User talk:Drmies/Archive 22

Balwant Singh Bagwal - article review
Can't stand blank talk pages - looks like you have no mates!

I would be grateful if you or one of your stalkers could take the time to check my recent edits at Balwant Singh Sagwal and at Ajmer Singh. I am having a spot of bother with an editor whose contribution history and style seem to indicate a newbie but who was aware of WP:OWN. Rather stupidly, I did not check their history but that is precisely because their talk page stuff suggested that they did in fact know what they were doing (sort of).

NB: I moved the first article - it was originally at Ballu. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no worries about the above now. I've been taken to ANI (again) & doubtless someone there will review what has gone on. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitush, I'm just going to block you right now and then see what's going on at ANI. Your constant whining over "reliable sources" and "neutral point of view" is becoming a drag. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny how many references are made to Ballu (when they're really not necessary) in The Hindu right after his death. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * TLDR. Perhaops you should do that block. I am fed up of it. I try to "keep things in order", in full knowledge that (a) that is a subjective statement & (b) I am pretty darn sure I have the community consensus there, right in the policies etc, so the subjectivity may still exist but in the context of WP ... well, bollocks to it. I do not deny that I could have handled this particular situation better: I saw WP:OWN& kinda thought "well, they must know their way around".
 * It is often the case that I cannot prove it but I remain convinced that in many instances I am dealing with socks and meats. Meanwhile, I am trying to be constructive elsewhere - you could take a look at the three or four articles I have been fettling this last week (perhaps Erasmus Smith or Kumar Suresh Singh stand out, insufficient although the former will be for the next couple of days, but there are others). I don't think that this particular instance is a sock/meat, but it is perhaps someone who has been around for a while as an IP.
 * How many times am I going to be dragged to ANI? It sometimes seems that I am there more often than the bloody administrators are, and it invariably ends either neutral or in my favour. The admins (you included) must be fed up of seeing my name. I enjoy the research and the by-ways that I travel along that route but as far as India-related stuff goes, well, it is just a hell-hole of POV, OR, SYNTH, poor phrasing, entrenched attitudes etc. And WMF seems to be implicitly encouraging this. I applaud anything that reduces systemic bias etc but the cost/benefit right now seems to be considerably skewed, and it is not assisted by the fact that admins generally seems to want to keep well away from the area (itself, perhaps, an indication of systemic bias - they feel that they do not know enough about the sphere & so would rather not ...) I know that they are trying but WMF need to get more oversight and base-level education in place via mentorships/projects etc before they continue their push. It is certainly not entirely the "fault" of the contributors. And, no, I do not expect you to offer a comment on that opinion.
 * It really, really pained me to take List of Ror to an article with no content at all. But what the heck am I supposed to do? I am convinced that some of the entries there were correct but WP insists on certain standards, and rightly so. It is like trying to square a circle. Send me a decent recipe for the carnitas MI-inducing stuff.
 * Rant over. I shall see if there is a bottle of beer in my fridge. I might drink it. I might knock myself over the head with it. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, did you see this? The sock is back, albeit there was only a sniff. Ahem. - Sitush (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitush, sometimes I wish I could block on sight (or on second sight) and get away with it. I don't know about the India project--with or without the WMF you're dealing with some heavily involved editors who care about their caste but couldn't give a fuck about RS, V, N, etc. And Christ, there's some poor writing going on there. I gave your IP a level-4 warning, but there is really nothing we can do. I mean, I can protect the talk page, but that's silly, and I'm not sure the frequency allows for that (I'll see). Hey Sitush, we drank a bottle of St. Bernardus Abt tonight, and then a bottle of Brother Thelonious Monk. I hope you found something nice in the fridge as well. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Danny Lee Wynter
Howdie Drmies :) Your duplication here has confused me, and I'm not sure what to remove or revert. Prehaps you can take another look. Thanks. -- WikHead (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought something went wrong there with an edit conflict. Did you fix it yet? I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't fix it yet. There seems to be two slightly different versions in one, and I'm not sure which is the keeper. I'll go back to address that now, and hope I don't remove any good edits in the process. -- WikHead (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd call this a issue; occasionally one of my fingers slips and touches another button with drastic consequences. Thanks for pointing it out--but next time, don't give me so much credit and just cut or undo, haha. I hereby grant you the right to call me a moron in three edit summaries, but this privilege expires the next solstice. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, you got back to it before I did. Appears to be in good order now :). Have yourself a great day Drmies. Happy editing! PS... I'd never call you a moron. Your work here is usually always right on the money. :) -- WikHead (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Kamala Lopez/Jeanmarie Simpson articles/relationship
We could use your unbiased eye over here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamala_Lopez Webberkenny (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the article and some of the talk pages around it. I have no opinion, really, except that I think that the material about the biggest disappointment etc. probably has no place in this article. Moreover, I'm the second person you're approaching, and Mr. Stradivarius suggested you try your case at DRN, which it appears you haven't done yet. Sorry, but I am not going to get involved as some kind of arbitrator, though I am going to make a couple of edits to the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have made some edits, but I think I have left the bone of contention alone. There was far too much resume padding in here. I don't know which one of the two of you may or may not represent which party in some dispute, and frankly I don't care. The edits I just made were done on the basis of such guidelines as WP:RS and NOTRESUME. When this gets to DRV, you may find that the real issues that are bothering the two of you have very little to do with article content. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review of the article and the changes that you've made. I am far more experienced with persuasive writing as I am an MBA not a news reporter. I believe you would find webberk's frantic tone and accusations on a talk page that I am Lopez to be enlightening...
 * "Simpson is and has been an artist on the national and international levels working in the peace movement, very notably since 9/11. You are trying to elevate Lopez (probably yourself) to Simpson's level, and the level of thousands (if not millions) of legitimate, hard working activist. Ask Cindy Sheehan or S. Brian Willson or Mimi Kennedy or Frank Dorrel or any of a host of other relevant peace activists today, and they will know and applaud Simpson's work and refute any claims you (Lopez) have of meaningful activism. Lopez (you) have a long and sordid history of alienating people including Ben Affleck, a well-respected political activist who has revealed Lopez's (your) narcissistic, phony tendencies.  Webberkenny (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)"


 * My issue is simple - webberkenney has revealed his/her frame of mind which is that Lopez and Simpson should be compared and that one be chosen as MORE important than the other. My frame of mind - I don't give a CRAP about Simpson and the webberkenney avatar. However, the issue of inserting irrelevant information for the sole purpose of making one person less than another seems...stupid.


 * As for addressing "the bone of contention" the only contention I currently have is the importance she has places on inserting the criticism of the movie when Mr. Strad already addressed this issue by stating:


 * "...it is ok to have some criticism of the film in her biography, but only from mainstream film critics, and there should not be too much weight on the criticism compared to the other coverage of the film. Criticism from Simpson should probably be limited to the article on the film itself..."


 * That content has already been placed on several pages as recommended by Mr. Strad. I hope this can be finally resolved and we can get on to addressing other issues. I have interest in Lopez's activism but I'm not a "FAN" as weeberkenney describes herself with regards to Simpson. I just want to improve the Lopez site and, if I believe there is additional information to add to the site, I will seek out advice before posting it if that will mitigate further dispute. I believe webberkenney should do the same. Is there a process for doing this or will the conflict continue?

JHScribe (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you presume, as did your counterpart, that I am interested in this dispute between y'all. I'm not. Whatever needs to happen needs to take place somewhere else than my beautiful talk page, which is a no-conflict zone. My only concern is the article; dispute resolution needs to take place elsewhere: Dispute resolution noticeboard. Happy disputing, Drmies (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed

JHScribe (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope - no dispute resolution necessary. I believe the proof is in the pudding. The articles and their clearly sourced references are what is important. I will continue to ensure that Simpson's work is duly honored and that Lopez and her hysterical attempts to hide the truth are fruitless.Webberkenny (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Format problem
The sentence beginning "By the late nineteenth century" at Caste_system_in_Kerala is intended to be the first sentence of a new paragraph. Any idea why it is not splitting from the prior paragraph? It seems to be correct in the edit window but not in the article view. Very odd. - Sitush (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in: It had something to do with the quote template being inside the paragraph, instead of being seperated from it. I've fixed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for helping out, BMK, while I was out protecting pages. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, and thanks. I use that template a lot, and in the exact manner used on that article. I have never come across that behaviour before. I might just go in there & see if the colon immediately prior to it was a part of the issue. - Sitush (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitush, I'm blown away by what you've done for that article. Amazing. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. t has got a long way to go yet. And, yes, it was the colon that caused the problem. That's a bug, surely? - Sitush (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The peculiar behaviour is not new - see Template_talk:Quote. - Sitush (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is that, the ANI for geeks? Please tell Mandarax I said hi. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Excellent! Thanks. Did you get one for User:EdJohnston as well? Cheers, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You only said one beer, but that doesn't matter. Giving him a beer too.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Go the F to Sleep
I disagreed with your edit. I reverted you and added a little. Just so ya know... Lady of  Shalott  04:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well now, isn't that interesting. The words you added actually help. But a. this is some awful poetry; b. please don't make me put a linkrot tag on that article; and c. what about secondary sourcing? Drmies (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * a. No argument there! b. Point taken - I'll deal with that in a moment. c. Hmm... yeah... I don't if there is any. I doubt it. I kind of worried that what I added might be a bit too OR-ish. (Ewww, did I just say that?) Lady  of  Shalott  04:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I never heard of this book until this very morning when I heard it reviewed here on KGO (AM), Northern California's most popular radio station, where they delicately called it "Go the Bleep to Sleep".


 * On another matter of great importance, Drmies, that bacon butty you sent me the other day cannot accurately be called a "bribe". It would have had to have been offered in advance.  Instead, I think we ought to call it a "service award".  Thanks, anyway.  Also, I look forward to seeing your photography in the world's great publications, after your career change.   Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Staying The F Awake
I can't sleep, again. Can you get hold of this from JSTOR, please? It might be at archive.org but their search system is dreadful. It's for Herbert Hope Risley, another of my ongoing revamps. An "interesting" guy, for whom I have a juicy quotation awaiting: "his career ... marked the apotheosis of pseudo-scientific racism". Anthropometry & all that sort of bull. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sitush, I had a busy day at work. I'll do it tomorrow: much easier from the office than from home on the netbook. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

RPP getting backlogged again
I'll give you another beer (if you know you won't get drunk) if you help take down this follow-up backlog at RPP :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On a Monday morning? Sheesh! I'll see what I can do in the ten minutes before class! Drmies (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remove such misleading information
Drmies, I thank you for sending me a kind message and pointing out my ungrammatical sentence, but I really hope you would remove such Offensive and misleading information on this wiki page ---> Negrito, what's written in the bottom part is 100% MISLEADING and OFFENSIVE.. and contradicting against what the other wiki page have stated. Unlest you prove to me that I'm wrong than I'm going to have to believe you're an Afro-centrist who deliberately edited this false information to mislead everyone. I'M NOT THREATENING YOU, I have no power to but I'm so annoyed by this edit I have long wanted to report to the admins. Someone showed me this edit, and I was shocked to found how false it was. I'm completely offended by this false edit.

On the Negrito wiki page it is stated " Haplogroup D (Y-DNA) are found frequently among some peoples living in the same area. In China, stone coffins were used by these peoples "  Nowhere on the chinese article (the reference for it) did it mention about dna.

IT COMPLETELY contradicts to what this wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andamanese " Within this lineage, the Andamanese (Onges and Jarawas) belong almost exclusively to the subtype designated Haplotype D, which is also common in Tibet and Japan, but rare on the Indian mainland.[13] However, this is a subclade of the D haplogroup which has not been seen outside of the Andamans, marking the insularity of these tribes.[14]"

Drmies, Do you know what's haplogroup? Y-dna is the paternal lineage and Mtdna for maternal lineage. China has Y-dna D1-M15 and D3a y-dna which is related with Tibetan and Tibeto-Burmese this is genetically proven. BUT ON THIS Negrito wiki it states that the dna is related with negrito which is garbage and completely misleading. And Since adamanese negrito are the only negrito with their own type dna D* which is isolated only on the Adaman island, how the hell is China D dna related with them?. PLEASE... I really urge you to change it. Also about the accusation that I removed the word "fan". I believe someone edited that for me, Why would I remove the word "fan" for? makes no sense. BTW, I just checked on this wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainie_Yang, I added she was of "Cantonese origin" but it was removed. I have evidence to back it up, here is her interview she clearly said she was of Cantonese origin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIfhxJzTOYs

ONE MORE THING:  How could you allow to cite these sources ( reference 17 and 18 ) when none of you understand Chinese? one of them says nothing about negrito, in fact the page is not even availabe, and other is just an random chinese forum with chinese people discussing about ghost and negrito. These 2 reference is complete nonsense. http://www.11xs.com/html/9344/1541085.htm www.sr0768.com/bbs/simple/index.php?t16103.html To cite these two as sources? such freaking comedy, since when did forums became reliable sources. WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 5:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue as to what a haplogroup is. My guess is that it's an element in a modern, updated version of Malebolge? The Lady has already pointed out that you are incorrect about that removal remark, and I will leave it at that. Whatever you want to say about freaking comedy is not for here but for the talk page of the associated article, where you are free to make your case in a clear, concise manner, and without bold print and all-caps. Oh, if forums aren't reliable sources (and they aren't, you are correct), why would a YouTube video of an interview be? At best, it may verify what she has said--and by the same token I can claim to be a direct descendant of Mordred. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

IP you blocked
24.248.154.2, who you blocked, is misusing their talk page access; since the bot at AIV keeps reverting my report, can you revoke the tp access of this IP? Thanks.  HurricaneFan 25  21:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, how many admins does it take to screw in a light bulb? Thanks Hurricanfan, Drmies (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the blocking of User:Applianceelectrician
Hey Drmies, I was looking through WP:UAA a few minutes ago, and I came across the above user. I noticed that you put a block template on their page; however, looking at the block log of the editor (here), it doesn't look like they're blocked. Do you think you could take a look at it? Regards, The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 01:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, good call--thanks a lot! Drmies (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Pete the Cat book series
Remember the kerfluffle a while back? Anyway... I went tonight to the new independent book shop in town and found out that there's a new Pete the Cat book out, Rocking in my school shoes. Then I got on WorldCat and found out that another, Pete the cat and his four groovy buttons is due out next year. So apparently, Litwin and Dean are still working together. Lady of  Shalott  02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, didn't I tell you we got the school shoes book? I'm sorry, I thought I had--unfortunately, it isn't half as good as the first one. I think I did tell you that Litwin showed up alone at the book festival. But, more importantly, congratulations on having a new independent book shop! Drmies (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you did, or if you did, I somehow failed to register that you were telling me about a new one. (Was this recently?) Anyway, yes, I'm really glad to have the new book shop, and I hope they do well! I made a couple purchases tonight (not PtC), and will probably place a special order in the next few days. Lady  of  Shalott  03:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User 70.82.76.77
Despite two final warnings given to this user (including one by you), this user had disrupted the One Life to Live page by delibaretely adding content not discussed in the provided sources and then going as far as leaving a note telling other editors to not change this bogus edit.

At this point, I don't know if disciplinary actions should be taken towards this user or if he/she should be given yet another chance.Farine (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this edit dispute is a bit on the stupid side (it's a soap opera), but indeed, the reference does not contain the closing date. You've warned them; next time you can report them to WP:AIV. Their uncommunicative character might be taken into account. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all of y'all's time would be better spent turning articles like Ashley Abbott McCall into actual articles (with references and stuff) or scrapping them. That whole conglomerate of soap articles is quite embarrassing. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I wouldn't called it a "dispute" since it happened only once in the case of this article and may never happen again (though the user has had many disruptive behaviors in other articles).


 * I also wouldn't call it "stupid" because adding delibarate errors on articles or adding content not supported by the provided sources is vandalism. Plain and simple. And all vandalism is bad. There is no vandalism that is less worst than the other, and all acts of vandalism should be treated equally whether it's open vandalism or subtle vandalism. It's totally ridiculous that Wikipedia would write that One Life to Live is ending on January 20, 2012 when all the other websites are restricting it to January 2012. And such situation should not be taken lightly under the excuse that "it's just a date".


 * As for Ashley Abbott McCall, I don't have enough knowledge of the article to be able to contribute to it.


 * Thank you for having taken the time to respond and I wish you a nice day! Farine (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously you rank articles differently when it comes to importance. It always saddens me when time is spent on relatively trivial matters (in my opinion, of course). In this case, what's even worse is that the other party is uncommunicative, which means even more time has to be wasted because we have to assume good faith, check the sources (which I did, and you as well), give warnings, etc. You'll have to agree that in the grand scheme of things this is a trivial matter. That you want to get it right is not trivial at all, I'm not saying that. But here is the thing: the editor is now warned. You are an expert on these matters, I am not: so look through their recent edits and see if they're doing the same to other articles since your final warning. (I just looked, but I can't judge whether in all that unsourced stuff anything in those recent edits crosses a line--it's not my field.) Given that they've been warned plenty I will block if they persist with this behavior. Sound fair? Drmies (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'll notify you if something happens again. But I hope we won't have to go there because I really hate having to do this. Especially that the majority of unregistered users are good people who wants to contribute positively to this encyclopedia and it's only a minority of unregistered users (a strong minority, unfortunately) that gives the rest of them a bad name. Nevertheless, in the case of User 70.82.76.77, he/she has received plenty of warnings and it's time to bring this to a disciplinary level should something happen again.
 * Regards Farine (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of areas that don't seem to work without IP work and that simultaneously suffer from it, and this is one of them. Soccer (and other sports, I imagine) is another. Again, it's the uncommunicative nature that is causing the problems--yes, on the one hand, you don't want to block someone who is contributing positively, but on the other hand you have to decide whether the positive outweighs the negative. I asked them earlier to explain more, which would automatically tip the scale, so to speak. They didn't take me up on that, unfortunately. Thanks for keeping an eye out, Drmies (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. Many unregistered users are not even aware that they have a talk page and the only to get a hold them is by actually blocking them. That's when they realize that we've been trying to communicate with them all this time.Farine (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Well so much for early closure of the Scratch My Arse Rock AfD... there's now a delete vote. Lady of  Shalott  15:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well scratch my arse raise my rent. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

AN/I case
I left a comment on this case - it has sparked my curiousity. Calabe1992 22:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see! Did you tag them already? Drmies (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SPI started. I have a history with Spotfixer socks, hence why I caught onto this. One sock frequented my talk page with queer messages; then another one reported me at AIV and ANI. I therefore started watching for the patterns, and, in this case . Calabe1992 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ended up being a sock of User:Shakinglord. Now indef'd. Calabe1992 03:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Olaf the Shakinglord. Who came to ANI to denounce himself. His indefinite block is a serious loss to the project, of course. Hey, good work Calabe, thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't around for that one. What did I miss? Something tells me he'll be back again... Calabe1992 03:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't miss a thing. Some dumb thing on ANI where someone came to complain about someone else, and then it turned out they were themselves, and it was all just a waste of time. That was him. As for socks, I just stumbled upon an IP for one of our masters, which revealed a half dozen more. Great fun! Drmies (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh fun. Calabe1992 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A gem
I quote: "I usually do not enjoy reading books that involve strong religious views because they sometimes attempt to make the reader believe in a certain religion...they also seem to be narrow-minded and do not fully grasp my interest. At the cost of sounding arrogant, I do not enjoy these books because I already have my beliefs." Drmies (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI case closures
While you're at that, close this ban proposal.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A "please" is always nice to hear in such requests. 28bytes (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not really going to do that anyway: it's above my pay grade and I have no experience with it. A ban is not a good subject to practice on. 28, will you please look into it? Nicest 28 in the world? ;) Drmies (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sweetness of your words is simply irresistible, Drmies. Looks like a pretty clear consensus over there, so I'll do the honors. 28bytes (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I once taught a class full of freshman comp students that proper MLA style meant starting every question with "Drmies [replace with real title and name], you look smashing today." They knew it was a lie, as did I, and yet it made me feel good and it made them laugh every time someone said it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I met you in Boston, and I can attest that you do look smashing. Seems I recall a stylish shirt as well.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cullen, few people were as stylish as you and Mrs Cullen out on the dance floor. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ho v. Taflove
Hi Drmies. Would you take another look at Template:Did you know nominations/Ho v. Taflove? I proofread the article yesterday, but when I did a spotcheck of the sources for close paraphrasing today, I found that I was not thorough enough. (I missed an extra period.) Would you review the article to see if you can catch any more errors? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, Cunard. I'm making some coffee and then I'm on it. Pity--seems like a hit and run editor, and it rubs me the wrong way, that we are made to be someone else's copy editor. I hope you have a real job and don't have to grade papers. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Judging by the talk page, it seems to be a student project with little guidance from the professor. I've had to reject two nominations from 's students for close paraphrasing and failed verification. I gave a lengthy review at the second link but it seems the students have completely ignored it. The close paraphrasing example I pointed out remains in the article and my suggestion to break the citations down into manageable sizes of two or fewer pages for easier verification has been ignored. I haven't checked but I'd guess that my other suggestions were ignored. has had trouble recently with student projects too. And this article is now a GA candidate: Talk:Grounds for divorce (United States)/GA1. I feel for English professors who must deal with unresponsive students on a regular basis. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Careful, or you'll be blasted on some email list. Piotrus, BTW, is doing a pretty good job maneuvering between all those parties and concerns, and he doesn't seem to allow a watering down of our guidelines in order to get students' work on the front page: see the first comment here. Well, I've finished, I think, and left two remarks on the DYK nomination page. I can't 'fix' those problems (if that is indeed what they are) since I am woefully out of my league on the technicalities. I hope you know a little bit about the law; if you do, maybe you can answer my second question. I'm going to grade some papers. ;) Thanks Cunard, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Piotrus has been more proactive than the other professors. I love the first comment at the above video. Were you afraid that I'd bring you to WP:WQA or ANI for using naughty words? ;) I'm not good at the technicalities of both templates and copyright law, so am unable to fix those issues though I have hunch about what might be causing the first error. Have fun with those papers! ;) Cunard (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Permission
Hi, Thanks for granting the Rollback.Regarding the slip, I apologize for that and had corrected my mistake. Had a problem with Twinkle. Thanks again. Arnavchaudhary (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Campaigning for the ban of Wikipedia
News is filtering through that a known member of the "awkward squad", who has edited en-WP, is leading a drive to get Wikipedia banned in his country & has got political backing from activists. The will be picketing and the media are apparently very interested. Surely, if true, this would count as "disruptive" at pretty much the highest possible level?

You can guess the country. You may even be able to guess the individual. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds exciting! They better keep that off-wiki. Oh, I still need to look for that article: if you paste the URL below I don't have to peruse my email... Drmies (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I am sure that it will be on-wiki also. Articles involving contested maps of the country in question. Prepare for a busy weekend of short length semi-pp'ing. The article link is this. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You got mail. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Having skimmed the thing, I am slightly concerned that it may be classed as a primary source. I shall have a think ... and I shall ask the polymathic & Mr (or Mrs, or Ms) Google whether the title can be found in any subsequent discursive works. In any event, it gives me some personal insight into the ways of yet another nutter of the Raj period. Just off to measure the proportions of my head etc & see what category I fall into. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"If you're referencing the gerbil, that was years ago."
If I had a dime for every time I've heard that... 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what's weird. Out of nowhere the word 'gerbil' popped up this morning (in the newspaper, I think), then Hamster came along, and then, when I picked up my youngest, it turns out that her school needs someone to take care of their gerbil for the Thanksgiving holiday. Three gerbils in one day: coincidence? BTW, I'm almost afraid to look at the ANI discussion now, after having been away for a few hours. I could guess...NPA warnings, escalating discussion, at least one section now hatted, etc... Drmies (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, actually everyone worked out their differences, decided it was silly to be arguing and vowed to work together on some articles to build camaraderie. On a serious note, I have been told by reliable sources that gerbils and dead celebrities do indeed both come in threes. 28bytes (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm glad to be wrong. I think I'll be able to churn out an FA or two tonight. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! You'll note I added a fantastic source. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FAIL - you didn't change the "no sources" tag to "needs additional sources"! ;) Calabe1992 20:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just checking to see if you were a drive-by tagger with or without a conscience. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Calabe1992 19:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Did your talk page enjoy the trip to namespace?
Any idea who that person was? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC) <--No, this is the first one. Loyola is a misnomer, in a way. Note the phrasing on User:Kross and the exclamation point; note also what they edit, incl. Obesity. Then the Loyola silliness starts, here. What's next? This needs to be written up somewhere. An SPI would be useful for gathering info, and would help dealing with subsequent abuse--CU would be easy. I'm going to drop Causa sui a line as well. Think about it, BMK, cause I'm getting sleepy. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I saw his edit on User:Kross come by and was working on that when it all came down. Yes, I met him on Bernie Fine, unfortunately--the typical kid, I guess. Odd edit summary, though. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tha's what made me wonder if it was someone you've run into before. The "V" in "LCV" could stand for "vandal". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But that was on Kross's talk page. And see what edits took place there before. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See this, and the subsequent sock User:OsFan2. There's a history of fag bashers there. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't know how to spell "douche" either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Typically, my students don't either, at least not on the evaluations. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, LCV is Loyola College Vandal, a case going back to 2006. User:Causa sui knew something, according tot his block--and you know, of course, that Baltimore is where the Ravens play. I can find no document of a long-term abuse or an SPI, but the extended history of User:Kross is enough. How else did that jerk Raven find his way there? This may well be the first one. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think this is related? No vandalism, but... Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a chance to do anything about it until Sunday afternoon/evening at the earliest. Aren't some of those accounts stale? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure they're all stale, yes. But I think the duck test identifies Ravens1985 as a sock of Willie/LCV convincingly enough, and that makes it more difficult for the next one. CU can see what else is under Ravens. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that the same as Willy on Wheels? (I might be completely off base there. The WilburWheels name just sounds similar to me.) Lady  of  Shalott  05:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes--in one of the many edits of the many blocked VOAs I saw that expression. I think that a complete list would look quite impressive. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lady, I have a question. I can't figure out File:Sunglass-c.jpg. At some point it must have been relevant to Obesity (see here), but it certainly isn't now. Can you help? Drmies (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the picture, but I have no idea how or why it might have been relevant to the obesity article. I can't see the earlier version, but I looked at the webpage which is its source, and it only has one other picture, and that's a person who is neither wearing sunglasses nor obviously obese. I'm afraid I'm not much help here. Lady  of  Shalott  01:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Having now actually looked at the diff as well... I wonder if describing the person as obese, while calling him Angr, is just the vandal acting stupid by deliberately using an image that doesn't match the description. Lady  of  Shalott  02:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, the image was there already, as far back as I could go. I saw in one sock's edits a talk page note saying that a nude fat man was disgusting--that's what I think it was. I think there was another image used in that article which was replaced by our non-fat man--it's File:Sunglass.jpg, and it's by Angr. Coincidence? Drmies (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Douche bag/Duch/Douchebag
<--Beyond My Ken, you'll be pleased to know that our boy spells "douchebag" correctly in this list. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should be talking about "our girl", given the moving of an article to "eat my c***", but, somehow, I always think of this kind of vandal as being a teenage or pre-teen boy, since it fits better in the profile of their hormonally-driven psychologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Drmies. I see you've been looking for some documentation, so I point you to this deleted page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Zzuuzz, I saw you had blocked some of those socks. Thanks for the note. I also read the 2006 discussion on ANI, which basically said DENY DENY DENY. I find that less than useful, esp. since our man is still around, but not many of the admins of those days are. I don't see any mentions of an SPI. Any suggestions for a course of action with the recent study project in my sandbox? Drmies (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also give you a checkuser. That revision is a blast from the past. I don't know, insta-blocks and semi-protection are sometimes the only way to deal with things. Other than that, I'm inclined to go with the RBI approach, personally. I'll watchlist a few of the targets. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have asked you right away (a few of those are also on my list)--but I've seen more than a dozen admins blocking these socks, and few of them gave any explanation. Usually they were VOA blocks, where I can't tell if they are denying or simply don't know. Either way, I didn't know, and I'm seeing him at work now. Yes, I appreciate you keeping an eye out, and I'll do the same. And again, I don't believe in denial... And that LTA redlink above, two of his socks and two of his IPs edited that, adding valuable information... Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I suspect most of the time we either don't know or don't care. It's like that vandal who moves pages to on wheels, or that one that creates the admins eat babies accounts. RBI. No one cares who it is and no amount of intelligence is going to change anything. Saying that, a checkuser may be of some use these days if you explain the background and link a few accounts. Sometimes people change their ISP patterns. (No I'm not a CU btw). -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sanctimonious, was it?
Baiting, was I? *growl*. I'm a well-known defender of the wiki, and my nearly 10,000 edits are up for anyone to judge. Get it? Got it? Good. Doc  talk  07:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you were, 'defender of the wiki'. You're a host of other things as well, including a pompous ass. Kindly stay away from my talk page: if you feel the need to blow off steam, please do it elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And that is a PA. Also I fail to see how asking for an answer to a point vital to the reason he was blocked (when he is asking for an unblock) is baiting.Slatersteven (talk)
 * Slatersteven, I have no doubt that you were acting in the best of faith, but your engagement with Webhamster on his talk page was not productive at all. If I had noticed it when it was occurring, I would have asked you to disengage. It is rarely helpful to argue with blocked users while they are blocked. 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Steven, it wasn't about a block--it was baiting based on WH's unblock request. Look at your own contributions there and see if they were likely to help the situation. If you want to call me out on a PA you can do so on the civility noticeboard; I have no interest in continuing the discussion here. 28, you speak the word of truth and I appreciate it; I think you disagreed with me on the block etc but did so in a fair manner. I'll say it again, I had my disagreements with WH and I don't think I would do what they did or approve of some of it, but pissing on someone when they're down is not done. I'm going to close this; thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I missed this "close" (and PA). I'm a "pompous ass". Good form for an admin, especially when I went nowhere near that level. Cheers... Doc  talk  07:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And I missed the cute edit summary. You better open an RfC/U if you have a problem with me instead of attacking me. With no blocks and almost 4 years of productive edits here, you're going to just dismiss me as a troll? You're an admin? Do you welcome newer users like this? For shame. Doc   talk  08:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For you and Mrsmies
I saw this and thought of you! There might even be enough sources for a DYK! SmartSE (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what, I knew what this was going to be without even clicking. I appreciate the thought, but I refer you to this brief conversation. Haha, thanks again, and please report on quality and taste! Drmies (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, persistence is key. Unfortunately I think the postage would be a little high to get hold of it this side of the pond. Maybe you can use some if Mrsmies is away sometime... SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's enough out of you. Go block some uncivil people or something. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! That's nice to hear. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stuffo and Hülfensberg
Hi: I saw this listed as an old and neglected nomination, so I waded in on Stuffo. I've found a couple of issues, hopefully rapidly resolvable, and proposed an alternate hook. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding Pros & Cons (according to fans) for The Sims 3
Hi: I tried to add the pros and cons of the game according to fans opinion. After my first try, I had my editing reverted because it was "Unverified trivia, commentary" indicating I should provide the source of opinions. So, in my second try, I placed the same text again presenting the official The Sims 3 forum pages where those opinions were made public as reference. Again my editing was reverted. This time the only explanation was "a forum?" Indicating that for the one responsible for undoing the editing, the official forum of a game is not the place where fans express their opinion about the game. And the worst was that my IP seemed to have been banned from wikipedia (since I could only access its pages using a proxy). I contacted the Arbitration Committee and I got the following answer: "...Your edits are in good faith, even if another editor disagrees about including them. I recommend you post on the talkpage of the Sims 3 article, and discuss with the other editors whether this information should be added, and how it might be sourced." and now I can access wikipedia normally. I believe the Pros & Cons of The Sims 3 game according to fans should be added, because they are the ones who play it on a daily basis for months, so there's no one better to tell the pros and cons of the game. And this information helps others to know what to expect from this game. 177.16.253.73 - 20 November 2011 (Sorry if it's not the correct place to post it. It's the only talk page I could find.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.181.113 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind me explaining, the issue here is that information in our articles should be referenced to what we call reliable sources. Referencing something to a forum where anyone can post means that it is a self published source which means that it is very rare that we would be able to accept it. To include information about what fans think of The Sims 3, you would need to find something like a games magazine where a writer has discussed what fans thought of the game - it could be that they may base their piece of forum posts, but because they are choosing posts that they think are significant, then we can reference it. I've checked the block logs of the IP that you edited from before and the one you posted here under and neither have ever been blocked. It is possible that you were caught by an autoblock if at some point an editor who was later blocked had previously edited from an IP that you were later allocated. Even this would not have prevented you viewing pages though, so there must have been a problem with your ISP in some way. SmartSE (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SmartSE, thanks for the technical insight. IP, I don't really have much to add--even if such info were encyclopedic, you are not necessarily an authority who can speak for all gamers. Published articles do have that kind of position. WP is an encyclopedia, and WP:SECONDARY is part of our policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." No, I don't mind you posting this here; posting on the talk page, however, will probably generate more useful and specific answers Thank you, and thanks again to SmartSE, Drmies (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion II: Academy of Achievement
Thanks. I just found your name in the article history. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop reverting improvments
What does being in the balkans got to do with it? The page is called Albanians and is about Albanian people. There was a template made for the page to help improve it. It is not vandalism. Can you please stop reverting it. Pjeter132 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Undid revision 461703349 by Pjeter132 maybe so, but we're in the balkans here. take it up on the talk page)
 * I didn't say it was vandalism. Articles on topics related to the Balkans (broadly construed) are subject to more stringent guidelines. It's a long read, but here it is: WP:ARBMAC. What it means, as far as I'm concerned, is that discussion is better than reverting. Propose your change on the talk page, and if you are right and it is an improvement, then fine. In the meantime, tread carefully. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
— mc10 ( t / c ) 07:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta share this
There I was, searching for an obituary of Charles James Lyall and somehow this popped up. It has no connection to Lyall at all but, um, gulp. ... - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Did you read it? It is interfering with breakfast a little bit. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yef, I read it and my eyef watered flightly. And that waf juft from reading feveral pagef of old-ftyle typeface for the firft time in yearf.
 * NB: at least it appears to have been in possession of the normal number of toes. Lucky bastard ;) Sitush (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Barbie
FYI... I undid your addition to the TFBarbie picture discussion. Sorry, but it just didn't seem helpful. Lady of  Shalott  13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw...but that's fine. Actually, I have to tell you, all kidding aside, and given my non-expertise on the "free" matter (though I think I know why it wouldn't be OK), I can see a justification for the image, at least of some sort. That is, at least it is a kind of tooth fairy. But the sooner that whole book is closed, the better it is. Oh, it's supposed to be in the 80s today, how crazy is that? The water is still only 59 though. We found the old documents for the house with Greenhaw's name in them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the insight.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Stuffo
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see the suggestion to nominate the Hülfensberg on its own? - I'll take Stuffo to P:DE anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Na, dann Prost! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Holistic Health
Hi, thanks for removing the unreliable sources from that article. I now removed the sections that were using them in their entirety, since no reliable sources were found to support them. -- H eptor  talk 17:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 46.249.56.227 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Abandon all hope, ye who edit here." Lady  of  Shalott  03:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or here. Getting bitched at isn't always a lot of fun. BTW, did you see Kapil Muni Tiwary? The article I linked is interesting, and I imagine Tiwary's (original) article even more so. I helped out a student today with her final paper in the advanced English grammar class--can you see this? Or this? Muy interesting. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't generally see Jstor articles at home. I'll have to wait and pull them up next week on one of the work 'puters. Lady  of  Shalott  02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Punta Brava
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Quentin Bandera
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See...
Wikipedia talk:Did you know M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mandarax. So I have to come up with a new hook? Drmies (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, if you'd like, I could see what I come up with. BTW, it's nice to see the DYK notices showing up on your talk page again. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  05:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created a new nomination, but, of course, feel free to edit it and/or add other hooks. Note: the last sentence of the article's "Franciscan monastery" section seems to be missing something. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  09:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and started a review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I'm taking the mammals for a walk and then I'll have a look. I really appreciate both of you helping out and Gerda, I believe this is the first time you're here? Welcome! Drmies (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoid personal attacks
You are urged to avoid personal attacks and not abuse your administrative rights. Ad hominem arguments are also personal attacks. See But apart from that, if you cannot tolerate simple expression of opinion which supported by a very popular essay, you must really reconsider your behavior. Fleet Command (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe that I have abused my administrative rights, ahem, well, drag me to ANI. If you can't make it stick, then you are guilty of an attack of sorts. And while we're at it: no, you didn't do the actual merge. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see: it concerns the patronizing remark ("our dear Dennis Brown") you directed at User:Dennis Brown in Articles for deletion/Media Data Extended. FYI, Brown was right, you were wrong. If I were Dennis Brown, I would have pasted an NPA warning on your talk page. And now I see what you did: please do not do that again. Now, if you want to argue in a more public forum that "'merge' and 'redirect' are antonyms", go ahead and good luck. If you want to cry "admin abuse" somewhere, that I made a personal attack, good luck as well. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Had your coffee yet, Drmies?  Not that you are wrong, of course: I saw the FleetCommand message a few hours ago and was mystified both regarding: what it was referring to and also the tone. Still, it is good practice for you in the event that you decide to start editing caste articles ;) Sitush (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had had my coffee yet. I just don't take the accusation of abuse of administrative rights lightly, esp. not after working through a backlog of AfD articles. And this AfD, well, see for yourself. "Merge and redirect" is actually a really useful thing, but for an admin it sucks: just look at how many steps it took, in both involved articles. Fortunately I can now close AfDs automatically. But those comments were over the top, plus I got another bogus complaint at ANI, and I get the feeling I'm being followed around. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I followed it through before posting my note. Nightmare, and I am surprised that FC did not know better. I've not had a bogus complaint at ANI for 48 hours or so. Shh. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I've offered to block you pre-emptively, haven't I? I'll be glad to! Drmies (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You should certainly block my sock account, since I am getting tired of arguing with myself. It is User:MangoWong Oops. Joke, MW, if you are watching. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, perhaps there really is a cabal. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your willingness to achieve a compromise and reverting yourself. It was very mature of you; few admins do that. You have my respect. Since you have conceded your comment, I shall return courtesy and concede the whole issue. Still, sometimes I think the atmosphere of Wikipedia consist of Hydrogen instead of Nitrogen: The slightest heat (let alone a spark) can trigger a global explosion. Can't just Wikipedia A tell Wikipedia B "Hey, buddy, don't you think it's just either 'merge' or 'redirect'" and hear "Nah, I don't think so, but whatever; as long as I get what you mean..."? Is it why so many awesome people are vanishing from Wikipedia? I think all of us need to tolerate each other a little more. Fleet Command (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure--but that has to be a two-way street, and the more firmly the one party states "it's this or that, not both" the more strongly the other party will respond. Anyway, that's water under the bridge. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's why I told him "you do what you like". Fleet Command (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
I read your deletion comment. When I meant "Wheel war" I meant you deleting the article and then the article writer reposting. Do you really want to have to go through deleting the article several times and then having to block or would you rather nominate the article and then delete it once? Just my 2 cents. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why such a doom scenario? I appreciate the suggestion toward new editors but you might as well leave them a real note on their talk page. If every CSD candidate had to be AFDed we'll be here forever. Moreover, not every deleted article gets recreated--and don't you think that thinking that they would recreate until they get blocked is not showing a lot of good faith, and at odds with the suggested friendliness of sending it to AfD? There's nothing wrong with what you did, but we have CSD for a reason, and such disruptive recreation is an exception, not a rule. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you never know. It's a good idea something to ensure it doesn't happen.  I do agree that CSD does have it's place on the site and I do use it for one liners like "Mr. X (born January 1, 1955) is a salesman from St. Louis, Missouri)" or copyvios.  But the Farm article has a good amount of info.  So an article like that deserves a discussion.  Anyway have a good Thanksgiving and if you're going out tomorrow be prepared for the big lines.  –BuickCenturyDriver 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise. And make sure the transmission doesn't fall out of your car, which is why I drive a Camry, haha. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much indeed for your decision as an administrator to keep the article on Kapil Muni Tiwary. I have tried my best to prove the Notability of the article. Still I find that the 'Notability is questionable'. That means the article fails to meet the very basic criterion that is required for its presence on the wiki even now and the sword of deletion still hangs above it. Could I expect any help/guidance from your side? I am relatively new on this platform, though I am confident of his Notability, which, I think, should be established by the way his works are being quoted by some reputed journals and books the world over. 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is exactly how notability is established, certainly for a subject such as this one. What I see under "Editing", for instance, does not help--what we need is secondary sources that discuss the subject or his work. Think academic book reviews, newspaper articles, etc. Look also at the edit I just made: the article needs more better sources. I also found a use of an article of his on echo words which I've added--that's the kind of thing that gives body to a biography and establishes that his work is cited by others. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback
You are correct. I seem to have overstepped. MaterialScientist reverted him twice. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I appreciate it. MS probably also shouldn't have reverted, but that's in the past now. If you're interested, there is a long thread at ANI about a similar matter, Ani, and I'm taking a personal interest in how IP editors are treated. But I really do appreciate your note; I'm sure the IP would appreciate a note as well, and then you can righteously remove that unattractive template from your talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Apology given. I hope it is sufficient. Thanks for the suggestion. Best Jim1138 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask for some advice?
I noticed you're online and I'd appreciate some help, if you have a moment.

I've just found an editor,, who performs some constructive edits but who has an entire talk page full of warnings, and who (I think) is in the process of creating a number of hoax articles, including the now-deleted MGM Guitar Corporation and the New York Apparition Society. I'd estimate that he does some constructive edits, some neutral edits (moving Slash (musician) to Slash (guitarist), and some things that are very disruptive (a bit of vandalism, uploading images with copyright problems, the aforementioned hoaxes/likely hoaxes). He doesn't respond to warnings. Does this editor's history warrant my taking them to AIV, or would you go to ANI with it? Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, that's quite a talk page. Let me have a closer look and I'll report back. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, does User talk:Wiki23456 look familiar to you? The MGM hoax came out of their sandbox. Well, these hoaxes, that cannot be. I also found New York Apparition Society (season 1), and deleted it. I'm going to give this editor a final and only warning for these hoaxes, but that's the easy part. I agree that they have made some positive edits, or at least tried to, so it's not a vandalism-only account, and they're clearly not incapable of editing here, so COMPETENCE is not applicable either. Now, you can consider giving them a similar warning for the copyvio issues (that's not my forte, esp. not when it concerns images), and that will mean a short leash. Subsequent disruptive editing, which would include vandalism, would make for an easy decision at ANI. Thanks Nellie, Drmies (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One account posting a blatant hoax that originated in another account's sandbox looks like a sockpuppet or meatpuppet to me. I think I'll ask for help at SPI, but I'll keep an eye on both accounts for future disruption too. Thanks Drmies! --NellieBly (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's two teenagers with imaginary guitars and bands. Sure it could be one kid, or a set of roommates, or cousins--and SPI may give you one IP and they can be blocked as a result. I can't tell you what to do; you'd be perfectly justified with an SPI. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect they're the same person, if only because Wiki23456 stopped editing in July and El Monterrey began editing just this month. If they were friends I'd expect them to be editing at the same time. I've started an SPI case, although I'm not sure if it'll be much help if the Wiki23456 account is stale. Thanks again. --NellieBly (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point--I hadn't looked at the time of their edits. But even if the one is stale, I think the other is likely to fall foul again. Anyway, good luck with it. See you at ANI next time, haha. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * As it happens, I'm just having one. Thanks! That's really nice of you. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wry
I lol'd.  Tide  rolls  18:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC) ...erm...isn't the Union Jack red, white & blue?
 * I pulled up the Randy Newman video as I was typing, but played it softly: it's really a bit too real for my five-year old, and if she starts singing that song at her magnet school we'll all be in jail. Hey, Arkansas isn't looking bad. But who do we want to win? And why? The SEC-West math is too complicated for me. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Two ways of looking at the situation. If Arkansas wins then the SEC West participant in Atlanta will be determined by BCS ranking.  That would, more or less, give the AP and Coach's poll voters the right to choose Georgia's(?) opponent.  If LSU wins they go to Atlanta.  How far does Arkansas drop?  Can Stanford make up enough ground to pass the Tide in the BCS?  Personally I see no reason to play an extra game.  We might be able to get to the BCS championship w/o the SEC championship.  Of course, all this is moot if Auburn wins.  The thought of that prospect alone makes me taste acid.  Roll tide   Tide  rolls  20:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But if Arkansas wins (LSU just tied), aren't they likely to jump over us in the BCS standing? And don't talk about that last thing. We bought an Auburn fan's house, and just to make the point clear we have our TV on the other side of the room. Our old house had a crimson living room when we moved in, though, and as much as I like watching that color, living in it was too much. Also, I can't believe I'm rooting for Arkansas here. Good thing that their state has football. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have to worry about Atlanta now. We just have to win tomorrow and hope that there's some boolean mojo with the BCS.  Moved the TV?...some kinda Capstone feng shui? :^/  Tide  rolls  23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And you're not superstitious when it comes to football? If you're not, I'll have to check your Alabama citizenship. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit I'm superstitious.  Tide  rolls  07:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC) I thought I'd better acknowledge the truth so as to not end up on your to-do list.

Request for edit on page you semi protected.
Apologies for the last post. I put my request in the wrong section.

You rightly edited and semi protected the Barry Howard page as a result of repeated vandalism. The page being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Howard,but an offending remark at the bottom of the page,has been left in,re Barry being the president of a certain society. Would it be possible to have the offending remark removed before semi protecting it again?

Thankyou in advance.Safar1-B2n2na (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary. Thanks--I thought I found them all in the history. I appreciate your help in keeping the article clean, and if it hadn't been for you I might not have found it in the first place. Next time you run into such awful serial vandalism, you can ask for protection at WP:RPP. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverts "Tachash"
I only retrieved info that had reliable verifiable cited sources in the earlier versions of the article. That could explain why a lot of it seems "eerily familiar". I didn't write it. I took my cue to do a retrieval and restoration of relevant info from the editor that said a lot of good information had been removed that probably should be restored to the article. I looked it up, and I agreed. So I did what I could. Only the nonsense OR submitted or inflicted by Hermitstudy and Michael Paul Heart was not included. Joe407 said that I had done a good job of retrieving the useful info. In fact, that used to be a part of my job before I retired. Debresser's only complaint was about the text's usage of "tachash skins" at the beginning when he said the article is supposed to be about The Tachash. I read your message on my talk page, and went to the Tachash talk page as you advised, to find the reasons you said you had for the revert, which you said were there, and I didn't find anything newly submitted there, nor any reasons given by you. What are they? On the face of it, you haven't given any reasons for the revert. I've read the archives of the history of the article and the talk page and your own comments throughout and I saw the consistent pattern of your objections at that time. So I don't really understand your objection to the source-substantiated material that was sifted, sorted and retrieved this past 6 weeks (I checked 'em). (And no one else has objected.) Respects. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the edit history of the article, and that of your own edits, speaks volumes. Where do these lengthy excursions on color and animals come from? Drmies (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They actually come from the sources cited, including the Talmud, and the Midrashim, and Judah haNasi himself, for one. I don't understand your objection to the cited and quoted Rabbinical sources that mention the colors.  I certainly did not compose them. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Article title suggestions
I threw together The People of India (1908 book) a few days ago. It needs some work doing to it, and that is on my list. My problem is that I need to create three articles. As that article notes, there was an earlier 8 volume work of the same title; there was also a later, similarly titled 43 volume work produced under the guidance of Kumar Suresh Singh (an obituary for whom you recently supplied to me).

Since both the first work and the last were published over a span of years, have you any suggestions regarding how best I should name these things? - Sitush (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's The People of India (1915 book), et cetera. But...ahem, eh...why three articles? Why not create The People of India and treat all three of them in there? It's not like the current article is too big. Encyclopædia Britannica works the same way, I think. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at how EB does things - good idea. I had originally intended to treat them as one and started a draft in userspace to that effect. It became apparent to me that they are quite different other than in title, and that at least two of the three could usefully be expanded to put them in their historical context (first was primarily a photographic record when people believed that there was such a thing as a "typical" member of a caste etc; second went doo-lally on anthropometry, especially Paul Topinard's nasal index; third was a political exercise in all but name). The solution may be to defer the problem: move TPoI (1908) to The People of India, construct as originally envisaged in my draft, & then consider splitting if it turns out that it is becoming unwieldy/lacking in focus etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This has to do with Tachash. See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

please delete
Hi Drmies, I see you are online. Can you please delete the redirect Steffan Browning? I've just managed to move the talk page there, and now the redirect is in the way of the new article. Thanks!  Schwede 66  18:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, you caught me right before I went grocery shopping. Please check to see if I did it correctly, and see if those redirects need to be removed (just put on it). Bis spaetzle, Drmies (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Schwede 66  22:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hülfensberg
Orlady (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great, also on P:DE, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks again for your help. I guess I've had a fair number of Germany-related articles on DYK by now. Lessing Theater was rough: I find it difficult to translate those technical articles into readable English. But I do always enjoy taking an article from the German wiki and make it a lot better, haha. They're a bit pedantic too, on the German wiki: they deleted my redirect for Hulfensberg--that is, Hulfensberg. Silly. Maybe they don't realize that lots of people don't have a keyboard with all the umlauts easily available; on my netbook I don't even have those ALT combinations. OK, I gotta go and concentrate on the Iron Bowl. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Texas Boys CHoir
Please undelete the page and I will fix all issues tonight. I am new and didnt understand that. Thank you. It will be fixed tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoonerFritz (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fritz, if I undeleted it I would restore copyright violations. As I said on your talk page, it has to be started from scratch. Have a look at WP:FIRST, or maybe submit (and get some help) at Articles for creation. BTW, those copyright violations were there from the beginning, long before you came along. As I said, best to stay away from the company website. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

BLT
Hi Drmies

I saw that you expressed a craving for a BLT some months ago.

Did you know that you increased the price of pork in England? ;)

Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 04:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Input, please
An article that I have recently questioned whether or not it should actually exist within Wikipedia -- Pilot (The Playboy Club) -- is being nominated for GA status review. A few days ago, I nominated it for deletion, an editor removed the tag because he disputed the article's deletion (without giving an explanation for why he disputed it, which I thought was a requirement, but...whatever). My reasons for deletion were as follows: ''The article is for the pilot episode of a 2011 TV series that was cancelled after three episodes were broadcast. The pilot does not seem to meet notability requirements for articles - other than the series itself raising some controversy, the pilot was not notable on its own. While the series received media attention, the pilot for the series did not receive any significant attention independent of the series. It has received no awards, no nominations for awards, has not set any precedent for TV writing or genre, was not considered groundbreaking, and is really nothing more than the pilot of a failed network television show. Essentially everything in this article is already covered in the TV series article (The Playboy Club) and really isn't anything new or different. From what I can see, everything here that isn't in the series article can be incorporated into a "Pilot" section/subsection within that article.''

Specifically, my questions are these: shouldn't this article either be deleted or merged into the article about the series as a whole (The Playboy Club); when an article is nominated to GA status review, is it possible to make comments at the GA nomination page (specifically, in regard to the concerns I have raised about the article's existence), or is it to late to do so?

I'd appreciate any comments and/or advice you would have on this matter.

Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Lhb. Thanks for stopping by. I hope you're ready for what you may not want to hear. AussieLegend, by our rules, was justified in removing the PROD tag without having to explain, though an explanation is always appreciated--but you, by our rules, were not actually justified in sticking it back in there (see WP:DEPROD). Second, PRODding an article that has so much content and so many references is probably not looked kindly on by contributing editors. In such cases, AfD is the better route. But here, given the content and references, I don't see how even that would be accepted, and (given your rationale) the best you could probably ask for is a discussion on merging the article. Now, I was going to suggest a talk page discussion, but I see you've already done that. I don't see any technical reason why you couldn't comment on the GA review, but chances are you'll be asked to keep that on the talk page since it wouldn't address whether the GA criteria are met. In other words, it might well be considered disruptive. So, summing up, if you are dead set on having the article deleted you could nominate it at AfD, though chances are it will be speedily closed as a keep. You could reopen the discussion in the GA review as soon as it is opened, but you are more than likely going to be chastised for being disruptive, since it might derail the GA review process. If you want my advice, let it be. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I came here because I knew you would give advice appropriate to the situation and with the best interest of the encyclopedia at the heart of your reply. When I replaced the tag, I didn't realize at that moment that it was unacceptible to do so, and regretted the action after I knew I had made the wrong move.  Live and learn.  I still don't see the need for the article, as I stated above, it is essentially a rehashing of what's already in the article about the series as a whole.  I am just not convinced that a television series that only aired three episodes and was cancelled needs a separate article about the pilot.  It seems to be merely redundant and a waste of bandwidth to me.  But that's me.  Thanks for taking the time to reply.  And really, just because someone has an opinion different than mine - well, that doesn't make for an opinion I'm not interested in hearing.  I'm not the jerk some seem to think I am and am really quite reasonable in the face of thoughtful discussion and considerate behavior.  Cheers, Lhb1239 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not faulting you for replacing that tag--you're not supposed to, but not everyone knows all these things by heart (I have to look things up too every now and then) and to err is human. If it turns out that content is redundant, it will turn up in the GA review. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of editor done way too quickly
As per Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents there appears to be information that editors did not take into account in their rush to indef an editor based upon one-sided information. Whilst that information may have been presented in good faith, it would be pertinent to wait for the editor in question to comment. They have now done so on their talk page, and their comments have merit. You are getting this message as you have supported their block on the thread in question, and I think you should go back and read their comments and reconsider your position. It is disappointing that too many people jumped the gun on this occasion in condemning the editor in question. Russavia Let's dialogue 05:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Russavia, I already did, before you posted this message, and I have read yours and others' comments at ANI. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

#9 & #10
I answered them. They were questions posed in good faith and deserving of answers. They simply needed more thought as I really try to avoid knee-jerk responses. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, good for you. Ha, I wouldn't have answered 10--it's the typical kind of question they ask you here in job interviews, and I hate it. Imagine your partner asking that. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"LGBT orientation and [Religion]"
There's a whole series of articles having to do with LGBT people and various religions. They've had varying names over time, such as "Homosexuality and [Religion]", and most recently they've (mostly) been at "LGBT topics and [Religion]". An editor has today moved a bunch of (all?) them to "LGBT orientation and [Religion]", with at least one (I haven't looked at the rest) edit summary of "grammar". My immediate reaction is "yuck!" I don't see any discussion, but before I go stirring up a ruckus, I'd like your opinion on the so-called grammar issue, please. Lady of  Shalott  03:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"LGBT orientation" seems like absolutely horrible phrasing to me, and "LGBT" is not an orientation anyway. Lady of  Shalott  04:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

S/he's moved bunches of articles recently, all with "grammar" as the entire reason. They are mostly, but not entirely religion-related. Also included are similarly-named articles dealing with healthcare and education. I really, really do not like that phrasing. Am I off-base? Lady of  Shalott  04:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dave1185
The above named user is harassing and abusing me, on both racial and sexual grounds, at my user talk page. I demand that they stop immediately and apologize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinese Homosexual (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The user had concerns about your username. They reported it to the correct noticeboard for attention, and notified you, which was the appropriate action. However, I declined to block the account, and stated such on the noticeboard. Since then another editor has agreed with that and removed the discussion entirely. That should settle it. I suggest you just let it drop. It's also perfectly fine if you wish to remove the other editor's comments from your talk page. Lady  of  Shalott  22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lady. CH, I'm not going to call you by your full name since I am uncomfortable calling someone that. I feel the same way as the Lady does about your username--it's like getting off on the wrong foot already since clearly three users are already uncomfortable with it. Now, I am not anyone's goon squad, and I don't have to accede to such demands unless I'm married to you, which is very unlikely. You could try open a conversation with them or, as the Lady suggested, remove the comments and ignore them. Or you could change your username do something less confrontational. Choice is yours. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You were right
Yep, it wasn't a matter of grammar, but of usage. Thank you for pointing out my word choice error. ;)  The Transhumanist 03:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Tuesday and Thursday is when I teach Advanced English Grammar, so you caught me on one of my most pedantic days. Happy editing, and with apologies if I overstated the case, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was good feedback. I've been making that particular mistake a lot. Thank you. Keep on teaching! The Transhumanist 04:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Servile
[]One of the better answers I've seen -regards to Mrs. Drmies Gerardw (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I told her, and she thought it was funny too. She didn't believe me, of course, about this 'serve' thing--I guess I'm off to Jared's again. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 at AN3
Would you object if I close this case with a period of full protection? Though it's hard to scold an editor for removing unsourced material, he is acting as though the 3RR limit is of no interest and does not apply to him. There could very well be a flood of new bulletins coming out about the status of the show, but this is no reason for the article to bounce like a ping-pong ball instead of people having a discussion on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True. I have to tell you, I did not look at the talk page--what struck me most is that the five reverts cited didn't break the 3RR line, in my opinion. I assume from your words that all of this is still ongoing, and it shouldn't. Feel free to act as you see fit, and I'll have a broader look at Lbh's history in that article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, it's up to you. Yes, Lhb is a bit heavy-handed, as the history shows. It is also true that the talk page says nothing on this topic at all. I looked around in Google News and there is a ton of coverage, some of which only three hours old (at this moment), so it might well be that this will go on for a while. Good luck, and thanks for dropping me a line, Drmies (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

the Horasis wiki
To Drmies I feel you are too quick in deleting the Horasis wiki. I am in contact with the people below. Please allow them time to consider my statements.

To UKexpat - you recently posted notification warning of 'deletion' against the Global Arab Business Meeting and the equivalent Russia one (and most likely as noted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dundswk against all of these Wiki (ie Arab, Russia, China and India; as well as Horasis itself).

My defense is simply that I was not advertising, nor am I paid to make entries for Horasis though I am directed by its CEO (his lack of time suggested that). So - these pages are in my terms simply short records of the meetings which have the added lightness of a few pictures as well as linked press releases and other footnotes. But you may be correct; the items look ‘circular’ in so far as they refer to meetings organized by one CEO (of Horasis). They describe what Horasis attempts to do as an introduction and then relate (in a similar way in each meeting’s Wiki) what occurred and when the next meeting will be. He and I thought that format would be short yet informative without being seen as an advertisement. What ought I to do to make this situation better? And how might I remove the Sockpuppet label?

To Hans Adler I have just managed to get to your site and now wish to search for a solution to this odd mess - if mess is what one might call it. Basically I am the author of the ‘Horasis’ Wiki… Global [Arab, China, India, Russia] Business Meetings and the Horasis [at Home] meeting. I am guided by the CEO as he lacks time to make these edits. Both I and the CEO of Horasis have wondered who Dewritech was but I did not investigate deeply as his/her changes to these Wiki were benevolent. However a more serious conflict has arisen – Deletion, as well as Sockpuppetry. I have pleaded against deletion elsewhere, and the Sock xxx I am guilty of. Sorry. But what now can I do to rescue these entries that are not under any paid regime, but merely reflect on-going meetings that ought to have been seen as factual reporting, not advertising?

Hi Alexandria I see you are in the loop – I have contacted UKexpat, Cameron Scott and Hans Adler. I am the author of the Horasis – Global XXX Business Meetings (XXX= Arab, China, India, Russia as well as the ‘at home’ version). Yes I am guilty, innocently, of too many names – puppets, but not meatpuppeting. Others unbeknownst to me – Dewritech and Dundswk – were odd contributors, but generally benign. Except that one of them, I forget which, created empty pages ahead of my entries causing some difficulty when I wished to save a new page. So – I think we ought to wait until the above others comment and I know how to proceed to clear up the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbkidd (talk • contribs) 19:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw your messages, but this does not change the fact that in my opinion (and that of others--after all, these articles were not nominated by me) the content is purely promotional. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ess103
I have blocked this user for a week, with a warning that further copyvio vandalism will almost certainly lead to an indef block. I appreciate that you recommended indef now, but he has a clean block log and I prefer to give one chance. Only one, though. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I saw your block, and agree completely. I hope their next edit will be something communicative. I think the editor is trying to do something useful, which is why I asked for a second opinion. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

IP
Thanks for the help with the IP removal. I (briefly) thought about the minor security breach. Glad to know an admin was watching out. SocratesJedi | Talk 04:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing--anytime. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs, etc.
I am perfectly willing to discuss any of these issues, in the proper forum, i.e., the article talk pages, with the IP and any other editors who want to get involved. But, his approach is counterproductive, both to himself and the rest of us, and I am not going to deal with someone whose m.o. is to make changes against consensus, refuse to discuss (outside of repeating the same argument in his edit summaries), become belligerent and abusive, then claim that he is being treated unfairly because he's an IP. As for Reservoir Dogs in particular, he made these same damn edits a month or so ago, and we went through the same back-and-forth, with him finally being blocked. So, he comes back, makes the same edits, makes the same tired argument, and I should assume good faith? AGF is not a suicide pact. Is he willing to discuss his edits in a sane and civilized manner, and in the proper forum? Let's have at it. Otherwise, all bets are off. As you know, other editors are considering shoot-on-sight orders here. But, if you think that can be avoided, I am willing to try. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 04:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC) The IP was not dealt with by me in an unfriendly manner, after conferring with User:Antandrus at User talk:Antandrus I went out of my way to be more than reasonable and got a ton of abuse in response. I'm not "pissed", a bad faith presumption wide of the mark, I would like to see the community protected from and editor whose conduct is destructive and who refuses to work collaboratively. I do not think he is a net benefit to the community and he refuses to change; he has shown no willingness to discuss his edits in a civil manner. See WP:OWB No. 3. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jacobite, thanks for your note. I don't know what to say. I hope they will discuss, yes. But there's always the other side--had they had an account, chances are their edits would have stood, at last a lot of them. I admit that the MO is less than helpful, but you gotta admit also that some editors simply gave him no credit at all. At any rate, given the current climate, something will have to come from them: too many editors are too entrenched. I myself am kind of tired of going to bat for this and other IPs, and I can only hope that they see the light and start--from some of the warriors at ANI I am not going to expect any kind of change. Well, I'm ranting, and I don't even know what I'm asking you. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Donald K. Fry
It's a BLP that might interest you somewhat. Lady of  Shalott  05:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't dare click the history yet. Did he write it himself? Usually, if there are children's names, that's a giveaway. Natti natti, Drmies (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The author's username (CharcoalsMom) appears female. It could be his wife, I guess, or daughter-in-law, or... Lady  of  Shalott  05:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Regards to Mrs. Drmies and the youngsters
Friend, A casual visit to your talk page led me to immersion in matters Marcus British. Gee whillikers. Is that what you administrators have to put up with? You deserve a real medal made of real metal, not these cheap virtual things we give out here. Go give your wife and kids some love and get some back. I'll do the same. Thank you for all that you do, and peace be to you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you Cullen! You know, it is always nice to hear from you. Recently I started closing some AfDs (really just the backlog) and I often see your comments: they are friendly, thoughtful, and in line with policy and guidelines. I think you're an asset to the community, and I wish I had half your patience. As for the wife and kids, I shall be happy to oblige! (My oldest was very happy to see frozen dew this morning--reminded me of years ago, when the world was new almost every day.) Drmies (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't get freezing weather very often here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Perhaps three or fours times each winter.  A couple of years ago, I arrived at a customer's house early in the morning, as bright sunlight was just starting to fall on their well-manicured lawn, white with frost.  Perhaps twenty minutes later, I went out to my car, and most of the frost had melted.  The exception was where a tree had cast a shadow, and there was a perfect frosty image of the tree on the lawn.  Really quite a delightful thing to see.  Perhaps your daughter might enjoy this story.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  15:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a try, tomorrow morning. It's a nice image. We've had some cold mornings here, but today was in the 70s again--the South is messed up! Drmies (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ygm
Hi - I sent you an email. Youreallycan (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am working on that. Many thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, good luck. As sad as it sounds, the world and the pedia won't break down if we take a break from it. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot
I guess I returned at a good time. What happened to CBNG? Huggle is asking for any anti-vandals available. Calabe1992 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know! (I barely speak the language you're speaking now, haha.) I looked at Huggle one time and tried it, and I still haven't recovered from the headache. Welcome back. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Found the answer. Looked at the CBNG user page previously and didn't see anything; guess it's because the notice apparently only deserves to be posted on the talk page. Calabe1992 19:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Lake Washington High School
I don't know what all is going on here - looks to be at least partial vandalism (K-town?). Calabe1992 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw--I protected it for a day, this is crazy. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)