Hi.

ChildofMidnight is blocked, and he put the following message on his userpage for me to tell you:

"Please check with User:Drmies about the Markus article. They are both indigineous to Alabama and are very likely to know one another, although I don't know how intimately."

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Grundle. I'd leave a note on CoM's talk page, but I prefer if no one knows that they and I get along--it might ruin my chances of running for higher office. So please don't tell anyone. Later! Drmies (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I looked at the article. It did not make me feel better about the world--"prostidude." What a word! Drmies (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Well ... will a link do? --Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa. Is that a dog, for real? Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ) Tx for the humor on top of the withdraw.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey, I used to take AfDs way too seriously in the past. It's still serious business, but I realized that you win some and you lose some--and in the end, hopefully, WP is the winner. Take care, and give your pooch a hug for me, Drmies (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will do. Belated happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the PROD on this article. While it's not a particularly good article, WP:NB seems to say that if a book is the subject of multiple reviews, it meets the notability guidelines. Because of this, I don't think it falls under the PROD umbrella—which is only for uncontroversial deletions. Feel free to list it at WP:AfD if you feel it meets the criteria. Joshua Scott (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the note, Joshua. I do have to say, though, that a review at Amazon.com does not count on Wikipedia as a review establishing notability. Same with Barnes and Noble and other online sellers, such as Flipkart and Milo. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Macandrewes. Can we repost that thread so I can join the discussion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome back. Perhaps WMC can reinstate it, if you ask him nicely. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break from attempting to herd cats. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are more successful than I am--45 minutes, and she's still not asleep. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

apologies, I didn't see your reply. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat?

I recently submitted a translation of a Dutch poem on the Rispenserpoldermolen, Easterein, at the request of Mjroots. It's a rather grammatically incoherent poem in places. I solved that by translating it to in places grammatically incoherent English, but perhaps you'll be able to improve it. Ucucha 15:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy moly. Much have I travelled in the realms of bad poetry, and many poorly lines and sentences seen, but this takes the cake. Give me a day or two and I will see if I can help. I think you've done a great job, by the way--did it hurt? Drmies (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never did I breathe such pure bad poetry, till I heard Timmenga speak out loud and bold. Good luck, I'm sure you'll find some places where it can be improved. Ucucha 18:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Een omgewaaide eikenboom / Kwam drijven op een snelle stroom." Drmies (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"De maker dezer molen kwam het boompje halen / Lonkend zij naar verre zegepralen." I should also inform you that I reverted some silly, but helpful anonymous editor who inserted some silly Internet meme on your user page and labeled their edit as "vandalism"; that I figured if I asked you to review bad poetry, I should remember that, as you told me after my RFA, there is no such thing as a free lunch and that therefore I should do for you what someone else asked you to do; and that the guy's notability is indeed a bit questionable, to say the least. Ucucha 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You know, I am not entirely sure what an internet meme is. I could look it up, but I don't trust Wikipedia. Tell me what classes you picked. I'm teaching medieval writing by and about women, but I'm sure you've taken that class a million times already. Is Helen Vendler still teaching? She is fabulous. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably difficult to know what it is—concentrated silliness, perhaps. I'm afraid medieval literature will be among my classes this semester. I did take a world literature class last semester, which got us just a few medieval women writing, such as Marie de France. I'm sure your course will be a lot broader than just Marie. I'll be doing Spanish, two courses in evolutionary biology, and a creative writing course that is the only required class for undergraduates here. Vendler is still teaching five courses; I might look into taking one next semester. Ucucha 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--As it happens, I just lost my MdF book somewhere in this building...did you take it? We are finishing up the lais tomorrow. I'm glad you're being cultured, mandatorily or not. I was incredibly struck by Vendler's Coming of Age as a Poet--a miraculous little book that even got me interested in T.S. Eliot. She's one of those old-school people, you know, the ones who had read everything and remembered it, and I admire them greatly. Take care, and enjoy the semester! Drmies (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check on the poem. By the way, I noticed there were some very immature people who insisted on adding various kinds of nonsense to your user page–let me know if you want me to semi-protect it to prevent them from doing so, or perhaps you like to know what those people think about you and stay in touch with them. Ucucha 14:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Mam,

I am writing in regard to the article: 1, in which you participated in editing. First, please excuse what may be here (and may have been on his page) poor formatting. I am entirely new to Wikipedia. I have added in-line citations to the article, and cleaned up the list of references. As such, I was hoping that you would remove the following two templates, as I do not know how: "This article does not cite any references or sources." and

"Text document with red question mark.svg This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate." I am asking that these be removed in light of the above-mentioned reasons. In addition, I was hoping that you could remove the template that the article does not meet the notability requirements, as Brian Boruff is a senior executive at one of the biggest multinational I.T. firms in the world.

If you cannot do remove these templates, I would really appreciate any advice on who I should contact about this or how it can be done.

Thank you! Jamesmythology (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Erez[reply]

• Responded, generally, on talk page. I see, in the meantime, that Ucucha has done a lot of the work (thanks!). The notability tag was retained, I imagine, because the article is lacking independent sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask one of the great wiki users, Drmies, for assistance. I'm currently in a dispute with another wiki user over the use of Anno Domini (BC/AC) and Common Era (BCE/CE) designation for years. I cannot seem to find Wikipedia's stance on the issue and I was wondering if you knew. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Triesault (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOS#Longer periods: Wikipedia has no preference either way, and therefore editors should not change articles solely to conform to their preferred style. Ucucha 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ucucha, and you are right, I see now: WP has no preference, and I thought it did. (I should read that MOS more often.) I do have a preference: BCE and CE, giving away my secular and academic leanings. If I see editors change BCE to BC, for instance, I'll change it back, since the particular change (if it's the only edit made) evidences an agenda. Ucucha, how's the start of the year? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen CE/BCE is preferred on talk page discussions of non-biblical/Christian articles (see Talk:History of India#BCE-CE Vs BC-AD for an example of one such discussion). Had a good weekend doc? And don't forget Mallika Badrinath. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 04:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Spiff, I forgot about it already. Your comment re: usage strikes me as reasonable; as far as I am concerned we drop all that POV and move to BCE/CE. Or come up with a new numbering altogether, an objective one, which would start with the American publication of Moby-Dick. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also personally prefer CE/BCE, but don't really care much either way. There are probably more productive ways of spending your time than reading the MOS (or your talk page, for that matter), but WP:MOS#Stability in articles is a good principle. It still allows change where there's an objective basis to use one style in an article—I think History of India is a good example of an article where there is good reason to prefer CE/BCE over AD/BC, as argued in the link SpacemanSpiff gives.

Thanks, I am doing fine—just returned to college and now pondering what classes to take this semester. Wikipedia-wise, you'll notice that the subjects of my DYKs are getting progressively smaller: from a rice rat (skull alone 3 cm) via a dragonfly (4 cm) to gaps in the rice rat's palate (a few millimeters) to the things that reinforce a rodent's incisors (micrometers at best). I wonder where that will go. Ucucha 04:56, 25 January 160 AMD (UTDM)

• Whoa, we now have articles on holes in skulls of rats?? What is this world coming to... I think you are descending into real "science" stuff--too many syllables, and no one can understand why any of this matters. As for your classes, I see it's tricky, not that much to choose from this semester: I would suggest Mary Fuller's class, on page 11. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good class, wrong college. You're probably right that articles on actual animals are somewhat more interesting, but I do need to have some underlying structure for pieces like Noronhomys#Skull. For reasons I cannot quite fathom, no one else seems to have been interested in writing articles about features of the rodent skull. Ucucha 16:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it was a 50/50 chance. Congrats, BTW; I wish my girlfriend at the time had been at that school and not the one where I ended up. Looking at the faculty there is like looking at my bookshelf. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it surprising that WP doesn't have a firm stance on something like this. WP is designed around a non bias and non secular platform. It would be far more easier to start using the BCE/CE naming system and start teaching it in the class rooms early. I also wanted to thank Drmies for replying to the discussion on my talk page. Triesault (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's part and parcel of WP being a cooperative project, across disciplines and interests, for better or for worse. In the same way, we have to live with articles on monster trucks and esoteric rats with small feet and large ears. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ecco Domani? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What about it? Are you talking about the wine? Drmies (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Professor. I found a source for an article that has none and I have a question about mark up. I noticed you used ((Cite news at the beginning of some cites you added and I was wondering if there are equivalent mark ups when drawing cites from bios. Actually, the bio was published online at the National Acadamies Press site. Would that qualify for the Cite news mark up? I know you're busy with school, so no rush. Just leave me a "Talkback" when you have time. Thanks Tiderolls 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((cite news)) is one of a family of citation templates that are useful for providing references to be formatted in a consistent manner. You can see Wikipedia:Citation templates for a list of other templates that serve a similar function, along with summaries of their usage. ^Bongo_matic 03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Bongomatic. Tiderolls 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tide, sounds to me like ((cite web)) is the way to go for yours. Sometimes it's hard to figure--I use "news" for the BBC website, for instance. The difference between journal and magazine can also be difficult: for instance, I'll use ((cite journal)) for Vintage Guitar since it has volume and issue numbers on the cover, though it's hardly like an academic journal. Don't fret over it too much; I am happy you're using templates (and I think Bongo is too) since I believe they make articles look much cleaner. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had an inkling there would some gray area. Having your input and User:Bongomatic's direction to the template's page is going to be most helpful. I'll tackle the cites after work. Tiderolls 12:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)You can also simply add "reftools" in your preferences -> gadget menu. And you'll get the cite templates right above your edit window, without having to manually add the templates. Alternately, you can also fill in raw links (the good doc doesn't like that) and then run WP:REFLINKS on the article to convert all raw links to templated citations. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 06:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reftools = Awesome. --kelapstick (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Sounds great, and I just added it--but I don't see anything new in or around the edit window. Am I looking in the wrong place? I just looked at User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar, but that fancy toolbar doesn't show up here at all. Geek alert! help! Drmies (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa. I undid my enhanced editing toolbar, which I didn't even know I had, and now it's there, with a million other buttons. I'll see y'all in a couple of days, after I figure this fancy s**t out. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, this is great work. Congratulations to all those who took part. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc where are you? I hope you're okay. Are you rooting for the Colts in the Superbowl because of your deep-seated admiration for Auburn star cornerback Jerraud Powers? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One should not look at diffs (or the articles themselves) for lead characters in series one follows when one has not read the most recent book in the series. LadyofShalott 04:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, thou speakest in riddles! But thanks for blocking that editor just now. You must be talking about some fantasy series, since you're a librarian. Now, if you were me, it wouldn't matter, since my memory is completely shot. Again I can't remember if Queequeg and Ishmael live happily ever after. See you later, Drmies (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another outrageous anti-business perversion in the Dutch "justice" system [1]. And please stop pocketing extra ketchup packets. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be at the right side of the Atlantic. Ucucha 17:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, CoM, activist judges preventing a company from firing a thief, a backstabber, a Quisling... Drmies (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly!

"It is just a slice of cheese."

Maybe to a judge in the district court in Leeuwarden, but certainly not to the rest of us! I especially enjoyed reading the comments. One guy tried to calculate the cost to Mickey Ds if every employee gave his buddy an extra slice of cheese, and another made the quite reasonable point that stealing a slice of cheese is the same as stealing a billion dollars because, of course, "theft is theft". And then there's the reporter's final note that, "The decision came days after the fast-food chain reported an increase in net profits by almost 25 per cent in the last quarter of 2009." Those pinko commies running the media! Well, hopefully it gave you a laugh. I suppose there is a legitimate issue in there somewhere about companies determining their own employment standards, but you'll be relieved to know that even I couldn't take the whole thing very seriously. And I thought you might need a pick me up after John Edwards' two Americas came crashing down. Talk about shock and awe. Dick Cheney's birthday is Saturday. "Might could"? Really Doc? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Southernness, CoM, and a perfectly acceptable construction--though Ucucha would receive red marks all over his term paper. I'm sure you can't help but laught over Edwards. I feel kind of sad for her. Dick Cheney's birthday--again? I want him to run for office, that'll be a laugh. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought you might be amused by an edit from our mutual friend's current IP incarnation.

But don't worry. I don't intend to report to you about every bacon-related edit I come across. Mostly I wanted to write because I've been wondering how your homemade paneer turned out. Last night I had a delicious mattar paneer (not homemade, unfortunately). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandarax! Thank you for your note; always a pleasure to hear from you. As it happened, I couldn't do it last week, nor this, and I am somewhat saddened since I was looking forward to it. I might could make it this weekend and you'll be the second to know, after Mrs. Drmies of course. Friday a colleague is saying her farewells, and I will contribute to the feast with chocolate covered bacon. Oh, after Vonnegut, I finished reading what one might call a stylistic opposite: The Land of Green Plums. Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it as good as We the Living? ;) Someone tried to add in bacon as an ingredient of Oysters Rockefeller. I had mixed feelings about reverting. :( Be warned that I am preparing to weigh in to the challenge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't help noticing your interest in paneer. Mallika Badrinath has a book that's devoted to paneer recipes ;) Given that CoM doesn't seem to respond to MQS' or my requests, I'll have to find time for that between tasks on WP:IND/UBLP. –SpacemanSpiff 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hate to bother you with this again but I wondered if you could read the Ram Narayan article and tell me whether you think it's intelligible, well worded, and neutral. I'm trying to get a few eyes - a fresh view could reveal stuff I overlooked. Thanks a lot. Hekerui (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Hekerui, no bother at all--I hope that I can get to it in the next few days. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've merged the Rosalind Richard article. You have my blessing to merge all of the other Pobl bios into this article providing you change the structure of the cast section into a bio summary for each actor/character and retain category Welsh actors in the redirect page. If the actor however appeared in many other notable series and has a long article like Iwan "Iwcs" Roberts it would be best to keep it and just provide a summary in the Pobl article. But by the looks of it most of them should be merged... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ernst. Has the BLP dust settled a bit? I'm going around sourcing whenever I can--last night I did Gemma Fox, Dave Lebleu, and Hilary James. Before that, Don Was, Henk Westbroek, Richard Hillman (poet), Teye...so I am fighting for the cause, if you ever doubted that! But it's slow going. Take care, Dr.! Drmies (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - thanks very much. I'll polish it up and add it to the mantlepiece. :-)

Always happy to be of assistance. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat the refs Doc. The links will go dead soon anyway. The main thing is that the articles say what I them to. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thasnk you for your comments. When I originally submitted the article, I already went through this discussion with Fughettaboutit and ukexpat, two other administrators. At the time, I entered the articles, radio, and television interviews Dr. Sabetti had that had reviewed and covered covered his Life Energy Therapy, and they instructed me to use these secondary sources instead of the original source books. Unfortunately, they were done before digitization and the Internet, and the articles are not archived to the Internet. However, as I said, for example, Sabetti is noted in an article on new organizational forms, and his books are al available on Amazon.com.

At the time, I satisfied Fughettaboutit's concerns about notability. Though he has worked primarily in Europe, he has taught at Esalen Institute, been an adjunct professor here in the U.S, and published many books. He has worked with thousands of individuals, and his Wholearchy (new organizational paradigm) has been cited in business literature as a new organizational form. With respect to his books, I don't think he should be punished because ei an associated organization, Life Energy Media, is the publisher of record. and he may not be on the best seller list.

I have spent many go rounds with the other administrators to get their approbation, and so I would appreciate your direct response to see how this deletion may be avoided. I will be happy to modify anything I've done in this regard. Please note that with respect to the orphan status, I was so terrified that the administrators would look unkindly on any connections I inserted because I was cautioned against "touting" the author.

Please help. Sabetti has made important contributions to the study of energetic body work and spirituality; quite frankly I don't see how he's glarinhly less "known" than many other writers listed in the American spiritual writers category. Thanks for your timely attention and concern with this matter.LEMspare (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Lem. I nominated the article, so I may not be the right person to ask. In short, the age of digitization isn't even the biggest deal--print sources are fine too. But I don't see anything that discusses him significantly. That his books sell on Amazon, that's no indication of notability, and being an adjunct professor (which really means not a professor) doesn't help either. Find the sources and add them to the article--but I looked, and I found nothing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of The Land of Green Plums at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals to others.) Art LaPella (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad to help ;). --Soulreaper (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at my talk page history to see what one of those morons left me. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't really been involved with the article very much, just taking out obvious vandalism (I watch the current changes for all of the Musical theatre articles). I think we can just keep reverting the Mandy Gonzalez rumors and leaving warnings, hopefully the poster will get the message. It's hard for me to say what is correct with the article; most of it has been stable I think, it's the current cast section that seems to get the changes, not very well referenced. I'll keep an eye on the article for vandalism, will look more closely at the current cast section.JeanColumbia (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jean, thanks for your help and thanks for your note. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings....The External link section seems to be utilizing the same source three times. This could be misconstrued as POV pushing. Maybe find some other sources that basically say the same thing(s) Jim (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your note. Yeah, I thought about cutting more, but the thing is that there doesn't seem to be a general heading for the stones on that site (which is a commercial magazine of sorts). BTW, if you look in the history you will see that I did not add those links; in fact, I removed two links to a message board on that site. I don't think it approaches POV pushing yet, esp. since one of the articles claims they're a hoax. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better. Two thumbs up Jim (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure and it's my pleasure, as always. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Harvey (luthier), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great ice cream, even better shirts. Unfortunately it is not up to expansion requirements for DYK, it would have made a fine addition. You should try them if you are in the area some time.--kelapstick (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the lead thing about the teenager is surely clearer now and the commas are helpful as well, as is linking Shankar and using a colon to introduce the explanation. Anything else? Best Hekerui (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll get to the rest later. "Altogether" may be grammatically redundant, but I like the sound of it better. That phrase "Mattoo instead employed", I added "and" but forgot to take out the preceding period; combining those sentences would make the logical development more explicit. (You have seen that I like combining sentences.) Thanks for catching that word order error. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note (and your quick reverts!). I suspect the attack stems from the identity of the user, Lynda Thomas. I am going to go ahead and delete the various vandal attacks. If there are more vandals after the sprotect expires, I will go ahead and semiprotect indefinitely. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as they used to say on Twin Peaks, it is happening again... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes ago I nominated Virginia Bolten for DYK and added you as co-author. Cheers!--MaximilianT (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David M. Malone, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Drmies, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:Drmies/Archive 9. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Dash--I agree completely. That sheer act of pure and, in the end, useless vandalism should be punished severely; I hope you will trace the perpetrator and come down on him like Warren Sapp. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scored only 69%...even my boss scored higher... [2] Drmies (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I scored 83%...--kelapstick (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what she scored as well! Say, is there a threshold for this test in terms of Bacon Cabal membership? I'm in trouble... Drmies (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but can we trade you for her? Would it require a first round draft pick too?--kelapstick (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she would be delighted, she says. Also, our student worker scored 80%. I need to take this quiz again; I obviously missed something. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, upped it to 78%, only mildly bending the truth. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

80%. I support demoting anyone who scored below 70% to apprentice status. That's pathetic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27% loser here. Hekerui (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather curious to see what Lady of Shalott's score is, based on her contributions, I am thinking it is time for an invitation for full membership in the Bacon Cabal.--kelapstick (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I just took it, and scored a measly 37%. LadyofShalott 17:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*blink* Let me guess, you didn't drink the bacon grease....--kelapstick (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I wouldn't do that. I also have not had any bacon dessert; however, that I'd try if offered to me. LadyofShalott 17:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been a long time since I've seen one of those! Cheers! 98.220.140.65 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Really! Thanks for taking that kidney punch, or whatever it was, out of mainspace. BTW, I hear that Lindemans Brewery offers free beer for whoever adds references to their article. That framboise, it is undescribably delicious. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We thank your countryman for contributing Criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders, but this article seems imperfect based on its noncompliance with an alphabet soup of Wiki policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the note. I proposed a merger to Geert Wilders for that excessively detailed bit of news. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I discovered it was split off from that article after a couple editors discussed it on that article's talk page. I renamed it to the more neutral seeming "trial of Geert...". I thought "criminal prosecution of..." seemed kind of loaded. I made some other changes too. But it's a bit hot for me. I suppose it will be an interesting and notable case, so perhaps an article is a good thing. I wonder if poor Geert will suffer the same fate as Mickey Ds? Or will the case follow the Swiss minaret movement... Is this related to Scott Brown and Sarah Palin, or the hateful comments against persons with disabilities and the racial insensitivity from Biden, Emmanuel and Reid. I'm so confused! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are. There, there. Papa will make some anijsmelk for you. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drinking a Bolthouse brand mocha cappucino beverage. It's awesome. How is Jerraud feeling heading into the big game? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that reminds me--I was thinking that an article on Wilders's trial makes as much sense as an article on the dog that bit Jerraud. I don't know, how is he? He's not on the Colts team, is he? And if he isn't, I don't care, haha. Hey, I'm kicking it old school: I'm listening to Truth and Soul right now, from your neck of the woods. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he's on the Colts!!!... isn't he? As long as we're discussing the criminal activites of your countrymen... have you read about the Peavey Bandit? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Haha, I went to work right away. I used to have one. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a db-or speedy template? What do you make of List of nationalist conflicts and List of nationalist organizations? The second one seems like it has some potential? Looking at new page patrol I'm astounded that people are worried about harmless BLPs that have been here for years and have been perused and reviewed by dozens of editors. This place is nuts. NUTS! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. Those lists seem tricky to me--how do you define a conflict as nationalist? Do both sides (if there's only two) need to have some sort of nationalist agenda? Even those organizations are complicated, especially since nationalist is such a poorly referenced, vague article. That's why I'm sticking to guitars and dead people (but not Ayn Rand, of course). Drmies (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble getting a photo into your dart player template. Very frustrating! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should practice on K-stick's page first. But thanks for trying. Hey, I'm awaiting your applause for my solid-state work on Peavey Bandit. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a little bit better. Why is the only "notable" musician who uses it a redlink? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Haha, yes--look on the edit screen for commentary. Also, it is an invitation for you or DGG to write that article! ;) Drmies (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for what you just sent me a message about. I just started CVN today, and I just got pretty confused. I noticed that I messed up as soon as the change processed. I am now watching more carefully. Sorry again. --Christopher[:cl58] 03:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's OK. But do look before you pull the trigger on Huggle or whatever, and look carefully: the edits on Arby's weren't vandalism either, but the legitimate removal of unsourced content. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Describing Nueske's bacon as going well with Shad roe (???) also noted that it "cries out for a revival of those half-forgotten comfort foods of the 1950's like cheese dreams (open-faced grilled cheese sandwiches with slices of tomato and crisscrossed bacon slices on top)." What do you know about this subject? FYI, they also mention "traditional English savories like angels on horseback (oysters wrapped in strips of bacon, skewered with toothpicks and then broiled) or devils on horseback (in which the oysters are supplanted by pitted prunes)." ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, My grandmother used to make cheese dreams, by the (several) dozen, and freeze them (she was not known for her culinary abilities). She used a half kaiser, slice of processed cheese and three strips of bacon...I thought she invented it, or at least the name, I guess not...--kelapstick (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here, will look for CC version...or make them :-|--kelapstick (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it was something exotic, foreign and possibly dangerous being propagated by fancypants food elites. The photo source you found also has Reuben crepes and "Stoney" Kenyan ginger beer. See also A popular finger food at get togethers that freezes well. Are you going to launch the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "Monte CriSto"? A cheese dream with chicken or turkey? Wild! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all making me snackish. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<---Do you mean Monte Cristo?kelapstick (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be mean, K-stick. Just 'cause you never make a spelling mistake doesn't mean you can pester other people. OK, now I'm going to look for a snack. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make spelling mistakes? Ha! That's a good one....kelapstick (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Kelapstick. Meanie! Who stole my S??? Hey, there's an article on it dating to the early days of Wikipedia Monte Cristo sandwich. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help getting the Peavey Bandit article up and running. I will work on getting the information I've posted verified. Much of my information has been obtained by talking directly with current and former Peavey employees, so would it be legit to use Peavey.com as a reference? I understand the intent of making things verifiable with references, it's like putting together a legal case with no loose ends. The problem with much of the information about the Peavey Bandit is that it is proprietary and hasn't been published anywhere. Complicating matters, last summer Peavey's internal database crashed, meaning much of this information will never be verifiable in an empirical sense. Since there are at least 9 different models of Bandit, many with similar sounding names, the terms "Gunsmoke", "Teal Stripe", "Blackbox", and "Redstripe" are in common usage among people who are familiar with these amps, which is admittedly an extremely small portion of the overall population. As you can see, I am new to Wikipedia, but I do know about these amps. BTW, I do not work for Peavey, I am simply trying to share what I know with the public. I will edit my posts for ambiguity and so-called "weasel words". Let me know if Peavey.com is acceptable as a reference and I will make those changes. Thanks for your patience! GuitarNerd1369 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, thanks for your note. Peavey.com is acceptable for such things as the 12" speakers or whatever, but quality claims cannot be verified by them. Info from employees and all, that's a no-no here, since it goes directly against WP:V: such information cannot be verified. Now, they sold enormous numbers of these amps, so there should be plenty of sources, but (as I tried to show you), there don't appear to be any of them published. (I spent an hour or so looking for and incorporating published sources.) Finally, consider this: Wikipedia is not meant to give exhaustive information on (in this case) every model and variation of the amplifier, that goes against WP:NOTDIR. If for instance at some point they shift production from the US to China, that should be done in the text, possibly with an explanation of what that means (quality, cost, etc.), but certainly with a verifiable reference. If it's not meaningful it's not encyclopedic, and if it's not verifiable, it can't be kept. Thanks for your contributions and your note, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I believe I understand, and I openly admit that I am a little slow as this is my first Wikipedia entry. I have made changes to remove ambiguous words where they were obvious. I'm not sure why that would require deleting entire sections or editing the content so that the criticism section is more prominent than the specific models... I also don't understand why you keep deleting the details specific to each model. Look at the Wikipedia entry for Fender Champ, a similar guitar amplifier. That is what I used as a template. The reason I started a Wiki entry for the Peavey Bandit is because there are many different models, and very few people seem to know which is which. The details of the different models are crucial to the entry. Making this information available on Wikipedia seems entirely within the scope of existing Wikipedia pages for similar amplifiers. I'm not reposting entire manuals or attempting to be a "field guide" to the Peavey Bandit. References for the features of the different models are available in detail at Peavey.com in the archived manuals: http://www.peavey.com/support/searchmanuals/archived.cfm?page=B Of course, they do not show up as hits in Google, but they are publicly available if you know where to look. I'm still figuring out how to list a reference! BTW, Nicknames such as "Gunsmoke" or "Redstripe" are difficult to provide references to, but in my experience as a Wikipedia reader, that does not warrant deleting entire sections of content, at least it has not in other Wikipedia articles for different guitar amplifiers. E.g., Music Man (company), Mesa Boogie, Marshall Amplification, etc. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I am still learning how to insert references, but every 4 hours when I come back to update the page, it is frustrating to find that you have already deleted all the old content. Please just tag the article for lack of references, or edit the offending wording, but please do not delete entire sections. I promise, I'm working on it! Thanks. GuitarNerd1369 (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, Wikipedia guidelines specifically exclude some kinds of information. Let's say they go from one kind of speaker to another--that's interesting for an owner, or someone looking to buy one, but it's not encyclopedic material if the importance of it cannot be verified by independent (i.e., non-Peavey) reliable sources. And yes, unverified material should be deleted if it cannot be verified--and I have tried to find sources for every bit of information you had in there. That there's unverified (and unencyclopedic) stuff in other articles, that's beside the point--I have looked at the Boogie article in the past, but there's so much tripe in it contributed by obvious fans, that there's really no good way to start. But the Mesa Boogie Mark Series article isn't so bad, and I continue to try and keep that clean: I will gladly admit that one of my interests is to keep Wikipedia from being a fansite or a forum (unless the topic is bacon, of course). It is better to have a relatively short and well-verified article than a large one full of unverified and unencyclopedic material. That you would put a list of models before actual relevant and verified material, as you did here, I don't understand that: it does not make the article better, since the amp's popularity (NOT its existence) is the reason it can have an article on Wikipedia in the first place. Now, you like your Peaveys, obviously--there's lots of work to be done. For instance, the list of "notable Peavey users" in the main article doesn't have a single reference, and that ought to be fixed. Thanks again for your note. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will use the Mesa Boogie Mark Series article as a template. Apparently, that article needs more citations and references too... But at least you didn't delete the content just because it was written in a passive voice. I still think you over-reacted by deleting all my content on the Peavey Bandit article. You should have tagged it, not deleted it. I don't have time to revise the Bandit article right now, but if/when I do, please don't delete relevant content. GuitarNerd1369 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That article isn't the worst of the guitar amp articles, but it's not a good article. It has only one single reference, and it's still full of trivia. You may think I overreacted, but that's neither here nor there. Wikipedia needs verifiable and encyclopedic facts; please don't tell me what to do. If I would have tagged it, it would have been a big, ugly article with a lot of templates on top--that does no one any good. Instead, I trimmed it, and managed to find five references from reliable sources, which is five more than you found. Rather than listing components in different amps, you would do better to look around to get some reliable sources. Not everything is listed in Google; go through your stacks of magazines to find reviews of the amp, for instance. And I promise I won't delete relevant content, but then you have to promise not to add irrelevant content--that is, unverifiable content, trivial content, etc. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on piped linking. I have a few other places in the article where I need to do this (put on talk page), will fix tomorrow as it's late where I'm at. Again, thank you for your assistance.

Carsonmc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, since you seem like a responsible contributor who has worked on Left right paradigm, could you please see my comment at Talk:Left right paradigm and possibly consider what might be done? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for asking--though you give me too much credit. I've responded on the article's talk page; thank you for bringing up this valid point. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I think I've now dealt with this correctly. Didn't want to blindside the one person who seemed to be actually working on anything decent there. - Jmabel | Talk 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, thank you for your courtesy and collaborative spirit. Drmies (talk)

Hey Doc. Your bookie called looking for you... If you need a place to hide out please let me know.

I have some questions on grammers (sic). Maybe you or one of your stalkers can help?

Is one of these incorrect? Do they have different meanings?:

The family discovered the documents were forged.

The family discovered the documents had been forged.

Also, if an article discusses The Duke of Plimpington and the writer doesn't always want to write out Duke of Plimpington, can they just use "the Duke..."? Or would it have to be "the duke..." I know duke is not a proper noun, but does it have to be lower-case when it's standing in for a prior proper noun can it be made capital? Is it ever a judgment call or is there a hard and fast rule?

Where can I get answers to these important issues?

Also, when is the draft? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think both examples are correct, but the first might read better as "The family discovered the documents were forgeries". But I have horrible grammar...and spelling...and am not very cool (as can be gathered by my use of the term cool). What about the Duke of Pimpington?

Actually they both read to me as though the documents were genuine that were later forged...rather than complete forgeries from the beginning...but see again about me knowing nothing.--kelapstick (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Drmies is ignoring me, so I'll try posting my questions on my own page and see what the stalkers have to say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry pal--rats and flags kept me busy. Forging: the difference is that in the second one some attention is drawn to the fact that the forging was some intermediary act, though it's really miniscule. In case of doubt, choose the first one: it's shorter. The bear loved economy. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! So we agree on something? There is a first for everything~

My understanding is that the "had been/has been" construction is acceptable, but somewhat discouraged except in cases where there is a duration or repition involved (is that past perfect?).

What about the other question about substituting "the University" for University of Alabama when it's repeated often in an article and the acronym isn't commonly used or confusing (U.A. in this case).

Unfortunately, I'm also here to deliver some bad news for your efforts to promote faux bacon merchandising. Your outrageous spamming has been squashed finally [3]. Of course I won't gloat or rub salt in your wounds. It would be unseemly for me to tell you how right I was and how wrong you were. That kind of unsportsmanlike taunting and revelry in my persevering triumphantly in a final act of complete and total domination over you, is unnecessary.

What nonsense, that tag. I removed a little bit of the content; I don't care for all of it. I think that your capitalized substition should work on all university articles. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's still some fight left in you. If only K-schtick were here to throw in the towel on your behalf so you could be saved you from any further humiliation. :) How have you been by the way? When can we start talking draft picks? It's hard for me to be stuck watching basketball. Maybe it will be enough to get me out on the beach more. There's not even the pro-bowl to look forward to this year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support spinning that content off into a separate article where the spam can be made into musubi, so it can be enjoyed by people who like fake meat. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey doc, would you able to do a quick run-through of the History and Protocol sections? Both identified as needing a bit of c-e for both being overly informal and in the passive voice. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after I take care of this rat I'm working on. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hurries, the FARC is on track and I have a couple of source issues to address too (in other sections). On a more important note, why are you writing about rats? Are all the Pokemons complete? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's just an exercise to see if I can help add human meaning to the countless articles on (probably imaginary) rodents produced by your fellow admin User:Ucucha. If I can't find anything exciting or literary about them, I'm going to run for admin and mass-delete them. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to run for admin to do that, you could just slap a Unsourced BLP tag to the article in question! —SpacemanSpiff 04:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "my brother", you could say "yen sahodhara". You beat me to that! cheers. BTW, it might interest you to note that apparently Tamils were descended from Turkish people per some fantasy writing on Dravidian peoples. —SpacemanSpiff 05:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Thanks, I'll keep that in mind! But I'm proud of my fictional heritage, and, as you know, fictional heritages are the best. Did you know that the Frisians were favored not only by God but also by Charlemagne? The source verifying that connection in the article turns literature into history, but that just goes to show you that every people wants to feel special. Of course, my Tamil people are, no doubt about it--we're different, and not susceptible to history and such. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been having all sorts of trouble of late with these caste articles, lots of OR, creepers climbing out of the walled gardens to mainstream articles highways being renamed on wiki, villages being casteized, and so much more. As you can see from my TP, I was contacted by the great^x-grandson of Prithviraj Chauhan too, beat that! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Land of Green Plums, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Guillaume de Dole at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HIP Haiti, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your take on the Bacon products section - I pruned it quite heavily since it seemed to be a very strong focus on the all the bacon flavored (vegetarian kosher) products of one company (Though spam may have not have been the right word since I think the edits were made in good faith - I suppose that's how viral marketing is supposed to work..). I expect the section will be expanded soon anyway since I think the bacon challenge 2010 is coming up in the next few weeks. (Spammy? nice one..) cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Clovis, thanks for your note. I disagreed with the spam note, as you saw--I am in fact the editor who merged the original Baconnaise article into the company's article, and pruned the contents, and pruned even more for a note in the bacon article, so there was, if anything, the intent to cut down on spamminess. As you saw, I had something of a difficult time reorganizing after your pruning (with which I don't disagree on principle, mind you), and that section could be better reorganized I think, if more bacon-related food items were added; I didn't feel like looking for more. True, J&D's Down Home Enterprises latched on to the bacon fad in a clever and so far apparently successful way. Yes, the bacon challenge--thanks for reminding me, I got work to do. Do you have anything in the pipeline? And before I invite you to join the Bacon cabal, would you mind taking a little test? Later, Drmies (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humblest apologies for being hasty with the word spam. I think you're right regarding the need for the inclusion of more bacon related products, the addition of others would put the J&D's info into better context. I did add the bacon vodka page, as it was floating unlinked around wikipedia and mentioned bacon mints (which popped up google, but the link is probably unsuitable in the long term).

Unfortunately I'm not a bacon afficionado so not sure how much more I can contribute (Lets just say I'm from a country that serves 'middle bacon', scored less than 50% on the test and find Kelapstick's baconbomb image terrifying). Apologies again for being a bit of a butcher with the text - I've no issue with material being readded; I think I was more trying to highlight the undue weight than anything. Also, thanks for not reverting outright. cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, that bacon explosion is obscene, I agree. No apology necessary, and your point about context, that's what I meant but you put it much better. Undue weight, that's often a judgment call, but I don't personally really disagree with you here. BTW, one of your countrymen (I hope I get this right) is responsible for the outrage imaged in this section--garnished with a strawberry? Drmies (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chanson de toile, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Given your beady boozy-eyed power-hungry tool-craving aspirations for adminship, you might want to start practicing: Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Beady-eyed? I'll have you know that I have big, beautiful doe-eyes. Jealousy is an ugly thing, Child! Drmies (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, that's a great parody. I can't believe I haven't seen it before now. LadyofShalott 04:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected accordingly. Have you seen the section at DYK I set up? Do you think that will work or do we need to wait and do the DYKs all at one time like last year? I'd like to start moving things to mainspace and putting up the hooks in the special "hold for National Pork Day" section at the bottom of the DYK page. I won't mess with yours or Spinning Spork's, but I was trying to top up The Legendary Sky Attacker's good work.

Anyway, I hope all is well with you. Don't get too down about Peyton's awful losing streak in the playoffs. When you put in perspective with the good things he's done he's definitely among the top 20 or 25 quarterbacks now in the league. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guillaume de Dole, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climate change denial, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 19:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Darn it, I thought I was going to get my first block out of this. It's all a conspiracy, you know! Really! Drmies (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Virginia Bolten, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you are running through numerous articles removing Seminophagia. What's up? Did you discuss this somewhere with someone first? What problem do you have with the term? Could you stop doing that please? Atom (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? The word does not exist, that's my problem with the term. Look it up in the dictionary, will you. There is no such article. And it isn't a mass: it's thirteen times that it shows up in the "See also" section. As for discussion: you can look up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spermophagia. Now stop reinserting links to non-existing articles, please. And by the way, you may have noticed that I supplied edit summaries for every single occasion as a courtesy. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And just so you know: I am removing Spermophagia as well. That also does not exist and if it does, it's in the field of plant reproduction. You are probably not aware of this, but all these terms were invented, applied, and spread around liberally by one single editor, whose efforts have been rebuked in, for instance, the AfD referred to above. Wikipedia should not a fertile ground for invented terms. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fertile ground"? ;-) LadyofShalott 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark 4:3-6, ma'am! Drmies (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure it's clear: seminophagia and spermophagia are both redirects to semen. There are no articles at the *phagia links themselves. LadyofShalott 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointer to the Articles for Deletion discussion. I see that it has closure and you are following the recommendation. My apologies for stepping on your toes. Atom (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atom, thanks for your note. Sorry, but my metaphorical toes are easily stepped on in this matter since it took a lengthy and concerted effort to merge the article and all of its pseudo-science in the first place--look at its history and you'll see what I mean. The Lady and I have had to think about the very topic more than we ever wanted to, I'm sure. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a speedy keep now, well done for doing someone elses WP:BEFORE work :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at the nominator's other contributions. This is ridiculous. But thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing how the BLPs unsourced can be saved. It is ridiculous to delete them en-masse when they can be sourced with just a few minutes of work. Too bad nobody bothered to do that in the years the article has existed. We could probably have the unsourced BLP probelm solved in just a few days at this pace. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why didn't you source it yourself? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be ridiculous, Peter. Of course it's wrong to mass-delete them. But nominating them for deletion flies in the face of what is accepted here--it obviously sidesteps WP:BEFORE and is more than likely in violation of WP:POINT. Nominating for deletion is a serious matter, and you are being disruptive. Sorry, but I have no respect for that kind of technique. A gentleman does good deeds quietly, and that's what you should do: provide sources for those articles that are on notable subjects, and only nominating for deletion those that should not be saved. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, I took a look at the article. It doesn't look like anything strange. In fact, I think everything the IP added about the Ethiopian Jews came from Beta Israel#Ethiopian Jews in Israel today. Thanks, — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Malik. I saw one or two ref mistakes along the way, but it seems they corrected them--it's always difficult to determine what's going on, when a long stretch of text is inserted and then trimmed down, along with other edits, and no explanation. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fans won't leave the redirect, so I had to do this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magoo (rapper) Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hii, I'm just wondering why you removed my sentence from the album page? Stacey _{talk to me} 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the most part because of the MySpace thing--but I saw right after that the article is full of MySpace and Facebook references. I have no problem with putting it back, and will do so right away. I hope that when the album comes out it will get reviews and such, so the article can present more interesting facts than those connected to its release for fans. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Yeah, I was just wondering why that one in particular had been removed. There's not that much about the album yet; a few interviews but I've not really had to properly edit the page. Stacey _{talk to me} 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you knew the difference? You should know better now. Ucucha 18:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha! That reminds me of a story that develops along similar lines--involving my mother, the kitchen, and a dead rat. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies has a habit of removing factual information from Wiki pages regarding subjects he willing admits he knows nothing about. If you dont know anything about a subject (and freely admit you dont know anything about it) why are you vandalizing wiki pages by removing undisputed facts? Let someone dispute a fact. If nobody is disputing it, it might just be because IT IS TRUE. I cant stop you from vandalizing wiki pages Drmies, but i will fix you vandalism as many times as I have to. I have been maintaining certain wiki pages for years, and I will still be maintaining them years after you have gone back under your bridge you troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.78 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be true? I don't believe it. They are cracking down on squatting in the Netherlands??? This is outrageous!!! What happened to egalite, fraternite, and crowbar entre? Are they tearing up the constitution as well? (Is there one?) What's next, a crackdown on recreational drug use? It's all too much for me my friend. I'm at my wit's end. These are dark days indeed. No one should be restrained from occupying other people's property and living there without being held responsible for any damages. This is a basic human right! Like having women be able to sell themselves for money. What can I say? I hope you can help put a stop to this outrageous infringement on tolerance. At least Ayan Hirsi Ali's place was freed up after her eviction... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What can I tell you. We invented capitalism, and now we're making like we believe in it. Screw all those other rights guaranteed by quaint international agreements--the right of ownership is the only one that counts. Thanks for sympathizing. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which homeland are you pulling for in the Olympics? Are you a fan of any events? The article on squatting was in the LA Times a few days ago if you're interested. They made it sound like a wonderful tradition especially for violinists. No mention of any drugs, only wine and cheese. I'm unsure if it was gouda. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, like any foreigner I root for all countries but the US and Germany. I've watched quite a bit and I'm sad I'll be missing the men's figure skating tomorrow--I'm a big fan of Johnny Weir, just like you are, no doubt. But I am most interested in speed skating, naturally. Squatting does have a long and venerable history, especially in Amsterdam. My brother lived in a squat for years; it's not for me, since I'm a luxury horse, as the Dutch say. What have you been watching? (Oh, I watched Shaun White tonight also, quite amazing.) Drmies (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Your actual and adopted cultures. cheers. 08:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you lend a hand at Crest Glide? I think given the origin and 30-year development cycle, there's a good hook in there if it's sufficiently expanded. ^Bongo_matic 14:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Bongo, there isn't much more. They came out with another product, Crest Glide Shred Guard], which you could add to the article--but I don't find that exciting enough. For a hook, I think the eco-critique might work, haha. Seriously, I am not sure what else to do with this. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping, Doc. ^Bongo_matic 23:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reviewed Fort Geldria, an article that you nominated for Did you know, and there appears to be some issues that may need to be clarified. As soon as they are addressed, please let me know on my talk page and I would be happy to verify your article right away. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Arctic Night 20:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I've taken care of it. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a second look. Arctic Night 16:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Arctic Night 16:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry Doc, I completely forgot, when I was saving the article I found that the site was on a blacklist, so I just removed the link thinking I'll add a different one, but then forgot about it! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added additional sources on The Klaxon.com for consideration. I appreciate your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsuser700 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but please see WP:RS. What you added does not qualify as reliable sources, and even if so, there is no significant discussion of the subject there. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it does have kind of cute ears, but "darling rat" does sort of stand out as oxymoronic :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that was a shout-out to User:Ucucha, a known rodent lover. He doesn't mind--rats, mice, it's all the same to him. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a problem with redirecting a user page to an article in articlespace? Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page and tell me what policy has been breached. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do have a problem with it, and I did read it, and it's pretty clear you don't give a crap about the whole collaborative aspect of our project--though the policy you link to clearly says, "Wikipedia user pages are not personal homepages, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among editors easier." A redirect from your user page to Goatse, that's just stupid. Now, I'll leave your childish user page alone; you please stay away from here. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Key Largo Woodrat, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Manual updates are fun, especially when I have to give credits for articles I helped write myself. :) Ucucha 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Helped" is the understatement of the month. Thanks--this was fun! And hey, isn't the 1500 m a great distance? Drmies (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a lot more of this one than I did, actually. But on the other hand, I got us the picture, and I mentioned sphenopalatine vacuities, which is worth something. 1500 m? I have no idea. The only thing I know about competitive iceskating is what my economics teacher in high school told me. Something with Sven Kramer and cubic functions. Ucucha 18:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned what? And I let that stand?? Drmies (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did. The link is blue now, so you can discover what it means. Very exciting. Ucucha 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did. Terrific material--so much more riveting than, say, interdigital webbing or Speed skating at the 1980 Winter Olympics. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, how did I vandalize Billa (2009 film) on wikipedia. I'm just adding details from the movie. For example: I talked about Billa & Ranjith using personal computer. What's ur problem?

User talk:99.88.78.94

• Well, this is the English wikipedia, and your additions aren't in good English. I mean, "Vicky's so stupid because what made him so sure that Billa was telling truth. Vicky didn't have keys for taxi, taxi driver didn't come back inside, and Vicky should've got out of taxi," what does that even mean? And are you really commenting on the actions of a character in a movie? So I guess my problem is that your edits aren't helpful--moreover, you've been asked a half a dozen times to stop adding them. I just asked you again, when I reverted you: that was the last time. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I just happened upon the disagreement between Drmies and User:99.88.78.94, and I hope you don't mind my commenting. The material added by 99.88.78.94 was way, way, too long, appeared to consist of a rambling list of barely-connected details written in very poor grammatical style, and was pretty much impossible to follow. I'm sure it was added in good faith, but movie plot summaries need to be concise and coherent, and I'm afraid this was neither -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• He did it again, so I've filed an AIV report -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Boing, I appreciate it. I mean, that was a lot of reverts, as you can see in the history, though I did feel that earlier on a better explanation of the problem could have been given--which is why I gave them two more chances, so to speak. BTW, did you see the summary that was there earlier? It's actually worse. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm yes, I saw the earlier version! -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you really care for the project, you'll go through Category:Indian films and watch all of them, then write two-paragraph plot summaries for every single movie. When you are halfway through I'll nominate you for admin, but not before. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL (really). You just nearly made me splutter orange juice all over my keyboard! -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Doc, could you start off with Tamil cinema? That article could use some sourcing. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spiff, you are the admin here. You should already have taken care of this. I am very disappointed, young man. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK Boing, the IP has been blocked for a week. Adjust your Netflix queue and get on it! Drmies (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right away sir - I'll book my flight to the New Delhi Odeon immediately! (I've actually watched movies in Indian cinemas - it's a real hoot) -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send another message to you tomorrow. I'm going to sleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.78.94 (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Goodnight. It is good to sleep on this. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies

Could you have a gander at Albert Kligman? I think it's an interesting topic, but the article reads a little obituary-like and also doesn't mention the other academic controversy (the data one). Care to do a little scrubbing?

Thanks! ^Bongo_matic 01:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I did a little bit of that. I'd like to see some in-line references, of course. I expanded the lead a little bit and gave the thing some headings. The tone is not so bad, as far as I'm concerned. Is that what you were looking for? Drmies (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I'll try to add the data problems today. ^Bongo_matic 06:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lookin' good. When are you going to nominate it for DYK? ^Bongo_matic 07:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drmies. Sorry about that. The Flash website appeared to be the best source (as it's an official website), but as Flash sites make it more difficult to direct link, I wasn't sure how best to document them. I'll keep looking for alternatives. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emtigereyes (talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's OK--I took your effort to be in complete good faith. Besides the problems that such sites bring to some computer users, there's the problem that really such sites are primary sources... Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the articles to follow up with. Some things I probably should have researched more before diving in. Emtigereyes (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, jumping in at the deep end is kind of fun, isn't it? Drmies (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Doktor,

Here are a couple of images showing Keester's buildings:

Since you are more familiar with the layout of that area would you be willing to add them and do the captions? Also, I've received a notice that ASTOC is no longer Keees's firm. If you can find a source for that a clarification would be helpful. Cheers. Let me know if I can be of any help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. I'll get on it--it may take a day or two. After wasting my morning on lardon I need to get back to work. Hey, I can't believe I didn't achieve 5x expansion yet on that article--I need some ExtenZe. Do you have anything to add on the topic, other than finding more recipes? Are they used in interesting ways in any of the cuisines you run into as soon as you walk out the door? All this bacon talk is making me hungry. On a side note, I had made a ham meat loaf (half chipped ham and half ground beef) the other day, and this morning I used the last of it, in a sandwich with mayonnaise, hot sauce, grated cheese, and a fried egg. This may be my new favorite sandwich in the world. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note my edits to the article. It may well be that he is no longer with them, but those edits were not helpful--unverified, ungrammatical, just not good at all. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow grammarian, I is very concerned abouts good writing. Chipped ham is an interesting substance. Your cooking has become fairly aweomse I must say. Kudos. I had the last of a pair of banh bao last evening with a lovely egg and pork filling. I think you would enjoy them greatly. Also, there's a place up the street that serves various kinds of tarte flambée. I thought they was pizzas man! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a proper article on rendering, which is surprising. I think that technique should be mentioned in relation to lardon. I think they are typically used in a way that partially renders them so that there are solid bits and liquid in dressings and for flavoring apart from the chunks. I would also like to see spinach mentioned, in deference to Popeye and because it is a sturdy leaf vegetable that, like frisee, holds up and is commonly used with hot lardon. Merci. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I also see it mentioned elsewhere that lardons are used in stamppot/ Dutch Mash Pot with potatoes and endive? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, you're right! I totally forgot. Kaantjes, really, which are usually cubed or crumbled, I believe, but still--same thing. See the Dutch WP article (learn Dutch, will you?). Hey, nice work! I think we're there, at least for DYK purposes. Did you see all the merging and redirecting I had to do for this article? Drmies (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a connection between kaantjes and greaves, the armor plate that protects legs below the knee? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not etymologically, no--at least not according to the OED. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Good luck this weekend. This video might help prepare you [4]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. I didn't want to mess your user talk and as I saw that the topic about Kees already exist, so I decided to write here. Hope it's not against Wikipedia-netiquette and I'm not acting rude! If so then please apologise, as I'm new here and still learning :)

A couple of weeks ago I got in touch with ChildofMidnight to ask him to help me with updating the Kees Wikipedia coverage and he named you as the editor of this article. There is one incorrect information in this article - ASTOC is no longer Kees'firm.

I spoke to Kees today to clarify the ASTOC issue. He explained me that he was a co-founder and partner at ASTOC from 1990 till 2002 when he became the Chair of Architecture and Urbanism in the Institute for Urban Design at the ETH in Zürich and moved to Switzerland. Then he opened the Swiss branch of his KCAP Architects&Planners in Zürich and works on his German projects from there and not as the partner of ASTOC anymore. There was never any official report in the press or other media about the fact that they split-up tho.

I see that the "Vexierbild" photo on his Wikipedia website is credited as "designed by Christiaanse's ASTOC firm”. It would be wonderful if you’d credit it as: "designed by KCAP/ASTOC”. Cheers and my best wishes, (Kcap wiki (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

• • I'll respond on your talk page, since mine is getting a bit messed up. Thanks for your note. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to study your changes, and to read a variety of WP documents & policies in light of them. Overall, I think you're right in general. So (as you may have noticed by now) I've redone the National LIDAR Dataset - USA page, and added a variety of cross-links to and from related pages.

The issue of working with state-specific pages about this topic is tougher. In the same way that it's notable that some states in the US are forging ahead (some quite publicly) as a way of saying "we're not willing to wait for the feds to do it", some counties in certain states are acquiring this type of data county-wide, effectively saying "we're not willing to wait for our state to do it". The county is then free to choose where and how to publish the data, often in a different manner than any county they share borders with.

Anyone with an interest in LIDAR data (whether for research or business reasons) faces the challenge of how to find it, and there are publications, press releases, and/or conference proceedings related to large-scale efforts at county, state, and national levels. I think it's useful to represent this in Wikipedia; the question is, how?

In looking at the policies and existing pages, it seems like there might be two solutions, and I'd like your opinion about which (if either) is preferable, and why.

Option 1: Create a section in the National LIDAR Dataset - USA page for each state that has either a state-wide effort or at least one county in it with county-wide LIDAR. Within each section, indicate the coordinating state agency (if state-wide) or list all the counties with LIDAR if not state-wide, either in a bulleted list or table format. This option will eventually result in a pretty large page with 50 sections (one per state).

Option 2: Create "List of -- counties with LIDAR" pages, but only for those states where counties are doing their own thing. Create an additional column in the National LIDAR Dataset - USA page, where the existence of the corresponding "List of" page can be linked to if it exists. In this case, there's no need to create the "List of PA counties with LIDAR" since the state of PA (Pennsylvania) coordinates everything through one site/effort; however, there is value in creating a "List of MD counties with LIDAR" page since some of the MD (Maryland) counties do things pretty differently from others, and there is no state-wide agency tasked with oversight.

What do you think? 173.79.245.206 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)radmap[reply]

• I think you made some excellent suggestions. The way I see it, option 1 is best, and probably a must. I am not sure, for instance, if every single county involved needs to be listed, though there is nothing to prevent anyone from making such a list, I reckon--but then, a list of states that also lists the counties, that would be best, I think. When I get a moment (and I'm done with dinner and lardons) I'll have another look. In the meantime, thank you for your contributions and your note. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on it. The author was back and returned the copyvio promotional stuff. I removed them with a summary[5] and then went to his/her page to explain why such should not be added, [6] and then went back to the article to clean up and expand & source it further.[7] Almost time to remove the "cites needed" tag. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work, my friend. You should really run for admin one of these days. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although would rather he have more edits within WikiProject Bacon. All packed up, get the truck loaded tomorrow and on Saturday I am on my way to Vegas baby!--kelapstick (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woohoo! That is so exciting! From Vegas to Mongolia...there has to be a story there somewhere...Hey, have a safe trip, my friend. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am driving to Nova Scotia, but when we came down here, we hit snow in Wyoming at the end of May, so I am crossing the Rockies further south, my dad is coming down to do the drive with me (the missus and boy flew out last night, she actually saw Stevie Wonder at LAX), so I am meeting him there, tickets are much cheaper than going to Reno. Might hit up the Grand Canyon on the way there, will have to drive over the Hoover Dam (I've already been), it should be an interesting trip, not going to make it to your neck of the woods, I would expect you would have a bacon explosion ready if I were though, or at least some chicken-fried. I leave for Mongolia on the 16th I think, via Toronto, Vancouver, Seoul and Ulan Batar (where I will overnight). Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 February, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort Geldria, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is more disturbing, that this sign is necessary or that Silver Springs is considered a "congested area".--kelapstick (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, I tried, but I can't find a single newspaper article that allows me to add the word "congested" to the article...Now, Silver Spring, Florida, that's a whole nother story... Can you make it to Alabama by breakfast? Biscuits and gravy....! Drive safely K, and thanks for checking in. I hope your trip is going well. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afraid not, I think the best I can do is Amarillo, and that is depending on how long we spend a the Grand Canyon. So far so good, A little bit of a rainy trip thus far, not nothing too serious. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies,

I am wondering exactly what prompts you to decide that an article entitled "the ropecast podcast" would NOT have to do with my program which has been in existence since 2005. I have been a featured speaker and panelist at Blogworld Expo, at New Media Expo, and at many conferences throughout North America. If you had bothered to actually click on the links, you would have seen that everything I stated WAS verifiable, including the mentions in major mainstream media which, from what I understand, is what is required by wikipedia. I would also appreciate clarification on what you consider a "spam" link.

I will be happy to answer any questions at all about the history of the Ropecast, which I am quite proud of. However, to say that a foreign language podcast with only 20 some episodes has more validity than a podcast with over 200, including interviews with major authors such as Janet Hardy, Midori, Jay Wiseman, etc (who you will find are sold in Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc), is disingenuous.

I do appreciate your tenacity in trying to keep Wikipedia an accurate and up-to-date resource. However, you may want to check on your assumptions before deleting accurate information.

Please contact me to explain how best to accurately reflect the existence and long history of my podcast. Graydancer (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but eh, are you for real? The article you are referring to, RoPeCast, is about learning English. You were adding links about porn and bondage. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the confusion, but yes, I am for real. If you google "Ropecast" you will find multiple entries to my podcast which, while it is about rope bondage, seems to me to be more accurately named than the ESL podcast. I've no problem with them using the name - it's not likely that people would get confused for long - but for them to take the only "Ropecast Podcast" entry here on wikipedia seems a bit unfair. To put it in context, I was also part of the beginning of "Polyweekly Podcast" (which I believe has an entry here) and have worked on the "Escape Podcast." This is a link to the interview I most recently did for the Milwaukee AV Club section of the Onion.

As I said, I do understand why at first glance you might have thought I was one of the many porn spammers that try to infiltrate wikipedia, and I actually am very grateful to you and people like you for the work you do to keep wikipedia accurate. I would simply ask that you let me know how I can "verify" any better than the links I have - such as iTunes, media mentions, and a body of work which I've been doing for half a decade now, not-for-profit, but for the now-over-12,000 people a month who download my podcasts that are educational and entertaining about a form of sexuality that, while a minority, is as valid as any other.

There's a difference, I feel, between porn and sex ed. (update) One of my listeners has come up with what may be a good solution: he started a page called "Graydancer's Ropecast" and the very first thing he put is that people looking for the english language should go to the RoPeCast. He also included another reference to my podcast from the SFGate column in San Francisco, which may help reassure you that I am, in fact, legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graydancer (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Graydancer (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Graydancer, you call it the "kinky sex podcast," I call it porn? Call me old-fashioned. Anyway, I'm going to have a look at Septimus's page; I was about to suggest (I think) the same thing. Mind you, the whole thing rests not on how many hits you get, but on whether a topic has been written about in the press, whether there are secondary sources. I will look at Septimus, you look at WP:N and WP:RS, OK? (PS don't forget to sign your name, using four tildes. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, that is the way to go. You see the original problem, right? Text about one topic on the page for another. Now, as soon as Septimus feels like it they can go live (they should do it so they get the credit), and then you will see how the community feels about the topic's notability. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call you old-fashioned, I would simply call you discerning - to each their own. Since there are already articles here on wikipedia about "Shibari" I'm certain there's nothing on my podcast that would shock anyone. What I find most amusing is that when I did a search on Graydancer I found that my podcast is in fact one of the media sources used to verify and establish the notability of some other entries (such as Master K). I'm sure you can see the irony of that. I appreciate your explanation - I do have a question, though. Once the notability is established (not a big problem) how can I go about simply putting a "If you're looking for Graydancer's Ropecast, please click here?" I don't want to have to go through a cease & desist procedure with the RoPeCast, but I'm also not willing to let them completely take the name on the web. Any suggestions?Graydancer (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Gray, I am not so sure that notability is easily established--I looked long and hard for sources, and the only one I could find I added to that draft article. This is not to say that there aren't any more to be found, of course, or that what it has right now wouldn't be enough: that is a decision made collaboratively, and if that ever comes up, it would be in an AfD discussion with, hopefully, a variety of editors, not just one or two. If it goes live, you can add a hatnote to RoPeCast like Septimus put at the top of their draft, to establish two-way linkage, so to speak, and that would be perfectly alright. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you're interested, I sent you an email with a recommendation. Hekerui (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I listened to it a couple of times already and it is a strange (for me) and wonderful kind of music. Great to play while typing away. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy NPD Doc. It's interesting that this momentous holiday is celebrated by celebrating pigs and eating lots of them or celebrating pigs and not eating them. Perfect!

I also noticed that you've weighed in on chickpea spreads. Have you decided to forgo the most wholesome of delicacies in deference to the high holiday? That's the kind of sacrifice that's Kosher with me, there's a long tradition in various religions of going without foods for during certain holy times.

I did want to comment that the edit you restored, along the lines of "robbed them of everything" is probably too political and poorly sourced (being cherrypicked as one of many comments from one interview) for inclusion on a subject where that opinion is one side a very vigorously contested dispute. After reading through the interview, I'm not sure that the meaning and subtlety of the comment comes across (...I think it's the parsley in it) when it's taken out of context and put into an encyclopedia article about a subject that has been an area of dispute for some time here and elsewhere. But I am very happy to see you involved in the more exciting areas of the Encyclopedia (and rest assured that I will be as fair and objective as I can when I comment at your arbitration hearing).

I take it you finished the Claw Boy Claws list articles?

Are you going to help wrap up the bacon effort? If you're willing to put up the hooks and help with whatever other loose end tying needs to be done that would be fantastic. Inshallah, we can celebrate the achievements that have been accomplished in this effort and finish up with good graces. Shalom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And in breaking news... [8] and [9]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy NPD to you both! (I feel like I should have some sort of pig smiley here. Oh well.) LadyofShalott 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • CoM, I am so sorry--I totally dropped the pigskin here, no doubt about it. I'm going through my sandboxes to see what is there. Tell me how I can help; I have some time tomorrow. Hi Lady, nice to see you--Neil Gaiman put on a great show. Sorry I missed you there! Drmies (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you got to go. So did at least one of my other friends - I wish I'd been there with you! I read Gaiman's blog post about it, where he speculates about self-fulfilling prophecy possibly being the reason it's taken so long for him to be scheduled in the state. LadyofShalott 03:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry Doc. Things get messy in the mud with the pigs and hot grease spatter. There's always next year. See Bacon Challenge 2011 for details. :) I think the event went well. We got lots of interesting and unusual photos this go round and some solid articles. There are already more DYKs than last year and I think one or two more might still be in the pipeline. So it was a real oinker. I wasn't very on the ball either. And so it goes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your interest in faux bacon products, this subject Hitlerszalonna might interest you. There's also a place named Szalonna, which might make a good retirement destination. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with this one. It is one of the better one's published in new articles.

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Nice job with this one. It is one of the better one's published in new articles. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I appreciate it. It's much better than the rest I managed to produce, I'm sad to say. Take care Hell! Drmies (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Leonard Woolsey Bacon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Edward Woolsey Bacon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sabiona (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the protection, I'm not familiar on how to propose a protection. --DisneyFriends (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, no apology necessary! Thanks for fighting the good fight. While you were typing this message, I left a message on your talk page. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2011 Bacon challenge be dedicated to The Legendary Sky Attacker, a good friend and colleague who gave his all to the Bacon Challenge until his heart gave out? I want it to be a tasteful tribute, but maybe it's a bad idea? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, I don't know. That's funny and friendly, but in hindsight I don't know how to gauge his sense of humor. Have you kept in touch? Drmies (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, did I tell you I had a double Baconator today, for the first time? (and I won't have another one for a long, long time, at least not until Thursday.) Drmies (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only a double? Why are you such a wimp? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My attitude on jokes is that if they're done in good faith and meant to be humorous they should be okay. Which helps explain why I have such a long block log. But I think Sky would be happy to have a tribute. I think I'm going to go ahead with it. I was actually concerned that others might take offense some how. Is it making fun of heart disease? Who knows. People like to get offended by stuff. What can I tell you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, go for it--I got no problem with it. If you think Sky will be pleased with it, it's fine with me. Oh, tonight it's salad with lardons. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a tarte flambee with speck (essentially lardons right?) over the weekend in your honor. The one with uncooked arugula and prosciutto is less hammy and even better though. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[10] <rolls eyes> ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Hehe. Hey, did you read my all-too brief comment about lardons? I think I am going to eat those every day from now on--I cut a bunch more so I can have some for breakfast. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, nice work on Hitler bacon: I only saw that just now. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that LoS created an article on le baconique meal a while back? Soon she'll be running the cabal if we're not careful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is one fine meal. We can do this! Drmies (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken [11]? Is that you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations for surpassing the milestone of 50 DYK creation and expansions! Your work in expanding the encyclopedia is outstanding. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Woohoo! Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies,

In chasing vandalism, I saw you add the hang-on tag to the ABC's_of_Self_Defense article. I am kind of suspecting it is purely promotional (but cannot offer "proof") based off user of the same first name creating an article for a person of the same first name and including a website link and what appears to be a copy and paste of the site's promotional text located here: http://www.abcsofselfdefense.com/Safety_Awareness.htm. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Robert, yes, I put that hang-on tag there--it's sort of standard operating procedure (among some editors anyway) that if an article creator removes a speedy deletion tag that we restore it and add a hang-on tag (the IP actually restored the template and I had an edit conflict, so all I did was add the tag). We do this in part because new users often don't know how to respond to a speedy template, so we play nice (see also WP:BITEY); hence I noted in my edit summary that I did this as a courtesy, not because I believe the article to be notable or viable: the sooner it is deleted the better, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, I was just about to use TW to put the polite "Welcome, but beware of COI'ing" message on his page...Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a good thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that we kinda ran into each other again. The article on the severe weather outbreak was created and nominated at DYK by me. Sheesh I can't believe I forgot that comma lol. Anyways thought that was funny. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha Marcus, it's a small world! (And a comma is a small thing--look on the T:DYK page to see all the things that I missed.) Nice article, by the way--and probably good enough to get as many hits as Bacon explosion. I'll try to make a point of running into you more often. What's your digs these days? I don't spend a lot of time at AfD anymore... Drmies (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I also don't do much at afd anymore, I no longer feel like getting into stupid fights over every little reference and article out there. I've switched into an article creation and expansion mindset, my goal is to get 4-5 dyk hooks approved every week, and then pick a few of those articles and work them up through the ranks. It looks like your doing similiar, I always see you creating or commenting new bacon articles haha. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that bacon thing... But at some point that well will run dry, no doubt. That's just this week though, because of National Pig Day. I work a little on guitar stuff, literary stuff...but I wish I had the time to write some real articles, big ones, or to work some up "through the ranks" as you say. I subjected one of my early articles to GA review, a long time ago, and I've never been back. Well, I got a featured list, that was nice, but I don't really have the time anymore. Hey, all the best! Thanks for stopping by, I do appreciate it. Good luck on the front page! Drmies (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheesh here we go again how do we always do this, I just think its too funny. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I saw that too, which is why I left you a message disguised as a message to that editor. It really said: "we have to stop meeting like this!" Anyway, nice to see you active, but really, you should be out on the town on a Friday night, chasing after love, drinking beer. Live a little! Drmies (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly I was too tired to to hit the town tonight, maybe tomorrow night. But if I did go out I wouldn't have ran into you again, so I guess it worked out in a comical way. -Marcusmax(speak) 05:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay you win I'll drop by the club next door (literally next door) have a nice night! And thanks for the barnstar. -Marcusmax(speak) 05:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Hey, what if I'm in the windy city for a conference...? Now that would be a kick in the head. Listen, I got a real job for you for when you get back: I just saw that an article on Erotic wrestling is requested--just the thing on a Friday night for a conservative democrat such as yourself. Have fun! Drmies (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh Erotic wrestling, im not to sure about that. I might even be scared too look for sources... -Marcusmax(speak) 19:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move. Cunard (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Cunard. I voted for deletion and will await the response and suggestions of others. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lardon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is protected. Otherwise I would have fixed the vandalism myself. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yes, what a shame.  :) 152.16.59.102 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got a 4-yr old, she knows two schools--AL for football and Duke for basketball. I hope you approve! Drmies (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one awesome kid! 152.16.59.102 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) 29-57... Looking good.  :) 152.16.59.102 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George B. Bacon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell August Forge. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gushed on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I could not resist that Delphic content. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies - I closed the AfD on Conquest (military) as a nomination withdrawn. I took the liberty to highlight those words in your last entry so it would be clear to everyone where the withdrawal came from. I trust you don't mind. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mike, thanks--I don't mind at all, you read me perfectly. Now, on this beautiful Sunday, why aren't you out fishing? Drmies (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is now 33F in Bozeman, clear and calm. In about 3 hours I will head out to the Yellowstone River with the Kayak for an afternoon of cold fingers, beautiful scenery, an maybe a few fish.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, sounds nice. It's 60 in Alabama, and we're about to take the kids out, put up the tent in the yard, and get ready for grilling. Bring some trout to grill; the beer will be cold when you get here. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some pics just so you know what my backyard is like: [12]

As far as I can tell Dogo Argentino used to be a much better page. Deleting is NOT editing; Especially in an encyclopedic environment! Deafness may be a trait of white dogs, but who or what deleted the other 'good' traits? --83.9.234.93 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You should probably learn what an encyclopedia is, IP hopper. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article Miss Globe International. The article was created by the organizers and being maintained by 7 people from the Miss Globe Organization, as per statement of the owner. The owner, Rasim Aydin, and his staff have continue to edit the article despite the issue of Conflict of Interest. They have been warned several times. The article do not meet the general notability guideline since no reliable and secondary sources about the topic. The article and the pageant has no notable third party references other than official pageant website. The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The winners of the pageant have no (or barely) any mainstream news agency (like Associated Press or Reuters) that picks up the story. If there's any publicity or promotion, it is done mostly through blogs, paid advertisements, and personal non-notable websites. The content of the article is based on original research as claimed by the organizers. They are not even sure of the history of the pageant and its previous winners. The list of winners seem fictitious and unverifiable. Please look at the article and nominate for deletion if possible. Here's the Wikipedia User Talk of the president of Miss Globe pageant. Thanks.--Angel Clinton (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure why you are contacting me; I have never even looked at the article. I do note that User:Lankiveil left you some advice on your talk page, and I don't need to duplicate that. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw an ad for Wendy's Bacon Bleu sandwich. When will you be filing a report? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I don't know. I don't much care for blue cheese. Hey, it's grilling weather already--all the neighbors came over. I grilled bacon, hot dogs, hamburgers, and made a potato salad and a Caprese salad. So I'm fat and happy and I intend to stay away from fast food for a few days. But you knock yourself out, kid! Drmies (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies, I hope all is going well with you. I just thought I'd ask you for your feedback on the University of West Alabama page. I've added a lot more citations to the page, and it's really starting to come together very nicely. Can you please take a look at the page for me and let me know your thoughts? It'd be greatly appreciated, and I look forward to hearing from you very soon. Take care! UWAFanatic05 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Fanatic! Good to hear from you. Sorry, I've been running around and haven't looked at your pet project in a while. I'll be in touch. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what can I say. I think you should be very proud of yourself. Listen, it's a good idea to unlink those dates (see one of my edit summaries). I've made a few small tweaks, but on the whole you have done a remarkable job. Oh, that picture of that tiger mascot, that's fantastic. Now, the next step? After you've unlinked the rest of the dates (there is an automated way of doing this, but the use of that bot is discouraged--and I don't know who operates it; there may be more info at MOS:UNLINKDATES or its talk page), ask Altairisfar again for their opinion (they are in some sort of club, since they update the article assessment on the talk page) and see if it's worth while running for Good Article... Good luck! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I just saw that Altairisfar and must be spiritual sisters or something; we said pretty much the same thing re: Good Article. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you so much Drmies. I really appreciate the kind words and am pretty proud of myself. I've gone through as best as I can to unlink the dates like you said. It's getting late, so I'll continue to watch for those. I'm glad you like the picture of the mascot. I took that one myself. Altairisfar actually asked me to submit a peer review, but I don't quite understand that yet. Maybe you can assist with that? I feel maybe a few more pictures wouldn't hurt if I can figure that out. Anyways, I'm rambling on here, but thanks again for the feedback and the special barnstar.  :) It certainly would be nice to be in the running for a GA. Take care, and please help me anytime! UWAFanatic05 (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A peer review is generally done as preparation for a good article review--I think it's something like a practice run before your road exam. It's useful, I'm sure, but I don't know too much about it. (I've gone through an unsuccessful GA review a long time ago and a successful FL review, both without testing, I believe.) Altairisfar recommended referencing every last sentence in the article and they're right; when you've done that, have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review. All the best! Drmies (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Drmies, it's been a while since I've heard from you. I hope all is well and you're doing fine. I just wanted to let you know that I've added even more citations to the UWA page and just got done submitting it for a peer review. Hopefully, we hear something pretty soon. I'm still working on looking into more citations and hopefully more images in the future. I do intend to hopefully find references for every last sentence, but some references are used for more than one sentence. I'll keep working on this I promise. I hope the page is finally starting to take shape because it'd be really nice to get the article past the B stage even higher. Well, take care, and please let me know what you think and if you see any problems with the peer review I added. :) UWAFanatic05 (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Calf's Liver and Bacon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to you to find a bacon article subject that's unappetizing. Unbelievable. <shakes head in dismay> ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know! Is it a gift? is it a curse? Drmies (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I agree with you. Truth be known, I probably would have ended up being a weak keep too, if it had not been for Paul. Keep up the good work! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Prof. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex dice isn't coming up, deleted or otherwise. I think it may have been listed under Sex Dice. Sorry if I deleted something with proper references. Yes, feel free to recreate it with my apologies. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I'm sure you're right--sorry. I recreated it with the lower-cap dice, since I think the first version was a bit spammy. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is the current one. ^Bongo_matic 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...there is no brand name or company website link in there... spam for what, Bongo? only for love! Drmies (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, couldn't you focus your attentions on Salty & Roselle, members of the most adorable class of beings and winners of the animal equivalent of the Victoria's Cross instead of frivolity? —SpacemanSpiff 02:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, what, PIGEONS??? You gotta be kidding me. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't tell the diff between winged creatures and four-legged ones with tails that knock off everything from the coffee table? —SpacemanSpiff 02:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, I didn't look past the first picture--I was busy canvassing for sex dice. Oh! on my edit screen--now I see it! Dogs! But that is really a topic for ChildofMidnight, you know. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, what is this, a love convention? Hey, if the topic is sex toys, and TWO admins are partaking in the discussion, is it automatically a BDSM affair? Drmies (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin abuse! Spiffy abusing me in an edit summary! OK, I was in a rush to add references before it would get deleted, alright? Sheesh, get off your high horse. And I was coming back to fill them in! (Seriously, thanks--but *snif* did I deserve that?) Now find some more sources, even if they are in Croatian and featured only in German graduate catalogs, to thwart that hardcore deletionist BongoMatic. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLMAO! Oh, this is getting so wonderfully silly. Yeah, sign this rouge administrator up for two pairs. Should be fun at the next meeting of the cabal! PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leonard Woolsey Bacon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just did this for his name, didn't you? Admit it! :) Hekerui (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! It was actually prompted by the Bacon Challenge 2010, but I was late submitting this and others; I "wrote" his brothers too, and your note was a good excuse to reorganize his father, Leonard Bacon. Thanks for your interest! Drmies (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grognard, you like it because it sounds like Grog + nerd, or are my sibylic powers wrong on this? :) Hekerui (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that is nice (though it looks like that more than it sounds like that)--but that's not what I was thinking; to my ear, the sounds of a drunk Frenchman slurring "grognaaaard..." was the attraction. Now, "Tutnum" sounds nice too, I have to say. Are you working on something exciting? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is R. Yesurathnam. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Yesurathnam. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaargh! Drmies (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been making a concerted effort to remove unreferenced BLPs since being heavily involved in the earlier discussion of the last two months. Because of the attitude of some on the discussion board and subsequent actions by some "rogue" administrators, the mere "maintenance" tagging of an article puts the article in jeopardy. So, I have been making an effort to find sources, place them in the sources for the article and removing the poison tag. As for your "grading" the sources as unreliable, granted they are not academic journals, but they are independent sources mentioning these individuals in the same role as the original article--certainly corroborating the story. Point by point, are they matching the article? No. Nor does the majority of WP articles. I have carefully placed the reference where a point is verifiable by the independent source. At least part of the article IS referenced and thus the story of the individual is not unreferenced--the article can be spared from potential rogue mass deletion efforts. If you have a problem with individual citations within these articles, fine, place in-line citation tags. The primary fact is, the article, any article I have so corrected, has been read, is not contentious, libelous, does not place Wikipedia in jeopardy and has corroborating independent mentions.Trackinfo (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I just don't buy that. I see here an appeal to what is denounced in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the claim is made that you went over every fact in the article--and I don't believe that, given the number of articles you looked at in a short period of time and, in some cases, how little of the facts these references cover. You also did not address the matter of your edit summaries, where you inevitably claimed "references added," in the plural, and all the ones I looked had a singular reference.

  Now, as for reliability, that "academic journal" thing, that's a strawman; if you want to imply that I would require academic journal articles to verify stuff about baseball players, well, that's silly. But calling this a reliable source, or, for an American poet, this and this, that shows you don't understand the policy in WP:RS. While I applaud your effort to deal with the BLP issues in Wikipedia, simply adding blogs and removing valid templates is not the way, and I would urge you to leave those templates alone--or at the very least, after an effort to source articles, leave a "refimprovBLP," since you yourself admitted that you weren't able to verify every fact in those articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added even more references, easily found from google. To replace the poison unreferenced BLP tag, if you are unsatisfied with the references contained, without searching for references yourself, is exactly the laziness I complained about in the RfC. If there is a problem with an article that you can fix; don't just stick a tag on it and walk away, fix it. I was previously satisfied that the individual the BLP was about was verified to be legitimate. If you want more, there is plenty more out there. If you have an issue with it, spend a couple of minutes adding it to the article, rather than 10 seconds to revert the article and those same minutes to complain.Trackinfo (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a message to both Trackinfo and Drmies: I understand both of your positions, believe me. I have been doing some work on the backlog of unref'd BLPs, and while I agree that it is important to find sources, it is also important to ensure that they are reliable sources. I have removed some unrefBLP tags after finding some reliable sources (NB not every fact in an article needs to be sourced to justify removing BLPunreferenced - on some, I can only find references for some of the article. If other information is not needed and unsourced, I will remove it. If I find at least one source (and I try for 2 or more) then I change the BLPunreferenced to BLPrefimprove with this month's date.

Of course the problem becomes "is xyz a reliable source?"... that's something that can be decided on a case-by-case basis, following WP:RS.

One thing I do know is that Wikipedia is not worth getting stressed over. The recent BLP issues has caused all sorts of stress: some people (and I'm not saying you are one of these, Trackinfo) are looking for any sources, no matter what, just so that they can justify removing the BLPunref'd tag. Others are ignoring good sources in a bid to get articles deleted. I believe that the answer is to look for reliable sources (I tend to go with GoogleNews/Scholar/Books as a starting point, though not everything there would be reliable according to the RS criteria).

Let's have a compromise: Drmies, you spend a few minutes looking for sources before re-inserting BLPunref tags; Trackinfo, you make sure that the sources you use are RS - and both of you, if in doubt, change the BLPunref tag to ((BLP refimprove)). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, thanks for your response. Believe me, I have been active myself in the BLP mess, all the way at the beginning, and have sourced dozens of them--but that sourcing takes time. I hope you have seen that I know the difference between refimprov and unreferenced, and I will follow your advice. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the usage of the source to the statement. For the statement that the BLP subject has " written numerous books and technical articles" yes, showing several of those books on sale on public sites like Amazon and Barnes and Noble et al certainly shows that he is a known author and has books for sale to the public. You forced the issue by demanding that every line in the article be sourced, I was previously contented to show this particular subject had invented the 555 timer chip, his primary claim to notability. In the interest of MY time, yes, I am not focusing on sourcing every line in every article I am trying to remove these tags (and I use the word tag in the same form as what graffiti artists do to a clean wall) from, I am trying to sufficiently verify that this individual is the person the article claims he is and that is reasonably notable.

In many cases I am far out of my area of expertise. I frequently complain other people meddling outside their areas of expertise. Its something that is happening over this BLP issue--I am picking random unsourced articles. In this case, at least I am familiar with the 555 chip, have actually used the device in schematics and actually have a clue what it is.

As for the difference between unreferenced and refimprove tags, I also know the difference. The problem is, the bots and the BLP counters do not. We already have rogue administrators, going against the BLP RfC (non)consensus and they are deleting articles, deliberately, making no attempt to source and even trying to throw obstacles in the way of those who do try to source them. Worse yet, those administrators are not being blocked or banned, they are being encouraged by other administrators. This is a current issue here. Long term, the threat is out there that if the number does not go down, similar mass deletions will become the policy.Trackinfo (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting vandalism, and you beat me. Nice to know there are other people doing this work :) Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're kidding! I NEVER beat anyone; it's always Bradjamesbrown or Ronhjones or, worse, Alansohn who beat me to it. I can't stand Alansohn--every time I find a juicy bit of idiocy to rail against, they've already taken care of matters. But hey, thanks for your note, and keep fighting the good fight! Drmies (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Rutherford Bacon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are (or were) a lot of really bizarre usernames and corresponding user pages popping up within minutes of each other. Per WP:DUCK, they appeared to be all part of the same account. Not your fault.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks PM! BTW, WP:DUCK--there are culinary possibilities there. I wonder of WP:BACON is a redlink... No way! CoM has his own guideline/policy redirect! Drmies (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I wonder what other pseudo-culinary shortcuts there are. WP:BEANS, of course. WP:CHICKENS, WP:ONION (which redirects to wp:llama, ugh). Soup, anyone? LadyofShalott 04:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady, can I be WP:SUCKLINGPIG or something like that? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you'd have to justify it some way or other! We have condiments, too: WP:SALT (but not WP:PEPPER), WP:CATSUP and WP:MUSTARD. LadyofShalott 04:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Oh! Look what just turned blue! Drmies (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! You actually came up with a fairly logical tie-in. That picture is kind of disturbing though. (I'm a coward; I don't like my food to look like the animal it originally was.) LadyofShalott 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of others in that series; they got it here on campus for a tailgating party. Thanks; I'll take that comment as a compliment--now will you please finish writing it? ;) Drmies (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I just saw your edit summary from the creation of the page. LadyofShalott 04:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--OK, I give up--I can't make WP:SUCKLINGPIG any worse. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the reference system you have used is--technically speaking--a good one, but doesn't it make copy editing the text very slow? Makes it dificult to edit blocks of text, no? Artiquities (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of changing the references format. I personally think that it makes the source text much easier to read and edit. But if you don't like it, I won't be offended if you revert it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at the changes Mandarax made, I did two things: in my first edits, right after you created the article, I simply threw in a couple of references as URLs plus title, because I wanted to make sure that no one was going to slap a speedy deletion template on the article; in the later edits, I use the standard citation templates and yes, I like them vertical, and I personally believe it is much easier to edit, since "horizontal" references make it difficult to see quickly what is text and what is reference. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mandarax, I can see the advantages of that way of doing it--I was not familiar with it, and thought you had changed the "orientation" of my references, so to speak. This is indeed clean. Thanks! Now this old dog may have to learn a new trick.

Oh, while I have your ear (if I do)--I can't figure out what happened, but all of a sudden that row of buttons above my edit screen (with the refcite function) disappeared, on all my computers, and they return if I leave Beta. Do you have any idea? You know you're pretty geeky! ;) Drmies (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all... it was very generous of you to include me in the DYK credits for the article. I'm quite undeserving, but thank you. It's so impressive that you took a one-sentence stub and turned it into a real article.

I think the referencing method which I switched to is a fairly recent innovation. It's little used so far, but I hope that changes. It may be slightly less convenient to add initially, but it makes for much easier editing forever thereafter.

I'm afraid I'm not quite geeky enough to answer your question. I don't use Beta, because when I tried it, I discovered that most of my many essential tools disappeared too. And I usually have the edit toolbar disabled because I'm impatient and it takes a fraction of a second longer for the edit screen to load. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to get on your case. It's fine that you don't seem to be very fond of my preferred ref method. Thank you very much for trying it, but you should definitely use what you're more comfortable with. You're the prolific, productive writer here. And even though you modestly claim to be but a lowly Grognard, we all know that you're actually a Grand Tutnum. BTW, I was so close to getting The Complete Compendium of Universal Knowledge and then they went and changed the requirements just before I would've qualified. Oh, well, now I just have to wait another year. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize! I'm just messing with you. There's problems will all formats--or, better yet, I have problems with all formats. The system I used works well if you edit one section at a time, but you can't see the refs while you're working. Your systems delivers a pretty clean body of the text, and there's a lot to be said for that--though the actual list of references (in code anyway) is not so clean, and you have to have the entire document open. I'm not yet comfortable with the 'fancier' formats, and with systems where you have a separate notes and references section (and I think most of the FAs have that...). In the meantime I'm going to continue to try your format.

That's too bad, mr. Tutnum--I looked at those requirements (and liked the Little red book) and wasn't sure about the double requirements: you have to have edits and time? Is that to ensure that the bot operators don't run away with all the awards?

It's a rainy day here, Mandarax, another Saturday morning without bacon, though I made nice waffles, with an entire stick of butter. I have work to do today: to go to the rodeo and help out at a OneRepublic concert (I have bad dreams sometimes, where I'm on a stage and I have to play drums at some big show--and I can't really play drums). Oh, I got a copy of Slaughterhouse Five in, so I'll get right on it, as soon as I'm done with Peter Handke's Short Letter, Long Farewell. Oh, about "credit"--if it weren't for folks like you cleaning up my mess, well, it would be even more of a mess. Have a nice weekend! Drmies (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan de Jong, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 18:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work here. Am I a bad Dutchman for never having heard of him before? Please watch my next DYK—I have used the best possible technique to ensure it gets a lot of views, and I'm sure you'll like it. Ucucha 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you. The count for Jan is over 5,000 now! Eric Heiden still sells, apparently. And yes, you are a terrible Dutchman. Next, you're going to tell me that you don't know how "vogelpoep" is funny. Eh, that article you're talking about--is that about teeth? Foh shizzle? I wish you the best! Teeth scare me, but I'm of the Marathon Man generation. "Is it safe?" But I saw you've been quite busy with all kinds of fancy things, like GAs and FAs. Remember not to stick your head too far above the maaiveld: the tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut. On a slightly different note, I read the papers and was able to add a sentence or two to Geert Wilders, which was somewhat embarrassing. Take care! Drmies (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one after that is about teeth, yes, but this one is about something that undoubtedly sells much better. It's going up in a little less than an hour. Congratulations on Jan. It got fewer views than Sciurini, though. Speaking of GAs—what about expanding our little Keys woodrat to a GA or an FA? I think there's information enough. What about Mr. Wilders is not embarrassing? Ucucha 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Bacon WikiCup 2010 - Participant Medal
		Because of your work and dedication to expanding bacon-related content during the Bacon Challenge 2010, you have been awarded the Bacon WikiCup 2010 Particpant Medal for partipcating in the Bacon WikiCup 2010 with a final score of 64, earning yourself fourth place. Congratulations, and thank you for your great work! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this page was created: Lots of WP:Speculation violations in the Wikipedia MMA community and with DREAM announcing a tentative plan for 2010, there is concern that users may be tempted to created the pages before it is proper... similar to unannounced upcoming UFC events i.e. see the history of UFC 117.(Justinsane15 (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Thanks for your note. But the creation of such placeholders really serves little purpose--"proper" articles can be created by overwriting your redirects also. In either case, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Unless there are sources that verify that this thing is real and about to happen, it ought to be deleted. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sneaking in.) And if repeated creation of this page is an issue, it can be salted. Ucucha 22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ucucha, do you think that this is enough to support those redirects/articles? (See also Dream.15.) You are the professional! Drmies (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I only know something about rice rats. I'd personally wait with writing an article until the sources are more substantial than that, though. Ucucha 23:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys in regards to WP:CRYSTAL, this is a notable event and almost certain to take place. However, it has been the consensus of WP:MMA to redirect likely, but not yet announced events to a list page. You'd notice that while UFC 111 is the next event for the Ultimate Fighting Championships, event pages have been created up to UFC 116. You'll also notice that in accordance with WP:Speculation, UFC 117 to UFC 121 which are likely for this year have been redirected to the list of UFC events. I was attempting to do the same thing with the upcoming Dream (mixed martial arts) (biggest MMA promotion in Japan, #2 or 3 in the world) pages for events that are likely this year.(Justinsane15 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Justin, do you have any links to a discussion page where such consensus might be found? At least the UFC list seems to have some sort of sourcing to it--for these Dream things, the main article has nothing past 15. I note that WP:Speculation says "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified," and some sort of link would be nice. In either case, though, I don't rightly understand the rush to create these placeholders/redirects. Anyway, thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion was here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_117, take it for what it's worth. Cheers, (Justinsane15 (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

On 15 March, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alessandro Raho, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're not an admin and you ain't the law, you don't tell me how I will and will not edit. I am a constructive editor who just happened to forget that he left a small part on a page which was meant for the sandbox. Never meant to save the "retard" thing. Second, I ain't skating on thin ice. YOU have been blocked in the past I see from your offence list. Don't preach your good book to me. Third, Human Height was not vandalised. I stated my reasons for the edit on Talk, wanna take part? Go to talk first then talk yourself and we will discuss. Goodbye. Carlos Colombia (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been blocked? I'm sorry I missed that. Please Carlos, go ahead editing the way you are--removing journal references and calling Jim Carrey a retard--and see how long your career here lasts. BTW, I read your note on Talk:Human height, and it doesn't make any sense at all (nor does wikilinking "bush", "country," etc. on a talk page). Drmies (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For any passer-by, I quote from that talk page: "Radovan Karadzic never looked very big and I can't think of many other famous people from Yugoslavia." Drmies (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wikilinked for the good of people interested in the topics. I have snuffed your warning on Colin Firth because you're not the law. Carry on being disruptive yourself, and you'll be blocked again for edit warring. Your choice. Goodbye. Carlos Colombia (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm counting. Are you? Drmies (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see now that you have been blocked more often than I've edited Balkan-related articles. Do the names User:Human Rights Believer, User:Berkshire Hunt, User:Mex Ray Trex, and User:Barnsey Boo mean anything to you? And what about User:Metrospex and User:Sinbad Barron? Pray, do tell--maybe as an IP. Consider using 195.92.244.21. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your messages: That is indeed a lot of coincidences. I would file a sockpuppet case. The ducks are not really, really obvious to me and I'm not familiar with the puppet master in this particular case. I would prefer that you file an SPI in this particular case. Ducks don't bother me, but then I'm not a duck. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to be blocked for making so many jokes.

		The Original Barnstar
		Jan de Jong etc. User talk:Ucucha etc. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Future page was a disaster, I think starting again was the best idea. Too many company pages are like that on Wikipedia. I have started adding properly reference material now to the page. Best wishes, Peteinterpol (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks--you are doing good work there. Drmies (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it can be tricky if you haven't filed one before. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies — Thanks for your helpful suggestions. (Had someone not made a formal entry on me, I wouldn't be here trying to correct and improve upon it. I want to turn all this into a plus by getting up to speed quickly and making whatever positive contribution I can to the overall Wikipedia effort. So, I'm taking you up on your generous offer to guide my steps, and stumbles, here at the start.) I picked an article on a figure (Franz Brentano) I know something about, to get a feel for standards-compliant content. (Brentano happened to be the point of departure for my own doctoral dissertation.) In perusing the article, which is quite fine, I noticed some inconsistencies in a few of the references cited: principally (since you know German), to his opus Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Sometimes it's listed correctly, and sometimes it's not; and often, which is common, there is a variation in renderings when shifting from the German to English, and vice versa. For example: One, in German, has it with the 'e' of empirischen in lower case (which is correct), while another has it with the 'E' capitalized. And, moving to another word, sometimes there is an 'e' added to Standpunkt (which, technically, is incorrect, making the word a plural). In taking two steps back and viewing the article overall, in both the body of the article and then in the footnotes and lists given, one notices several inconsistencies. And now, for my questions: Since these are "minor" matters (commonly found in purportedly "unimpeachable" sources), do you advise that I simply let them go, or is this an instance calling for a simple edit to be entered, noting that it is a "minor" one by checking that box on the editing page? And, if the latter, does the protocol deem bringing this to the attention of another, or of possibly the previous editor? Awaiting your expert guidance, PrairyWriterGuy (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Prairy, I don't know if I'm an expert on anything but commas... Thanks for your note. A quick glance at Franz Brentano suggests that there is work to be done, and I applaud your intention to do so. The lead could do with some expansion (see WP:LEAD), for starters, but most importantly, the article lacks references to reliable sources (see WP:V and WP:RS), so much so that I felt compelled to tag it as "unreferenced." The biography section is wholly unreferenced, as is the "Theory on Judgment" section--and that latter section is also written in a very unencyclopedic tone (note the second person pronoun, for instance). The cornerstone of WP is verifiability, and the information in the article is unverified; the one single note in the reference section is to the postfix of an edition of one of his books (that is also why I made somewhat drastic cuts to the Gene Ruyle article).

  Capitalization and all, that's an editorial issue: consistency is one thing to strive for. "Empirischen" capitalized is the American way according to some style manuals; maintaining capitalization as the German has it is legitimate option also--Wikipedia allows for many different kinds of styles (and that's sometimes confusing), and I personally think it's important that an article be done consistently. That kind of cleanup is usually uncontroversial (and there is no "ownership" on Wikipedia, see WP:OWN), and an edit summary would make that clear; I would tackle all of them in one edit, for clarity's sake. I hope this answers some of your questions; please do not hesitate to call on me. Thanks, and happy editing, and once again welcome to Wikipedia! Drmies (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Woolsey Bacon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 March, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Villiers High School, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yazan (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. I've declined the proposed deletion for Dream 16 because that page is a redirect, and the prod process only applies to articles, lists and disambiguation pages. It was broken, but I found a suitable target and redirected it there. If you still believe the redirect should be deleted, you can nominate it at redirects for discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to duplicate the AfD headers ;) Q ^{T C} 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No duplication: simultaneous nominations for deletion, Q. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One section refers to the deleted article Mermaid Problem. Since I can't edit it, I thought I'd point it out to you. Marisa88 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why this deletion?

The Bananaphone article exists, and does include mention of "C-A-N-A-D-A". 92.2.208.239 (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes such entries for songs without articles on dab pages have a point, if there is at least a suggestion of notability for the song. This is not one of those cases. That the song exists is not argument for its having a redirect, and the same applies to all those other redirects I nominated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the song isn't notable, surely it simply shouldn't be mentioned at all, anywhere?

On the other hand, if it is mentioned in an article, then it qualifies for mention on the dab page?

Not sure what you mean about redirects (there's no redirect involved in the dab listing). 92.2.208.239 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the song is on the album, it should be mentioned in the album, of course. I don't see any reason at all for the redirect. If a song has some sort of modicum of notability, then it can be a likely search term, and that's what counts. But it doesn't. In short: existence does not mean notability, and there is nothing to this mention but existence. As for the mention of the redirects, I thought you were aware that the editor who added that line was a chronic creator of useless redirects and was indefinitely blocked: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 23. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question has nothing to do with redirects.

My understanding is that if it's mentioned in an article, then it qualifies for inclusion on a relevant dab page. C-A-N-A-D-A is mentioned in the Bananaphone article, and I'm not aware of any guideline that would support its removal from the Canada (disambiguation) page. 92.2.208.239 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It looks like a reasonable inclusion, but not a terribly important one. LadyofShalott 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have something of a problem with all those mentions of songs on DAB pages, but that's just me, possibly. If the Lady doesn't agree with me, then I am probably wrong. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could be looking to see how "Canada" has been used in different ways musically orvin general. Looking at that disambiguation page with that particular song as an entry does give that person information. Why not include it? It may not be particularly notable on its own, but no one is proposing a separate article on it. LadyofShalott 03:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Economy. Saving pixels and energy. (Yes, seriously! but I'm not going to war over this.) Hey Lady, feel like taking a trip? Drmies (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that looks like fun! Unfortunately, that's a work day for me. Why didn't they have that when I still lived there? LadyofShalott 03:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. They almost didn't have it this year. Take the day off! Come on now! You already stood me up at the Neil Gaiman reading... Drmies (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do want Clipbucket removed?? What's wrong with it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini4me (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with it? Or don't you want people of the world to know about this script?? PHPmotion, etc all have pages but you nominate this for deletion.

What's the reason?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini4me (talk • contribs)

• See WP:N. Thank you for your comment. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 March, you tagged I'm Still Yours & The World We Love with ((rfd)), but you did not complete the nomination by listing them at WP:RFD. Can you please complete the second step of the nomination per the instructions at the WP:RFD page? If you do not list these within a reasonable amount of time, I'll assume you no longer wish to see them deleted and will remove the templates. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, please forgive me due to removal of non-notable persons of Channel 2 sister stations. Thanks for not giving your help. Please message me to the user talk of me. - Gabby 14:38, 29 March 2010 (PST)

• Sure thing, I guess. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just saw that you had merged Lalbaug into Mumbai. Yes,the article was in bad shape but I don't think a merger was warranted. Lalbaug is a locality in Mumbai(and a prominent one, at least for 7 days every year :-)) and desverves an article of its own like other localities in the city. The article does need to be worked on, though. I'll take care of it if you undo the merger. Thanks --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that the thing was fairly creative as far as vandalism goes. It really did read like a patchwork of random sentences which almost made sense. Reading comprehension generally isn't a problem with me, but that mess dropped my IQ a good five points.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you take that science stuff, incomprehensible except to nuts like like, you know, User:Ucucha, and you throw in the lack of English skills (I just saw this) that one can suspect here, and then add to it the requirement that we play nice (which I do try to take seriously), well, then G3 is not to be uttered lightly. But I'm glad I figured this more or less correctly, with a hint of suspicion, and I am pleased with your hammer swinging. Keep on fighting the good fight! Drmies (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another LOL! You got it, bro. Signing off for now...my work here tonight is done! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for keeping a clean house here. I guess I need to check if User:Materialscientist is on call; he's strict. Later! Drmies (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone went into the Jay and Jack article and removed all my sources then tagged the page for deletion on the grounds that there were no sources, then several key parts of the article were removed including a reference to a charity, all attempts I have made to fix the article including rewriting the charity section have been blocked for some reason. I'm not seeing a blocking message or anything, its just my edits are not getting through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 11:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Michael Kirschner 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? Someone? You mean me? I removed links to press releases and charity events, not "sources." When you rewrite, try to stay away from sentences such as "The two are very famous and have been interviewed by major news organizations including the Associated Press." That's a. not encyclopedic and b. clutching at straws. Also, removing the AfD template, like you did here, is vandalism, and it's not the first time you did that. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't blame you. My sister is a huge Food Network fan and she's served some of ol' Alton's recipes when my wife and I visit her and her hubby. Oh the yumness.  :) Thanks for the kind words...gonna split. See you 'round the site! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not sure what happened there - I was trying to revert the IP user who was spamming that link on multiple pages, somehow it got your edits too. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I figured--no worries. Stuff happens, and I dropped you a smiley face in case you thought I was upset. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got any collard greens? Cornbread, perhaps? Gotta do a peach cobbler for dessert. I may be a Southern California native, but I lo-o-o-ove that old-time Southern cooking!  :) My mother-in-law used to make black-eyed peas which were simply out of sight. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Morgan Creek Vineyards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article fails to assert notability in accordance with WP:CORP and WP:WINETOPICS. Being mentioned in a wine guide and in local publications doesn't make a winery notable.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Morgan Creek Vineyards. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Creek Vineyards. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The London Jilt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, long time, no speak. Any chance you could pass an eye over what is now a long-running edit dispute with this article. The dispute is largely between one editor (Ibaranoff24/Sugar Bear) and anyone else with a dissenting opinion. RfC has been appealed to on multiple occasions, and consensus reached (as I and all other editors see it, including two admins) but progress is not being made. If you could take a look and pass comment over there that would be handy (even if you feel strongly that I am in the wrong), or alternatively make any suggestions as to how to proceed, as rational discussion appears to have failed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a bizarre discussion. I posed a question on the talk page. I don't feel strongly that you're in the wrong yet. BTW, if my daughter says ten times that Black Sabbath is Nu-metal, is that enough? We've been playing Mob Rules in the car, but she doesn't like it. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverting back to the version with the sources that don't say what they're supposed to say doesn't make the discussion easier. We're looking for citations that say exactly what they're supposed to say, not making up our own interpretations of the sources. Despite RG's claims, there is no consensus. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Eh, you are the only one who is disagreeing, the only one, and your arguments are futile. Going around saying certain writers don't understand the lyrics or the music, that journalists who write for The Guardian or the New Musical Express don't know anything about music, that's not productive. It's not even smart. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John W Spengler is not a notable music artist. He is a prime candidate for article deletion. He also vandalized the Julius Caesar article.--Tataryn77 (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you blanked your talk page, so I'll comment here. Vandalism on Caesar? You are referring to this edit, and that's not vandalism--at least not as far as you or I can tell. There are references on the internet for 12 July, and 13 July is what modern scholars accept; see also the edit summary for the revert by User:Haploidavey. So it looks like a good-faith edit, unless we have insight into the editor's psyche: vandalism is the willful insertion of invalid information. And your response was to blank the article that the editor created and leave a disparaging comment in it, in the main space: that is not proper. That the article was subsequently deleted has no bearing on that at all. In my opinion, you should first have assumed good faith, and you shouldn't have left commentary on an editor in main article space. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been under the impression that the religion specified in the info box is supposed to be a generic religious organization. Something to the effect of Christian, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Mormon, Baptist etc and not actually give a specific denomination or church they belong to. I come to you asking this because there is a user that is going around and changing all of the info boxes for US senators and congressmen that are Methodist and adding a tag for the United Methodist Church. See example in David Loebsack when user:24.3.220.206 here

Note this user was banned before because he added honorific tags to well over a 100 congressmen and senators without consulting the rest of the community. See his user talk or my user talk page for more information.

What is your input on this matter? --Triesault (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So that is the user that put all those "honorifics" in a whole bunch of articles--I saw a few of those on recent changes patrol, and I saw that you removed it in the article you linked to. It seemed redundant and tedious to me, so I'm certainly in agreement with you there. That the editor would call you a "partisan hack" tells you where they are coming from (or where they're going to). Now, I don't know if it's WP policy to stay sort of general, but excessive specification is useless, in my opinion--next thing you know we want to add precisely which church they go to and what date. In this case, though, there is a reference, and that's something, but on the face of it I am inclined to agree with you: a general term for the denomination ought to be enough. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a better way to contact you instead of these discussion threads? Email/IM/Other? --Triesault (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I found he opened a section in the WikiProject for US Congress about this religion issue. Take a look. Link --Triesault (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work rolling back this edit, but you should not give this IP a Level 3 warning straight away. He/she has only made 1 contribution to Wikipedia and hasn't made any consecutive vandalism edits. Remember, it's not the severity of the vandalism, it's how many vandalism edits he/she makes. I may reset this warning to Level 1. Minimac (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Well, you can do whatever you like, but if someone's first edit is to call someone a prostitute, that warrants more than a level 1 warning, in my opinion: it's not an accident or a good-faith attempt to improve the article. Contrary to your statement, it's not a simple matter of addition starting at 1; it IS the severity: level 3 means "Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; cease and desist". Look it up on Wikipedia:UTM, where you'll find nothing about any first-time vandal edit being a "level 1 offense." Thanks, and happy editing. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Vandalism#Warnings, which specifically states that for users who are clearly knowingly vandalizing, you may start with a level two or three warning. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]