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)
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)
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)
We could use your unbiased eye over here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamala_Lopez Webberkenny ( talk) 20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
JHScribe ( talk) 05:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
JHScribe ( talk) 13:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The sentence beginning "By the late nineteenth century" at Caste_system_in_Kerala#Origin_of_the_caste_system 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)
![]() |
Since you asked for one at WP:AN. Enjoy! Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
I disagreed with your edit. I reverted you and added a little. Just so ya know... Ladyof Shalott 04:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Ladyof Shalott 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Well so much for early closure of the Scratch My Arse Rock AfD... there's now a delete vote. Ladyof Shalott 15:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I left a comment on this case - it has sparked my curiousity. Calabe 1992 22:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
While you're at that, close this ban proposal. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If I had a dime for every time I've heard that... 28bytes ( talk) 21:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
For the great idea for a good article. Calabe 1992 19:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
Calabe 1992 19:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
<--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)
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)
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)
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)
I saw this and thought of you! There might even be enough sources for a DYK! SmartSE ( talk) 20:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thank you for your contributions as an administrator, especially with vandalism and WP:CSD. Happy editing! -- Luke (Talk) 02:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Thanks. I just found your name in the article history. - SusanLesch ( talk) 02:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
— mc10 ( t/ c) 07:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
FYI... I undid your addition to the TFBarbie picture discussion. Sorry, but it just didn't seem helpful. Ladyof Shalott 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 22 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stuffo, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to legend, Saint Boniface chased away a Germanic god named Stuffo from the Hülfensberg in Thuringia, Germany? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
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. -- Heptor talk 17:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)
![]() | On 23 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Punta Brava, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Punta Brava, Cuba, has been the site of a number of notable deaths, including those of Antonio Maceo Grajales (1896) and Quentin Bandera (1906)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Punta Brava.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 23 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quentin Bandera, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Punta Brava, Cuba, has been the site of a number of notable deaths, including those of Antonio Maceo Grajales (1896) and Quentin Bandera (1906)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Hülfensberg credit? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You are urged to avoid personal attacks and not abuse your administrative rights. Ad hominem arguments are also personal attacks. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks § What is considered to be a personal attack? 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)
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)
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. – BuickCentury Driver 11:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
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. Arunbandana ( talk · contribs) 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You are correct. I seem to have overstepped. MaterialScientist reverted him twice. Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 01:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Apology given. I hope it is sufficient. Thanks for the suggestion. Best Jim1138 ( talk) 02:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you're online and I'd appreciate some help, if you have a moment.
I've just found an editor, El Monterrey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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)
|
I would like to appreciate your commitment to the quality of work on wiki with a cup of coffee. Arunbandana ( talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
I lol'd. Tide rolls 18:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC) ...erm...isn't the Union Jack red, white & blue?
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)
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 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)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This has to do with Tachash. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_return_of_Michael_Paul_Heart. Thank you.-- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 06:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() | On 26 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hülfensberg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the pilgrimage site (cross pictured) on the mountain Hülfensberg, popular since the Middle Ages, survived the Reformation, the dissolution by Jérôme Bonaparte, Bismarck's Kulturkampf, and the division of Germany? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hülfensberg 2.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneaky_vandalism_campaign_involving_fake_references 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)
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)
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. Ladyof Shalott 03:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"LGBT orientation" seems like absolutely horrible phrasing to me, and "LGBT" is not an orientation anyway. Ladyof 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? Ladyof Shalott 04:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
[ [2]]One of the better answers I've seen -regards to Mrs. Drmies Gerardw ( talk) 03:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
[3] 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)
It's a BLP that might interest you somewhat. Ladyof Shalott 05:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
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. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I sent you an email. Youreallycan ( talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess I returned at a good time. What happened to CBNG? Huggle is asking for any anti-vandals available. Calabe 1992 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what all is going on here - looks to be at least partial vandalism (K-town?). Calabe 1992 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
We could use your unbiased eye over here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamala_Lopez Webberkenny ( talk) 20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
JHScribe ( talk) 05:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
JHScribe ( talk) 13:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The sentence beginning "By the late nineteenth century" at Caste_system_in_Kerala#Origin_of_the_caste_system 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)
![]() |
Since you asked for one at WP:AN. Enjoy! Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
I disagreed with your edit. I reverted you and added a little. Just so ya know... Ladyof Shalott 04:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Ladyof Shalott 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Well so much for early closure of the Scratch My Arse Rock AfD... there's now a delete vote. Ladyof Shalott 15:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I left a comment on this case - it has sparked my curiousity. Calabe 1992 22:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
While you're at that, close this ban proposal. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If I had a dime for every time I've heard that... 28bytes ( talk) 21:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
For the great idea for a good article. Calabe 1992 19:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
Calabe 1992 19:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
<--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)
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)
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)
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)
I saw this and thought of you! There might even be enough sources for a DYK! SmartSE ( talk) 20:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thank you for your contributions as an administrator, especially with vandalism and WP:CSD. Happy editing! -- Luke (Talk) 02:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Thanks. I just found your name in the article history. - SusanLesch ( talk) 02:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
— mc10 ( t/ c) 07:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
FYI... I undid your addition to the TFBarbie picture discussion. Sorry, but it just didn't seem helpful. Ladyof Shalott 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 22 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stuffo, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to legend, Saint Boniface chased away a Germanic god named Stuffo from the Hülfensberg in Thuringia, Germany? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
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. -- Heptor talk 17:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)
![]() | On 23 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Punta Brava, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Punta Brava, Cuba, has been the site of a number of notable deaths, including those of Antonio Maceo Grajales (1896) and Quentin Bandera (1906)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Punta Brava.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 23 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quentin Bandera, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Punta Brava, Cuba, has been the site of a number of notable deaths, including those of Antonio Maceo Grajales (1896) and Quentin Bandera (1906)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Hülfensberg credit? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You are urged to avoid personal attacks and not abuse your administrative rights. Ad hominem arguments are also personal attacks. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks § What is considered to be a personal attack? 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)
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)
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. – BuickCentury Driver 11:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
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. Arunbandana ( talk · contribs) 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You are correct. I seem to have overstepped. MaterialScientist reverted him twice. Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 01:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Apology given. I hope it is sufficient. Thanks for the suggestion. Best Jim1138 ( talk) 02:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you're online and I'd appreciate some help, if you have a moment.
I've just found an editor, El Monterrey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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)
|
I would like to appreciate your commitment to the quality of work on wiki with a cup of coffee. Arunbandana ( talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
I lol'd. Tide rolls 18:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC) ...erm...isn't the Union Jack red, white & blue?
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)
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 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)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This has to do with Tachash. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_return_of_Michael_Paul_Heart. Thank you.-- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 06:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() | On 26 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hülfensberg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the pilgrimage site (cross pictured) on the mountain Hülfensberg, popular since the Middle Ages, survived the Reformation, the dissolution by Jérôme Bonaparte, Bismarck's Kulturkampf, and the division of Germany? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hülfensberg 2.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneaky_vandalism_campaign_involving_fake_references 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)
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)
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. Ladyof Shalott 03:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"LGBT orientation" seems like absolutely horrible phrasing to me, and "LGBT" is not an orientation anyway. Ladyof 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? Ladyof Shalott 04:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
[ [2]]One of the better answers I've seen -regards to Mrs. Drmies Gerardw ( talk) 03:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
[3] 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)
It's a BLP that might interest you somewhat. Ladyof Shalott 05:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
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. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I sent you an email. Youreallycan ( talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess I returned at a good time. What happened to CBNG? Huggle is asking for any anti-vandals available. Calabe 1992 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what all is going on here - looks to be at least partial vandalism (K-town?). Calabe 1992 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)