![]() | On 27 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erika Sunnegårdh, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Swedish soprano Erika Sunnegårdh, who has sung at the Metropolitan Opera, said that her voice was "like a wild horse"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erika Sunnegårdh. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you for your contribution to the wiki Victuallers ( talk) 12:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- awesomely weird == ehrfürchtig komisch
- awesomely-weird == ehrfürchtig-seltsam
- awesome-weird == Prima-seltsam / genial-seltsam
- weirdly awesome == unheimlich genial
- cult film == Kultfilm
- cult classic == Kult-Klassikers / Kult-Klassiker
- cult favorite == Kult Lieblings
I don't know if you recall these articles, but I reverted Zomi to Zo after discovering what I thought was copyvio although it turns out the editor had replaced a redirect with material copied from his website. I've been trying to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar)#Zou, Zo, Zomi Kuki with this editor who a major COI. So far I've had no response to the actual issues I've raised although one other editor responded earlier agreeing there's a mess. I can understand if you have no interest, but any comments would be useful. Dougweller ( talk) 12:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Holy moly! Things really exploded after I went to bed. So now I'm fat and an alcoholic? Awesome! The crazy thing is that I actually thought things were winding down and that OP was going to start behaving in an appropriate manner. Wow! SQGibbon ( talk) 17:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear local linguists of high esteem, and unclubbable talkstalks like Yngvadottir, does this modern phrase, the title of yon article, have an etymology which literally translates as "Killer of the Hindus" ... and if so, does this literal translation refer to the dark times when slave-traders would transport humans out of the Indus valley, through said mountains, often resulting in the death of a large percentage of their captives? Long-running battle over the etymology of this phrase, which stretches back to at least 2005, and governs 80% of the talkpage content, has recently come up at the wp:teahouse this week again.
Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war is a good place for commentary, if wikiReliably Sourced... please leave any unreliable comments you may wish to make, here on Friend-of-Moosezilla's user-talkpage, thank you very much. Mayhap the current participants in the article-talkpage discussion Khabboos, AcidSnow, Darkness Shines, and Til Eulenspiegel will wish to be alerted of this new parallel schmooz-fest. And mayhap they'll soon wish they did not so know! ;-) Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. — 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 18:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I was hoping an admin might redact the personally identifiable information someone just posted on my Talk page. This happens to me a lot and I usually ask User:Crisco 1492 for the redaction, but because he hasn't responded to my ping at Talk:ExactTarget#Article title and I saw you were active just last night, I thought you might be able to respond more urgently. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at [1] Editor is going around posting links to his own SPS conspiracy theory site and refering to himself in the 3rd person as if he were a reliable source. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
←Both better looking, and a better singer than Beiber. Although the good doctor has not yet witnessed me singing The Gambler into a wooden spoon, after a few too many dubious – discuss cocktails. -- kelapstick( on the run) 03:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is more personally identifiable information from the latest sock of a well-known banned user. No doubt done on purpose to antagonize me. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
God dam it - this is like wackamole. There is another one here from an editor that should know better, "as old as <insert name>". This is probably partially my fault, for ever telling anyone who I am. Sorry to be such a nag - arrrggghh! CorporateM ( Talk) 22:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Van tarek benali has twice now created a (presumed) autobiography in French, Van tarek benali, which I have now twice deleted A7, the first time in response to a tag. I've left a note on their talk page in (probably bad) French and English, which includes a link to their talk page on the French Wikipedia (where the article was deleted three times and they are now blocked). For non-admin stalkers, their other contributions here include creations of the article in other places - including their user page. Could I get other eyes on this; perhaps I'm being too harsh, perhaps someone can get them to stop with better French, perhaps it needs to be salted, I dunno, but twice from me is probably enough. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment from someone other than the intended recipient I blocked the account. They were spamming their article in user space and overwriting article talk page content; they know full well that self-promotion is not allowed as they were told so very clearly when they were blocked on fr.wikipedia ("ne lit aucun message, et ne vient que pour faire sa publicité"). It's self-promotion of a clearly not notable musician, no matter how intelligent he claims to be or how many musician friends he claims to have. -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 17:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, you posted over two weeks ago that you were "looking at it", which I took at the time to mean that you were reviewing it. Do you still mean to review it soon, or should I call in a new reviewer? (If you will be reviewing it soon, then just post there.) Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, did you know abut this project before today? I didn't. Seems like you have to make nominations on a non-talk-page, right? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, I awarded a WER barnstar to Kelapstick instead. Also, you are invited to comment at WT:EotW on how to recognize under-recognized administrators, if you wish. Thanks for your support of EotW. Go Phightins ! 19:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I know you dont like the gun topic much, which is part of why I am coming to you ( Nixon_goes_to_China). Could you drop in on Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#First_sentence Hipocrite is insisting on removing [3] highly sourced content (high quality neutral sources, no hints of fringe anywhere), and overriding a very recent consensus discussion on what the wording should be, claiming that "Similarly here we should not take sides in an active dispute and state that the second amendment, regardless of current judicial interpretation, factually agrees with one side of an active debate" (When SCOTUS is the supreme authority on what the constitution means, and that meaning has been repeated in many reliable sources) Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |last=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help); External link in |last=
(
help)Drmies, as to your curiosity question, here are a few sources. Our own article (never trust wikipedia!) on Judicial review is a good starting place Judicial_review_in_the_United_States Or SCOTUS's own page (possibly biased as to their own power? ;) [4] Historically there are some interesting questions. The court essentially gave itself this right in Marbury_v._Madison but its been that way for 200 years now, so its pretty settled. short of a revolution or major constitutional amendment it is what it is. However, here is a well writting criticism of the current state, by the Library of Congress which does raise some interesting points [5] also, here is a tea-partyish source making some of the arguments along what I think Anythingyouwant may be thinking of using quotes from the Founders [6] As I stated in my reply above, the argument has some philisophical/historical (and perhaps political) merit, but as a matter of legal practicality it does not. I too would be interested in Newyorkbrads analysis if he thinks it is far enough away from the arbcom dispute. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
ArtifexMayhem Excellent arguments and sources. I do not disagree, but I do not think it materially changes the discussion at hand. The discussion is probably moot as a consensus has been achieved on the article in question but : I entirely agree that there are other mechanisms for constitutional change/interpretation and that the court may only rule on cases that come before it. Perhaps a better way of phrasing the assertion is "When/if SCOTUS rules the Constitution means something, it does mean what they rule." In this case the question of individual self defense rights came before the court. I agree that they did not add the word individual to the constitution, but do you think it is a fact, or merely a pov that the Constitution does at this moment protect an individual self defense right to a handgun (possibly only in the home) (not unlimited, subject to at this time unknown boundaries and possible regulation)? If the latter, do you think the Constitution protects pornography, gay sex, the right to have an attorney present at questioning, desegregated schools, the right of Black people to vote, the right to an abortion (also subject to somewhat ambiguous regulations) etc or are those also just povs/opinions? Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
the evidence window is closed fyi, but I personally dont object to you giving evidence. The window was also extended several times, so you may get leniency there, but I want you to be aware so you dont get spanked unknowingly. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Brief response here, because I am way over my evidence limit already, but I respect your views and would like to respond to clarify.
The "facts" are supported by more than Halbrook etc. Yes you raise a good point about the possibility of error in the NYT, but There is no doubt the laws were passed/decreed. There is no doubt announcements about the confiscation were made (although one should always mistrust the honesty of statements by the Nazis). There is no doubt there are plenty of primary sources (diaries, orders, telegrams) discussing the confiscation. All of these are documented by plenty of Holocaust histories (although admittedly they are mainly mentioned in passing and not making any sort of tyranny argument)
the "fringe" sources are needed for nothing more than their opinions. The only question really is are there opinions notable enough or significant enough for inclusion. (Or at a meta level, is the Godwining controversy notable enough) If so that then addresses your next point about the filter being used to discuss facts - The facts which are made notable by being discussed in secondary sources. (Although halbrook does go into good length actually about the Weimar laws, particularly in his new book). Halbrook is a very notable commentator and author on gun laws. He is quoted repeatedly by the supreme court on gun laws and gun history. (As is Kates, one of the other academic authors)
This is an argument that has been being raised in US gun control debates literally since Hitler was still in power (1941, Edwin Hall, quote at the top of my evidence page) To say it isnt notable or hasnt had an effect on gun control is a tough stretch. Yes, this is an argument made by partisan gun rights sources. But the arguments for gun control are also generally made by partisan gun control sources. Controversial political topics by definition are mainly going to focus on the arguments of partisan sources. It would be a pretty empty article if nobody who had a POV could be quoted. (The argument has also been made to a lesser degree internationally, but I freely admit its most notable in the US by a long shot)
Even if you consider the historical argument completely fringe, its been very notable in the gun control debate, and should be covered at a meta level (which I think the current article state does actually - its not asserting the arguments as truth, its saying that the NRA and others make the argument, and then goes into quite a bit of detail in the counter argument). You can actually source the entire paragraph to sources arguing against the argument, without changing any text imo.
My main complaint against Andy and Goethean are the gaming. Complaining that things arent sourced, and then deleting sources is about as WP:DE as it gets. Deleting content that has been in place in some form since 2003, claiming no consensus, while there are ongoing RFCs is disruptive. Note that some editors such as Scolaire, FirachaByrne etc are also making strong arguments against inclusion, but they are doing so using actual sources, actual discussion not deleting the content and saying "It violates policy, no need to discuss". If I am on the losing end of consensus, I will be dissapointed, but that is the way the wiki works. But everyone deserves a fair process of building consensus. Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI Seraphimblade asked about a comment on the ArbCom workship regarding late evidence. I think the focus of the original complaint/question and therefore the response question would be about Hipocrite putting new diffs into the workship, but since you did make late commentary, you might want to make a brief mention in that thread too. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Now why would anyone take a picture like this - and put it in the lead infobox instead of the picture that is there, in English Cocker Spaniel and Cocker Spaniel; am I the one who is lost here or what? Twice. See messing with mammals Hafspajen ( talk) 04:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Back for the third time, [7] this time an IP, from Honduras, Bird's-eye view is the only place this can be. Hafspajen ( talk) 04:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
These pictures are not as good pictures as the ones removed, so it is the reason why we remove them time to time, but they keep coming back. The author is putting them back all the time. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. Even if I do understand the creator’s feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason, adding pictures that are not up to wikipedia standards. One can not jump into an article and replace the leading picture in this random way. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. We chosed that picture and the new ones arenot at all as good as the lead picture, so leave it alone, please. One can't have a sitting dog in the lead. When you see other editors don't agree with your additions, you must discuss that, but no, he just keep adding the same very bad pictures all the time, even when I explain to him why you should stop doing this and why those pictures are not good enough. And unless you have an extraordinarely wonderful picture that is much much better that the lead picture - the lead picture stays where it is.
FYI - because you were mentioned. No diffs were cited of course. I had to reply to the message on my tp but my policy for a while now has been simply to ignore attacks from people who appear to persistently harbour an antipathy towards all things admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Eric's criticism of the admin system is nuanced enough for my taste, and at any rate Eric knows what it's like to be blocked unjustly (as do I), so I'll have to allow him leeway. Epipelagic does not know that, and for the life of me I don't know what specifically they're pointing at, which content builders are or were hindered by which admins (I certainly wasn't hindering them in this comment. The only two cases that I know of that might fit that bill are Rob and Kiefer, but in both cases they weren't done away with by one admin, or one small group of admins. Personally, I'd like to see both come back. Both were blocked/banned for disruption of various kinds and were judged to be net negatives, I suppose, but I didn't support the site ban for Rob and, for better or for worse, I was not involved in Kiefer's ArbCom case. Or, in other words, whatever. Water off a duck's back. Take it easy Kudpung, Drmies ( talk) 16:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I am having a problem with User:Ryulong and a couple of other editors who object to some of my recent categories. I'll admit some of them could have been divided into two precise categories instead of one vague one, however unlike alternative reproduction artificial wombs in fiction is a common science fiction theme and technology. I realized fairly quickly the categories which had almost no examples or were too subjective. However the value of mythological rapists is being called into question; as if of historical slave owners. I think both are serious concerns; but particularly that Category:Slave owner is being so opposed. I was going to list people other than U.S. presidents; however there are a lot more slave owners than convicted murderers so the list will be gigantic in the end. Thank you for the alert in the past about the notice board, I was unable to edit for a few days which is being called a lie. CensoredScribe ( talk) 07:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That's one of the problems with categories--they suppose that things can be easily categorized and that the labels are meaningful and well-defined. On Facebook, I am apparently a "she"; I must have checked that box when I signed up. So I get ads about weight loss and Rachael Ray on my sidebar. Now, I know what my plumbing is, but what it means, that's an entirely different matter. I drive a Prius, but according to the ads I see when I watch football (Broncos!) I'm probably not much of a man. Drmies ( talk) 03:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I seriously think slave owner will be the largest category and should be, I will go through it listing confederates and nazi camp wardens, scientists and corporations which used nazi slave labor. I'm not sure how many presidents before Lincoln other than Adams did not own slaves; that would have been a good question to have been asked in school. Thank you for being just. CensoredScribe ( talk) 04:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Mythological rape victims is being depopulated; Category:Fictional rape victims and Category:Rape victims should also be created; I believe you should be the creator. I've proposed the slave owner category on the talk page for slavery. To answer your question, I think that corporations such as IBM, Siemens, and Ford that used slave labor should be listed as slave owners. When I proposed the emperor from Star Wars was a slave owner, the argument against this was that he did not personally have slaves around. That would also exclude Hitler from being a slave owner. However owning people from a distance is still owning them, even if you never meet. CensoredScribe ( talk) 23:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.(emphasis original) Even if it is true that Hitler and Emperor Palpatine were slave owners by proxy (and I'm not conceding that they are quite yet), that is not a descriptor that is commonly or consistently applied to either of them, and so they should not be part of a "slave owners" category. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I think one of the most evil and powerful human beings in history owned slaves and that much is obvious. I'm sure someone can provide a reference he selectively freed some people from camps to use them as spies for his genocide, or some other purpose, perhaps some comfort women. There has to be at least one case in recorded history; I'm simply asking what it is. I did post this on a talk page. Maybe he only owned 10 people for a month as he sent them on suicide missions. I also don't believe that the theory Hitler may have raped a particularly attractive Jewish woman has never been proposed by an academic. That seems like at least a question pursued in a book, given Hitlers possible relationship with Wittgenstein has been covered. Though I suppose wikipedia doesn't even mention the sex slaves of Moammar Gadhafi either. Again these are questions for talk pages; not things I would add to an article. I asked whether Hitler counted as a slave owner, I knew George washington counted. Hitler probably did things like that; and clues may exist somewhere; asking if anyone knows where they might be is a legitimate use of a talk page. CensoredScribe ( talk) 03:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Any objection to adding Category:User talk pages with trolling here? Johnuniq ( talk) 10:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes your talk page is not the correct place to be having this conversation; my apologies. I should have just said Hitler owned slaves by proxy; I should not have proposed yet another unsourced Hitler conspiracy theory; even a slightly more plausible one. That would be like listing Hitler as an arsonist for ordering the Reichstag building being caught on fire; a more commonly proposed theory; which is still just a theory. Knowing Ludwig Wittgenstein in grade school would obviously not prove Hitler was a rapist, just that he knew Wittgenstein and that Wittgenstein is probably the Jew of Linz as proposed by Kimberley Cornish in her book. That Hitler knew Wittgenstein which is the only theory I've tried adding to Hitlers page; as it is mentioned on the page for Ludwig Wittgenstein. Clearly there is no evidence Hitler ordered any of those things even once; however Wikipedia does include historical theories and books on them; if Wittgensteins page and The Jew of Linz are any indication. There would need to be a reference obviously; and I doubt any reference suggests Hitler broke his own racist rules like Strom Thurman or raped anyone. However such a reference may exist so asking if anyone has seen it is reasonable if kept to talk pages of the appropriate article. There are plenty of less contested examples of slave owners however; it just seemed bizarre the list of slave owners would include several U.S. presidents but not Hitler. CensoredScribe ( talk) 15:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I just thought of something related to your comment at that AfD about Genesis on the difference between myth and narrative. It occurred to me that there is a real difference, in that a narrative is a particular instantiation of a myth. A token as opposed to a type if that kind of jargon doesn't bother you. For a story to be a narrative it has to be realized in a particular text whereas there may be many tellings of a myth, each one a separate narrative. In the case at hand, the article is about the actual old testament text, and so *must* be called narrative. If there were other incarnations of the story in other texts, and the range of these different narratives of the creation myth became notable enough to have an article about it, we could then sensibly have both Genesis Creation Narrative (about the old testament text) and Genesis Creation Myth (about the many narratives of the myth). With many creation myths there is no existing narrative or else many not especially notable narratives, so would make sense to use the word "myth" in the title rather than narrative. So I guess I'm saying that I don't agree that there's no distinction between narrative and myth, as you argued at the AfD, but we do agree that this article should be kept. Anyway, feel free to ignore this if it doesn't interest you. It's just something I was thinking about.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I tweaked the opening sentences somewhat (and removed some REALLY redundant wikilinks); see what you think. Yes, that AfD is ready for closure, given the flood of keeps. Drmies ( talk) 18:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
this is a funny one: starts yesterday, knows where to find user-icons, starts reprimanding an IP right away. Quick learner! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Drmies, authoritah demands that I notify you, that your talkpage discussion with me above, hath been linked at a noticeboard. Sorry!
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Khabboos
Thanks for improving wikipedia, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 02:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't help it! I'm more at the Corinne-side of the spectrum, I'm afraid. The past few days were great for cathching up some good sense of associative humor from you, Hafspajen and 74. See the loooong story. Anyway, the "friends" may as well be Blades, and not Superman. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
As you will probably recall, the name of Soccer in Australia is a controversial issue. I have probably been the editor most strongly defending the consensus established, and then repeated twice more in the past two years, to use that name. This has involved repeatedly pointing out the flaws in the arguments of those wanting to change it, and reverting the changes that often happen several times a day, against that consensus, in many articles.
While I lay no claim to owning the article, I have put in a lot of effort to defend that consensus, the kind of activity I regard as important in Wikipedia.
Right now we have a brand new section created with this edit.
Now, I have a huge amount to contribute to that topic. The editor involved, who only recently began to "care" about this particular article, knows that. The IBAN effectively tells me to not respond. I seriously question that editor's motives. He has offered no new evidence, apart from a claimed vote count. I believe that creating the thread is a deliberately confrontational act, possibly trying to bait me. He's certainly not going out of his way to make peace.
Where do I go from here? Should I start my own thread on a similar topic? (Slightly mischievous suggestion.) HiLo48 ( talk) 05:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yak yak yak yak yak yak ... some talk, Ents do. NE Ent 21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Can something please be done to bring that AN/I discussion to a close, one way or another? It's reaching the stage where editors who don't like me are starting to post unsubstantiated claims about me again. And the thread is not really supposed to be about me. Pete is now running a farewell thread back at the Talk:Soccer in Australia page, continuing to argue against my position with "facts" I believe I have repeatedly shown to be wrong. I don't think any of this helps Wikipedia. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, in
this discussion, I was surprised when you said: "Support. 172's arguments would be valid if there were actual content in the article: there isn't." Apparently the bulk of that article's
content got trashed misplaced, but has since been restored, and
this additional material added. You may want to look at the rest of the article and re-evaluate your merge position. I appreciate your candid remarks over at the AfD. Thank you.
172.129.34.141 (
talk) 20:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I find a note on my talk page from User:NE Ent, asking that I remove a contribution on one page because I haven't edited a different page. Odd.
Looking further, I find the source is here on this page, so I'm copying my note to NE Ent here. Talk amongst yourselves, please.
Thanks for your note, but I think you're looking at the wrong page history. My contributions here have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.
This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote here. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,
Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. -- Pete ( talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If you or any of your page talk stalkers want to look at this lovely article, please do. I came across it because I was looking at the contributions of an account that is problematic. That user made only a minor edit to the article, and I wasn't even concerned about that, but the article itself was amazing. It had no footnotes, only two external links, one to IMDb and the other to an "unofficial" site (the site of a 28-year-old who is obsessed with the actress). Nonetheless the article was both horribly written and had some rather astounding claims:
Nothing, of course, is susbtantiated. In any event, I gutted the article, but it's been restored by the other account with a warning on my talk page about vandalism (since removed by me). I'm not touching the article again because I don't want someone to claim I'm WP:INVOLVED. Of course some people may understandably believe that I shouldn't have slashed it, and that's fine. Anyone who looks at the article can do whatever they deem is appropriate. Looking at her IMDb page, it sounds like she's sufficiently notable to have an article here. It just needs to be written by someone other than a fan or fans. Considering that she's been dead for over 20 years, it's unlikely there will be a lot on the web, but I haven't checked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, I am concerned once more. Mrm7171 has again launched destructive edits. You can see the recent activity on the talk page of the journal Work & Stress and the talk page of industrial and organizational psychology. Iss246 ( talk) 04:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this diff, I can't help but feel that the message has not been appreciated. Looking at WP:IBAN, we see, "For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to … make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;"
That discussion with a third party looks to me to be about as direct a reference as you can get.
Apart from the specified exceptions listed immediately following. I am now making use of one of those exceptions to ask you to issue a gentle reminder, if I may presume upon your goodwill once more. -- Pete ( talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, if you have time, would you look at Menstrual synchrony. There is an IP who does not understand the meanings of "methodical" and "methodological". I have already reverted 3 times, and although I think it falls under a 3rr exception, I'm not going to revert again [11], but the changes as they stand are ridiculous, so maybe a third party can explain it to the IP better than me. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 23:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
"Methodical flaws" is possible, I suppose, but it's awfully strange and doesn't fit the bill here. Drmies ( talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why did you think that "88" was an unfortunate name? It makes me think of the piano. Something to do with German artillery in WW II? As I said, just curious. BMK ( talk) 04:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Be careful, once your family gets the musical theatre bug, it may never go away. BMK ( talk) 21:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The 88 thing is very common in the neoNazi movement. 786 seems less controversial, seems to be the equivalent of some Jews/Christians using G-d instead of spelling out God, or saying "The lord" instead of YHWH etc. (stolen from the internet, unreliable, possibly wrong, but seems likely to me)
"786" is the total value of the letters of "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim". In Arabic there are two methods of arranging letters. One method is the most common method known as the alphabetical method. Here we begin with Alif, ba, ta, tha etc. The other method is known as the Abjad method or ordinal method. In this method each letter has an arithmetic value assigned to it from one to one thousand. The letters are arranged in the following order: Abjad, Hawwaz, Hutti, Kalaman, Sa'fas, Qarshat, Sakhaz, Zazagh. This arrangement was done, most probably in the 3rd century of Hijrah during the 'Abbasid period, following other Semitic languages such as Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldean etc.
If you take the numeric values of all the letters of the Basmalah, according to the Abjad order, the total will be 786. In the Indian subcontinent the Abjad numerals became quite popular. Some people, mostly in India and Pakistan, use 786 as a substitute for Bismillah. They write this number to avoid writing the name of Allah or the Qur'anic ayah on ordinary papers. This tradition is not from the time of the Prophet -peace be upon him- or his Sahabah. It developed much later, perhaps during the later 'Abbasid period. We do not know of any reputable Imams or Jurists who used this number instead of the Bismillah.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The Fight for a Good dog Barnstar |
For fighting for the right cause. We shall defend our land, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Hafspajen ( talk) 10:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC) |
My recent facebook posts about a "safety" after the first "offensive snap" has resulted in my friends and family asking me who was the person I was snarky with and then later apologised to. No, I'm not making this up. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you got time to fix a couple of errant page moves? We had Goud Saraswat Brahmin but someone moved it to Gaud or Gawd Saraswat Brahmin and then also did something very weird at Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. They've basically ignored COMMONNAME and were probably unaware of how we treat alternate spellings but I don't have the powers to fix it. The situation should be:
While trying to find an article on a particular starfish named "Crown of Thorns" I stumbled across Crown of thorns. The wording of several sections had a strong copyvio smell to me, and then found http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04540b.htm Normally at this point I would go straight to CSD as copyvio. But then I also found https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Crown_of_Thorns which appears to have mostly the same content. So with the copyright problem resolved, it seems like we may be left with WP:V WP:RS WP:POV issues. the 1913 encyclopedia doesn't really have any footnotes or anything, so we are basically saying our content is WP:V to itself, and since its a catholic source, its not going to be the most neutral on anything that could cast doubt on the official line - Its not a huge deal here, we are basically just describing historical-ish legends (The relics section) but it seems odd. I would put good money that there probably a few thousand articles exactly like this (one per entry in the original source) so I cant imagine this hasn't come up before, but I dunno what to do. Seems like any real attempt to clean this up is going to just open up a ginormous can of worms. I think i may go over to my corner and ignore the issue :) Advice? Ideas? Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at a discussion and a username caught my eye (Sportsfan 1234) being quite similar to Sportsfan5000, whom are both probably the same person. But that led me to Benjaminolympique, who posted a series of odd help requests to several user talk pages. I suspect this is a bot of some sorts. Any idea as to what is going on? Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the source cited: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2368023.stm (Even a vice-mayor of the city who visited the scene had to be treated for gas poisoning.)
Spending 10 seconds to use the magic of google, you'll learn it was Valery Shantsev who was there. He's entered the building and 4 hours after the assault reported on the successful operation, but he did not say a word about casualties. Instead he said: "I saw dead terrorists. I myself saw Barayev, an Afghan and an Arab." (there was no Afghan). I guess they treated him just in case (and gave him the antidote).
About the SOBRs, afair they've entered with no gas masks for some reason, through the ground level entries. They then spend time vomiting and fainting after they entered the show room. (Obviously, the FSB did not inform the MVD about the gas.)
If I start re-writing this article, I'll end with what I did with this very related article after just several hundred edits (starting point looked like that, that is was even worse).
I also (more) recently rewrote OMON, who were there too (even if just standing around and scratching their asses). [14] And by this I rewrote my own article, which I've originally write in the 2000s.
This is "productive edits". -- Niemti ( talk) 09:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
What? Let me think. It's important because the "harmless sleeping gas" was, I don't know, a poison? Why didn't you see there's a ref there? It takes 1 second to notice. -- Niemti ( talk) 19:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me what "yelling" had to do with my edits that were so quickly reverted.
I have a physical disability that makes typing very difficult. So it's frustrating to try and improve a wiki page to see it instantaneously reverted when the edit:
I find that sort of instant reversion a violation of what I had thought was the wiki prime directive: assume good faith as well as "improve don't just delete".
So I see a few things:
ONE: Woozle effects as seen in popular culture, Stephen Colbert's Wikiality and Elephant Prank are prime examples.
TWO: Woozle effect used in academic research: Google Scholar has 440 examples of that.
THREE: An AFD that is clearly motivated for 'political' reasons, IE, it's feminist vandalism from a Reddit subreddit
FOUR: My desire to improve the article in a way good for WIki, good for everyone.
BUT YES, I AM ABSOLUTELY TIRED WITH WIKILAWYERS REVERTING EVERY LAST LITTLE THING BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER BE JUDGE AND JURY AND NOT BE COEDITORS.
SO:
You tell me.
Where is the best place to place cultural examples of the woozle effect in the article? Where is the best place to cite its uses in academic papers?
And tell me why anyone would ever want to edit the wikipedia when it's know how swiftly edits are reverted and not first improved? 184.101.115.101 ( talk) 18:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Dagosnavy is an old wiki-friend of mine from wayback, normally one of the milder editors you come across. Hence, I was kind of surprised to see you blocking him for 72 hrs on a first offense. I've known the guy for something like 7 years and I can honestly say I've never seen him behave like that before. After reviewing the talk page history, not exactly his finest moment. I agree with your comments that neither behaved like adults.
We of course both have experience of that particular IP editor, you may recall a previous incarnation [15]. If it were a named account behaving like that, well they'd have been site banned years ago. And from my personal knowledge, he has behaved in exactly the same way for the last 3 years whether you respond civilly or not.
The thing is many editors have a tendency to revert when confronted by a foul mouthed Ip editor and may not examine the edits in the detail they otherwise might have. They simply assume they're a vandal. So at least part of the reaction he engenders is down to his behaviour, not to excuse the response but it does go someway to explaining why Dagosnavy behaved like a WP:DICK. You'll note in the link above, that I more than went out of my way to engage with the guy and the response I got. I rather think its not the way wikipedia treats IP editors (which I agree is often less than optimal), rather the guy behind that IP enjoys abusing editors as being an IP there is no long term sanction.
I do wonder though, if blocking both for 72 hrs is sending the right message. That IP has been blocked something like a dozen times that I'm aware of and that would have led to a long block for a named account for recidivism. A block of a long term productive editor (with a clean block record) on a par with an editor who has a long history of abusive behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Cough, [16], cough. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 08:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The user was blocked because he/she had way too poor Swedish. Really poor. Wonder if this is a reason too block? Hafspajen ( talk) 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I haven't interacted with User:Two kinds of pork for over two months, since we interacted here on your page back then. But since then I made one edit where I added the word "self-reportedly" and it's somehow evidence of undue harassment and conspiratorial "following". I don't mind civil disagreement, but I don't think this calls for veiled threats on my talk page. I recognize that this accusation against me is, of course, the biggest disaster that ever happened to anyone ever, but I thought I should mention the attitude I got for it, just in case I ever appear on the same talk page as him in the future, in three months or so. (And if my thinking's off about this, I trust you to let me know.) Thanks! __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I need the help of a veteran editor like yourself on the industrial/organizational psychology talk page. Iss246 ( talk) 02:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I have made a lot of edits to this article recently. It still needs a lot of work. 90% of these individual edits have not needed discussion and were not controversial. Importantly all discussion on talk has been civil to date, as you can objectively see from the edit history. These are also important topics relating to a specialized area of the psychology profession, i.e. organizational psychology, rather than an article on something abstract or relatively meaningless. I believe we are close to achieving consensus on a final point or two, as you can also see on the talk page. If not, we will need to use the appropriate dispute resolution process, rather than use up space on the talk page. Mrm7171 ( talk) 07:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Keeping a promise to my mentor this week by not making material changes to gun-control articles. In the meantime, I'm reading - and sometimes commenting - on interesting talk pages. One link lead to another and here I am.
Mammals > Cocker Spaniels > English Cocker Spaniels > Gun dogs. Yes. Gun dogs. I grew up around hunters. I used to show dogs (Basenji). I have heard of sporting dogs, hunting dogs, bird dogs, even smell hounds. I'm wondering if the editors of that page have said or will say anything about the Second. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see here, here, here, and here. The account being used is User:HZ100, an obvious sock of User:Hollisz, which is a sock of parent account User:Zimmermanh1997. It might be time for a rangeblock. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
What's the deal in academia nowadays? Am I being a complete numpty at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_reliable_are_the_abstracts_of_journals_compared_to_the_actual_text_of_the_article.3F? Should I be making a distinction between what is acceptable academically and what goes on at WP? - Sitush ( talk) 18:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen (
talk) 18:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on ANI; I created this category as giant does not have a gender neutral version of the world that comes to mind. I also think it's important to notes giantesses are actually more common than giants in fiction. DC and Marvel comic witches have their own category yet wizards do not. I will propose this at the categories for discussion. CensoredScribe ( talk) 23:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Lilith as Karina is mentioned in her article as being a giantess yet Ryulong is reverting this. CensoredScribe ( talk) 01:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Drmies can you tell him to stop? He seems he actually listens to you.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 01:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
CensoredScribe, please take this advice: do not add people, characters, or anything to any category unless you are absolutely sure, based on reliable sources, that they fit in that category. "Mentioned in her article" is just not good enough: you need to be able to prove it. Moreover, it needs to be a defining characteristic in some way. I would imagine that being a giant probably is pretty damn defining, but Ryulong wouldn't revert if he didn't have a reason. Ryulong is kind of like a bulldog: he bites and doesn't let go, and barks all over the frigging place, and you just want to kick him out of your yard, but he's usually not that wrong. And you're still not out of hot water, though Ryulong's 500k of contributions will most likely prevent any action from being taken (it's a well-known ANI boomerang, Ryulong): disruptive activity in categories is disruptive, and is as such blockable. Admins don't need an ANI thread on a topic ban to warn and/or block you for disruption. So PLEASE use common sense and exercise good/better judgment. One more please, to both of you: go discuss things elsewhere, like on an article or category talk page. Drmies ( talk) 01:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I would accept being banned if it stopped Ryulong from editing talk pages and reverting discussions over gender biased category names. I think categories for creation because it needs to be it's own page; categories for discussion still says nothing about creation. CensoredScribe ( talk) 01:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ryuong has been shutting down my attempts to even discuss whether giant should be split into giantesses and giants, articles is one thing, talk pages is another. I'm glad my revision was so quickly noticed; you're right; trying to prove giantesses are more common than giants isn't worth losing the ability to mention some obscure environment saving bacteria, which is non fiction, references and useful to non otaku. CensoredScribe ( talk) 01:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
And this mention of shit storm reminds me that I meant to leave a note for Kelapstick and LadyofShalott: I watched Ice Twisters the other day, and that's all I have to say about that. Drmies ( talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
When he said "I apologize to anyone who has taken offense at that", I assume he was apologizing to Hitler supporters for comparing Obama to him.
He is convincing in one way: it's hard to believe that he is the result of millions of years of evolution. It's scary to think that he holds a national legislative office, and that he serves on the House's science committee. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
"Colossusesses" use is useless. Let us use less. Use "Colossus". __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you close the thread I started on ANI? I think its handled now and doesn't need admin action anymore. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42: My husband has gone to sleep, but I can't. So here I am at midnight writing a response to post on Drmies' talk page because it feels semi-safe to me and I want to get a few things off my chest.
First, though I won't hold my breath, I'd like an apology for the part you played last fall in the stoning I endured on the assault weapons ban talk page re: the word "cosmetic." My sins were these: 1. Having the audacity to suggest that word did not (does not, at least not unqualified) belong in one section of that article. 2. Having the nerve to try and defend such a notion. 3. Having zip, nada, nyet knowledge of Wikipedia policy.
Second, I'd like an end to the comments that sort of support me, but come across more like I'm a bloody threat to The Project and if I don't *slow down* it'll all come crashing down - and soon after civilized society as we know it, too.
Third, the hand-wringing it's-all-out-of-my-hands now comments. It seems to me there are other pro-gun editors who respect you and follow your lead. I think you could lead by example in collaborating with me and editors like me who are simply trying achieve or improve balance in some of the gun-control related articles.
Gun control! Gun control, right? If I went and tried to change the name of the Gun control article right now to Gun violence prevention, I'd have a half-dozen pro-gun editors looking to put my head on a platter, just like in the pictures on Drmies' user page. And a dozen or more standing by to swoop in if things got out of hand. The things is, I could probably make a good argument for it, because the term has become well-used in many sources. But don't worry! Although I think GVP does better express the mission, so to speak, I'm also a trained journalist, and I'd much rather use two words than three.
So, four: How about you and I go over to the "Right to keep and bear arms" article and switch its name/redirect relationship with "Gun rights"? Gun rights is used with much more frequency among sources than "right to keep and bear arms." I know the pro-gun guys prefer the term, but this isn't about them/you, is it? It's about what a preponderance of reliable - and in this case, because it's a controversial subject - verifiable, and high-quality sources use. Also, check out WP:AT policy under Deciding on an article title.
Finally, thank my mentor, StarryGrandma, that I'm the WP editor I am today (and brought that ANI to a swift death). Six months ago, I was "this close" to falling into the trap so many seem to have fallen into here, and she gave me a hand up. If anything good came out of all those weeks of grief, it's that I found that good, good woman who showed me, and keeps showing me, that we're all meant to stay professional here. This post will probably disappoint her, but you really crossed the line today. My cheeks are chapped from the turning. Good night, and may tomorrow be a better day for all of us. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 07:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I've got the feeling that this is (further) crossing the line from "discussion" to "disruptive editing", given WP:DISRUPTSIGNS "Does not engage in consensus building" and WP:NOTGETTINGIT. It just drags on and on, since last summer, despite extensive replies and accommodations by me, and responses from several other editors. His last response to these additions, which he requested: "Why does this article now contain so much of repetition content? The same stuff is present in the lead as well as the section "Roots of Hinduism."" Also, this remark "It would be better for us to discuss the reliability of these Dravidian historians and writers" (emphasis mine) feels tendentious. What do you think? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
GJ sure got me stirred up tonight. Working on categories today is when I found this little gem.
Check out the "G" and "R" pages listed under Category:Gun politics. Gun control? Yes. Gun rights? No. It's Right to keep and bear arms.
The article "Gun rights" was created October 2002. First it was a redirect to "Gun politics." Then (2007) it redirected to "Right to bear arms." Then (May 2008) it redirected to "Right to arms." One month later (June 2008), it redirected to "Right to keep and bear arms" - though that article's history indicates that it was created in January 2012. What the heck happened, I wonder? (Without wading through history at this point, I can't tell.)
This is not Wiki-kosher, is it? A preponderance of sources refer to this political concept as "gun rights." But as I hinted to GJ above, if I show up at that article by myself and boldly change it... Lightbreather ( talk) 09:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course, if someone used their talk page to refer to you (after spending a whole day insulting you) as "an abusive obsessive" you'd be totally cool with it. Odd, I thought you had a clue. Never mind, scratch you from my list. Thanks for your support in the past mind you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw this a few hours ago, and found it vaguely interesting/amusing. I also thought that, given his (very) slight similarity to the review's author as regards the topic, someone you know might find it interesting and/or amusing too. I decided not to mention it on that person's talkpage, since doing so might be inflammatory and such. So I decided to put it in a sealed train (by posting it here) to be conveyed to the right place if appropriate.
The other question is why sealed train is a redlink. Despite what Google thinks, I don't agree that only that one Russian guy travelled on such a train. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Doc, I've protected your talk page. You seem to have drawn the wrath of an IP hopping troll. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I see a COI coming up here:
Or am I just going nuts? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be done? Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Joseph's Medical Center ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You have blocked this users acounts, who were abusing multiple accounts: (Kipper90) and left one to edit, asking noy to go on edit warring, but it still does. [25] Hafspajen ( talk) 19:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 27 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erika Sunnegårdh, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Swedish soprano Erika Sunnegårdh, who has sung at the Metropolitan Opera, said that her voice was "like a wild horse"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erika Sunnegårdh. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you for your contribution to the wiki Victuallers ( talk) 12:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- awesomely weird == ehrfürchtig komisch
- awesomely-weird == ehrfürchtig-seltsam
- awesome-weird == Prima-seltsam / genial-seltsam
- weirdly awesome == unheimlich genial
- cult film == Kultfilm
- cult classic == Kult-Klassikers / Kult-Klassiker
- cult favorite == Kult Lieblings
I don't know if you recall these articles, but I reverted Zomi to Zo after discovering what I thought was copyvio although it turns out the editor had replaced a redirect with material copied from his website. I've been trying to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar)#Zou, Zo, Zomi Kuki with this editor who a major COI. So far I've had no response to the actual issues I've raised although one other editor responded earlier agreeing there's a mess. I can understand if you have no interest, but any comments would be useful. Dougweller ( talk) 12:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Holy moly! Things really exploded after I went to bed. So now I'm fat and an alcoholic? Awesome! The crazy thing is that I actually thought things were winding down and that OP was going to start behaving in an appropriate manner. Wow! SQGibbon ( talk) 17:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear local linguists of high esteem, and unclubbable talkstalks like Yngvadottir, does this modern phrase, the title of yon article, have an etymology which literally translates as "Killer of the Hindus" ... and if so, does this literal translation refer to the dark times when slave-traders would transport humans out of the Indus valley, through said mountains, often resulting in the death of a large percentage of their captives? Long-running battle over the etymology of this phrase, which stretches back to at least 2005, and governs 80% of the talkpage content, has recently come up at the wp:teahouse this week again.
Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war is a good place for commentary, if wikiReliably Sourced... please leave any unreliable comments you may wish to make, here on Friend-of-Moosezilla's user-talkpage, thank you very much. Mayhap the current participants in the article-talkpage discussion Khabboos, AcidSnow, Darkness Shines, and Til Eulenspiegel will wish to be alerted of this new parallel schmooz-fest. And mayhap they'll soon wish they did not so know! ;-) Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. — 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 18:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I was hoping an admin might redact the personally identifiable information someone just posted on my Talk page. This happens to me a lot and I usually ask User:Crisco 1492 for the redaction, but because he hasn't responded to my ping at Talk:ExactTarget#Article title and I saw you were active just last night, I thought you might be able to respond more urgently. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at [1] Editor is going around posting links to his own SPS conspiracy theory site and refering to himself in the 3rd person as if he were a reliable source. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
←Both better looking, and a better singer than Beiber. Although the good doctor has not yet witnessed me singing The Gambler into a wooden spoon, after a few too many dubious – discuss cocktails. -- kelapstick( on the run) 03:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is more personally identifiable information from the latest sock of a well-known banned user. No doubt done on purpose to antagonize me. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
God dam it - this is like wackamole. There is another one here from an editor that should know better, "as old as <insert name>". This is probably partially my fault, for ever telling anyone who I am. Sorry to be such a nag - arrrggghh! CorporateM ( Talk) 22:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Van tarek benali has twice now created a (presumed) autobiography in French, Van tarek benali, which I have now twice deleted A7, the first time in response to a tag. I've left a note on their talk page in (probably bad) French and English, which includes a link to their talk page on the French Wikipedia (where the article was deleted three times and they are now blocked). For non-admin stalkers, their other contributions here include creations of the article in other places - including their user page. Could I get other eyes on this; perhaps I'm being too harsh, perhaps someone can get them to stop with better French, perhaps it needs to be salted, I dunno, but twice from me is probably enough. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment from someone other than the intended recipient I blocked the account. They were spamming their article in user space and overwriting article talk page content; they know full well that self-promotion is not allowed as they were told so very clearly when they were blocked on fr.wikipedia ("ne lit aucun message, et ne vient que pour faire sa publicité"). It's self-promotion of a clearly not notable musician, no matter how intelligent he claims to be or how many musician friends he claims to have. -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 17:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, you posted over two weeks ago that you were "looking at it", which I took at the time to mean that you were reviewing it. Do you still mean to review it soon, or should I call in a new reviewer? (If you will be reviewing it soon, then just post there.) Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, did you know abut this project before today? I didn't. Seems like you have to make nominations on a non-talk-page, right? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, I awarded a WER barnstar to Kelapstick instead. Also, you are invited to comment at WT:EotW on how to recognize under-recognized administrators, if you wish. Thanks for your support of EotW. Go Phightins ! 19:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I know you dont like the gun topic much, which is part of why I am coming to you ( Nixon_goes_to_China). Could you drop in on Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#First_sentence Hipocrite is insisting on removing [3] highly sourced content (high quality neutral sources, no hints of fringe anywhere), and overriding a very recent consensus discussion on what the wording should be, claiming that "Similarly here we should not take sides in an active dispute and state that the second amendment, regardless of current judicial interpretation, factually agrees with one side of an active debate" (When SCOTUS is the supreme authority on what the constitution means, and that meaning has been repeated in many reliable sources) Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |last=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help); External link in |last=
(
help)Drmies, as to your curiosity question, here are a few sources. Our own article (never trust wikipedia!) on Judicial review is a good starting place Judicial_review_in_the_United_States Or SCOTUS's own page (possibly biased as to their own power? ;) [4] Historically there are some interesting questions. The court essentially gave itself this right in Marbury_v._Madison but its been that way for 200 years now, so its pretty settled. short of a revolution or major constitutional amendment it is what it is. However, here is a well writting criticism of the current state, by the Library of Congress which does raise some interesting points [5] also, here is a tea-partyish source making some of the arguments along what I think Anythingyouwant may be thinking of using quotes from the Founders [6] As I stated in my reply above, the argument has some philisophical/historical (and perhaps political) merit, but as a matter of legal practicality it does not. I too would be interested in Newyorkbrads analysis if he thinks it is far enough away from the arbcom dispute. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
ArtifexMayhem Excellent arguments and sources. I do not disagree, but I do not think it materially changes the discussion at hand. The discussion is probably moot as a consensus has been achieved on the article in question but : I entirely agree that there are other mechanisms for constitutional change/interpretation and that the court may only rule on cases that come before it. Perhaps a better way of phrasing the assertion is "When/if SCOTUS rules the Constitution means something, it does mean what they rule." In this case the question of individual self defense rights came before the court. I agree that they did not add the word individual to the constitution, but do you think it is a fact, or merely a pov that the Constitution does at this moment protect an individual self defense right to a handgun (possibly only in the home) (not unlimited, subject to at this time unknown boundaries and possible regulation)? If the latter, do you think the Constitution protects pornography, gay sex, the right to have an attorney present at questioning, desegregated schools, the right of Black people to vote, the right to an abortion (also subject to somewhat ambiguous regulations) etc or are those also just povs/opinions? Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
the evidence window is closed fyi, but I personally dont object to you giving evidence. The window was also extended several times, so you may get leniency there, but I want you to be aware so you dont get spanked unknowingly. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Brief response here, because I am way over my evidence limit already, but I respect your views and would like to respond to clarify.
The "facts" are supported by more than Halbrook etc. Yes you raise a good point about the possibility of error in the NYT, but There is no doubt the laws were passed/decreed. There is no doubt announcements about the confiscation were made (although one should always mistrust the honesty of statements by the Nazis). There is no doubt there are plenty of primary sources (diaries, orders, telegrams) discussing the confiscation. All of these are documented by plenty of Holocaust histories (although admittedly they are mainly mentioned in passing and not making any sort of tyranny argument)
the "fringe" sources are needed for nothing more than their opinions. The only question really is are there opinions notable enough or significant enough for inclusion. (Or at a meta level, is the Godwining controversy notable enough) If so that then addresses your next point about the filter being used to discuss facts - The facts which are made notable by being discussed in secondary sources. (Although halbrook does go into good length actually about the Weimar laws, particularly in his new book). Halbrook is a very notable commentator and author on gun laws. He is quoted repeatedly by the supreme court on gun laws and gun history. (As is Kates, one of the other academic authors)
This is an argument that has been being raised in US gun control debates literally since Hitler was still in power (1941, Edwin Hall, quote at the top of my evidence page) To say it isnt notable or hasnt had an effect on gun control is a tough stretch. Yes, this is an argument made by partisan gun rights sources. But the arguments for gun control are also generally made by partisan gun control sources. Controversial political topics by definition are mainly going to focus on the arguments of partisan sources. It would be a pretty empty article if nobody who had a POV could be quoted. (The argument has also been made to a lesser degree internationally, but I freely admit its most notable in the US by a long shot)
Even if you consider the historical argument completely fringe, its been very notable in the gun control debate, and should be covered at a meta level (which I think the current article state does actually - its not asserting the arguments as truth, its saying that the NRA and others make the argument, and then goes into quite a bit of detail in the counter argument). You can actually source the entire paragraph to sources arguing against the argument, without changing any text imo.
My main complaint against Andy and Goethean are the gaming. Complaining that things arent sourced, and then deleting sources is about as WP:DE as it gets. Deleting content that has been in place in some form since 2003, claiming no consensus, while there are ongoing RFCs is disruptive. Note that some editors such as Scolaire, FirachaByrne etc are also making strong arguments against inclusion, but they are doing so using actual sources, actual discussion not deleting the content and saying "It violates policy, no need to discuss". If I am on the losing end of consensus, I will be dissapointed, but that is the way the wiki works. But everyone deserves a fair process of building consensus. Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI Seraphimblade asked about a comment on the ArbCom workship regarding late evidence. I think the focus of the original complaint/question and therefore the response question would be about Hipocrite putting new diffs into the workship, but since you did make late commentary, you might want to make a brief mention in that thread too. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Now why would anyone take a picture like this - and put it in the lead infobox instead of the picture that is there, in English Cocker Spaniel and Cocker Spaniel; am I the one who is lost here or what? Twice. See messing with mammals Hafspajen ( talk) 04:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Back for the third time, [7] this time an IP, from Honduras, Bird's-eye view is the only place this can be. Hafspajen ( talk) 04:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
These pictures are not as good pictures as the ones removed, so it is the reason why we remove them time to time, but they keep coming back. The author is putting them back all the time. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. Even if I do understand the creator’s feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason, adding pictures that are not up to wikipedia standards. One can not jump into an article and replace the leading picture in this random way. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. We chosed that picture and the new ones arenot at all as good as the lead picture, so leave it alone, please. One can't have a sitting dog in the lead. When you see other editors don't agree with your additions, you must discuss that, but no, he just keep adding the same very bad pictures all the time, even when I explain to him why you should stop doing this and why those pictures are not good enough. And unless you have an extraordinarely wonderful picture that is much much better that the lead picture - the lead picture stays where it is.
FYI - because you were mentioned. No diffs were cited of course. I had to reply to the message on my tp but my policy for a while now has been simply to ignore attacks from people who appear to persistently harbour an antipathy towards all things admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Eric's criticism of the admin system is nuanced enough for my taste, and at any rate Eric knows what it's like to be blocked unjustly (as do I), so I'll have to allow him leeway. Epipelagic does not know that, and for the life of me I don't know what specifically they're pointing at, which content builders are or were hindered by which admins (I certainly wasn't hindering them in this comment. The only two cases that I know of that might fit that bill are Rob and Kiefer, but in both cases they weren't done away with by one admin, or one small group of admins. Personally, I'd like to see both come back. Both were blocked/banned for disruption of various kinds and were judged to be net negatives, I suppose, but I didn't support the site ban for Rob and, for better or for worse, I was not involved in Kiefer's ArbCom case. Or, in other words, whatever. Water off a duck's back. Take it easy Kudpung, Drmies ( talk) 16:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I am having a problem with User:Ryulong and a couple of other editors who object to some of my recent categories. I'll admit some of them could have been divided into two precise categories instead of one vague one, however unlike alternative reproduction artificial wombs in fiction is a common science fiction theme and technology. I realized fairly quickly the categories which had almost no examples or were too subjective. However the value of mythological rapists is being called into question; as if of historical slave owners. I think both are serious concerns; but particularly that Category:Slave owner is being so opposed. I was going to list people other than U.S. presidents; however there are a lot more slave owners than convicted murderers so the list will be gigantic in the end. Thank you for the alert in the past about the notice board, I was unable to edit for a few days which is being called a lie. CensoredScribe ( talk) 07:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That's one of the problems with categories--they suppose that things can be easily categorized and that the labels are meaningful and well-defined. On Facebook, I am apparently a "she"; I must have checked that box when I signed up. So I get ads about weight loss and Rachael Ray on my sidebar. Now, I know what my plumbing is, but what it means, that's an entirely different matter. I drive a Prius, but according to the ads I see when I watch football (Broncos!) I'm probably not much of a man. Drmies ( talk) 03:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I seriously think slave owner will be the largest category and should be, I will go through it listing confederates and nazi camp wardens, scientists and corporations which used nazi slave labor. I'm not sure how many presidents before Lincoln other than Adams did not own slaves; that would have been a good question to have been asked in school. Thank you for being just. CensoredScribe ( talk) 04:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Mythological rape victims is being depopulated; Category:Fictional rape victims and Category:Rape victims should also be created; I believe you should be the creator. I've proposed the slave owner category on the talk page for slavery. To answer your question, I think that corporations such as IBM, Siemens, and Ford that used slave labor should be listed as slave owners. When I proposed the emperor from Star Wars was a slave owner, the argument against this was that he did not personally have slaves around. That would also exclude Hitler from being a slave owner. However owning people from a distance is still owning them, even if you never meet. CensoredScribe ( talk) 23:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.(emphasis original) Even if it is true that Hitler and Emperor Palpatine were slave owners by proxy (and I'm not conceding that they are quite yet), that is not a descriptor that is commonly or consistently applied to either of them, and so they should not be part of a "slave owners" category. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I think one of the most evil and powerful human beings in history owned slaves and that much is obvious. I'm sure someone can provide a reference he selectively freed some people from camps to use them as spies for his genocide, or some other purpose, perhaps some comfort women. There has to be at least one case in recorded history; I'm simply asking what it is. I did post this on a talk page. Maybe he only owned 10 people for a month as he sent them on suicide missions. I also don't believe that the theory Hitler may have raped a particularly attractive Jewish woman has never been proposed by an academic. That seems like at least a question pursued in a book, given Hitlers possible relationship with Wittgenstein has been covered. Though I suppose wikipedia doesn't even mention the sex slaves of Moammar Gadhafi either. Again these are questions for talk pages; not things I would add to an article. I asked whether Hitler counted as a slave owner, I knew George washington counted. Hitler probably did things like that; and clues may exist somewhere; asking if anyone knows where they might be is a legitimate use of a talk page. CensoredScribe ( talk) 03:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Any objection to adding Category:User talk pages with trolling here? Johnuniq ( talk) 10:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes your talk page is not the correct place to be having this conversation; my apologies. I should have just said Hitler owned slaves by proxy; I should not have proposed yet another unsourced Hitler conspiracy theory; even a slightly more plausible one. That would be like listing Hitler as an arsonist for ordering the Reichstag building being caught on fire; a more commonly proposed theory; which is still just a theory. Knowing Ludwig Wittgenstein in grade school would obviously not prove Hitler was a rapist, just that he knew Wittgenstein and that Wittgenstein is probably the Jew of Linz as proposed by Kimberley Cornish in her book. That Hitler knew Wittgenstein which is the only theory I've tried adding to Hitlers page; as it is mentioned on the page for Ludwig Wittgenstein. Clearly there is no evidence Hitler ordered any of those things even once; however Wikipedia does include historical theories and books on them; if Wittgensteins page and The Jew of Linz are any indication. There would need to be a reference obviously; and I doubt any reference suggests Hitler broke his own racist rules like Strom Thurman or raped anyone. However such a reference may exist so asking if anyone has seen it is reasonable if kept to talk pages of the appropriate article. There are plenty of less contested examples of slave owners however; it just seemed bizarre the list of slave owners would include several U.S. presidents but not Hitler. CensoredScribe ( talk) 15:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I just thought of something related to your comment at that AfD about Genesis on the difference between myth and narrative. It occurred to me that there is a real difference, in that a narrative is a particular instantiation of a myth. A token as opposed to a type if that kind of jargon doesn't bother you. For a story to be a narrative it has to be realized in a particular text whereas there may be many tellings of a myth, each one a separate narrative. In the case at hand, the article is about the actual old testament text, and so *must* be called narrative. If there were other incarnations of the story in other texts, and the range of these different narratives of the creation myth became notable enough to have an article about it, we could then sensibly have both Genesis Creation Narrative (about the old testament text) and Genesis Creation Myth (about the many narratives of the myth). With many creation myths there is no existing narrative or else many not especially notable narratives, so would make sense to use the word "myth" in the title rather than narrative. So I guess I'm saying that I don't agree that there's no distinction between narrative and myth, as you argued at the AfD, but we do agree that this article should be kept. Anyway, feel free to ignore this if it doesn't interest you. It's just something I was thinking about.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I tweaked the opening sentences somewhat (and removed some REALLY redundant wikilinks); see what you think. Yes, that AfD is ready for closure, given the flood of keeps. Drmies ( talk) 18:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
this is a funny one: starts yesterday, knows where to find user-icons, starts reprimanding an IP right away. Quick learner! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Drmies, authoritah demands that I notify you, that your talkpage discussion with me above, hath been linked at a noticeboard. Sorry!
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Khabboos
Thanks for improving wikipedia, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 02:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't help it! I'm more at the Corinne-side of the spectrum, I'm afraid. The past few days were great for cathching up some good sense of associative humor from you, Hafspajen and 74. See the loooong story. Anyway, the "friends" may as well be Blades, and not Superman. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
As you will probably recall, the name of Soccer in Australia is a controversial issue. I have probably been the editor most strongly defending the consensus established, and then repeated twice more in the past two years, to use that name. This has involved repeatedly pointing out the flaws in the arguments of those wanting to change it, and reverting the changes that often happen several times a day, against that consensus, in many articles.
While I lay no claim to owning the article, I have put in a lot of effort to defend that consensus, the kind of activity I regard as important in Wikipedia.
Right now we have a brand new section created with this edit.
Now, I have a huge amount to contribute to that topic. The editor involved, who only recently began to "care" about this particular article, knows that. The IBAN effectively tells me to not respond. I seriously question that editor's motives. He has offered no new evidence, apart from a claimed vote count. I believe that creating the thread is a deliberately confrontational act, possibly trying to bait me. He's certainly not going out of his way to make peace.
Where do I go from here? Should I start my own thread on a similar topic? (Slightly mischievous suggestion.) HiLo48 ( talk) 05:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yak yak yak yak yak yak ... some talk, Ents do. NE Ent 21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Can something please be done to bring that AN/I discussion to a close, one way or another? It's reaching the stage where editors who don't like me are starting to post unsubstantiated claims about me again. And the thread is not really supposed to be about me. Pete is now running a farewell thread back at the Talk:Soccer in Australia page, continuing to argue against my position with "facts" I believe I have repeatedly shown to be wrong. I don't think any of this helps Wikipedia. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, in
this discussion, I was surprised when you said: "Support. 172's arguments would be valid if there were actual content in the article: there isn't." Apparently the bulk of that article's
content got trashed misplaced, but has since been restored, and
this additional material added. You may want to look at the rest of the article and re-evaluate your merge position. I appreciate your candid remarks over at the AfD. Thank you.
172.129.34.141 (
talk) 20:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I find a note on my talk page from User:NE Ent, asking that I remove a contribution on one page because I haven't edited a different page. Odd.
Looking further, I find the source is here on this page, so I'm copying my note to NE Ent here. Talk amongst yourselves, please.
Thanks for your note, but I think you're looking at the wrong page history. My contributions here have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.
This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote here. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,
Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. -- Pete ( talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If you or any of your page talk stalkers want to look at this lovely article, please do. I came across it because I was looking at the contributions of an account that is problematic. That user made only a minor edit to the article, and I wasn't even concerned about that, but the article itself was amazing. It had no footnotes, only two external links, one to IMDb and the other to an "unofficial" site (the site of a 28-year-old who is obsessed with the actress). Nonetheless the article was both horribly written and had some rather astounding claims:
Nothing, of course, is susbtantiated. In any event, I gutted the article, but it's been restored by the other account with a warning on my talk page about vandalism (since removed by me). I'm not touching the article again because I don't want someone to claim I'm WP:INVOLVED. Of course some people may understandably believe that I shouldn't have slashed it, and that's fine. Anyone who looks at the article can do whatever they deem is appropriate. Looking at her IMDb page, it sounds like she's sufficiently notable to have an article here. It just needs to be written by someone other than a fan or fans. Considering that she's been dead for over 20 years, it's unlikely there will be a lot on the web, but I haven't checked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, I am concerned once more. Mrm7171 has again launched destructive edits. You can see the recent activity on the talk page of the journal Work & Stress and the talk page of industrial and organizational psychology. Iss246 ( talk) 04:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this diff, I can't help but feel that the message has not been appreciated. Looking at WP:IBAN, we see, "For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to … make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;"
That discussion with a third party looks to me to be about as direct a reference as you can get.
Apart from the specified exceptions listed immediately following. I am now making use of one of those exceptions to ask you to issue a gentle reminder, if I may presume upon your goodwill once more. -- Pete ( talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, if you have time, would you look at Menstrual synchrony. There is an IP who does not understand the meanings of "methodical" and "methodological". I have already reverted 3 times, and although I think it falls under a 3rr exception, I'm not going to revert again [11], but the changes as they stand are ridiculous, so maybe a third party can explain it to the IP better than me. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 23:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
"Methodical flaws" is possible, I suppose, but it's awfully strange and doesn't fit the bill here. Drmies ( talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why did you think that "88" was an unfortunate name? It makes me think of the piano. Something to do with German artillery in WW II? As I said, just curious. BMK ( talk) 04:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Be careful, once your family gets the musical theatre bug, it may never go away. BMK ( talk) 21:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The 88 thing is very common in the neoNazi movement. 786 seems less controversial, seems to be the equivalent of some Jews/Christians using G-d instead of spelling out God, or saying "The lord" instead of YHWH etc. (stolen from the internet, unreliable, possibly wrong, but seems likely to me)
"786" is the total value of the letters of "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim". In Arabic there are two methods of arranging letters. One method is the most common method known as the alphabetical method. Here we begin with Alif, ba, ta, tha etc. The other method is known as the Abjad method or ordinal method. In this method each letter has an arithmetic value assigned to it from one to one thousand. The letters are arranged in the following order: Abjad, Hawwaz, Hutti, Kalaman, Sa'fas, Qarshat, Sakhaz, Zazagh. This arrangement was done, most probably in the 3rd century of Hijrah during the 'Abbasid period, following other Semitic languages such as Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldean etc.
If you take the numeric values of all the letters of the Basmalah, according to the Abjad order, the total will be 786. In the Indian subcontinent the Abjad numerals became quite popular. Some people, mostly in India and Pakistan, use 786 as a substitute for Bismillah. They write this number to avoid writing the name of Allah or the Qur'anic ayah on ordinary papers. This tradition is not from the time of the Prophet -peace be upon him- or his Sahabah. It developed much later, perhaps during the later 'Abbasid period. We do not know of any reputable Imams or Jurists who used this number instead of the Bismillah.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The Fight for a Good dog Barnstar |
For fighting for the right cause. We shall defend our land, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Hafspajen ( talk) 10:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC) |
My recent facebook posts about a "safety" after the first "offensive snap" has resulted in my friends and family asking me who was the person I was snarky with and then later apologised to. No, I'm not making this up. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you got time to fix a couple of errant page moves? We had Goud Saraswat Brahmin but someone moved it to Gaud or Gawd Saraswat Brahmin and then also did something very weird at Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. They've basically ignored COMMONNAME and were probably unaware of how we treat alternate spellings but I don't have the powers to fix it. The situation should be:
While trying to find an article on a particular starfish named "Crown of Thorns" I stumbled across Crown of thorns. The wording of several sections had a strong copyvio smell to me, and then found http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04540b.htm Normally at this point I would go straight to CSD as copyvio. But then I also found https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Crown_of_Thorns which appears to have mostly the same content. So with the copyright problem resolved, it seems like we may be left with WP:V WP:RS WP:POV issues. the 1913 encyclopedia doesn't really have any footnotes or anything, so we are basically saying our content is WP:V to itself, and since its a catholic source, its not going to be the most neutral on anything that could cast doubt on the official line - Its not a huge deal here, we are basically just describing historical-ish legends (The relics section) but it seems odd. I would put good money that there probably a few thousand articles exactly like this (one per entry in the original source) so I cant imagine this hasn't come up before, but I dunno what to do. Seems like any real attempt to clean this up is going to just open up a ginormous can of worms. I think i may go over to my corner and ignore the issue :) Advice? Ideas? Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at a discussion and a username caught my eye (Sportsfan 1234) being quite similar to Sportsfan5000, whom are both probably the same person. But that led me to Benjaminolympique, who posted a series of odd help requests to several user talk pages. I suspect this is a bot of some sorts. Any idea as to what is going on? Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the source cited: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2368023.stm (Even a vice-mayor of the city who visited the scene had to be treated for gas poisoning.)
Spending 10 seconds to use the magic of google, you'll learn it was Valery Shantsev who was there. He's entered the building and 4 hours after the assault reported on the successful operation, but he did not say a word about casualties. Instead he said: "I saw dead terrorists. I myself saw Barayev, an Afghan and an Arab." (there was no Afghan). I guess they treated him just in case (and gave him the antidote).
About the SOBRs, afair they've entered with no gas masks for some reason, through the ground level entries. They then spend time vomiting and fainting after they entered the show room. (Obviously, the FSB did not inform the MVD about the gas.)
If I start re-writing this article, I'll end with what I did with this very related article after just several hundred edits (starting point looked like that, that is was even worse).
I also (more) recently rewrote OMON, who were there too (even if just standing around and scratching their asses). [14] And by this I rewrote my own article, which I've originally write in the 2000s.
This is "productive edits". -- Niemti ( talk) 09:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
What? Let me think. It's important because the "harmless sleeping gas" was, I don't know, a poison? Why didn't you see there's a ref there? It takes 1 second to notice. -- Niemti ( talk) 19:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me what "yelling" had to do with my edits that were so quickly reverted.
I have a physical disability that makes typing very difficult. So it's frustrating to try and improve a wiki page to see it instantaneously reverted when the edit:
I find that sort of instant reversion a violation of what I had thought was the wiki prime directive: assume good faith as well as "improve don't just delete".
So I see a few things:
ONE: Woozle effects as seen in popular culture, Stephen Colbert's Wikiality and Elephant Prank are prime examples.
TWO: Woozle effect used in academic research: Google Scholar has 440 examples of that.
THREE: An AFD that is clearly motivated for 'political' reasons, IE, it's feminist vandalism from a Reddit subreddit
FOUR: My desire to improve the article in a way good for WIki, good for everyone.
BUT YES, I AM ABSOLUTELY TIRED WITH WIKILAWYERS REVERTING EVERY LAST LITTLE THING BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER BE JUDGE AND JURY AND NOT BE COEDITORS.
SO:
You tell me.
Where is the best place to place cultural examples of the woozle effect in the article? Where is the best place to cite its uses in academic papers?
And tell me why anyone would ever want to edit the wikipedia when it's know how swiftly edits are reverted and not first improved? 184.101.115.101 ( talk) 18:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Dagosnavy is an old wiki-friend of mine from wayback, normally one of the milder editors you come across. Hence, I was kind of surprised to see you blocking him for 72 hrs on a first offense. I've known the guy for something like 7 years and I can honestly say I've never seen him behave like that before. After reviewing the talk page history, not exactly his finest moment. I agree with your comments that neither behaved like adults.
We of course both have experience of that particular IP editor, you may recall a previous incarnation [15]. If it were a named account behaving like that, well they'd have been site banned years ago. And from my personal knowledge, he has behaved in exactly the same way for the last 3 years whether you respond civilly or not.
The thing is many editors have a tendency to revert when confronted by a foul mouthed Ip editor and may not examine the edits in the detail they otherwise might have. They simply assume they're a vandal. So at least part of the reaction he engenders is down to his behaviour, not to excuse the response but it does go someway to explaining why Dagosnavy behaved like a WP:DICK. You'll note in the link above, that I more than went out of my way to engage with the guy and the response I got. I rather think its not the way wikipedia treats IP editors (which I agree is often less than optimal), rather the guy behind that IP enjoys abusing editors as being an IP there is no long term sanction.
I do wonder though, if blocking both for 72 hrs is sending the right message. That IP has been blocked something like a dozen times that I'm aware of and that would have led to a long block for a named account for recidivism. A block of a long term productive editor (with a clean block record) on a par with an editor who has a long history of abusive behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Cough, [16], cough. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 08:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The user was blocked because he/she had way too poor Swedish. Really poor. Wonder if this is a reason too block? Hafspajen ( talk) 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I haven't interacted with User:Two kinds of pork for over two months, since we interacted here on your page back then. But since then I made one edit where I added the word "self-reportedly" and it's somehow evidence of undue harassment and conspiratorial "following". I don't mind civil disagreement, but I don't think this calls for veiled threats on my talk page. I recognize that this accusation against me is, of course, the biggest disaster that ever happened to anyone ever, but I thought I should mention the attitude I got for it, just in case I ever appear on the same talk page as him in the future, in three months or so. (And if my thinking's off about this, I trust you to let me know.) Thanks! __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I need the help of a veteran editor like yourself on the industrial/organizational psychology talk page. Iss246 ( talk) 02:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I have made a lot of edits to this article recently. It still needs a lot of work. 90% of these individual edits have not needed discussion and were not controversial. Importantly all discussion on talk has been civil to date, as you can objectively see from the edit history. These are also important topics relating to a specialized area of the psychology profession, i.e. organizational psychology, rather than an article on something abstract or relatively meaningless. I believe we are close to achieving consensus on a final point or two, as you can also see on the talk page. If not, we will need to use the appropriate dispute resolution process, rather than use up space on the talk page. Mrm7171 ( talk) 07:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Keeping a promise to my mentor this week by not making material changes to gun-control articles. In the meantime, I'm reading - and sometimes commenting - on interesting talk pages. One link lead to another and here I am.
Mammals > Cocker Spaniels > English Cocker Spaniels > Gun dogs. Yes. Gun dogs. I grew up around hunters. I used to show dogs (Basenji). I have heard of sporting dogs, hunting dogs, bird dogs, even smell hounds. I'm wondering if the editors of that page have said or will say anything about the Second. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see here, here, here, and here. The account being used is User:HZ100, an obvious sock of User:Hollisz, which is a sock of parent account User:Zimmermanh1997. It might be time for a rangeblock. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
What's the deal in academia nowadays? Am I being a complete numpty at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_reliable_are_the_abstracts_of_journals_compared_to_the_actual_text_of_the_article.3F? Should I be making a distinction between what is acceptable academically and what goes on at WP? - Sitush ( talk) 18:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen (
talk) 18:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on ANI; I created this category as giant does not have a gender neutral version of the world that comes to mind. I also think it's important to notes giantesses are actually more common than giants in fiction. DC and Marvel comic witches have their own category yet wizards do not. I will propose this at the categories for discussion. CensoredScribe ( talk) 23:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Lilith as Karina is mentioned in her article as being a giantess yet Ryulong is reverting this. CensoredScribe ( talk) 01:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Drmies can you tell him to stop? He seems he actually listens to you.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 01:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
CensoredScribe, please take this advice: do not add people, characters, or anything to any category unless you are absolutely sure, based on reliable sources, that they fit in that category. "Mentioned in her article" is just not good enough: you need to be able to prove it. Moreover, it needs to be a defining characteristic in some way. I would imagine that being a giant probably is pretty damn defining, but Ryulong wouldn't revert if he didn't have a reason. Ryulong is kind of like a bulldog: he bites and doesn't let go, and barks all over the frigging place, and you just want to kick him out of your yard, but he's usually not that wrong. And you're still not out of hot water, though Ryulong's 500k of contributions will most likely prevent any action from being taken (it's a well-known ANI boomerang, Ryulong): disruptive activity in categories is disruptive, and is as such blockable. Admins don't need an ANI thread on a topic ban to warn and/or block you for disruption. So PLEASE use common sense and exercise good/better judgment. One more please, to both of you: go discuss things elsewhere, like on an article or category talk page. Drmies ( talk) 01:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I would accept being banned if it stopped Ryulong from editing talk pages and reverting discussions over gender biased category names. I think categories for creation because it needs to be it's own page; categories for discussion still says nothing about creation. CensoredScribe ( talk) 01:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ryuong has been shutting down my attempts to even discuss whether giant should be split into giantesses and giants, articles is one thing, talk pages is another. I'm glad my revision was so quickly noticed; you're right; trying to prove giantesses are more common than giants isn't worth losing the ability to mention some obscure environment saving bacteria, which is non fiction, references and useful to non otaku. CensoredScribe ( talk) 01:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
And this mention of shit storm reminds me that I meant to leave a note for Kelapstick and LadyofShalott: I watched Ice Twisters the other day, and that's all I have to say about that. Drmies ( talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
When he said "I apologize to anyone who has taken offense at that", I assume he was apologizing to Hitler supporters for comparing Obama to him.
He is convincing in one way: it's hard to believe that he is the result of millions of years of evolution. It's scary to think that he holds a national legislative office, and that he serves on the House's science committee. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
"Colossusesses" use is useless. Let us use less. Use "Colossus". __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you close the thread I started on ANI? I think its handled now and doesn't need admin action anymore. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42: My husband has gone to sleep, but I can't. So here I am at midnight writing a response to post on Drmies' talk page because it feels semi-safe to me and I want to get a few things off my chest.
First, though I won't hold my breath, I'd like an apology for the part you played last fall in the stoning I endured on the assault weapons ban talk page re: the word "cosmetic." My sins were these: 1. Having the audacity to suggest that word did not (does not, at least not unqualified) belong in one section of that article. 2. Having the nerve to try and defend such a notion. 3. Having zip, nada, nyet knowledge of Wikipedia policy.
Second, I'd like an end to the comments that sort of support me, but come across more like I'm a bloody threat to The Project and if I don't *slow down* it'll all come crashing down - and soon after civilized society as we know it, too.
Third, the hand-wringing it's-all-out-of-my-hands now comments. It seems to me there are other pro-gun editors who respect you and follow your lead. I think you could lead by example in collaborating with me and editors like me who are simply trying achieve or improve balance in some of the gun-control related articles.
Gun control! Gun control, right? If I went and tried to change the name of the Gun control article right now to Gun violence prevention, I'd have a half-dozen pro-gun editors looking to put my head on a platter, just like in the pictures on Drmies' user page. And a dozen or more standing by to swoop in if things got out of hand. The things is, I could probably make a good argument for it, because the term has become well-used in many sources. But don't worry! Although I think GVP does better express the mission, so to speak, I'm also a trained journalist, and I'd much rather use two words than three.
So, four: How about you and I go over to the "Right to keep and bear arms" article and switch its name/redirect relationship with "Gun rights"? Gun rights is used with much more frequency among sources than "right to keep and bear arms." I know the pro-gun guys prefer the term, but this isn't about them/you, is it? It's about what a preponderance of reliable - and in this case, because it's a controversial subject - verifiable, and high-quality sources use. Also, check out WP:AT policy under Deciding on an article title.
Finally, thank my mentor, StarryGrandma, that I'm the WP editor I am today (and brought that ANI to a swift death). Six months ago, I was "this close" to falling into the trap so many seem to have fallen into here, and she gave me a hand up. If anything good came out of all those weeks of grief, it's that I found that good, good woman who showed me, and keeps showing me, that we're all meant to stay professional here. This post will probably disappoint her, but you really crossed the line today. My cheeks are chapped from the turning. Good night, and may tomorrow be a better day for all of us. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 07:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. I've got the feeling that this is (further) crossing the line from "discussion" to "disruptive editing", given WP:DISRUPTSIGNS "Does not engage in consensus building" and WP:NOTGETTINGIT. It just drags on and on, since last summer, despite extensive replies and accommodations by me, and responses from several other editors. His last response to these additions, which he requested: "Why does this article now contain so much of repetition content? The same stuff is present in the lead as well as the section "Roots of Hinduism."" Also, this remark "It would be better for us to discuss the reliability of these Dravidian historians and writers" (emphasis mine) feels tendentious. What do you think? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
GJ sure got me stirred up tonight. Working on categories today is when I found this little gem.
Check out the "G" and "R" pages listed under Category:Gun politics. Gun control? Yes. Gun rights? No. It's Right to keep and bear arms.
The article "Gun rights" was created October 2002. First it was a redirect to "Gun politics." Then (2007) it redirected to "Right to bear arms." Then (May 2008) it redirected to "Right to arms." One month later (June 2008), it redirected to "Right to keep and bear arms" - though that article's history indicates that it was created in January 2012. What the heck happened, I wonder? (Without wading through history at this point, I can't tell.)
This is not Wiki-kosher, is it? A preponderance of sources refer to this political concept as "gun rights." But as I hinted to GJ above, if I show up at that article by myself and boldly change it... Lightbreather ( talk) 09:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course, if someone used their talk page to refer to you (after spending a whole day insulting you) as "an abusive obsessive" you'd be totally cool with it. Odd, I thought you had a clue. Never mind, scratch you from my list. Thanks for your support in the past mind you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw this a few hours ago, and found it vaguely interesting/amusing. I also thought that, given his (very) slight similarity to the review's author as regards the topic, someone you know might find it interesting and/or amusing too. I decided not to mention it on that person's talkpage, since doing so might be inflammatory and such. So I decided to put it in a sealed train (by posting it here) to be conveyed to the right place if appropriate.
The other question is why sealed train is a redlink. Despite what Google thinks, I don't agree that only that one Russian guy travelled on such a train. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Doc, I've protected your talk page. You seem to have drawn the wrath of an IP hopping troll. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I see a COI coming up here:
Or am I just going nuts? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be done? Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Joseph's Medical Center ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You have blocked this users acounts, who were abusing multiple accounts: (Kipper90) and left one to edit, asking noy to go on edit warring, but it still does. [25] Hafspajen ( talk) 19:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)