Some days my patience is sorely tried... Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure thing. The fun wears off quickly. I thought about reverting that user's addition but left that for you; I did ask them on their talk page to respect your wishes. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the speedy was declined improperly by the person who tagged it. Can this still be a speedy or should I take it to AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, they can do that. AfD is probably the way to go, and "one event" would be the operative phrase, I guess. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89 claim on Danjel abusing Twinkle is this but Danjel did request that Purplebackpack89 stay off, understandably so, his talk page. Bidgee (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, there's nothing wrong with it. Hey Bidgee, let's not escalate at ANI. There's obviously nothing actionable there: it's a complaint without merit. So let's not drag it out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bidgee, it's debatable whether or not a user can boot another user from his talk page; especially if he continues to interact with that user elsewhere. It was clear that my edit was in good faith, so claiming it was vandalism was misuse of twinkle. With regard to the ANI thread; it appears to be a bit of a double standard...I've had ANI threads created against me for far less; had I done what Danjel had did, I'm certain someone would be calling for a long block for me. Also, Drmies, saying you don't give a f*** was probably inappropriate (and it also ignores civility guidelines). Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's common sense that when an editor requests you not to post on their talk page, that you don't continue to hound them. Your ignorance isn't helping you and your calls for him to be blocked, mentored or topic banned isn't going to be successful. Leave Danjel alone and take the criticism he gave you as advice, otherwise build a bridge and get over it. Bidgee (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Purple--I don't know who redacted my words, but I said I didn't give a flying fuck. How that is inappropriate, I'm not quite sure. Your complaint is spurious, you're forum shopping, and you need to grow a thicker skin, especially if you want to continue those AfD discussions. I don't even get it in the first place: you say that they're saying you're wrong, when it appears that you were right. Why don't you gloat? Why follow them around? You should be happy that you had a 90% success rate (as you claim)! Drmies (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Why don't I gloat?" Well, because I'm saying, "I'm right! I'm right! I'm right!" and smearing it in Danjel's face is just as bad as he saying "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!" and smearing it in my face. And gloating in the form of nominating more articles for deletion (even if they needed to be deleted) is going to lead to (in the words of Ke$ha) "the place a-going-tah blow!" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't say you had to gloat in someone's face and on their talk page. Just at home, or on Facebook. Tell your lover, or your dog, or your kid, and enjoy. Or send Wikilove back and forth between you and Epeefleche. I don't know who Kesha is, but non-notable topics need to be dealt with--in a non-disruptive manner of course. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ke$ha is a recent pop singer. I have no kids, my dog died, and women are repulsed by me Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, next time you come gloat here, alright? As for dogs, I got one that you can have for free. Nice little doggie: it'll probably fit in your backpack, actually. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user changing wording of a couple of direct quotes here. Gooolog (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not revert them? Drmies (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He will just reverse them back, if you know about the situation at Madhyamaka. These are the original books for you to confirm the original quotes Book 1, Book2Gooolog (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I'm not editing by proxy for you. I opened one of those links and it appears you are correct. Undo them. I don't know the situation at Mdhyamaka, or at Middle Way--in fact, I don't even know who you are or why you are coming to me. Undo them, and if they revert, you can warn them or come and ask me to step in. All the best, Drmies (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

did this because typo made sentence hard for me to read -- obviously revert if you object me to tweaking your comment. Nobody Ent 01:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish you hadn't told me! Embarrassing... I guess I need coffee. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do it all the time -- was just reviewing WQA thread from last March and found I had been discussing a "personal attach" Nobody Ent 02:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on moving around the refs for Miss Millie, and retrieved dates of today are showing up. I'm not deliberately adding them, and I'm just cutting and pasting from what was there - not adding cite templates. WTF? LadyofShalott 02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this is how you do it, but put a period at the end for consistency. I'm not sure what could happen to "update" the dates--I'm sure there's a geek here who knows... Drmies (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sigh>Yes, I know I need to be consistent with the periods, and I've been trying to, but I miss some, dang it. BTW, one of the things that I dislike with this editing interface is how it will wrap a single punctuation mark down to the next line. It always makes me think I've got something wrong, even when I don't. The thing with the dates is just weird (and wrong - if I haven't actually verified that the page is still at that URL today, it is a plain lie to have today's date as the retrieval date). LadyofShalott 02:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do need some coffee. But I also need someone to put these two idiots to bed. Your turn! Drmies (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking of idiots, I'm one. I looked at those articles exactly one year ago, and that is the date showing. LadyofShalott 02:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow! What are the odds? I somehow think that Mandarax is going to find this irresistible. OK, the monsters are in bed and I got my coffee. Even better, turns out I already graded my Monday students' work. Even betterer, I forgot my book so I can't prepare for class! Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Haha, you sound like one of the students saying that! Another question for you - maybe not quite so dumb: about the Thomas ref. It shouldn't really be Thomas and Koch; it's Thomas, with "pictorial research by" Koch. I have no idea how to make the template say that though. (That's the trouble with those templates - they make everything nice and consistent, but reality can be messier.) LadyofShalott 03:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm, don't know. What does the "editor" field do? Add "ed." automatically? That's a field where, I think, you could stick something behind the name, like "trans.". What does the documentation for the cite book template say? Drmies (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, I think that adding "ed." automatically is what that field does. Your suggestion to look at the documentation is a good one. (I saw your archive summary - your page does seem to fill up extraordinarily quickly. :) ) LadyofShalott 03:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • When all else fails, read the documentation... The field I needed was "|others =". LadyofShalott 03:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Illustrated by Smith... Glad you found it. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • • "I'm sure there's a geek here who knows".... Were you avoiding taking His name in vain? • Lady, watch it, or I'll have to issue you an NSA warning, as I've had to do to the Doc previously. • There seems to be some mysterious, cosmic force at work here, compelling you to work on the page about a pro-slavery activist every year on Lincoln's birthday. • I would like to think that there is little to nothing on Wikipedia that I would find "irresistible". Were you talking about working on refs? If I were to work on refs, I would be compelled to do what I think should be done to every single ref on Wikipedia, which is to convert them to list-defined references. Oooh, I just discovered a tool which will do that. I had no idea such a tool existed. It's a shame that people would, for some reason incomprehensible to me, be upset if someone went around changing 'em. (This was my mini rant-of-the-day.) • I used "|others=" for, I believe, the first and only time a few months ago. • MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That's a very clever use of it, Mandarax; I will have to keep that in mind. As for your LDR, you may keep that, and it doesn't help me in the cases where I need to cite one bibliographical entry multiple times for different page numbers, which is why the Lady went through this ordeal in the first place. I am sure you know that I meant "geek" as a compliment, though you still haven't parsed my twinkleoptions, or something like that. This will come up in your next performance review, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Uh oh, not the NSA warning! I'm probably soon going to need more of those multiple page refs for one source: my hold on Thunder and Stars, the 1941 bio of Lewis just came in. That's if I don't get to ill trying to read it; apparently it glorifies some of the stuff she espoused. (That's an interesting point about the date, Mandarax. It was also Charles Darwin's birthday.) LadyofShalott 18:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Pfft NSA warning is nothing. I just got issued my first threat to take me to ANI. I feel so proud. I'm waiting for my user page to be vandalized because then I will be a true editor. Bgwhite (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • That's a nice bit of grandstanding. As for your user page, wait until I log out. Can you spell goatse? Or r-i-c-k-r-o-l-l? Drmies (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

← Bg, I think you may have to revert a lot more vandalism if you expect your user page to get vandalized. Still, it's shocking that it hasn't been. If Dr. M's doppelgänger doesn't do it, maybe I will. As for that threat, it almost looks like a joke, although it clearly isn't. That user's page contains a very unfunny joke; I've seen others who have the same joke on their user page brought to ANI because of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandarax, you are correct: it was removed from someone's user page after an ANI thread. It was deemed to be a violation of the use of the interface, if I remember correctly: do you know what thread it was? I've never enjoyed that practical joke. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it, and mentioned it to the user--we'll see. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I wrote that, I was unaware that there was a current discussion on the subject. I now see that the Lady was ahead of the curve, supporting the prohibition of such hoaxes, six hours before my note. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was looking at that user's page that made me go participate in that RfC. LadyofShalott 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apache warrior. Best quote from the article, "Apache Warrior began watching pornography consistently starting in 1985 when he was in college." Only the first ref backs up anything. See it while it is "hot", because it is being speedy deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, GregorioGonuelas (talk · contribs) and AnastacioValdez (talk · contribs) seem to have a lot in common. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to send a copy of the article through to me? BJAODN is the bread and butter of another site that shall remain nameless. If you'd rather email you can hit me at puppyontheradio@live.com.au. Thanks in advance. PuppyOnTheRadio (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, the internet doesn't forget: [1]. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Puppy, I hadn't seen the uncylopedia before. I had a good time laughing last night. My favorite was Frog Semen drink. The best part was a tag saying Wikipedia had a similar article and it was linked to Coca Cola. My wife loves her Pixie Frogs, which is why I probably loved the article. Bgwhite (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Does it come in square jugs as well? But that it's carbonated is clearly incorrect, given the image of the two milk bottles. Unless, of course, that image is a joke, and there's actually milk in those bottles. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question on it being carbonated or not. I'll order some Caffeine-Free Frog Semen and some Frog Semen Zero for the wife (she is watching her weight). I'll tell you if it is carbonated or not. Bgwhite (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If she's chugging frog jizz, she probably needs to be watching something else, like her mind. Then again, it would be an original Valentine's Day gift, and it might save you from having to expend, you know, some of your own, well, energy, ahem. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's an acquired taste, although I have no idea how anyone managed to acquire it in the first place. PuppyOnTheRadio (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have read James Tod but may not be aware that in the past he has been removed as a source from articles due to issues regarding WP:RS. The biographical article makes that evident, of course. I am having a spot of bother at Ror with reference to the use of Tod, and it involves Ror Is King, with whom both of us had dealings last November that ended up at WP:ANI. Within the last few days, general sanctions have been put into place for Indian subcontinent caste/community articles, per this, and I tried to make the user aware of them here. Their response, aside from reverting me again, was to go a bit daft on my talk page. "Daft" because, as in November, they have completely misunderstood how we operate. What do I do next? I did open a discussion at Talk:Ror#James Tod prior to their last revert, pointing out the numerous references contained in James Tod that demonstrate his unreliability. What do I do next? I am unfamiliar with the operation of general sanctions etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy moly. I don't know what to tell you. I think you may just have to be holier than them, and link explicitly, on the talk page, to the evidence for Tod's unreliability on those points. It's work that you're not looking for, I know, but that dispute (I'm clenching my teeth, keeping other words inside) might derail an FA nomination. At some point, whatever path you choose (WP:DR) comes to mind, someone else, some outsider, is going to look at the talk page to determine what's proper, and having the evidence there would be helpful.

  I'm not aware of the sanctions bit for caste articles (but I'll look in a moment) and don't know how that would affect this article (I don't know much about sanctions in the first place). Who was involved in the discussion that led to the sanctions? Who brought down the hammer? Ask them, I'd say... And where's Spaceman Spiff when you need him? Good luck Sitush--there's not much I can do for you right now but wish you well. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Or I take the entire subject of Tod to WP:RSN and get a centralised debate sorted out? I am not sure why this should derail a FA nom but you'll know more about that process than I do. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about RSN--they deal more with individual sources (websites, publications, etc) than with individual scholars (if that's the right word here). But it might work. Still, I think you need to present evidence--somewhere--that will convince any experienced and knowledgeable editor that Tod cannot be used as a source (in general, or in this case in specific). As for FA--if the article is not stable (edit-war, persistent tagging, etc) a nomination can be derailed, yes; I've once had to scrap a GA review because of such a situation. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I'll dump some stuff on the article talk page. It won't make any immediate difference because RIK wants me to prove that Tod is wrong. Proving a negative can be difficult, so I simply said that we need to find a more recent source that confirms Tod ... and that has not happened. I haven't said that statements s/b removed, just that Tod should be and the statements tagged where necessary. RIK is almost certainly of the Ror community, so this is going to prove intractable without input from elsewhere via some process or another. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry you have to do that. Maybe you should get someone else's advice--maybe I'm too careful. I just don't see what I (as an admin) can do here, but maybe I'm wrong. It's clear that those edits are disruptive. Maybe an ANI thread at some point, but as you know we're clamping down a bit on the input there, so it will have to be good. I hope it doesn't have to get that far, Sitush. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was seeking advice, not admin action. And I appreciate the advice that you gave me. The sanctions are intended to take some of the burden off ANI etc, so reporting things there should be a rarity in future. In any event, someone has turned up and reverted RIK so we'll see what happens next. My guess is a lot of feather spitting. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in a lot of cases I wish it were easy to engage in admin action. Then again, MF always reminds me of the general incompetence among admins, so maybe it's a good thing I sit on my hands so often. Speaking of which: I thought I was doing him a favor with some edits to Weasel, until I remember that his fave critter is the ferret. I wonder, do we have the technology yet to send ferrets as email attachments? Drmies (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Long and thin although they are, and useful as they can be for flushing rabbits out of holes, I don't think they'll fit down the average phone cable. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were right. RIK went mad at James Tod, adding unsourced quotations etc that were of-topic. I have left a note for them. - Sitush (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for your contribution to the article weasel! Chrisrus (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that contain any peacock terms? - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, Sitush. Thanks Chrisrus! I haven't even gotten to what got me started: the weasel in Marie de France's "Eliduc", which produces a flower that can restore dead weasels (and people) to life. That weasel, BTW, appears to be genderless, and there is a gender issue in weasels in general--they usually seem to be feminine and carry associations of female sexuality (esp. in "The Miller's Tale"). But I'll get to that before I die. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not engaged in an edit war. I only altered the page two times. I did not break the rules, as there is no established talk for the subject upon which i was editing on the modern history of syria page. I7laseral (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're going back and forth on Modern history of Syria. The appropriate talk page is Talk:Modern history of Syria. Easy. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. At least they read their own message, then. But what about all the WikiLove that's undoubtedly coming their way? Drmies (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is just plain odd ;) - Sitush (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies thanks for your notce in Talk:2011–2012 Syrian uprising. I can see you instantly realized what fallacy he was citing, that "I can find lots of 'experts' who say [nonsense] therefore I can ignore your peer reviewed mulpile scholarly references" Can you briefly clarify this "WP:RSN"? Is that the place to get mediation so third parties can conclude, basically, "Columbia University and Simon Fraser University and Boston University professors publishing in peer reviewed scholarly journals and in their books citing original materials, are not the same as 'self appointed 'scholars' who say UFOs took Elvis" so I7laseral should stop deleting the fact (CIA involvement in 1949 coup in Syria) he keep deleting depiste 4-5 sources/references?"?

I personally don't need advice on whether Columbia University, etc, scholars in their own fields, are reliable, but I may need a 'ruling' from others that it is, due to I7's repeated actions. From what I can see of WP:RSN, it's not clear whether a definitive ruling can be gotten there, or whether peopel will laugh at my question and just reply, "Duh. Of *course* multiple professors from prominent universtieis writing about their own field, and documenting or peer reviewed, is reliable, Duh!" Or should I post for just that exactly? Thanks in advance. Harel (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'd phrase it more diplomatically. If you look up on this page you'll see a section "Reliability of James Tod", which deals a similar topic, where my advice is more or less the same: be complete in your first presentation of evidence for your position (and, if I can be frank, do it more cleanly than you did on that talk page--no single sentence paragraphs, give diffs where necessary, provide URLs if they help your case), and you'll save yourself time in the long run. RSN is "just" another community board, but it's populated by people who know their stuff (well, usually) and while you won't get something you can call a ruling, you can get something you can call a consensus. In many cases, if you seek redress higher up the food chain (for instance, at an ANI thread, if you want to bring the editor up for being disruptive) such a consensus is worth a whole lot: it means peer-review (and you know how important that is), and it also means that editors are more likely to look at your case since some of the legwork is already done. In other words, it's easier to jump in. If, let's say, an editor like DGG or Peridon or Guillaume2303 or Malleus Fatuorum says something is a reliable source, then I am inclined to take their word for it and I might be more amenable to looking at a specific issue.

  Mind you, I say all of this in general, right? I haven't looked carefully at your references or the content of the text--but I did see a few "UP"s, and it's easy to recognize that your opponent's argument is without merit (which doesn't make you right, of course). I'm no historian, at least not of the modern period, so I can't tell right off the bat who's right and who's wrong, but I do have an idea of where the stronger argument lies. Does that help? Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for your time, this does help. Meanwhile, however, the former complainer has been quiet..and new pair of people claimed it is "not relevant" to which I responded pointing out a Martian vising Earth would find it very relevant, and that we'd obviously find it relevant if China was involved in the coup..however I simplified and made it much shorter (while keeping plenty of referenceS).[[3]] This took a lot of time, here is the very short item (but even more extensive refs) I hope I can correctly copy/paste inside blockquote:

Syria became an independent republic in 1946. Syrian democracy was overturned a few years later, however, when the March_1949_Syrian_coup_d'état in the country ended democratic rule in a coup which, according to declassified records and statements by former CIA agents, was sponsored by the United States CIA.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

• • Take a look at those if you're interested...a LOT of evidence, including *two* former CIA officers admitting it. As I said in the Talk page, nothing is 100% in history..so I don't say this is 100% "right" I do say it is 100% right to include it, since it is relevant and (very) strongly documented now. I've moved quotes to the "quote" attribute of book citation (I did not notice before, that there was a "quotes" part for book cites!) Meanwhile I have spent a good deal of time on the above, so will not (not yet..!) use your board idea, but am very grateful to have your experience counsel and might use the board later on this or other issues. I may return for advice here but am o.k. for right now (And, I'm impressed at how many languages you know..and I am not your "one language Americans" I know "2 and half" but not nearly as many languages as you do.. Best wishes, Harel (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wilhelmina Will has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding ((subst:plate)) to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munchplate)).

Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Drmies (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was a mistake :) For An Angel (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and a fairly stupid one. It's nice to have people looking over one's shoulder every now and then. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Don't take it so seriously. It's just a show and it's supposed to be fun. I can't get enough of it :) For An Angel (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I watched all of it. Jill left us with quite a cliffhanger! Anyway, watching this as the father of a six-year old makes everything different. Plus, there's more middle-class esthetics in there than I can really handle. I mean, that cowboy hat! Drmies (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember what i told you months ago about the "Portuguese" League being filled with foreigners? Have a look at this matchsheet and try to pick out the intruder (see here http://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=1730521&page=1).

Charming hey? As always, kind regards, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apparently i was the intruder, sorry to bother :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait--so, there was 85 minutes (30+15+40) of Portuguese playing time, out of a total of 1980 (22x90)? Wow. [That page didn't pull up for me earlier today but now it did.) Which team is yours? I guess the Dutch are like that too, right? Oh, what did Bosman start! Drmies (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, do you know what's going to happen with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kolins? I've not been involved with an RfC/U before, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, my friend, good maths! And the Benfica "manager", Jorge Jesus, has recently deemed Nélson Oliveira the future of the national team (check his stats to see how much he is "appreciated"!) The Dutch are nowhere near the Portuguese League(s) - at least i hope not, in three games (BENFICA-NACIONAL, PORTO-LEIRIA and MARITIMO-SPORTING), we had the grand total of 9 national players out of a possible...66!! To wrap it up, Bosman did not start anything my friend, he duly fought for his rights, but he did not oblige the Inters, the Real Madrids, the Arsenals (and 99,99999% of Portuguese clubs, even teams that are almost totally drowned in debt keep buying foreigners, LOTS of them, beats me why/how) of this world to be what they are today.

Item #2: can't help you much with the technicalities there mate! Only thing i know is that the discussion (discussions!) is (are) there, and he has NEVER participated. Also, as you well indicated in the report, he writes almost no summaries (99,99999999999999% of the time he does not), and the pattern continues. Ah, and what about his talkpage messages? No, he has not respond to those either, safe for the first time, where he pretty much told User:GiantSnowman he was clueless. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, forgot to answer a part of your "survey" ("which team is yours"): i don't support any team in Portugal, will not be caught dead, if anything, i "tend to like" FC Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao. Cheerio! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reduced the "Taxonomy" section in this article was because Obsidian Soul and I came to the conclusion that it should be taken out. I created a separate page for the species Naja nigricincta. LAx33 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the explanation, Bastian. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly sir,

A few weeks ago, you issued a gracious invitation for my wife and I to join you and yours for dinner tonight at a fancy restaurant near your local Publix. Were it not for the several thousand mile trip and a myriad of other obligations, we would have accepted. Instead we dined in our home, my wife and I and our 22 year old disabled younger son, on wild sockeye salmon, rice pilaf and steamed broccoli topped with toasted almonds. To garnish the salmon, I halved and cored some cherry tomatoes, then cut them into heart shapes. Three hearts adorned each fillet. The wine was a cheap dark pink sparkler, but these days, even cheap California wines are pretty decent. Chocolate lava cake will follow shortly.

So, we appreciate the invitation, and when our ship comes in, we will journey your way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, tasty. I think that I may divert myself from the Drmies residence and mosey over to Cullen's place ... Broccoli & toasted almonds? You'll be telling us next that you use the laboratory methods of Heston Blumenthal. Me? "When it's brown it's done; when it's black, it's buggered". - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of Heston Blumenthal until two minutes ago, Sitush, but I am a member of the faction led by another Dutch editor who exhales in the darkness, in that I believe that chefs and restaurants brandishing three of the tire company's stars are, on the face of it, notable. As for fat duck restaurants, I used to stop by kosher butcher shops from time to time and buy one duck. My new policy is to stop by and buy two. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you have never tasted egg-and-bacon ice cream? NB: I mentioned bacon - does that qualify me for membership of the Bacon Cabal? - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duck? You buy duck? Can I be your friend? I have a jar of duck fat in the fridge--you make me want to go home and fry eggs. Your dinner sounds loverly, though a tad on the healthy side: I prefer my steamed broccoli to be chicken-fried. I do hope you will come this way. Sitush has a "standing" invitation, and the Lady knows the way now. Swimsuits are optional; swimming is mandatory. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think everybody who reads this page is wishing that Cullen were their Valentine, if nothing else for the heart shaped tomatoes...Hopefully I make it Stateside again so I can take the good doctor up on his pool invitation (I will leave the swimsuit option to our readers imagination). On the other hand, Western Australia is a fantastic place for Northern Hemespherers (is that a word) to winter...We went to the beach twice last week. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, could you place a ban on Kelapstick for incivility. It snowed at my house the morning. The sun is out now and the mountains are beautiful, however, low blows like kelapstick cannot be tolerated. Bgwhite (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, next year you'll have a house full. Bgwhite, I can't really do that, you know. Besides, I like the guy. And here's the thing--we were finally able to sit outside in a t-shirt today. Some students were wearing shorts already. What are you gonna do about that? Drmies (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A self block is the only solution Doc, I was informed last week that "it does get cold here in the winter, like 20 degrees)...glad I brought a sweater...(I am now awaiting AN/I notificatino from BG)--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, please--no fighting. This is the war room. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with James Spann? I used to watch him, mostly before he made certain of his opinions known. <If I said just what I thought of some of those views, I might be in BLP violation.> LadyofShalott 05:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am comforted to know that the Earth's climate is self correcting, because it is bloddy hot here.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelapstick, that is both OR and SYNTH. Yes, I have seen him on TV: I have a good friend who says she is here old man candy. I wasn't aware that he had opinions, and I guess I don't care for them. Are you familiar with James Evans? He has opinions too; you might like his better. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I walked to work today^{[citation needed]}, 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) I will have you know, and by 5:30 it was borderline between warm and hot, and I forgot to fill my water bottle before I started. Another 40 °C (104 °F) day! Also, do you or any TPS know why about 50% of the time when I am editing a section, and I press save or preview, it kicks me out and takes me to edit the entire page, and I lose what I was typing. It is quite annoying to have to copy to the clipboard everytime you want to edit something.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry K--you'll have to take that up with Mandarax. He used to be in charge of electrons, though since he developed that fad for art he's become a lot less useful, even if more rounded as a human being. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... conspiracy theories. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I stacked my cabal with a 1:4.5 admin ratio.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sad but at least closure. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, maybe not. Let's wait and see. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Watts Up With That? there are many instances of "Watts's" - I was about to change them to "Watts'" but apparently both are right and we link to that article in the MOS. Which do you reckon is better? "Watts's" looks stupid IMO. On a kind of related note [4]. SmartSE (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Man I don't know! I guess I say "wattsis" for the genitive, so "Watts's" is what I would use. But it should be done consistently, of course. Thanks for that link--Americans especially are fond of quotation marks. They put slogans in quotation marks here. It's not irony (we're not smart enough for that, I think), though it may indicate a general skepticism about making statements. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Haha, "Ring bell for 'meat service.'" Drmies (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought you knew everything about grammar and punctuation! Now that you say that though, it does make sense, but I think I'll stick to what I was taught as a kid. Some of those quotes kind of make sense though - "cheese" in cheeseburgers isn't really cheese and there may be extra services available during the "massage". SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha, I do! Thing is, "apostrophe-s" is not a grammatical matter. It's style, first and foremost. I've disappointed many a person with such statements, but that's the way it is. I'm sure you saw that thread on MF's talk page and the (interesting) links provided. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, Further regarding article on Abdul Qavi Desnavi, finally edited by Ehsan Sehgal his new user name is Justice007 on 30 Dec. 2011. His edits are not constructive. I consider, he is not familiar with topic, it seems he never read books & writing of Desnavi. He deleted important matters from the article, even the name of books from the list. Desnavi has written around 50 books Ref.http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n84-206925 but he mentioned only 13 books & deleted rest from the list. Even he given wrong Ref. (see, http://theindianawaaz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2992&catid=12) That ref. is from news paper that only given one name of his book. In brief, I think said article not need any correction, in case if it is not in parameter of Wikipedia then it can be corrected by any of his editor but should not allow for deletion of matter which has proper references. Almost 45 days passed nobody has rated the article after deletion of matter, if you check history you will find the article was rated by many readers. As you had commented earlier on the article, so I requested please go through original article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bpldxb/sandbox & judge yourself. Regards Bpldxb' 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpldxb (talk • contribs)

• Both versions have problems, but the one in the sandbox more than the other one. Worldcat can prove, perhaps, that someone wrote some book(s)--but Wikipedia articles shouldn't list every book (let alone article) that a given person has ever written, and an entry in WorldCat is not a secondary source that proves notability for an individual book. You are correct that this Indian Awaaz article mentions only one book--but that is an argument to delete the rest of them from the current version of Abdul Qavi Desnavi, a version that generally suffers from a lack of reliable sources and an overload of non-neutral, non-notable, and unverified information (e.g., "Member Working Committee, Taj-ul-Masajid, Bhopal"--WP articles aren't resumes). Besides, I have not looked at Justice's recent work here, but they strike me as a helpful editor who in a short time has learned a lot about Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the [[5]]. McKinseies (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks--but that's not a topic I know much about. Good luck with it, though! Drmies (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your extensive post at the Edit Warring noticeboard until after I had already blocked Kumioko 31 hours. The trigger here was the declaration that they intended to continue reverting, which is a bad thing. As always, I'm open to review - but wanted to apologize if I stepped on your toes. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all. There was enough of it already; no apology necessary--thanks for the block and the note. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies; it's 99 again, this time getting involved at Fred Flintstone and Nancy Mercado. The former is minor stuff, but it's irksome to be questioned about socking [6]. The latter is more serious, re: COI and copyright violations, and a user who persistently claims ownership of the article. If you have a few spare minutes and nothing better to do your thoughts re: either article would be greatly appreciated. Hope you're well. Cheers, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, good to see you again. Are you 206.47 also? Give edit summaries the first time around, to head off the NPPers who like to shoot from the hip. I'll have a word with some of them. I did have a look at Nancy Mercado. A quick look. And a quick edit. As usual, you were right. Thanks for keeping me posted, and thanks for keeping the place clean. If I hadn't thrown out my old address book the other day I'd sent you some chocolates (can't ship beer from and to Alabama). Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not 206. I wouldn't have taken their approach, nor used their rationale for edit summaries, but I was sympathetic in part to what they were doing, and especially to the volley of warnings they received for their trouble--registered accounts usually feel no compunction to take accountability for throwing their weight around with IPs. I usually come up as a 99, though on occasion as a 76 [7]. As always, much appreciated. And chocolates are greedily consumed here. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha--it seemed odd to me. I do agree that their removal was correct; I wish they had explained better. I'm spreading messages around as we speak. I think you noted, perhaps, that another editor also weighed in on the Mercado user's page. Later! Drmies (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--sorry--now I understand the sock puppetry thing: they though you was him, just like I supposed. (I only just now looked carefully at that IP's talk page.) Drmies (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change the law there, 'cause I'd be happy to ship you a bottle [8]. Where I live there are still blue laws in effect, so you have to plan ahead if you want to drink on Sunday. Cheers indeed. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again! I've missed you. (You're apparently more stealthy than you used to be.) I was actually just thinking about you today. I submitted a DYK which I initially planned to illustrate with a self-portrait, but then I thought "what would [99] do?", and used a nude instead! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad my little salon provides such opportunities for conversation and relaxation. Lady, will you please get the gentlemen some Manhattans? and get a box of Cubans while you're at it, thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarax, it's always good to cross paths. The Cross reminds me of his nudes, in conception if not handling. And Drmies, Manhattans are fine, but if we're gonna go highbrow I'm good with a vodka martini. And I brought my own smokes. Shh. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Well, whether cigars or... uh, other, let's be careful with any open flames. I remember what happened at a previous gathering! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man. Honestly, I didn't know you could actually set them on fire. Oh, Mandarax, I'll have to make a list of exceptions in my latest creation: the wiki does need you. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awwww, that's very kind of you to say, but I'm quite expendable. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think I'll get to 100,000 before you get to 250,000. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's obvious to me that you'll get there much sooner. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm your handmaiden now? hahahahahahahah LadyofShalott 04:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[bites tongue] Drmies (talk)

On Talk:Raising a flag over the Reichstag you wrote "FWIW, the proposer of this move/rename has been proven a sock of User:Anonymiss Madchen" Where? -- PBS (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK I've found it Sockpuppet investigations: Sascha Kreiger We need banners at the top of the Socks and the puppet master so that there is a category of these accounts (so that users can be easily informed about this character. As you know more about this than me, I would prefer it if you did this. But if not then let me know and I will preform the honours. -- PBS (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I don't know that much. I am going to leave a note for the closing admin; I think they usually do the tagging and bagging. This is a strange case/editor anyway, and they were ratted out by an even stranger account that came out of nowhere. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno why i keep nagging you with the subject, especially when you must be much more au courant than me on the subject, but i took the trouble...

Last round in the Eredivisie: TWENTE-HERACLES (14 national players in 22); AZ-EXCELSIOR (13/22); VENLO-GRONINGEN (17/22); RODA-NEC (8/22, the weakest); UTRECHT-DEN HAAG (15/22); PSV/DE GRAAFSCHAP (11/22); RKC-HEERENVEEN (16/22); FEYENOORD-VITESSE (16/22) and NAC-AJAX (14/22). As you can see, no gray area there, no comparison with the "Portuguese" League, i even know of cases of teams in the Liga de Honra (second division) with nearly 20 foreigners.

Cheerio, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. So Roda is the most foreign of them all! Who in their right mind would want to move to Kerkrade? (I have a friend who grew up there--guess where they live now?) Ha, Heerenveen is all Dutch? At least that stands to reason! (Look up the town.) Drmies (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are both starting teams combined (hence the number 22), following the order in which the teams are presented. In this round, the teams that played with the less nationals were indeed RODA (3, plus the 5 from NEC equals the 8 you see) but not only, also PSV (3, but as GRAAFSCHAP fielded 8 it equals 11); on the opposite pole, NAC BREDA "presented" 10 Dutch players (+4 from AJAX equals 14), FEYENOORD and RKC both 9 (so HEERENVEEN is not the "champion" there, sorry if i disappointed you :)).

Hey, they may not be the champions of national players' defense, but next season comes the son of God... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, thanks for the clarification. You know, some thirty years ago there was a program on Dutch TV where they presented weird people. There was a guy--this is the only one I remember--who started to cry every time someone said the name "Bugatti". I have that a little bit with MvB, and I really appreciate that you didn't take his name in vain. I'm going to reflect on his ankle for a moment, while Tebowing. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]