we should add a close to the double hatting? ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

Selfie

A variety of cheeses for sale in Amsterdam.

Thanks for trying there. And also, for not getting riled up by that guy. Nicely handled, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, it's no fun sometimes, but thanks for the note. It's hard to keep one's cool, I understand that, but there are limits. Besides, the Federalist discussion has some serious flaws--I see the most blatantly partisan blogs treated as if they were written on stone. But these kinds of contributions, that's just partisan editing at its worst, and things are already tricky enough on Wikipedia; not five minutes go by without drama. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Does Barrack do same-sex weddings now, too? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a promo shoot for "American Dentistry" magazine. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

'XS, see also Jimbo dansing really sexy third clip... Hafspajen (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you colour blind?

Room in a Dutch House, Pieter Janssens Elinga

You can test to see if you are colour blind by viewing List of samba schools of Rio de Janeiro. There are approximately two million colours being used on that page. If you want to become dizzy, repeatably move the scroll bar up and down real fast. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I grew up watching Top of the Pops in the 1970s and hence am immune to these things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I grew up in a grey tupperware bowl in the Stoned Age and hence am bivalent to these things. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Now at AfD. Xantifant, I sympathize with you. I grew up in a similar climate, but we didn't have the loss of such a huge empire to bewail. Then again, we had to ride bikes through the fog and the rain and the wind. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If you weren't color blind before looking at that page, you will be after. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

La Giustizia

Samba stroop anyone? [31] Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that Marty is pursuing some own tendetious goals around here... hm hm hm hm. Hope is not serious ... Oswald Külpe (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"imageless thought controversy"?? I have more problem with the "thoughtless edit controversy"... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

← I am struggling to realize the purpose of that page, and the template at the bottom, made up primarily of redirects to the RIO Carnival. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You ask Marty to explain it... Hafspajen (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never even been to Bergamo! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How anout Bram ? Oswald Külpy - Dance with Dragons (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Perseus On Pegasus Hastening To the Rescue of Andromeda

Well, I felt like I owed you something for pestering you about one of your (least?) favourite subjects (men's rights), so I wrote two articles on Dutch/Indonesian history: The Submission of Prince Dipo Negoro to General De Kock and The Arrest of Pangeran Diponegoro. I'll let you choose which is better. :) (BTW, Pieneman has an absolutely deplorable article). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Haffy, that's a gorgeous pegasus! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

‎:Unfortunatelly only 1,454 × 1,467 pixels, unless you can make something about it... Hafspajen (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Rupert Bunny, Summer Time, c. 1907

It is lovely - done by the same artist as the lovely Flaming June now sadly absent from Drmies' edit notice. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil, that picture had to go. It greatly distracted me from editing. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Even more sad is that this wonderful picture with an article of its own, Flaming June, only is 999 × 1,000 pixels .... ssobHafspajen (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What Rupert BUNNY? No wonder he never became anything more than a local artist ... with this name. Archibald Alexander Leach - was much smarter. He went for Cary Grant instead. Hafspajen (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rupert Bunny of Rabbit Hill perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rupert Charles Wulsten Bunny if you please, daubist internationale and sole creator of , but not proprietor of the Eat Apples Bull Ring, which hasn't got an article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

' Hic, what ... Rupert Charles Wulsten Bunny? Rupert Charles Wulsten Bunny is worse. Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You think that's funny? Richard Geoffrey Pine-Coffin- the Pine and Coffin families united in marriage and decided to hyphenate their names, for some unknown reason. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• "His troops, amused by the unusual applicability of his family name (soldiers were usually buried in simple pine wood coffins), referred to him as "Wooden Box"." - Black humor indeed... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A sad thing. They probably took the next-best. No Oak-Coffins found anywhere. Hafspajen (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, by the way reviewer doesn't think it make sense that Blacklock-Kay lived with his mother until 30. Hafspajen (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, but stap me, I looked for something else and couldn't see nothing. Started on the Regency though (offline) but now time to zzzzzz........ Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

with a fish? Hafspajen (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• The reviewer's saying that it doesn't make sense that he lived with his mother until he got married (in 1909). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well when you explain it... Hafspajen (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankie MacDonald (talk)

I'm wondering if the comments made on the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frankie_MacDonald) could/should be taken down as the discussion has moved to AfD and rendered redundant? Regards,  Aloha27 talk  17:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

They should probably be archived, rather than just removed. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I would really like to have some kind of formal interaction ban between me and this editor Coat of Many colours. Crisco wrote also that he wished Coat be I-banned from interacting with me and preferably Hafspajen as well - I think that it was a rather clear outcome, but this interaction ban was not mentioned or taken up. Euryalus did blocked C for a couple of month but I would prefer that in some way this interacion ban aspect is applied here. I am really asking for this because it is the right time to still do something about it. Or it will be a new ANI, new all ower again... This will not stop. This kindof miracles doesn't happen. You told him time and time again, Drmies not to go on like this, but still he did, even after his so called "very last edit from this account" ... Other admins asked to. He will never ever stop. I want a formal I-ban. I don't know where to apply and how this works. Hafspajen (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC) This is what I do know - if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

Now that is exactly what is needed here. Who do I have to ask and where? Hafspajen (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC) It is stated here: If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made. Now what? Crisco 1492 did proposed an I-ban. Most editors were for a block ... or some kind of sanction. I think most people thougt that it even might be an indef block. Is it so that Euryalus has now the power to or not to do something? I can tell for sure this will not stop. Hafspajen (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Saw ping. Happy to discuss - can I come back to you in a few hours when am back near a PC? Euryalus (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Now it is anyway late here. Hafspajen (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe you ask for such on the ANI board, but if the editor is saying they won't be returning (although I hope they do) what is the point right now? They are blocked for a while. Wait until they return if the issues continue.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I read that post meaning they won't be, but they will. And the IPs which seem to show up wherever Coat goes are suspicious. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco, Hafsterix, we can deal with those as they come up: IP edits are block evasion and will lead to a longer block. So don't worry about it. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, WE deal with those as they come up, remember, now you promised. Start being agitaded and start acting as soon as they do come up. And for the next time I want the I-ban strongly emphasised, for Crisco, myself and the ban for the FP project. Mark, did you saw that he did edited after his so called very last edit, some new snide comments agains me on his talk and also voted agains a request for adminship, against someone Crisco nominated, with the argument that he will not be a good admin because the guy voted against his nomination an FP. Last edit indeed. Do you know how many times I saw this is a last word from me on this subject and he was back with more stuff again and again... like five times at least. That sets a trend - it can't be trusted. Here still making disruptive edits after the so called last. If he would have been going after your nominations, you would understand this situation a bit better. Hafspajen (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the big deal? He is infomally already told to keep away. Hafspajen (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What a real nice editor. Did you see that Coat started posting now at Wikipediocracy about us? Truly a useful activity. Hafspajen (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Irene Caesar

Can you elaborate on your edit summary, "Needs secondary sourcing. who knows--this may be conceptual art"? Why does it require secondary sourcing? Why do you think it might be conceptual art? If your reasoning doesn't hold up, I think we should revert the edit. Respectfully, Scaleshombre (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• "We"? First of all, this is an encyclopedia, and everything needs secondary sourcing. Second, this needs sourcing to establish that this opinion held by this person (if it is indeed accurate) is worthwhile noting on in our article--let alone in the lead. (See WP:LEAD.) Finally, I have a nagging suspicion that you only stuck that in there to make her look more ridiculous and thus increase the likelihood of success for your AfD. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me start with your last point -- you're assuming bad faith. Now, by removing all my cites you've effectively "white washed" this woman, painting a false picture of her. Articles as a whole require secondary sourcing, not every point within the article. (See WP:ABOUTSELF.) Her writings reveal a tremendous amount about her "philosophy" (she identifies herself as a "philosopher-artist", and it would be absurd to leave out pertinent details showing precisely what that philosophy amounts to). I'm restoring my cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaleshombre (talk • contribs) 02:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If you do that, you might end up in trouble. This is a BLP, and whatever is negative should be sourced even more rigorously. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Re: your message on my page: How can you call it poorly referenced when it's straight from the "horse's mouth"? As far as libel, truth is an absolute defense against libel, and Ms. Caesar has made these statements "on the record," as it were. Libel's not even an issue here. I'd love to present 2ndary sources, but she seems to have done a good job of keeping her more "unpalatable" views separate from her mainstream work. That shouldn't prevent Wikipedia from presenting a complete picture of her based on the available evidence, in this case her own writings. (Again, please see WP:ABOUTSELF.) Think of it this way: Imagine a young painter of some note who "dabbles" in politics on the side. Wikipedia starts a page about him based on his painting. Later, he starts a blog under his own name for all the world to see and publishes a manifesto spelling out his views on everything from wiping out Russia to eliminating all of Europe's Jews. Thus far, no major media have discovered his blog (exotically named "Mein Kampf"), but an editor at Wikipedia has. Are you seriously telling me that this information would be kept off his page?--Scaleshombre (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't want to imagine anything, but if I do, for your scenario, the answer is easy: this "painter" of yours is presumably notable for being a painter, and that's why they get an article on Wikipedia. If their Nazi sympathies are reported on their blog but nowhere else, and appears to have no relation (no reliably sourced relation) to their work (and it is their work that makes them notable, not their opinion), then yeah, I am seriously telling you that that information should be kept out of the article. As it should be in this case. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Question (not an opinion); if something is mentioned on an official website...is it not relevant to the BLP as something from the subject themselves?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Depends (greatly). In this case, that these theories on that (practically illegible) website full of crazy conspiracy theories are indeed such-and-such (as summarized in Scaleshombre's edit) remains to be seen. But, again, why would it matter? Someone has a website, and they list their favorite color, pet, restaurant, etc.--why should that be worth listing in an encyclopedic article? K-pop articles list that kind of stuff, but real articles shouldn't: they should stick to the topic. If it's relevant to their work, maybe--but even then, shouldn't we leave it to reliable sources to establish that relevance? Drmies (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Drmies, you make an excellent point about keeping BLPs free of info that's not relevant to their notability. But keep in mind Wikipedia's content guideline on fringe theories (WP:FRINGEBLP): "Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame, but [emphasis added] the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise." This strikes me as a solid argument for restoring the info in question.--Scaleshombre (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Of course--if such fringe advocacy is reliably sourced. Which in this case will be difficult, not just because it may be in Russian, but also because this person is already only marginally notable, as far as I can tell right now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
        • She clearly states her views (incoherent though they may be) in English. But since you feel (as I do) that she's only marginally notable, I hope you'll add your support to her AFD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irene_Caesar) nomination. Thx, Scaleshombre (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Chiming in - we use secondary sources to help determine notability. We don't want Wikipedia articles to become mouthpieces for subjects. I've dealt with a crypto-anarchist who wanted us to add he had found the solution to global warming (far from what he's notable for) to his article. No secondary sources had covered his claims so he wanted to get more visibility. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Scaleshombre, I saw that AfD already but haven't made up my mind: I want to look at the references in the article and do some snooping myself before I commit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
        • NeilN, I understand your point. In this case, I don't think she wants her views (especially the "cringier" ones) exposed. But even if she did, we can't use her wishes as a criterion. The main consideration is, does it belong in a Wikipedia article? Scaleshombre (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Had a look- she promotes her cringey views alright (she is trolling Wolf Blitzer here(not safe for mental health- ISIS beheading)). Only found one review (and that was useless, since it just consisted of the reviewer's account of how she arrived in his flat, got him to take his clothes off and photographed him). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to reiterate that Caesar's fringe views are clearly stated on her own blog (straight from "the horse's mouth", as it were), thus protecting Wikipedia from charges of defamation. Based on WP:FRINGEBLP, I'm going to restore the info. Drmies, if you still feel strongly that it should be removed, I hope you'll start a discussion on the article's talk page and let's try to get more editors involved in forming a consensus about whether it should be deleted. Thanks, Scaleshombre (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Huh? you have three editors here who do not think that material ought to be in there. Strikes me as pretty clearly a consensus. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • She's mentioned in The Philosophy of Art: The Question of Definition: From Hegel to Post-Dantian Theories (Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy) by Tiziana Andina et al. Her fringe views are almost like a parody of a Putin-bot (a group of people who are alleged to be paid to spout pro-Kremlin views on newspaper comments). She's interviewed in English by long-established artist and cat painter Claudia Schwalb on a couple of Youtube videos, and doesn't seem to be saying anything outrageous, so maybe the fringe stuff is "Art"- maybe best not to put it in the article. Yet. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Her views, as put in the article, are straight Putin-bot, not a parody or "Art". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thefederalist.com

Hi, please could you self-revert this edit? Admins are expected to respect full protection, even though they have the technical ability to edit through it—that's why the edit window is red. Just in case you're not familiar with the relevant bit of policy, WP:PP#Full protection says "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". You didn't attempt to establish a consensus on the talk page, it's not uncontroversial because at least one person has objected (see my talk page), and frankly it strikes me as pointy and provocative. If you must make an edit like that, you can do it when the protection is lifted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Pointy and provocative? Drmies (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If you'd made that edit under normal circumstances, somebody would almost certainly have reverted it, so making it under full protection just strikes me as an attempt to make a point. Perhaps I was a little strident, but I've just seen too much of this kind of thing recently and I'm old-fashioned and believe that admins are servants of the community and shouldn't act without consensus. Thanks for self-reverting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• BTW, I don't put much stock in the opinions of that editor: "The local claque's allergic reaction to the truth", redacted, redacted. Plenty of point and provocation there, and 24 hours was quite generous. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, and agreed, but he got blocked for that, he should get a longer block if he does it again, and he still has a valid point in this case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I based the time off his block log. The last block was 6 years ago and I felt that 24 hours would give the discussion time to get back on track. I am sometimes accused of a conservative bias, perhaps that played an unconscious role. Very sorry if it did.--v/r - TP 20:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
      • 24 hours was reasonable. It seems to have made the point, and if it didn't, it's no great effort to re-block for longer. Sometimes a shot across the bows is all that's needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

Would you have the time to take a look at this [32], [33] related to this [34]. An already very intense flame war ignored by admins for 10 days has gotten completely out of hand after this extremely popular canvassing [35]. The longer this drags on, the worse it will get.Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm thinking. But I can't decide on a topic ban for Reprisal based on a Reddit thread that they may or may not have been involved with. I just read over the entire ANI discussion, with an hour's worth of diffs and talk page conversation thrown in for fun. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Well, whaddayaknow. TParis has just issued a topic ban, which is where I was leaning to also. (And I think he even banned the editor from editing User:Jesus's own talk page!) I haven't seen the rationale yet, but here's what I was thinking: edits from July and August clearly indicate a battleground mentality larded with personal attacks and the casting of aspersions in all the wrong places. If it hadn't been for the (more recent) attack on Hijiri and that Godwin comment about you, I might have let a warning suffice--and that's even before a thorough investigation of the actual article, though it is clear to me also that their talk page escapades (helpful diffs given by Ian.thomson in the ANI thread on 27 September) indicate that they are, to put it mildly, not being cooperative, and obstinately seem to persist in the idea that denomination means insurmountable bias. In addition, those tag bombings are unreasonable. And while I wouldn't go as far as to call them an SPA, there is way too much unhelpful interest in this topic to help other editors move the article along, whether as disambiguation or otherwise. TParis, is this what you were thinking? (Jeddiz, you owe me a nap.) Drmies (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • For the most part yes. Tag bombing for WP:POINT, accusing others of being Christian editors w/o evidence and as ad hominems to discredit their arguments without an actual argument for WP:NPA, refusal to acknowledge secular historians that disagree and insistence that they are fringe for WP:IDHT. In addition, I think it's reasonable to suspect some involvement with the reddit thread and I think it's reasonable to suspect FoR is a sock to avoid scrutiny though the last two were not part of the judgement call when closing. Only behavioral evidence was considered in the close which I mentioned as the reason.--v/r - TP 20:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • And you don't feel a bit of a COI, TParis? You don't think your own publicly avowed Christianity might have made you a bit too inclined to issue a topic ban against an editor that has grown increasingly frustrated by Christian editors refusing to acknowledge obvious bias? My irony meter is exploding on this one.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Not at all. I wasn't aware we work based on ad hominems here, Kww. Are you saying that only atheist editors can close religious discussions? There is bias either way. If you have a complaint about the specific action relating to an actual mistake in policy, please raise it. However, I expect admins are above ad hominems.--v/r - TP 22:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth (and my apologies for hijacking Drmies' talk page for a moment), I was considering closing that discussion and would have come to the same conclusion TParis did. And I think religion is the worst thing that ever happened to this planet. Though I don't begrudge anyone their right to peacefully practice whatever religion they choose. Perhaps we should have had one, mandatory religion with no sects or offshoots or anything else. Think how much bloodshed would have been saved in all those ridiculous "my religion is better than yours" wars. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
          • No apology necessary, HJ, but I'll put it in the fridge for use at a later date. Kevin, I'm not going to publicly avow or disavow anything, but I think you're just going to have to accept that whatever bias TParis may have in terms of faith or reality or whatever does not necessarily translate to a translate to a bias as a Wikipedia editor, and from someone I just praised for having a nuanced view, this is a bit surprising. TParis and I probably don't see eye to eye on lots of real-world, real-life things, but I have no doubt that he reached his decision in good faith, with good effort, and having exercised the proper scrutiny. And, as it happens, I would have closed it the same way. Gentlemen and -women don't ask about each others' weight, age, or college affiliation, and we don't ask about each others' denomination, since we are supposed to judge each other by our actions. Let that be the end of it. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Just a little frustrating: I have refrained from blocking the most disruptive editors in the conflict precisely out of fear that I would be accused of bias.—Kww(talk) 02:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
              • Kevin, you know I'm easy to get along with. Tell me who you want me to block, and I'll do it gladly. If you make the right block, then it doesn't matter if you're an agnostic, anglican, animist, or atheist--and that's just the A's. And hopefully when you get dragged off to ANI your fellow admins will support that while the proverbial lynchmob is calling for your head. I know you as someone who is usually wrong, yet I don't know of any wrong block you made. In other words, take it easy: you're cool. Now, tell me who those disruptors were and I'll give you my opinion, if you're interested. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
                • Take a look at the ANI thread and note how many times Hijiri88 and Ian Thomson intentionally misrepresented my arguments. Note his pulling statistics out of thin air and blatant refusal to admit that he has done so. Note Hijiri88's repeated [36][37][38] efforts to hat off sections of discussion where his misbehaviour is discussed (and the hilarious accusations that I'm posting long rants). Look at John Carter, who persistently responds to arguments that sources can't be found with demands that I produce the sources I complain that I can't find (a piece of idiocy he repeats. Maybe Evensteven pretending that he's a trained statistician and able to dismiss the remarkable concentration of Christian sources as a sampling error. That's the problem, here: an unusually large concentration of editors that defeat any efforts to improve the article. Topic ban FoR? Probably reasonable, but not without topic banning the editors that have held the article hostage for so long.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • Yeah, I was not impressed with Hijiri in that thread, neither with their lack of evidence nor with that attempt to draw boundaries that were already blurred. John Carter's response is silly, and so is Evensteven--though I don't agree with the premise of your argument, but they chose not to go there. For you, the problem right now isn't bias so much as involvement; I doubt they'll consider you uninvolved. Kevin, I saw that thread last week already, and have looked at the talk page before. I have little interest in monitoring it constantly, but feel free to ping me if stuff gets out of hand: I have no dog in the fight, at least not yet. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• BTW, I do agree with Ret.Prof that Fearofreprisal is not the only editor who could have improved their talk page behavior, and I agree with Kww's more nuanced discussion of bias--but that does not take away from the fact that Fearofreprisal's editing and talk page behavior was much too pointy, much too aimed at editors and not edits, and much too disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• KWW wasn't discussing bias. I also don't believe that KWW was accurate with a claim of a COI just for being a Christian. That is not a conflict of interest. Christian admin shouldn't block non Christian editors? Hmmmmm. How far could that be taken?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Kudos to you from mean MONGO 18:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• MONGO, I don't know what I did to deserve that, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Your candygram is in the mail, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Verification request

Hi Doc. How are you? Sorry for the trouble but Random86 has supplied two links which do not seem to support the birthdays in two K-pop articles, so I would like to ask you, whenever you have the time, or if you feel so inclined, to check if you can find the birthdays in these links. The links are in diff 1 and diff 2. Thank you and take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To see the birthdays

• click on http://hot.smtown.com
• click on Profile
• click on each member's name.

The member names are underneath the menu at the top of the page. --Random86 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a Chrome plug-in problem. Doc, sorry for the trouble. Thank you Random86. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know....

I am duly impressed with your FA and GA accomplishments. Excellent work. Atsme☯^Consult 21:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Atsme, I appreciate it, but, you know, it's minor compared to what others have produced. I wish I had it in me to bring William March up to GA, but I've looked at it too long, too often. (hint...) And you're not doing badly yourself... Drmies (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

AN notice

• Hi Drmies, just a headsup that I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_about_offline_meatpuppeting_when_all_we_have_is_circumstantial_evidence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"On Exactitude in Science"

Let me take a crack. The main point is, stick only to the important stuff? Keep out all extraneous details? Practicality over perfection? Am I close? Scaleshombre (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't leave me hanging. What's your take on it? (Most of the online comments on the story deal with cartography, and I know that's got to be taking it TOO literally.)Scaleshombre (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The way you treat the relationship between a subject's website and her Wikipedia article, you might as well copy every word of the website into the article. A one-on-one ratio, since you provide no reason for excluding anything at all. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

involved

Hard to believe you did this, you reinserted clearly disputed text without explanation in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meir_Kahane&diff=626285820&oldid=626285052 - is it that you think it is ok to remove ip contributions that include a comment without a comment of your own? and then after your addition was removed and then replaced, you then protected the article with your addition in place https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meir_Kahane&diff=628477434&oldid=628439994 is that how you see your position in authority here now, that you can get involved in content disputes and then protect the article at your preferred position? Is his primary notability that he was a felon, no clearly not - if we had to add the same thing to all notable people that had a felon against them as the first thing we said about them there would be uproar and rightly so. You also claimed to be protecting for ip hopping but there was also another editor, User:lisa that was objecting to the addition https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meir_Kahane&diff=prev&oldid=625692808Tuscantreat (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• No, not disputed--edit-warred over for a long time. A LONG time. However, I do agree that the term was given too prominent a place and have moved it some. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You alleged "IP hopping whitewasher" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meir_Kahane&diff=prev&oldid=628477434 - Do you not understand that if an article is biased it will be edit warred because of the fact it is attacking and biased? Your protecting it for six months because people objected to its biased condition is excessive and against wiki open editing - I appreciate you returning to look at it and making a beneficial neutral edit. You went half way https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meir_Kahane&diff=628694826&oldid=628694458v and now Lisa has corrected it totally. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meir_Kahane&diff=628737137&oldid=628736871 Tuscantreat (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tuscantreat, first of all you could observe normal rules of engagement. "Hard to believe you did this"--is this how you talk to people in real life, or are you rude only on the internet? Second, there has been considerable disruption by an IP-hopping editor: this is a fact. That one other editor in one edit also agreed with that doesn't mean that the original editor wasn't being disruptive: that's simple logic. They were being disruptive, and semi-protection is a perfectly valid means of countering it. Third, I don't see any of you discussing anything on the talk page. Finally, I can't help but wonder where you came from, all of a sudden, with three article edits, coming off like this. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Cameron

Cameron was profiled once in the New York Times. As I've said elsewhere, it's quite instructive to compare that piece – as glowing a portrait of a Republican-leaning reporter as you're likely to find in the New York Times – to the Wikipedia write-up, and its history over the past 10 years. See e.g. this version, this one from two years prior or the original version created by Andrew Lih. WP:ADAM in action. Andreas JN466 13:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• So the site that shall not be named has a public section and one only accessible to members? Please don't let me know what they say about me. I'll have a look later, but is there something you want me to get? You know I'm a bit thick, Andreas--spell it out for me please. :) Drmies (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I see you got to it before I did, Drmies. Carry on. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yngvadottir, thank you so much--you too Andreas. I found a few more hits for the man in Google Books, some 9/11 related stuff, but it's late, I've been grading, and the last thing I want to do is write biographical text. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Hi Drmies, Bbb23 is on a well-deserved wikibreak so I'm coming to you with my question. User:Memills is indefinitely banned from editing any pages related to men's rights. Yesterday, he made an unconstructive edit to Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), restoring a paragraph about a law that doesn't even pretend to apply to PAS. More importantly, PAS falls smack in the middle of his topic ban because PAS is one of the more prominent MRM talking points [39]. It's even mentioned in the MRM article. Men's rights activists use the PAS argument in custody disputes to argue that PAS is the reason that they don't get custody and that it's a real disorder despite it not being recognized by any medical institution or included in the DSM-5. I told Memillis on his talk page that I consider PAS to be related to the MRM topic area, but Memills continued to edit the page. Is PAS a related page and did Memills violate his topic ban by continuing to edit the page? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

ERPXE is marked as Vandalism instead of user (213.37.84.214).

Adding ERPXE link to this page was removed by Pxe 213 37 84 214 with message: "Vandalism;" Why it's so?

It's been a year this project is being a debate in the PXE article, because one of the competing proprietary products (213.37.84.214 - serva) with Personal interests and agenda which have no interest in the quality of this article, but only to remove this project from the page, as his product wasn't allowed to be on this page. he is trying to remove it constantly from this article, and now this project is marked with "Vandalism;" and this issue SHOULD be resolved finally!. ERPXE is a an noteable and important project in the PXE community, based on syslinux/ipxe/gpxe (which all are showing up in the article). There was a legal issue with some microsoft ERPXE Plugins (not ERPXE itself), and they all being fixed immediately last year (in 2013) and there is NO legal issue with this project OR plugins as for 2014. ERPXE was linked from this article since they have been fixed, but the same person (213.37.84.214) is removing it again and again, was marked as spammer by others and finally succeeded with his vandalism and removed this link from this page with NO REASON! (with lies that ERPXE is an Warez, while it's NOT!)!. Admins, Please decide in this debate, it can't be continue anymore!. ERPXE is NOT warez based, it's the biggest notable community based pxe project available. there is NO copyrights violations in ERPXE! and thousands of thousands of IT managers are using this technology. ERPXE will have a wikipedia article in the end, and it will be linked also from this article!. it's inevitable, as it's the major open source project in the PXE area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.28.180.106 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why is this on my talk page? How many IP editors do I have to tell that I don't know anything about this subject matter? I don't even understand the grammar of the title of this section. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Johnny_van_Doorn

Came across Johnny_van_Doorn due to a link on someones page. The biography seems a bit weakly sourced, especially for the parts saying he was offensive, but BLP probably no longer applies. Is this stuff "well known" that might fall under WP:BLUE for someone in the know about Dutch things? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it's mostly accurate so yeah, I would accept it--ha, I doubt many people know his real last name: everyone knows him as Johnny the Selfkicker. The show Herenleed (with Armando and Cherry Duyns) is some of the best (and weirdest) TV ever made in Dutchland. (Need to get this record.) Thanks for pointing this out: it does need some work, doesn't it. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Taeyeon

Hi, I don't get why did you trim a lot of info on her page? For example, she does has an official instagram account, it is not a fan account. And she did either appear or host in those variety shows, maybe that list should be trimmed down to only the most significant ones, but it's not correct to take everything out.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why not? Why is it important that we list every media appearance a person has done? We don't do it for Bono, we don't do it for Barack Obama, so why should we do it here? (And none of them were discussed in reliable sources indicating that they were in any way important: as you know, K-pop artists are always on those shows, all the time--which is why SM and other outfits run those shows in the first place.) As for this instagram thing--that's almost too silly for words. An encyclopedic article does not need to know when a K-pop artist started an Instagram account. That Ruth Bader Ginsberg has a Tumblr, that's worth noting, but this, no. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty, if you say so, but I think I'll probably add back a couple of "significant" variety shows that she was in. Other than that, I guess you are right. And about the "Holler" article, I actually just trimmed down the "Promotional Activities" section, see if the article is good now. It's my second time making an article for an album, so I guess I did added too much info. Will keep this in mind when I make new articles in the future. PS: Actually I was looking around some other previous Kpop album articles (to see how to write my article), such as I Got A Boy, and the "Background & Development" and "Release" section of that article are way too extensive too, you might want to take a look and see if you can trim down anything.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, don't take my word for it, but this is how I think about it. See, the problem with K-pop is that the most commonly used source is Allkpop.com--and they print everything, so there is no way to decide whether something is actually worthwhile noting or not. And, if you don't mind (I just got done grading a big, fat stack of papers), I'll say one more thing: trimming is good. Pruning the dead wood makes the important things more clear. See, that one Holler paragraph, all those announcements and pre-releases and pre-tease-releasers, you'd completely forget that there was actually an album... Thanks for stopping by, and good luck with it: believe me, no one wants to see improvement in those articles more than me (and maybe Dr.K., but I believe he bought his doctoral degree on the internet). Drmies (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually think the "Holler" article is good for now, so I'll remove the tag. You are right about the "Allkpop" issue, that is why I always try to find reliable references in original Korean-language now. And then I add the Soompi/Allkpop articles in as an English translation for them. I do take a look around Wikipedia for those previous K-pop articles, and believe me, if I can turn back the time, I'll probably rewrite all of them. Because a lot of those articles don't have any coherent writing structures, and the word flows are all over the place.--TerryAlex (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the vote of confidence Doc. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thing that frustrates me is a lot of the references for those Kpop album charts, are either broken links or never referenced at all. It's hard to go back and find them after some time has already passed (which I did manage to find them for some Girls' Generation articles). Anyways, Thanks for the discussion. If I need anything in the future, I'll contact you. Have a nice day.--TerryAlex (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Rak-Tai's WP:AOHA

Enough. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Drmies. I had tried ANI once but Rak-Tai never showed up and went straight to User:Nick to whine about me. After my reply to Rak-Tai's accusations on Nick's page, Nick said that he didn't know what to do and that was apparently the end of the story. Rak-Tai never refuted anything I wrote on Nick's page of course because, seeing that it is all true, he can't. You can see the ANI here. In that ANI is a link to User:Nick's talkpage and my reply there but it has of course since been archived and I don't really know how to get into his archive. - Takeaway (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I was looking into this last night but then real life (dishes etc.) caught up with me. I do remember wanting to say one thing: please do NOT go and edit war over a notice on their talk page; it serves no purpose. Give me a little time and I'll get back to you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Takeaway, you have gone way overboard there, and on their talk page. They have asked you to stay away, so you should. Ask an admin if there's further trouble: you may not post on their talk page again (or edit their user page), unless it's some standard notification of a noticeboard thread or something like that; if you violate their request for you to stay away, you may be blocked. At the same time, they cannot reinsert those attacks again. I hope the two of you can act a bit more grown-up and just stay away from each other. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Dishes are evil! But back to the issue: In this diff edit summary they have actually asked me to refute their claims on their (talk) page, which I did but which you removed. This user has been posting their unproven accusations (which are of course false; but hey: I'm the one who is accused so I am bound to say that they're false, but in this case they really are. Believe me...! ;-) ) for many years now, so often, it doesn't even get on my nerves now. Not just on their user page, but elsewhere as in this AfD, and in their edit summaries. Should I just let this go? WP:RPA states that clear-cut attacks -which at least two editors, one of which an admin (Nick), have also confirmed to be clear cut attacks- can be removed, and that is what I did, repeatedly. Wouldn't it be strange that I'm not allowed to remove clear-cut attacks but they are allowed to just go on and on posting them? Should I bring this case to ANI? I tried once but it petered away after User:Rak-Tai avoided going there and instead went to admin Nick's talk page where it remained unresolved after I had posted a (successful) defence against their accusations. I couldn't be bothered to return to ANI. Shouldn't Rak-Tai be the one taking me to ANI if they insist on calling me names and accusing me of harassment? Am I immature when I just want this user to stop their very immature rants? I've asked them repeatedly over the years to please take it up on an appropriate board. If you can't access Nick's archive where I posted my defence against this user's accusations, I have it saved on my laptop and can easily C&P it for you. - Takeaway (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC) PS What strikes me as unreasonably unfair, is that every time this user does stuff like this, I am the one blamed for being immature, and now even threatened with a block. This user has been warned before to stop posting his rants but never were they threatened with a block, nor was any other action taken against them. - Takeaway (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC) And yes, I indeed have a whole bunch of diffs showing their COI, POV and CENSOR. Many of them were posted on Nick's talk page. - Takeaway (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC) And indeed, it is a tiny, insignificant issue; also for me. But it is a nagging issue that has gone on for way too long now and I wish it would just stop. It takes away my time, and now it takes away your time too from doing much more important stuff. They have stated that they have left WP but once every so often, they come back and their only edit is to post their little rant on their user page, which I then remove. As their rant is similar to vandalism, I was actually, per WP rules, not edit warring. - Takeaway (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I would really appreciate it if you changed the wording of your message on Rak-Tai's talk page. It portrays me as showing unreasonable behaviour. I have tried the reasonable thing many times now. I have done the reasonable thing of taking them to ANI (which, probably because it isn't part of any ongoing in-fighting soap drama, didn't attract any response except fly-by knee-jerk replies based on very little information and automatically assuming bad faith with me as the poster), and I have also done the reasonable thing to stop when they stopped posting their rant. I can assure you that the next time I see the user reposting their rant, I will remove it as per WP:RPA. Will I be blocked? - Takeaway (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I would also very much appreciate having them calling me names on their talk page removed. It's grating to see someone who is decidedly WP:NOTHERE being allowed to state such false accusations without ever having to prove anything. - Takeaway (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC) In a later edit they said "STAY OFF MY PAGE", so that's what I'm going with. The current version of their talk page contains only this, "his harassment of me in constantly stalking and changing my edits"--and to balance this out, there are half a dozen warnings from you about their supposed harassment, so I think these cancel each other out. The history of their user page is one of the most ridiculous I've ever seen, and you two are both guilty of that extreme silliness--in fact, it qualifies as an entry on WP:LAME. So no, I'm not going to change my wording since I don't agree with your actions there and they are blockable; it's as simple as that. What you don't seem to understand is that NOTHERE doesn't apply since they did in fact make useful content edits--Jan Maas (cyclist) is an example. To press that point: what the hell were you doing there moving the article as your first and only edit, right after they moved it? Without discussion on the talk page? What do you think that looks like from my point of view--Rak-Tai has edited that article a few times over the years, you never have, you get in a conflict with them, and all of a sudden you take an interest in a Dutch cyclist and move the article? I don't wish to spell out what it looks like to me, so no, I'm not going to tweak my talk page message, and I am telling you to leave them alone. The moment you leave it alone it disappears, and if they make it reappear, I will handle it. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC) The user was warned not to post that message back in April 2013 by a user and an admin who both viewed it as harassment, but the user still kept on doing it. As my experience on ANI was extremely poor regarding this issue, I refrained from going back there and kept on reverting his personal attacks as per WP:RPA, hoping that they might just stop some day. I'd happily have my warnings that were put up there according to WP policy, removed, together with his unproven allegations which started this whole thing in the first place. Yes, they have made some useful edits besides being heavily involved with COI and a bunch of other things that go against WP policy. And as to why I reverted that Jan Maas edit was because they already did so back in 2010, and it was then reverted by a few other editors (not me) asking Rak-Tai to discuss it on the talk page and with arguments why it shouldn't be moved. Did he discuss it on the talk page when he changed it back again after which I became involved? Nope. Only after Severo had changed it back to its original article name again, did Rak Tai finally have something useful to say. Moreover, the only reason why they wanted it changed is because of this deleted article, which was written by them, about a, per WP policy, non-notable Jan Maas (I had nothing to do with that AfD). They had originally changed the notable cyclists page to accommodate this non-notable missionary who has the same name. I find it odd that this user, who has had several editors warning them about their actions, and who also noticed their POV and COI, gets the benefit of the doubt, while I, who has never gotten a warning for any of my numerous edits and with only minute disagreements that have always been agreeably resolved with the exception of this user, suddenly do. I also suspect that they have made use of sock-, and/or meat puppets in both AfDs that they were involved with, as well as elsewhere. This user, whenever they are in a conflict, seems to attract single-edit supporters too often to be a coincidence. Yes of course it's silly and lame! And that is why I want this to finally stop. That we have a conflict is only when this issue is viewed completely from Rak Tai's point of view. When viewed from my side of the fence, they were often engaging in POV and COI edits which I changed, and repeats of edits for which they have been warned, and I only changed those edits, no other, staying on the correct side of what is written in the second paragraph of WP:HOUND. I noticed their POV and COI (actually they are a "he" as they have themselves have given away who they are in real life in a couple of edits, virtually bragging about it) way back with this edit on the Pattaya talk page while they were editing the main page, a page which I had edited before. He engaged in an edit war, exceeding 3RR, in an attempt to keep the censored revision of that page notwithstanding my repeated attempts to engage them in a true discussion on the talk page. I only discovered later that it was because the now deleted article about Johannes Maas (originally Jan Maas) linked to the Pattaya page as being the abode of missionary Johannes Maas and also linked to it as the HQ in the article of his Christian organisation which relies on donations. It was obvious that Rak Tai wanted to keep the Pattaya page as squeaky clean as possible, with no mention whatsoever to "prurient" content, which, anyone having heard of Pattaya, will find a scream! This peaked my interest and I then researched this user as is recommended in WP:R Van and also in anticipation of an ANI case which I finally tried to get off the ground, but never got further than the user not showing up there and instead running to an admin page, and then running away from that admin page after I exposed them. I had discovered cases of them putting referenced articles of rival religious groups up for deletion, as well as censoring referenced, but for them unfavourable content in, mainly, Christianity related articles. Cases of repeatedly inserting the name of said non-notable missionary in any article or list that was even slightly relevant, and having the name repeatedly removed by other editors, with warnings not to insert unreferenced names. In several instances they used misleading edit summaries, hoping to mask their POV. This user was WP:SNEAKY I could have started an ANI on this users COI and POV much sooner but I waited and when I was ready, they themselves had decided to remove themselves from WP (or at least, that is what they wrote on their user page), leaving that revengeful message on their user page so I never bothered going to ANI after that. What would have been the point? You can imagine what would have been said at ANI: "why bother us with this person who has already left?" Should I now start an ANI on this user just to make them stop posting their little rant after they have actually finished editing WP so long ago? And after most of their edits that did not comply with WP policy have already been reverted? Not just by me but also by other editors completely independent of me? If I had known that just to make this user stop posting unproven crap about me, that I'd have to defend myself in this way just to have their accusations removed from WP, I would have started an ANI on them much sooner when they were still around. As it stands now, I am the victim in this whole issue, and not the POV and COI pusher. - Takeaway (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Since there is no offensive commentary on their user page anymore, and little more than a single sentence on their talk page (more than balanced out by your warnings), I can hardly consider this harassment. You didn't help yourself by edit warring over their user page. I see no evidence of their being a POV and COI pusher and I see no reason to dig up old edits to possibly prove that they may have been guilty of such-and-such in the past. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Rak-Tai's note on that talk page (from 2009!) is silly, and you reverted one of their edits in 2010. So that is your warranty for moving the Maas article in 2014? If you have such boatloads of evidence for their awful editing, yes, ANI would have been a solution, or an RfC/U. But this, in 2014, when they basically stopped editing--it's over. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC) That revert you cite is after a whole series of reverts started by him on a section that I had written for that article. He reverted my well referenced section here first. I wrote that section after I discovered that he had removed any mention of Pattaya's reality and reputation, against the consensus (in which he had taken part) reached on the talk page before. I wouldn't call his note on the talk page "silly", it's utterly degrading and insulting towards certain groups. And nope, it was not my warrant for reverting his Johannes Maas edit. I already provided a link here above to the Johannes Maas talk page which, if you access it, outlines the concerns of other editors on changing the name of that article. In between 2010 and 2014 so much else has happened of which you have no knowledge. As I have stated, I can give you diffs if you want to read them. It's quite a lot so you might actually not want to be bothered for this minor issue. As this is a minor issue, but for me one that, due to it having gone on so long, it is like a mosquito that you can not get rid of that keeps biting you constantly, and in this case for years on end. As it is indeed a very minor issue, why "must" the present talk page be kept? Does Wikipedia suffer so much loss of content if it is completely blanked? As it now stands, it seems to be there just to shame me. Is that Wikipedia's policy? Is there an major and overwhelming Wikipedia need to keep it there? One click of the button and it's gone. Rak Tai has repeatedly removed the contents of his talk page, as is his right, over the course of the years, especially whenever there is anything negative on it such as warnings from other editors (really, not just mine), making it difficult for others to see what issues surround him here on Wikipedia. So why "must" this still be there? - Takeaway (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC) It seems you mistake Rak Tai for someone who writes about Dutch cyclists of old. He is not. The initial reason for him to have that article name changed was to use that name for his blatantly COI article about the still very alive American missionary Johannes Maas and his organisation, not wanting anything else to distract from it. - Takeaway (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Hey! I finally discovered a way to get into Nick's archived talk pages though a link elsewhere! Here's the part where Rak Tai complains about me and my reply showing a selection of diffs highlighting Rak Tai's POV. - Takeaway (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Oh wait, here's the second part on Nick talk page one month later showing more diffs with Rak Tai's POV, and with Nick's conclusion. It's so long ago, I remembered it only as one item. - Takeaway (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC) As this whole issue of him harassing me with baseless accusations is a result of his sordid past here on Wikipedia, with me trying to combat his POV and COI and outiright vandalism with little to no help whatsoever from other editors when on ANI or outside of ANI, the past does matter in this case. If his personal accusations still stand on his talk page in a few days, I will blank the whole talk page per WP:AOHA. I have given him every opportunity to stop posting his drivel and when gone, I have never touched his page. I am being made a victim of this person now. As for stating that my host of NPA warnings balance his unproven accusations, what the heck kind of argument is that? He posts complete lies, I stay within WP recommended actions, posting an NPA warning for each time he posts his lies, and now the lies are allowed to stand? And it's called balance??? To revert to Dutch "er is geen koe zo bont of er zit wel een vlekje aan". This man has been smearing me and apparently has gotten people to actually even believe that "er moet toch wel iets aan de hand zijn met die Takeaway" even without one shred of proof. He has indeed achieved his goal as you seem to give this liar, POV pusher and blatant COI editor the benefit of the doubt. I am very disappointed. If you do not feel like involving yourself any further with this issue, please then point me to someone else. I at least deserve that someone actually takes the trouble to look into this? - Takeaway (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Takeaway, scroll up this long wall of text to see just how long it is. You are giving this way more attention than it's worth. Feel free to seek redress elsewhere--ANI, AN, another admin, whatever, and you'll see quickly that there are better things to do here. Kom op zeg. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Inderdaad "kom op zeg". It's so effing easy for you to just blank that page but now I've been made to defend myself every step of the way against what seems a "bevooroordeelde blik jouerzijds"because otherwise you would have slapped a block on me as you threatened to do without knowing what was going on. It could have been handled much better and way more simple if you had just blanked the guys lies and the rest of the page at the same time. But noooooo.... for some reason I needed to be punished and I have no idea why. And now you seem so ingegraven in jouw standpunt, that all you can do now is belittle me with "oh my, why are you being so tedious?" Puleeeze... All you had to do was blank the page because there is NPA still standing there and then all this could have been avoided. - Takeaway (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC) OK, that's enough. Spreken is zilver, en je hebt zeker een vloot vol, en zwijgen is goud. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Aloha

Battlefield.

Franz Roubaud Panorama «Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855)»

Sound effects; boom boom! boom boom! shriek! "Argh! I've lost my leg!" "No you haven't, it's over there." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Is this an ANI allegory? Drmies (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes dear. Wearallenemuies enemies enemies Hafspajen (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A

Well, I've asked my buddy at BND who then wire-tapped his contact at NSA and it turned out that Gerald Krutzler seems to be Austrian. At least he studied Early Medieval History at University of Vienna [40]. Upon further googling you will even find one Gerald Krutzler who is registered in Wels, Upper Austria. As to publications, Kult und Tabu seems to be his only major work. His editor is a certain Andreas Schwarcz at de:Institut für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung. That's all I could dig out of the interwebs, and now I need to get some sleep. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Our liaison at the embassy will leave your payment under the second usual stone, as soon as the long sounds of autumn's violon hurt my heart with their monotonous languor. I've emailed Dr. Scwarcz; perhaps you'll get a footnote in the HTML code (white on white) of the e-version of the book, if it ever comes out. Thanks De. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• De728631, I emailed him and he got right back to me. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • And he says he'll do it. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Bobby Simha

Since when do we remove sourced content?? And that too citations?? Films he starred in aer being removed despite being sourced. Seriously one click reverting? Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Eh..."rave reviews"? If you cannot enter neutral text, then that's your problem to solve. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I know what I'm you doing. All I did was adding sources. Why would revert all that with one click?? This is almost blanking what you did. And calling that disruptive editing? Really?? Would you please first check first what I added before blindly reverting everything? Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC): I know what I'm you doing. All I did was adding sources. Why would revert all that with one click?? This is almost blanking what you did. And calling that disruptive editing? Really?? Would you please first check first what I added before blindly reverting everything? Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And rave reviews is what the source says! I can tone down the text but reverting everything with one click is ridiculous. I mean everything!

• No, you are adding a whole bunch of totally non-neutral language. In addition, you are edit-warring; just ask TheRedPenOfDoom. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Was that so hard? Drmies (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A centralized discussion at Talk:Bobby_Simha#Descriptions -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There were few places where corrections were needed (the original text wasn't by me!) but reverting the whole edit was not right I felt since I also added some more content and many many reliable sources. It was not hard but it's upsetting if you spend so much time finding some good sources and the very next minute somebody simply reverts everything with one click. Why not add just a template at the top? Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Because a puff piece with a tag is still a puff piece. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Puffs (facial tissue) a puff piece? NE Ent 03:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not now it isn't. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Like

Help, please

If you have a moment, I need some advice. It's always been my understanding that when a discussion has content/comments collapsed on a talk page, that the collapse "bar" is to contain nothing subjective, just a statement saying that the comments are closed for a generic reason. It's further been my understanding that the bar should not contain an editor's signature. Because of that understanding, these edits/reverts occurred: [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]. Am I wrong? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SIGNHAT NE Ent 02:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Ent--how about that neutrality note? Winkelvi, you know what's funny, both you and that other editor have complained that I'm harassing you and that I should stay away from y'all's talk pages. I suppose this means I must be doing something right; apparently I'm an equal-opportunity offender. Sorry, but the thought of dealing with that person makes me vomit. Yes, you're right: such titles should be neutral, like talk page headings etc., though some other person once told me they needed a signature. So I'm not going to take action here, since before you know Lithistman adds more shit to that shit header on his talk page. But there's plenty other admins who pass by here--Bishonen, HJ Mitchell, TParis, MastCell, Randykitty, Dennis Brown, Kelapstick, Writ Keeper. All y'all, beware, though: hic sunt leones. Or maybe Ent will jump in the fray here. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • [45] Looks like it was dealt with.--v/r - TP 03:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems neutral enough to me. NE Ent 03:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Late to the party as always, but I'll have what Ent is having. Dennis 2¢ 13:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who jumped in here. Drmies, yes, you and I have "tussled" more than once. That said, I'm the kind of person who is a life-long learner and is never afraid to reflect back on things via hindsight. I've said some things to you in the past that were not thought out well before I hit the <enter> key. So, for that I have regrets and am trying to look at your expertise in a different light while looking at myself in a less serious light. Which has brought me here today (and a few days ago.). Thanks for your help. I appreciate it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• WV, I appreciate your note. I don't carry grudges: life is too short and there is too much work to be done. Whatever our disagreement was is in the past, and feel free to call on me anytime I can be of assistance, administratively or otherwise. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• WP:PREVIEW is your friend. If editors could be help responsible for what they've had in the edit buffer I'd have been indefinitely blocked long ago. NE Ent 22:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll respond to that tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As Roger Whittaker sang in New World in the Morning [46] -- Don't they know tomorrow never comes? NE Ent 22:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the helping hand at SPI

I was a little concerned that retaliatory SPI was going to hang out for a month before anyone got to it. I really appreciate the quick and decisive response. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, why did you delete it rather than add a comment explaining why that account is allowed to break the letter of WP:ILLEGIT, apparently with impunity? Or why didn't you contact me with your objection, and if I agreed I could have withdrawn it. As it stands, it looks like a bit suspicious to vanish it without comment or discussion. Baaarny (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing to that SPI and it struck me as retaliatory. An SPI is not a valid way to express concern about alternative accounts; WP:VALIDALT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY have more information on the proper procedure. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Well, I think that's settled. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Carnitas

Just finished cleaning up after making this for dinner. Taste the jealousy! I used a blow torch at the end to add a bit of crisp. This is what E.B. White really meant by "Some pig"Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC

• Now that I finally have a decent Mexican cookbook everything has changed: my carnitas are first boiled, then fried, and the simmered in ancho chili sauce. It's two levels better in taste, though the crunch is gone. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Wow--4 days? Does Kelapstick know? Drmies (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Great, now I'm hungry again... That page has been bookmarked for a live trial. De728631 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Now that looks good. I don't know if I can wait four days though.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Peasant food (French, Mexican) is the best stuff on earth. Cheap or leftover ingredients and plenty of time.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of AfD

Hi, as an admin are you satisfied with the non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping in Islamism (2nd nomination). Seems a tad contentious for a non-admin closure. Regards, WWGB (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment. If there is a good reason to contest my closure, I do not mind it being reversed. Just leave me a note letting me know what I did incorrectly, and preferably give me advice on what to do next time. --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• WritingEnthusiast14, I have to revert this, and not just because I disagree: a. it is WAY too early to close this: they should run for seven days, esp. if contentious; b. you didn't give an overall rationale which you should do, especially if contentious; c. it is contentious. Next time, first of all, wait. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jihadism and hip-hop

Drmies, can you please revisit your review here, and see whether the edits to the article have gotten this close to approval? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, I will, but I need your opinion (and that of others! feel free to weigh in) on ALT3. Looking at it now, a month later, I'm not so convinced that it's still in good taste. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Any admin - this looks like mischiefs

painted by Philippe de Champaigne, the guy who wasn't happy with only one Cardinal de Richelieu - and is probably in most severe truble now because of me Hafspajen (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Fuzzy&diff=prev&oldid=629175593 Fuzzy is out for a mess. And this - ? Hafspajen (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Good faith. Will go talk to the editor. But could I get some BLP/MEDRS-experienced stalker eyes on Jani Schofield please? I'm not impressed by the quality of the sources, although one of them mentions the existence of an LA Times article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yngvadottir, is this a medical case? Looks more like a celebrity issue--and, IMO, a clear-cut case of BLP1E. Leave it to "the media" to generate notability for their ratings. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's my issue. I see one solid source, and the parents have gone public, but I am tempted to AfD it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I support deletion. Mind you, I'm looking at my crystal ball, and it says that NOTNEWS is to be deleted soon to go by the way of the civility board. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I forget now who said concerning what article that it had "driven a coach and horses through WP:NOTNEWS" but that was a year or so ago. I feel sorry for the folks at Wikinews - they can't compete. OK, who's first to nominate this. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, Yes, January Schofield is notable and I am surprised she has not had an article before. I was busily looking up several LA times articles and just added the first. I am familiar with her case and story. But if the article is going to be deleted, I am not going to work on it anymore. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: I just opened the article history to notify people, and thanks very much for adding that reference! Please don't abandon it just because I think it should be deleted; you are perfectly free to argue that it should be kept, and it would be helpful either way if you could add more good references. Some of those there now are craptastic - if memory serves, the first one in particular. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, She is decidedly a medical case (unless diagnosed severe mental illness is not considered so) and also notable because of controvery over how her parents care for her (probably published in the LA Times. (shrug), I mean it has barely been an hour since you asked for help here... Fylbecatulous talk 16:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, sorry I just don't feel like arguing anything right now.... Fylbecatulous talk 16:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You could look then to my spelling and grammar casualties at Philippe de Champaigne, most probably terrible translation from French. And if anyone has a problem finding presents for his girlfriend-boyfriend, here is a great link -> added to Christmas lights instead of a ciytation needed link- well - never mind it was removed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist - I guess it is what they call spam? Hafspajen (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I gave up translating when I came to the expression: Baroque portrait of gasoline saying

.* It was a substitute for the portrait of a permanent existence baroque portrait of gasoline.

Xanty thinks though it could be the spirit of the Baroque. Hafspajen (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Got it. "C'était substituer au portrait d’existence baroque un portrait permanent d’essence. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ... but why do they have to talk like this... ? Hafspajen (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pretentious? Moi?" Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the disgusting pic with the pink shirt man with uggly mustache and ruckled scalloped nose and knobbly claws is back, while the other one cropped is gone, at Dutch cuisine. File:Haring 03.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, edit made by another unhappy customer. I can't please everyone, Hafspajen. At least it's just in the gallery, not in a very prominent spot. Which reminds me that C&A needs improvement. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, uh, that has to be Sagaciousphil‎, she is the fashion girl with the right UK knowledge. Hafspajen (talk) 11

07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I've ever even been in a C&A store! Do they stock any Frank Lyman? SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who that is, and I didn't frequent that store. Wasn't my type of clothes. Wethouder Hekking probably shopped there. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Aah, Lyman is probably not your style either but I do have some of his fabulous stuff - the fabric is beautiful and drapes perfectly. Now, see I'm going all female on your talk page ... huh, am I really expected to just write about clothes, lipstick and the like? Don't want to and will stomp my (very pretty) little feet in a temper tantrum if you make me! SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• WEll, that was a mistake, obviously. Ladies like to wear them, but not to tell the secrets of it - - Sorry, I am now out of options - no more people I know about in fashion... Hafspajen (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• You can talk about v-jayjays or breastfeeding too. No interior decorating, please. As for fashion, well, Mr/Mrs Drmies shops for me, sometimes at Target, sometimes at Banana Republic, and I wear it. If I'm lucky I'm in the Netherlands and my mom takes me to Sissy-Boy. In a perfect world I'd have a slightly different body and I'd wear metrosexual suits without a tie so I still look casual. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• franklyman.com? Frankly man that dress don't suit you Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

>>> Why does this computer giving me this >>> when I press ::::____yeah right / now this came instead of question marks / what\s wrong___ ah AGAIN Hafspajen (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Just temporary. Hafspajen (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeking your opnion

Dear Drmies,

Of all of the many people I've interacted with over many years on Wikipedia, I consider you among the most knowledgeable and thoughtful. Therefore I'd value your opinion.

• OK, I think we should stop right here, while the going's good. You also are on my list of fave editors ever, and your words aren't just true but also beautiful. I thank you for them. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I was gobsmacked to discover today that an editor has undone hours and hours of my work. This is the second time they've done this, but far more extreme than their first attack. Apparently they wish to undo every edit I've ever made that they can track down. They are restoring falsehoods, incorrect grammar and other basic errors to as many articles as they can. They have carried out this campaign of destruction either leaving no edit summary, or leaving dishonest edit summaries that claim I am a banned user. I can see that other users are actually taking these false claims at face value. Here's what they've done in their latest spree:

[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81],[82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90]

In your opinion, are their actions beneficial to the encyclopaedia?

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.37.203.126 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I admit I said "fave editor" before I knew who you were, but after one edit it's clear. That's a lot of edits. Some of them I wouldn't have made. SummerPhD, I do not believe that DENY applies here: it applies to vandals, and vandals are by definition those who intend to harm, not improve the encyclopedia. I urge you to exercise judgment, not just revert. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the editor in question is (as you are aware), of course, the "Best Known" vandal. (Yes, others are taking that fact at face value. Absent any attempt to demonstrate otherwise, protestations to the contrary are not worth considering. I undid hours of his work? Yes, I am free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason. Boo hoo. Editing in defiance of the community does not earn my sympathy and I don't care what his "intent" is. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I was asked on my user talk to look at this IP's edits. I've started a discussion on WP:AN about this, because there seems to be a good faith disagreement amongst long term editors on how to handle this. PhilKnight (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Phil, I do believe there is such a disagreement, but for now it seems that I'm the only one crying in the wilderness so I have little faith that anything will change. I am sure you made reference in that AN thread to the LTA case. Summer, I'm mildly surprised at what I consider a rather dogmatic approach. You may have seen that I looked at every individual edit listed above to try and judge it individually. Of course you are right according to the letter of the law (that is, of course, if there is consensus that the IP is a vandal, and if it can be established that they are banned!), but what good does that do? Dreadstar, you blocked the last one; to my knowledge, the editor has never had an account, though, and switches IPs the "normal" way--not with nefarious intent, but simply as a technical, involuntary matter of course. They don't use proxies or TORs or whatever those things are called. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I do struggle to accept that there is no nefarious intent when the editor in question has openly admitted to switching IPs to avoid blocks. In any case, block evasion is block evasion, whatever the "intent" may be. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The idea that he switches IPs as an involuntary matter of course is smashed to pieces right here [91]. He receives a block, calls someone a twat and "Let's see now... turn off the router... turn it on again..." That's him in a nutshell. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, I find it hard to believe that you are so obsessed with this matter that you'd carry a diff from 2011 in your back pocket. Don't you have anything better to do, like improving articles and NOT sticking flags in infoboxes, in direct contravention of [[WP:INFOBOXFLAG? The more you and your righteous friends bring up these silly arguments and these ancient diffs, the more I myself get frustrated at this utter nonsense. I'm beginning to believe that this is all a game to some of you--revert, get him pissed off enough to start cussing, get him blocked, repeat. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to carry it around, it's on the LTA page. How about actually addressing the point? It's still very much valid and it directly contradicts your point of view that he's completely innocent. The flag matter may not be something you are up to date with, but the last discussion produced no consensus to remove infobox flags for sportspeople, let alone flags in results tables. Rather than criticising my edits (for no obvious reason), stick to this topic. You think it's a game to the rest of us? The guy is blocked for disruptive editing by two or three different admins, carries on regardless and you want to say it's everyone else's fault? If you want a more recent diff to prove the guy is gaming the system, here's one [92] – 2011, 2014, it's all exactly the same. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Gaming the system" is nonsense. OK, so maybe they say "I'm going to change IPs" and then do--they changed IPs anyway since they're mobile. I doubt that they're mobile because they want to game the system; they're simply mobile. That's their choice.

  Maybe you, after three years of complaining, can address the point that I raised: your reverts are making these articles worse. I thought our prime project here was to improve articles. They're improving articles. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

He has explained why he switches IPs. Anyway, regardless of why he switches IPs, the result is that he is untouchable and unchallengeable. We play by all the rules; he does not. That is an impossible situation. One note to you, it is not I who is reverting all of the IP's edits. I revert the ones to which I object. Those edits which genuinely improve articles, I leave intact. Some of those I revert are adjusted by others and reinstated, or reinstated wholesale by others with good reasons attached, and I do not object to that. Do not paint me as someone who is here for any reason other than to improve the project. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, the point of whether his edits improve the articles is completely irrelevant. He's been blocked. He's evading it. That needs to be the end of the story. If we can't rely on the administrative corps to enforce blocks, then blocks are meaningless.—Kww(talk) 18:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Kww, I'm sorry, but I disagree with the working premise behind all this. Basically, this IP editor is blocked because they were blocked. And then they were blocked again because they were blocked before, and on and on. And what "block" am I supposed to enforce? Some block for calling someone a bad name from years ago? Did this somehow, invisibly, turn into an indefinite block? I challenge you to find me an "original" block--one where they were blocked for their behavior, not for reinstating edits they had made before which were, typically, reverted blindly (sure, policy, but blind policy). And then tell me how long they should have been blocked for that offense for which they were blocked. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

IP addresses change all the time, and there are many different places from which I access the internet. As for nefarious intent - each of the 44 edits I listed above was made carefully to improve the encyclopaedia. I explained every one of them in clear edit summaries. Each one of them was reverted, for no reason other than a desire to bully and harass. Who's got nefarious intent? Who is trying to improve the encyclopaedia here? 186.37.203.196 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This appeared to be an IP-hopping LTA sock engaged in an edit war on a number of articles, not sure if this is a case where appearances can be deceiving. I've shortened the block since the user just went on to other IP's, and in light of the AN discussion. Dreadstar ☥ 16:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dreadstar, as far as I'm concerned they're not a vandal, and the "A" in "Abuse" isn't valid either. I understand why you blocked; all appearances are against them. See, they used to cuss a lot more, and cussing after they were (typically) reverted without explanation got them blocked. So it goes from one block to another: admins block them now because they were blocked before and are still editing. They change IP, purposely or not, and simply continue: I have no doubt that they think the "normal" rules about block evasion and IP hopping etc don't apply to them because they typically get reverted and blocked for no reason. It's a self-perpetuating process. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent analysis, one I wholeheartedly agree with. Sometimes the plumage can be deceiving. Dreadstar ☥ 18:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikilove

A Yawning Hedgehog

	The Saint Saint Queen Dinar Award
	For all your patience, for all your patience day to day. Hafspajen (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! That's nice of you, Hafspajen. BTW, that is one creepy hedgehog. The one that was messing outside my little tent on Oland was, I'm sure, as friendly as all the other Swedes I ever met. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Creepy, CReepier - CREEPIEST Hafspajen (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice?

If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your advice regarding this: [93]. Thank you, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• I saw that on ANI and clicked on a few of the diffs, but got distracted--those chicken coops don't build themselves, you know. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Well, it has a surreal quality to it. OK, that discussion wasn't very ongoing--it was chatting along merrily. Then again, it was just a discussion, not an RfC that needed closure in any official way, so I can understand editors who say it should have been left open. (This isn't like an admin closing an RfC or a thread on a noticeboard, or something like that.) Then again, big deal--your closing didn't stop HiLo48 from commenting again (and making sense in the process). So if I were you, I'd just say "OK" and move along, and let Stevie talk on in that ANI thread. And Calidum, let 'em talk: more heat than light. In all such things, it's important (though very difficult) not to get carried away. I suggest you take Baseball Bugs's comment from 02:18, 13 October 2014, to heart, and walk away from it. Let it go, let it go, turn away and slam the door. Later Winkelvi, Drmies (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you for saying I made sense, but I didn't knowingly post after the thread was closed. It's one of those timing things. When I began writing my post, it hadn't been closed, but when I saw the result of my edit, it had. I looked and thought, if the system allows it, I'll leave my post there. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Funny: I had the exact same thing on ANI the other day, except that in the meantime there had been an edit war over the closing during my edit and I got accused of not blocking over it. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	A barnstar from my side to "thank" you for "everything" you are doing for our community. You are great. Tito☸Dutta 03:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tito, that's very nice, thanks. I haven't been much at DYK recently and haven't seen a lot of you, though I did see that you're thinking of throwing your hat in the ring for adminship. Are you sure? The pay is lousy, and the feedback is too. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You are a very good administrator (how's that for feedback) and Obama wants to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. Given the work you put in, that adds up to way more than pocket lint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Underpaid and under-appreciated - sounds like a professor as well as a wiki admin. Regards from another underpaid and under-appreciated (and far less popular) admin who is not a professor (see, I disclosed something about myself).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Cullen; you're too kind. I can't wait for America to start paying its laborers a fair, living wage. Of course we have to make sure about the welfare of corporations (they're people too!) and the war machine first. Hey, I've been reading about Irish heretics. They had a terrible reputation in the 8th century. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Bbb23, are you in any way affiliated with the sperm bank for geniuses? Drmies (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • My mother used their sperm to conceive me. She sued them when I flunked kindergarten. I blame my father, whoever he is, for everything that's happened since.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • My son put on Lisa Ling on CNN tonight, talking about the "genius" sperm bank of a quarter century ago. Did that episode inspire this discussion, or is it the secret lines of communication known only to administrators? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
          • CNN has two really good programs--Ling's and Bourdain's. It's better than their news coverage. My son was made of genius sperm and genius egg too. Gender gap: where is the genius egg bank? I had to marry a real smart woman to get my hands on those eggs. Cullen, I suspect you're in the same position. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Two sides of the "gender gap"- Lisa Ling and the Mail on Sunday (I removed the cite- the article was trash). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Cullen, you'd have to ask our resident eclectic. I just play along. BTW, could someone please make that star stop spinning? Makes me dizzy, or dizzier.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Done. Drmies, per User:Bbb23's request you now have a non-rotating star. Revert my change if you disagree! Or someone could open an RfC on whether barnstars should rotate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
              • Thanks Ed--I posted at the Village Pump and on Wikipediocracy for an answer to that pressing question. Also, this is a humo(u)r-free zone so please keep it straight. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Metaclock

Could you please block this user as a PR Rep? Take a look at these contribs. Jill Kelley has been receiving a lot of edits throughout the last year from IPs from Florida, where she lives, and a few users have been connected to PR agencies. I have no doubt Metaclock is one of them.--v/r - TP 19:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes I could. And I have. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed

For a while I am stalked by user Trackinfo. It is that the guy one one hand is just so pitiful is his behaviour (see for an example: Talk:Miss Manabí and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner) and on the other hand is backed up in his battleground behaviour by other users (see this threat. As I am powerless against teamwork on AN/I, that is no option. Have you any advice, other than ignoring him, how to deal with this sad guy? The Banner talk 10:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Let me look in more detail when I have a moment--after classes. I'm going to delete that attack page anyway, unless a stalker beats me to it. (Hint: User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner.) Drmies (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• That is done. Now, that diff, I do not believe that Milowent is threatening you in any way; I think they're indicating that ANI might not be a good theater for this, but I can't speak for them. I don't see a threat. Anyway, I left Trackinfo a note, and I hope they listen. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I hope Trackinfo gets the message. The Banner talk 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• yes my comment was not a threat but a suggestion ANI would not be a good option and could backfire on you for nominating national pageant winners for deletion. Miss Manabi I admitted was probably an ok nomination. Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I took (and take) it as a threat as it promised more or less that when I took Trackinfo to AN/I because of his behaviour you and friends would go after me, instead of dealing with the contested behaviour. The Banner talk 10:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

My point was that the contested behaviour would become your own, for the mass nomination -- I'm afraid my powers of observation are my only powers here and I have no posse to descend upon you or anyone else!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha, a posse of one. Yeah, that's not very impressive, Milowent. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sneaky what is this

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_lights&curid=791483&diff=629581825&oldid=629193762 Hafspajen (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bleh. Sexist crap. One day we'll all be less stereotypical. I started referring to "my husband" in class, just to indicate that it's possible. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

While I'm still frustrated with how things went down on the John Barrowman kerfuffle and, to a much lesser extent, the Landmark discussions, you do a lot of good work around the project, and I appreciate it. Please consider this virtual beer an olive branch. LHMask me a question 19:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• I gladly accept both, but more gladly if you accept something from me: I have no interest whatsoever in Landmark as a club. You know who likes to suggest I have a POV, but that's utter crap. If anything, I am more than suspicious of such organizations. At the same time, they ought to be dealt with fairly, according to guidelines and reliability--but rest assured, I have no love for that or any other such club. Accept that, and I'll bring the wings. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  I know who you mean, yes, but I hope you aren't considering Astynax in that vein as well. In my view, he's tried very hard to bring balance to the Landmark article(s), and used solid sourcing when doing so. With that said, I'm more of a brats-on-the-grill man, if it's all the same to you... LHM^{ask me a question} 23:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Bilihildis at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)