But if you try sometimes, you might find: you get what you need.
![]() |
Beer! |
![]() |
Fried chicken! |
![]() |
Barnstars! |
Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 16:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I reckon that's enough for a sunny afternoon. Thank you all again! Drmies ( talk) 17:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Although the article has been deleted, I wasn't able to get any response for my last edit, which includes another reference from webmagazine, MakeUseOf. I agree some of these webmagazines I have never heard of, but that doesn't really qualify them to be unreliable sources. For example MakeUseOf, has a full editorial board, and not just from the magazine, but also from its wiki entry it seems like a reliable web magazine. In any case, this was my final comment, if because of this you change your mind, please let me know what I could do.
|
I appreciate your patience to face unwanted "categories".Yes you know candy is hard to bite but it is better than to fight?. Justice007 ( talk) 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC) |
Is it me, or is Legolover26 trolling? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I am sorry to bother you but can you please explain to me why I am the one facing a block? Have you not noticed my pleas for discussion in each edit summary? I have started a discussion at Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Descent from Philip and Louis. I have cited numerous reasons, articles and sources, while the only argument of the other party is: "It is relevant." I got the last response on 23 May; they don't even bother to respond anymore. The relevance note tag was my attempt to encourage the discussion because, after doing my best to prove that one of the subject's great-great-great-great-great-grandparents needs not be mentioned unless there is a specific reason (inheritance, genetics, anything), no reason was given at all. I was simply ignored, as if there was no need to pay any attention to my arguments. I apologise for causing inconvenience but I cannot help feeling that this is not right. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Drmies, the above user was mentioned to me on my talk and I looked at the ANI that's up now. And I looked at what they're doing. They're disruptively hacking away at a lot of Royals articles. Please look and consider blocking them now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Drmies I'd like to draw your attention toward the article at User:Maharathi/sandbox which I've rewritten and invite your valuable suggestions and feedback to improve the article. Maharathi ( talk) 01:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Stop mentioning [2] your pool, the balmy temperature, cocktail hour, etc. etc. etc. or I shall be forced to rent a car, drive for several days, and show up at your door in my Speedo, primed for some R&R. (And, believe me, you don't want to see me in my Speedo.) Your Yankee friend, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deathlaser : Chat 14:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you satisfied that the article passes the notability requirements now? For the DYK nom. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Drmies, I apologize for being harsh on anyone. But please I am asking because I do not know whom to ask. Could you please tell me what is the solution when there is lots of WP:RS but no consensus. What needs to be done in such cases on the wikipedia? But in anyway I apologize for being harsh. Could you please help me and suggest a solution. Best regards and thanks Robin klein ( talk) 01:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm at #1002. Gerda is one ahead of me. Ladyof Shalott 02:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
In an extraordinary and surprising display of competency, you've somehow managed to be an admin for one whole year without destroying Wikipedia.
It's hard to believe it's only been a year – it seems like you've been an admin forever. You've done an exemplary job, and you've made the literally hundreds of people who supported your RfA very proud. Thanks for your dedication to the position, and congratulations! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop you a note that I tagged UFC on Fuel TV: Munoz vs. Weidman G6, you closed the AfD on the article, it was moved during the deletion discussion, and you only deleted the redirect, not the nominated article. Monty 845 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Too many words
|
---|
Hi, Drmies. Thank you for making your way to the article talk page to discuss our recent edits to the lede. I'll respond to your comments relating to article improvement in the new section you just opened (although there is already a subsection about the same material further up on that page). You also, however, saw fit to include personal attacks in your talk page comment, including calling me "a professional wikilawyer", and accusing me of page ownership. Your personal attacks are unwarranted (in addition to being unbecoming an administrator), and I am formally requesting that you remove them. Xenophrenic ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
|
As I said in the tag, Galvatron (Beast Wars II) was an attempted article split that was undone. There is history at Galvatron (Beast Wars II), but this content was not merged back into Galvatron (they just reverted the edits at that article). So, this would count as an WP:CSD#A10 as a recently created duplication of content (the article was still "recently created" when the editors blanked the page), or as WP:CSD#G6 as housecleaning. I used a generic template so that I could explain more clearly. The redirect itself is valid, the redirect is not the problem. The problem is that so many editors were moving content back and forth with the Megatron and Galvatron articles and that creates attribution problems. Deleting this page simplifies that issue, as I've determined that the edits were not carried forward, and this history does not need to be kept. The redirect itself can be recreated right after. I hope this makes sense, I'm just trying to untangle the article history. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I think you're an admin, so I have a request. Khwarazmian Dynasty is vandalised by an unknown user with the IP: 94.128.139.98. Can you protect the page please? BozokluAdam ( talk) 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
BozokluAdam, you should be very careful with your accusations. I did not attack any ethnic groups. In fact, this is a bad faith accusation on your part and a violation of WP:PA! The current intro of the article Hazara people is a consensus version. It is a short and precise intro and you are one of a very few who do not accept it. You claim to be a Turkologist, but your edits actually prove that you have no clue of the subject. And as for the IP calling you a Pan-Turkist: he has a point. All of your edits are about pushing for some kind of "Turkishness" in various articles. You even claim that there are "38 million Turks in Iran" - a totally laughable claim that is only popular among Turkish nationalists and Pan-Turkists. No scholar would agree. Personally, I do not care what political ideology you follow as long as you keep you keep your edits neutral and well-sourced. So far, I have not seen any good edit on your part. You should also read WP:SOURCE: it's not important how many sources you can list but what quality these sources have. -- Lysozym ( talk) 18:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I was going to slap a NPA warning here for calling me an Australian at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Doghouse Diaries, but then thought better of it as it could have been worse, you could have called me American. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 02:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why the AfD hasn't closed yet...more than 27 hrs. overdue. That'll be messy, because if it's deleted (which it oughta be, 2:1 not keep:keep ratio), I guarantee you that one of "Keep" votes will DRV it and we'll have another fine mess.
But that's not why I'm here. There are a bazillion edit requests on the article. At least one of them is alleging COPYVIO. Could you or one of your admin buds resolve some of them? Oh, and I liked your "weird aussie" AfD vote...but you should've found in a way to work in TPH's otters p b p 03:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Could an admin take a look at the article that was deleted via this AfD and this version of Pricing Partners SAS. Old version was created by a blocked user. Two brand new editors are now working on the new version (plus French version) and wondering why I keep adding the COI tag. I'd take it to SPI, but they have 44 backlogged cases including one still open that I was involved with over two weeks ago. If the articles are similar, that would confirm COI problems.
Hi, the user you ended up reigning in on the Studio 54 and The Rascals articles is most likely a sockpuppet of WikAdvisor. If you have any information you would like to contribute from your dealings with anonymous user: 66.65.134.176 [6], please feel free to contribute to the discussion about the SPI case [7]. Thanks! Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if a low life editor like myself can undo a move. A new editor moved Sophie Sumner to Annaliese Dayes. Sumner was a redirect and now Dayes is a redirect. Both people were on America's Next Top Model season 2,404, but I could be off by a few seasons :) . The old Sumner page had a long history. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the advice on the links,i will also add the voetbal website to the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronkoeman44 ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Loved coming across this quote from a small town paper's publisher [8]. 99.153.142.225 ( talk) 16:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I have put more comments on the deletion page for Pricing Partners. I am happy that you are hesitating to delete this page as I believe it is accurate and reliable. It follows the standard of wikipedia much better than many other pages as it provides a reliable reference for everything. And it is not too much promotional as it also gives a list of competitors. Overall, I hope this is convincing you this is fine. I am happy to talk more if you need further information. Many thanks in advance for your time Regards, -- Paul.cabot ( talk) 19:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I had forgotten how to deal with the problem and was just figuring it out when you came by. Thanks! ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 01:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Ladyof Shalott 03:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Drmies,
You seem to have made a mistake on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip pop. We usually don't delete articles about notable topics just because WP:GENREWARRIORs tell us to. What went wrong? You should be aware that you are not allowed to delete that article per WP:UNINVOLVED. You wrote "the blind are leading the blind" and "dickishness comes from both sides here"; not exactly "edits which do not speak to bias". Please undelete the article and let an uninvolved admin make the decision. Thanks in advance, Arcandam ( talk) 03:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of Paloma Picasso's red period. It was the Seinfeld of articles – the article about nothing! I must say you were more generous than I would've been. Again, the article really wasn't about anything; all it said was that her favorite color is red and she likes wearing red lipstick. This was absolutely an article on one of the most inconsequential subjects I can possibly imagine, written by a now-banned user, apparently solely for the purpose of creating an April Fools' Day DYK.
My most significant contribution to Wikipedia may have been derailing that DYK and keeping this garbage off of the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
" Basma bint Saud was born on March 1, 1964. She is the youngest and 115th daughter of King Saud." Bgwhite ( talk) 08:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Shuriken of Humor |
For creating List of notable people who have articles on Wikipedia regarding their use of Twitter, thus increasing awareness of Twitter usage by really important people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
You all know what I think of this topic, and I am adamant as well. That we may be in the minority on this makes me sad. People will seriously take a person or subject with literally centuries of scholarship and argue for its deletion, but think that whether Bieber or Gaga has a higher ranking on Twitter is important. I don't get that. I don't get that at all. Ladyof Shalott 02:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Twitter users is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Dew Kane ( talk) 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, want to collaborate with me on a new article? I thought we could write one on Sarah Palin's Facebook page, I found two mentions of it online, so it is definitely notable: Sarah Palin Makes Many New Facebook Friends & The Facebook posts Palin doesn't want you to see. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on whether Foo on Twitter should be deleted, merged, redirected or kept should be held in one place ( WP:AFD). There should not be 5 different locations. I have undone the three discussions that have been started. We need one policy setting discussion in one location.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hiya, Professor. Check this out and this too. Do you have anything to offer WRT the situation? Thanks Tide rolls 02:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
One dollar? I have a twenty in my wallet (AU dollars, so worth more!) seems like I can buy an evening of entertainment. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 05:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 31 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gerard Reve's The Fourth Man, commissioned by the Dutch foundation Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek for the 1981 Boekenweek, was turned down as too controversial? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 31 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Fourth Man, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gerard Reve's The Fourth Man, commissioned by the Dutch foundation Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek for the 1981 Boekenweek, was turned down as too controversial? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I created the article for Take This Lollipop and in following up, had created the article its creator... Jason Zada... and began to mull over a suitable DYK. But then , in thinking about how Donkey Xote became a two-fer with Giulia Marletta, and in realizing the possibilities if I were not tardy, I created another article... one for his notable 2006 project, Elf Yourself... so that I could then use the two together. Please check them both and see what kind of eye-catching DYK we might create. Thanks in advance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears my essay isn't appreciated. Meh. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 01:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Drmies. I just wanted to drop you a note about Barack Obama. Adding another paragraph of content to the article is not a big problem but adding the related citation templates is a big problem. I tried it out as an experiment, and eleven templates broke at the bottom of the page (navboxes, inter-wiki GA templates, etc). We can only put so many templates on a page before it goes over the limit, and stuff starts breaking at the bottom. Complex templates are more of a burden than simple templates, so it depends which template is placed in the article as to what it costs. The burden of transclusion of navboxes was the main reason for the big push to get rid of the various dot templates from navboxes and convert them to our new system, WP:HLIST.
Serotonin–norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor is an example of an article that's got a half a dozen templates that failed to expand; one of them is the {{ reflist}}, so the citations are failing to display. Very bad joss. There's more information at Wikipedia:Template limits. Sincerely, -- Dianna ( talk) 03:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day ( Talkback) 14:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay Dr, I've tweaked the hook (see ALT3 at DYK nom) and added the "Scrooge Yourself" information into the Elf Yourself article. [12] Let's get this promoted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the copy edit to Samantha Richards.
LauraHale (
talk)
21:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I opposed your AfD on the list of Mets' no-hitters largely on the grounds that we need some assertion on the general worthiness of team no-hit list (which exist for most MLB clubs) first. The article might also be saved if it was written entirely on Johan's no-no, which could probably very easily be sourced.
Oh, and look at our favorite troll's latest edit. Looks to be a pretty airtight rationale, except that he pretty blatantly followed me over to the AfD, he went against the community consensus that middle schools aren't notable, and he used middle school rationale on an article about a ferry. p b p 05:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
stinky sock put in the hamper by DB
|
---|
|
Hi. Thanks for deleting Guozbongleur etc. Would you be able to perform the formal closures of the AfD debates? Otherwise they're just hanging there.— A bit iffy ( talk) 07:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your reversion at Paul Robeson. The IP editor made a lot of constructive changes in addition to the hidden comments, and unfortunately you undid them all. Thanks for leaving a message on the editor's Talk page about the problem comments. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
[13] I've blocked, but if I remember correctly that blog link was website-non-grata here (and you've acted on it before), but as part of the screed includes a tirade against me, I don't want to take any action. If you or the lady or one of your other able talk page stalkers wish to do what's been done in the past, feel free to do so. And, I'm beginning to think that the blog link is now gaining notability based on the number of talk pages it's been posted on. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 18:36, 2 June 2012 (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. The discussion is about the topic Brahmeshwar Singh. Thank you. — Spaceman Spiff 21:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Newton as Keep, but didn't say why. As none of the Keep arguments were guideline or policy based, and were all pretty dire. I'd be interested in how it meets notability guidelines, namely WP:GNG or WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER.-- Otterathome ( talk) 08:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This is kind of an odd case. This user's got quite a history of colorful edit summaries, which, among other gems, includes repeatedly calling other users idiots, morons, and baboons. It looks as though they've never received a warning, because these epithets are never directed at a specific user by name. But if I were someone being berated for something I wrote, I would certainly feel as if I'd been attacked, even without being explicitly named. This is not conducive to a cordial and cooperative editing environment.
They appear to be someone who haughtily thinks they're right, but whose "corrections", accompanied by those scolding edit summaries, are usually wrong (at least the ones I looked at).
Fortunately, they're not very active, so maybe no action is called for, and maybe if we ignore 'em they'll just go away.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The country seems to be mentioned in the section immediately below this one. Ladyof Shalott 01:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Drmies! I thought of you today, while sitting beside my pond in the sunshine, enjoying a Hoegaarden witbier . David Letterman said it best, I think: "There's not a man, woman or child on the face of the earth who doesn't enjoy a tasty beverage." Besides, if one mispronounces "Hoegaarden" by giving it a long "o" sound in the first syllable, one can come up with some very droll associations. Cheers, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 10:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
at my successful RFA |
Thank you, Drmies, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. I considered not thanking you, to be ironic, but common courtesy won out. Shame I have no bacon here which you would enjoy. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
It seems that Miss Millie wasn't the only interesting sister. This morning I heard a talk on Mary Ann Rutherford Lipscomb; I knew'd she'd been Principal of Lucy Cobb after her sister's (first) stint there. It seems she did a lot for education and public health. So, I guess I have my new topic to work on. (It's just barely started, but I shall be developing it!) Ladyof Shalott 18:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
In unrelated matters, don't forget about Talk:Jacobus Deketh/GA2; it's still open. Ladyof Shalott 19:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
A user was blocked and User:Ironholds deleted the blocked user's created articles. User:Norden1990 thinks Michael Szilágyi was a perfectly fine article and asks if it could be restored to his sandbox. Ironholds refuses to restore the article per User_talk:Ironholds#Michael Szilágyi. Norden left the request on my talk page and I personally think it is a reasonable request, but I'm unsure of policy here. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the mess that's going on at this article? Three editors ( User talk:Gaslett, User talk:Clone tone, User talk:School monitor), probably socks of each other ( SPI report), are edit warring to insert a distinctly inferior version of the article, one which includes copyvios and has serious POV problems. (Considering that socking editor has also used User talk:Antonypricefashion, the POV may be the result of a COI.) Several editors are reverting them, but the socks are not listening to what they're being told. In general, they are not getting it. I thought at first to take it to AN/I, but thought you might take a look instead. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I thought I'd drop by with a suggestion that, where younger editors have unwisely posted information that looks like it probably needs oversight, it's not a good idea to repost parts of that information to widely-watched talkpages, as you did here.
I'm not disputing that 13-year-olds have !voted in AfDs; in fact, from my understanding of the state of such things, we've most likely had 12-year-olds both closing AfDs and closing RfAs in the distant or recent past, never mind !voting in them. Nor are any of us under an obligation to mitigate the risks younger editors put themselves at through carelessness. But, we should at least not exacerbate those risks. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there MIES, VASCO here,
could not resist to send you this diff (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ralph_Wilson&diff=472578993&oldid=471552353), it seems that grammar gods do make mistakes every now and then :) LOAN IS NOT A VERB, news to me...
Seriously, quite pityful behaviour (and this from one who has written stupid summaries in the past, i admit it). From my six years at the site, i know that a block does NOTHING, we just have to "be brave" or whatever you want to call it, or leave for good to their (the users like this i mean) contentment; in a related note, how 'bout this declaration of intentions by User:Kostas45 (see here, read the very end, with his charming all-caps style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kostas45)?
Kind regards, keep it up (maybe i've made a wiki-enemy with this text if they notice it, but i repeat, could not resist it) -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Saw this and thought I would just let you know that the person who opens an individual reassessment is generally expected to close it. Is there any particular reason why you think someone else should do this one? It seems a simple uncontroversial delist, so there should be no dramas with it. I don't have time right now, but if it is still open later today I can close it for you. AIRcorn (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Orville (cat) is just freakish. Ladyof Shalott 17:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
My apologies to anyone traumatized by the images associated with this article. Whether you call it art or not, there's something sick about it. Ladyof Shalott 01:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Although Orville's article was deleted, his legacy lives on. Looks like he'll be on the Main Page soon. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Drmies,
I just posted this article in the mainspace and would greatly appreciate it if you could please review it when you have a chance and let me know what you think. (You helped me with a previous article, so I thought I'd seek your input again.) Thank you! Braedon Farr ( talk) 18:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the article that reflect your improvement requests, and ask you to check your review page please. Oakley77 ( talk) 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
As the original nominator, what do you think? Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
1. Nobel_Peace_Prize#Nomination gives us info about the nomination process. 2. I don't like it either, but thanks for the self-revert. -- S. Rich ( talk) 17:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at David Steen (photographer). I think the article's history says it all. Bgwhite ( talk) 18:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Another possible two-fer? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hoping you and yours are weathering the floods without difficulty. Give a holler. Best, JNW ( talk) 22:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
After the emblem was removed from your nomination, new ALTs were proposed, and in the last couple of days, that the multi-hook be split into individual hooks. I thought you should be consulted before the nomination is promoted, to see what your wishes are regarding hook wording and splitting, and whether any of the ALTs meet with your approval. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Ik lees geregeld over mensen met verwerpelijke ideeën dus toen ik de naam Paul van Tienen zag was mijn interesse gewekt.
In het Nederlands gebruiken we vaak het eufemisme 'fout' in de context van WW2. Doen Engelsprekenden dat ook? In het artikel Paul van Tienen staat nu:
Ik heb het even nagezocht, en op annefrank.org staat de volgende zin:
In een document gepubliceerd door Stichting Argus staat:
Was er sprake van een voorwaardelijke gevangenisstraf van 3 maanden plus drie maanden onvoorwaardelijk, of was het een onvoorwaardelijke gevangenisstraf van 6 maanden? Best verwarrend!
Het Utrechts Nieuwsblad schrijft dat de officier van justitie 6 maanden waarvan de helft voorwaardelijk eiste, met een proeftijd van 3 jaar. Ook staat daarin de zin: "Hij verkocht het boek Adolf Hitler [onleesbaar] Kampf gegen die Minusseele in Nederlandse vertaling".
Is het een goed idee om te specificeren waarom hij veroordeeld is (het in voorraad hebben en verspreiden van het boek "Adolf Hitler, sein Kampf gegen die Minusseele") en dat "wrong books" eruit te halen? Arcandam ( talk) 06:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No rest for the wicked (me not LR).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies! I saw your message at Talk:Common eland. You have indeed a good point there. Could you help me fix these references? The etymology references are alright, I believe, leave them. The improper resources can be fixed, but please do not deprive it of the GA status. -- Sainsf <^> Talk all words 04:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Just out of Harvard, Megan Amram's claim to fame is her twitter account. But, that is not what makes it weird. Click on the first reference and have fun with the photo. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposed to merge List of Twitter users BTW on the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld
Do you have any thoughts regarding how to deal with the following BLP situation?
An alleged whistleblower claimed that a senior politician has been complicit by omission or commission in the deaths of 1200 people during riots, The whistleblower's evidence is examined by a court-appointed investigatory team, and the court then appoints an amicus curiae to independently examine that team's reports. A game of ping-pong ensues, with the team and the amicus allegedly unable to agree> One side allegedly says the whistleblower is unreliable, politically motivated, not even present at the time when he alleges complicity occurred etc, while the other says that the balance of probability favours reliability, presence, altruism and implicitly suggests a cover-up.
These reports presented to the court by both "sides" are confidential but are widely discussed in the media, who use the "sources say" formula to explain the contents of those reports. Without mentioning the media reports concerning the confidential documents, there really is likely to be little worth saying in our article. But mentioning them has potential BLP issues, especially given the vaguity of the media's sources, the controversial nature of the various allegations, and the fact that this is the Indian media whom we are considering here (whose general tendency towards plagiarism and breathless hot-headedness is all too familiar to me). My gut feeling is that we should not mention the stuff because it is impossible to do so without engaging in weaseling ("although the report of ABC is confidential, the XYZ newspaper has carried a story based on unnamed sources that says ..."). Then again, my gut says that this entire confidentiality business (and allegations of witness tampering, and even witness murder) is a part of what makes this article notable.
I am going to ask Spiffy and Salvio to take a look at this, the former because he knows some of the background and the latter because he may know something about the legal processes that are involved (although they are not in his juridiction!). - Sitush ( talk) 11:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 16:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, it's me again. There is some minor kerfuffel (is that how that's spelt? I've never written it down) over at the above linked article. Essentially it is one concerning sourcing; we have a new editor that is of the True Goff Is the Only Goff variety (you know, like the metal purists and punk purists that turn up on other lists). Unfortunately, this means that they don't really acknowledge that other viewpoints may exist (my opinion is irrelevant, obviously, but for the record I'm a tradgoth type of person, much like said editor, but realise that other viewpoints exist in reliable sources in the press; they however have perhaps just jumped on my username and made some assumptions). Sourced material is systematically removed with no reference to policy (well, apart from the fact that they disagree with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS in general), and whilst I have tried to remain civil in the light of a fair amount of abuse, I've left a final message at the bottom of the talk page with a solution that we've adopted at other contentious articles, e.g. the list of nu metal bands. I don't anticipate much positive reaction, but I did say I'd ask some other editors to look at it :-) I'd appreciate it if you could spare some time to take a look, as I'm not going to commit a WP:3RR violation and I'm not getting anywhere through dialogue with this particular editor. (Sent to a couple of other people as well.) Cheers, Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 16:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have indirectly referred to you on ANI, here. Not by name, but close enough. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
When I opened the topic at ANI, I was careful not to specify the duration of the requested block, leaving it up to the discretion of the blocking admin. That said, I was fairly certain that an indef would be forthcoming, if not immediately, soon enough - which it has. But I agree with Drmies about blocking and power, and I also think MRG was correct in her imposition of a short block. Except in egregious circumstances (often a judgment call), even if we think we "know" what will happen, we should be understandably reluctant to assume we are right, particularly with an initial block.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies,
Hope all is well with you. Everything back here is returning to normality once again, after the recent family traumas etc. I was wondering if you could just cast an eye over something for me. Isn't 1, 2, and 3, clear evidence that I was right in my previous observations of a certain editors. Especially the way the 3rd comment is worded, it is a clear violation of WP:NPA is it not? Wesley ☀ Mouse 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You had some concerns with this article and its nomination. Have the recent updates addressed these, or does it still need more work? Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Christian Schwabe was recently created. It was deleted before because of a sockpuppet that created articles on scientists. It is a new editor and they created this and a few others in surprising quick fashion and well done. Wondering if sockpuppet is back. Could admin check current article with the past article. If similar, I'll submit a SPI. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I'm coming to you for advice regarding the Georgian Orthodox Church article, as you had already been consulted about it, if I remember correctly, when a dispute was happening there last month. Following those incidents, and on the basis of new sources, I've taken upon myself to improve and expand the article. New sources, that work, and discussion on the talk page have finally put an end to that dispute (plus the blocking of some of the most virulent warriors for unrelated offenses, I might add), and I've been able to cover all of the article, taking inspiration from similar ones about other churches, and relaying on scholarly sources. I'm rather proud of the result, and it has not met opposition so far from other contributors to the article. I'm not a very experienced editor yet, so I don't know the usual necessary delays for such matters, but it seems to me that the article now meets most criteria for a GA nomination; the only thing I'm not sure about is the "stable" criterion: indeed, there was still a major dispute happening at the end of April, and I only finished the big rewriting these last days. Should I wait before nominating it? And if yes, how long would you think would be a reasonable time? Thanks a lot if you could give some light on that matter!!-- Susuman77 ( talk) 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, your thoughts would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambi Magazine and here [22]. Methinks there's COI and other stuff afoot, and now counter-insinuations are being made that I'm sockpuppeting there. Cheers, 99.156.68.118 ( talk) 21:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Not quite the case. I would however ask kindly that you reference and investigate the activity of both the IP and Guillaume2303 with respect to their input on several pages over a short period of time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_Magazine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bambi_Magazine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillaume2303 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarred_Land. Both users have been quite active and in agreement recently on at least four different pages. I find this suspect and intimidating. Sir Chadly ( talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This is like grade school. The IP has clearly become obsessive. And offering pictures of beer? Not having the luxury of such spare time, Drmies, should you wish to contact me directly via email or by phone at my office, I would welcome it. Short of that, I shall be contacting the appropriate press agent at Wikipedia tomorrow. If I'm not mistaken, that would be Mark Pellegrini. Sir Chadly ( talk) 23:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone please explain to me how the Twitter bird is not copyrighted or copyrightable. It's an artwork, right? Ladyof Shalott 00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Into a single topic, apparently had a conflict of editing. Please do not close the topic, yet. Subtropical-man ( talk) 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Thank you for your time,
the wub (
talk)
18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using
Global message delivery)
Hi, want to collaborate over something? Not involving a Dutchman in his pants? Can you add some info from here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Stellingwerfs? Hmm. Excellent job! Nommed. Now let's find a quirky old silent Dutch movie to do! Help! The Doctor Is Drowning would be quite appropriate, in a vat of magma of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Watch out for kids! - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It's now at AfC. As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing has been done to the article since deletion except for routine things done to userfied drafts and then the usual things for AfC drafts... no actual article improvement, no addition of references, etc. Ai ai ai. It was userfied to Warden's space, but a new editor requested the AfC. Ladyof Shalott 03:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Haha, LOL me too Dennis on both accounts, I'm a big SRV fan and a blues/jazz guitarist. I'm insanely jealous you saw the man himself! Love Albert King,, Sonny Boy Williamson and all that too. I'm venturing into jazz too. In fact I've been nailing the long solo on Joe Pass's Django up to speed this evening and its extremely fast (82 notes between 0:39 and 0.45 in six seconds)! Nothing makes my soul happier than listening to blues, jazz and flamenco. Dennis chekc out this and this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah jazz playing is like the chess theory of guitar. An incredible amount of theory knowledge needed and understanding why certain scales e.g G melodic minor work over C7 dominant chords etc (B flat is the minor third of the scale and 7th of the C7 chord), A flat melodic minor over D flat 9 sharpened 11th (G being the major 7th of the scale and raised 11th of the D flat chord) and F minor 7 flat 5 etc. My playing has come on leaps and bounds since I started studying jazz, much more sophisticated. Its a lot of theory but its the music I love which is what its all about!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm minded to give Stevezdude1 another chance and unblock him, after reading his latest comment at User talk:Stevezdude1. But I'd like to hear what you think first, if you wouldn't mind. (I'm asking JamesBWatson too). -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Liam Cole, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{ prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Your prod was turned down. Do you want to write up an AfD. After you write it, I'll just bareback onto yours. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't want this topic to be archived for inactivity. There was a diversion by Uncle G, which I tried to address (my review of Borovv's history at Unification Church only strengthened my view that Borovv can't edit), but I'm not sure exactly where we are now. Four editors have either supported a topic ban or, in your case apparently an indefinite block. What does it take to get an administrative decision? Is there something I need to do or should do? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Any interest in closing an RFC on the astrology talk page? I posted a request to WP:ANRFC but it looks like there's a pretty big back log over there and what can I say, I'm an impatient bastard :). The RFC bot already removed the template since it expired a while ago but no one seems to have looked at it, the thread is Talk:Astrology#RFC_on_change_to_pseudoscience_summary_in_lede. If you're willing to take the time to do it, I'll buy you enough Wikibeer to make Mrs. Mies think you're actually drunk. Yeah, that's all I got, sorry. What we need are 3D printers that print real beer. SÆdon talk 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Wondering if you could help us out a bit on the Braveheart article [25]. It seems an editor took it upon themselves to move the article title without any discussion at all and now we can't undo it without admin assistance. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, a Dutch organization of convicted WW2 collaborators, included 1951 founders NSB "judge" Jan Wolthuis and Waffen-SS volunteer Jan Hartman, and Paul van Tienen who turned it into a political party? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan Wolthuis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, a Dutch organization of convicted WW2 collaborators, included 1951 founders NSB "judge" Jan Wolthuis and Waffen-SS volunteer Jan Hartman, and Paul van Tienen who turned it into a political party? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan Hartman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, a Dutch organization of convicted WW2 collaborators, included 1951 founders NSB "judge" Jan Wolthuis and Waffen-SS volunteer Jan Hartman, and Paul van Tienen who turned it into a political party? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul van Tienen, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, a Dutch organization of convicted WW2 collaborators, included 1951 founders NSB "judge" Jan Wolthuis and Waffen-SS volunteer Jan Hartman, and Paul van Tienen who turned it into a political party? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the nominator of this GA candidate Oakley77 ( talk · contribs) has been barred from nominating, reviewing or participating in the review of GA articles; he's in fact currently serving a 48 block for breaching this. In the circumstances, he won't be back to finish addressing your points so you may want to bear that in mind when deciding whether to keep the review open or not. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 20:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Drmies,
May I burden you for a moment and ask for some advice on a matter? I've been brave (again) and nominated Eurovision Song Contest 2012 for GA review, and things are going well with it so far - I'm pleased to say that I am learning a lot through this process about producing a good article. Anyhow, there is a bit of a quandary going on at the talk page about the inclusion of split jury/televoting results onto the articles. Now I can see both sides of this argument and happily sitting myself on the fence even if the spiky bits are poking me in areas I wish they wouldn't. The way the contest works is that the jury members cast their votes during the contest rehearsals, and their points are added together to form a total result and kept secret. And then on the actual night(s) of the contest, the general public televote for their favorites too, and their points added together to form a total result. Both totals are combined to create the final overall vote, which determines the qualifiers (for semifinals) and the overall winner (final). The individual jury/televote outcomes get published weeks later.
In my opinion the combined results (which are already included in the article) bear more truth and notability to the facts. However, to include tables showing the individual outcomes don't really bear any significance to the article; albeit they are notable facts and their combined tally are what makes the overall result. But should we really be detailing the breakdown of individual outcomes too? Or would they be classified as trivial data? Thank you for you time my friend. Wesley ☀ Mouse 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello my friend, is there any chance of you getting hold of this? It is a little speculative but I am taking a short break from the warfare that is India-related! It is about time that I did something positive rather than the usual negative "unsourced", "BLP violation", "copyvio", "ridiculous POV" etc. - Sitush ( talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Some nights before I go to sleep, I get on an android tablet and touch Random article repeatedly. I'm not logged in and I make no edits (too hard on the tablet). The Wikipedia tour is often, uh, illuminating. If I find an article I want to attend to when logged in, I write it down and tackle it later.
Yesterday evening, I came across Thalasthanam. Before I touch it - not that I really want to - I thought you (and your multitude of talk page stalkers) might be entertained, and not in a good way, by the article. Have fun.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ata Atun was deleted a month ago via an AfD. Could you take a look and see if anything is different. It was deleted as promotional. I just removed ~100 articles in the long, long table in the new version of Atun. That is the only thing I touched in the new one. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe you are a subject of a Queen, so you are probably better at answering this. I believe Ewa Westling is not notable, but she is the mother-in-law of the crown princess of Norway. On a side note, Ewa is a great name for a mother-in-law as I often say eww in relation to my mother-in-law. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Removal of reliable sources because they are not the "truth" <g> is occuring. Reason given is the sources are "off topic" even though a cursory glance belies that claim. [26] shows one source using that exact term - so I suggest that IDONTLIKEIT is the reason for the pretence that it is "off topic." See also the talk page where it is clear that the "truth" is the issue here, with one editor saying the term is "pejorative" and the article is really about the evil libertarians <g> Cheers - I know you do not like to get involved in any way - but this gives me a chance to vent without angering TFD again. Collect ( talk) 13:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, and thanks for responding to my comment on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I had never posted anything there before, but I am glad to see that the problem was quickly resolved. Safehaven86 ( talk) 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not in the same class as the person who blew up animals for Jesus, but it is still creepy.
Also, what is the record for the amount of tags? Bgwhite ( talk) 05:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I remember you enjoyed some music by dan le sac vs Scroobius Pip (e.g. " Thou Shalt Always Kill"). I thought you might like this, by the best post-modern hip-hop group of all time. The video is one of my favorite things ever. MastCell Talk 19:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 22 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peperga, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the land around the village of Peperga in the Netherlands was so wet that before 1660 the entire village was moved one kilometer to a drier area? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peperga. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Not only are there many, many, many Wikipedia articles on the thing. Now there are movies. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see the problem, sorry. The nominator for deletion could have just as easily CSDed it rather than nominating, so that vindicates my decision tag it rather than CSDing. Not all of us have hours to spend on Wikipedia every day. It only takes a few seconds to tag. It can take a long time to properly investigate whether a subject is notable, find references etc. If I don't have that time when I come across a questionable article, I will continue to multiple tag it. (Indeed in this case, further tags were added by another editor.) I see no harm in it, and if prompts other editors who have the time to act, where one or two tags are often simply ignored, well that's the point isn't it? Harry the Dog WOOF 18:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I've just cobbled up Peter Dorschel. I've got some more stuff to add but I am drawing a blank regarding a US Navy rating who was named as a party to the espionage. My guess is that either info relating to Garry Lee Ledbetter is classified over your side of the pond, or else it is behind newspaper paywalls etc & so I cannot see it. Could you possibly run a quick GSearch and perhaps update the article if, for example, any charges were eventually pressed against him? PS: I was young when this happened but his wife was a hottie: I vaguely remember her sunbathing nude in their garden ... and some who are slightly older have rather more vivid memories. Given how little suitable sunbathing weather Manchester sees, they were particularly fortunate! - Sitush ( talk) 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with you about this sort of WP:POPCRAP — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • WOOF • 20:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I collaborated with a friend on the article on the Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness - it is now deleted with code G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, although the entry provided external references. Would it be possible to get some more infomation on how the article can be improved for Wikipedia?
many thanks and best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana hrdev ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
But if you try sometimes, you might find: you get what you need.
![]() |
Beer! |
![]() |
Fried chicken! |
![]() |
Barnstars! |
Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 16:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I reckon that's enough for a sunny afternoon. Thank you all again! Drmies ( talk) 17:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Although the article has been deleted, I wasn't able to get any response for my last edit, which includes another reference from webmagazine, MakeUseOf. I agree some of these webmagazines I have never heard of, but that doesn't really qualify them to be unreliable sources. For example MakeUseOf, has a full editorial board, and not just from the magazine, but also from its wiki entry it seems like a reliable web magazine. In any case, this was my final comment, if because of this you change your mind, please let me know what I could do.
|
I appreciate your patience to face unwanted "categories".Yes you know candy is hard to bite but it is better than to fight?. Justice007 ( talk) 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC) |
Is it me, or is Legolover26 trolling? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I am sorry to bother you but can you please explain to me why I am the one facing a block? Have you not noticed my pleas for discussion in each edit summary? I have started a discussion at Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Descent from Philip and Louis. I have cited numerous reasons, articles and sources, while the only argument of the other party is: "It is relevant." I got the last response on 23 May; they don't even bother to respond anymore. The relevance note tag was my attempt to encourage the discussion because, after doing my best to prove that one of the subject's great-great-great-great-great-grandparents needs not be mentioned unless there is a specific reason (inheritance, genetics, anything), no reason was given at all. I was simply ignored, as if there was no need to pay any attention to my arguments. I apologise for causing inconvenience but I cannot help feeling that this is not right. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Drmies, the above user was mentioned to me on my talk and I looked at the ANI that's up now. And I looked at what they're doing. They're disruptively hacking away at a lot of Royals articles. Please look and consider blocking them now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Drmies I'd like to draw your attention toward the article at User:Maharathi/sandbox which I've rewritten and invite your valuable suggestions and feedback to improve the article. Maharathi ( talk) 01:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Stop mentioning [2] your pool, the balmy temperature, cocktail hour, etc. etc. etc. or I shall be forced to rent a car, drive for several days, and show up at your door in my Speedo, primed for some R&R. (And, believe me, you don't want to see me in my Speedo.) Your Yankee friend, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deathlaser : Chat 14:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you satisfied that the article passes the notability requirements now? For the DYK nom. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Drmies, I apologize for being harsh on anyone. But please I am asking because I do not know whom to ask. Could you please tell me what is the solution when there is lots of WP:RS but no consensus. What needs to be done in such cases on the wikipedia? But in anyway I apologize for being harsh. Could you please help me and suggest a solution. Best regards and thanks Robin klein ( talk) 01:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm at #1002. Gerda is one ahead of me. Ladyof Shalott 02:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
In an extraordinary and surprising display of competency, you've somehow managed to be an admin for one whole year without destroying Wikipedia.
It's hard to believe it's only been a year – it seems like you've been an admin forever. You've done an exemplary job, and you've made the literally hundreds of people who supported your RfA very proud. Thanks for your dedication to the position, and congratulations! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop you a note that I tagged UFC on Fuel TV: Munoz vs. Weidman G6, you closed the AfD on the article, it was moved during the deletion discussion, and you only deleted the redirect, not the nominated article. Monty 845 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Too many words
|
---|
Hi, Drmies. Thank you for making your way to the article talk page to discuss our recent edits to the lede. I'll respond to your comments relating to article improvement in the new section you just opened (although there is already a subsection about the same material further up on that page). You also, however, saw fit to include personal attacks in your talk page comment, including calling me "a professional wikilawyer", and accusing me of page ownership. Your personal attacks are unwarranted (in addition to being unbecoming an administrator), and I am formally requesting that you remove them. Xenophrenic ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
|
As I said in the tag, Galvatron (Beast Wars II) was an attempted article split that was undone. There is history at Galvatron (Beast Wars II), but this content was not merged back into Galvatron (they just reverted the edits at that article). So, this would count as an WP:CSD#A10 as a recently created duplication of content (the article was still "recently created" when the editors blanked the page), or as WP:CSD#G6 as housecleaning. I used a generic template so that I could explain more clearly. The redirect itself is valid, the redirect is not the problem. The problem is that so many editors were moving content back and forth with the Megatron and Galvatron articles and that creates attribution problems. Deleting this page simplifies that issue, as I've determined that the edits were not carried forward, and this history does not need to be kept. The redirect itself can be recreated right after. I hope this makes sense, I'm just trying to untangle the article history. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I think you're an admin, so I have a request. Khwarazmian Dynasty is vandalised by an unknown user with the IP: 94.128.139.98. Can you protect the page please? BozokluAdam ( talk) 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
BozokluAdam, you should be very careful with your accusations. I did not attack any ethnic groups. In fact, this is a bad faith accusation on your part and a violation of WP:PA! The current intro of the article Hazara people is a consensus version. It is a short and precise intro and you are one of a very few who do not accept it. You claim to be a Turkologist, but your edits actually prove that you have no clue of the subject. And as for the IP calling you a Pan-Turkist: he has a point. All of your edits are about pushing for some kind of "Turkishness" in various articles. You even claim that there are "38 million Turks in Iran" - a totally laughable claim that is only popular among Turkish nationalists and Pan-Turkists. No scholar would agree. Personally, I do not care what political ideology you follow as long as you keep you keep your edits neutral and well-sourced. So far, I have not seen any good edit on your part. You should also read WP:SOURCE: it's not important how many sources you can list but what quality these sources have. -- Lysozym ( talk) 18:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I was going to slap a NPA warning here for calling me an Australian at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Doghouse Diaries, but then thought better of it as it could have been worse, you could have called me American. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 02:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why the AfD hasn't closed yet...more than 27 hrs. overdue. That'll be messy, because if it's deleted (which it oughta be, 2:1 not keep:keep ratio), I guarantee you that one of "Keep" votes will DRV it and we'll have another fine mess.
But that's not why I'm here. There are a bazillion edit requests on the article. At least one of them is alleging COPYVIO. Could you or one of your admin buds resolve some of them? Oh, and I liked your "weird aussie" AfD vote...but you should've found in a way to work in TPH's otters p b p 03:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Could an admin take a look at the article that was deleted via this AfD and this version of Pricing Partners SAS. Old version was created by a blocked user. Two brand new editors are now working on the new version (plus French version) and wondering why I keep adding the COI tag. I'd take it to SPI, but they have 44 backlogged cases including one still open that I was involved with over two weeks ago. If the articles are similar, that would confirm COI problems.
Hi, the user you ended up reigning in on the Studio 54 and The Rascals articles is most likely a sockpuppet of WikAdvisor. If you have any information you would like to contribute from your dealings with anonymous user: 66.65.134.176 [6], please feel free to contribute to the discussion about the SPI case [7]. Thanks! Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if a low life editor like myself can undo a move. A new editor moved Sophie Sumner to Annaliese Dayes. Sumner was a redirect and now Dayes is a redirect. Both people were on America's Next Top Model season 2,404, but I could be off by a few seasons :) . The old Sumner page had a long history. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the advice on the links,i will also add the voetbal website to the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronkoeman44 ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Loved coming across this quote from a small town paper's publisher [8]. 99.153.142.225 ( talk) 16:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I have put more comments on the deletion page for Pricing Partners. I am happy that you are hesitating to delete this page as I believe it is accurate and reliable. It follows the standard of wikipedia much better than many other pages as it provides a reliable reference for everything. And it is not too much promotional as it also gives a list of competitors. Overall, I hope this is convincing you this is fine. I am happy to talk more if you need further information. Many thanks in advance for your time Regards, -- Paul.cabot ( talk) 19:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I had forgotten how to deal with the problem and was just figuring it out when you came by. Thanks! ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 01:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Ladyof Shalott 03:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Drmies,
You seem to have made a mistake on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip pop. We usually don't delete articles about notable topics just because WP:GENREWARRIORs tell us to. What went wrong? You should be aware that you are not allowed to delete that article per WP:UNINVOLVED. You wrote "the blind are leading the blind" and "dickishness comes from both sides here"; not exactly "edits which do not speak to bias". Please undelete the article and let an uninvolved admin make the decision. Thanks in advance, Arcandam ( talk) 03:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of Paloma Picasso's red period. It was the Seinfeld of articles – the article about nothing! I must say you were more generous than I would've been. Again, the article really wasn't about anything; all it said was that her favorite color is red and she likes wearing red lipstick. This was absolutely an article on one of the most inconsequential subjects I can possibly imagine, written by a now-banned user, apparently solely for the purpose of creating an April Fools' Day DYK.
My most significant contribution to Wikipedia may have been derailing that DYK and keeping this garbage off of the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
" Basma bint Saud was born on March 1, 1964. She is the youngest and 115th daughter of King Saud." Bgwhite ( talk) 08:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Shuriken of Humor |
For creating List of notable people who have articles on Wikipedia regarding their use of Twitter, thus increasing awareness of Twitter usage by really important people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
You all know what I think of this topic, and I am adamant as well. That we may be in the minority on this makes me sad. People will seriously take a person or subject with literally centuries of scholarship and argue for its deletion, but think that whether Bieber or Gaga has a higher ranking on Twitter is important. I don't get that. I don't get that at all. Ladyof Shalott 02:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Twitter users is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Dew Kane ( talk) 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, want to collaborate with me on a new article? I thought we could write one on Sarah Palin's Facebook page, I found two mentions of it online, so it is definitely notable: Sarah Palin Makes Many New Facebook Friends & The Facebook posts Palin doesn't want you to see. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on whether Foo on Twitter should be deleted, merged, redirected or kept should be held in one place ( WP:AFD). There should not be 5 different locations. I have undone the three discussions that have been started. We need one policy setting discussion in one location.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hiya, Professor. Check this out and this too. Do you have anything to offer WRT the situation? Thanks Tide rolls 02:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
One dollar? I have a twenty in my wallet (AU dollars, so worth more!) seems like I can buy an evening of entertainment. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 05:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 31 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gerard Reve's The Fourth Man, commissioned by the Dutch foundation Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek for the 1981 Boekenweek, was turned down as too controversial? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 31 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Fourth Man, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gerard Reve's The Fourth Man, commissioned by the Dutch foundation Collectieve Propaganda van het Nederlandse Boek for the 1981 Boekenweek, was turned down as too controversial? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I created the article for Take This Lollipop and in following up, had created the article its creator... Jason Zada... and began to mull over a suitable DYK. But then , in thinking about how Donkey Xote became a two-fer with Giulia Marletta, and in realizing the possibilities if I were not tardy, I created another article... one for his notable 2006 project, Elf Yourself... so that I could then use the two together. Please check them both and see what kind of eye-catching DYK we might create. Thanks in advance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears my essay isn't appreciated. Meh. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 01:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Drmies. I just wanted to drop you a note about Barack Obama. Adding another paragraph of content to the article is not a big problem but adding the related citation templates is a big problem. I tried it out as an experiment, and eleven templates broke at the bottom of the page (navboxes, inter-wiki GA templates, etc). We can only put so many templates on a page before it goes over the limit, and stuff starts breaking at the bottom. Complex templates are more of a burden than simple templates, so it depends which template is placed in the article as to what it costs. The burden of transclusion of navboxes was the main reason for the big push to get rid of the various dot templates from navboxes and convert them to our new system, WP:HLIST.
Serotonin–norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor is an example of an article that's got a half a dozen templates that failed to expand; one of them is the {{ reflist}}, so the citations are failing to display. Very bad joss. There's more information at Wikipedia:Template limits. Sincerely, -- Dianna ( talk) 03:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day ( Talkback) 14:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay Dr, I've tweaked the hook (see ALT3 at DYK nom) and added the "Scrooge Yourself" information into the Elf Yourself article. [12] Let's get this promoted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the copy edit to Samantha Richards.
LauraHale (
talk)
21:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I opposed your AfD on the list of Mets' no-hitters largely on the grounds that we need some assertion on the general worthiness of team no-hit list (which exist for most MLB clubs) first. The article might also be saved if it was written entirely on Johan's no-no, which could probably very easily be sourced.
Oh, and look at our favorite troll's latest edit. Looks to be a pretty airtight rationale, except that he pretty blatantly followed me over to the AfD, he went against the community consensus that middle schools aren't notable, and he used middle school rationale on an article about a ferry. p b p 05:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
stinky sock put in the hamper by DB
|
---|
|
Hi. Thanks for deleting Guozbongleur etc. Would you be able to perform the formal closures of the AfD debates? Otherwise they're just hanging there.— A bit iffy ( talk) 07:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your reversion at Paul Robeson. The IP editor made a lot of constructive changes in addition to the hidden comments, and unfortunately you undid them all. Thanks for leaving a message on the editor's Talk page about the problem comments. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
[13] I've blocked, but if I remember correctly that blog link was website-non-grata here (and you've acted on it before), but as part of the screed includes a tirade against me, I don't want to take any action. If you or the lady or one of your other able talk page stalkers wish to do what's been done in the past, feel free to do so. And, I'm beginning to think that the blog link is now gaining notability based on the number of talk pages it's been posted on. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 18:36, 2 June 2012 (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. The discussion is about the topic Brahmeshwar Singh. Thank you. — Spaceman Spiff 21:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Newton as Keep, but didn't say why. As none of the Keep arguments were guideline or policy based, and were all pretty dire. I'd be interested in how it meets notability guidelines, namely WP:GNG or WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER.-- Otterathome ( talk) 08:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This is kind of an odd case. This user's got quite a history of colorful edit summaries, which, among other gems, includes repeatedly calling other users idiots, morons, and baboons. It looks as though they've never received a warning, because these epithets are never directed at a specific user by name. But if I were someone being berated for something I wrote, I would certainly feel as if I'd been attacked, even without being explicitly named. This is not conducive to a cordial and cooperative editing environment.
They appear to be someone who haughtily thinks they're right, but whose "corrections", accompanied by those scolding edit summaries, are usually wrong (at least the ones I looked at).
Fortunately, they're not very active, so maybe no action is called for, and maybe if we ignore 'em they'll just go away.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The country seems to be mentioned in the section immediately below this one. Ladyof Shalott 01:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Drmies! I thought of you today, while sitting beside my pond in the sunshine, enjoying a Hoegaarden witbier . David Letterman said it best, I think: "There's not a man, woman or child on the face of the earth who doesn't enjoy a tasty beverage." Besides, if one mispronounces "Hoegaarden" by giving it a long "o" sound in the first syllable, one can come up with some very droll associations. Cheers, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 10:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
at my successful RFA |
Thank you, Drmies, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. I considered not thanking you, to be ironic, but common courtesy won out. Shame I have no bacon here which you would enjoy. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
It seems that Miss Millie wasn't the only interesting sister. This morning I heard a talk on Mary Ann Rutherford Lipscomb; I knew'd she'd been Principal of Lucy Cobb after her sister's (first) stint there. It seems she did a lot for education and public health. So, I guess I have my new topic to work on. (It's just barely started, but I shall be developing it!) Ladyof Shalott 18:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
In unrelated matters, don't forget about Talk:Jacobus Deketh/GA2; it's still open. Ladyof Shalott 19:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
A user was blocked and User:Ironholds deleted the blocked user's created articles. User:Norden1990 thinks Michael Szilágyi was a perfectly fine article and asks if it could be restored to his sandbox. Ironholds refuses to restore the article per User_talk:Ironholds#Michael Szilágyi. Norden left the request on my talk page and I personally think it is a reasonable request, but I'm unsure of policy here. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the mess that's going on at this article? Three editors ( User talk:Gaslett, User talk:Clone tone, User talk:School monitor), probably socks of each other ( SPI report), are edit warring to insert a distinctly inferior version of the article, one which includes copyvios and has serious POV problems. (Considering that socking editor has also used User talk:Antonypricefashion, the POV may be the result of a COI.) Several editors are reverting them, but the socks are not listening to what they're being told. In general, they are not getting it. I thought at first to take it to AN/I, but thought you might take a look instead. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I thought I'd drop by with a suggestion that, where younger editors have unwisely posted information that looks like it probably needs oversight, it's not a good idea to repost parts of that information to widely-watched talkpages, as you did here.
I'm not disputing that 13-year-olds have !voted in AfDs; in fact, from my understanding of the state of such things, we've most likely had 12-year-olds both closing AfDs and closing RfAs in the distant or recent past, never mind !voting in them. Nor are any of us under an obligation to mitigate the risks younger editors put themselves at through carelessness. But, we should at least not exacerbate those risks. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there MIES, VASCO here,
could not resist to send you this diff (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ralph_Wilson&diff=472578993&oldid=471552353), it seems that grammar gods do make mistakes every now and then :) LOAN IS NOT A VERB, news to me...
Seriously, quite pityful behaviour (and this from one who has written stupid summaries in the past, i admit it). From my six years at the site, i know that a block does NOTHING, we just have to "be brave" or whatever you want to call it, or leave for good to their (the users like this i mean) contentment; in a related note, how 'bout this declaration of intentions by User:Kostas45 (see here, read the very end, with his charming all-caps style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kostas45)?
Kind regards, keep it up (maybe i've made a wiki-enemy with this text if they notice it, but i repeat, could not resist it) -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Saw this and thought I would just let you know that the person who opens an individual reassessment is generally expected to close it. Is there any particular reason why you think someone else should do this one? It seems a simple uncontroversial delist, so there should be no dramas with it. I don't have time right now, but if it is still open later today I can close it for you. AIRcorn (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Orville (cat) is just freakish. Ladyof Shalott 17:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
My apologies to anyone traumatized by the images associated with this article. Whether you call it art or not, there's something sick about it. Ladyof Shalott 01:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Although Orville's article was deleted, his legacy lives on. Looks like he'll be on the Main Page soon. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Drmies,
I just posted this article in the mainspace and would greatly appreciate it if you could please review it when you have a chance and let me know what you think. (You helped me with a previous article, so I thought I'd seek your input again.) Thank you! Braedon Farr ( talk) 18:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the article that reflect your improvement requests, and ask you to check your review page please. Oakley77 ( talk) 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
As the original nominator, what do you think? Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
1. Nobel_Peace_Prize#Nomination gives us info about the nomination process. 2. I don't like it either, but thanks for the self-revert. -- S. Rich ( talk) 17:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at David Steen (photographer). I think the article's history says it all. Bgwhite ( talk) 18:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Another possible two-fer? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hoping you and yours are weathering the floods without difficulty. Give a holler. Best, JNW ( talk) 22:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
After the emblem was removed from your nomination, new ALTs were proposed, and in the last couple of days, that the multi-hook be split into individual hooks. I thought you should be consulted before the nomination is promoted, to see what your wishes are regarding hook wording and splitting, and whether any of the ALTs meet with your approval. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Ik lees geregeld over mensen met verwerpelijke ideeën dus toen ik de naam Paul van Tienen zag was mijn interesse gewekt.
In het Nederlands gebruiken we vaak het eufemisme 'fout' in de context van WW2. Doen Engelsprekenden dat ook? In het artikel Paul van Tienen staat nu:
Ik heb het even nagezocht, en op annefrank.org staat de volgende zin:
In een document gepubliceerd door Stichting Argus staat:
Was er sprake van een voorwaardelijke gevangenisstraf van 3 maanden plus drie maanden onvoorwaardelijk, of was het een onvoorwaardelijke gevangenisstraf van 6 maanden? Best verwarrend!
Het Utrechts Nieuwsblad schrijft dat de officier van justitie 6 maanden waarvan de helft voorwaardelijk eiste, met een proeftijd van 3 jaar. Ook staat daarin de zin: "Hij verkocht het boek Adolf Hitler [onleesbaar] Kampf gegen die Minusseele in Nederlandse vertaling".
Is het een goed idee om te specificeren waarom hij veroordeeld is (het in voorraad hebben en verspreiden van het boek "Adolf Hitler, sein Kampf gegen die Minusseele") en dat "wrong books" eruit te halen? Arcandam ( talk) 06:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No rest for the wicked (me not LR).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies! I saw your message at Talk:Common eland. You have indeed a good point there. Could you help me fix these references? The etymology references are alright, I believe, leave them. The improper resources can be fixed, but please do not deprive it of the GA status. -- Sainsf <^> Talk all words 04:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Just out of Harvard, Megan Amram's claim to fame is her twitter account. But, that is not what makes it weird. Click on the first reference and have fun with the photo. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposed to merge List of Twitter users BTW on the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld
Do you have any thoughts regarding how to deal with the following BLP situation?
An alleged whistleblower claimed that a senior politician has been complicit by omission or commission in the deaths of 1200 people during riots, The whistleblower's evidence is examined by a court-appointed investigatory team, and the court then appoints an amicus curiae to independently examine that team's reports. A game of ping-pong ensues, with the team and the amicus allegedly unable to agree> One side allegedly says the whistleblower is unreliable, politically motivated, not even present at the time when he alleges complicity occurred etc, while the other says that the balance of probability favours reliability, presence, altruism and implicitly suggests a cover-up.
These reports presented to the court by both "sides" are confidential but are widely discussed in the media, who use the "sources say" formula to explain the contents of those reports. Without mentioning the media reports concerning the confidential documents, there really is likely to be little worth saying in our article. But mentioning them has potential BLP issues, especially given the vaguity of the media's sources, the controversial nature of the various allegations, and the fact that this is the Indian media whom we are considering here (whose general tendency towards plagiarism and breathless hot-headedness is all too familiar to me). My gut feeling is that we should not mention the stuff because it is impossible to do so without engaging in weaseling ("although the report of ABC is confidential, the XYZ newspaper has carried a story based on unnamed sources that says ..."). Then again, my gut says that this entire confidentiality business (and allegations of witness tampering, and even witness murder) is a part of what makes this article notable.
I am going to ask Spiffy and Salvio to take a look at this, the former because he knows some of the background and the latter because he may know something about the legal processes that are involved (although they are not in his juridiction!). - Sitush ( talk) 11:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 16:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, it's me again. There is some minor kerfuffel (is that how that's spelt? I've never written it down) over at the above linked article. Essentially it is one concerning sourcing; we have a new editor that is of the True Goff Is the Only Goff variety (you know, like the metal purists and punk purists that turn up on other lists). Unfortunately, this means that they don't really acknowledge that other viewpoints may exist (my opinion is irrelevant, obviously, but for the record I'm a tradgoth type of person, much like said editor, but realise that other viewpoints exist in reliable sources in the press; they however have perhaps just jumped on my username and made some assumptions). Sourced material is systematically removed with no reference to policy (well, apart from the fact that they disagree with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS in general), and whilst I have tried to remain civil in the light of a fair amount of abuse, I've left a final message at the bottom of the talk page with a solution that we've adopted at other contentious articles, e.g. the list of nu metal bands. I don't anticipate much positive reaction, but I did say I'd ask some other editors to look at it :-) I'd appreciate it if you could spare some time to take a look, as I'm not going to commit a WP:3RR violation and I'm not getting anywhere through dialogue with this particular editor. (Sent to a couple of other people as well.) Cheers, Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 16:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have indirectly referred to you on ANI, here. Not by name, but close enough. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
When I opened the topic at ANI, I was careful not to specify the duration of the requested block, leaving it up to the discretion of the blocking admin. That said, I was fairly certain that an indef would be forthcoming, if not immediately, soon enough - which it has. But I agree with Drmies about blocking and power, and I also think MRG was correct in her imposition of a short block. Except in egregious circumstances (often a judgment call), even if we think we "know" what will happen, we should be understandably reluctant to assume we are right, particularly with an initial block.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies,
Hope all is well with you. Everything back here is returning to normality once again, after the recent family traumas etc. I was wondering if you could just cast an eye over something for me. Isn't 1, 2, and 3, clear evidence that I was right in my previous observations of a certain editors. Especially the way the 3rd comment is worded, it is a clear violation of WP:NPA is it not? Wesley ☀ Mouse 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You had some concerns with this article and its nomination. Have the recent updates addressed these, or does it still need more work? Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Christian Schwabe was recently created. It was deleted before because of a sockpuppet that created articles on scientists. It is a new editor and they created this and a few others in surprising quick fashion and well done. Wondering if sockpuppet is back. Could admin check current article with the past article. If similar, I'll submit a SPI. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I'm coming to you for advice regarding the Georgian Orthodox Church article, as you had already been consulted about it, if I remember correctly, when a dispute was happening there last month. Following those incidents, and on the basis of new sources, I've taken upon myself to improve and expand the article. New sources, that work, and discussion on the talk page have finally put an end to that dispute (plus the blocking of some of the most virulent warriors for unrelated offenses, I might add), and I've been able to cover all of the article, taking inspiration from similar ones about other churches, and relaying on scholarly sources. I'm rather proud of the result, and it has not met opposition so far from other contributors to the article. I'm not a very experienced editor yet, so I don't know the usual necessary delays for such matters, but it seems to me that the article now meets most criteria for a GA nomination; the only thing I'm not sure about is the "stable" criterion: indeed, there was still a major dispute happening at the end of April, and I only finished the big rewriting these last days. Should I wait before nominating it? And if yes, how long would you think would be a reasonable time? Thanks a lot if you could give some light on that matter!!-- Susuman77 ( talk) 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, your thoughts would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambi Magazine and here [22]. Methinks there's COI and other stuff afoot, and now counter-insinuations are being made that I'm sockpuppeting there. Cheers, 99.156.68.118 ( talk) 21:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Not quite the case. I would however ask kindly that you reference and investigate the activity of both the IP and Guillaume2303 with respect to their input on several pages over a short period of time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_Magazine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bambi_Magazine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillaume2303 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarred_Land. Both users have been quite active and in agreement recently on at least four different pages. I find this suspect and intimidating. Sir Chadly ( talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This is like grade school. The IP has clearly become obsessive. And offering pictures of beer? Not having the luxury of such spare time, Drmies, should you wish to contact me directly via email or by phone at my office, I would welcome it. Short of that, I shall be contacting the appropriate press agent at Wikipedia tomorrow. If I'm not mistaken, that would be Mark Pellegrini. Sir Chadly ( talk) 23:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone please explain to me how the Twitter bird is not copyrighted or copyrightable. It's an artwork, right? Ladyof Shalott 00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Into a single topic, apparently had a conflict of editing. Please do not close the topic, yet. Subtropical-man ( talk) 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Thank you for your time,
the wub (
talk)
18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using
Global message delivery)
Hi, want to collaborate over something? Not involving a Dutchman in his pants? Can you add some info from here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Stellingwerfs? Hmm. Excellent job! Nommed. Now let's find a quirky old silent Dutch movie to do! Help! The Doctor Is Drowning would be quite appropriate, in a vat of magma of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Watch out for kids! - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It's now at AfC. As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing has been done to the article since deletion except for routine things done to userfied drafts and then the usual things for AfC drafts... no actual article improvement, no addition of references, etc. Ai ai ai. It was userfied to Warden's space, but a new editor requested the AfC. Ladyof Shalott 03:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Haha, LOL me too Dennis on both accounts, I'm a big SRV fan and a blues/jazz guitarist. I'm insanely jealous you saw the man himself! Love Albert King,, Sonny Boy Williamson and all that too. I'm venturing into jazz too. In fact I've been nailing the long solo on Joe Pass's Django up to speed this evening and its extremely fast (82 notes between 0:39 and 0.45 in six seconds)! Nothing makes my soul happier than listening to blues, jazz and flamenco. Dennis chekc out this and this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah jazz playing is like the chess theory of guitar. An incredible amount of theory knowledge needed and understanding why certain scales e.g G melodic minor work over C7 dominant chords etc (B flat is the minor third of the scale and 7th of the C7 chord), A flat melodic minor over D flat 9 sharpened 11th (G being the major 7th of the scale and raised 11th of the D flat chord) and F minor 7 flat 5 etc. My playing has come on leaps and bounds since I started studying jazz, much more sophisticated. Its a lot of theory but its the music I love which is what its all about!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm minded to give Stevezdude1 another chance and unblock him, after reading his latest comment at User talk:Stevezdude1. But I'd like to hear what you think first, if you wouldn't mind. (I'm asking JamesBWatson too). -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Liam Cole, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{ prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Your prod was turned down. Do you want to write up an AfD. After you write it, I'll just bareback onto yours. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't want this topic to be archived for inactivity. There was a diversion by Uncle G, which I tried to address (my review of Borovv's history at Unification Church only strengthened my view that Borovv can't edit), but I'm not sure exactly where we are now. Four editors have either supported a topic ban or, in your case apparently an indefinite block. What does it take to get an administrative decision? Is there something I need to do or should do? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Any interest in closing an RFC on the astrology talk page? I posted a request to WP:ANRFC but it looks like there's a pretty big back log over there and what can I say, I'm an impatient bastard :). The RFC bot already removed the template since it expired a while ago but no one seems to have looked at it, the thread is Talk:Astrology#RFC_on_change_to_pseudoscience_summary_in_lede. If you're willing to take the time to do it, I'll buy you enough Wikibeer to make Mrs. Mies think you're actually drunk. Yeah, that's all I got, sorry. What we need are 3D printers that print real beer. SÆdon talk 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Wondering if you could help us out a bit on the Braveheart article [25]. It seems an editor took it upon themselves to move the article title without any discussion at all and now we can't undo it without admin assistance. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, a Dutch organization of convicted WW2 collaborators, included 1951 founders NSB "judge" Jan Wolthuis and Waffen-SS volunteer Jan Hartman, and Paul van Tienen who turned it into a political party? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan Wolthuis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, a Dutch organization of convicted WW2 collaborators, included 1951 founders NSB "judge" Jan Wolthuis and Waffen-SS volunteer Jan Hartman, and Paul van Tienen who turned it into a political party? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan Hartman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, a Dutch organization of convicted WW2 collaborators, included 1951 founders NSB "judge" Jan Wolthuis and Waffen-SS volunteer Jan Hartman, and Paul van Tienen who turned it into a political party? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul van Tienen, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, a Dutch organization of convicted WW2 collaborators, included 1951 founders NSB "judge" Jan Wolthuis and Waffen-SS volunteer Jan Hartman, and Paul van Tienen who turned it into a political party? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the nominator of this GA candidate Oakley77 ( talk · contribs) has been barred from nominating, reviewing or participating in the review of GA articles; he's in fact currently serving a 48 block for breaching this. In the circumstances, he won't be back to finish addressing your points so you may want to bear that in mind when deciding whether to keep the review open or not. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 20:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Drmies,
May I burden you for a moment and ask for some advice on a matter? I've been brave (again) and nominated Eurovision Song Contest 2012 for GA review, and things are going well with it so far - I'm pleased to say that I am learning a lot through this process about producing a good article. Anyhow, there is a bit of a quandary going on at the talk page about the inclusion of split jury/televoting results onto the articles. Now I can see both sides of this argument and happily sitting myself on the fence even if the spiky bits are poking me in areas I wish they wouldn't. The way the contest works is that the jury members cast their votes during the contest rehearsals, and their points are added together to form a total result and kept secret. And then on the actual night(s) of the contest, the general public televote for their favorites too, and their points added together to form a total result. Both totals are combined to create the final overall vote, which determines the qualifiers (for semifinals) and the overall winner (final). The individual jury/televote outcomes get published weeks later.
In my opinion the combined results (which are already included in the article) bear more truth and notability to the facts. However, to include tables showing the individual outcomes don't really bear any significance to the article; albeit they are notable facts and their combined tally are what makes the overall result. But should we really be detailing the breakdown of individual outcomes too? Or would they be classified as trivial data? Thank you for you time my friend. Wesley ☀ Mouse 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello my friend, is there any chance of you getting hold of this? It is a little speculative but I am taking a short break from the warfare that is India-related! It is about time that I did something positive rather than the usual negative "unsourced", "BLP violation", "copyvio", "ridiculous POV" etc. - Sitush ( talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Some nights before I go to sleep, I get on an android tablet and touch Random article repeatedly. I'm not logged in and I make no edits (too hard on the tablet). The Wikipedia tour is often, uh, illuminating. If I find an article I want to attend to when logged in, I write it down and tackle it later.
Yesterday evening, I came across Thalasthanam. Before I touch it - not that I really want to - I thought you (and your multitude of talk page stalkers) might be entertained, and not in a good way, by the article. Have fun.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ata Atun was deleted a month ago via an AfD. Could you take a look and see if anything is different. It was deleted as promotional. I just removed ~100 articles in the long, long table in the new version of Atun. That is the only thing I touched in the new one. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe you are a subject of a Queen, so you are probably better at answering this. I believe Ewa Westling is not notable, but she is the mother-in-law of the crown princess of Norway. On a side note, Ewa is a great name for a mother-in-law as I often say eww in relation to my mother-in-law. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Removal of reliable sources because they are not the "truth" <g> is occuring. Reason given is the sources are "off topic" even though a cursory glance belies that claim. [26] shows one source using that exact term - so I suggest that IDONTLIKEIT is the reason for the pretence that it is "off topic." See also the talk page where it is clear that the "truth" is the issue here, with one editor saying the term is "pejorative" and the article is really about the evil libertarians <g> Cheers - I know you do not like to get involved in any way - but this gives me a chance to vent without angering TFD again. Collect ( talk) 13:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, and thanks for responding to my comment on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I had never posted anything there before, but I am glad to see that the problem was quickly resolved. Safehaven86 ( talk) 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not in the same class as the person who blew up animals for Jesus, but it is still creepy.
Also, what is the record for the amount of tags? Bgwhite ( talk) 05:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I remember you enjoyed some music by dan le sac vs Scroobius Pip (e.g. " Thou Shalt Always Kill"). I thought you might like this, by the best post-modern hip-hop group of all time. The video is one of my favorite things ever. MastCell Talk 19:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 22 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peperga, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the land around the village of Peperga in the Netherlands was so wet that before 1660 the entire village was moved one kilometer to a drier area? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peperga. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Not only are there many, many, many Wikipedia articles on the thing. Now there are movies. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see the problem, sorry. The nominator for deletion could have just as easily CSDed it rather than nominating, so that vindicates my decision tag it rather than CSDing. Not all of us have hours to spend on Wikipedia every day. It only takes a few seconds to tag. It can take a long time to properly investigate whether a subject is notable, find references etc. If I don't have that time when I come across a questionable article, I will continue to multiple tag it. (Indeed in this case, further tags were added by another editor.) I see no harm in it, and if prompts other editors who have the time to act, where one or two tags are often simply ignored, well that's the point isn't it? Harry the Dog WOOF 18:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I've just cobbled up Peter Dorschel. I've got some more stuff to add but I am drawing a blank regarding a US Navy rating who was named as a party to the espionage. My guess is that either info relating to Garry Lee Ledbetter is classified over your side of the pond, or else it is behind newspaper paywalls etc & so I cannot see it. Could you possibly run a quick GSearch and perhaps update the article if, for example, any charges were eventually pressed against him? PS: I was young when this happened but his wife was a hottie: I vaguely remember her sunbathing nude in their garden ... and some who are slightly older have rather more vivid memories. Given how little suitable sunbathing weather Manchester sees, they were particularly fortunate! - Sitush ( talk) 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with you about this sort of WP:POPCRAP — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • WOOF • 20:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I collaborated with a friend on the article on the Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness - it is now deleted with code G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, although the entry provided external references. Would it be possible to get some more infomation on how the article can be improved for Wikipedia?
many thanks and best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana hrdev ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)