User talk:Drmies/Archive 79

Hey, Can you go over the article once :). I have performed a copy-edit on it. If any concerns left, pleasepost on my talk page. You are awesome. Thank you. MaRAno ^FAN 13:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+ we still don't have an article on this guy. Not very fair towards him, he tried hard. Those are nice melons! --Hafspajen (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing you need it should have been a new header. Xanty knows that. Hafspajen (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Xanty never deletes things - but puts in a new header. Follow his example! Hafspajen (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'* And after all this said, Drmies help now to translate that article for Xanty, so he can have some EV on it and nominate his first featured picture. After all he is the expert on the Rose Bonheur and her brothers. Hafspajen (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He said: Stunning! after all... Hafspajen (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on... with a little help from our beloved great Dutch Doctor he can make it - and share those stunning cows with the rest of us... maybe it can be put as the picture of the day on Rose's birthday 16 March or something. Hafspajen (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..' I only hope the file is big enough. After I checked I am not sure if it will satisfy Crisco.... Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly the 'phone rang. "Who could this be?" Hafs wondered "It's after midnight, and all the artists are tucked up in bed". It was George William Sartorius, effing and blinding as usual. Something about red ink, or a red link- Hafs couldn't make it out. "This is too much" Hafs thought "Let's put George down on the Dutch Doctor's waiting list for neutering. That'll shut him up". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, what is the supposed subject of this article that's generating so much buzz? Just to be clear. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George William Sartorius. Can't find nuffink more on him at the moment on the web- Hafs can hang the gallery now. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment he has the same birth and death years as John Nott Sartorius, so probably wrong for GW. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You guys sure know how to pick a winner. Can't find nothing in JSTOR or in Google Books. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the 'phone rang... - Hafspajen (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, who has the most artbooks arround ... Hafspajen (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not ask Mandarax? He LOVES eighteenth-century art. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't say I particularly LOVE – in all-caps – eighteenth-century art; if anything, I would reserve that for the late nineteenth. I don't have many art books, and none that I do would include him. I tried Oxford Art Online and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, both of which in an ideal world would cover every British artist, but there was nothing. Sorry. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear ... "To discuss the Sartorius tribe and such painters is no business of the historian of art, no matter how bitter the accusations of neglect are wont to be from those specialist writers who sometimes confuse the history of art with praising famous horses." Yngvadottir (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC) ... Also, there's a drumbeat of sources, including the DNB, that don't mention George but say that practically the only source of information on the family is a pair of articles by Sir Walter Gilbey in Baily's Magazine, Jan. and Feb. 1897, and I cannot find 1897 on Google Books, only 1898. One such source. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh well- we need a specialist praiser of famous horses. Did Prince Monolulu write any books on art? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ANYBODY CALLED? Prince Monolulu (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

When I was updating Christine M. Day I noticed you had re-directed Luvo to another page. Just curious to find out why in light of http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/01/14/outgoing-lululemon-ceo-christine-day-to-take-helm-at-healthy-fast-food-firm-luvo/. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the answer in here? Sorry, it's been a while. Perhaps CorporateM has a clue--for some reason I referred to them in my edit summary. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well at least I now know why your cryptic edit summary said this: " (hey corp, this is about a corp)" -- but with my memory I will most likely forget ;-) ,and I guesss it is now up to me to figure out why Luvo was re-directed without a ref to support it. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I understand neither tone nor content of your message. It is not your job at all to figure out what my motivation was--though I can tell you: some of their food was on sale at Publix, I bought it and ate it, and looked into the name, and found this article which prompted me to create a redirect to an existing article on Wikipedia. Cause redirects are helpful, and they don't need a ref to support them.

      You act like my creation of this redirect is somehow a Big Deal. First of all, Luvo started its life as LYFE, so that already makes it a plausible redirect. Second, if you want to know why it's not a redirect to the Day article, I can ask you, why should it? Or, why should that have been the more plausible target? Luvo and Lyfe share something else--they're brands, companies, and redirect a brand to a company CEO is odd. But if you want to write the Luvo article, or if you insist on it being a redirect to Day (and why not to Steve Sidwell (entrepreneur), who apparently founded the joint and owns most of the stock?), then why don't you just propose that somewhere, or why don't you just do it? Drmies (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Well, the discussion motivated me to read about LYFE here on Wikipedia, then to read some of the references, and then my wife ended up on their website, and says they have a nice menu, and they have a restaurant in Palo Alto, where we work from time to time, so now I see a leisurely, pleasant lunch there with her in the next few weeks. So, thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just WHERE DID THAT GO? Is this an attempt to escape translating the article? Hafspajen (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunaltelly the file is not good enough to FP. But still... it is good enough for a DYK... Hafspajen (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External videos
[1] Bonheur's Plowing in the Nivernais

• See an external video from Smarthistory about Ploughing in Nevers
• Sorry Haf, but I don't know what article you mean. Also, I cut a picture--too many pictures make this page difficult on my mobile. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep removing it you will never know. The link is attached to the picture... the one you cut .... Hafspajen (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I go to sleep now? I look forward to DYK and GA nominations. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THAT WAS GOOD: wonder who will nominate? Xanty maybe? Hafspajen (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies and anyone else watching. I proposed a bunch of merges of song articles to their albums' articles. I've read the merge guidelines, but am unclear on how long to wait after proposing a merge for comments and votes before taking action. Wikipedia:Merging says at least one week in one place, and at least 30 days in another. In practice, what's a good amount of time to wait for comments/votes? Thanks as always! Comments welcome from anyone. =D Shinyang-i (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends, Shinyang. Sometimes these things linger for a long time; a few weeks ago I closed one such thing that had been open for more than half a year. I'd say wait a week, or two at the most, and then just go ahead and cite WP:BOLD. I hope that kind folk like Xanty and Cullen and others can help you out in the next few days--I am taking a short break to visit a friend in Manchester. Good luck, and thanks for your continued dedication. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Drmies. So far they have no comments, so I'll just keep an eye on them. Have a good trip! Shinyang-i (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ploughing in the Nivernais, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third Republic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated to Great Mies - Not grey-but colorful - Gustav III. Hafspajen (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• King Gustav III of Sweden and his Brothers ... Hafspajen (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I declined an A7 on this article. I linked the French Wikipedia article to it. I started trying to do copy edits, but it's a massive mess. Might be better to start from scratch using the French article as a basis. Someone more interested in painters might want to tackle it?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Not atypical for artist articles I'm afraid. I have wrangled most of it into English but may have to leave the mid-section, the narrative of his career, for tomorrow: I have another task I must do now off-wiki. I will put the external links there from the French to stave off BLP-PROD, but I am not sure he's notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The decline of the A7 was easier than the issue of whether he's notable. The French article looked more like a resume than anything else. My knowledge of painters is a limiting factor. I would think that our "timeline" section could be pared down to only those events that are noteworthy. Thanks for helping out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "Acadêmico Correspondente"? He's been appointed as one by the Brazilian Federation of Academics of Science, Literature and Art. Probably notable, but doesn't appear to be any English results on him (unlike Os Gêmeos). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There's a bit of a mess at Curious (Fiestar song), which I have partially compounded. It's not an edit war, so don't worry! Basically, the article is in several song categories and the infobox indicates the article is about a song. However, it was located at Curious (Fiestar album), which apparently was a move from Curious (EP). I moved it to what I thought was correct (Curious (Fiestar song)), but infobox and categories nonwithstanding, the article really is apparently about an EP called Curious after all. I can't move it back to the EP title, and I have no idea what to do. Can anyone help me get this article to the proper title and get all the incorrect titles (song and album) deleted or redirected or whatever they should be? No big hurry. Thank you so much! Sorry for the mess! Shinyang-i (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After more research, I think I've finally figured it out. Sort of. Whoever did this used two different translations and somehow called it an album. The article is about a song and its B-side after all...I think. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ploughing in the Nivernais Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NEED A DECENT HOOK, NOW - FUNNY GUYS. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)^{yes it is shouting.}[reply]

• Yeah, but I still don't know where that sorrow comes from, where it is linked. You're being too cryptic for me, Hafspionio. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, because that's not an alt. No sources, nothing, it is just a JOKE. Do I have to EXPLAIN jokes to the Great Drmies? Hafspajen (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Need other alt. Hafspajen (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Frédéric Paulhan has turned sacre bleu. Might be useful in developing a hook regarding his opinion. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hastermind, next time you'll say that something wasn't a joke and that I deleted the "real" reference. Your untold sorrow sounded like it could have come from Gerda Arendt's diary (or latest research paper). Drmies (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wish I could read your mind, Drmies. Rather than being stuck with untold sorrow, I usually picture my sorrow, - click on the image and see where it links ;) - Cheer up Cassianto. (I think coffee and cookies helped already, he's not dead silent.) - My diary is wide open, I just added a preview of great music! I am on Wikipedia because my memory is fading and I trust it will be kept here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha, same here: frequently I find myself making a quick edit to an article just so I can look it up in my edit history... Drmies (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If anyone starts an Arbcom 3 I will scream. Hastermind (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2015

  I want to say that I don't think that party will be planned anytime soon, but you never know. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I came across this, and thought you might be interested to know about it: Medieval Women Editathon. LadyofShalott 17:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's today; thanks for keeping an eye on the Project page - which will list all edits. Add your username onto the Project page, as a virtual guest! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to our WomenHistLaw project! I know it's 8am there now, but we'd love to have you involved at any time during the day. We have three hours to go, but even after that, you can get in touch with me or on Twitter @WomenHistLaw. If you'd like to sign up on the 'Remote' section of our event page, please do! Srbswansea (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish I'd known before--please next time drop me a line if you think you can do with administrative or other assistance. I hope y'all had a great day. I did sign up in the "remote" section, but I'll leave Twitter for the young folk. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Lady, Ealdgyth, did you see this? (And look at the size of that grant!) I wish I had some students I could send to Wales, but our Medieval Program is fledgling, to put it mildly. I will pass the link on to a few colleagues here and there if, Srbswansea, Facebook is not too old-fashioned and wordy for a Twitter user... :) Drmies (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I would probably not qualify - I'm an "independent scholar" ... as is so euphemistically known. No M.A. even. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up on the page Dmries - I'd love for you to pass the link on to any colleagues, and I'll get in touch when we do another editathon (and give you more warning this time). I'm actually not on facebook either for the project or personally, but we are considering setting up a page. Will let you know if so! Srbswansea (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This was just brought to my attention. Is that ever acceptable on WP? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That's really something, he tells you to learn English, but he can't spell "don't" or "you" correctly... --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, "gook" and words like that are never OK, though "inbred" is only slightly less never OK, if at all (though I appreciate the plane/plain thing). If I had seen it last week I would have blocked. BTW, I think "mandarchod" means "motherfucker", but I'm no expert. Sitush, how are you on your Hindi insults? Drmies (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I am about as (in)competent with Hindi insults as with Dutch ones. I tend to look the words up when suspicion arises, as NeilN has done. There can be an element of cultural differences involved, though: what may seem like a grossly offensive term to, say, a Californian might equally be nothing more than joshing or mild disparagement to someone from, say, Maharashtra or even Manchester. You need to look at the usage in context. Which seems pretty clear-cut in this instance. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's OK to say someone is of a particular ethnic background in a negative sense and/or a motherfucker, just as long as no-one spots it within 5 days?! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. But if you came here expecting Drmies to block him, as long as he isn't currently attacking you, he should be warned and everyone should carry on. Because blocks aren't punitive. I guess you should have came here earlier. Just my 2¢. P.S. I added a lvl 3 warning on his talk for personal attacks, since Drmies removed the attack earlier today. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I can't really block after the fact--five days after the fact. For better or for worse that would make a block punitive and I'm not supposed to do that, as revolting as that particular insult was. I thought that the change I made would be clear enough to the user. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I don't understand what's wrong? There must be freedom of speech. Internet is really no pictures of the Russian army in Ukraine. Роберт Рэй (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no freedom of speech here; this is a website, not a constitutionally protected zone. (Which constitution anyway?) You can't place important but unverified statements in articles, and this particular one isn't neutral at all, for reasons that I think are pretty clear. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All five members of this band has a page on English wiki but not Chinese wiki. Methinks that at least some lack independent notability and could be deleted/merged. Timmyshin (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at that article and holy schnikes! Most fanning-est fan page I've read in a while. It's crying for a heavy copyediting! I don't think there is any group overseeing Chinese pop music articles. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't now if Phibian and Steelo would like that... Drmies (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, it wasn't that bad. A bunch of chit-chat and a bit of table porn, that's all--no templates, no articles for every song, single, EP, album--and this band probably deserves to have articles for their albums. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• MIC did "Bounce to my Beloved Lute" and Liu Ziling did "Bounce my Beloved Soil Lute" so there must be a bit of mistranslation going on, or these are trampolining songs. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken, @Drmies:! ha ha~ But did you read the part that gushes about how talented each member is? It was heartwarming. By the way, speaking of article overkill, I got a comment on one of my proposed merges of a song article to its album that I must be "jealous" of the song article. I've been many things in my life, but never jealous of a Wikipedia article before. This is new experience for me! =D Anyway, if all goes well hopefully there will be fewer bare-bones song articles and the EP/album articles will thus be improved...at least a little bit. I'm going to attempt my first merge later. Will you be around to look at it afterwards, to make sure I didn't screw something up? Shinyang-i (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a featured pic. Hafspajen (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Think bike- think biker- think bikest Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oho, boy o boy o boy.... Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• O boy o deon. Went and saw that "Ex Machina" yesterday, in a cinema that was as weird and creepy as the film (no-one around so we sat on a bench outside the screen room, only to have the manager running up to "borrow" the bench to put a dead customer on). Two male geeks and a harem of naked female robots acting sexy and coy; should've had had a harem of naked male robots (knob-bots?). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But did he die before or after seeing the film? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know which film- there are 12 screens. Might have been "American Sniper 3D" Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How exiting... Tell me about the plot Hafspajen (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ‎Martinevans123 - do you know about this one?? Hafspajen (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I love American Sniper 3D. We are bezzies. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC) (*dude*)[reply]

YAY! - they rock... Hafspajen (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I suggest you chose two-three pics you like. It is a kind of emotional test, you know.... have fun.... Hafspajen (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah more to chose from. I feel this one is really, really - tricky. Hafspajen (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD choice. Hafspajen (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how many FAs does it take before I can start telling people they are filthy and repulsive? I assume just 20, but I want to be certain. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) I don't speak English well enough to know exactly what abusive means, but I was surprised what you had to say on the talk of a user, to that user, who just left hurt. Emotionalobserver --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Rationalobserver. But I will tell you that for your case, I think WP:NOTHERE is starting to sound very appropriate. Your way of stirring the shit pot is repulsive to me. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You embarrass yourself with these transparent attempts to label and discredit people, and I think your position that as long as editor A has enough FAs they can call editor B repulsive, or whatever they want, is parochial and simple-minded. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reconsider what NOTHERE means--one of the things it means is that the good can outweigh the bad. Really, it's not that difficult. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver, If Cassianto comes out of retirement and if he continues to make personal attacks, it seems reasonable to bring it back up then, but at this point, I think it would be best for the wiki-community if we all drop the stick. (also, "simple-minded" might not be the best way to express yourself if you are advocating for civility. Just sayin')--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know he was retired, as I unwatched his page, as soon as I realized I backed off, so I agree with you. It looked to me that he was still attacking people, and I thought AN/I was a good place to report attacks. I stand by my simple-minded comment. To assert that getting FAs earns you the right to abuse people is asinine in the extreme. Drmies' position is that ORY deserves the insults in retaliation for their gross misunderstanding. That's some of the worst logic I have ever seen online. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that what I said means what you say it said, you may not be versed enough in English to contribute. Or you're suffering from ressentiment. Because that is not what I said. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that, Drmies. Perhaps we should just wait for our ANI notices. We hope (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been walking home at night when chavs have shouted "got a light", and when I explain I don't smoke and hence don't have one have been referred to as a "fucking gay bastard". Now, with that in mind, I just can not get excited about name-calling on here. Please, all of you, although FAC is a minefield and requires extreme devotion, all experienced editors are capable of writing a GA, especially if it's one that nobody cares about watches or edits. You can probably improve a London Underground tube station article (especially if it's a Zone 6 one, though I think they might have been done already) to GA status with the right books from your local library. Or, if you're feeling daft, you can do a news search for "pink cat" and discover there's enough to spin an actual pink cat article out of it, and get it on the Main Page. Some food for thought. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Saying behavior is repulsive is not a personal attack. I agree that the way Rationalobserver intentionally stirs up trouble is repulsive in that it has the effect of driving people away. Chillum 17:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But hostility and aggression doesn't drive anyone away? Cassianto's edit said "I find you repulsive", so he meant the person, not the edit. Never mind, I really don't care that you prefer such an obnoxious culture, but it says loads about you as a person. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rationalobserver: You have a nerve bringing this here, so I have a question back atcha. What does an editor have to have done for the project to get away with making a gross, hurtful insult based on a stupid misreading, and not to express regret for it unless the insulted party "compromises"? There. Feel free to take me to AN/I or complain that admins haven't done enough to rein in personal attacks. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I was an admin that saw ORY's comment relatively soon after it was made I would have blocked them until they agreed to retract it. That would have prevented 90% of the resulting drama that admins allowed to unfold. If teachers allowed their brightest pupils to abuse the less bright ones based on their relative accomplishments our education system would fail. I think that applies here as well. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver, you seem to be as tendentious and vexatious a complainant as Lightbreather has been of late. Please, just drop it and get back to doing something that is more obviously beneficial to the core purpose of this project. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. Is there any way to protect Cassianto's Talk page from all of this baiting and abuse? Why are these "editors" continuing to crap on him after they already drove him off the project? I think there should be some topic bans here, but not on Cassianto. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not a bad suggestion, but I see that the latest notice has been removed, so I don't see a need for it right now. If disruptive behavior there continues, protection is certainly an option, as are blocks for baiting, taunting, whatever you want to call it; please let me know if that happens again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cassianto doesn't look retired to me. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rationalobserver, I don't give a damn for your observations: you have discredited yourself enough. And you could have gathered that I've had enough of your taunts; I suppose I have to spell everything out for you. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Rationalobserver Eric and myself should be embarrassed with promoting the Enid Blyton article to FA and hang our heads in shame because of a few "Oxford commas". I wonder what the decent and actual rationally minded female editors on here think of her behaviour. This sort of thing really represents the worst of wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What this female editor thinks of it is unprintable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Retirements" and "Wikibreaks" are this user's way of avoiding scrutiny:

• 26 Jan 2015
• 8 Oct 2014
• 14 July 2014
• 16 Feb 2014
• 17 Jan 2014
• 27 Dec 2011

--v/r - TP 20:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• #70. We're volunteers. The community should be glad of what a person does to help build the encyclopedia, not expect them to stick at it like a day job. (Also, the GA and FA processes are stressful and ye gods, I will have no truck with them. Those who do, feel justified pride.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me that there's plenty of blame to spread around on this one. — Ched :  ?  20:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cassianto is an extraordinarily productive Wikipedian, creating or expanding numerous high-quality articles. He is an excellent collaborator and willing to go the extra mile to get sources. He is the kind of editor who is improving this encyclopedia. It is no wonder that he needs a break from time to time and gets frustrated by editors who are unreasonable or uncivil to him. I have not found that those picking fights with him are similarly productive; in fact, they are wasting everyone's time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are we still discussing this? It seems like if people can't get Eric Corbett sanctioned, then they have to get someone else sanctioned instead. Enough already! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, I see, so what you are all saying is that there was a memo that went out that someone new was promoted to untouchable status and I somehow lost my copy. I didn't see the untouchable user group was applied to Cassianto, someone should get on that quick so the rest of us that actually have to own up to our shit know to steer clear.--v/r - TP 21:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TParis - there has been MORE than enough time and text expended on this topic. It's outlived its due date. Time to move on IMO. — Ched :  ?  22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Ched. Issues outlive their due date when they are dealt with in an appropriate and justifiable way. Shoving dirt under the carpet doesn't make the floor clean.--v/r - TP 22:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What good exactly does it do anyone to keep dragging this saga out, TParis? Answer: none. Go and find something else to do, rather than trying to get this user blocked when it clearly isn't going to happen. This has already been debated to death. Deliberately throwing more dirt on the carpet for no good reason doesn't make the floor clean either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tell me, Lukeno94, what good it has done in ~8 years of shoveling this crap under the rug? We're a more divisive community than ever. Until attitudes like yours are stopped, no good will ever be done. You haven't solved anything, you've just kicked the can down to the next time Cassianto loses his shit. Which, by recent patterns can be estimated to be between now and May 2015. So, watch out future selves, we're going to have to talk about this again because we didn't talk about it now. And we'll kick the can again because some people lack the conviction to judge their friends.--v/r - TP 22:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What, attitudes like mine where I'd rather let an editor cool down by themselves (even if it means a bit more ranting on their own talk page) rather than throw a bunch of warnings/ANI threads/blocks/other sanctions at them, when they're an experienced editor who occasionally blows their top? You don't like Cassianto. We get it. I barely know Cassianto from Adam; I don't think I'd ever come across him prior to the latest Eric Corbett saga. And let's face it TParis, you're hardly a saint yourself (and nor am I), so I really don't see how you have the right to passive-aggressively try and get Cassianto sanctioned (which is what this comes across as.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is that same old tactic again. If someone expects people to be treated fairly, they must have a grudge. Sorry, I haven't ever interacted with Cassianto before so you're shit out of luck there. This editor isn't cooling down, he's using a 'wikibreak' to avoid scrutiny. And you're right there to take his claim at face value. Sorry, but the evidence is there that this user is using Wikibreak as threat to get his way. And you'll give him every opportunity to do so because you're an enabler. You get good feelings inside when you can latch onto your Wiki-hero and defend them and perhaps then they might bestow their grace upon thee. I'm surprised we don't have a WP: page for that behavior. Someone should create it.--v/r - TP 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There wouldn't be any real case to answer even without a Wikibreak/retired template. Stop with the bollocks about "Wiki-hero", and the irony of expecting people to be treated fairly whilst acting like this is pretty strong. It doesn't matter one jot what Cassianto thinks about me. I'm sick to fucking death right now of people demanding that long-term editors who actually appear to be half decent be kicked to the kerb just because they aren't angels. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we all have times where we tell others "go f*ck yourself". *sarcasm* --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• They shouldn't be "kicked to the kerb" but treated like any other editor which they are not, hence part of the problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Knowledgekid87, you probably don't even realize the personal attack hidden in that silly and throwaway comment of yours. Exactly what did the editor do that was immediately blockable? If you're looking for editors who seem to get away with things others don't, look in the mirror. I have never run into you in article space, but I see you taunting editors on their talk pages all over the place. You are part of the problem. Now quick, run to ArbCom and tell them someone said a bad word to you. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Scrutiny about what TParis? I find it hard to retire for a few months when non-involved people, such as yourself, mud fling at me. Why should I not defend myself? And more to the point, why are you trying to keep this alive? This dead horse has already been flogged. Don't you have a stone to crawl back under? Cassianto^Talk 22:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  (talk page stalker) Correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe they're talking about this, when you're the topic of an AN/I discussion and half of the people are like "Don't bother him, he's retired!". P.S. "don't you have a stone to crawl back under?", um, says the person that's "retired"? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  User:AmaryllisGardener, do NOT be taunting people on my talk page. It has long ceased to be a happy place, but if anything, it is a place to solve, not create problems. I'm serious: I want none of that shit. TParis, or whoever, is free to come by anytime and give me a hard time, but you're out of line. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See my post above, or perhaps you'd like me to draw you a picture if you're a little hard of understanding? You linked to a closed thread at ANI, so your point is? Cassianto^Talk 23:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, is this dross still continuing? Do people really have nothing better to do than this? Feck me - get a grip and move on to do something constructive, rather than this balls. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree editors are getting tired of it already, I just got done trying to defuse things on orange's page, time to move on and edit the encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If only we could. But unfortunately, improving the encyclopedia requires discussion, then BOOM! And that's assuming people can stay away from other people. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said to another editor either two things can happen 1. Continue to argue despite the fact that little has changed in over a day, or 2. Take it to WP:ARBCOM which I am sure nobody wants. This all has already been to ANI twice what more blood are people looking for here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• TParis, I do not believe that "retirement" avoids scrutiny; clearly, in this case, it doesn't. I am not aware (and I can't go through your list of diffs right now) that Cassianto is somehow a longterm abusive disruptor or something like that. Amaryllis, "he's retired" is not an excuse for abuse, of course, nor do I believe that that's the argument proposed by "half of the people". If Cassianto had really made some kind of clearly unacceptable remark, I would have told them so. But what they were supposedly guilty of in this case is at best minor. Do you really want blocks to be thrown about for every single angry comment? And have you thought about what would happen if we did? Some things are unacceptable, sure, and I will gladly block for racist, sexist, etc. kinds of remarks. But this, no, and bringing that to ANI serves only one purpose--and, in this case, successfully. Sorry TParis, I don't like disagreeing with you but that thread was not going to be helpful. If you want to catch Cassianto on their way somewhere and have tea or a beer with them and chat them up, that would be more useful. And now it's dinner time. Even abusive admins and their families need to eat! Drmies (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I don't want blocks thrown out for every single angry comment, were humans. But when it's consistent, that's a problem. That's all, didn't mean to get intertwined in all this. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's alright. I wrote an essay to quote later on.--v/r - TP 23:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice! Anyway, can we bring it to ArbCom yet? This is like the Cold War, and nothing has been accomplished. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would support bringing it to arbcom, I mean yes everyone has the right to an angry comment but where is the line that gets crossed and it becomes a habit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Knowledgekid, is there anything you wouldn't bring to ArbCom? Paris, I'll get back to you after class and coffee, lots more coffee. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) ENOUGH ALL OF YOU. This is sounding like a 2nd grade "he called me a poop-head" argument. I don't give a good flying furry rat's ass who stated what. Go back to editing or I WILL start handing out blocks. Period. — Ched :  ?  23:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for sticking my nose into your talk, but I hadn't seen you around. In general though - my post stands as far as other areas of wiki where this is going on. — Ched :  ?  00:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was having dinner, and then cruising to work in the Prius. Very relaxing! Thanks Ched. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • eww - you drive a prius. I didn't know you were that liberal. lol.--v/r - TP 00:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cause I couldn't get a Leaf. Rest assured: it only plays Front 242. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I had just been sitting and laughing... but now you've brought back my RevCo days (what I can remember at least). Thanks for a laugh guys! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • • At least it's not a Smart car.... Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dumb car — Ched :  ?  19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the above are better than a REVAi. Or whatever car some idiot nearly hit me with yesterday... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It might have hit you, User:Lukeno94. It's so small you probably didn't notice it. :P --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's my poor grammar. It was a proper car that nearly hit me yesterday... someone who didn't realize I had right of way, and someone who didn't even try and stop. Had I not taken avoiding action, my bike would probably be a wreck right now (as would I). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were in a regular car and a little car almost hit your's. Well then, nevermind! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think if one of those hit my bike, I'd win... the crash test footage is just scary. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, again. I imagine that you've been quite happy to be quit of the Landmark article, but I'm asking that you and/or your some of your stalkers take a look at the state of things.

There are an alarming number of unfounded accusations flying about on the talk page (and a minor one or two at WP:RSN as well). There have been bulk reverts and inserts, including what looks to some like an end-run on the RfM you closed. I won't bore you with the rest, but given that the article is now under sanctions it would be useful to get some admin eyes over there. As always, thank you! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy shit. That's an exciting recent history. Who came up with that ridiculously cumbersome system of documentation? That person must think, for instance, that newspaper articles are as important as monographs. And this edit--what's that, guilt by accretion? But we (i.e., Wikipedia) can't really claim that "A number of critical newspaper articles have called the Forum 'cult-like'". I do not see how this entire edit is warranted by an appeal to BLP--I do see that the editor is, apparently, yet another longterm editor of this subject matter. That edit is not OK since it is too drastic, but then again, that section needed trimming in the first place.

  Tgeairn, that whole thing is such a mess that I can't, on the fly, figure out what's what, and I haven't yet looked at the talk page, but thanks for alerting me. This is just what we need: more drama! Drmies (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Must have drama, even better than must-see-tv... I guess that's why I'm still on the topic.

I see your point on the drastic cut - although to be fair, that content was all added in a single edit (okay, two) as well.

When you (have a strong drink in hand and) are ready for the talk page, I'm sure you won't be disappointed. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would enjoy this edit, wherein the completely competent editor uses 1993 and 2003 sources for a statement that something happened in 2013. I'm guessing that maybe he hasn't read those sources. Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are just totally determined to get me back into this, aren't you. But you have to understand, and I think some of your opponents are reading this too (though, honestly, I forgot who is in which camp, except for Dave and Cirt, haha), that I can only wear one hat at a time: editor or admin. Now, I did see a note on that talk page that made the BLP claim more acceptable, and I'll get to it, yes.

  Also, Tgeairn, drop .50c in the sarcasm jar, and Cathar66, come on: that's not good. BTW, I'm still wondering who came up with that GODAWFUL referencing system, which has advantages ONLY for an article where individual sources are cited more than once, and where different pages are cited. No one in their right mind (I hope whoever is responsible is reading this) would do this for the single-cite newspaper and other articles that are found in this article. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged. Yes, I'm sure there's a whole following (as I can't make an edit without it being reverted or "corrected", it seems). I probably owe the sarcasm jar more than that. The citation tangle (which was supposed to be an un-tangle) was decided here. Anyway, whichever hat you wear I'm sure you'll be dashing. As always, Tgeairn (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name was mentioned I feel I should say something.The misplaced reference was at the end of a section being copyedited. I didn't add content but edited a disputed section, that was being edit warred, to reduce it in size (from 20.990 bytes to 13.460} and to reword it in a more NPOV style. I had intended and will reduce it further. The two references were put together after I subsequently removed a section that was duplicated following Tgeairncomment on the talk page and moved a reference from it up to the appropriate place.

I have checked my browser history and notice that I read the Landmark article for the first time on 18 January 2015. How I arrived there or why is not obvious from my browser history so it must have been something offline. Having read the article I edited out 2 pieces within which were not RS. {{U|Tgeairn} wrote a note on my talk page wondering why I thought that the Irish Daily Mail and Mayfair (magazine) are not reliable sources.( an unusual question from an editor I now know to have made over 40k edits) I replied that a tabloid newspaper and a soft porn mag are definitely not RS. This actually made me interested in Landmark and I the read the talk page reread the article and did 20/30 Google searches to get more info for things I didn't understand (eg why did Terry M Giles previously own Tekikco. I then edited again to add that Terry M Giles (the chairman) was Erhart's lawyer, citing an interesting NYT article. As these 3 words caused a furore on the talk page I let the other editors get on with it while I familiarised myself more with the subject.

A further point I would like to make is that I am a not a new editor, there is real life outside Wikipedia, and was active for a 5/6 month period 2009/10 and occasionally thereafter until I lost my password in a hard disk partition crash (windows & programs). I have never had any other user account other than my old and new replacement account and have linked them on the user page so anyone can see. As a graduate of the 70's and a professional I have to admit to having gone from a right wing viewpoint to left. I trust that when people return to WP that AGF and have noted your comments elsewhere.

To conclude on a lighter note I quoted Oscar Wilde "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" in a reply to Tgeairn who, instead of thing it nasty, if he was in any way erudite would have instead rebuffed it with the rest of the quote "but the highest form of intelligence." Perhaps he is still capable of learning.Cathar66 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished merging three tiny song articles into one tiny album article, and I'd like to make sure I did everything correctly. I think I am okay except for possibly some redirect pages. The singles have Japanese titles, so redirect pages were created back when the song articles were created, to redirect the titles in Japanese script to the articles in romanized Japanese. To avoid double redirects, I changed those redirect pages to go from the titles in Japanese script to the new article title. But the redirect reason on the redirect page is now incorrect, and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to change it or what. See here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=めぐりあう世界&redirect=no used to be a redirect to the song article Meguriau Sekai (the romanization of the Japanese script), and I changed it to go to the album Reach Out (S.E.S. album) after merging the song & album articles. Do I change the reason for the redirect to "merge" or leave it as it is or did I just screw up altogether? I haven't messed with double redirects from the other two articles yet. Thanks so much! Shinyang-i (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, you blinded me with science--it's too late for me to try and follow. Also, I never do much with those redirect reasons; I think Kelapstick and Bgwhite know more about these things than I do. Gents? any advice? Drmies (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual text produced by the template seems to be correct (since it doesn't say that the target is the same name in another language), but perhaps it would be appropriate to (additionally) use template {{R from subtopic}}.--Boson (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Boson:, I will do that! Shinyang-i (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew6799 is still at it. The article popped up on the Special:PendingChanges and I reverted the "chit chat" once, but its back again. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. It's indicative of the blatant socking going on there: who is thus, and where did they come from all of a sudden? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about trying to uncover real peoples Id's but what if that person uses their real name as a username and it's connected to marketing material. How would a person go about disclosing that without being afoul of outing stuff? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in the case of a "real" name, there's the opening lines of WP:OUTING--if they give their legal name ("voluntarily posted his or her own information"), then their name is fair game, so to speak. I mean, I suppose you have to indicate some evidence that their user name is their real name, but I suspect that in most cases this is easy enough to establish, without having to uncover much. And depending on what we're dealing with, there's also Template:Uw-ublock-famous, which is a kind of license to kill. Feel free to tell me or, if you prefer, email me the name and I'll look at it in confidence. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If I'm not afoul of the outing policies it's the article creator at Crown Group Holdings. See edits and a simple search can id that persons position within that hierarchy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. Well, JamesBWatson has skinned this cat already--thank you JBW. They blocked them for "advertising only" and I agree: the edits are, as you spotted, promotional enough. This particular user name is in itself not blockable, since it's an individual's name, and the company name is different, and they're not plugging something that has the same name as they do--sorry if that sounds too much like colloquialized Bradspeak. And yes, it is so blatantly obvious that as far as I'm concerned there is no outing here of any kind. Thanks for keeping the place clean. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Navy Clothing. Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC) What is that. Hafspajen (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A range of clothing introduced by a British-American photographer after he photographed some recruits for the Royal Swedish Navy. To use a naval term it was not just ‘the cut of their jib’ that struck him. But also the combination of the navy and the clean, healthy, sexy outdoor image of the Swedes themselves that made for a great line in clothes. And then there's Irish clothing. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AH, oh. by the way nobody EVEE calles sausage for bologna in Swedish. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_cuisine&curid=28490&diff=644876022&oldid=644874526 Hafspajen (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is an American thing. [2] Hafspajen (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is making me hungry. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there anything better than to be longing for something when you know it is within reach?" ...Greta Garbo. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??: The light is not downing down on me - yet. Maybe next moment. Hafspajen (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! ... before User:Yngvadottir gets those sharp tailors' scissors out! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)All blue and white. My favourite colours. Why do WE have to shop at nasty places like Hennes and Mauritz ....Hafspajen (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A whole 28 people like this. Sad, really. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is totally pornographic. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)I tell you the only pornographic thing about Hennes and Mauritz is that all clothes fall appart after circa two years - but then it could keep our leading expert in Wiki-striptease satisfied... Hafspajen (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes ... Yngvadottir (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28 people? — Ched :  ?  19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MIES!! Have you ever tried Bacon soda??? Hafspajen (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now what, is it deleted already? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish Navy Clothing. Hard days. Hafspajen (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have just nominated it for deletion. Maybe someone can find sources I was unable to. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I used to buy my clothes from Irish Menswear. The unification of Germany meant that high-quality Bundesgrenzschutz jackets were available; I got weird looks from French customs officials 'cos I wore them with a pair of Dutch telephone engineer's trousers, and a pickelhaube. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gosh, Xanty why did you did this. Now I am going to keep picturing you in a Bundesgrenzschutz -jacket. Sigh. Hafspajen (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the pointy helmet that gets me :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I got hit by lightning so many times I got a job as a portable ECT machine. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How useful! "We're going where the air free." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Well, I can't say I cared for that. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OH. Oh, Dante! Oh, Laure!! [3] Hafspajen (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. NepHop. New for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SSSgghhdsssssss. The sinners who burn. - PumpkinAwardedHafspajen (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised she didn't have a page here -- thanks for fixing that! —Steve Summit (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure thing, scs--tell you what, it came about because I'm trying to remove them from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Missing articles as fast as Rosiestep can add them, just to get her upset. But it's in piss-poor condition, as are the others I did (see Lulu Wang), since they're straight-up translations of the Dutch/French versions. In other words, your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you'd better keep up, amigo, as I'll be adding more redlinks before you kow it! Lol! Seriously, Drmies, thanks for all your work on those women writer biographies, including Lulu Wang. I can't believe the nominator didn't notice in a google search (assuming they did a google search) that Wang was a best-selling Dutch-language writer. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha, what made you think they looked? Also, please don't essentialize me, Rosiestep: amiga will do just as nicely--that I'm rumored to have a penis, that's just rumors. Hey, I wish the Dutch sources were more easily available: I am sure that Trouw, NRC Handelsblad, de Volkskrant have written on her. Do you think there is a DYK in it? Drmies (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am so sorry for that, Drmies; truly. Trouting myself. Yup, I see a hook so I'll nom it. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm kidding, Rosiestep. Thanks for the DYK, by the way: I am proud to be on the same nom as you. BTW, the article history of Essentialism is interesting; I was very disappointed, and it shows you that the real postmodern geeks haven't really gotten active on Wikipedia. Also, "essentialize" (as well as "essentialism") are underlined by my computer's spellcheck--that tells you something, something bad. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosiestep, I just did Sandrine Willems, a pretty poor job if I say so myself. Can't find anything translated in English, and that series Les Petits Dieux, it looks great--beautiful titles and covers (look her up in Amazon; you'll see the books for sale, used and in French). Maybe your next project should be to translate her work, not her article. [4] Drmies (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let me a take look. Btw, I just created Category:Flemish women writers (not that it applies to SW). --Rosiestep (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Hm, large? Medium? Maybe from the American Alps .... Hafspajen (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labrador_Retriever&diff=644897433&oldid=644897144 Hafspajen (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing or able (or both) to explain why this [5] is still alive 23 days later? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know, Winkelvi. I just closed one thread that keeps being reopened (by a wabbit, no less), and another that wouldn't die. I HAVEN'T EVEN HAD BREAKFAST YET, and even my zebra is still asleep. Why am I up?

  Hey! Admins! Please close the Winkelvi thread. (It's a good idea for someone else to do that anyway, since you and I have recently agreed on a matter of content, and so we're invoooolved. Maybe.) Kelapstick? LadyofShalott? TParis? Northamerica1000? DGG? Drmies (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Gawd..."invoooolved". Sinister. Evil. Very un-something! And please have breakfast, but not without the zebra (are you and the zebra involved? don't answer, that would be too much information). Happy Saturday to you, Drmies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's been archived now? It's a couple days later, and I'm not seeing it. LadyofShalott 19:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently created a "list of A Pink members" article and worked hard to get it sourced properly. After some discussion, he's merged it into the main A Pink article, but I'm not sure about the formatting in the member section. What do you think? I've just never seen it done in the little boxes like that and don't know if that's allowed or what. Do you have any idea? Also, it occurs to me there are far too many photos on the article though, so I thought I'd post on the talk page about that. The editor who's been working on it is very amenable to discussion. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I don't know about allowed, but it certainly is needless and would never pass muster in a GA review. Really, it's table porn, and I found a bunch of non-neutral terms in there as well. I suppose this is better than having the separate list, but it needs trimming. At the same time, we should give Sonflower0210 a barnstar or two for having picked up both policy/guideline and the intricacies of table porn syntax so quickly--they have only 50 article edits but man, it's impressive how they mastered those technical skills so quickly! Drmies (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• And while we're on the topic, Sonflower, please explain why you intersect with Hikari licht in such a private way, playing to your heart's delight in each others' sandboxes. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I've just accepted the non-neutral terms in kpop articles at this point, ha ha. I clean them up when I see them. How I see it is if the presence of something will prevent an article from reaching GA, then it's a no-no unless there's no way around it. I will make a go at trimming and de-boxing the section later today. I'm just so happy to not have a stupid useless member table there...Shinyang-i (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is not really relevant but I saw A Pink perform when I was in Korea. All I can say is, how do they have so many fans? They were awful. :/ Shinyang-i (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all.

- About Hikari licht. Lol at the choice of word. Is it not allowed to edit each other sandbox? Sorry I didn't know. That user is willing to help on improving Apink articles so I thought we can work on it together. I'm still not familiar with all the wiki policies because there are so many of them. Kindly refer me to that policy so I can learn. Thank you

- About the tables. I can't think any other way to make it nicer and easy to read. Without the table, I think it's too crowded and messy. Also, May I know why you are so unhappy with the table? or Why do you think it's stupid and useless? Is it about the color difference and the border? How about if the table is there but without the color or if it's borderless? The purpose for the table is not to make it fancy or anything but to make it easier to read for each member. Also may I know what is GA review? Can I have link so I can read the policy please. Sonflower0210 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Hafspajen (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonflower0210:, the "stupid useless" tables I was referring to are the tables that used to be on many of the kpop group pages, which contained each member's stage name, hangul for stage name, real name, hangul for real name, birthdays, position, and whatever else. They were inflexible, blocky, and not desirable for Wikipedia. It wasn't a reference to what's on the A Pink article now. I was expressing happiness that you've replaced that kind of table with actual prose about each member, which is the kind of thing that does belong in these articles. The boxes that you've added now just seem unnecessary, as there's no reason the member section should flow any differently than the rest of the page. The boxes don't improve readability. I don't know if it specifically says anywhere "don't do that", but I think what Drmies meant was that if the article were being reviewed for GA, the reviewer would cite something like that as a reason to fail the article. Since all articles should strive toward GA status, that would be a reason not to include them. Shinyang-i (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonflower, anyone who sees your and Hikachi's edits will understand how odd it is that you all, without the benefit of proper introductions, find your way into each others' sandboxes. How did you know "That user is willing to help on improving Apink articles"? They made only two edits here: one to your (now deleted) sandbox, and one to start their own, which you subsequently took over. Materialscientist, what do you make of this? It does not pass the smell test. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but i'm confused here. May I know what are you implying that I did wrong here? If it's not allowed to edit other people sandbox, kindly let me know so I won't do it again or at least please refer me the policy. As you have may notice, I'm quite new to wiki and hasn't familiarize myself to all of the policies but I'm willing to improve. Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you blocked this IP a few months ago; perhaps its time for a longer block? S/he seems to do little more than stalk and attempt to abuse and cause trouble, his last edit was particular uncalled for. Giano (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That was definitely one grave dancing too many. Blocked for three months. Favonian (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Favonian; that's exactly what I had in mind. Let's just hope nobody "famous" suddenly decides to stop editing. Giano (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, that's funny: an observant fellow editor emailed me about this one. Favonian, I Fully Support Your Block, I Fully Support Your Block, I Fully Support Your Block, in triplicate obviously. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my formal protest of your closure of this "discussion." You are an involved administrator. You should have recused yourself.

You and I have had multiple interactions regarding this problematic editor to the point that I accused you of sticking up for him, to your displeasure; that you were a tool aiding this The Banner's reign of terror. You have commented 5 times again within this ANI discussion. Your improper act, closure without a real decision, without a real penalty on this problematic editor, closes off our opportunity to get a real settlement from a real, neutral administrator. Your soft handed warning again aids continued annoyance to the rest of the wikipedia community, wherever he goes. "This has gone on long enough" is not a sufficient reason and with your previous involvement, you are not the administrator to make this decision.

We have waited and built this case for almost the entire month of January 2015, trying to solve a problem. Now we are just back to square one. The problem still exists. You have given The Banner carte blanche to bother another editor and most importantly, to further damage wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your formal protest should be filed elsewhere. My sense of decorum as an administrator prevents me from saying what I really think, though I will be glad to add that at least some of this should have boomeranged on your ass. Can I give you a hint? You build a case and no one, NO ONE, picks up on it. What do you think that means? Drmies (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I just saw your close, Drmies. Thanks for doing that. I'll take the warning you gave Banner as good enough. I just want to note that I don't "enjoy ganging up" on anybody. I like working things out with people who see things differently, as long as they are working within policies/guidelines and work in a civil enough way. The vitriol I encounter here is starting to really wear me out... it's so ugly, and unnecessary. I would appreciate it if you would consider striking the "enjoy ganging up" thing. Anyway, thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies stick up for The Banner? Of course, The Banner is a good man, a dyed in the wool Irishman!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blofeld, as a wiser (and Italianer) man once said, "we are all a good heck". Even Trackinfo, no doubt. Banner can be abrasive and obstinate--well, the second is said to be a very Dutch quality, and typically he knows what he's talking about (I hope that discussion over that diocese/parish/hamlet/village/township reached some kind of resolution). You, of course, are a paragon of manners and civility, as that contingent of French skyscraperfans will testify. Ahem! SchroCat never said a bad word in his life, unless when provoked of course. In the meantime, Trackinfo probably thinks I'm abusing my power--well, typically closing an ANI thread isn't seen as an act of power, unfortunately. I wish I could please everyone. Anyway, we clog along. Sorry, I still haven't looked at that beautiful house of yours, Ernst... Drmies (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, given the extremity of the response and pure trolling from the Paris crowd over many months overall I think I dealt with it well actually. To my knowledge I called nobody an expletive directly. In fact I ignored much of the discussion for a good six months, during which the article degraded to utter bollocks. A number of times recently you've inferred that you think I'm rude or uncivil more often than not which rather concerns me. Perhaps it's because you're often around when somebody needs to step into a dispute and the rest of the time don't see my good side. I just don't take any BS from people on here, you need to be resilient on a site like this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also testify impartiality, personal insults, and lack of professionalism by TheBanner, regarding a discussion on the status of Albania in the page of WW2 Allied Forces. LupinoJacky (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess you think that I, as administrator, should help with your truth instead of pointing at the facts? The Banner talk 22:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, sorry for responding here, however I believe it helps clarifying the case. -- Dear TheBanner, facts are not your words, neither your opinions, nor what you believe to be correct. Facts means independent historic sources, e.g. books, encyclopedia, serious online proceedings, historical meeting protocols, etc ... When I as a user raise a claim supported by numerous sources (of the type above) you cannot respond with the facts you think you know, but with other sources which deny my sources. If you have no contrary sources, even if you might think in a different way, you are forced as a neutral referee to accept the an adversary stance which is backed by sources. For instance, I find it scandalous that Albania is listed in the Axis page without any historic source reference in the description text. -- And when I edited the article by providing sources, you accused me of being a troll, of being creative with the truth, of vandalizing the discussion page with multiple users (which I categorically deny), of not knowing what I am talking about. In case of lack of knowledge on the specific topic (which is normal), at minimum you could have created a discussion inviting other knowledgeable individuals to contribute. This is definitely not the quality of Wikipedia that I expect or contribute for. That being said I would hope this does not turn into a personal discussion, since I do not know you and have respect for the contribution of all admins/editors, including you. LupinoJacky (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for signing, LupinoJacky. Look, the issue here appears to be what those sources say, and how reliable the sources are that say what you say they say. (Same goes for Banner, of course.) That is a matter for the article talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies, I will continue to contribute to help the quality of the article in the Wiki page. However, I am still not sure how your procedures work and I would like to ask your opinion on the mechanism of Wikipedia consesus? For instance, when I point to the encyclopedia of WW2 which lists Albania as an Ally country that signed the Peace Treaty ending WW2 (description below), then in my understanding there are two options 1) the editor tells me this reference is wrong and he brings me the original signed version of the treaty without Albania on it, or 2) accept it. If an editor still refuses to do either of the options, how can I as a user defend my claim further.

Albania was an Ally state, the book "Encyclopedia of World War II, Volume 1, Section "Treaties Ending the War", Page 824, ISBN-10: 0816060223, ISBN-13: 978-0816060221" acknowledges that Albania signed the peace treaties in the end of WW2 as an Allied country. Citing page 824: "The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy. It was signed in Paris on February, 10, 1947, by representatives from Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethipia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Pakistan, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, Yugoslavia, and Italy."

LupinoJacky (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification, the encyclopedia I refer to is openly accessible through Google Books: https://books.google.de/books?id=LbWFgjW6KX8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false . I did provide the link to the Editor. LupinoJacky (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Right--thanks for that. Listen, again, this is for the talk page. You need to propose this change there, and say hey, what do you think--here's my change, and here's my sources. Now, as it happens, we have something called WP:SECONDARY--we're supposed to cite secondary sources and encyclopedias are tertiary (since they're based on secondary sources). So if there's a dispute, secondary sources are given most weight. As it happens, this is from Facts on File and I myself put little stock in that source; only a few days ago I found a blatant error in one of them. In a way, that's beside the point: it doesn't mean that what you link is incorrect; I'm just telling you what a likely objection might be, since I have a bit of experience here and elsewhere. I wonder if the people on MILHIST, our "military history" project (yeah, sounds a bit like an oxymoron), want to weigh in on that discussion; The ed17, maybe you can put a signpost here and there for this user? Drmies (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am very optimistic that in the end we will find an understanding with TheBanner. Good night.

LupinoJacky (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we have that Bad hair day article? Hafspajen (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because Eric Corbett showers daily with Wash & Go and doesn't know the meaning of the word? Giano (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he takes two bottles into the shower. What's in the other one? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Anroth on Wikipediocracy. I'm certain he'll be full of ideas. Eric Corbett 19:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet Bad Hair Day recommends we read Uncombable hair syndrome for the actual hair issue... seems to be quite different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisco 1492 (talk • contribs)

• I removed that. There's a reason it's called "bad hair day", I don't think everyone that has a bad hair day has "uncombable hair syndrome". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe we do: wikt:bad hair day, depending on what the meaning of "we" is. NE Ent 22:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny you should say that, Eric--on Wikipediocracy (or the other one? I mean the really trolly one, with that Barbour character) they posted a pic of me which clearly demonstrates that I'll never have another bad hair day in my life. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I AM HAVING A BAD HAIR DAY!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.249.186.91. He's back. Look at that edit ar Doberman pincher. Hafspajen (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, he is blocked, praise the Lord. The Giant Schnauzer is a large stand up comedian , yeah right .... Hafspajen (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That dog in the infobox looks like a statue. That's a terrible picture, by the way, with all that background noise and the lack of contrast. The one under "Description" is better. Did I ever tell you we had a schnauzer of some sort? They come in "mini", right? He name was Lola--she was a show girl. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Noise, Drmies? Are you geting into the FP jargon? Voilá - gone. Hafspajen (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2015(UTC)

• Accepted by special request, should have been added... Hafspajen (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a mini, like Lola... or? Was she salt-and-pepper?Hafspajen (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Bartleby: [seeing Schrader in his hot dog costume] Oh, no!'MUSICAL ACOMPANIAMENT '

Schrader: Ask me about my wiener! Ask me about my wiener-r-r-r-r-r!

Bartleby: [approaching with Monica] Schrader?

Monica: Hey.

Schrader: Oh hey, B. And Monica.

Bartleby: Why are you wearing that?

Schrader: Every brother of my fraternity has worn this suit. President James Garfield wore this suit like a gentleman!

Bartleby: Oh yeah, and look what happened to him? He got assassinated by Charles Guiteau.

[Monica and Schrader are silent]

Bartleby: Don't ask me how I know that. [Monica laughs]

Schrader: Listen, could you guys ask me about my wiener real quick?

Bartleby: Schrader [pause], no.

Schrader: Guys, this is important! My fraternity brothers could be watching me right now! Just ask me about my wiener, please!

Bartleby: Why are you doing this?

Schrader: What do you mean?

Bartleby: This, you're humiliating yourself, buddy.

Schrader: [angry] You know what, B? Don't mess with me, alright? These are the happiest times of my life right now! I've never been happier, I'm happy! [storms off, starts chasing another student] Hey, ask me about my wiener!

---

Hi: at a glance, I don't think this chap is ready for an article: Kristof Jacobs. Anyone who reads Dutch disagree? If so I'll pitch in and help translate and brush it up. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything in the article that merits our attention (or gives me cause to do some more browsing around); A7 is valid here, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc. Please see this troll. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked them for (partially) having a famous username. Perhaps Trackinfo will scold me for an involved block, haha. Thanks K! And so it goes, on and on. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, mr. T. is not giving up on trying to get me blocked, banned, quartered and burned while impaled at a stake. He is annoying but also pitiful. The Banner talk 02:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Ow, and I will avoid another place for a while. Enough other people now active there to try to get the article neutral.[reply]

• Hey, take it easy banner. My zebra has a low tolerance for sarcasm. And truth. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a pleasure, don't mention it. Another day, another troll, another sock, another block. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but in this case, it's followed by poffertjes! Randykitty, set the table please! And I believe they have something similar where Favonian is from. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol, looks delicious, though I'm not sure if it goes well with duck. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ... or duck? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds delightful, Gerda--but I'll have this duck, please. (It is a beautiful book.) Drmies (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tough hook about silencing which I approved. "Contrary to popular belief", the author and I are not at war but exchanging flowers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a really nice hook. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies! Regarding this comment at ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artefact (band) (2nd nomination)‬: I figured as the most junior admin in the place, I was the obvious shmuck candidate for this job! --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well good, but it's Delete, not DELETE. Calm and mellow (like the good Dr -- most of time) is best... NE Ent 15:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Melanie, and pay no attention to what ENT says. The band was French, and citoyens du monde like you and me know that the Frenchies do their caps a bit differently sometimes. Thanks for taking care of that. Ent, I do try to stay calm and mellow, but it's hard sometimes. I have much understanding for editors who lose their cool a little bit; it typically is not a blockable offense. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, NE Ent, thanks for pointing that out! Now that I look, I see that nobody else uses all caps. In my defense, I wasn't shouting; I was following instructions. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Process, it says that after closing the page should look like this: "The result was RESULT." I took that to mean all caps, so I have used all caps from my very first NAC closure. Not the first time I have gotten something wrong by following the instructions! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you're right--I remember also being struck by that. I may have closed a few of them in all-caps too, before we had the automated thingy. See, Ent, how difficult life is for us admins? And that's before setting up a second PayPal account for the bribes. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies- how about you go to that page and fix it?? I may be the newest admin on the block, but there will be newer ones - as well as NAC closers - who might make the mistake of thinking it reflects current practice. P.S. about the bribes - do I have to give my nominators a cut? The administrator instruction manual didn't cover that, and you can see what a sucker I am for instructions. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already done [6]. NE Ent 22:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess I'll have to wait for Drmies to clue me in about the bribes gratuities. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm no expert on bribes, and the WMF is notoriously slow in sending checks for the blocks. I mean, I just "made" $40, but whether I'll ever get the money is anyone's guess. (I think it's only half-price for BLP blocks because they're supposed to be obvious.) Drmies (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way I heard it, the real money is in private bribes for NOT blocking people. (Reality check for those who don't understand Drmies's talk page: We are joking. Admins are not actually paid.) --MelanieN (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rrrrrright. And 9/11 was not an inside job. And Newyorkbrad really IS a lawyer. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:AmaryllisGardener, no problem--it was tone, more than content, and I don't usually carry grudges anyway. Thanks for your note; it's appreciated. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. What do you think of this user, Sistari1? Don't even wanna ping them. There are people coming out of the woodwork to comment on the AFD discussion of this quite-unfamous song. I might expect this on a Shinee song or something, but this? And all the "keeps" have the same, um, difficult-to-understand way of speaking (like non-native English speakers) and the same "these resources are reliable" reasoning (they're all primary sources). I think something weird is going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tearfully_Beautiful. Interesting, the creator of the article claims to be Korean on her profile, and the article's prose has the same flow as the "keep" comments at the AFD. I don't wanna make accusations, but can you take a look? Shinyang-i (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, they do all sound a bit alike, don't they. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/سعيدس. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I just wrote Materialscientist about this, and added in the article creator's name too. I thought you were busy/away. :D Shinyang-i (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I was, for a little bit. There's another name? Drmies (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DrMies. As you can see by checking its recent history, the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories has 3 times had over 7000 bytes of long-established (thus 'consensus') sourced text deleted in the last day or so by 3 different anonymous users who have so far ignored the request to discuss such a WP:Bold move on Talk per WP:BRD. Is this a case requiring semi-protection of the article? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. What to say. That is some weird-ass and chatty content--no disrespect intended. But yes, I suppose they should take that up on the talk page; it seems to me that you're dealing with the same person, who was using that 176 IP while getting a pint of lager from the store or something. Sure, I'll semi-protect it for a few days, and I hope they can make an eloquent case on the talk page. For The Sake Of Posterity, any Wikipedia article that references Don Lemon needs to be pruned or sent to AfD. Is that preposterous? Drmies (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DrMies. You may well be right that much of it is preposterous - I only got involved a while back because it was seemingly telling the world that the reason it couldn't have been a mini-black hole was that a mini-black hole would gobble up the entire universe, which seemed pretty preposterous to me. But clearly some people think it should be saying what it's saying. Also, not all theories in the article are equally preposterous. I have no intention of sending it to AfD myself, having better things to do with my time, but if others want to do so that's up to them. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Look, the problem here is that if ridiculous things get repeated by less ridiculous media, then the ridiculous thing becomes noteworthy. That's how our policy on coverage works, of course. Well, let's hope that they can argue their case. If this reoccurs three days from now, let me know, or file at RFPP, and we'll extend the semi-protection. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, DrMies. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lost_and_Lonely&redirect=no

How can anyone KNOW? Hafspajen (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, Xanty knows. Xanty KNOWS. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It does translate (according to M'sieur Google) as Lost and Lonely. I tried learning the six-character reign marks a couple of years back- didn't succeed, but I did spot someone with a tattoo that said they were made in the reign of the Kangxi Emperor. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this draft article deleted? Majistra Romulus, contacted and spoke to Joél Filsaime a well-known recording artist about the future of Leogane and him running for Mayor. Joél Filsaime commonly known as J-Pimp ("MTV Artists". mtv.com. Retrieved 2003. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)) is not a (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) please contact C.Fred to correct this issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jo%C3%A9l_Filsaime_(musician)

• Yeah, I don't know who you are and why you're asking me this. Contrary to popular belief, NawlinWiki is not one of my socks. Those with special admin glasses can see the pimping going on in that draft. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baconated greetings to you... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll be pleased to know I got a couple of pounds of butt in the slow cooker right now, and my kid and I snacked on some fried fat/skin. Later! Drmies (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, the Bacon Force is strong with you. I could sense impending baconocity... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CtCounty is still active here, although found to be a sockpuppet of User:1wikideb1. Not yet hammered down by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1wikideb1/Archive but by Wikipedia:Checklijst langdurig structureel vandalisme/1wikideb1 en this Dutch page. The Banner talk 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. What a loser. Can you file the paperwork? Drmies (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will send MoiraMoira after it. She did the administrator-side of the case on NLWP. The Banner talk 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And have some more paperwork for you to block as well: here on the bottom of the page. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I we have Pit bull's named huh ... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pit_bull&diff=645323582&oldid=645323500 Hafspajen (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pit Bull Terrier, named Mike, smelled some flowers one day and tripped over his tail. was created by breeding bulldogs and terriers together to produce a dog that combined' Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)'[reply]

I am just pointing out that the only reaction this IP gets a new *Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, and that for a long history of disruptions the whole year. Hafspajen (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

you wrote "September 2010

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Echoplex, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)"

The info I added is a critical portion of the history of the article. Why not put "citation needed" rather than remove the info? I am trying to see about getting citations- what about this which is used as a citation on the Wikipedia article on Oberheim? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberheim_Electronics --->

used as citation: http://www.loopers-delight.com/tools/echoplex/OBechoplexhistory.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaudio (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Omaudio--the problem is that this source is simply not a reliable source (see WP:RS), and that goes for those other sources as well--they're blog posts, basically. One may also wonder why it matters in the first place, since (as the text said), the product has nothing to do with the Echoplex, and retained only the word as part of the name. I'm sure Matthias Grob made a fantastic invention, and I suppose he should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but this is not the place. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The "blog" is a web page created by Kim Flint one of the actual designers of the unit. The Gibson manual for the Echoplex digital (http://www.gibson.com/files/amps/EchoplexPlusManual12.pdf) states the unit was designed hardware and software by Aurisis (Mattias etc.)on page 2: CREDITS MANUAL WRITTEN BY KIM FLINT AND WARREN SIROTA LAYOUT & DESIGN BY WS DESIGNS ECHOPLEX DIGITAL PRO PLUS IS A PRODUCT OF GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION LOOPIV SOFTWARE IS A PRODUCT OF AURISIS RESEARCH, LLC LOOP ® IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF AURISIS RESEARCH, LLC E CHOPLEX DIGITAL PRO PLUS AND LOOPIV SOFTWARE DESIGNED BY: A URISIS RESEARCH, LLC – MATTHIAS GROB, KIM FLINT, ERIC OBERMÜHLNER WITH MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS FROM

ANDY EWEN, CLAUDE VOIT, ANDY

BUTLER, MARK LEAS, KEITH MCMILLEN, TIM CANNING, ANDRE LAFOSSE, DAVID TORN, CHRIS MUIR, WILLY STREHLER, LJUBO MAJSTOROVIC, EBERHARD WEBER, DAVID KIRKDORFFER SPECIAL THANKS TO THE STAFF OF GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION, OUR BETA TESTERS, AND ALL WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THEIR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE ECHOPLEX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaudio (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Omaudio, you need to look at WP:RS. I don't understand what you posted here--the all-caps, the layout, and the syntax make it hard to read, and you're not addressing the issue: this is an encyclopedia, and content needs to be referenced by way of reliable secondary sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you reverted my edit to the page on Andreas Antonopoulos, which I supported with a direct citation of the US court judgment I was adding information about. How is a US court judgment not a reliable source? 109.148.67.141 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, it's a primary source. Second, I have no doubt you inserted that hammer bullshit into the article. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I take sambuca, vodka or whiskey or must I continue with this? That guy thinks that Albania was fighting on the Allied side, not of the Axis side. The Banner talk 00:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, do not feed the trolls? :) Don't worry--Uncle Mies will employ administrative fiat. You could warn them about the Balkan ArbCom thing and all that. In the meantime I'll revert and semi-protect, just in case. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that I doubt that he is a troll. I think he just has no clue. The Banner talk 01:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure your opponents think that there is a gray area in between those. When someone start spouting crazy all over your talk page, some limit is soon reached. Take your pick: they're a troll, a purely disruptive user, NOTHERE, incompetent... We had snert for dinner--how about it? I hated it as a kid, I think. And I have strangely picky kids: one of them will eat the little pieces of ham hock, but not sausage. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, I choose "incompetent".
      • Ever had good Groninger-style snert? That is with pigs tail and pigs legs. The Banner talk 01:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I use ham hock--does that count? Drmies (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admins,

I can provide serious historical books written by non-albanians which acknowledge the egsistence of an Albanian National Liberation army fighting against the Axis occupation forces in Albania:

Click for serious books.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fischer, Bernd Jürgen. Albania at war, 1939-1945. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, -- 1999. Hibbert, Reginald. Albania's national liberation struggle: the bitter victory. Pinter Pub Ltd, 1991. -- Albania in the Twentieth Century, A History: Volume II: Albania in Occupation and War, 1939-45, Owen Pearson, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-1845110147 ISBN-10: 1845110145; http://www.amazon.com/Albania-Twentieth-Century-History-Occupation/dp/1845110145 -- War in the Balkans: An Encyclopedic History from the Fall of the Ottoman Empire to the Breakup of Yugoslavia, Richard C. Hall, 2014, ISBN-10: 1610690303, ISBN-13: 978-1610690300 (see Section: Albania in World War 2) -- In addition, the following online sources (independent, non-albanian): − − --- − http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/al_antif.html − --- − http://countrystudies.us/albania/151.htm − --- − http://motherearthtravel.com/albania/history-9.htm − --- − http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/albania_resistance.htm − --- − − The historical perspective of Albanian's involvement to WW2 is as follows (summarizing): - April 1939, Italy invades Albania. The king of Albania and its government do a mild resistance against the Italians but are defeated. - 1939. Italians invade most Albanian cities and create a puppet administration government (not elected or approved by Albanians) - 1941-1945. Albanians gather against the occupation driven by communist politicians. They create a National Liberation Front army that comprised at its peak of 70.000 soldiers. They resided in the mountains and rural regions because the main cities were occupied by the Axis forces. - 1943 - Italy capitulates and the territories it held were taken over by German forces. - 1941-1945 - The National Liberation Front fought extensively against the Axis forces, and according to the sources ca 28.000 soldiers and 30.000 total Albanian people die in the fight against Italy and Germany. − All the links above demonstrate the existence of an armed struggle against Italian and German occupation from a communist-led Albanian resistance. − I challenge anyone to find a single source that claims that Albanians fought against the Allied troops, even in a single battle? − The government of Albania at the time of WW2 was the monarchy of King Zog, which went on exile in UK after the invasion by Italy in 1939. Upon invasion, as in many other countries (France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Slovakia) the Axis forces (Italy and Germany) created a puppet government in the capital of Albania during occupation. This puppet government did not have any army so did not engage in battle against Allies, however it played a propaganda role. The resistance represented a significant support of the population and peaked with an army of ca. 70K soldiers at its peak (see sources above).

I would request that in the quality of admins you correctly acknowledge the fighting resistance of the Albanian National Liberation Army against the Axis forces, in accordance with the historical sources mentioned in this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Article talk page, please. Not here. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I entered the info on the talk page of the article. Can you please unblock the article so I can insert the contribution of the Albanian armed resistance together with the provided historical sources? I assume until there is some adversary independent historical source against this claim, then the valid version is the one above backed up by the provided numerous academic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.207.212 (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No! You posted on the talk page--great. Next, find consensus on the talk page to insert that information. That's how it works. And can you please start signing your posts? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is okay to ask you to review this re IBAN violation on your Talk? (I read previous comment whereby you had liberal policy re IBAN discussions on your Talk.)

• ANI issue
• IBAN violation/PA
• Warning from Drmies
• Continued baiting

Thx for your consider, Drmies. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mind at all--but the problem is of course that the troll link isn't explicitly about you. I'm sure you feel it is, and that may well be correct, but it's really unprovable, unless of course MaxBrowne is dumb enough to say "yeah, that was him I meant". So I'm sorry, but I don't see that I can act here, and I didn't see anything else in his recent activity (in a very cursory view, I admit). Of course, I'm really hoping that I'll never have to see it: all this would be so much better if it went away... Drmies (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, isn't that ("unprovable") taking things a bit to the wiki-lawyering level? (For example, user Sitush's BLP draft of user Carol Moore was removed from the WP on the basis that it was inappropriate since he was in dispute with that user. Ditto here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No no no, very different: in that case, there was a name that both had in common. For all I know, MaxBrowne knows lots of trolls. If I would block you for insulting Newyorkbrad by badmouthing wikilawyering in this comment, I think you'd know exactly what I mean. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well thanks for your view anyway Dr Drmies, I won't contend with it. May I just mention, however, that I don't agree, for reasons: 1) The problem with the Sitush BLP of Carole Moore was that the BLP was seen as suspect due to the dispute between those users. (Same, linking to an article re narcissism in context of dispute/IBAN and where that PA was used against me more than once. Your "unprovable" criteria IMO raises the standard of proof to that akin to the criminal justice system ["proof beyond a reasonable doubt"], and WP is of course not criminal justice system that is why I mentioned it seemed like wiki-lawyering. 2) NE Ent already deleted that article link, please read his edit sum he called it a PA against me. He also initiated the ANI subthread to get that link removed as you can see. (So clearly there you have another user besides me disagreeing with you.) 3) When you gave warning to the user that it was "time to stop" after reading comments & editsum at admin Ched's Talk, you also registered that you felt it looked like intentional baits to "try to get a rise out of [me]". Well, I complained at the ANI about that article link as you know, so it was therefore apparent to the user that it was offensive to me. (With that knowledge & information, to subsequently restore the link, isn't more intentional baiting which you warned against?!) Well that's all, have a good day Dr Drmies, and do give some candy to Ms Drmies come Valentine's. (If you wanna keep it a surprise here's hint: I read somewhere a study was conducted that showed men generally prefer soft candies while women generally prefer hard candies. [Thought that was interesting.]) Ok, sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) This user is "not here to build an encyclopedia". For a chess expert, it is quite sad that he does not recognize the result of the "endgame" that has played out. I have banned almost no one from my talk page except this character: and I have dealt with some incredibly objectionable users in my time here. He's simply a shit-stirring malcontent who has no support for his venomous little campaign of... malcontentness. He hates every admin and user that does not agree with him. And none seemingly do. So where do we go from here? Doc talk 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, Doc, which of the two are you talking about? Chess is not my area, nor is crystal ballery... Drmies (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am referring to IHTS. While MaxBrowne is probably not an angel (who is?), his block log (at zero) pales in comparison to IHTS's growing list of blocks. Dennis Brown, who is certainly one of the more generally "liked" admins in my recent memory that dared work the drama boards, was lambasted by IHTS as a biased (and lying) incompetent.[7] IHTS would not survive an AN ban discussion, IMHO. Doc talk 03:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you know, IHTS comes here to seek assistance; I'm not going to say that, while you're here, let me block you. He knows what I think about his claims of abusive adminship, and yeah, Dennis is just one of the nicest guys ever. (Dennis Brown, we're not really talking about you--carry on.) I'm not sure either that the discussion wouldn't end with a ban, but I'm not going to be the one to start it, for a few reasons: I don't wish to confirm his opinion of me, and (again) I don't want a visit to my talk page to end that way. Thanks, and I'm raising a glass to Dennis later tonight. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker): Doc, can I bank that "shit-stirring malcontent and use it later? Oh! I've wanted to say something like that SOOOOO many times! Montanabw^(talk) 07:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I used to work with a fellow who loved to complain. We used to say that if he didn't have anything to complain about, he would complain about the lack of things to complain about. Some people are like that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw - Anytime! You I have disagreed with in the past, and Drmies I have disagreed with as well. Yet, we can still somehow agree to disagree when we do, and then get along just fine. IHTS is simply not going to get along with anyone the majority of users here. The inevitable conclusion is staring us all in the face. Doc talk 07:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doc has something that I can only concur with, and well, that inevitable conclusion is drawing nearer and here's where we go from here - people are now getting wise to the need to investigate long term patterns of behaviour.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say highly likely but perhaps hopefully (AGF to a fault, I know) not inevitable. Perhaps if we give IHTS time to reflect on what many many folks are saying it will sink in. In any every, arbcom would be overkill -- a AN siteban would likely be as efficacious and is a lot less pixelwork. NE Ent 12:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't AN overkill already? I mean, if a user is totally disruptive, then a simple indefinite block can take care of it. Mind you, I am still not sure exactly who we're talking about here, and where a balance of here-nothere is upset. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Picking off the obvious vandals and trolls with indef's is obviously the way to go, but for established accounts a site ban is cleaner because it eliminates the multiple unblock request on the back end -- plus you never know when some AGF bleeding heart will start one of those reviews on AN. Better to get out in front of the issue on AN. NE Ent 03:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a AN resolution would be far easier and more economical than getting ArbCom involved. I see very little hope of reform here, with the wide swath of administrators that this user holds in contempt. Not to mention regular editors. The feeling is unfortunately mutual, it seems. Doc talk 12:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who is still listenening, I would say that silence is a highly respected quality of those who refuse to take the bait. With RFC/U gone, and with Arbcom now slowly but surely waking to the need to take long term patterns of behaviour (and I have around 133 pieces of evidence) into account instead of only taking isolated complaints into consideration, I do believe it's the best venue. At least there one can speak without fear of interruption and decorum is mostly upheld. With the exception of two or three diehard admins with pachydermic skins like Drmies, ANI in contrast is largely ruled by the peanut gallery, the offenders themselves, trolls, the anti-admin brigade, and of course, NE Ent. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Kudpung you dear soul!--we finally agree on some things (ANI being dominated by irresponsible commentary/"peanut gallery"; also, that silence is better than taking thrown bait, mostly). Me thinks your statements have wisdom. (And consequently or in addition, I do also agree w/ you re Arbcom being the most responsible & civil venue currently on the WP. [But dear Kudpung, is that really saying a whole lot?! E.g. how they've taken request for clarification as impetus to site-ban. I think everyone knows what I mean.]) Take care Kudpung, and I do look forward to agreeing w/ you more in future (not just today). p.s. Re your 133 "pieces of evidence", aimed to decapitate me at Arbcom, my gosh, that is really impressive! (And not biased either, I'm sure. And I don't suppose, if I wished to waste precious life time gathering, that I wouldn't be able to collect 1,133 "evidences" of your uncollegial divisive & condescending comments re fellow editors!? [What do you think? But perhaps I am mistaken: admins are usually always right and/or have superior judgment--that is why they got elected to admin in the first place, naturally, as you recently wrote!]) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always liked RfC/U, as toothless as it was. What the detractors may not have realized is that--for instance! here's a hypothetical case. Let's say editor X is a complete asshole, but not such an asshole that they're spewing racist or sexist commentary, and they're not edit warring the whole damn day. They're just a total jerk-off, bitching on talk pages and wikilawyering and what not, but not disrupting article space, not vandalizing, etc. An RfC/U with a reasonable number of participants can establish that this is what they were doing, and suggest that they change their wicked ways. They don't. Enter admin, who then blocks on the basis of recent behavior the disruptive quality of which was established in the RfC/U. Voila: problem solved. No ArbCom, no ANI, no AN, no drama. Next. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, if somebody is that much of a borderline jerk, they will attract a fanclub from the ANI peanut gallery that means any admin who tries a block will get firehosed with "abusive admin!" cries from said fanclub, which leads to the block overturned on "time served" or no admin wants to serve the block because of all the crap they'll take for it. A couple of times of ANI I've seen genuine requests for admin assistance (typically some habitual tendentious editor in an out of the way topic), often accompanied by a cry of "is any admin going to look at this?", that gets drowned out by the low-budget entertainment from the peanut gallery. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please recheck the edit history of the Nonviolent Peaceforce wiki. I made only minor edits (updated CEO information) and added 2 citations from the UN and IRS. You will have to go back to the page prior to 02.02.2015 to see what I mean. I sincerely believe you are mistaken about what I have edited on the page. I did not add any biased or non-cited material, and certainly have not disrupted what was there prior to 02.02.2015. Sorry for this misunderstanding. Historianglobal 1967 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Look--you keep reinserting unacceptable material, that's the problem. We should have a decent article, not a company brochure. I made a few edits and added a few reliable sources--that's the way forward, not information that could be pulled of the organization's website. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but in the process you reverted the article back so far that you eliminated many sources in the process. The article is now extremely dated. I added the current CEO, and you reverted it back. I added citations from the IRS and the UN, and you reverted it back. None of that came from the organization's website. Sure, there were certainly many citations that went directly back to the organization's website, but I did not place any of them there. You need to look at the history of the page prior to 2 February 2015 to see that. The article needed a lot of work, but you basically eliminated everything. Historianglobal 1967 (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at every single one of your edits; I did not see a single one in there that stated an encyclopedic fact of any kind. This comes closest to it, but it's sourced to a primary reference (and we do secondary sources here) and one may well ask what the relevance is in an encyclopedic article of the organization being headquartered in Brussels. I just added your CEO--but that one little thing is a lot less important for Wikipedia's purposes than the plethora of irrelevant and non-neutral information that you restored. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right--the CEO information is an incidental detail in relation to the article as a whole; however, it is clear that with your enormous edit a number of legitimate citations were lost. You could have salvaged much of the material, made it less biased, or added citations, but instead deleted en masse. This is a gross violation of wikipedia standards. Cf. citations circa 1 February 2015:Historianglobal 1967 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Carriere, Rolf C.: The World needs 'Another Peacekeeping', in: Schweitzer, Christine (Ed.): Civilian Peacekeeping. A Barely Trapped Resource, Wahlenau 2010, p. 18 Schweitzer, Christine: Introduction, in: id. (Ed.): Civilian Peacekeeping. A Barely Trapped Resource, Wahlenau 2010, p. 9) Konrad Tempel (Ed.) ”Instrumente für den Zivilen Friedensdienst, Gewaltfreie Intervention durch eine Drittpartei ...”, ZFD Impuls 2, Bonn Juni 2005, with Compact Disk Schweitzer et al., Feasibility Study, pp. 297-300 Eddy, Matthew: Freedom summer abroad: Biographical pathways and cosmopolitanism among international human rights workers, in Patrick G. Coy (ed.) Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Bingley UK 2011, p. 247, Fn. 4 Wallace, Molly: Confronting Wrongs, Affirming Difference: The Limits of Violence, the Power of Nonviolence, and the Case of Nonviolent Intervention in Sri Lanka, PH.D., Brown University Providence, Rhode Island, May 2010, p. 315 Duncan, Mel / Mark Zissman / Patrick Savaiano: Nonviolent Peaceforce: A Realistic Choice for the Future, in. Stout, Chris E. (Ed.): The New Humanitarians: Inspirations, Innovations, and Blueprints for Visionaries, Vol. 3, Changing Sustainable Development and Social Justice, Westport CT/London, 2009, p. 94f http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/fieldwork/all-projects/south-caucasus (last retrieved: 09.08.2012) Wallace 2010, p. 329 Schweitzer, Christine: Humanitarian Protection as an Additional Function of Humanitarian, Development and Peace Projects – or Rather a Task Requiring Experts?”, in: id. (Ed.): Civilian Peacekeeping – A Barely Trapped Resource, Wahlenau 2010, p. 49 http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/fieldwork/all-projects/south-caucasus (last retrieved: 09.08.2012) http://www.restorativejustice.org/10fulltext/lederach Schirch, Lisa: Civilian Peacekeeping. Preventing Conflict, Making Space for Democracy. Uppsala 2006, p. 16 Schirch 2006, p. 16 Wallis, Tim: Best Practices of Civilian Peacekeeping, in: Schweitzer, Christine (Ed.): Civilian Peacekeeping. A Barely Trapped Resource, Wahlenau 2010, p. 26., 23 Lustenberger, Philipp: Civilian Protection: From the International to the Grassroots Level, in: Zartman, I.W./P.T. Hopman (Eds.): Mindanao. Understanding Conflict 2011, Washington 2011, p. 54 Wallace 2010, p. 325 Brües, Stephan: Ermutigung zum Handeln im Klima der Angst. Wie Friedensfachkräfte der Nonviolent Peaceforce in Sri Lanka arbeiten, Neues Deutschland, 29.06.2008 People's Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL), e.g. PAFFREL: Observation report Presidential elections 2005, pp. 36f.; see also: N.N.: International civilian peace force for North-East, Daily News, 16.07.2003 = (last retrieved: 09.08.2012 Wallace 2010, pp. 317; 340-344; 347-360 Lustenberger 2011, p. 52ff. http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/fieldwork/all-projects/guatemala-project see: interview with Oloo Otieno, in: Ricci, Andrea (Ed.): From Early Warning to Early Action? The Debate on the enhancement of the EU's crisis response capability continues, European Commission, DG External Relations, Brüssel 2008 [part 2: Crisis Response - Mediation and Peacekeeping] = http://eeas.europa.eu/ifs/publications/book_2_en.htm, last retrieved: 09.08.2012) http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/np-deploying-8-field-teams-south-sudan, last retrieved: 09.08.2012) http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/new-field-office-open-georgia http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/soros-grant-kyrgyzstan Duncan et al. 2009, p. 93 Duncan et al. 2009, p.93 ; http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/about/organizational-structure http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/about/organizational-structure/IGC (both retrieved: 09.08,.2012 Wallace 2010, p. 317f. Duncan et al. 2009, p. 96f.

[hide] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historianglobal 1967 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You sound like an expert, telling me about gross violations of Wikipedia guidelines. What this list is that you stuck in here, I don't know--what I do know is that one of the major problems was that much of the celebratory content was sourced to the organization itself, and I noted in one edit summary that the Wallace source is a Ph.D. thesis, not something we usually accept. And if the choice is between trying to distill a reasonable article out of a huge promotional mess or first cutting it down so we're not promoting some entity, for free, on our servers, then I choose the latter. And your jeremiad also fails to take into account the sourcing I added here; you're welcome.

  You want to talk article improvement? Fine, do it--but do it without bitching. Go through those links and figure out what is reliable and what is not, and what is acceptable to write and what is not. I will be glad to take you seriously, and I will be glad to forget your obvious conflict of interest--as long as it doesn't show in your edits. This is a good start. Better: to rewrite the rest of those History paragraphs and give a reliably sourced, neutrally written overview of the good work this organization has done. If you want to serve them well within the context of Wikipedia, of course. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been merging some song articles into album articles recently, and I'd like your opinion of the presentation of sales chart data. What happens frequently is something like this: Electric Shock (EP)#Chart performance, which I find makes the article terribly long and clunky and places too much emphasis (length-wise) on chart placements compared to other article content. I've experimented with other ways of displaying the data, such as in Red Light (album)#Charts and Hard to Love, How to Love#Charts. Personally, I like the latter examples because they keep the table condensed, clearly spell out what chart is being represented (some articles have very vague column headings), and allow a reader to compare & contrast/see trends/whatever. However the format doesn't follow what's recommended in the MOS for songs and albums, because those formats don't seem to take into account a single article containing chart placements for multiple related works. It does look a bit like what's seen in discography articles. I'd like some feedback as to whether the format I'm using would be considered desirable by, well, anyone. Ha ha~ I'm not brave enough to post about it elsewhere yet. Thank you for any feedback! (by the way, I know the merged articles aren't perfect, but I think they're better than they used to be.) Shinyang-i (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Music on the vertical axis, chart position on the horizontal axis, scanning across the charts shows the demand in different markets- looks good to me. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, kind person! I never know if things make sense only in my own brain or if it actually "works". I appreciate the feedback, @Xanthomelanoussprog:. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xanthomelanoussprog and Drmies:, guess what? Another editor came along and removed the tables I made because they didn't match the albums MOS. What surprises me is that most of the kpop album articles are huge messes not in line with the albums MOS, so why'd she pick these, the ones that actually presented the charting material clearly? Some other editor will definitely come add back in all the song charts and we'll be back to having 3-4 separate tables like we did before. Ugh, I'm not spending any more of my time merging those stupid song articles; I was just doing it to make Wikipedia a better place. I left a talk page message for her but it won't help. Gah, so irritated. Okay, whining over. ^_^ Shinyang-i (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinyang-i: I didn't say anything before, but I didn't really like the big table. My question would be: Is it okay to have single charts in album articles? I haven't looked around enough to know. --Random86 (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd spoken up earlier, as that's why I was soliciting opinions. :) I wasn't crazy about it either, but yeah, a lot of albums have several different tables to contain all the info. The Electric Shock one had a table for the EP, one for the promotional single, one for the other non-promo singles that charted, one for the "certification" (sales numbers), and ... maybe that was it. Others have 4 or 5 charts for Korean stuff, then 4 or 5 more for Japanese charting and maybe even another set for Chinese charting. I don't really care if someone gets rid of it, I'm just mad that 1) it was done with no discussion, 2) it was done with a lame excuse of bringing it into compliance with an MOS when most kpop articles are most definitely not in line with anything, 3) someone else is gonna come along and add in extra tables again and it'll be as shitty as it was before. I just thought, jeez, out of all the hot messes on kpop song/album articles, someone picked that to "fix". Oh well, I'm done with those merges anyway. They're a lot of work and, obviously, very thankless. I was just doing them to make Wikipedia a better place; lord knows I could care less about f(x). What do I care if everything is unsourced and full of POV language and fluff and there are a million useless articles that shouldn't exist? LOL Shinyang-i (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinyang-i: Now that I've had a look at WP:GA/MU, I think Rockysmile11's edits were justified. There isn't a precedent for including song charts in album articles, and that information is in the discography article. I understand that it can be frustrating to put a lot of work into something and have it changed by another editor, but that's how Wikipedia works. If other editors come along and add tables for song charts, they can be removed because that is not how album articles are done. The merges you are doing are an improvement even if it seems like thankless work. You obviously care about improving Wikipedia or you wouldn't be here. :) --Random86 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm not stressed about the article and I'm sure the changes are in line with whatever. I'm just irritated that out of all the gazillions of kpop articles with no MOS adherence (including albums), why pick those? As I said, before I merged, it had 4 tables and he never touched it. I most certainly am not the one who started adding song chart info to album articles; there is a precedence for it in kpop articles (even if it's not right) and I was trying to avoid inevitable screaming and edit wars by including it in a way that was at least better than before. When I try to do things "right", people hate me, and when I try to please others, they hate me too. I guess my issue is really that ever since I've started actively editing here, it's been an overwhelmingly negative experience when it comes to other editors. I think maybe some of you others had time to get used to doing your business before things got really bad. But I was attacked and harassed from the moment I got here, I have editors say out plainly that they intend to disrupt any edits I ever make and encourage others to do the same, etc. Accusations made against me are highly personal and hateful. I guess the lack of positive (or even just neutral) interactions makes me hypersensitive and there is another issue with this editor, too, which I never brought up to anyone but was very odd. And the editor admitted to reading what I'm posting here, as well, which bothers me and makes me feel stalked (since it's legit happened so many times by other editors). Every attempt at improvement is met with so much hatred and negativity, and so I feel attacked even when it's not actually happening. I already re-evaluated my role on Wikipedia once (you notice I don't patrol articles anymore) and now I think I need to do it again so as to draw even less attention. Editing here is the ultimate "no good deed goes unpunished" experience for me. :| Shinyang-i (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinyang-i: I think your edits are under more scrutiny because you proposed so many sweeping changes and people don't like change. I know all the personal attacks are hurtful, but some of those users have been blocked already (and if Mikepellerin makes one more personal attack I'm going to report him). You also need to keep in mind that everything you say here can be read by anyone. It made since for Rockysmile11 to read what you posted here because you specifically said you were going to talk to other editors about his edits. --Random86 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I never realized I'd proposed any actual changes, since I thought people editing Wikipedia had vague ideas of how things were supposed to be done. I was shocked when people reacted so violently and I realized many do not, in fact, know or care about norms. I still can't really see anything as sweeping changes, since I'm not actually the one that proposed anything new or different. I just re-stated the rules for people. So, this has all been quite a trip for me. :| Shinyang-i (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. So we're talking (or we were talking) about Red Light (album). Personally I like Rockysmile11's edits fine because I think that in these articles less is more. I see where you're coming from, Shinyang--you already came from "more". But Rocky isn't, as far as I can tell, being an asshole about it. That they picked that particular one can be for any number of reasons, and you shouldn't presume the worst. (And let's face it: that table was huge, and editing tables is a difficult thing to do--at least for people like me.)

  Now, I assume you were talking about having merged a whole bunch of song/single articles into this one? That's a good thing. You're not being met with (just) negativity; a lot of editors are very pleased with what you're doing, and I can tell assure that a lot of readers are too. The K-fans maybe are not, but they mistake this for the hyperlinked allkpop anyway.

  Hey Rocky--you understand what Shinyang is trying to accomplish here, right? Not just with this article, but in a larger sense? You do what you think is right, and you keep trying to keep these articles in line with "normal" articles on Wikipedia--but please try to understand the gargantuan task Shinyang has set for themselves. I don't know if you know this, but K-pop can get nasty, real nasty. Anyway, carry on. Thank you all--and Random86, thanks for stopping by; I appreciate it. Shinyang, if you got a birthday coming up, maybe, or some other special occasion, I'll make you a dozen pink cupcakes with Hello Kitty on it, just for you. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • OH I generally agree with your 'less is more' attitude. For Red Light, it was just one song merged into one album. For Electric Shock, it was 4 songs merged into 1 EP. I think it's a good thing, too. I was just, for once, trying to accommodate the apparent wishes of many editors to have song data on album articles; it was there before I got my hands on it, I just formatted it differently and, yucky-looking or not, the data were actually more clear than before. It was just a 'damned if I do, damned if I don't' situation, I guess. It's just weird articles sit and rot, no one touches them for ages, no one improves them, blatant MOS violations persist. But the minute I do something to the articles people suddenly care, so it feels weird and targeted, even when it's not. It's all no one's fault but my own. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... about accounts like 216.37.96.157, 2600:1001:B117:577:FDC2:477D:3F51:2340, and 72.68.242.74 ? They are very obviously the same person, vandalism-only accounts, specializing in obscene and disgusting edit summaries. They have all been given very short blocks. None of their edits have been revdeled. I guess we can't do much about IP accounts, especially when it's clear that this person can change accounts at will. But doesn't it seem that their offenses deserve at least a longer block than 31 hours? Educate me, please, I'm new here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I resemble that remark. I revdeleted a lot of the edits of the middle one and gave 'em 48 hours. And when an account was created, I did some deleting and added a second stiff warning.

Drmies is far more of an expert than I am. But with IPs, unless one is sure it's stable, after a couple of days it will be assigned to someone else, and they don't deserve to be stuck with a block. If they keep hopping, sometimes a rangeblock can be used. (Way too technical for me, though. I can barely handle mashing the right keys.) For revision deletions, I asked the talkpage owner in this instance and they wanted it done. Otherwise, as you'll see if you look at the policy, it has to be pretty filthy or otherwise objectionable to be automatically revdeletable. I do quietly zap quite a lot of stuff. But it's more zappable if it's racist, defames a BLP, or so on. The vast majority of editors don't have admin-o-vision and we should leave as much as possible visible to them. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, what stupidity. Yeah, pretty much what Yngvadottir says. In this case it's clearly an IP hopper and longer blocks serve no purpose. I revdeleted a couple more as "grossly degrading" or something like that--always a judgment call, but don't be afraid to make it, Melanie. We made you admin cause we have faith in you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, Yngvadottir, and I appreciate your work in blocking them. I didn't see the revdel's but thanks for that too. I would have described most of their edit summaries as "pretty filthy" but that's why I asked: I'm trying to learn what the community standards are. All I did was protect one page where they were doing a lot of rampaging. I think I will watchlist the OTHER pages they were active on, and protect them too if the troll comes back. (As the newest admin on the block I don't feel comfortable with the block button yet.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The zebra says to block in a case like this. Filth in an edit summary for a good-faith edit, that's a different matter, but this deserves a block. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are still rampaging, see AN/I. I'm about to dump a list there in hopes of a rangeblock. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or ask the expert. Kevin, you busy? We need cleanup on aisle 1... Drmies (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an IP list, and I will see. Too easy to evade a filter for what he's doing.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: The list I gathered at AN/I was 72.68.240.215, 2600:1001:b117:577:fdc2:477d:3f51:2340, 216.37.96.157, and 72.68.242.74. Three from above, one from Epicgenius at AN/I. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I probably slowed him down a bit, but not much more than that. He's using fairly popular providers, so I can't go after him with a meat-axe.—Kww(talk) 05:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kww. Nasty stuff. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original comment. MelanieN, you are not new here. You are, instead, a new administrator here. I know, I know. Please do not give me any static. It is on my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cullen, that is a very good point. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Static? Me? I can't imagine what you mean. I will just say that it takes one to know one. And that even being dragged, kicking and screaming, is really not such a scary thing. --MelanieN (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that WP:CIR standard is only for plain vanilla editors -- the administrator standard is WP:NOTPERFECT. NE Ent 10:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My track record with AFDing articles about things that don't yet exist is terrible, so maybe you have a better strategy. We're trying to get rid of crap-quality song articles, and here someone has created Crazy (4Minute song), about a song that hasn't been released yet from an album that hasn't been released yet. The whole article is written in future tense. It takes me a long freaking time to merge song articles (mostly because all the Gaon links are broken and all the references are formatted incorrectly), but it takes someone 5 minutes to fart out a ridiculous non-article like this one. How can it be notable yet? (the chance it ever will be is low.) Kpop editors don't understand WP:CRYSTAL at all, and so we never successfully AFD things on that basis, it seems. Ugh, what are the options here? Many thanks, as always! Shinyang-i (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, crap on a cracker. Same user already made the damn album article too: Crazy (4Minute album) It just didn't show up in the 'new article alerts' bot list. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just redirected both articles. --Random86 (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh awesome. Thank you. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was well-established by now that our policies and guidelines apply to all our articles, except those having to do with K-pop. Haven't you ever heard of "ignore all rules", which is the 5th pillar written just for K-pop? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby make you, Cullen328, an Honorary K-Pop Idol Group Editor! You've got the lingo down pat! Now, get out there and make an article about a song that hasn't been released yet by a group that has only been "conceptualized" but is sure to include that one girl who used to be in that one group with those other girls who had that non-charting digital single that no one remembers from 2011! And make sure you source it all from WP:FART gossip blogs with bare URL links!! (it's kind of scary just how perfectly you nailed that IAR thing...) Shinyang-i (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will roll out my fan blog tomorrow morning, which I will use to source a Good Article tomorrow afternoon, which I will tweak a bit, so that it can be Today's Featured Article by my birthday. K-pop moves fast, you know. Does that work? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, birthdays are the most important thing in k-pop, and therefore I support this proposal 100% Shinyang-i (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Cullen's birthday listed on a wooden post, though some 19th-century vandal overwrote it (with a chisel) with the old "Washington slept here". Drmies (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Ryle Hopps. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we still doing Pickelhaubes? And did you just know we finished the Iliad last night, and covered the mention of the Trojan Horse in the Odyssey? Drmies (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But when the sun sank and darkness came on, they laid them pickelhaubes to rest and took the boon of sleep. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Like — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

ANd Adam gave a present to Eve and it didn't work .... mmuuhoo. Hafspajen (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NO; it was the other way round. Eve started it. Hafspajen (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "...this article is terrible"

Drmies, I know it's probably a bad idea to ask, but I'd like to see the article improved. What are your suggestions? Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not a bad idea at all. A couple of things, for starters. This "(Sci-fi Literary Series)" scrap it, throughout. Write a general introduction to the series, rather than a description of what these characters are; after all, this article is supposed to be about a series of books. Less focus on lists and characters. Add reliable sources (WP:RS) that discuss the series/book/books. In general, the entire thing is way too in-universe. History. I mean, there's a section called "second story", but no date, title, context, publication information, or secondary information on the story is given. What prompted me in the first place to make that edit was that I was looking at a long page full of section headers without, apparently, an introduction--it was not clear what the subject of the article was, and some sections are odd--"Berserker (Sci-fi Literary Series) Related Terms & Literature", I don't know what its function is. Some of the links are appropriate for a "See also" section, but what Necrons, for instance, have to do with this, I don't know. So, this article is a decade old, and you come by, and now you get to clean it up! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Brood cha cha.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Brood street.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Shpritsz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Stefan2, I think, since you appear to know all this stuff so well, you either have to explain to me, or make MaranoFan explain, what is going on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The file has been replaced by a PNG file for some reason. Same with the two other images above. I'm not sure why the images were replaced by PNG files, and the PNG files do not seem to look better than the old JPG ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. MaranoFan, please explain what you're doing and why you're doing it--and make me feel like you're not just going through articles I created half a decade ago. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason you felt the need to template Drmies three times on this? Contrary to public opinion, the Doctor does not subscribe to the Vogon Constructor Fleet's view that orders should not be accepted without forms being signed in triplicate, submitted, sent to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three years and recycled as firelighters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Ritchie, Stefan2 does things by the book. I don't mind; I'm sure these are generated by Twinkle or whatever. What I would like is if such templates (pertaining to non-free material) would have a picture of the file included, preferably in high resolution, so I could see which one we're talking about. Stefan, I have reverted MaranoFan's edits, since a. they never really explained and b. you seem to agree that there is nothing preferable about the changes they made. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, WP:NFCC#9 forbids displaying the image on your talk page, so you will have to do with just a link. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You passed the test, Stefan. Good! Drmies (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Still, this notification has given me the chance to check out Herman Brood's music, so for that I can be thankful, though I suspect Jan Akkerman might dispute the "Netherland's only international rock star" claim. Do you know anything about a Belgian blues band called Blue Blot? I see nl.wikipedia has an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know Blue Bot, no. Jan Akkerman can dispute this all he likes, but he's just not rock and roll enough. But is that line still in the article? It should go. Look, find a video of "Saturday Night", that's the classic. Still good after all those years--it's the song that got me hooked on heroin. I mean rock and roll. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gosh, Saturday Night's a kick ass rock track. Of course, over here we also have our own kick ass rock Saturday Night. In the meantime, could you (or any other editor whose Dutch extends to more than Godedag, hoe get het met je?) help fill out Blue Blot with some of the Dutch sources bouncing around on the net? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see this issue? jps is disturbing the procedure of a FTN and AN closure. He first reverted the change of a user who had implemented the outcome of AN,[8] after that Huon reimplemented it.[9] See User talk:Huon#There is no policy/guideline which allows for the closing of a noticeboard discussion to be overturned, he abused rollback on the changes of Huon,[10] and like Huon has mentioned, he archived his preferred version by removing the recently updated changes to that section.[11] On Wikipedia:AN, he altered a closed discussion with his explanations.[12] Probably Wikipedia:GAMING. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Huon seems to have it in hand. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc needs to stop screwing around: fucking with an admin's closure is disruption. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes his AN summary even after so many discussions, is not even required. If he wants to challenge he can open a closure review. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Blades, I'm confused. You wrote that jps is disturbing the procedures, but your diffs are about I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. Am I correct when I think that you didn't mean jps? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Jps is I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I hide(<!-- -->) the AN closure summary of jps, or you would? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it. I do not see why AN should allow commentary by editors on the closure of the closure of discussions within the closure. In other words, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, I am enforcing the whole "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion." thing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm longing to get ANI of my watchlist... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again he disturbed the closure with a really irrelevant summary that had to do nothing with the topic that was meant to be discussed.[13] Also note, he was warned for his actions before.[14] Bladesmulti (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I got reverted too, as Maunus thinks that I am reverting a legible post. See the history of FTN noticeboard. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyones comments or actions need to be modified it should be done by an administrator and not by you Bladesmulti.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maunus. Blades, Maunus has a point. Thanks, and let's hope that...wait, I think I already hoped that before. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this article? Tilia it is full of literary references and stuff, and loads of poems and trivia. I made the layout but to be sincere I am taken aback of this article. Hafspajen (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that, and look what they missed out ↑↑ Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there... when I'm not bathed in tar, I do a fair bit of cleanup on school articles. I saw your edits at Northern Guilford High School and thought that the guidelines at WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI might be useful for you (both as guidelines and as something to reference in edit summaries and talk pages) if you hadn't stumbled upon them before. I find that when I am corresponding with someone who cares about article, those guidelines are very handy. Cheers Tgeairn (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysian imitatio. What is too abstract with this one? WP:RESPTAG ...? Hafspajen (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm...well, it's not very clear, I'll give 'em that. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? I think it's perfectly clear. Hafspajen (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But then I, of course have been studying rhetoric. Hafspajen (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to alert you of User talk:223.85.17.193#About your recent behavior on IRC as the blocking admin of this IP. You are invited to join any discussion that may or may not follow, but at your own discretion. Thanks Lor^Talk 10:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Lor--I don't think there's much to discuss, but it's a good thing to dot our t's. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edmond Debeaumarché, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Edmond Debeaumarché (1906–1959) was a French postal worker who was honored with a stamp for his service with the French Resistance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edmond Debeaumarché. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.se/books?id=urVHjaEhpk4C&redir_esc=y

This helpful guide to Money, Sex & Power, Richard J. Foster's sequel to his bestselling Celebration of Discipline, expands the discussion of key issues and explores ways to move the principles involved into the arena of practical experience. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Celebration of Discipline "was named by Christianity Today as one of the top ten books of the twentieth century" (from Richard Foster (theologian)). "A useful guide and indeed a celebration of discipline" (What Dungeon Magazine) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Isabelline (colour). Payne's grey. Glaucous. Three down, another 47 to go Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I always thought Cristians care for heavenly treasures. I always tghought that the Quakers especially don't. What do you know. Hafspajen (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They like their "oats". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept!! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rottweiler&curid=271052&diff=645945018&oldid=645706370 Hafspajen (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Differently talented, but still not accepted. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked and left a rationale. Sigh. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. Hafspajen (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Burp. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To ooh! Doctor Magister Abstractionum (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gee. Doctor Profundus (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Coo .. Doctor Profundissimus (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need admin help moving two articles currently incorrectly listed. The problem is, the correct article names already exist as redirects to the articles, so a regular joe like me can't make the change.

• Yoochun should be titled Park Yoo-chun
• Junsu should be titled Kim Jun-su

These are uncontroversial moves to the names these performers use consistently on all of their professional works, and have done so since about 2009. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture#Revising some article titles. The article for their fellow group member, Kim Jae-joong was already fixed in the past. Thanks to anyone who can help. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The only problem is that Kim Jun-su already exists--it's a football player. Junsu was moved to Kim Junsu: mind the hyphen. You may want to consider another hatnote on the top. No need to post at RM; they're busy enough already over there. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You rock rock rock! Kim Junsu is probably one of the most common names in Korea, so no shock about the hyphen issue. Hatnotes shall be made use of. Thank you so much!! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]