Hi! I'm very sorry to bother you. (I remember you asked me to keep off your talk page.) Judging from what you did at AKB48 (where you didn't delete much, but rewrote), you seem to be the only hope of this DYK nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota. Please do something.
By the way, two people who voted the nomination down are the one who removed it from the DYK queue (when it had already been approved) and the one who (strangely) first appeared at this nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Momoiro Clover Z and since then has been torturing me at the Momoiro Clover Z article and doesn't do much except that.
Anyway, please do something.
You are free to rewrite the article and do whatever you like cause I'm desperate. Just try to keep the DYK please. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Moscow, no apology necessary--that was a while ago. I'll be glad to into it. Give me a little bit, I'm still on only my second cup of coffee this morning and am coming off a high, from a gold-silver-bronze sweep of the 5000m. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Well. I read the entire nomination, and the article, and a bunch of the diffs cited along the way. You're taking Ohconfucius to task, and I do think that Ohc got a bit testy with you (Ohc, I'm pinging you out of courtesy, but feel free to refrain from commentary here)--but I agree with their edits and I can understand their exasperation. They have spent a lot of time editing and commenting (as has Japanglish) and have seen their edits at least partly redone and their comments not really responded to, not in substance.

  I'm sorry Moscow, but it's simply not a good enough article, and that's even without the referencing problems noted by a couple of editors: I'm a stickler for quality in DYK (whenever I can) and this does not meet the mark. In fact, I'm even stricter: I would scrap the entire sentence about where she lives and how far away that is from some other place--I would scrap the entire "Personal" section, since it exemplifies what in my opinion is wrong with the many K-pop articles. I wish you'd take this as a guide toward better article writing, which partly you have: you know that this announcement stuff, for instance, shouldn't be anywhere, you know it should be removed from all those articles, and I'm glad to see that you didn't reinstate it here. And I will disagree with some other editors: I'd be fine with some version of the original "rear end" hook, shrimp jump and all (if it's judged to be well verified)--but the whole stretch routine isn't encyclopedic. So I'm afraid I can't help you with the DYK. I can't be your champion here, though I can see the article maybe making it in the end, but only if you take Ohconfucius and Japanglish and even DangerousPanda's advice. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I think you have helped already. I hope these changes will make the article a bit less crazy-looking to most people.

  1. I'm removing the stretching routine now.
  2. I agree that most of the Personal section is not encyclopedic, but it's not what the editors want to delete... I will remove the part saying "She is left-handed, but uses the right hand in sports. She has described herself as cheerful and competitive, and cites rhythmic gymnastics and basketball as her favourite sports." cause I think it may make the article look unencyclopedic.
     • Her catchphrase/self introduction is important, but I don't know how to explain why. All girls in AKB48 and Stardust Promotion groups have some kind of self introductions.
       Okay, (I will remove it now. I can always add it later when I have a clear idea why it is important and how to explain it and how to write it.)
     • The part about brothers - I just need more text left in the article...

  By the way, I couldn't really respond to their comments in substance cause Ohconfucius just wanted to delete something and Japanglish said ther were problems with sourcing, but he didn't say where exactly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. There's plenty of individual substantive comments there--you used some advertising as a reference, you're citing sources who are reporting from other sources, a date is wrong, etc. I do not believe Ohc "just wanted to delete something"--the "just" is pejorative, as if you're arguing that they didn't have a good reason but just didn't like something. In addition, you're falling for a well-known but incorrect argument: you're pointing at "the other articles" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but those aren't decent articles, let alone Good Articles or Featured Articles. They are little more than fansites. You may disagree, but that's how I think about them, and apparently I'm not the only one. It is better to point at a certified Good Article and see how stuff is handled there. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, now you can see what I would have done. I don't know if that would be of DYK length. I make no claims about the sourcing of any of it (for all I know none of them pass muster with WP:RS; I don't know, but I think you know how I feel about those news/fan/promotion/gossip/trivia/tabloid portals). I cannot say whether other editors wouldn't say that the shrimp jump, most of which I left in, isn't undue or stupid or poorly sourced. I wouldn't leave "guide" or "guest star" entries in a filmography (it's fan stuff, not of encyclopedia relevance). I'm just looking at this from an article-writing perspective. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I agree the "just" part was wrong, I'm sorry.
  You see, Japanglish didn't say which date was wrong and didn't say which source was an advertisement, etc. When I see him commenting like that, I don't know how to react. Why didn't he say where exactly the problems were? Maybe he didn't actually read the sources, who knows. If I knew what date was wrong, I would correct it. If some source can be regarded as an advertisement, I probably added because I didn't have the actual magazine or book or television show (on DVD) it advertised. I have to use announcements on Natalie or the Ohta Books website cause I don't have the actual magazines. (The announcerments just say what the books are about and summarize the content. That's as close as I can get to the actual magazine issues from where I am.)
  But I will go through all the sources tomorrow and try to find out what he might not like. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm removing the "guide" and "guest star" entries now. The main problem that the article must be expanded 5 times. When Ohconfucius removed the part about her shrimp jump failure, it automatically became expanded less than 5 times. And I didn't have any more sources. So it was like he made the DYK nomination ineligible twice: no hook and no expansion. (Since then I was able to find more and added several more sentences, but I still don't have much. I can agree to another hook, I like ALT10 the most, but I don't see why completely remove the story about her fall since it was reported in reliable sources.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it won't pass the DYK requirement of a 5× expansion like this. Your edits didn't change the meaning, that's good. I think the fact that she is the red member and wears red clothes is important. At least, the lead should introduce her as "the red member". The part about her being the center can be discussed in the Momoiro Clover Z article, but why not here? The part about why she auditioned and that it was her first ever audition and that it happened unexpectedly and that she just wanted to be an actress when Stardust Promotion suddenly decided to create a very low-budget idol group - I don't know, I like it and I think people would want to know that. Why the leader was changed - it can be explained in the Momoiro Clover article, I can agree... But I need more text... (You see, at the moment I can agree to anything just to make the DYK pass, but I really want the article to be as complete and detailed as possible. The info is not availeble in English anywhere.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to check your E-mail. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does it have a little baggie of weed attached? Or a $20 bill? Drmies (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Only if you have moved to Colorado or the State of Washington. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet, I'm afraid. Mark, thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gonna be a small bag. LOL! And thank you Drmies!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This combination made the great happiness of the Parisian aristocracy. Hafspajen (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whichen, Warrington? Drmies (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexander Roslin - it was he who caused the general happiness of the Parisian aristocracy. Hafspajen (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better now, thanks to some Yngvadottir and Xanthomelanoussprog-copyediting. Hafspajen (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 February 2014, 17:50 you wrote on my user page daring me to take you up on "charges", and that I should duck on the way out. " maybe you should bring me up on some charge or other on the appropriate noticeboard. I suggest you try your luck at WP:ANI, but you might want to duck on your way out. Drmies"

I have asked you several times what you meant by this, and you have sided stepped giving an answer every time. I am taking this to be a threat. If it is not a threat please explain what you meant by this remark. Livingengine1 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheesh. You accuse me of stupid stuff, I said take it to ANI. "Duck" on your way out refers to a boomerang that might hit you. Where's the threat? I may have missed your actual question in between the verbiage; my apologies. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Apology accepted. Thank you for being so reasonable. I hope in the future you will come to recognize me as a reasonable person, as well. I am not here to make trouble, draw attention to myself, engage in sockpuppetry, play games, or pursue a political agenda. I don't have time for that. I sincerely want to work to improve Wikipedia, to make it factual, accurate, and fair. I am here to learn, and work with people within the policy guidelines to improve Wikipedia. That's all. Thanks again, big help.Livingengine1 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. In case you missed my ping, your input is requested here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Dr. Fleischman--no, I did not miss it, though I had to read it twice before I saw where I was mentioned. I'm afraid I can't add much to it, having little or no knowledge of the dispute. I'm not sure where my intel boys came in; that comment came from a case where I didn't even look at COI or accusations of paid editing, so I'm not sure what light I could possibly shed on your present case. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe that reference required a bit more context. Several pro-Snowden/pro-privacy editors have repeatedly been accusing those who criticize their contributions of being paid to do so--in other words, of being "intel boys" or hired mercenaries. I included examples of this in my original post: here, here, here. Wnt even confirmed this was what was meant. Whether you call this an accusation of paid COI editing or "a personal attack on [my] integrity" that "go[es] to the core of AGF," it doesn't matter. It's the same type of conduct (baseless smearing of one's opponents) and part of a larger pattern. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this looks a bit like canvassing (I could be wrong, though). It also looks like an unfounded conspiracy theory that should have been dropped a long time ago. As for my part, I wrote on Fleischman's talk, 9 December: "For the record, I don't think that Dr F is intel, or working for the government... I don't blame Dr F for making fun of me for that, in hindsight". I thought this would have ended the strife. petrarchan47tc 10:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry (third one in a row!), but all of this is kind of going over my head. Since Snowden I've had to let my intel boys go--besides, the health care costs were getting prohibitive. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry #4, my comment wasn't directed towards you ;) petrarchan47tc 00:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again. [1] Hafspajen (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've warned. Waiting to see what happens next. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know Crisco. This article is supposed to be a good article. I have been fighting with this editor and removing crappy pictures for years now. We had a big issue for some tome ago. It is a persistent removal of good pictures and adding of low quality pictures , indeed for years now. And socking. [2] 11 December 2013 Kipperkip October 2013 Kipperkip 2 September 2013 Kipperkip Edwardkipper 29 QAugust 2012Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly, that's one of the most common issues with well-known topics (especially ones on which some people are quite fanatic). Right now I'm playing it safe, but I don't doubt that any more reverting on the user's part will likely end with a little holiday. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Crisco - it is... sad and quite fanatic. Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sound of inevitability. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, nice job. Also hope that Edward [3]will stay calm. Hafspajen (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muffadal Saifuddin Most of the article looks like advertisement and cover story news reports regarding the person have been removed and replaced with unsourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.237.185 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mufaddal Saifuddin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, 122 is blocked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I left a note on the article talk page and closed the ANEW report before I saw this post. Boy that article needs (more) help. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm at 2RR or 3RR, so I can't go any further. There has been more edit warring to remove "claimant", but no sources to show that it is actually decided (from four days ago). Can you revisit the article please? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Majority recognize Saifuddin, but that doesn't mean official confirmation yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted Markdrows, and left a note on the talk page, under yours. Apparently we're the only ones who are capable of editing that talk page. Markdrows, apparently, has a record of making unverified changes. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And it's still going on. Apparently not only is Saifuddin not a claimant, but information on the controversy ("one of the most challenging weeks in the 1,400-year history of the Dawoodi Bohra faith") is also "not necessary and un encylopedic". I've asked another admin to full protect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think WP:ANI is the way to go, but meh. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I don't use it much doesn't mean I don't feel it, so thank you, too.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought it was highly appropriate since your response was so much better than what I could have pulled out. I kind of like that button these days. Well done; I think we made some progress. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, Drmies. I see it as a quick and simple way to let another editor know that I appreciate something, without making a big deal out of it. I really appreciate receiving those "thanks" and send them out frequently too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. It's something to look forward to when you log in. Plus, it feels kind of secret--but then, they're all logged of course. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually wondering if they were logged. It occurred to me that one could use it for secret on-wiki coordination using morse code or something slightly more sophisticated (speculative details on request). Are the logs visible to everyone?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secret? Ha ha. Bishonen | talk 04:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ssst! Drmies (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if morse code made a comeback. Telegraphy was the original "internet", after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still has its followers. Install this distro and you will be safe if The Illuminati are watching your computer, and you need to use morse code to blink out your PGP messages on the numlock key. And they are watching, you know.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Frog Cake award
	For all the Nice Copy editors copy-editing and all the Nice Dogphoto fighters dog photo fighting on this talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's cute, and a GA to boot. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice award! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, I'm going to try and make those. I need to expand into pastry. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is one expanding himself into pastry? Hafspajen (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Saw your recent edits. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Super Bowl LII will give some background on that editor. I may need some assistance. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw that too and didn't see that there was anything to add. I just deleted the Superb Owl with the period at the end but I see no need to salt it. If they recreate they should simply be blocked. For the record, I agree with your assessment at DRN, and I'm quite confident that User:TransporterMan can handle this. Drmies (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I should have been more clear in what I meant by "I may need some assistance". I was referring to helping me to clean up that user's actions so there would be a second admin on record -- which I noticed you did. If you could have contributed to that DRN discussion, that would have been a bonus. I'm sure TransporterMan will help handle that (although I will have to wait a few hours. I do not think he is usually active during this hour). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zzyzx11 being a long time contributor should of known better than to remove people's comments. Given the nature that experienced editors can block new ones. I had no choice but to file a dispute resolution before the situation got worse. The two things being disputed:

1. The existence of Super Bowl 53

2. The rumor that The Superdome is in the running only 5 years after it hosted the most recent one. That's like letting the Mets host the All-star game again in 2018 which MLB probably not do. The page in question is not officially an NFL page.

I strongly suggest we await the results on the dispute resolution before taking any further action.

• This rumor stuff, I have no idea what you're talking about or why that matters. This is an encyclopedia and we go by what reliable sources say, adding it when it is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Talk pages are for discussing the article. The edit summary given, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, only to discuss how to improve this Wikipedia article", linked to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM, is adequate explanation. All Presbitow had to do was click on the link. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  though I'm still not sold on the idea Talk pages are for only discussing the article I'm willing to move on and reconcile. Going forward it's best to AGF and reply as opposed to removing the comment outright. As for SB LIII, I'm going to try and get the title fixed so we don't have to use a period in creating the page. Obviously I've only been here a few days so I can't fix it myself. Presbitow (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I don't know if you interested in working on Alabama Blues Project any further, but I ran across it while reviewing old AfCs and moved it to the article space. Keegan (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gee, thanks--I had no idea this was still lingering somewhere. Thanks Keegan, and thanks for leaving me a note. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created Cristian Raducanu, my first (and hopefully last) COI article. I played rugby with the guy and still have a pint with him a few times each year, y'see. Anyways, a Romanian specialist has added a diacritic to his surname. Have you or any stalker got an inkling regarding the policy for diacritics in a BLP situation where the subject doesn't use the mark, he's spent more time in Britain than he ever did in Romania and most sources appear to be in English publications/also do not use it.

I'm not disputing that the Raducanu name in Romania usually incorporates the thing but, for example, it seems generally to be the case that we do not add such marks to the names of Indian people. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't use that mark than you just say that he doesn't. It is up to him, Raducanu - to chose. Raducanu left that counrty at the age of 22. It was his choise and one needs to respect that. You can't force him to use a name he doesn't want to use, just because they happen to know about how it was spelled originally. I noted that those people often want to claim the results of their ex-compatriots, however distant they are and whatewer they chose or wish themselves. Hafspajen (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the man dropped the diacritic, as is his right. That does not mean there is no scope at all for indicating that his birth name was Răducanu. We do so for Zbigniew Brzezinski, a man who has not lived in his native Poland since the 1930s and who has been a US citizen (without the diacritic) since 1958. We do so for Roman Polanski, who again hasn't lived in Poland since around 1963 and who doesn't normally use the diacritic. There's no reason not to follow a similar practice here.

This is all without even bringing up Wikipedia's general pro-diacritics policy. To take just one example, Miklós Rózsa left Hungary at age eighteen and in none of his dozens of film credits do diacritics appear, but we don't hesitate to use them throughout his biography. So you have to have a pretty good reason to banish diacritics entirely.

Hafspajen, I find your comments lacking in good faith. It's not a matter of "happening" to know how his name was originally spelt; it's a fairly common surname that anyone with an elementary knowledge of Romanian (or the ability to type the name into our search box) will know how to spell. And I for one am not "claiming" any of his results. I'd never heard of the man before yesterday, and I'm sure I will have forgotten about him in a week. Please stick to policy-based discussion, not speculation on other users' motivations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess WP:OR would be a policy-based reason. I could ask Cris when I next see him but in the absence of a source for the diacritic version ... - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul is a friend of the show, and I unhesitatingly accept what he has to say, trusting his experience on-wiki and his knowledge. I assure you, Hafspajen, that he is the last to make such nationalistic POV claims. Biruitorul, please forgive my young friend: he meant no harm, and he's probably seen enough of those diacritics discussions to see that some of it is fueled by nationalism. Sitush, that's a fine-looking article, and I am glad to know that you can hob-nob with amiable and popular giants. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, let's not be unreasonable. In modern, literate societies (and late-'60s Romania qualifies), there aren't a dozen ways to spell a particular surname. There's just one, unless you count its close relative Răducan. This isn't original research, just basic common sense. Romanians living in the West may also call themselves Muresan or Tanase or Serban or Lazarescu, but in similar fashion, there is zero rational doubt that Mureșan, Tănase, Șerban and Lăzărescu is how they spelt their names back home. And we should note that, if only in passing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Eugène Ionesco? Hafspajen (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "Cristian Raducanu (sometimes spelt Christian Raducanu, born Cristian Rāducanu)"? I think that covers everything, and in order of popularity. Sorry for landing this on your talk, Drmies. I shoulda opened it on the article talk. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is why we keep him on payroll - to use his talk page. Why sometimes spelt? Isn't he spelling it like that all the time? By the way, I think Spongebob was actually spelled from the begining as Spongeböb or Spongebåb. We should add this to the article. And Mortimer Mouse... really - that was Mickey Mouse. Hafspajen (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) I've meanwhile been editing the article, and just started a section on its talk page. It would be inappropriate to have the article at a spelling that is characterised in the text as used "sometimes"; nowadays, it's "usually" (i.e.: except in native-language media, according to what Sitush says and looking, for example, at the website for his own business). This is a common situation with émigrés and shouldn't entirely be ascribed to newspapers being too technically limited or lazy to use diacritics; the best solution to it is inclusion of both in the lede and provision of a redirect from the non-title one (which I created), and is a different situation from that where the person concerned continues to use the original spelling (or where some reliable sources bother and others don't). On the other hand I'd missed that Sitush had originally listed two occasional misspellings, so I've reinstated that nuance - [resumably there are cited sources that use them. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In all this talk of diacritics and spelling we seem to have missed the most important thing here: that Sitush likes to play rough with big, muddy men. Good for you, Sitush! Drmies (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not necessarily lazines. The man was asking a passing policeman for political asylum. I am trying to tell you something here. Maybe he wants to spell it that way - maybe , Sitush in the mud should ask Cristian about this, how HE wants HIS NAME to be spelled, right? Living people and so on.Hafspajen (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ionesco? We note right in the lead what his birth name is, and there is only one way to spell Ionescu in Romanian. Sure, the French change -escu to -esco because the French pronunciation of cu is akin to cul, and he went along because he spent most of his life in France, but that hardly invalidates my point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and all that. Hafspajen (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that Raducanu was born Răducanu defies neither WP:NPOV, nor WP:V nor WP:NOR. There exists but one spelling in Romanian of this surname - certainly today, and even more certainly in 1967, when the Communist authorities were not keen on allowing people to play around with variant spellings on their birth certificates - and it would be good for us to reflect that, while at the same time keeping "Raducanu" in the title and the body of the text.

No one here is trying to deny the man the possibility to spell his name however he wishes, so that is ultimately a red herring. The question is how we reflect both the current spelling and the spelling at birth, and Sitush has proposed a sensible way forward. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush is a pretty sensible guy. BTW, Sitush, Wikimania...interesting...I can't help but wonder about the "shared accommodations" though. Do you own a townhouse there somewhere? Drmies (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sitush is a pretty sensible and reasonable guy. And he knows a lot about Horse worship. Or was it Saint Thomas Christians Hafspajen (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mud" doesn't always do it justice, Drmies! Here are a few of the most iconic rugby photos, all featuring Fran Cotton (someone else whom I know, although he'd more or less finished playing when I got going). See [4], [5] and [6]. The one here shows him in a clean state and demos just how lantern-jawed the guy is. Mind, he was more wide than than tall: the biggest person I ever actually played against (and also with) was Bob Kimmins, who represented England and stood around 6 feet 8 inches (2.03 m), weighing somewhere over 300 pounds (140 kg). Bob had no neck to speak of and by the age of 30 had one of those "looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp" faces, although he looks quite normal in the photo. Oh, and there was John Bradshaw, who was only about 6 feet (1.8 m) tall but had a 58 inches (150 cm) chest and weighed around 320-330 lbs. Anyway, it's no wonder the pitches got churned up. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert it to your old link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=594834390

In the current article a lot of vandalism was done and attempts were made to conceal various news reports about the succession controversy in wiki it was changed to "Succession story" but its a controversy. The links like http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/fatemi-dawat/nass-e-jali-1432h-part-ii-raudat-tahera/ are partisan \ primary sources which represent the camp of Muffadal. On such issues third party sources are required. The following edit is the best reflection and NPOV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=594834390 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that one is a blogspot source too, by the looks of it. I've already reverted this once today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, do you think List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra should be protected? The two claimants' articles are, and there's some back and forths in the history. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw your revert: is this a partisan source? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it should be protected, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again attempts are made to revert back and conceal availaible information from reputed news sources. Please revert back to the last edit by Crisco 1492 as still the controversy going on has reached an ugly face with harassment attacks between both parties [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again locke in wrong version please discuss [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment for such trivialities, this appears to be the same editor who was blocked for similar business in the past: [9]; one of their calling cards, besides the unsourced business in the movie articles, is the creation of articles on talk pages....? Hope you're well. We're preparing for another big storm. Did you get hit by today's blast? JNW (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've deleted the article that was a recreation of one deleted because it was created by a banned user: Talk:Agaton Sax And The Byköpings Village Festival (was Agaton Sax and the Byköpings Village Festival). Someone may want to write that up decently; the deleted versions are not well written. I'm inclined to translate some of the Swedish cast lists; they can presumably be sourced. Hafspajen, for example, this (not yet reverted) and this (has been reverted). I've also started the IP's talk page with a warning about using Swedish, especially in section titles, but I note that on some articles they have translated that section title. That leaves several very brief bios, all apparently related to the deleted film article, which reference Nationalencyklopedin. For example, Talk:Per Sjöstrand, where there is indeed such an encyclopedia article (summary) and the article does not appear to have been previously deleted. I always feel bad about zapping articles simply and solely because they've been created by a banned user, but if they are to stay they should obviously be moved to article space, and that's aiding and abetting. Maybe I should move them to AfC or draft space?? Did this editor ever have a registered username so that they could create these in article space? I'm not familiar with this banned user. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir, I've responded to your post at my talk page, and have filed at ANI. This goes beyond garden variety vandalism, and is a long term issue with this user, meriting blocks and multiple instances of page protection in the past. JNW (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, do you want me to edit child stuff like animated cartoon Charlie Strap and Froggy Ball Flying High? Drmies said above that I might be too young (? where did he got that from... ) ... but not that young. Only if it is really a big need for it. Hafspajen (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pehr Hörberg (got there via the Swedish merchant Piell and his ownership of a Rembrandt)- article is almost as ugly as the artist himself. I tried- and then I gave up. Just ordered a book on William Henry Hunt, due to finding a "sleeper" in a local sale.Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Very wise. Hafspajen (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey JNW, we're fine, thanks--ha, I saw warnings for the "Deep South". Well, the Deep South starts south of Atlanta! It's cold and rainy here, and I hope you're keeping warm, and that your loved ones are looked after. Interesting tactic, to make talk pages--not bad. I'm not familiar with that editor, am I? I'm about to have a look at the ANI thread. I'm still waiting for my own invitation to that forum, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up here the 'Deep South' is anything below New Jersey. And given the 'Jersey Shore', perhaps Perth Amboy is the new Mason Dixon. I don't remember who handled this editor last year, but I think several administrators were involved eventually. Very best, JNW (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And Yngvadottir, you don't ever stop, do you? You are amazing. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but I should point out that this is my "weekend". And thanks to my hatred for deleting articles on notable topics, we now have half a dozen stublets on Swedish actors that desperately need expanding. I've wikidata-linked 'em all. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're a good man/woman/cocker spaniel. BTW, at the risk of angering JNW (!), I agree: I also am hesitant to undo helpful additions. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On balance these aren't helpful additions. Aside from the oddly created articles, these are the latest installment of months' long disruptions, all unsourced, and much of it apparently nonsense. JNW (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I did look up the administrator who blocked one of the user's accounts last year, and dropped him a line [10]. JNW (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, who cares about Swedish people. Yngvadottir, you are a good sport, though. Hafspajen (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good. The thing is, the actors are all notable, although they fall along a range of notability (and although in a couple of cases he used a non-existent reference; I replaced it with a valid one from the Swedish articles). I have more doubts about sv:Agaton Sax och Byköpings gästabud (film), although it evidently does exist and that suffices. Probably finding an admin who's familiar with the case is best. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I see they returned today and that John Reaves has now blocked them. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha. Well, I grant that this isn't very helpful to anyone. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Revisiting a persistent sock: Same edit profile, new account [11]. JNW (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woof. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ..a joke? Hafspajen (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bow wow? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• *tinkle* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Pity we don't have a picture of the mayor. Hafspajen (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruff? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dog was "elected" honorary "mayor" of an unincorporated "town" which has no government. It was a publicity stunt. All governmental functions other than dog talk are provided by the capable civil servants of Alameda County. By the way, I usually drive through this area once or twice a week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: DYK. Still doable. April Fools Day means no need for "quotes" on "mayor". Tons of sources out there, enough for a GA even. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Saw your revert [12]. Is DYK controversial nowadays? Hafspajen (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, An APril Fool DYK!!!! Clever. Hafspajen (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's an edit conflict, definitely. April Fools Day would be fun. I haven't prepared any yet, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, the mayor Bosco, I mean, as April fool DYK. Hafspajen (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that a mutt defeated two men to become mayor of a California community?
• ... that a mutt, mayor of Sunol, California, protested the Chinese government and became a "symbol of democracy"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a party pooper, but how can an encyclopedia call you, me, a dog or a parrot a "mayor", when said creature was actually an "honorary mayor" of a non-existent governmental entity based on a successful publicity stunt by some guys sitting on barstools? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You? User:Cullen328 defeated two men to become mayor of a California community?Hafspajen (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hence April Fools. The community decided to not out-and-out ban such jokes, and this is better than a random cock, fuck, or shit, right? The article would be entirely factual, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Righ Hafspajen (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am the undisputed mayor of the approximately 1000 residents of the little community of La Vigne in American Canyon, California at the very southern end of the Napa Valley. I walked door to door with my wife and son to help convince the residents to vote for the actual mayor and actual city council members of my city, and I was acclaimed honorary mayor as a result. Please write my Wikipedia biography. On a more serious note, the April Fools articles are OK with me, but only if scrupulously accurate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Please write my Wikipedia biography." - I think, given the recent experience of the NYTimes reporter, that's a case of needing to be careful what you wish for. As for "scrupulously accurate", again, the article would include that it was honorary. The hook would drop the scare quotes from mayor. That's all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It was probably a very good idea, knocking doors. Hafspajen (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Except my knuckles got sore. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Knuckles the Echidna Hafspajen (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbs the cat, mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska Bgwhite (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just unbelievable. Hafspajen (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hank the Cat ran for US Senate here in Virginia back in 2012 and placed 3rd! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dem cat's steelin' our thunda. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cats are better anyway. You don't see any LOLDog pictures, do you? :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do see LOLDog pictures. Neutralhomer, do you know that they acually use that picture and edirwar on it? LOLDog. Hafspajen (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet, I've never known a cat named Homer. A dog, sure... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You do now, my cat's middle name is Homer...and yes, after Homer Simpson. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah. My cats always got names like "Smokey" or "Spooky" or w.e. My brother named one "Putty Tat" (yeah, like Tweety). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Just spreading some Wiki-love! Didn't know if you had this one yet or not....it's got pretty colors at least! MONGO 04:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Preciate it, MONGO--thanks. Is that the gay barnstar? Did Stephen Colbert send you? Drmies (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't thought about it like that...MONGO just thought colors were purdy colorful...and wanted to give barnstar.--MONGO 12:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At my age, I'll take whatever I can get. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...you don't do any vote swapping with him?! [13] & [14] --IIIraute (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illraute... are you capable in the least bit of doing the baseline decent thing? Piotrus withdrew his nomination. You got your kicks in and you got to enjoy humiliating another person. Kudos to you. Now kindly go away and drop it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...do you mean like you - Recruit Marek - trying to save your own neck, although you already knew he did withdraw → [15] P.S. ...no kick for me - and Piotrus and you got quite lucky - as there was much more to come! --IIIraute (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"you got quite lucky - as there was much more to come!" - The above comment: 1) is an obvious threat 2) makes it obvious that you were involved in compiling that nasty piece of work. So I'll say it explicitly. You're a pathetic miserable little coward, hiding behind your anonymity to harass and humiliate others. Why is it that people like you thrive on Wikipedia (at least for awhile before they get their asses finally banned, usually way too late)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, Illraute, that's not so nice of you. Also, I didn't run for steward, so it's purely hypothetical. Since my activity level in the education department has sunk to pretty much zero I haven't had that much contact with Piotrus anyway, but he was friendly to me when we met in Boston, and he was the first real-life Wikipedian I met. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant as a compliment. Honi soit qui mal y pense. --IIIraute (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that part, but that's a bit much, for my throwaway comment on a talk page. I'm sure Piotrus, whatever his flaws may be, is not feeling all that great right now. Hmm. Sir Gawain. Interesting--did I see you in class today? We didn't get to cover the last part. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page in a nutshell: Love thy fellow editor.

It is a bit sad that some people seem to derive some sick delight in sowing negativity here and there. Others of us focus as much as possible on improving this free encyclopedia for all people everywhere. I choose the second path, and commend my fellow editors who do as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it's just that we had a lot "more and more" WikiLove in the last two days.[16] → [17] Never mind. --IIIraute (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, all the way back to 2011! Keep pounding the drum! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drmies got the message. Πάντα ῥεῖ. --IIIraute (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	"for all the abusive admin commentary I hear about me," ... I saw this passing self-comment on ANI. I expect you don't take such things too seriously but FWIW every time I see you you're doing good work. Carry on. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! It's appreciated. I like the gift as I like the giver, and I like this gift. I keep meaning to make time and order books and get back into the area where I usually run into you, religious topics. BTW, you've been really busy recently--hope you didn't get laid off or something! Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I admired your voice of reason here particularly, - I listened, wish others would, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies, How ya doin buddy? I did get away from home - although not some "international" glamorous trip. I did get to spend a week in Quincy, IL. ... very nice. Hope to get back to wiki in April. Hope all is well with you.

ched — ChedZILLA 23:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ched! Good to hear from you. I saw a picture of a big old eagle somewhere sporting the red white and blue the other day and thought of you. Well, all is moderately well here in this locus amoenus, but the rest of the Wiki world is going to hell. Illinois? Why would anyone want to go there? Are the drugs there better than in Ohio or Alabama? Hey, don't expect too much on your return. Maybe you can have more fun in real life and leave us to our devices. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't agree more about Illinois - but there is a woman there, and I do still like those ... lol. Actually though, Quincy is a nice quaint little town ... so "Locus amoenus" is quite apropos. May have to go see it again once all the snow and ice has given way to some green grass and sunshine. I did notice a few dustups on wiki, but haven't really looked into any of them much, beyond one request to re-evaluate. Glad to hear things are going well for you - hope you don't let any of the end-of-winter, cabin-fever dramaz get to ya. Cheers buddy. And best to all your TPS (Crisco, Bbb, LoS, etc.)— ChedZILLA 12:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the annoying things about Wikipedia is that it seems you have to camp out 24/7 on the noticeboards unless you want the discussion to move in a direction you weren't expecting...I leave for dinner and a late night meeting and events have already passed me by :). Anyway, what you propose with FergusM1970 is fine with me, though I personally think he simply got nervous at the prospect that someone might block him soon and is pretending to capitulate. NW (Talk) 03:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, I like it when things move in a direction I wasn't expecting, cause that's usually a better solution. Well, what if he doesn't get blocked? Maybe we'll get some good edits out of him. I hope you enjoyed your dinner. I wish I had been with Stephen Colbert for dinner last night. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Jiti Jitayi Politics was a hoax until I managed to clear the 2009 unref'd tag. The candidates who stood in the 2003 election had some, erm, balls. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure they made sure to stick up for something, eh? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's enough corny jokes out of the two of you. Crisco, don't mention "stick up" near Sitush, please, or next thing you know there's a link to a picture. Sitush, what a wonderful thing Wikipedia is, no? In other exciting news, in two weeks I'll be at a conference where Alison Bechdel is one of the featured speakers (and here "featured" is used correctly). Fun Home is a very nice FA (thank you Josiah Rowe), and Fun Home is a good book as well. (I'm not a huge fan of graphic novels.) My boss says it's wildly inappropriate for my 8-year old to read; I wish I had asked him before I gave her the book, haha. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome! And no, I wouldn't give Fun Home to most 8-year-olds... but then again, Sydney Lucas played Young Alison in the musical last year at the age of 10, and I presume she read the book in preparation for the role. (She was amazing, by the way.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a stick up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Romanov Polar Star Award
	Probably not a good idea, but here you go, a barnstar from the Romanov Family to you. Because you discovered the South Pole. Hafspajen (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pretty! So--am I going to get executed in the basement? or stuffed in a high-school locker? Drmies (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Stuffed. File:Gjoastuffeddog.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a scary dog. Henrik Harlaut looks funnier. Hey, check this out--User:Drmies/sandbox3. Pity I'll never get to use it. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor baby. Hafspajen (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you guys feel like you got the worst snow? This is my Valentine's Day. Ash. Everywhere. *sigh* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Exercising, Hafs? You know we Canadian Wikipedians are allergic to getting up, let alone exercising. Sheesh. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'HAFS: ? Well, how about the girls then? Hafspajen (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the girl... let's just say being of European descent in Indonesia has its benefits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

..* Oh, good for you. Hafspajen (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You should ask Drmies to tell you all about what the Dutch men did here. We really need an article on nyais. Oh boy... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ash? Que? Wow... You alright?

  Hey, that was long before my time. None of my kinfolk went there--we weren't classy enough to become administrators (and be trained in the Royal Tropical Institute...). My hometown, Hoorn, made a lot of money from "trade" with the East, though. And we have a statue there for one of our, ahem, overseers. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Valentine's Day
	............................................................................................................................................................................ Hafspajen (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope Crisco is not buried uner those ashes by now. Crisco, - Crisco 1492 - report please. Doesn't seems like a healthy place to be right now. And Gladys, how about an Update -Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow? Nothing since 2007. Hafspajen (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am, luckily enough, fine. Apparently it was just ash from Kelud. Although I wouldn't want to be in Kediri right now...

Eh, Drmies, you should get Reggie Baay's book De Njai: Het Concubinaat in Nederlands-Indie. I've got the translation. Really interesting stuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good then. Hafspajen (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anecdotes de Suède, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Anecdotes de Suède, a polemic against the Swedish regime of the 1680s, appeared in French, German, and English before finally being published in Swedish in 1822? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anecdotes de Suède. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for this one Victuallers (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, I've gotten the impression somewhere that you teach English. Maybe you could answer a question that's been puzzling me about the seemingly simple word "the". Sometimes it's used as a definite article in a way that particularizes the following word, indicating that the following word refers to something specific that is definite and known to the speaker (e.g. "I parked the car"). On the other hand, sometimes the word "the" indicates that the following word is meant in a generic sense ("mail comes in the afternoon"). I'd like to know if there's a general rule that the particular meaning rather than the generic meaning is meant when the word "the" is followed by a plural noun (e.g. "the daisies are pretty"). Whaddaya say?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Anything, I do in fact teach English, though not very well. When I teach advanced grammar I prefer not to talk so much about articles as about determiners (our article is very stubby). To some extent that points to two different views on grammar--speaking of articles points to categorization in terms of definitions, speaking of determiners points to classification more based on function. The way I see it, grammar itself has little to do with meaning, but I admit that my view is restricted compared to how many others look at it. In this case, a grammatical analysis doesn't help much: in both examples you have a noun to which the definite article is applied (standard terminology) but yes, there is a difference in meaning. I wonder to which extent the structure of "in the afternoon" has been determined by the fact that it's "caught" in a prepositional phrase: traditionally prepositions require nouns and nouns typically require articles (roughly speaking), so the "the" could simply follow from that rule, without actually meaning anything in itself.

  Perhaps there are different kinds of specificity. After all, one could argue that "I parked my car" is more specific than "I parked the car" (which car? well, whichever rental I drove up in, I forgot the make). It's slim, but one could argue that--it depends on what you mean with identifying a particular car, and that's a matter of context: oh, you drove a rental Corolla? no wonder your legs are a bit stiff. (A specific Corolla, but not treated as an individual one.) Oh, you drove your dad's car? no wonder you reek of cologne. (A specific car--a highly specific one.) One could also argue that "mail comes in the afternoon" is definite in that it points out which time of day it comes, and that it's definite enough to answer the question "which afternoon?" (well, every single one except for on Sunday, silly). And there is no difference in saying "mail comes in the afternoons", though it's much less common.

  But your question is really about the plural. I don't do rules very well, and in this case I would say that what might be presented as a rule is really a kind of habit (grammarians love to turn habits into rules), one particular to (West-?)Germanic languages; French handles this differently (having an indefinite plural article), but Dutch does the same as English does. Just think of the difference between "I love boys" and "I love the boys". So my answer would be, that's just the way it is. If you ask the Oxford UP's grammar book, it would tell you, well, here's a couple dozen quotations from books and newspapers--have a look. (Very unsatisfactory!)

  Oh, one more thing came to mind. Change your sentence to get rid of the preposition: "I devote the afternoon to napping". You could say that in some contexts this is a not-so-specific use of the definite article (if the answer to the question "which afternoon?" is "well, every afternoon, silly!"). Now change the sentence just a bit: "I devote afternoons to napping". That means the same, and it seems to me that it's not the same as "I devote the afternoons to napping", in which case you're more or less pointing at a specific set of afternoons, whatever kind of set that may be--the afternoons during your vacation, maybe. "Afternoons", not so specific; "the afternoons", more so. But by then we've left grammar behind, and we're talking about meaning. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the feedback. As a lawyer, I'm interested in the repeated use of the word "the" in the Equal Protection Clause, and I didn't realize that I would need naps in the afternoons and a whiff of my Dad's cologne to make sense of it!  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, if that was the help I gave, it was the strangest help ever. Today is silliday in my world. (Wait--are you talking about the clause or about our article? and you're a lawyer? interesting--I have a Prius. It works fine. Can I still sue and get money?) Drmies (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The clause that's quoted in the article. In America you can always sue, but winning is harder, and winnings are harder still (especially after paying you-know-who). If your Prius works fine, my advice would be to sue about something else, maybe sue some of your students for sexual harassment if they have deep pockets and caused you to think bad thoughts. But I digress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After this morning's episode they're more likely to sue me. Good thing I have you on speed dial. :) Drmies (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed the speedy on that. It clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines. Please read WP:WAX & WP:OSE ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, right after you write, and then read, WP:STUFFCANBEMOREDIFFICULTTHANWHATYOUTHINKYOUCANSOLVEBYTHROWINGSOMEALPHABETSOUPAGAINSTTHEWALLTOSEEWHATSTICKS. WAX and OSE apply to deletion discussion and this wasn't a discussion, only a matter of decision in the matter of "does this make a claim to some kind of importance". The claim is made that team x is part of league y. Well, league y has a lot of teams, many with articles, whereby I can safely assume that those teams, or at least some of them, are notable by virtue of belonging to that league. And what goes for those can go for this. You say that it "clearly" doesn't meet guidelines--well, that depends on the league, doesn't it. Cite all the guidelines you want, but this was a request for speedy deletion, and speedy deletion is a very convenient shortcut--and not one to be taken lightly. I give the club the benefit of the doubt. You started an AfD; great. That's where you can make an argument: "clubs in this league are not automatically notable", maybe. And if that's true, deletion will be uncontroversial. For my part, all I have to say is that I believe admins shouldn't be trigger-happy. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, but I see you made no argument at all at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azarbaijan Tehran F.C.. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to spell douche. It was just a typo, man.OsFan3 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I do too, so that makes two of us. Watch me: "d o u c h e". Drmies (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You both misspelled it. It's actually "t r o l l".--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smartypants, watch me get the last word in: "i n". Ha! I mean "h a !". Drmies (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me, by the way, of a student evaluation I once received: I was called a "doucebag", so ever since I ask students, on evaluation day, to please spell that word correctly. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have taken doucebag as a compliment. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been eating at me all day. I felt Bishonen and you were being unnecessarily condescending. Regardless my response was inappropriate, and I'll try to do better. I hope you both accept my apology. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm sorry if we were having too much fun, but it can be frustrating to deal with what I think we both perceived as an illogical argument. At any rate, you saw that I removed my own comment, in the end, and I thank you for your very kind note. I hope we can bring the actual matter to a convenient close. You know what to pot said to the kettle? "Try not to let on-wiki stuff bother you off-wiki". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a case of loud quacking or do I have to go to WP:SPI? Paul O'Grady1234 and "editwar" on Irish War of Independence. The Banner talk 21:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, already at WP:SPI. The Banner talk 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. As you know, some editors have had problems with Mrm7171. I got tired of fighting with him/her over every edit, so I decided to move on to different articles where he has not been active, and let him have these other articles that have been so contentious. Today I edited the article on workplace aggression, and he followed me there and undid a change I made. Since I began TRYING to contribute to wiki last summer, I have had to fight Mrm7171 to let me do any edits at all. It took something like 3 months just to add a one-sentence definition to the occupational health psychology article even though several editors supported my addition. He has had an ongoing battle with Iss246, and he associates me with this other editor, and has been undermining my contribution. I think this behavior constitutes disruptive editing. Please help. Psyc12 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies. I see there is a term for Mrm7171's behavior, wikihounding. It happened last fall. I got tired of the fighting on the OHP article so I decided to work on occupational stress, and soon after Mrm7171 started arguing with me over that article. I thought maybe it was a coincidence at the time, but now that he/she has followed me to workplace aggression, it forms a pattern. Thanks for your help. Psyc12 (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. Psyc12, you came in today and aggressively deleted the link to organizational psychology I added 6 months ago now, in July 2013, to the workplace aggression page. You had no prior history on that article until today. I added it again as it is justified. But you deleted it again. I did not revert and instead stood back as I didn't want to be dragged into an edit war. I did however add constructively to that article today, with another reliable source and section. I also made a comment on the Talk:Workplace aggression discussion between 2 other editors from a few years ago. All of this is in the edit history.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly. You also mentioned the occupational stress article. I did not follow you there either psyc12. The opposite. I started working on that article 01:21, 7 July 2013 when Psyc12 had no history on that article until 11:30, 21 July 2013.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ‎ ‎[reply]

• I see no evidence of hounding from the history of that article. Yes, Mrm got there first, but a charge of HOUNDING requires a pattern of edits; one single one won't do. It is possible that this is happening in other articles, but that's not something I'm willing to investigate and I'm not prepared to do anything based on one edit (and a revert, of course, and then a revert of the revert). I think you all might benefit from dispute resolution. Or someone can file an RfC/U on the other, followed no doubt by the reverse. It might be best for Wikipedia if all y'all (inclusing Iss) were banned from those articles--but I'm shooting from the hip here. Either way, barring some extreme incivility or easily discernible disruption, as an individual admin I don't see what kind of action any one of you should take, except, of course, for PLEASE try to a. get along or b. stay out of each other's hair. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I could use more of your advice. I took your advice above and stopped editing articles Mrm7171 works on, and started working on others to stay out of his/her way. Today he followed me to NIOSH Education and Research Centers and is edit warring and pushing his POV (see talk page). He has been going from article to article trying to promote I/O psychology by putting mentions into the article, often in articles where it is not relevant. When I deleted his mention here that was unreferenced, he kept putting it back. I do not want to get into a protracted argument on the talk page about this, as has happened with other articles as you might recall. Here's some examples from talk pages. I looked at four articles he/she has worked on. Here's the date the article was started, the date Mrm first worked on the article, and from the history summary, the number of comments on the talk page before and after. Thanks.

Article, Date began, Date Mrm7171 started on it, Comments before Mrm7171, Comments after Mrm7171

Occupational health psychology 9/2008 5/2013 41 1475

Health psychology 12/2005 7/2013 20 146

Work & Stress 9/2009 8/2013 7 97

Occupational stress 5/2009 10/2013 13 72 Psyc12 (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brief reply. I have certainly kept my distance from psyc12. Based on a quick look at their edit history, it seems they have edited a number of articles recently, none of which I have gone near. However if there is some overlap, I won't be bullied away from editing an article by these 'continuing' baseless accusations (based on the objective edit history) here on an admin's talk page, which could be seen, and I am beginning to take, as personal attacks from psyc12.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies. Is Mrm using Wiki to promote I/O psychology? Here's a partial list of articles where Mrm has inserted mention of I/O psychology (sometimes using a synonym). Some fit and some clearly do not, particularly the ones at the end of the list.

Human factors/ergonomics, NIOSH, workplace aggression, employment testing, work design, HR consulting, recruitment, occupational safety and health, work life balance, stress, health psychology, organizational behavior, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, Epidemiology, environmental health, noise control, occupational health nursing, occupational medicine, occupational disease. Psyc12 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work psychology is a very broad field that deals with many issues impacting people’s job performance, health, safety and well-being at work. All of those articles listed above (apart from occ health nursing & epidemiology?) are directly relevant to work psychology. I objectively edit with a NPOV many different articles and topics on Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psyc12, I cannot answer your question about possible promotion. I think you should call in the experts. Maybe SandyGeorgia can answer that particular query. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at NIOSH Education and Research Centers. It's hard to prove that Mrm is following you: y'all are working in the same area, and weeks passed since your last edit before they got there. As for the content, again, I just can't judge this POV claim since for the life of me I don't know what all this OHP and IOP and all that is. The talk pages, again, that's also hard to judge since those aren't just their edits. What needs to be settled, it seems to me, is the basic definition and applicability of this thing they're inserting. Once that's done there's less need for extensive discussion, no matter who wins the IOP argument. Again, though, that's a matter for the experts. As I suggested earlier, an WP:RFC/U is a possibility as well, and it is usually seen as a prerequisite before other "behavioral" matters are handled. Mrm, while I don't think it's your job to intervene here, I do appreciate your brevity. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies. This is very helpful. Psyc12 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Drmies. Am feeling very uncomfortable about these ongoing, and spurious accusations of bad faith, without psyc12 providing any evidence or diffs, and when the objective edit history over the past month clearly proves otherwise.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also what is the policy on the 'see also' sections of articles please Drmies? I'm happy to justify any inclusions I have made and provide reliable sources if needed. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mrm, I can only point to WP:SEEALSO and urge common sense to be exercised. But if Psyc12 wants to come by and ask for my opinion on something they are more than welcome to do so. They did so courteously and without resorting to personal attacks, so I don't see a problem there--though I understand perfectly that you're not pleased to hear such things (but I also do not see that the "objective edit history...clearly proves otherwise": I think that at best the history doesn't easily prove Psyc12's point, but that's an entirely different conclusion). Again, I hope that you all will come to some kind of consensus on the general point, since that's a big part of the rub. I am just not competent in the area, and without a consensus on something I can't easily judge whether some edit or other is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:SEEALSO link Drmies. All current inclusions are relevant and can be easily supported by reliable sources and a NPOV. No promotion. If there is any evidence, diffs, 'anything' during the past month at all, to base 'any' accusations on, then editors should present it in the appropriate way or otherwise assume good faith and allow other editors to edit and not keep dragging up the past. Continuing accusations with no basis, could be viewed as personal attacks and discourage editors like myself from the positive contributions they make to the project. That's my only point Drmies.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, please see the COI noticeboard regarding Mrm7171's accusations against me and my response. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I waited patiently for 12 days. Callanecc has just closed the discussion with a dismissive Edit summary.

Pete/Skyring posted slabs of his usual Wikilawering nonsense. I posted almost nothing in that discussion, hoping that sanity would prevail, and something sensible would come of it.

It didn't. Pete has won again.

I've mentioned to you before what I thought of AN/I. Now it's all been reinforced.

So, what do do now next time Pete starts a confrontational discussion at Soccer in Australia, or elsewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• HiLo, I saw everything else before I saw this. I don't think the summary was meant to be as dismissive as you take it. Fact is, it is closed, and I see an agreement in that thread that their edits there were very likely meant to provoke you one way or another. I'll look over it again and see if I can't summarize that a little bit. At any rate, I'm sure Pete's reading this too, so he'll know what's up--but I will leave a note for him later on his talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, there have been two IP-hoppers warring over Libyan Civil War and National Transitional Council - one started an ANI discussion here, which didn't solve the dispute (deemed content and not for admins' at....OMG MOOSEZILLA....uh...attention); the page was semi-protected, and after that expired they went right back at it again, so I managed to get it protected again (both times by Kevin Gorman, see this).

Now, Kevin's been through a lot these couple days, as I'm sure you know, and has a busy week coming up, so he's asked me to seek advice from someone else. So...the big problem here is that, in my opinion, both IPs are "right" - one on one article and the other on, well, the other. One is obviously more disruptive - he's removing an entire infobox from the NTC page on the basis that Template:Infobox Former Country doesn't apply to "partially recognised pseudo rebel councils/states", while the other is intent on changing an infobox "combatant" entry from the official name ("Libyan Arab Jamahiriya") to "Gaddafi Regime", which is of course a rather informal way to refer to a country, citing a bunch of guidelines about article titles (which I would assume don't apply to infoboxes). I was wondering what the best way to solve this would be - some sort of official decision would be helpful, but in what form - what noticeboard, an RfC, something? I'm not really vested in the outcome, just wanting to stop disruption of these articles. (Sorry if this is a bit of a vague and rushed wall of text, I'm getting up rather early tomorrow morning and need to get to bed.) Thanks in advance, ₆an⁶sh₆ 08:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Noble! Well, how could I say no. But I kind of have to, since I have family obligations for a little while today (kids don't come with babysitters, oddly enough). If any talk page stalkers have in interest, please help 666 out; I'll be back on later, but weekends are kind of hit and miss for me. Thanks for your kind adjective, 666! (BTW, I just bought a Black Sabbath live DVD/CD, and had to explain to my 8-yr old why it's OK for Ozzy to say "Clap your fucking hands!" Compared to real life, Wikipedia is a breeze.) Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes I forgot that Wikipedians have "lives" and "families" - strange, I can't imagine such a thing! Ha, kidding. I'm taking the day off my studies to go to a children's theme park, so no worries, and you're welcome! ₆an⁶sh₆ 16:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I looked at the thread you linked yesterday and couldn't really make heads or tails out of it. I'm about to check on the articles. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Do you have a better picture of the issue now, and if so, what do you suggest should be the next step here? ₆an⁶sh₆ 04:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, did you see my revert on the "regime" infobox? That's really my only answer so far: I see no reason why "regime" would be acceptable one way or another, and insisting on it is disruptive. So if such an edit happens again, I'd break out the big guns: revert. And then let the chips fall where they may--it simply cannot be that POV terminology is used anywhere, esp. in visible places such as titles and infoboxes. Or did I only check half of your issue? Drmies (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, that was your solution? These two IP editors have broken 3RR (more like 5RR) on these two pages twice already...not to sound harsh, but I don't think they'll stop until some sort of higher power decides one way or the other on both issues. I'm mostly wondering where that should come from. ₆an⁶sh₆ 02:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the thing, but it's a small thing. These are, basically, edits against consensus. In the case of LCW, that's simple, given the nonsensical nature of that name change (infoboxes need to have some formality to them). In the case of NTC, it's not hard to make that case since the "it's not a former country" argument lets the name of an infobox decide the content of an article. What you can do, if there is anything you would like to do, is to parse the history for each of them and make a case, briefly, on the talk page--like, "infobox been here since March 2012, removal was reverted by no fewer than three different editors": the kind of thing that indicates consensus. For the name change you need fewer words, but there also, a brief section (a statement of the obvious, if you will) on the talk page is helpful to point at. That one IP is interesting--good on the one, bad on the other.

So you put those two sections on the talk page, and you can pose it as a question: "is this a correct representation of editorial consensus?" I see this as a useful tool for admins to look at when considering action. Is there consensus on the talk page? Yes. Then changing a name or removing an infobox is disruptive, and an admin can act on that knowledge after first pointing to that consensus. It's not unlike an RfC, except that in this case you probably already know what the consensus will be. Does that help? And the next step is, unfortunately, less elegant: semi-protection, blocks, range blocks. That's the irritating part. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, sounds good (yes, helps a lot). And yeah, the irritating part came first this time, unfortunately, with protection and several threatened blocks, so sorry if that sounded a bit snappy, I'm frustrated with this and another issue I'm dealing with on top of school and such. Thanks so much! ₆an⁶sh₆ 02:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC) [P.S. I find it funny how in your first reply you referred to me as "666", when I once had an over-eager user take issue with that exact part of my username! Funny how things work.][reply]
  • Oh, when I first responded I said "Satan worshiper". I changed that to "Satanist". Then I just changed it to "666". After all, maybe you are a Satanist, and I would be appearing to make fun of Satanism, and that would be rude. You really got a complaint? Well now. I hope you sacrificed their cat. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha! Ironically, it has nothing to do with Satanism at all - 6 happened to be my big brother's favorite number, and when I was making my first e-mail address, it needed a certain number of characters, so he tacked on a couple 6's at the end, and the name stuck. Of course, we were too young and innocent to understand this at the time, having grown up in a non-Christian environment, but now it makes for interesting responses every so often. ₆an⁶sh₆ 03:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (I'll take a look at the page histories when I have a bit more time to spare - there's still 10 days of semi-protection left.)[reply]
      • I wonder what a non-Christian environment looks like. Are there cars and electricity? We're legislating the re-introduction of school prayer here, just to keep Satanists like you away from our soft and delicate children. Yes, there's still semi-protection left, and I have no problem extending it. I looked again at the histories and don't see a reason right now to extend it already, but if needs be, that's what we'll do. And if I don't respond, ping Bbb23. Tell you what, ping him first. He doesn't have kids, as far as I know, nor does he have such a rich and fulfilling life as I do. Imagine, he spends his time...editing Wikipedia! Drmies (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not like I'm from a third-world country or anything! Just part of a non-Christian immigrant family in the United States; attended a secular private school with a lot of similar kids. If it's a problem, I'll be sure to let one or more of you know (the semi-protection, not Satanism. hah.). ₆an⁶sh₆ 04:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are pop quizzes and demanding English professors, there will definitely be school prayer. And as one who maintains a "non-Christian" environment in my progressive Jewish home, you should know that we call cars "low-emission vehicles" around here (3 identical white Honda Fits) and that electricity is strictly rationed, so as to save California and the rest of the planet. Using incandescent light bulbs is a serious misdemeanor around here. The punishment for wasting electricity here is half an hour of listening to Ozzy Osborne. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's not the Bay Area I remember...hah. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies will use any argument that suits him; he's very slippery. He probably thinks his salary should be higher because he has kids. He's the one who recently said that real life is a breeze and he edits here for a break. As for me, my life may not be as "rich" as his (although I live in Southern California where people from other parts of the country think everyone is rich), but I still don't edit anywhere nearly as much as he does (at least not by counts). Plus I have a real job, not one where I spend my time pontificating to youngsters. If you're looking for analysis of the underlying issues with the two articles, I'm not your guy. If you're looking for administrative action, I'm happy to protect one or both articles after protection expires on February 27 if the IP battles continue. Having now taken the easy way out, I'll let you go back to your discussion of non-Christian environments and progressive Jewish homes with light bulbs. (There's this one section of LA that is filled with Hassidic Jews all strutting around (mostly men) with their black pants, white shirts, black hats, and whatever you call those side burn thingies. I wonder if they use candles in their homes. Ignorance is bliss.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I should make more money, if only to pay $6000 worth of dental work on my lovely daughter's little teeth. Cullen, I'll take a half an hour of Ozzy, but from one of the early albums. Also, your first sentence in your last comment is right on the money, though I had fun grading quizzes on "The Miller's Tale" today. (Absalon got what in the face? a butt cheek? he should be so lucky!) Drmies (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand, queries should be posted on both talk pages now. Slight problem in that these aren't really frequented articles, let alone their talk pages, but we'll see if anyone responds. And I'll be sure to ping Bbb23 if the need for any administrative action arises (alliteration!). Thanks again, ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just a little note to let you know that I reverted some of your edits on the Katia Elizarova page. I did this because you had removed the entire charitable section because you felt the sources were not adequate. Upon investigation the sources are the largest national paper in Spain and an award winning UK fashion blog, so have returned the sections referencing them. Also, in the section on her career that cited past work, which you deleted all info from, having checked sources again, and recognising that models work is akin to filmographies for actors I have replaced this also. It seems strange to remove an encyclopedic reference to the substance of an individual's career. I hope you agree. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Jess x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.34.62 (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll give you El Pais (don't know what "award-winning fashion blog" you mean: Bohomoth?). (I don't understand why, if those sources are so reliable, they wouldn't be cited much earlier on in the article to verify important facts.) But I can't give you the article as you left it, since it's little more than a resume. No, a list of names of clients is not necessarily encyclopedically relevant, unless those names are rigorously verified and the whole thing is written up like an article. Neither is an enumeration of agencies someone has worked for--that's what a Rolodex is for. If you want to keep some of this information, you will have to a. source it better and b. write it up to where it has a function. Jess X...I've seen that before. Anyway, I'll give you a hand with it, but not if the product is a resume. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keeping up with the diatribes from Godspiral at ANI? Evidently those who oppose him are Nazis and those who don't support a ban on these Nazies a vandal. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hehe, sorry, no--been busy this morning. On the weekends, there's spousal surveillance. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply at ANI was one of the funniest I've seen in a while. I'm sure Godspiral will love you saying you're a leftie! Fortunately for me my wife is always busy with her textile art/quilting/diploma. But we did find time to walk the dogs this morning. A bit above freezing but sunny and relatively dry (some mud on the paths, that's all). Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well there's definitely some nazis around here when editors don't do grammar good. NE Ent 16:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ent, you got me there--you're way over my head. I suggest you take your case to the United Nations--or to the copyediting Wikiproject. Yeah, let one of your socks leave some Nazi comment there; they'll love it! Doug, I'm outside in the sun trying to repair a defective voltage meter, one of the things my father left me. It's not going well, but Mrs. Drmies will have my head on a platter if I buy a nice one, like a Fluke. Many of the el cheapos, however, turn up DOA, according to Amazon reviews. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I'm not trying to be funny, really. I was trying to say something substantial without sounding too cranky (I'm really good at sounding cranky). Drmies (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you need to meter?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Voltage. I'm making a boombox for the kids (yeah, right--for me) out of an old car stereo and before I attach any power supply to it I want to make sure it's 12V. Do you happen to have an old ATX power supply (or, better yet, a micro ATX) laying around? Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cute. As far as I'm concerned, boomboxes should be outlawed. I'm even more surprised that you even know what an ATX power supply is. So, all this stuff about being technically clueless is a load of crap. I will now come to you with all my computer questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So that's a no, right? Drmies (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to play the lawyer, I'll play the witness: I don't recall. A friend of mine looked up ATX power supplies on Ebay (I don't use Ebay). He said there were about 16,000 hits and started yakking about number of pins. He wondered why you didn't just buy a boombox. I said that's not what English professors do in Alabama, although my only model is you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you check Amazon for 'voltage meter' you'll see some choices under $20. and some that get very good customer reviews for under $40. You're buying something that will use up toolbox space for years, might as well get a good one. When you say 'Fluke' you're probably over $100, seems like overkill for detecting 12 volts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks EdJohnston--I'm just worried a bit about the ones that show up DOA. Yeah, I worry about that, on a six-dollar meter... Plus, I have this irritating habit of wanting to buy good stuff, like said Fluke--and they're more than a bit over $100: think over $300. The other thing is we're very much out of money. Loyal talk page stalkers will remember that there is a pool behind this house, and if I can't find a way to fix it (skimmer basket is leaking) I'm going to have to really sell my a-- on Mobile Highway. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You could do freelance writing. Maybe online or something. NE "no loyalty here" Ent 03:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think anyone thought you were trying to be funny. Home Depot seems to have "disposable" meters for ~ $11 with badly translated instructions, according to the online reviews. Easy returns if it dies during their return period (90 days?) NE Ent 18:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Amazon sells some for $6... but yes, Home Depot, that's an easier return. True. Listen, while all the bad people are blocked, can y'all turn Order of Ecumenical Franciscans into something good? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or Proto-Australoid where I've just removed Joseph Campbell as a source for their appearance. There are so many good sources for this and somehow they've all been missed. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  The rape of Proserpina, List of rape victims from ancient history and mythology candidate
• 
  Lincoln and McClellan discussing things
• 
  Judith mit dem Haupt des Holofernes
• 
  Lilies growing in the night

Noble Drmies, you have a message at Yngvadottirs talk page - a discussion. Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Drmies, we need someone who can check a Oh, noble Drmies, what do you say? I was thinking about asking Thomas to take a look at this DYK but his gone. Someone with a lot of Swedish references in the article that nobody dares to check, expanded on 9th, and so. Hafspajen (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Check a... check a... what? A what? Curiosity, meet cat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A DYK, Alexander Roslin. Tried to get English refs to it too. Hafspajen (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, noble soul, we are trying. I you help me I am gong to give you a lot of cakes. Hafspajen (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep up the good work! 1750s April 4 – A small earthquake hits Warrington, England. And then everything is goin to be all right[18]! Hafspajen (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.Ok, maybe you are not interested? Shall I ask Crisco to do it instead or Phil or Matty or someone else? Hafspajen (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm very sleepy. Where was that DYK nomination again? I looked on Yngvadottir's page last night or this morning, but it's kind of busy there. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DYK nominations Alexander Roslin Hafspajen (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to explain... . Hafspajen (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I am new to using Wikipedia and I can see you have a lot of experience here so how about some advice or suggestions...

I work with Elite Athletes and help them improve their profiles online and the most common complaint I get is that Wikipedia is not correct and up to date. They don't like it as the images are often of poor quality too and it is often first thing that is seen when people search them. I inform them the best thing to do is to update the info and images however they don't have that time.. FYI The information I updated today was not copied from a facebook page, It was in fact written by the Athlete and her coach and given to me as this is the information about her current sporting published. I created her website and work directly with her on updating and improving her profile online.

Using your experience please advise how or a template I can use publish information about Athletes in a simple format that gives correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Legado (talk • contribs) 03:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi My Legado. Sure, and it's really not as difficult as it seems. First of all, the copyvio. I found the text you added on a Facebook page. Now, you can't copy such text unless permission is given, and that can be handled through WP:OTRS (click on the link and you'll see). But that text, written in that way, will never be allowed to stand on Wikipedia since it's not neutral, and thus not encyclopedic. So, text will have to be written, and it will have to be done neutrally with the help of reliable sources. I just had a look at Bode Miller and while that's not great, it's not terrible either. If you sluice some money to my slush fund in the Bahamas I'll be happy to write it for you.

  Second, an image, that's easy. Just (have your athlete) click on "Upload File" on the left, and follow the directions. Only thing is, you have to figure out the proper license, but that upload form will help you do that--or, really, whoever has the rights to the image should do it.

  In general, just try it. Write some neutral text with some salient facts, include a link or two (using the "cite" button above the editing screen, maybe), and see what happens. You can get quick assistance at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The Teahouse needs more work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...the thread I opened on AN/I? I've asked for specific admin action, and a non-admin keeps closing the discussion after only a few hours of comments. Regardless of whether you agree with my request or not, I do think, since I'm reporting policy-violating behavior, that having an admin close it isn't asking too much. I'm not asking you to fulfill my request for admin action, or to close the thread, but simply to stop it being closed inappropriately by a non-admin - he's now reverted my reversion of the closing twice, and I won't be provoked into further action.

I'd appreciate your looking into it, and whatever you decide to do about it is fine with me. BMK (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• BMK, I saw that earlier. Hold on. Watching Dutch women on the 1500m. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like they're going to sweep the podium. BMK (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus one, haha. Just wait. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what a cutie pie she is, Ter Mors! Drmies (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. BMK (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just leave the thread closed? You and the I.P. are beating a dead horse - over and over. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Scorch, it's ANI. The A stands for "Administrator", a badge I spit and shine every morning even before I wake up. Please don't read me some riot act. The IP had no business closing it, since admin action was required (did you read the thread?) and closed the thread without even acknowledging that admin action was actually taken as a result of the very thread. I think what you're trying to do is cool things down, but they weren't that hot, and at any rate an editor who closes a thread incorrectly (after repeatedly saying "no admin action was asked for") should be reverted. Drmies (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I don't agree with your revert, and I fully support it, it's that after 5+ reverts from the I.P. either a) Stop reverting yourself or b) warn+block him for disruptive editing. In essence the end result is the same: the thread is closed. Have a good night! I really need sleep it's about 2am here.

P.S. I love the edit notice. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S Mark Arsten took action with choice b, and our I.P. friend left the best reply to a block I've seen in awhile. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And I appreciate the revert, of course. You understand I wasn't going to block the IP; sure, their actions were disruptive but I am hesitant to block someone who has involved in another good-faith discussion--and at any rate I was in conflict with them, so it would be highly inappropriate. I'm about to follow your links. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has been discussed [here] and at WP:INFOBOXFLAG and is explicitly permitted by WP:INFOBOXFLAG (read the last paragraph) - per your suggestion, if you want to change the guideline, propose it again, but I see little likelihood of a change in consensus having occurred.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a long discussion. I'll look at it later. I do see that it says "may", so I guess we're both right (or both wrong). Personally, I hate them: it makes us look like kindergarten. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, purely permissive: to each his/her own views on the matter; kind of like the Oxford comma which seems quite common on Wikipedia but is less so in informal writing and quite rare in Spanish. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On the ANI matter, the anon has had plenty of time to nominate whatever article he wanted as a trial balloon for deletion at AFD. The 24 hours have elapsed and I'm sure he'll never really be pleased but I see no consensus for the remaining articles (less than 10% of them left, actually) to not be created. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Carlos, they PRODded one of them, but I denied that--PROD is not the right way to go in a matter like this. In the meantime, they were blocked for edit warring so they couldn't do much. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's unfortunate. Poor nazis. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just fine! You? Apropos of nothing at all: I noticed somewhere you recently used the word "determiner" in a conversation. I'd like to see more of that modern linguistical grammar stuff on Wikipedia; Geoff Pullum is one of my major intellectual heroes. Maybe I'll make a userbox...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That'd be great. It'll make you an instant hit, no doubt. Is this like Hall and Oates? If you like Pullum, you can't like Huddleston? A rep from OUP came by to see me the other day, but I'm not replacing the Cambridge textbook by Huddleston and Pullum, certainly not for a book that does nothing but diagramming from the Table of Contents to the Index. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not trying to turn this in a fan page. All the others great band's articles have timeline for members and I think it is easy to know the bands line-up through the time as Galneryus has had many members since its creation.

• Hey, thanks for your note. Sorry, I disagree. I just checked U2, which some consider a great band (and it's a Featured Article), and it doesn't have one, and I checked Motorhead, which also doesn't have one (although List of Motörhead band members, but that's a dedicated article to this membership, so it's somewhat understandable). As I indicated, there are more important things to do for that article, and if you like the band, that's what you should do to improve the article: find decent sources to verify some of the basic information in the article. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dear Bongo, I don't know who you are or what you want from me but don't call me again." (said the American Dutch genius) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bongo? As in Bongomatic? Drmies (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I step in, apropos of nothing, to say that the timeline in The Rolling Stones is pretty cool? (Charlie Watts comes across as steady, unshakeable, never giving a toss, modestly not being a founding member, even when reduced to a bar in a graph.) But that's a situation where non-music sources care about every lineup change over multiple decades with a small number of changes. There is no way Galnervus requires one. A Spinal Tap would be enjoyable, if not strictly encyclopedic.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty cool, yes, and what you describe is his presence in the band and his playing. (Now I've got that super simple and super effective drum part from "Emotional Rescue" in my head.) For shits and giggles, nothing beats membership and membership tables and timelines in K-pop articles. A propos of the Stones, the new issue of Guitar Player (or Vintage Guitar? they look very alike these days) has a long article with selections from a book on the Stones and their instruments and amps--the author has already done the Beatles. Those custom-made five-string guitars are kind of cool, and the story behind the Ampegs--with 8x10" cabinets. Imagine hauling those around. My friend has a Marshall 8x10" cabinet. I so hope to be in his will. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo as in Bono. The story of Jerry Garcia's guitars is pretty interesting. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Bono is a better singer, but Bongomatic is one of my favorite WP editors, if only because of their totally cool user name. Never been a fan of Garcia, but hey. For some reason I associated him with Alembic, but that's clearly incorrect. Perhaps I saw a picture of some Travis Bean guitar and misidentified it. Which reminds me to to see if I need to do periodic maintenance at Stevie Ray Vaughan's musical instruments. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment helped me find my favourite Charlie Watts moment. It happens between 0:46 and 0:52 here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was no fun. Ha, you picked one from the same album. That's your favorite?? Check out the white brothel shoes. How did they get the Duran Duran set for that video? Or was it the other way around? Listening to it brings back memories of Christmas 1980 (or maybe 1981), when Sinterklaas (that is, my mother) refused to get me Diamond Dogs, which was on my wish list, and instead got me Emotional Rescue. To get back at her I later bought Diamond Dogs with the Sinterklaas money my grandmother gave me: 13.95 it cost (in guilders), at CoCo Records on the Zuiddijk in Zaandam. Shoutout to Dim! (name of store owner) Drmies (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about Travis Bean. It was the other two luthiers- Doug Irwin and Steve Cripes. The latter made a guitar out of a bed plank, which he presented to Garcia. Cripes died when his "firework factory" exploded. Irwin didn't do too well either.Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an understatement; rather than try to clean up his massive additions to Pemberton, British Columbia I placed a cleanup tag....he's got quite the OWN thing going on about there and Whistler, but in doing so has his history wrong and we've come to spats over that in the past; he's a relative newbie to the area (compared to me and others) but spouts off as if an authority. Whatever...."lack of competence" is one thing, hurling vitriol and then still adding junkily-written material without even trying to straighten up his act is.....irritating. I note he's added a Wikivoyage tag to one of the articles, I'm thinking I better have a look at what he's added on Wikivoyage...Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Wikivoyage article isn't too bad, other than having nearly every noun capitalized; the history is not right but it'll do for now, he'd gotten two important placenames spelled wrong, I fixed them (I'm from those places...). I guess the problem with Wikipedia is garbage in garbage out; if half-literate people contribute overwhelmingly and there's only so many literate people around to edit/police it, in time it will become semi-literate...this is indeed the case on many foreign-country pages e.g. Argentina, Philippines, Norway, Russia articles I've seen have odd construction and various idiomatic gaffes....that's second-language issues though, not erratic use of one's mother tongue (for all I know he may be German, which could explain why he capitalizes so many nouns...).Skookum1 (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a very hard time reading their comments, so hard that I missed the "vitriol" you mentioned. (German? no, I've met Americans too who capitalize every word.) I'll leave another note in the ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[19] 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Our messages crossed, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, why anyone as sane as you would ever want to become an admin is beyond me. But thanks and all that.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What now, Choppe, do you prefer insane admins? Hafspajen (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got more messages on that page, by the way; I've been trying to talk some reason into this guy at AN/I but it's not getting through. Carlos has left the conversation completely, but the IP refuses to drop it. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaaand I'm out of there too. Good luck. This has been a most counterproductive evening, minus what I've said in the other section above. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• shrug*

Regardless of backchat, IPs sometimes make a good point. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, sometimes they do, and sometimes they test one's patience and need to be told to let go and/or adopt more conventional means besides adding 100k to one of the most heavily-trafficked pages on the English Wikipedia (you never addressed that). NE Ent made a perfectly decent proposal. One could wait to see what the response was. Or, if one REALLY cares that much, one could get an account so at least I don't have to go "IP88" or whatever all the fucking time, and one wouldn't have to ask me to AfD things. We're all just dogs here, possibly, I know that, but sheesh, it's getting irritating. Ansh666, thanks for trying. Mr.choppers, I appreciate your note, though "sane" is an overstatement. I'm in the middle of something that I don't want to be in the middle of anymore: I didn't take an oath to continue efforts past the point where I see its use. I didn't even get a t-shirt, Mr.choppers! Drmies (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw, what, you don't get a t-shirt? Well, I'm never ever going to do an RfA now! Hah. (oh, and, you're welcome.) ₆an⁶sh₆ 18:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A Wikipedia T-shirt, offered to admins, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly a ruse so they can get the personal information of everyone. Obviously! ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you decipher what is written in the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek lexicon in Dutch and find anything else on him?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Ernst, I can't find anything else on your man--sorry. All I found was snippets, and all of those talked mainly about the son. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories Category:Wikipedians who have access to a university library and Category:Wikipedians seeking to adopt in Adopt-a-user should be removed from the user page you recently fully protected. (If you don't want to be the one who does it, you could drop protection down to template editor and I'll do it.) NE Ent 12:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Which page is that? Drmies (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Never mind--found it. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Drmies, since I don't know your real name, I wanted to say thank you for your reply in accepting my heartfelt apology over the suspected vandalism to that Need for Speed video game article. I was very scared that I would be unable to edit any more of my favorite articles when I got that warning from you and the other Wikimedia admins and wanted to make amends as soon as I could.

Although I appreciate you allowing me to continue editing under an anonymous IP address, I will feel more comfortable now doing it at the local library under my Wikipedia username. I'll be able to talk to my fellow members of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fandom over edits to the articles related to the show and everything, and keep in touch with you and the other admins if I ever need help or advice on what is valid or invalid in adding to the articles under the Wikipedia Terms of Use.

Thank you very much for your feedback on my apology on the Administrator Notices/Incidents board, and I hope to help keep Wikipedia purged of any wrongdoing other users might cause now that I have learned my lesson about being too in-depth in my editing, and want to help drop the Ban-hammer on those wrongdoers.

Thanks again. Sonic5421 (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Howdy Sonic. Welcome aboard. You were warned completely inappropriately, as the other IP editor indicated. In fact, I perused their other edits and ended up warning them. They accused you of vandalism, and what you did wasn't that. Any edit made in good faith is not vandalism--see WP:VANDAL, which requires the intent to disrupt Wikipedia. Hey, we don't drop banhammers lightly around here, and we usually block first, if need be. Anyway, enjoy the company of your Bronies, and keep the faith. Brohoof! Drmies (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've just announced the ticket information for Transformus. Now, I think it's pretty unlikely that you'll go, but I wanted to mention it just in case. It generally sells out, so if you think you might be interested, get your tickets early. I've heard great things about this event – it's one of the best regional Burning Man experiences. It's much smaller (2,500 people vs. 60,000), and without the extremely harsh conditions. Burning Man takes place on a barren, dry lakebed. The only water anywhere is that which participants bring, and there's not a single plant of any kind. (It was inaccurately portrayed on Malcolm in the Middle, which showed a cactus or a weed or something.) Transformus, however, takes place in a lush environment with forests and fields and water, water, everywhere. You can enjoy the art installations, the music, the new form of society based on the Burning Man principles, and the naked people frolicking in the water and elsewhere. And, while Burning Man was about 600 miles away from me, Transformus is only about 350 miles from you. And LadyofShalott, it would only be 150 miles for you, so you really have no excuse. Oh, and tickets are a quarter of the price of Burning Man. See the Transformus website for more details. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow...but I really only want to go to Asheville if I'm going there to live again... Thanks Mandarax. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With some additions today, List of 21st-century classical composers becomes the longest article on Wikipedia. A total of 14,588 lines of code and over 7,000 rows in the list. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Why not remove all red links? There is total disorder in that article, no chronological or any other order Hafspajen (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are plenty of redlinks and recursive redirects that can be shaved out of that list, and plenty of formatting to do (for one, it isn't sortable). I don't know how to do that, though. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Drmies, mind if I keep talkpage stalking? [reply]

• No worries, EVERYBODY is stalking Drmies. Hafspajen (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 7,000 lines? F*** reformatting. That'll go over bad. But yeah, I believe all lists like this require individuals or groups to have an article before being put on the list. List of Indonesian musicians and musical groups too, even though it keeps getting pumped full of junk. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, half of these people were dead before 2000. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose revert to Jerome Kohl. List normal then. Hafspajen (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Very good idea. Doing now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• That is actually hilarious. Who in the world thought that a composer who died in 1894 should be on the "List of 21st-century classical composers"? (I'm going to WikiBlame it now...) ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's common practice, and I've been doing it for years, to remove red links from such list articles. Without text to provide a suggestion of notability there is no rationale for keeping them. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a persistent vandal IP - they've been pulling the same junk on other lists as well. Should probably be blocked for a substantial period of time (previously blocked). ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don,t know about that. Not vandalism. I can only answer for the Swedish part, but those added are pretty unknown, but existing. Not that important.Hafspajen (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually vandalism. Said user put 21st century composers (2000+) on the 20th century page (1900-1999), and 19th-20th century (1800-1999) composers on the 21st century page (2000+). I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were doing, given they've been blocked for it before. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for "it"? Diffs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, vandalism. I'm going to assume, given the IP's talk page, that it was for this issue (on the 20th century page) - there is at least one vandalism block from March of last year. There was also an AN/I discussion here (which really doesn't help). ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, warning. If (s)he does the same again (s)he's gone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492: Again (takes a while to load). Now that I think of it, I'm not sure that they know why what they're doing is disruptive, but I'm pretty sure that they know that it is. ₆an⁶sh₆ 22:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And now on a 1 month vacation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxuWMrLrrZ4 Hafspajen (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  

• Cuckoo is right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hafspajen (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But do you have a link to English lyrics? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ? Finnish. Crisco, if you are here, do you know how to change that file on commons, to not selfportrait? Hafspajen (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant an English translation of the Finnish lyrics. For Commons, you'd use the drop menu and request a move, and recommend a new file name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here you go, Crisco. [20] Hafspajen (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think Judith Shatin is ever going to be BBC Radio 3's composer of the week. "Excuse me, but I think someone's just Shatin my ear." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisco 1492 how on eart did the evil got in between Guardian-angel-sculptures ? Nr 4 .Hafspajen (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Guardian-angel-sculptures in Carinthia.

• Looks to be a detail of a sculpture in which an angel is smiting a demon. Removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Smiting a demon ? sounds fun ! (Thanks) Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newly opened. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks... Drmies (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ygm. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• +1
• +1
• +1

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is What was Admrboltz reason for blocking? – TreCoolGuy (talk) 20 February 2014 (UTC)

reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky, you did a lot to clarify! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who reads this looked at one more article it could be over today. - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (18 August 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 32nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated a year ago in br'erly style. There were many more shiny things you did in those years, one mentioned here, - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much Gerda: I am honored. Coming from a quality content contributor like you, it's a gift I appreciate. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When reporting to SPI I always notify the editors concerned as a courtesy, however it has been suggested that this is not the correct practice. The SPI Guide says its optional. What's your thoughts? Flat Out let's discuss it 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk-page stalker) I never report, especially with LTA/vandal socks. There's several reasons: letting them know there's an SPI on them and seeing the evidence may help them in further attempts to avoid scrutiny. Also, some socks like to mess with the SPI pages themselves, so not telling them there's a new one can help with that. If it seems unlikely or is a first-time offender, sometimes a notification can help them defend themselves, but for the most part, they can (and many will) find out on their own when there's a SPI on them. ₆an⁶sh₆ 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I agree with OriginalSoni and Ansh666. The SPI guide is just that, a guide. If you're dealing with some dumb-ass vandal, you can tell them if you want to rub it in. In general, though, let sleeping dogs lie. SPIs are serious business because socking is serious business. I wouldn't be surprised if half the sock blocks are done without many of us every knowing about it, since in many cases some distinctly private information is involved. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to both of you, appreciate the feedback. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything about the sentence fragment:

"Prior to the Hurricane of 1900, Galveston was considered to be a beautiful and prestigious city..."

that makes "Prior to" unacceptable? Does changing it to "Until" or "Before" improve it in some way I don't see? Is "Prior to" some kind of obscure Latinate construction that most people don't understand? BMK (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (tps) Should it be re-written altogether? The sentence seems to conflate the long-term with the instant. I can hardly imagine anyone rode into Galveston the morning after and thought "I consider this place to be a ugly and anonymous village". For example "Prior to the Atomic Bombing of 1945, Nagasaki was considered to be a beautiful and prestigious city..." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, was that Kafka about the man who throws away his key, and discovered he was not happy with it? Or was it Thomas Mann? You know, the man sitting at home on a Sunday. He decides that he doesn't want to go away from home, and he has a cleaning woman who will be coming on Monday. So he is throwing away his key, into his garden. - (in those times there were no locks like nowadays, if a door was locked, then it was locked, no tricks.) And he discovers that he is not happy. Not anymore. In spite of the fact that doesn't want to go away from home, and the cleaning woman who will be coming on Monday has a key, so he will be released soon enough. But he is not happy. A young boy comes by and he shouts from the window and asks him to pick up the key for him. And when he got his key back he is happy again. Later he starts philosophizing again. Maybe he was mistaken; maybe he was just imagining things. So he is throwing away his key out the window again. And he discovers that he really is not happy. So he asks someone again to find the key for him and stays happily home the rest of his day, and his conclusion is that the important thing is not that you are necessarily going to do that something, but the ability of being able to do it. Even if he is not going to do it is still important to know that there is the possibility for it. Hafspajen (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am not butting in. I believe some style guides disapprove of "prior to", at least when it simply means "before".

The Times Style and Usage Guide:

• "avoid wherever possible; use before.

Gowers, The Complete Plain Words:

• "There is no good reason to use prior to as a preposition instead of before. Before is simpler, better known and more natural, and therefore preferable. . . ."

All editions of Fowler's suggest avoiding it

• "except in contexts involving a connexion between the two events more essential than the simple time relation" (or similar wording).

Garner calls prior to

• "one of the most easily detectable symptoms of bureaucratese, commercialese, and legalese" and "terribly overworked".

The Associated Press Stylebook has

• Before is less stilted for most uses. Prior to is appropriate, however, when a notion of requirement is involved. . . ."

--Boson (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So something like "Prior to exiting the vehicle one must turn off the engine" is where it would be appropriate.Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Génesis Carmona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Génesis Carmona until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 12:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't see your logic here. If Stevie Ray Vaughan got Yellow in 1983 or 1984, how the heck did he play it at Montreux in 1982? Also, anyone who has actually seen the concert can tell that the tremolo was a Charvel one. A link was included to prove that, because Charvel used to make that EXACT same brass tremolo. And what makes you say the pickup was a Fender one? There's no proof of that. Nobody has ever stated so and I remember reading it could have been a DiMarzio. And the spelling of Montreux.. Geez, who wrote it as "Montreaux?" About the amps, anyone with eyes can tell he played through Dumble heads and Marshall heads and had a shitload of other amps, cabs and heads. That had to be removed for what exact reason? And thanks for removing the wah pedal picture.. It was the wrong one. And the years when Number One was built, he thought the guitar was a '59 because the pickups were made then. TheKnowItAllJerk (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That spelling was a vandal edit from way back when, if I remember correctly: an IP seriously fucked the article up and it wasn't reverted, only incidentally were edits restored. A bot had to come by to fix the references. As for the rest--that you saw a Charvel tremolo is original research and we simply don't do that. To post a link and commenting, as an aside, that the tremolo was "just like that" is likewise WP:OR, with some WP:SYNTH for good measure. The story of the necks is complicated and perhaps not all sources agree, or they're not all clear, but the point is we have to go by what the sources say--reliable sources. As for amps and all, he used tons of them. There is no encyclopedic need to list all of them in our article, only those that have been noted as being his. If the wah pedal is wrong, take care of it--but do so on the basis of, again, reliable sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Check out this edit. The Montreux typo was introduced here. Note also that the sentence was simply stuck in before the reference, as if that reference verifies it--it doesn't. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic question is - how long should the block be? He's playing with us. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure seems like it. BMK (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to cite Writ Keeper all the time, but "meh". I'd say, one more such article edit and block them for a couple of days. If ANI can't handle these rants it's a sad day; articles shouldn't suffer. As for the non-static claim, some basic linguistic analysis reveals the obverse quickly and immediately to be the irresolvable truth as irredeemably reconciled within a framework that, while surreptitiously keeping an eye on its truth value, is nonetheless in perfect keeping with a set of operations that aim to present reality in a non-diffused manner without having to resort to a set of rosy-colored glasses as might be worn by a non-politicized Schopenhauer, not the figment of Zionist Wikipedia-editing optical nerve damagers. Consider this, from 28 December: "Modern Kantian scholars have now verifiably confirmed the influence of Emmanuel Swedenborg on the integral thought of Kant and most clearly perhaps perceptible in this concept of a morally-purified "heavenly society" constituting Kant's 'kingdom of ends.'" I could even italicize that. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're the man for this! I don't know how they keep it up, maybe some sort of random word generator. :-) As blocks are meant to be preventive, in a case like this I would probably look at the gaps between edits and try to make the block cover the next likely time that editor might be editing. Does that make sense? Dougweller (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But I wouldn't block them for some perfectly innocuous or gnomish edit--just for those edits featuring any combination of abracadabra, original research, synthesis, conspiracy theory, and not-too-well hidden agenda. In all fairness, they promised they'd get an account so you probably should uncheck that box ("Allow registered accounts" etc.). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the tick box. And of course innocuous behavior wouldn't get a block. Ah, just took a look at the IP's talk page to see if there was anything I should know before clicking save. A one year block's been imposed with account creation disabled. Frankly though I think this has always been a troll account. - did you see the earliest edits? I don't think this editor has any intention of acting constructively. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should have looked at ANI first! Looks like you changed your mind and then lost the race. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't blame you for not looking at ANI--there's a non-ANI discussion that's probably taking up 200k and needs to be closed. Yes, I did change my mind, in part because of the fictitious threat of violence, and because of the real violence done to my brain and the English language. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing Drmies love of the ancient word, today's writing comes from the 1590s. The poem is entitled, The Choise of Valentines Or the Merie Ballad of Nash His Dildo, alternatively titled Nashe's Dildo. Bgwhite (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude. Just... dude. I'm surprised Penthouse hasn't done anything with this yet. I mean, they've got Star Trek and Batman... why not classics? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Bgwhite, that's not ancient. Nashe is a whippersnapper. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?*forgot Sand-Covered Church. Ugh. Sand-Covered Church is unforgettable. Listen, the Andrew Rosliny is quite good to go now, or? Hafspajen (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. Hej, can you do refs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 in the same way as 9? (Is that Yngvadottir's model?) Or are you too heartbroken over the hockey game? Drmies (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That "Satin, skin? Go to Roslin" (from the BBC site)- is it translated from the French? 'Cos it doesn't rhyme in French, unless it's "Peau, satin, Aller à Roslin". "Cheesy Peas? Go to Dr Mies" Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Very clever of you. Of course that it was in French! Hafspajen (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr Mies, really. I can try, but I did none of them, just the bad ones. Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hafspajen, if I wasn't married already, I'd propose to you. Try simply copying and pasting and adjusting? I'll have a look later today (there's a few things I need to do). Drmies (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nice of you to say so. You mean that I have womans mind? No logic and that kind of stuff. Hafspajen (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No sexism allowed on my talk page, Hafspajen. For all I know you are a woman. For all you know I like strong Swedish landscapers. :) Drmies (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I never said so. But Cårven Der Pümpkîn is Swedish . Hafspajen (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, now those refs are fixed. And nobody is perfect... Gender has no importance. We will manage somehow. Hafspajen (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I don't think they're fixed yet - I've just made a worse mess - but I've now tried to call in the cavalry. I cannot believe I've had to fight past Moosezilla again but he's quite a cutie really and doesn't bite so much when you pet him after a few visits. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, now, see what have you done. Declaring your feelings like this. Have you not thougt about the pagestalkers, in the bush? (See picture - to the left). Hafspajen (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

one never knows who's lurking, does one. It's those cheeky Gallagher boys again. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Am I a man or a muppet.....Hafspajen (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marty, so sneaky. Hafspajen (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.. almost beats the original, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a first time for everything: hey, first time I listened to an Oasis song! Drmies (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes! Now you know what you've been missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...at Art education: [21]. This reads to me as a, well, my talk page rationale should sum it up; I don't think this sort of broad unsourced prose belongs. If I'm wrong let me know. Thanks, JNW (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doctor. If you're around, I could use your help. While moving the page "Shirley Temple (cocktail)" to "Shirley Temple (beverage)", I inadvertently created a page at "Shirley Temple (beveragel)" as well. Can you delete it for me? I'm all for keeping plausible misspellings as redirects but "beverage" and "beveragel" showing up together in the search-box will only be confusing. Hope all's well with you an yours. Thanks, Joefromrandb (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I think you want to double-check K-stick's work; most likely he was drunk as a skunk because of some hockey game or something.

Also, I disagree that a drink must contain alcohol to be called a cocktail, if only because I'm not going to ask my daughters if they'd like a beverage on a sunny afternoon. Note also Category:Non-alcoholic mixed drinks, listed under Category:Cocktails, besides the existence of "virgin cocktails" etc. "Non-alcoholic cocktails" is quite accepted usage (see ["non-alcoholic cocktails"]), and while the talk page editor was correct in pointing out that no one asks for a "Shirley Temple Cocktail", that's not pertinent--STC is not the name of the article; "cocktail" is there for disambiguation purposes. IMO, a Shirley Temple qualifies as a cocktail, more specifically a virgin cocktail, because it is a mixed drink. No one ever calls it a "beverage"; they call it a cocktail. Anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Usage" rears its ugly head again. I personally reject "non-alcoholic cocktail" for the same reason I reject "very unique". (I've been told the latter is now perfectly acceptable, so what do I know?) I spent years moonlighting behind the bar and I never heard anyone call a Shirley Temple a "cocktail". In any case, I have no objection to changing it back. I've caused enough trouble at that article for one day. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You calling Shirley Temple's head ugly? Them's fighting words! (As an admin, I don't have to parse, or parse correctly.) Haha, you worked in a bar where they asked for a Shirley Temple in the first place? Sounds like a lousy bar to me! Though I used to order what we called a "frou-frou drink" in Egan's, in Tuscaloosa. But that was heavy on the vodka. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite impossible for me to be drunk while fixing, as there is no alcohol served or permitted where I am staying these days (not by law or custom, rather by company edict. Companies take all the fun out of the mining industry.) Personally I could see it being housed at either cocktail or beverage, however cocktail is just more fun to say. On an unrelated note, it's only -18 today (-27 with the wind), consequently I was able to walk around for a while with my jacket open. God I hate Saskatchewan. Tuning in for the The Brier this weekend are we Doc? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Arnold Palmer (drink), in particular if you are in the Denver area. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, curious. How is the word njai treated in standard Dutch? Is it italicised (i.e. already part of the language) or not (i.e. still considered foreign)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have to look into that since I've never heard the word. Also, why should I listen to you, f***ing inclusionist? Ha! Drmies (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Never heard of the word"? Really? I thought you said your ancestors weren't powerful enough to have access to them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Diff please. I must have guessed from context what it meant. I searched my talk page archive, real quick, and came across an interesting hit for "ancestor": "Your ancestors were our concubines!", from a conversation with good old SpacemanSpiff at User_talk:Drmies/Archive_17#Did_the_wiki_go_mad.3F. As usual, Spiffy was full of it since I totally hadn't blocked him. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hey, that was long before my time. None of my kinfolk went there--we weren't classy enough to become administrators (and be trained in the Royal Tropical Institute...)" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes--I never bothered to look up the word. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked for njai/nyai and maitresse (the common Dutch term for mistress) and did not find much--a French italicized example and a Dutch non-italicized example. Some more browsing (with "minnares") revealed no consistency, though I did discover that the "j" spelling seems to be more common in Dutch. Apparently, Rob Nieuwenhuys is the expert on the topic, and Google snippets indicate that he said that she was, in the first place, a companion, not a mistress. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "companion", I should think. You really should read Baay's book. Only 8 Euros! </advertising> But if he's not italicising the word, I guess we shouldn't italicize it in Dutch-language book titles either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of it. I'm writing it up as we speak. Hey, are you familiar with Rubber (1936 film)? I bet it's based on the novel discussed here, which needs an article. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not (though I question how the majority of the film can be lost if it was 105 minutes long and 63 minutes survive...). Hmmm... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have the Indonesian translation of Baay's book (really should take a Dutch course...), so I'll see if I can add information to the new article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was I supposed to spend E8 on a Dutch copy of the book? Surely not Amazon. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't want to buy an e-book. Don't know what I should read it on--not this netbook. Hey, I saw one reference that said something about the word as a title, like in the two movies. That certainly needs a section. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am working on the films. Did one paragraph about the various Njai Dasima adaptations already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • And all this while I read a thread on Wikipediocracy! That was fun. Someone there got fooled by a text generator. Then again, maybe that one IP on ANI (now blocked for a long, long time) used a text generator too. I got a few things to do--thanks for picking up the ball. I love seeing my notifications light up with all the "linked to" notices. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sigh... Alright, I'll do a bit on the history now. (You know, I was kinda putting this off, but if we're gonna run this article in DYK, we might as well have it decent). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had a big-ass translation project dumped on me (give or take 150 pages, and I want the money ASAP to buy a new lens for my camera), so I'm likely just going to do a short paragraph on the decline of the practice, then nominate for DYK. Once things have calmed down a bit here I can expand more. Of course, if you or a stalker want to do more with these ladies... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do--it might not be much. Busy today, and Wednesday I'm leaving for a conference. Then again, if we don't get another DYK we'll die. DIE! Drmies (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, in that case we can say "8K is enough for now". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crisco, you have done amazing work. Thank you. In return I created De Indische Courant (all five of them!) and made two new useless categories. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Drmies. Do you want to handle the DYK nom? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Will do, later. Gotta check on my boy and wash out some puke. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can see why you've been given cakes, then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Was a lot of work to. To fix that DYK, but mercy all upon us, is done. How are your ashes Crisco? By the way, ashes are good for flowers and plants in the flowerbed. Hafspajen (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashes are pretty much all cleaned up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Chocolate fudge cake
• File:PiernikCakeb.jpg
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Strawberry Cake.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Lemon meringue tart
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Schwarzwald cake
• 
  Mont Blanc Cake
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Tiramisù
• 
• 
  Simnel cake
• 

Hafspajen (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC) You help me I am going to give you a lot of cakes Hafspajen (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah! It's Death to Diabetics Day AGAIN! Good thing I just had a piece of King cake--homemade, of course, and with cardamom added to the filling out of respect to my Scandinavian fellow editors. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I'm choosing purely by looks. I'll take 1, 6, 7 (that's just gorgeous), 17 (never heard of it), 22, 25. I've told you before that this is one of the things I miss in the US, or in the South, really--a pastry shop that makes you drool. Ask Crisco for a slice of his spekkoek, while you're at it. And later I'll tell you a story about Sippi and cake. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mmm... lapis legit... you can get it quite cheap here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You like chocolate, Mies? Crisco, lapis legit is like Dobos torte minus caramel top. Hafspajen (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Say Doc I hate to trouble you here but it appears the editor you recently warned is back at HiLo's Talk page despite being instructed/warned not to do so. Looks to me like he's in violation of warnings to cool out. Could you please take any measures you deem needful to put a halt to his capers? Thanks. Jusdafax 03:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jusdafax 03:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all. Not much trouble, anyway. Sad that I have to issue such a block. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This place doesn't always work right. But when it does, it does. Thanks yet again for being in what I'd consider the vital, functional part of Wikipedia-en. Jusdafax 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the continued postings from this editor on his talk page? He has named me in one of his rants, but since he has asked me to stay away from his talk page I will not respond there. However, it is my understanding that blocked editors are only supposed to make posts directly related to unblock requests, whereas this guy continues to carry on about the soccer/football thing and to throw accusations at other people. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that earlier. You are correct about what blocked editors can do, but I'm a bit loath to pull the plug on it: the last comment was from a half a day ago. If it continues, I will revoke talk page access. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, he's still having a go at me too on his talk page, most recently less than seven hours ago. Like Nick, I won't join the conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try to take "extremely cunning" as a compliment. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw what you wrote to me, I removed it because it was the 2013 fixtures and team pages typically only show upcoming matches, not outdated ones from last year. 137.146.173.113 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand. We're an encyclopedia: reporting past events is our primary concern. At any rate, you didn't leave an edit summary or any other kind of explanation, so to me it just looked like vandalism. If it wasn't, my apologies--but please make it easier on people like me by explaining what you're doing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, and honourable talkstalks, a new article on a high school from South Africa.[22] Yngvadottir has translated the initial sentences, and a couple refs have been found (one gummint-website with infoboxen details, see article-talkpage), and the school homepage for WP:ABOUTSELF contents). But lacking in Afrikaans, might I request somebody with more savvy take a peek at expansion? They claim to be the top academic high-school in their province, and in the top ten for the entire country. Danke 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC) p.s. forgot to mention, there is also a primary-school of the same name (and a city park), but this article is about the high-school. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. That's not so easy. I found this, but it's really 't lokale suffertje, and wat it reports are students' results in various local academic competitions--not of great encyclopedic relevance. We can't just copy their "2013 was yet another great year for JF". Sorry, but I'm not going to be much help--found nothing in Google Books, though my search was very cursory. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited De Indische Courant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I was working on some articles, and noticed the absence of a category for Operation Paperclip I have created such a category and started populating it with articles that are already saying they are associated. So far I don't think there is any controversy. What started me off on this path was a request at WP:ANRFC about Firewall (physics) Where a minor physics personality WP:COI was attempting to gain some additional google-juice/credit. (See Special:Contributions/134.197.31.189 where an IP from Reno is going around adding lots of content about a professor who happens to work in Reno!). In any case, that COI subject Friedwardt Winterberg claims in his own book [23] as well as another source (in article), to have been part of Operation Paperclip, so I added them, as well as commented on that in his Biography. Is his own book sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:BLP on that categorization? Further, there was already some content in his article about alleged Nazi Arthur Rudolph and controversy about his defense of that person. I found several other sources discussing Winterberg's defense of accused Nazi's (primarily Paperclip scientists), and expanded the section, do you think the expansion is within WP:BLP? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Gaijin. In general, the answer is probably "no" or, at least, "be wary". Some of it depends on the publisher--if it's a reputable press, not one to publish sensationalist stuff (a lot of them do, unfortunately), then one can assume there is editorial oversight to make sure there is basic accuracy and no wild claims. I might have a moment to look closer, or you could ask at RSN or BLPN. Someone like Collect, DGG, or Randykitty (the latter should really run for admin one of these days) can help you assess this too, since they know books, publishers, policies, and editing guidelines. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the footweras woting like for their own job. Oh, thank good. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Castor Lang. Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. Well spotted, dog lover. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if this is true, than someone should remove those four votes from This deletion intro. Hafspajen (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but hey, the closing administrator will see the SPI as well. Let's just wait until it delivers a result, and then it's much more satisfying to strike them. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You are right (as you always are). Hafspajen (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[/me blushes]. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How sweet. Hafspajen (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose we could revdel this edit? It was instantly reverted but in my view is still wholly inappropriate for someone to even dig out of the history. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done as RD2. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and User:Hafspajen are dog people, what do you thin of the recent reverts at Cesar Milan. I've restored one of them as I think that [24] is a reliable source even for a BLP given the endorsing organisations. I thin the one I didn't revert probably is to. Thanks. Looks like he wants to remove the Titchmarsh comment also. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milan is an outstandig dog trainer, opposed to some not so notable Hong kong people. But controversy is someting that should be mentioned, as far I know. WP:Controversy. But since he is a living person, let Drmies say the last word. Hafspajen (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I'm not a dog person--there's only one dog for me, and that's Sadie. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Drmies Sir, I am explaining about what is going on in the page Raju or Kshatriya Raju page.It is a page related to the caste of Kshatriya Varna.

Iam bringing it your notice because there is a very big problem in developing this article.If this article has to be developed,please provide freedom for other editors to develop this article by providing reliable sources.In this page an editor named "Sitush" is creating hurdles by deleting the sourced statements with reliable sources.The reasons he is providing is not considerable.Anyone can clearly understand by his reasons that he don't like to develop the article. I will explain you point by point: 1.)[When Gotras are provided from the following 2 references: (i)cite book| title=Tamil Nadu Part-2 Affiliated East-West Press [for] Anthropological Survey of India, 1997 |publisher=Kumar Suresh Singh, R. Thirumalai, S. Manoharan |year=1997 |isbn= |url=http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=XM78UpaOGIulrQei84CYAQ&id=P3LiAAAAMAAJ&dq=kshatriya+rajus&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya+rajus+gotras |page=774] (ii)</ref> Sir, in that page reference 1 which is "Parties,Elections etc." also clearly explains that Rajus are of Kshatriya Varna which is accepted by Britishers,Government of India and also State Government of India.That editor named "sitush" is wantedly removing that "Kshatriya" Varna because he don't want to mention it.Sitush removed Gotras in that page. Sir,K.S.Singh is a great Historian, he(K.S.Singh) wrote many books affiliated to Anthropological Survey of India and Oxford University Press.Iam providing sources from two of his books: (i)India's Communities (ii)Tamil nadu Part 2 and these are reliable sources as i have stated above. Sir,I am requesting you to verify this paragraph: {A number of communities claim the status of "Kshatriya Varna",but apart from "Rajput" they are very small.They are "Rajus"(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu),"Raghuvamsi Kshatriya"(Karnataka),"Kshatriya"(Kerala),"Koteyar"(Tamil Nadu,Karnataka),"Dal Kshatriya"(Bihar),"Aguri"(West Bengal) and "Kshatriya"(Orissa and Assam)-in all eight communities which are widely accepted in the references of "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V.p.1853,1856-1858","http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aguri" This was the statement mentioned by K.S.Singh in his book.This statement of K.S.Singh is given as the Kshatriya Rajus asked their caste to be placed in Backward castes list in Tamil Nadu for the Backward Classes commission which can be seen in the following link "www.ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/Tamil%20Nadu/Tamilnadu-Vol2/7.pdf‎".}This is a reliable source and sitush has removed this from the page.

But,that Sitush is removing wantedly and he is not giving freedom for any other editors to develop the Rajus article.

Sir,Finally iam a requesting you as you are one of the senior editor in the wikipedia and i can beleive that You can provide justice for the common editors and also help to maintain the reputation of wikipedia by developing the article. And i am also requesting you to study the above references of K.S.Singh i have provided and discuss it with experts.If you feel those are reliable.Then i request you to develop the article by entering content from those books of K.S.Singh.

         Thanking you sir,

Yours faithfully, An Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.161.28 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Joshua Jonathan might be able to do someting here? A new candidate for mentorship? Hafspajen (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor names Sitush typically knows what he's doing. This is a matter for the article talk page, not for another editor's talk page. I presume you mean he's removing information wantonly, not wantedly? Please take it up on the article talk page, and if there are disagreements over what is a reliable source and what isn't, you can take the matter up at WP:RSN. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look, but it looks complicated. I've got great faith in Sitush too, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Faith in me is appreciated as long as it is not blind ;) The situation is actually quite simple, ie: varna is almost always a complex issue and therefore we do not usually refer to it in lead sections but rather go through the various claims etc in the body. There are threads about this at WT:INB and numerous articles. The problem is, as always, caste puffery demands that community members want to show only the highest possible status and that they want that to be placed prominently, despite WP:NPOV etc. These issues have been discussed at the article talk page and the article has been semi-protected on several occasions and by various admins due to this COI/warring problem. The most recent semi was applied by Callanecc (talk · contribs) and runs until 21 February 2015. I could start yet another talk page thread about it but, frankly, I've got better things to do and so I'll let the POV-pushers draw first. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Western Australian IP, I'm part of your sockpuppet farm [25] Moo. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you are a female. You fooled me in Boston. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I fooled Mrs. Cullen, bwuhaha. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wondering if there is much of a commercial market for farmed sockpuppet meat. It just doesn't sound all that succulent to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's a market alright. Pack it up properly and send it to the companies that produce K-pop. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'ya remember the interlibrary thing you sent me recently for William Beach Thomas? Did you take a look at it or just copy and pass on? I reckon that it is ok to cite but it does come from a fairly obscure journal (American Book Collector). - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a bit of browsing in between sessions (I'm at a conference in Savannah--nice town) on my iPhone. It's a magazine, and the hits I found did not suggest it couldn't be cited, if you don't disapprove of that double negative. That is, somewhat obscure and now defunct, maybe, but not therefore unreliable. Cite it, and if it's challenged we'll delve a bit deeper and write up an article for it. You know, we need a special Reliable Sources for Sitush Noticeboard. Don't tell Bishonen, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments concering the editors on this article, as you can see, I asked both editors to put there arguments on the talk page, rather than just deleting everything, both editors dont think that is necessary, now they went to my other article and put the notability thing on it, even though that was already decided in 2010, See Ghulam Ahmad (engineer).

So I am not sure what else i am supposed to do. Maybe you can look at the article Sudhan and decide for yourself, one editor all he did was google sudhan and go the government of AJK website. looking forward to your reply Trueblood (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I looked at Ghulam Ahmad (engineer), and I don't see that anything was "decided" in 2010. I saw that a brand-new account removed a tag, which I'm about to restore. What's odd is that this new account signs the same way you do, with an empty line between text and signature.

  I don't understand your other comment. Sitush explained on Talk:Sudhan why they reverted. What I see in this version of yours are prima facie problematic sources--poorly formatted, incompletely referenced, unreliable. I believe Sitush has already explained elsewhere why sources like Rose are unreliable. I do not see how the content you added can be redeemed. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush did not explain that deleting everything except the reference to rebellion against Pakistan Army is the only thing he left. If something is not properly sourced, than it should be talked about, rather than deleting the whole thing. I am not sure what your reference means to Ghulam Ahmad, if something is poorly formatted, than an editor should try to format it, how can a person just say that the source is unreliable, that is a judgemental call and is subjective.

Rather than destroying an article one should try to improve it, i am sure that the hundreds of sudhans who spent time fixing this article were not making up things.

I would like to have positive help rather than deleting everything\ Trueblood (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but sometimes content is so bad that it shouldn't be saved even with a citation needed tag. It should not be necessary to explain why so many of the references in your edited version are very poor. Some of them are footnotes, commentary; others are just woefully incomplete. This cannot be left all the time to other editors; it is their responsibility to insert properly verified information with clear references. But I'm not surprised that this isn't clear to you--in this recent edit you removed "citation needed" tags, while leaving unverified information in the same paragraph. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of this article you will notice that I am not the editor who did most of the edits, I happened to just notice recently that the page was almost deleted. In any case, I think still that a page should not be completed deleted without having it on the talk page, the talk page does have a long history, the recent editor just joined and delted ober 90% of the stuff, I have not gone through the whole thing, but I am sure there were edits which were clearly sourced. I will have to print the old article and go through it to determine which ones were not sourced. I agree if they were not sourced than they should be deleted, but the ones which one editor may believe is not sourced according to his or her personal preference is clearly against wiki policy. It than becomes subjective.

In reference to Ghulam Ahmad engineer, I did go ahead and add the citations that the editor and you are referring to, so there is nothing there that is not sourced now.

Trueblood (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You used the ((Help me)) template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

Sir, I've made a few edits, and apparently irritated someone that I can only describe as a "troll". I'm sorry if I've stepped on some "uber" Wikipedian, it was certainly unintentional. I'm having "fun" correcting a small thing here and there, but this guy "BMK" seems to have some issue with me. I really don't like his (her) accusations, which are not true, but if this is the crap I have to put up with, I really don't see a plus side to spending any time learning to edit and grow at Wikipedia.

Please review my Talk page (and it's history, as I have deleted some other offensive harassment), and also the comment I left on "BMK" page concerning the offensive accusation he left on my Talk Page.

Seriously, no less than TWO ***AGGRESSIVE*** editors have accused me of what I can only interpret as something dirty or nasty, and quite frankly, I'm both baffled and also offended. Is this what people have to put up with to edit at Wikipedia?

I have spent a great deal of time trying to learn how to edit and what the lingo is, and this is what I get? Seriously?

- My UID is Taco Viva, but my name is Jake and I live and work in Lakewood Washington. If Wikipedia does not want me to be a part of it, I can find other things to do. Taco Viva (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very simple guy and often comment on what jumps out at me first. So please excuse me if there are deeper layers of meaning that I am not seeing at first glance. All that being said, I think that it is a bad idea to call another editor a "bitch" in an exchange like this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Taco_Viva, please see WP:Don't call a spade a spade and of course WP:NICE. It doesn't apply to everybody, but it does apply. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the article your edits to which were met aggressively for me to look into it. Gryllida (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Gryllida, an early article was El Chapo, which got Taco_Viva this classic WP:OWN response from ComputerJA... "If you have any concerns with the article, please consult to talkpage before making bold changes." This was on the 23rd. Nomoskedasticity came sock-hunting on the 24th, over Paul Flowers, saying "You are clearly not a new editor." Later, Beyond My Ken also came sock-hunting with regard to Barbarella (film), saying "You are clearly a long-term editor, not a newbie (What was your old ID, incidentally? Are you evading a block...". Here is the old-talkpage,[26], and here is the current.[27] First edit by Taco_Viva was 9th, then a gap of a couple weeks, then the heavier wave of editing started just a few days back. Drmies was the person who dropped a welcome-to-wikipedia template for Taco_Viva, which is why they HE came here for help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is OK for this Beyond My Ken guy to leave obnoxious and offensive accusatory messages on my Talk Page, but whebn I call him on it I'M THE BAD GUY? Really? Amazing. Apparently, "established" users can be as rude as they want? I'm the one who get's the "talking to"? Beyond My Ken can "call me out" and say what he pleases, and I just have to take it because I'm new? So I took the time to learn a few editing tricks and now I'm a "sock puppet"? Paranoid often, are you people? Amazing. Just amazing.

I am a new editor, and yes, not a moron. I was able to examine Beyond My Ken and Nomoskedasticity "edit history" just as they were able to look at mine. It seems that neither one spend much time actually adding or editing significant amounts of actual content, but rather "trolling" around harassing other editors for slights and minor offenses, an activity that many would lable as sociopathy. I don't care what either of these obsessed people think of me, but I will not take offensive accusations sitting down. My suggestion to them is to "go away", and harass someone else.

I've only been here a short time, but in that time, I have *NOT* been welcomed, the "locals" have *NOT* been friendly, and it seems that this is a "club" that I am not going to be accepted at. Too bad for Wikipedia. Taco Viva (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm at a conference, and in this thread are contributions by some really friendly and trustworthy editors. I have to see to a few things and I will have to leave this matter be. Cullen, 74, thanks for stepping in: an old friend of mine was hauled off by ambulance but apparently he's OK; we're going to check on that. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You people have chased me away. I am so disgusted with this experience, I will now use Encyclopedia Britannica exclusivly. Taco Viva (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sympathy. Your displeasure is surely more important than someone's heart attack. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped a note on Taco Viva's talk page. (Although Britannica needs the money.) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it that someone like this Taco ends up on my talk page? Thanks Yngvadottir. [Wait: the welcome template.] Bishonen, you'll be pleased to know, I certainly was, that my friend Ray, former seminarian and still teacher extraordinaire and bon vivant, was released from the hospital a day after suffering a mild heart attack at the Sigma Tau Delta annual convention. He got to the banquet late, however, and since he missed his salad I couldn't let him have dessert. He gave us all a scare. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I should have asked how he was. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Ray and there is no better storyteller. Esp. the accounts from when he was in seminary are priceless. I took the 8-year old with me to lunch, with him and a few others, and she was bawling uncontrollably because she missed her mother and sister. Ray had her calm, at peace, and then in stitches in a matter of minutes. He showed up briefly during the concluding banquet just to show off that he was still alive: it's amazing, someone has a heart attack and the next day they're out and about again. If you ever see him, ask him to tell you the story about the five--the one time that an Italian burial experienced a five in the drama classification that normally ends at four. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend Drmies, please give my very warmest greetings for healing to your dear friend Ray. Ten years ago, I had a bad "asthma" attack, went to the emergency room, and learned that instead, I had suffered an attack of atrial fibrillation. That led to four days in the hospital, until I was cured by masturbation while wondering if the nurses monitoring my heart could detect my misbehavior, plus smuggled whiskey. I learned in the aftermath, reading Wikipedia and talking to my doctor, that I could expect attacks with increasing frequency for the rest of my life. I had three more attacks, every six months. Then, I started actively editing Wikipedia. And my heart has worked perfectly ever since. Don't tell Doc James since we all know that individual anecdotes prove nothing. But I am sticking with editing Wikipedia, through thick and thin. All true, by the way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, Drmies, don't relay my miracle cure to your eight year old. At least for another ten years. I don't need to experience Alabama jails first hand to understand their realities. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, Cullen. She's too young for whiskey anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you and Trueblood conversing above. There's an ANI thread now. You may want to get in your mamma kangaroo's pouch and hop over there. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Never mind little Joey, they've already been indeffed, you can forget it. Unless you'd like to block Adnan1216 as a duck? I saved them for you since you noticed the sig thing. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

That's all very exciting. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I bothered you. Bishonen | talk 02:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Haha, that came out totally wrong, Bish--it was meant to be followed by a witty comment after action was taken. Then I noticed there was no there there, and didn't have anything to respond, and probably got called away from editing. You have to know I was at a conference with a certain 8-year old, and that made a LOT of things a lot more difficult. Anyway, I need to cut this short again: to make up for lost school time said 8-year old has to report at 7:15 AM tomorrow, and guess who has to take here there--that's right, little Joey and his momma. Sorry Bish for posting only the first half of what should have been a powerfully humorous set of comments. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe we don't have an article on this one. Foating flower market [28][29][30][31]Hafspajen (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psst, Bloemenmarkt. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Bloemenmarkt. Then all therse red links should be a redirect. And not much on that either. Hafspajen (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice! Maybe we could expand it 5 times and make a DYK? Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sad pet! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is just the natural look of a pug, trust me, mine always has that look on her face. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I'd never realized that those shops are at boats. one probbably doesn't notice what's natural. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]