You know, Gerda, that picture you chose out of a giant collection ... a real good choice it was. I almost think .. feathured picture? Well, why not. Hafspajen (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, flattered ;) - I guess it should appear in more articles than one, no? My only experience with FP was not so good: my suggestion (top here) was not considered because of its photographer, - well, look at the links in the world ;) - with the help of a friend I managed even Hebrew, possible the single edit I am most proud of! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after reading, in an ANI thread about me, that "I did not bring [Drmies] here because he's an antisemite or because he's a Nazi", I think someone is telling me that I am. That's not a nice thing to hear. Hey, Bongo! Nice to see you again. What's been going on? I started a stub on an architect the other day, and it brought back all kinds of memories: one of the sources is a Dutch architectural website called ArchiNed, and when I searched that word to see if we had an article, or how to capitalize it, I saw a whole bunch of articles CoM and I wrote up in the good old days. So I'm a bit mixed up, I suppose. Well, I don't think we have a Department for Experimental Topo-charcuterie, but I'll give this a try. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My friend has been using a water circulator bath to slow cook his butt. They sell devices for $150 that turns any pot into a extremely low temperature slow cooker.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is a talk page dedicated to the liberal arts. We don't do car parts here--that's the domain of Scalhotrod, who'll be glad to talk about manifolds until the sun goes down one final time. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that petrol I smell? How can I be of service? :) BTW, I am also a devotee of the Big Green Egg and routinely apply the "low and slow" treatment to various cuts... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for someone to bring on the bacon donuts. That Green Egg, I've heard a lot of good things about it, but I also read its price tag, so that's a no. (Liberal arts talk page, liberal arts paycheck.) Until Green Egg hires me to rewrite their article, of course--I suppose CorporateM has them in their Rolodex. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, find your local or closest "EggFest", the annual gathering of Eggers and all things relatedly delicious. BGE usually sponsors these events and ships several pallets of Eggs to the venue which are then available for sale (usually pre-sale before the event and picked up at the end) as "demo/display units" at a deep discount. Shooosh, don't tell anyone else... :)
Floral peace. The Old man's beard or Traveller's Joy, or, as we call them, Nielä are in bloom here now, and we (that is mostly the old fogeys among us, if I'm not mistaken) also used to smoke its hollow dried stems, as kids pretending to be adults, in the woods. Though it would make me cough incessantly, I'd smoke that peace pipe right now, right here. ---Sluzzelintalk23:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Drmies, I saw the drahmah that has been inflicted upon you the last few days, and I want very much to offer you my sympathy and best wishes. It should never have happened to you. It's a pity that this kind of stuff crops up so often at this website. To quote the great philosopher Taylor Swift, shake it off. Anyway, I hope you are doing well. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No good deed goes unpunished, Tryptofish, and so you and some others there will probably suffer for your good deeds as well--really, I saw your comments and I appreciate it, as well as the note here. See, if they had left me a note saying hey, what about this? we could have had a conversation, but all this huffing and puffing, with a templated warning and some thinly veiled accusations--yeah, it's not good for the soul. Anyway, it's over for now, and I think common sense has prevailed on the talk page. The article has been moved back by some people who know what they're talking about, and some others came by and fixed syntax and language, so it's all good (I admit it's hard for me sometimes to write good English when I'm reading Dutch sources). And to be accused of having some right-wing agenda... I wrote Oud-Strijders Legioen the other day, inspired by this mess, and when those planes flew over I was down below, and have despised them and their right-wing ilk ever since. Sorry, I'm waxing prosaic. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Time to behave badly towards Drmies: the OSL did not have members as it was a foundation, not a society or association. So it were supporters. Prosper Ego was never really in action in the Dutch Indies as he was a pencil pusher. Unfortunately, I passed on my archives when I moved country. The Bannertalk00:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Banner, good point--guess I never thought about that. So please propose a different word (well, don't propose, just stick it in there and then I'll see you on ANI, haha)--but how else does on translate dat ze 14.000 leden hadden? As for the pencil-pushing, you'll note that I wrote "served"--I am well aware of his, you know, Rambo-ish lifestyle. So--you left twenty-plus jaargangen of Sta-Vast behind? What a loss! (And, Banner, thanks for moving that article back. It's good to not be alone.) Drmies (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, no. I did not leave does magazines behind. I handed over my archives to the anti-fascistic research group Kafka. Errrr, was happy enough that they did not ask question how some of the info was obtained. My grandfather was in the (non-military) resistance and I followed his lead, updated to the changed times. (A distant cousin earned the Military William Order at the Grebbeberg. He urges his men to stand firm and not retreat. He is still there.)The Bannertalk00:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OSL presented itself as an association but were in fact three foundations. So the "members" could be supporters or just subscribers of the magazine. The Bannertalk00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Haha. Maybe this is a good time to disclose to you that I was in the KZA and the MKA! Your archives, Xanthomelanoussprog and I could have used them for Hembrug (which is around the corner from where I grew up--in fact, you can sort of see my house in that aerial photograph). So--does "organization" need to be changed to "foundation"? Please correct the article. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a rough translation of the Ego article (offline)- just want to go through it again to make sure I've not done anything too egregious. The original Dutch article introduces Ego as an old soldier, but then fails to substantiate that. It claims that he was not involved in "police" actions but was doing journalism (??) DYK that the Japanese did joint military actions with the British in Indonesia at the end of WW2? And the last German campaign medal of WW2 was issued by permission of the British military, who made sure there wasn't a swastika on it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Banner said, he was a pencil pusher. I saw that in one of the sources, can't remember which one--it may have been the Kafka source. Now, I don't know if Banner was joking about having bequeathed his archives to Kafka (the Dutch have a weird sense of humor), but Kafka's POV is to be considered. That is, if they say he never saw action, I'm sure they'd find that amusing given the posturing of the OSL. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Of course Randykitty, the original drive-by tagger, had to go and deface it... That photo, BTW, is priceless. I imagine him yelling at The Banner--Banner is sixteen, and they ran into each other at a 1 May manifestation in Beverwijk. Ego is trying to get into the supermarket to pick up some butter since Mrs. Ego is in the mood (for stewed eel! sheesh!), and there's Banner, with his little table selling his little buttons, and his little red book is sticking out of the pocket of his German Army jacket full of peace signs and "Kernenergie? Nee bedankt!" stickers. And Banner sees who he is dealing with: a middle-aged white man, representing all that he hates about his country (looks a lot like his father, probably). If he can sway this man, this one man, then the war is won, and we'll leave NATO, and there will be happiness and equality in South Africa, and Marxism will take over all of Asia and Nixon will simply wink and let them, and no teacher will ever write up another student for smoking pot during lunch hour, and everyone will realize that Yes's Fragile indeed holds the key to the universe...all that and more.
But Ego will have none of it. Here's some long-haired boy who should be in school. He doesn't smell so good either, though there's an exotic aroma that reminds him of long ago, of 1949. And this boy (half a head taller than him, but still) starts talking about fairness and nuclear cruise missiles and some black people in an arid part of the world who apparently have rights too and he probably doesn't change shirts more often than once a week. And he looks at him and does not see himself, just a predator out to get his daughter, a leech sucking up his hard-earned money by way of a repressive tax system that taxes those like him, those who have worked so hard to make some more money than the neighbors. He probably spells everything in some weird new way either, with those hard k's and sloppy sj's. Probably studies sosjologie at the Pedagogiese Akademie, in Esperanto. And this child is telling him he's been wrong all his life, that he's a mass murderer like Jan Pietersz. Coen, that he is personally responsible for the death of little children in factories in Bangladesh because he shops at C&A? NO! And I'll tell you something else, you stinking little Communist rat, ... !
(edit conflict)XANTYY!! Thanks... you would love the painting Crisco just nominated. A Dutch king. Good looking too... Is there any page with the exception of AIV - Vandalism, where one is running into so many edit conflicts, may I ask....? GOSH; XANTY, you really did translated it, gugh. Hafspajen (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was Ego who got fined, the actual writers were former DS'70 MP Hendrik Pors and P. Hermans [1]. Herben joined the OSL much later. Dutch werkschuw, langharig tuig AKA Cattivi (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more clean up and added some secondary sources. I'll add more as time allows. Please have a look and modify as needed. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the article again, as was the issue prior turning to mediation, a single user constantly reverted ALL changes he or she doesn't approve of. (Sometimes I suspect in bad faith, for the user would revert really simply changes like the deletion of a bad link) -- xcuref1endx (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you know my real name, then you'd see that your edit summary is quite hilarious. I'll give you a hint: M I SHIT. No worries! And I won't tell you to get an Android--friends don't do that to friends. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, regarding this thread, you can use this tool to check contribs for any given range. Specifically, this is the range contribs analysis for 142.150.48.0/24 from January of this year to current. It does indeed look like it could be range blocked again from what I'm seeing. That analysis can help you hunt down edits you didn't know about and find socks.
I've went ahead and hardblocked this range for one year. Any named accounts caught behind that block need to be scrutinized as potential socks if they appeal the block. — Berean Hunter(talk)21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Berean Hunter, I'm about to go track down all these particulars, but I already wanted to say thank you for your work. I really appreciate it, and I hope we can use this to stem that tide of useless edits. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me expand Razor Tag please? Obviously, it needs more expansion and verification with plenty of resources. I'll be glad to also help you out in any way I can, if you ever need me for anything (just simply leave a message on my talk page, but be respectful and polite when you do so). Thanks. Skylar3214 3:54, 8 September 2014
Sorry. Are you there? I have no answer from you, Drmies. Skylar3214 11:57, 18 September 2014
Hmm, well, yes, it's correct, but this is an odd editorial history, so yes, I'd probably ask them, which is also very nice of you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider fully protecting their talk page for a few days, possibly as an alternative to revocation of talk page access? Perhaps if everyone has a few days to regain a sense of perspective we might be able to make some progress, but I don't think it would be proper for the action to come from the blocking admin. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, given that their talk page is turning into a bit of forum for others as well, that's not a bad option. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you believe that there was no article for Jan Cremer? Via the new article on Prosper Ego (is that a real name, sounds like a character from a bad novel) I landed at your OSL article. Hadn't thought about that group for years. Back when, I knew somebody who was a member of that group. Creepy.
No sooner do I unwatch this page (too busy, clutters my watchlist; and I almost never go to ANI) and the shit hits the fan, so saw this only just now. Hope things have calmed down now. Being accused of antisemitism would make me go ballistic, too. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! Man, he was goodlooking. I think he made waves in the US as well. Yes, things are quieter now, fortunately, with the help of some cool-headed people. And yes, that's some name, isn't it--The Banner is also on the case; I understand he occupied an honorary position on the OSL's hitlist (speaking metaphorically, of course). Banner en ik waren waarschijnlijk allebei langharig werkschuw tuig. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a coincidence: just the other day I tried to explain to my wife what "langharig werkschuw tuig" means, but the best I could come up with was "long-haired work-shy hooligans", but that doesn't really capture it :-) Cremer made waves in the US too, I think you're right. But I'm a bit short on time and will leave it for someone else to expand. --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think user:Abdurrahman Muslim is probably not going to change their ways and I strongly believe they are wrong and will be unable to provide sources to back their point, but they do make a specific request "someone made reference in this article to the declining moral standards of the people of Brighton and Hove", which precludes it from being a forum post. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you should censor them. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Drmies hadn't reverted, I would have. The editor is free to make no-way-that's-going-to-happen requests without the frothing at the mouth ranting. --NeilNtalk to me19:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CombatWombat, thank you for not reverting again. No one will be able to prove anything about "declining moral standards" since it's not a measurable quantity: that user is simply trolling, pretending to be some hardcore Muslim when they're really either a drunk skinhead or a dumb high-schooler, or both. Hope I didn't break the BLP here, but the trolling was just obvious, and if you want to call my removal of that post "censorship", well, then, I, I don't know. Thank you NeilN. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Urk, I tried to send you email, but it was returned: "Message rejected as spam by Content Filtering." Do you have a way to add me to a white list? Or can you send me an alternate email address to send it to? MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness. Yes, our spam filter has been...."acting up". Conversely, our emails have been blocked by many other providers. Do you still have the same email address? I'll ask around tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kind sir, that domain was indeed blocked for a while so emails didn't arrive, and I was unable to send email to addresses in it. Like, you know, my mom! Anyway, the problem was supposed to have been fixed a week or two ago--when was this? Drmies (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, and friendly talk page stalkers. After five plus years on this site, I have finally summoned the courage to make some relatively minor (but I believe useful) stylistic changes to the lead of a truly important article, Abraham Lincoln. I am asking anyone who reads this page to review my work, and to make additional improvements if warranted. Feel free to revert any inadvertant foolishness. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that one edit. Man, I don't know: this is for the scholars. I think that Rjensen has a point: that the evidence for your version is harder to come by, unless you strike lucky and hit upon the scholar saying it. So I think it's a matter for TP discussion, unless you have the proper source. Personally, but I'm an amateur (living where I live, hehe), I think you are right--but I'd be as hesitant about that edit as you have been, apparently. Look, you're a good guy, Rjensen is a good person, it's an important point: I have no doubt you all can exemplify that wonderful and by now outdated American habit of public discussion, well-informed on both sides and with mutual respect. Which reminds me: midterm elections are coming up, and I can't help but wonder what it would be like to have the right to vote, even though I know this political system is a sham in so many ways. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ink cartridges, for inkjet printer- at least in Flemish. Could almost be inked set- the inked referring to people with tattoos. There's various famous examples of writing with diamond on window panes- a form of posh graffiti. The present form is known as "scratchiti"- scratching on train windows. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Så VERY gärna. May I now call people I don't like "Asshole", and give the adress of this page - since Dr Mies said so .. or ? Oh, well, probably not ... sorry to bother. The Haf (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Any admin stalkers here with some time on their hands?
There's another issue at Talk:Men's rights movement. CSDarrow was warned that his repeated and now tendentious beaviour WRT to a paragraph about Marital rape was unacceptable[4][5]. This is his edit (the last one btw) before the page was protected[6] and this is the first edit after protection ceased [7]. This is the same edit on August 29th[8]. This is where the tendentious is most recently on display[9] but here's the same dicsussion in September 2012[10] - there was no consensus for removal then. The same thing again in June 2013[11] again closing without consensus for removal. CSDarrow's campaign to remove sourced material has at this point reached disruptive and pointy levels. There's also a thread here BTW if you can't handle this just let me know--Caililtalk13:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help looking at this since you pinged me in the section above. I don't want to step on your toes, my friend, but I think you've got a very obvious agenda-driven account there—a perfect example of TE and NOTHERE. If this had been brought up on my talk page, I'd have indef' him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harry, thanks for looking into this. I've looked at all those links--being somewhat familiar with CSDarrow, and in some respects sympathetic towards them--and I agree that this is unfortunately a good decision. The only thing I wonder is whether he shouldn't be indeffed given the stack of evidence. I wouldn't say NOTHERE, necessarily--but disruption and tendentious editing, sure, with some IDNHT thrown in for good measure. (I don't understand why they'd continue for two years on this one issue and not learn that removal of that text without clear talk page consensus will lead to these kinds of consequences.) Cailil, if there's one thing I learned from perusing those diffs and other talk page discussions, it's that you must have been a great student in the classroom--your homework is impeccable. Thanks for your efforts in MRM, and Harry, thanks for your work here as well. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I considered an indef as an ordinary admin action, but I thought a year under the article probation had a greater chance of sticking. Besides, I've already indef'd one established editor this week. It's not one of the more enjoyable aspects of adminship. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
THanks for looking at this HJ and Drmies - I think the year is better than indef. I hope CSD can learn from this rather than just blame eeryone else and ignore it. But I don't know[12]. Any way thanks for keeping an eye while Bbb23 is on a well earned holiday--Caililtalk20:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't "do" art--I did this out of personal affection for The Haf. Kunst is een konijn dat kut zegt. Now, I see you remedied that jackness (lack of jackness?) since I posted--looks GA ready, as usual... Drmies (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, that is an attractive building. I don't think we had anything in that style back in Windsor - but then we didn't have any 150 year old schools. The doctoral thesis looks nice too... not sure if it passes WP:ACADEMIC though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, I think it greatly depends on what you're looking to support. Some literary interpretation, some sweeping historical statements (see Cullen's question on this page), no. But some basic stuff that the person must have gotten from the city archives, I don't have a problem with it. Then again, some students have been known to half-ass their master's theses and bribe their professors with Bintang... Drmies (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I need to step out (work beckons). If you or a stalker have time, would it be possible to double check the translations I've provided in Meessen's article? Easy DYK, and I think you're right: this could go to GA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Buitengewoon opzigter appears to be one of several ranks in the provincial water management structure- it appears online in an 1834 directory for Gelderland. I don't know whether the "extraordinary" is a higher rank than "opzigter" or means "temporary" in this context. (carefully avoids making any remarks about dykes, fingers, leaking, clogs, tulips from Amsterdam, windmills of your mind) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's usually what "buitengewoon" means. I think it typically points to things like temporary appointments, like when someone unexpectedly leaves their position and another is appointed without going through the usual process. But maybe Kleuske and The Banner have a better reading. Kleuske may still be living in the old frog country and chances are their Dutch is fresher (or, of course, half of it is English, larded with "fokking" and "moederneukend"). Ja, Osdorp is zeker geen dorp met mest, maar het geilste stadsdeel van Amsterdam-West! Drmies (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Crisco, they are fantastic--"Alleen een stommert brengt zijn nieuwe brommer naar de lommerd, want je wordt bedonderd omdat niemand zich om jou bekommert". Or, "Een souteneur is een pooier, en die schooier maakt het mooier, zet zijn kip in de vitrine en wordt rijker dan de Gooijer", which you'll get if you know that "rijk-rijker" is "rich-richer", and the joke is based on Rijk de Gooijer's name--and he of course had a reputation. Brilliant. And they filmed that in de Jordaan, around the Noordermarkt, a few blocks from where I used to live... Drmies (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Buitengewoon opzichter" could be a non-paid function, related to another paid function. Kind of part-time job contained in the main job. Like the forester, who is often also an "buitengewoon opsporingsambtenaar" or unpaid police officer, so he can arrest people. The Bannertalk14:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, yes, maybe. "Waterstaat". No one today would use it as a regular noun--"Oh, what is the water state today?"--but it does of course derive from "state of the water", as in condition and stream gauge. I can't help but think that he's presenting himself as a hydraulic engineer of some sort. Crisco, I just changed your phrasing a bit: the source doesn't say he worked as whatever that meant, but that he registered himself with the nl:Bevolkingsregister with that occupation. Just to complicate matters. For all we know he may have been unemployed. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you rightly kindly, my good sirs and madames. Of course, the original source has the whole job thing is quotation marks, which makes it even more fun to play with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone call? Drmies is right, i still live in the old "frog country". The song by Osdorp Posse is an ode to Amsterammeese and i'm a Tukker (other side of the country). I've looked at the article and the translation "buitengewoon opzigter van waterstaat" to "surveyor of public works" loses a lot in translation. An "opzichter" is an inspector, keeping track of quality of the work. He/she does not directly survey anything. I would have chosen "special inspector", but I admit i'm struggling with "waterstaat", which specifically denotes canals, bridges, dikes and sea-defences in general (anything to do with water, really). A big deal if half the country is under sea level and the rest is Wet, wet, wet. It does not have any direct translation into English, AFAIK, since neither Brits nor Americans have that specific problem. Kleuske (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I have made 300 edits that plenty are against vandals, plus with the edits done with my retired account Jerm729. I tried requesting this on the Rollback request page, but I get some kind of message that involves a template error. -- Cheers JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JudeccaXIII, I have looked at the reversions among your last 100 or so edits. I see many occasions where you have properly reverted, and have called out and warned for vandalism. However, I see a few edits that cause me concern--not so much because they are necessarily wrong, but because you're asking for rollback. In particular I have found a few cases where, in my opinion, rollback is not to be used: [13] (and warning the user was not the best decision), [14], [15] (not to be rolled back--and the tag you restored is incorrect), [16] (not to be rolled back, and I'm wondering by Plato needs to be dated in reference to Christ--here again, a user warning is really not the correct response: an explanation is better). What I'd like to hear from you is that you will look at these diffs and agree to not use rollback in such cases. Mind you, I'm not saying that you would have used rollback; I think you probably wouldn't since you seem to be a positive, but I want to make sure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I guess I did give some warnings in the wrong places. I usually give out 1st level warnings to talk pages via Twinkle. I try not to use Rollback unless I have to. Like some edits could be multiple vandalism in a row, and simply clicking undo will cause some confusion in the article's edit history. That's when I use Rollback. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced your reasoning for removing a link to a photo album on this page. I disagree with you and think the link is not only pertinent, but adds to the article. No where in the Wiki "rules" that you pointed people to does it say you cannot link to photo albums. I'd like to get more editors involved in this and get a consensus.
Carsonmc (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article talk page is the appropriate place for that, with a notification to any involved editors. But WP:ELNO is quite clear: "regular" Flickr pages, like an individual user's page, are excluded via #11, and since in this case it's an "official" Flickr page, see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: basically, one official link per subject/article. In this case, I let the official link and the athletics link stand, since it seems that many articles have both those links, but two ought to be enough. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the same basic argument that precipitated the RFC on that article has risen again, this time on the Landmark Worldwide article itself. Same players (mostly), same sources (mostly), same argument (pretty much).
Predictably, edit warring ensued and good faith went on holiday. At this point, one editor in particular (Lithistman(talk·contribs·logs·block log)) has reinserted the same material 8 times this past week, undoing edits of a variety of people including an involved admin (Rlendog), and basically said that they will continue to revert because the other editors are biased. It is clear that Lithistman is simply making edits based on opposition to other editors and not paying attention to the substance of the edits at hand - reinforced by the fact that all 8 times he has reinserted a duplicate paragraph into the article, despite being told this is the case.
Finally, the edit in question continues to use a clearly unreliable source to make controversial claims, the use of which was also found to be inappropriate a year ago.
An RFC was started by one editor, which has attracted more animosity (such as “I refuse to participate in such a farce.”) while the reverts continue.
Any eyes you could place on this would be helpful – the article and the discussion around it are a bit of a mess.
I have reverted mass removals of well-sourced text. Nothing more, nothing less. And I was utterly uninvolved when I stumbled upon the page. Those who wish to keep well-sourced criticism out of the article are once again attempting "consensus by attrition", I believe, hoping that those of us who have tried to put the article in like with NPOV will give up. LHMask me a question04:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand any of this. I mean, there's 29 pages of talk page archive. I see that good old Sitush had been busy there with his scalpel, and this is what he left us with. I like it, and I like Sitush. I have faith in him. Lithistman says, in an edit summary, "WP:CONSENSUS is not a blunt instrument to prevent changes the improve an article with respect to WP:NPOV", and in principle that's true, except that here the "changes" amount to 1/3 or so of the article. I do not understand the edits by Astynax, who in one fell swoop undoes most of poor Sitush's work. If it were up to me I'd revert to Sitush's edit, lock the article, and put all those editors together in a cage with a cat and a rooster.
Tgeairn, there is nothing here that I can do. Given the ridiculous amount of interest in this topic, I wonder if this shouldn't go to ArbCom or something. Before that, RfCs are the way to go, with (in this case) every editor being limited to, like, 12 words or something. I'm sorry, but I'm really stumped here, though I can see one minor thing: looking over the talk page, I see good reason to ask DaveApter to stop editing this article and, if they don't want to stop, to make them stop via a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some edits that might be described as "compromise edits" to the article. I'd be interested in your opinion. Also, I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one who felt DaveApter's participation in editing that article was problematic. LHMask me a question14:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, I came here because I got a notification that you'd mentioned me - but I'm a bit perplexed as to the context:
You say that Lithistman restored 10k of my edits - I don't think so! He's been removing my edits if anything. The editor whose material he has been restoring is Astynax.
You say you have good reason to suggest that I be asked to stop editing this article, or be topic banned. How so? I've only made about a dozen edits to the article over the past year, but I have discussed matters extensively on the talk page. DaveApter (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, I think I misread what was going on in the last two edit wars: indeed, you and Lithistman were duking it out against each other. Sorry. That edit war is interesting, and I'm interested in why it stopped. Rlendog, why did you stop reverting on 5 September? Where is the RfC that was brought up once or twice? Really, what is going on? Oh, Dave, you obviously have a COI, and you were a player in that recent edit war where, for all intents and purposes, you removed material that could easily be considered critical of the subject. Whether you removed it rightly or wrongly doesn't really matter--you should probably just stay out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for why I stopped reverting, I had no interest in edit warring. I first did a mass revert because the article as it stood, even if not perfect, had been the result of consensus from many discussions, and some elements of the mass insertion were clearly problematic, so even though there were some elements in the mass insertion that I personally thought were fine, I thought the best approach was to mass revert and allow discussion to take place of the elements that should be changed. That was reverted so I made more targeted revisions, removing content that was clearly problematic, although I didn't have time to go through the entire masa insertion with a fine tooth comb and so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed problems. This more targeted revision was also reverted. I then made even more minimal changes - without going back to the history, it may have only been removing one problematic word from the lede, and this was reverted too. By then however there was an RfC and there was also a separate discussion between myself, Astyanax and Lithistman on some of the other issues, particularly the lede, so it seemed best at that point to let the discussions play out. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually made some changes recently that were, at least in my view, versions of your earlier edits. Hopefully they will stick, and we can work to keep the article balanced, with well-sourced criticism not being proscribed, as it seemed to me was initially the case. LHMask me a question01:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - Thank you for taking a look into this. I don't mean to bring the entire discussion here, but it does look like there is some understanding forming among some of the other editors - so that's a good thing. As the edit history shows, Rlendog and I both tried to take the article back to a relatively stable version while the discussion (and then the latest RfC) played out. I still think that's the correct form. Thanks again, and (as always) Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no conflict of interest in relation to Landmark Worldwide, and I certainly have not “self declared” one, and I would appreciate it if you would withdraw the accusation.
I think it is unfortunate that my honesty and openness in declaring my viewpoint – as a satisfied sometime customer ten to twelve years ago – should result in suggestions that I should be excluded from editing the article. Especially when editors who clearly have a passionate interest refuse to declare their position. We don't require that owners of iPads should be banned from editing the Apple Inc. article!
I have been editing on Wikipedia for over nine years on a variety of subjects and I am totally committed to upholding the policies and guidelines, and working to produce quality encyclopedic content. In this time I have never been blocked for any violation. If, as you claim, I have made 274 edits to the Landmark article, that amounts to an average of around 30 per year which hardly seems excessive. The majority of these were corrections of clear vandalism or blatant POV-pushing.
It seems to me to be an exaggeration to suggest that I am “involved in the recent edit war” - I made two reversions of the highly inflammatory block-revision with a 48 hour interval, and then stepped back when it became clear that it was getting out of hand.
I hope you can agree that, for all its shortcomings, the article is in a far better state than it was before I started work on it, which was an absolute disgrace, for example:
Tgeairn, is the purpose of notes 43-46, which strike me as excessive, to prove at length that the joint is not a cult? And did I see this correctly, that there was an RfC somewhere on that content, that the sources don't bear out what the article says? Drmies (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - That turned into quite the research project.
First, I agree that refs 43-46 are excessive. They appear to be being used to support the idea that the company is religious in nature and therefore justify the weight of "cult" or "disputed religious character" editorialising in the article.
Yes, there was an RfC regarding whether or not Landmark should be listed as a religious movement, which found that the company did not meet the broad list criteria at the time. That RfC came at the end (chronologically) of a long discussion following my removal of Landmark and several other entries from the list.
As far as the sources and what they say, Nwlaw63 did a pretty thorough job of going through the sources at one time, and I also spent the best of a weekend reading and summarising many of the sources used here. The result of my reading was that when taken in context, the academic sources generally ended up saying that the company either isn't religious in nature or intent and/or that it is interesting to researchers in that (to quote Chryssides - which is a source frequently copied by the others) "...[It's] seminars are not regarded as religious, although some participants regard their experiences as spiritual." There have also been a large number of other discussions on the sources, or the weight due those sources, throughout the talk page archives. Almost invariably, the result of discussion was that the source(s) did not support a label of cult or religion.
My take on all of it is that somewhere this group got themselves conflated with Human Potential Movements in general, which makes some sense given that est was an early HPM that attracted a lot of attention and that Landmark purchased the rights to some of est when Landmark started and freely admits using that purchased "technology". This lumping together of est, HPM in general, and a for-profit company (Landmark) has various very weak sources trying to imply that there is some controversy or dispute over whether Landmark has a religious nature. The actual reliable sources very explicitly say that it doesn't. All of this, combined with some heavy POV pushing years ago, results in an article that is giving weight to a fringe view that is not supported by the sources. The "Disputed religious character" section misrepresents the sources used and should (at worst) be combined with the "Reviews and criticisms" section or (at best) be gutted almost entirely.
I have made a sweep through the article and attempted to resolve some of the issues raised above and at the talk page. In the process, a few of my edits were questioned (reverted). If you are able to lend a pair of eyes on the latest pass, it would be appreciated.
Also, the RfC on the talk page is now fairly moot (other than the civility question, but it's probably best for everyone to drop that stick). I don't see any obvious objection to a close, but it would be better if someone less involved in the editing than I do it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
DangerousPanda and Knowledgekid87 indicated (1 and 2) that they felt my notifying the 3 individuals whose names I'd introduced into this new thread was canvassing. DP additionally argues bad faith, that I must have known this was wrong. I think I deserved at least some opportunity to respond.
Two of my mentions of these individuals were clearly favorable and one was clearly unfavorable. This was a new thread describing what I'd found when I read the AfD and the previous ANI discussion that DP had been complaining I hadn't read. The instructions at the top of the ANI page make clear that if you start a thread about someone, you need to tell them and it suggests a particular way. It doesn't say exactly what kinds of mentions require notification and which ones don't. It just says you need to do it. I told them all and I didn't tell them anything I hadn't already said right there in ANI, where I'd also pinged them. I wasn't telling any of them anything new, I was simply complying with the very specific instructions at the top of the page about how a notification should be made.
I began to compose my response before you closed the discussion at 23:45 and never saw an edit conflict or became aware you'd closed the discussion until after I'd submitted at 23:50. The difference is 5 minutes and of course the reason I never saw an edit conflict is because you and I were editing different sections.
I mentioned three editors' actions. I said I liked I am One of Many's search for sources and Roxy the dog's defense of Barney. I clearly did not like SpinningSpark's AfD close. I notified all three I'd mentioned them here. I think I have an obligation when I introduce someone's name into a discussion here to tell them I've done it. That's the way I read the instructions at the top of the page. Msnicki (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a reasonable defense I should be allowed to make, especially if I offer it before I could possibly be aware the discussion has closed.
Sorry, but I don't see why anyone needed to be notified of an already closed discussion. I can't let this drag on for longer, waiting for people to respond even more in a thread that editors wanted closed and that will not result in admin action. (Whether their hypothetical comments would make a material difference is hypothetical, of course.) Besides, in that long post of 10 September, 19:21, all three were already pinged, courtesy of our beautiful ping system. So I'm not going re-open a thread because in a new post, made six days after you opened the thread in the first place, you find occasion to draw in more possible commenters. You have to realize that this is ANI, which is for matters requiring some sort of urgency.
In addition, no matter how you phrase it, the original thread was not about these three editors, so claiming that you are specifically following the letter of the law isn't going to work. Now, you noted that the thread was not just about DP's supposed INVOLVEment--and looking at the beginning again, I guess you kind of have a point, but not because it is clearly about other things as well, but rather because it is entirely unclear what you want this thread to achieve. DP's involvement appears to be one problem, the main one I gather, and another one is the block itself, and a third is Bearcat's behavior? Well, on all three points there was no consensus to decide on anything--for instance a reprimand, an unblock, another reprimand, respectively. The vagueries of what it is that you want the community to act on are probably why this dragged on for so long, and such threads are never useful, unless one wants heat and drama. So no, this is not going to be reopened. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few more words. I guess I could have been more dogmatic: in your notifications to those users you said, "I'm required to give you a formal notice that I mentioned you". Well, ANI says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." These mentions were not discussions about those editors, unless you wanted to double the scope of this already gargantuan thread. Also, I am One of Many suggested you let the thread close, and Roxy the dog said they wouldn't have added anything anyway if the thread hadn't been closed by that time. Both these comments were made long before you posted this here--so it's all water under the bridge anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thread certainly wasn't closed when I posted the new material mentioning these other editors, when I posted notices to their talk pages or when DP and KK accused me of canvassing. A close is when there's notice at the top, like the one you did place when you did close it.
My sole request is that you kindly allow my one last response to that last accusation made just 5 minutes late but before I could know the discussion had close. Please revert DP's revert of that last edit.
I concede the rest is closed. In the discussion, I asked for a number of very specific things as "A different proposal", most significant being that I wanted Barney to be have another chance on his own talk page with another admin. I was unsuccessful in achieving anything. That is over and I respect your close. It's done.
Again, the only thing I'm asking is that you allow my last, purely defensive remark, purely for the record. It does not attack anyone, it merely offers a short response to the charges. I think it was poor manners for the editor who had made the charge to delete the response because it was 5 minutes late. I think I should be allowed this one single edit. Msnicki (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it was that incredibly minor, I think you could do me the favor and allow me this bit of closure. Everything goes into the record and this whole discussion will eventually be archived. Who knows when these things will ever get read again but they sometimes do. I was charged with canvassing and bad faith. I responded 54 minutes later but that turned out to be 5 minutes too late. I'm just asking that my short response, offered in timely fashion and good faith, should appear in the archived record, not reverted by the editor who made the charges because it was late on a technicality. Anyone is free to decide whether they believe a word of what I said but I think my response should at least appear. Do this one favor for me, please, and I am ready to move on.
Fwiw, if you examine my record, I think you'll find I have a good record of accepting outcomes that don't go my way. I'll argue my case as strongly as I humanly can and where a reasonable process is available, I may pursue appeals. But when I finally lose or the consensus goes against me, I have a really good record of accepting that. I'm not challenging the outcome. I lost. We're done with that. I'm merely requesting an "incredibly minor" courtesy that I think is reasonable to grant. Msnicki (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you had given a notice to Tarc about civility in the doxxing thread - Titanium Dragon had asked that once before as well. How well do you think the most recent comment by Tarc in the thread (diff) complies with being more civil? Directly calling another editor "one of the misogynist warriors" is a personal attack, even a step more incivil, am I wrong? --Pudeo'20:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see a huge difference between the two. The one is an unfounded attack and a shot below the belt in an unrelated discussion, the other--while very strongly worded, sure--is an assessment of someone's edits in a thread full of evidence. Or, to put it another way, if Tarc had said "they made extremely misogynistic edits", it wouldn't be essentially different. In my opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, although I disagree. The equivalent would be calling someone a "militant feminist warrior", that could be based on an assessment of another editor's edit history as well. And I would support considering it a personal attack in that case too. I guess Wikipedia just allows name-calling in such a manner that's just too toxic for my taste. --Pudeo'22:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, "militant feminist warrior", being called that is probably a badge of honor. "Feminazi", that's blockable, in my opinion. "Asshole", not so much; "fucking antisemite", yes. But these are always going to be someone's judgement calls, which is why the community elects us, for better or for worse. We can't hardly draw up a list of no-no words and block when they're uttered (although many cusswords based on race or sexuality are potentially blockable--"stupid Dutchman" etc. not so much, of course), since some of them in context might not be so bad, and other kinds of personal attacks are not done via the use of a choice word. BTW, I'm not going to claim I speak for my colleagues. I'd love to extrapolate, but I got dinner going and my boy needs my attention. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talkpage stalker here. Pudeo, to me it feels pretty weird to suggest that "feminist" (ideological stance) is potentially as offensive as "misogynist" (a form of prejudice). Calling out a brand of prejudice-in-action doesn't strike me as particularly toxic. The never-ending discussions at talk:Anita Sarkeesian is an illustrative example of what we have to deal with when it comes to petty misogyny on Wikipedia. PeterIsotalo00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peter, thanks. And thanks for dropping by. Again, it depends on context, doesn't it. If "feminist" is a put-down meant to suggest "You have a moronic POV that makes you decide everything based on your desires to exterminate all penises", yeah. And in many contexts "militant feminist warrior" probably is a pretty clear put-down, and probably is dictated by misogyny. That is, though, how I often find the word used "feminist" used on talk pages--in my line of business, that's not how we use it at all. Then again, I'm reminded of a slogan from the 1990s, "you call me a bitch like it's a bad word," and that always brings a smile to my face. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but, but, if someone accuses me of inserting a Nazi POV in an article I'm greatly offended, just like you are when you're accused of being a sexist who chases (women) editors away. So have you and I granted them that power? Sure, because we allow ourselves to be hurt. But at the same time, we are righteously upset. I wish I was more like a duck's back, and I have to be responsible for other editors and their duck's backs too, since as an admin I have the power to act on it. Which is not always fun. I did not enjoy blocking Til Eulenspiegel, nor, I am sure, did Bishonen when she extended it to indefinite. But it was the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference in my mind between being called a "sexist" and "someone who chases women away". The first is just an opinion, but the second is an accusation that needs to be backed up with evidence. I'm always reminded when talking about the changing meaning of words though of a possibly apocryphal comment made by an English monarch, describing St Pauls Cathedral as "awful, pompous, and artificial", which would at the time have been high praise indeed. EricCorbett20:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, there's a big difference between "Nazi" and "Nazi POV editor"--an even bigger difference. The first one, no one has to take seriously. But once you're accused of such a POV (or of chasing women editors away...) you have to defend yourself, and how does one do that, courteously, without losing one's patience, and in front of a pretty big audience? (Yours bigger than mine: you have pro-MF and anti-MF posses, I hear.) Being accused of acting in bad faith is very painful. (That this guy said I was "unknowingly" antisemitic or something like that was of no help.) Drmies (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions of Swedish footballers always bring to mind a headline in The Sun when Sweden beat a dire England football team: "Swedes 1 Turnips 0". (Their best ever, imo, was "Super Caley Go Ballistic Celtic Are Atrocious", referring to a surprise hammering of Celtic FC by league minnows Inverness Caledonian Thistle). Do they do stuff like this in mainstream US newspapers? - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the sports pages, they stick a bunch of cliches and stupid words together and make them alliterate. "Prattville front line paving way for powerful running game." That's not egregious, but wait til Saturday, when the high school games are reported on. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Maybe Tarc has picked something up from that. In the last hour, they've called me a liar and a misogynist as the GGTF pile-on at ANI continues. Neither are true. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbreather, if you haven't recognised by now that Eric ploughs his own furrow and is as independent-minded as they come here then there is no hope for you. He doesn't have "compadres" in the sense that you mean. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can hardly forget what you never knew, or are we about to enter some alternate universe in which all logic is suspended? Like GGTF for instance? EricCorbett22:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that my inherent male idiocy means that I do not get the logic of LB's last response above. But then I've apparently only got a D in "feminism". I've never got lower than a B in anything that has been marked in my life, and I was told that my entrance exam papers at Cambridge would have earned me a First. I'm not the brightest, for sure, Lightbreather, but don't assume that I'm stupid or that I think being male makes me superior rather than just different. I don't consider women to be inferior in any way and I collaborate very well with many here. There are gender differences, not just gaps. That's one reason why there are more females on Facebook, I guess. Mostly we have to live with those differences, both sides.
If you want some old-fashioned commentary that probably actually was sexism then check out the (perhaps apocryphal) story of Nancy Astor speaking in the House of Commons: she said that there was very little difference between men and women and, allegedly, some male MP said "Thank God for the little difference." That's me done in this thread. As soon as GGTF turn up, stuffs goes downhill, just as it often does when the ARS turn up. Far better to spend time improving this bloody things than hypothesising. It wouldn't be so bad if the GGTF were actually coming up with sensible proposals but in fact all it seems to have done so far is collate a corpus of "yes, it really does exist" material. We need solutions, not polemics. Please accept my apologies for the rant, Drmies- Sitush (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary, Sitush. I have not seen the GGTF at work--and I think the ARS has all but disappeared. But listen, first of all, a D is a passing grade in the US. Second, for every cute story like that there's a lot less cute one, like this, and the ogling and all that--yeah, that's sexism too, and it's revolting, and that a senator, a senator, gets to hear this stuff, well. Take it easy Sitush, Drmies (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The easiest way to avoid being called a misogynist is not to act like one"--that is, in fact, true, but it works also if "misogynist" is substituted with another word. Inflated closing comments from The Oracle inside this little box. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Guys, guys - remember: The easiest way to avoid being called a misogynist is not to act like one.[18] Of course, by saying that, I am not calling anyone a misogynist. It's a perfectly acceptable, civil comment. Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Useful advice. You should follow it. - Sitush (talk)
It is indeed useful advice, but I predict that she doesn't even understand it, never mind be willing to follow it. And I don't say that because I believe her to be a woman, simply because I believe her to be a bigot. EricCorbett22:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is too rich. On what evidence have you decided to believe that I am a bigot? Because I didn't like having the word "cunt" dropped into a discussion about how to address incivility on Wikipedia? Because I complained about being harassed and Wikihounded by a male editor whose final creepy attack was to follow me to the GGTF? Because I object to you and others disrupting GGTF and other forums by demanding proof (that you find acceptable) that there is a sexism problem on WP? (Because evidence has been offered, repeatedly, by more than one editor.) Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was tempted not to dignify your ranting with an answer, because it would be unfair on Drmies for you to continue your dispute on this talk page. But you're quite welcome to ask me whatever you like on my own talk page. EricCorbett22:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eric's edit summary: "useful advice indeed, but it will be ignored." Eric - and you too, Sitush - if you think it's good advice, then please don't ignore it. Lightbreather (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has been fun: Lightbreather, long time no see. I hope you are well. *Sigh* for the record, I didn't really care for Eric's choice of words in that now famous passage, cited a million times all over the place, in and out of context. For the record, I accept that in his own Mancunian, or whatever the lingua franca is in his world (define that as you may), it is acceptable. That doesn't necessarily make it acceptable here, and I would advise against it, but it certainly doesn't a. warrant blocking and b. make the utterer a sexist/misogynist/etc, though it probably doesn't help his public persona. I also believe that Eric does not like Lightbreather because he thinks she is a bigot, not because he thinks she is a woman. I accept that, from the other side, LB's side, there is some historical precedent to not accept such a statement and think that this is either mauvaise foi or self-delusion. Unfortunately, there is not much more we can do here on this earth but to try and get along. And make dinner, and drink wine, as I suggested to my dear colleague Dougweller earlier. We don't all have to be friends. Dear LB, you can gain little from participating in this particular, as welcome as you are on this talk page. Dear Sitush, your spat with Tarc is probably not going to do anyone any good either, and I hope you can just ignore, so to speak. (And I still expect to see you here for the second half of the fall term, for your class in feminism--I do believe you made a D the first time.) Shit, that's a lot of pontificating. Eric, my regards to Dr. Corbett. With my apologies, Drmies (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to come thank everyone one for continuing to recognize my civility at ANI...that is what this thread title says, after all. When can I expect my barnstar? Tarc (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Hafspajen: You can now (at least I think)! I've created a little script here that should restore what it used to do. To install it, just go to this page and write importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/oldSchoolThanks.js");. IT still comes with a (more standard) confirmation box, but you can get rid of that, if you like: just type in noThanksConfirm = true; on the same page, on the line above the importScript part. Maybe not, though; you might be talking about something else. Writ Keeper⚇♔23:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got an email from Erik Moeller a couple of days ago, explaining that the development team were rolling out a lot of fixes relating to Echo, Flow etc. It looks like they might also be making a lot of small incremental changes, rapidly. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are no Post offices in Sweden any more. You pick up your things ( the parcells) at the grocery shops - there are like two per city, you buy your stamps at the supermarket - and all this only because it was state owned - so not politically correct. Drmies, have you seen the discussion at User talk:Yngvadottir#Jonathan Hill? You are recomended. Will you help me? Your server is English. Could you please try to get some reviews on his books? -> User:Hafspajen/Jonathan Hill (theologian)Hafspajen (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this removal was necessary. Better ignored, IMO. And it's information — whether correct or not, I dunno. (Very likely not, but anyway.) I wouldn't revoke tpa for it either, not unless he does worse. And he may need tpa in case he wants to remove his silly "retired" template. Bishonen | talk12:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
P.S, so is it because of Flow issues that Echo has got so terminally wonky? 90% of the time, the alerts screen won't open when I click on the little red number. :-( It is quite irritating. Bishonen | talk12:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, it is. I raised one of the wonky issues at a Flow development talk page and that led to a couple of emails with Erik M. The specific issue seems now to be fixed but other ones are raising their head, as you mention. They really should test this stuff before deploying it. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second time I thought about it I decided to remove it. Revoking TPA strikes me as appropriate, since it was nothing but soapboxing with a whole bunch of rather heinous accusations thrown in. If he wants to have that template removed, he can email me--though possibly The Internet has a filter that blocks email containing his customary lexicon. Sitush, I don't know about "wonky", but "slow as thick shit going through a funnel", sure. (Sounds better in Dutch.) Drmies (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Til's still socking. As for Flow, just set your preferences so you get no notifications of any kind from Flow. That might help. It helped me. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've tried that now, thanks, Doug, let's see if it helps. I dislike having to fiddle with my prefs in order not to get tripped up by beta software, but whatever. Currently not socking any more, I've rangeblocked those IPs. I take every opportunity to mention stuff like that because it makes me sound brilliant. Anyway, Drmies, I still disagree with your actions at the talkpage. I thought about it twice too. Bishonen | talk16:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I think that's the first time we disagreed since that time you proposed getting blue and orange flowers for the wedding. You know I don't mind you wheelwarring with me, as long as you realize that it means you are making the coffee tomorrow morning. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it comes with cinnamon or cardamom buns, since I really don't know how that rant and their talk page access in any way improve what we're doing here. See you tomorrow. Key's under the rat trap outside the backdoor. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's what I did. Finally Fram's messages stopped popping up. I mean, Fram and I are like this, but it was getting a bit much. I felt verklemmt, stuck in our relationship, as if Flow wanted me and Fram to have nothing but each other, and I just can't live that way. I can't. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, on Erik's advice, but it made no difference for the issue that I was experiencing, which was in part Fram-related. Right now, the only issue I have is the incredible slowness. In fairness, Echo is one of the best things the developers have come up with of late (once they sorted out the orange talk page message box); I'd hate to think that it might become unstable because of Flow. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I figured. Thanks Elockid. There's been more activity since yesterday, with global blocks and stuff. 'Bout time for someone to call the sheriff. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have stepped on a few long toes by AfD'ing a bunch of non-notable beauty pageants contestants. One of the guys is so pissed off that he wants me banned of AfD'ing any article. Typical case od WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Unfortunately, I am not in the mood for this BS. Yesterday, someone crashed into my car. I am okay, but my car is a wreck. And the other car fled the scene. So temporarily, I am not in the mood to cope with this.
I tend to act without any regard of status or popularity of the author or subject. And that is what most people expect here.
Got a message from the Gardai that they have found the owner of the fleeing car. Have asked my insurance company for advice, because this is something I haven't any experience with. The Bannertalk09:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because the edit war is so haphazard, I would warn him before blocking him. You and I generally have different approaches to problematic editors, but I'm happy to do that for you. Just let me know. I don't think his behavior justifies a block without at least one warning. I doubt talking to him further will help. Your explanation on his talk page is quite clear and readable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as the fringe editing is persistent (over many months) and disruptive, I have semi-protected the article for a year. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, feel free to change or remove it. BencherliteTalk21:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unjustified, Bencherlite. In terms of recent - and even not so recent activity - almost all of the disruption to the article has come from the one IP address. Punishing all non-autoconfirmed users for the sins of one makes no sense. If the IP's editing is sufficiently disruptive, then they should be blocked for however long it takes for them to understand that they can't repeat that behavior. Despite my disagreement, I find it very hard to reverse the action of another administrator, even when they so graciously gave me permission. I'll wait to see if there are further comments here. If another administrator disagrees with me, I'll leave it be. Otherwise, I'll remove the protection and warn the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm with Bbb here--I thought I saw other disruptors in the history, but now I can't find them. I would have blocked this IP for trolling--clearly I'm the bad cop to Yngvadottir's good cop. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all: there is this one and before that this one, and there was debate on the talk page in 2012, but it's overwhelmingly this particular person now; they responded to me in recent edit summaries. I see other edits in their history that are not all bad, but next time they repeat at Mermaids: The Body Found I'll block if nobody else does. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before I sign off for the day, something has gone wrong after this edit of yours. I think it relates to the pending changes stuff but I'm a misogynist and that is synonymous with being an idiot, apparently. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on Sitush. You're just a bit...well, you know. Old. One day I want you to tell me what it was like to read the newspaper and see that picture of the Hindenburg. Yes, Nikkimaria, I saw something happening and figured that someone from the WMF would take care of it. :) Drmies (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why were my edits to the Emperor Palpatine article reverted? Your note, you said I must cite a source. However, the source is simply the movie under which my edit was made, "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith." My update was simply describing a plot element the original editor left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.64.253 (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's Garden of Prayer with a zombie on the cover. And The Garden of Forking Paths, in which a blind librarian predicts the existence of Wikipedia- "a vast and intricate labyrinth, one in which all men would lose their way." He further develops the theme in The Library of Babel- "The library must contain all useful information, including predictions of the future, biographies of any person, and translations of every book in all languages. Despite — indeed, because of — this glut of information, all books are totally useless to the reader, leaving the librarians in a state of suicidal despair." In Funes the Memorious the future editor is described- "My mind, sir, is like a dustbin". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article's a bit of a mess- I chased up one ref and altered it, but the article itself is a bit confusing- two sites, one "annexed" by the Greeks and one "discovered" by the Latins, and eight olive trees presumably planted by the Saracens (as Inspector Montalbano would have it). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a poem by Thomas Campion, also known as "Cherry Ripe". No man may kiss her until she says "Cherry ripe!. Cherry Ripe (song) mentions Campion, has a picture of a copy of the painting by John Everett Millais ("Millais is only one of God's smaller jokes, like endowing Velasquez with the imagination of a Putney barmaid."- Henry James) Elizabethan sexuality degrades into Victorian (ahem) "sentimentality"… and then Rolf Harris. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find this edit summary insulting and very problematic. The fact that you've been entrusted with a mop and bucked most certainly does not entitle you to special privilege when editing, as you state in your edit summary there. Furthermore, I believe you're wrong in your claim. Using primary sources is not unacceptable in any way, particularly when the source is the US Department of Labor, and the information cited is regarding the existence of a USDoL investigation--and an investigation that, from what I can tell, Landmark has attempted at every turn to pretend does not exist. This is a formal request for you to self-revert your removal, and to disclaim your edit summary that seems to state that you feel like edits you make, as an administrator, are somehow worthier than edits those of us who don't have a few extra buttons may make. If no self-revert is forthcoming, I will be forced to revert it myself. LHMask me a question00:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got a better suggestion for you. Get off your high horse and find consensus, on the talk page, that the language you used was in fact neutral, and that somehow a primary source is acceptable to verify this kind of information. And then explain how that tidbit was even relevant in the first place--since for now the only sensible reading off that text is that it is in there to make a point about the subject via innuendo. And spare me "special privilege", please. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't "spare you" anything. You invoked your administrator status in a way I found unacceptable, given that adminship isn't a badge or any sort of big deal. The wording that you removed is neutral, simply reporting the facts of that matter. And you did wield your adminship as something of a police badge or something, basically threatening anyone who dared revert you, as I read it. That is wholly inappropriate, no matter how much it offends you to hear it stated as such. LHMask me a question01:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that use of primary sources may not be proscribed is irrelevant. this is tendentious material, not neutral, and requires better sourcing than this. call it administrative intervention
Categorizing his edit removing sourced material as "administrative intervention" seems to me a not-so-subtle hint that "you'd better not revert this edit I just made." That's inappropriate. LHMask me a question01:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He removed material that was being pushed in a POV manner that only has a single source and no secondary sources. He said, and I quote Call it an administrative intervention. You projecting meaning into that statement is your issue, not his. If you're worried that you may receive consequences for your POV pushing, again, that's your issue. Now, I am going to hop on over to your page and give you some links to some items on ownership of articles, edit warring, and being neutral (hence our requirements for secondary sourcing. Does anyone else hear that whoosh whoosh sound? Dusti*Let's talk!*01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic that you accuse me of "ownership" and "POV pushing." I have no fear of being blocked, as I've removed that putrid article from my watchlist. People are free to remove whatever well-sourced material they want to now, completely erroneously citing WP:PRIMARY (which doesn't mean what they think it means) it support. LHMask me a question02:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dusti, this is a pleasant surprise: I appreciate the support. In the meantime, Chillum has pulled out his admin badge but he's waving it as me as much as at my opponent. There's a note on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard as well--not so much for forum shopping, though that's a bit of a risk I suppose, but because fresh eyes are sorely needed. Have you seen how voluminous the talk page archive is? Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir! Hey, I'm glad you changed your signature a bit--I found it hard to read. But that font is awfully small for an old person like me. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum, I am firmly convinced that there is POV pushing going on, but by the same token I am fully aware that there is no 3R exemption. Still, I was prepared to go to the limit of 3, which I did, and I'm glad they stopped. Being an admin here will not make me exempt either, I know that fully well. In other words, I am not trying to make up an excuse for going as far as I did, and on the other hand, if I hadn't also been an editor here, I would likely have warned and possibly blocked Lithistman for these unacceptable edits. I think that above you can see, in comments by Tgeairn, that others have seen a bit of a POV-pushing edit warrior in them. Anyway, rip me a new one if you must. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't judge that, Eric. I know that Chillum is playing it straight, with no favors for me because of my badge (ha, that's funny, the whole idea of me with a badge), and I can't blame him for that. What I'd rather see is Chillum or any other admin jumping in to recognize the POV violation--but when I say that, I am conveniently forgetting that it takes a while before one recognizes them in a specific article, in a specific situation. Though, in this case, negative innuendo based on primary sourcing, that seems not too unclear to me... Drmies (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I know y'all go way back. I'm more bothered by the wikilawyering of my now-former opponent, the typical kind of tactic of a POV warrior and, unfortunately, a tactic that often works on less experienced (read "ancient") editors. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies did not act in their administrative capacity, nor did they threaten to do so. Let me point out that it is an admin's sworn duty to attempt to maintain neutrality; it is the second of our crumbling five pillars. The discussion on the talk page of ANEW makes it clear that there is no exemption from 3R for neutrality violations (I didn't claim it was, mind you), but "Not editing from neutral point of view" is a valid block rationale--and I maintain that the edit was not neutral. If the editor on the other side of the dispute feels that it is not a matter of neutrality it probably behooves them to leave it be until a consensus is found that neutrality was not at stake. LHM, I posted on the talk page, I posted on the NPOV noticeboard. Your edit was reverted by another editor as well. Why continue? Drmies (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying you acted in an administrative capacity, nor was your revert not proper, nor would administrative action have not been appropriate. It is the "badge flashing" that he's upset with. Maybe he's being a bit touchy about this. Maybe you are too, I don't know. One time we were tailgating and smoking a joint and a cop from an out of state jurisdiction flashed his badge at us. Clearly an attempt to scare us. We just laughed at him instead. Perhaps OP should have just done the same thing here. Or ignored it. Or you can be the bigger man and say. "Sorry, I wasn't trying to flaunt my authority and I'm sorry you thought I was. No hard feelings, k?"Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon14:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LMH: I believe the "threat" was sarcasm. You two are disagreeing, and one or both of you might be annoyed. Sarcasm happens. Admins are people too
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Landmark Worldwide. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
HAHA your funny saying feminism is the main point of this issue is wrong, be more bias. Better yet instead of responding like a child with an agenda why don't you prove I'm wrong? gamersgame is about ethics in journalism not some crusade for feminism (yes there are sexist issues in the mix but not the main point). Anarousedtuna (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Federal University of Western Pará, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Santarém and Juruti. 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.
Great--creating articles is fun. This one, however, seems not to be on a real notable topic. Not to worry: there's a million more things in the world that need articles! Drmies (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I guess I wasn't kidding about a hornet's nest. As you are likely aware, the article you nominated for deletion is one of dozens of articles in the same basic topic area created by the same editor. The articles are nearly all poorly sourced and circularly support one another. I don't know if the editor's interest is in the NRM area generally or the Landmark company or Erhard or what (although their editing on many other WMF projects provides a hint), and I don't want my gardening to turn into a full-fledged job addressing this one mess, but I'll do my best to start to flag those articles up. Maybe a wholesale housecleaning is better than this death by a thousand cuts though.
Thanks for nominating the article, and thank you for drawing a line with the way things were going at the Landmark article. I will comment at the AfD. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... I had just myself decided to let it play and stop trying to poke a point across. Somehow AfDs often seem to blind editors to WP:N. Enjoy --Tgeairn (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"From a very young age, Rovira Rullan excelled profesionally"--that's not the neutral kind of language we should have in articles. But really the bigger problem was what was done with those links. Articles need references, and references need to a. be reliable (many weren't--see WP:RS), b. be relevant to the subject (the ones I checked didn't even mention the subject), and c. be properly incorporated in the text, not simply dropped in there like a list (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Tell you what, I'll ping Cullen328, who is much better at explaining things and helping new editors out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of describing professional excellence shortly after emergence from the womb, the lead of an actual encyclopedia article would use neutral language to describe the subject's career and perhaps their nationality and basic biographic facts. The lead should summarize the whole article. Be ruthless in stripping away all promotional language, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Referencing for beginners is a great resource for presenting references in the most reader-friendly (and therefore reviewer-friendly) fashion. As for the quality of the references, I am a very strong advocate for a smaller number of references to indisputably reliable, independent sources as opposed to a larger number of mediocre references. Three or four rock solid references establish notability with little doubt. Fifty weak, peripheral references don't, and they both muddy the waters and complicate the article review process. I recommend studying about half a dozen biographies of indisputably notable people in a closely related field. Use the best one or two of those articles as a model for improvement of this one. Just my quick thoughts and recommendations. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Amazing Mela Tenenbaum. In a just world, Mela Tenenbaum would be world-famous. Tenenbaum is not only the best violist currently around, she is in addition a gifted artist. Her history is as amazing as her viola playing." A rave review. But the source describes itself as a web magazine put out by Holly Moors, so it may not be overly reliable. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like to please you ;) - Another such source gives a place of birth, Chernivitsi, a place renamed Chernivtsi, so probably Chernivtsi Oblast. Problem: the site given as orchestra's website is not found, and as the conductor died in 2006 may not exist anymore. Should I mention the place or not? Mention the orchestra not existing??? No source for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Birthplace could equally well be Chernivtsi the city - it's changed names several times, was formerly Chernovtsy and some time before that Czernowitz. For the date discrepancy, I'd list both with an explanatory footnote, but the NYT is quite often wrong on facts these days. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, may well be the city, as the other is the province. NYT article was in 2001. I sang with a group where she was concert master from 1992, - that would be before or after the other date, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of his edits reverted (at least I think I achieved that on the second edit despite having to hack my way through Pending Changes), special sort of welcome template left. (Sorry if it seems too nice, Hafspajen - see WP:ROPE. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pff. Spoken like a true Midwesterner. Sad, isn't it, that you have to capitalize the "mid" part--the "western" part dare not even shout its name. Haf, that is one awful tune, and I won't unblock you until give up YouTubing for a week. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double Pfft. I'm not a Midwesterner, so go ahead and talk out of your Alabamian orifice. I did live in Athens, Georgia for several years in the early '90s and did watch some wonderful games played between the hedges. Shaking Vince Dooley's hand is a highlight of my time there. Bgwhite (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aw shucks Ed, stop waving your little Tommie around. I was trying to hit Bgwhite below the belt, and I'm sorry, but "Midwesterner" was the worse I could come up with--he hears "abusive admin" almost as often as I do, I'm sure. May I just say that I don't believe in free will and I'm not really here by choice, though I'm not complaining. At least not all the time. Nice to see you again, Ed--I hope things are going well for you. Not fun, huh, "adult life". Drmies (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought my NPR station was all messed up this morning, or somehow the Prius had auto-tuned in to some foreign station. Turns out I was listening to an interview with a 16-yr old Scot, about the referendum. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I finally wrote up a draft on Marianne Beskiba. There are two multi-page discussions of her that I was able to lay hands on - in Geehr and Hamann - plus a lengthy passage on an official Vienna tourist site, and numerous footnotes to and other brief mentions of her book and the background behind it. There is also presumably 1911 newspaper coverage of the book's publication, but I couldn't track it down; I did find one of what were presumably several news reports of the earlier scandal in her life, in 1894. Sadly, feminist scholars appear to have let us down concerning this lady. I don't want to lose my autoreviewer right and force New Page Patrollers to read my more recherché page creations, although I've been told some more experienced editors read my new articles just to see what on earth I've written about now. So is this ready for prime-time or had she better stay in mothballs till someone uses her as an example of the abused mistress in an academic article (or until JSTOR gets around to indexing one that I couldn't find)? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of having a voluntary one-way interaction ban, between my eyeballs and anything Coat writes. I found an illustration of a portrait of Leuger by Beskiba; it's pretty small (32 cm by 25 cm) in watercolour- actually looks pretty competent, but it also looks like it might have been painted from a photo. Put her in prime-time. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure it won't be messed with, and if it is, we'll take care of it. Go for it. What a tragic story. Yes, the proverbial feminist scholars should have had a field day with it. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listen Mies, you just take care of Hill. I don't feel like I can manage him any better. And if you think is ready move him in mainspace... Hafspajen (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! How have you been? If you remember we met in DC. Did you attend this year's Wikimania as well? I looked for you while I was there. Nataevtalk16:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember! How are you, brother? No, I didn't go--I had all kinds of other things to do, like work. So you made it to London, huh? What was it like? Are you still in school in--Hungary? Austria? And how is the Uzbek wiki? I see you still havent' been blocked there--must be doing something right. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing well, thank you! I did make it to London! It was great! I thoroughly enjoyed my time there. Really. I'm done with school! I finished my school in Hungary. Now working for the OSCE. The Uzbek wiki is slowly growing. This article nicely summarizes what I've been up to lately. (The article isn't entirely true, though. I haven't created over 1,000 entries.) How are things with you? What are you doing these days? Nataevtalk05:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was always how to draw that line and define it. But that editor's approach is quite unhelpful. "History" was, I believe, deemed too vague--though for me it would have worked fine. "History", with an explanation in the lead and a hidden comment in the text--I don't know, Lady, but we can try that again. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find this a frustrating topic to deal with. I think most people's edits are well intentioned, especially those intended to protect living people, which all of us in this conversation wish to do. However, trying to draw some of the lines and definitions makes me want to bang my head against a wall. LadyofShalott16:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is the mixing of topics. Saying a greek god raped someone, or that the bible says so, or that a town was raped 2000+ years ago by an invading horde , is a lot different than saying Specific person X, who we are reasonably certain actually existed, was raped, by specific person Y in the year 18XX. Even Artemisia Gentileschi I think is of sufficiently different character that it should not be in the same list as Philomela or Rindr. Rogneda of Polotsk is perhaps somewhere in the middle as being "real" but also a source of classical artistic inspiration. The mythological topic is certainly notable, I'm sure entire books and PHDs have been built on the concept of rape in myth and religion.
The title itself: A problem was the objection to including victims and survivors who were relatively recently deceased. (I disagreed but arguably the consensus favored exclusion.) If a specific dividing line by date can be agreed to, and if it can't be at least editing should be consistent and I don't see how else to assure consistency except by making the title explicit (a hatnote or a hidden comment can only be additional assurance), a solution would be a title like List of rape victims from pre-nth century history and all mythology. (The all may seem excessive but a redirect can be made without it, so typing either title would reach the list, and omitting the "all" would imply that only pre-nth century mythology should be included, but mythology is often hard to date and that exclusion is not intended.)
Waiting to retitle until more content is added is not necessary and may be counterproductive. Content can be added anytime regardless of title, as long as the new content is consistent with the title.
Including historically real people (if deceased) is not so problematic in terms of whether rapes occurred, since we're not to include anyone absent an appropriate source anyway.
3 different accounts and an IP adding the unhealty dog pic, it is a fine snapshot for the person who own it , but not an encyclopedic, representative picture. We can't remove it, it comes back - . Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see that issue having been raised at the article talk page. Maybe while I was looking elsewhere :-) But we obviously can't have everybody's dog depicted here just because they want it. Otherwise the cat in my user talk edit notice would be in the Mongrel article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, Peter Isotalo, for it to be included we would require a caption of what it was illustrating - there may be no harm in an article showing a single image of an unhealthy dog but is it likely the editor/uploader/IP will gracefully accept the suggestion we include a caption along the lines of "This is a Dalmatian but it is rather undernourished and may portray an unhealthy example of the breed"? Yes, Yngvadottir, you are right, we cannot have everybody's dog depicted and this is an age old argument Dante Shows an Artist Some Unusual Clouds that comes up every time someone wants to include a picture of their pet; we could always just have all dog breed articles with a lead image like this? We were asked to give policy reasons why the image wasn't included and have done so - resulting in editors being deemed "silly", "pedantic" and having "proprietary feelings". SagaciousPhil - Chat18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to do this? There has been no vandalism, except once by a name account on 29 August (you blocked them for it, and they haven't been back). Bishonen | talk22:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I was asked to do it. Whether I meant to is another matter, but within the strict confines of "did I mean to do what I was asked to", the answer is yes. :) Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop that Bishy. Or maybe you want to take a look at my account at Simple English? It was vandalized like 8 times. Do not wish it start happening here to. [22]
Thank you. I honestly don't think I'm proposing anything controversial. That is, if you cross-reference what the policies say, it's pretty clear - but that section is a little misleading... or maybe there is actually an incongruity among the policies/guidelines that needs to be addressed. That could be what causes all the fireworks when people talk about changing it?
BTW, what do you call something like WP:ES? It's not labeled as a policy, guideline, or essay. It says it's an "information page" that describes "communal consensus." Where does that fit in the hierarchy? ... Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm probably with the "creep" people. Of course one shouldn't make attacks in personal summaries--I don't think that's the problem. As for ES, interesting: I didn't know we had "information pages". I'm kind of sketchy on the whole thing, and typically generalize by saying "policies and guidelines", just in case I call a policy a guideline or vice versa. I don't really rank them so much anyway--I think they're all there to be adhered to. (Whether I do so myself...well...). But again, I don't think the biggest problem was that your proposal didn't jive with current policy/guideline/information page/essay/Jimbo dictum. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing that. As for the "creep" thing, I've read WP:CREEP three times now, and I think the two sentences that I proposed adding (in the now-closed proposal) is WP:NOTCREEP. I do think the section in question, as it currently reads, is wordy and confusing, so that's why I asked to close-down my proposal - to copyedit and reformat the section, without adding or deleting meaningful. Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies.
Thank you for your help on the Andrew R Heinze page. I thought I had done a good job on those citations, but I can see that I didn't. I like to do a really good job on things, so I'm going to study it until I get it right.
I've read about how to do all this, but I guess it didn't sink in somehow. Any suggestions you have for me, I would really appreciate. I think someday I'll look back on this and not understand why I was so confused, but right now, I have trouble "getting it." EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EastDimeBoxFrank--the most important thing, since this is a biography of a living person (WP:BLP), is that sources are reliable. Many of the ones you added weren't. Like, there was an "alum" page from a university, and this, which is from a database where the content is submitted by users and there is no indication of what kind of editorial control there is. The thing to do is to find newspapers, magazines, etc. that do have editorial oversight, so we can rely on the information therein. See WP:RS. Now, this guy is a playwright and a scholar, so there must be a variety of sources you can look for. Obviously newspapers, but for his scholarship, look if articles have been written about him and/or his scholarship. If, for instance, a book published by a reliable press cites one of his books at length, that is probably worth citing as a footnote.
Thanks so much for your reply, Drmies. I only just now saw your answers. I have to learn how to keep up with where my questions are posted - so that I will see any answers right away. Is there a way for this all to appear on the Andrew R. Heinze talk page... or my talk page so that I'm sure to see it? I do understand what you're saying about the Alum site, and I'll look for something else for that source material. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that from now on (for this article) it will be good if I use article talkpage for my questions, and then I will be able to keep track of everything. Would you please post any suggestions you might have there? I don't want to miss comments or suggestions. Thanks again. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to start closing our cases, we will have to officially welcome you! Of course, we all miss User:Bbb23 who used to do all the work. His absence forces us elders to dust off our obsolete 3RR-closing skills. Be careful with using humor on the 3RR board; everyone is very literal there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was I being humorous? I had no intention, I swear. But what do you mean--Bbb has left the building? That cannot be. We'll have to ask Jimbo Wales, who I know is a dedicated admirer of Bbb, to persuade Bbb to come back. I suggest Jimbo start with sending Bbb a copy of Dewey the Library Cat, since I am shamelessly promoting that lovely epic from which we can all learn a thing or two. Surreously, I prefer to not close cases unless they're obvious. I'm too often too much swayed this way and that, and I'm probably too lenient for that strict board. You have been around much longer than I have, though your edit count proves you still young and full of zest; you should run that board, kind sir. I'll just troll by on occasion and leave everyone my, ahem, "insight". Drmies (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL. That's what you get, Ed, when you ask Drmies not to be humorous. To make a poor analogy, it's like removing all the fat from bacon. Sorry about not pulling my weight at AN3 lately. I've been pulled in many directions, both on and off-wikipedia, making it tough to do everything. And that lovely discussion at the AN3 talk page left a sour taste in my mouth, even though it has now been archived (mid-month, too, which upsets the order of things). I'm sure I'll be back to help out soon. In the interim, I learned most of my alleged AN3 skills from Ed, so unless he's now in his dotage, I'm sure he can deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question, Drmies: When you posted this request for input at a noticeboard, you said "I disagree, and I affirm that the statement is neutral". Did you mean to say, "I disagree, and I affirm that the statement is not neutral"? My first conclusion is that you accidently left out the word "not". After a second and third read, it appears that you might instead have been saying that "you affirm that while the wording of the statement may be neutral, introducing that statement into the article is not neutral". Clarification? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a letter written by a bishop, in that way that it could be understood in two ways: If you want to kill the queen, I am for it. You don't have to be affraid..
But if you put the commas in a different way it reads: If you want to kill the queen, I am against it. You should be affraid to do such thing.
Hi. I certainly understand your view here but before you rush to judgment I urge you to read this. I've been drowning in so many spammy articles that it can be difficult to distinguish what's spam from what's merely promotional. I will note, however, that my G11 batting average the last few weeks has been running at about .750. I remember being very on-the-fence about this particular one. And I didn't notice it was an FA. If I had I certainly would have thought twice again, and I probably would have sought guidance from a CSD expert. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you got it! :) As for "rush to judgment", I hope you read past that one remark about you and looked at my comments about the article. I think it needs a serious revamping. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I archived that discussion on the Edit war talk page and went back to look at whether I should move it to September instead of August and was going over the archived stuff when I saw a couple of posts you had made that I did not notice. I had not really put much thought into the fact that perhaps you thought another editor had you specifically in mind over the proposed change to policy. Sounds kinda stupid now that I think of it as it was right off the heels of that situation. However I am not thinking of that in any way with my participation. I don't know how much more I will be engaged in the proposal or if it is even going to move forward at all now, but yeah...perhaps I should have put two and two together a little faster but I don't think this is about you. Really. I think it is actually about much more. I mean...you listened, made changes etc., all the things we do in a normal collaboration. Even if it got heated for a bit...that as well is kinda normal on Wikipedia. Anyway, I wanted to be sure and let you know the situation did not inspire my participation. You are one of the better admin...even if the word admin doesn't inspire much confidence in me these days...you still do. So thanks for your work and apologies if it made you even slightly uncomfortable!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the protection lock and restore the longer article. It was not "disruptive insertion", the majority of the editors/readers want the longer article with the chapter summaries. The material was on the page for over a year and nobody complained.
174.22.9.100 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping out but a question; why remove so much from the background section? After all, it's intended to provide background info on all races, including the reserve and women's race. And it seems to have been just fine for about forty Good Articles (e.g. 2013), two PRs and one Featured article (2012) so far. In any case I'd prefer to talk about it rather than just cut swaths of text from these GANs. If nothing else, you've certainly encouraged the indefinitely blocked IP-hopping "editor" to hang around for a while longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion that particular aspect of the background is of no relevance to that particular article. Of course I wouldn't want to call it padding, and far be it from me to find fault with GAs or to consider them to be minor variations on a basic scheme. I reject the notion that I enabled some sock master, and since I blocked a couple of them, I find that suggestion rather distasteful. As you may have noticed, I called them a "dummy". Drmies (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may well reject the notion, but that doesn't mean it hasn't actually taken place. I've had to make something like fifty reverts tonight. You also overlooked the fact that one article containing such "padding" has gone through extensive PR and is now a featured article. In general, it's better to discuss these things before cutting huge swaths of text as I'm sure you know. As for no relevance, how can the background to the women's and reserve race of that year which is then followed a couple of sections later with the results of the women's and reserve race of that year be of "no relevance"? This information doesn't exist anywhere else on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's all my fault. "Huge swaths of text" is a bit of an overstatement. If you got nothing better than personal attacks and exaggerations, place them elsewhere please. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it was "all your fault". You removed whole paragraphs without justification or discussion. I said you hadn't helped the situation, that was obvious. Thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't even have sports figures on my watchlist, even though Drmies claims I spend half my leisure time watching football on television.
Are sports figures exempt from WP:BLPPRIMARY. If not - and I can't think of why - is the other editor correct that I am misreading the policy here? Seems like the organization is a primary source just as a court or any other body that makes decisions, metes out punishment, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a) Sorry, archived b) Why's it got a watermark on the right hand side? Something about a park c) actually, when you think about it, bizarre behaviour. Messing about in plain sight, almost like they want to be discovered. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, would I be able to get your opinion on this comment from an IP? I really don't like the implications of the last line . Do you think this is enough of a PA for intervention, or...?
A bit of background: after nominating the painting September Morn for FPC, an editor opposed as s/he was concerned that the subject (a nude apparently bathing at a lake) was inappropriate because the model was 16. After looking into the painting's history, I found that it was an interesting case of censorship and success de scandale, and I started expanding it from this to what you see now. Yesterday, the IP started adding extensive quotations from copyrighted sources (the first one, Tennessee Williams), and accused me of censorship after I refactored to avoid weight and copyvio problems. I reverted a reinsertion of the Williams' quote, as well as the inclusion of an entire abstract (obvious copyvio issues; reversion), leading to that talk page post. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's one of the reasons why the implications are so insulting; that article has taken a good 30 hours out of my life already. That the comments apparently come from a user I have already had a disagreement with over this painting (see the diff on my page) make the implications seem more deliberate than they were. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's one hell of a swimmer. Yeah, he's gotten some decent coverage, so sure. Problem is, Bongoplayer, when you "do" an athlete, you also have to "do" all these tournaments and stuff they get in to, and if they're real good you'll be pinged for yeeeears! Nice to see you again, old friend. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. Would you mind taking a look at this article? I took out some awful tabloid sources there back in February but I recently noticed some had been returned to the article. User:Spartaz protected it and (rightly) insisted that a proper ("strong") consensus would need to be formed in talk to use them. There has been some discussion in talk where some editors have opined that the sources are ok, but not really said why. Immediately after protection expired, User:Lithistman restored the offending material, claiming consensus in the talk page to do so. When I reverted it they restored the material. As all my actions so far have been administrative in nature, I don't think I technically am INVOLVED, but I would welcome another set of admin eyes to look at this with regard to what other admin actions need to be pursued. I pinged Spartaz but I thought I would ask you to have a look as well. I don't work Mondays at the moment, so that is also a consideration for me. --John (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is far too Doctor Who related for Drmies, but don't ask BG, as Mrs. Bgwhite is far too fond of Barrowman for him not to be involved. I just looked at the last revert, and that addition looks pretty not necessary. --kelapstick(on the run) 02:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're doing at this article, but if you look at the talkpage, there is overwhelming consensus that the Daily Mirror is an acceptable source in this case. There was, quite literally, one editor that claimed it wasn't. You seem to be trying to "solve" a problem there that isn't, in fact, a problem at all. LHMask me a question19:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's a problem; Lithistman and a small group of editors are trying to force through against a project wide consensus that a poor source is used on a BLP. Lithistman, which tabloid is it that you are edit-warring over? That you don't securely know the name of the source speaks volumes for your reliability on the issue. --John (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. So you do know the difference. I don't think there is a future in discussing with you further, as I can see you are having trouble with the facts. I will let others deal with your bad behaviour and have the content discussion (no offence) with folks who know what they are talking about. --John (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, this editor has been making things personal since 2008. Look for the comment by SheffieldSteel, for instance. This is Gwen Gale's RfA--actually the whole thing makes for interesting reading. Gwen is now semi-retired? Not another victim of wiki-weariness, I hope. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind admins popping in and encouraging civility, even for minor things like today. I just hope that should things get crazy again as they were for last wo months, some admins will be willing to do the same. I asked at least one, maybe two, earlier but they were reluctant. Hopefully no more major problems in the future, but since you showed interest will keep you in mind. Guess I just have to start a list of helpful ones - better late than never! :-) Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your removal of this photo? I quite frankly don't get the vegetable reference in the edit summary. This does not correspond to anything in the talk page guidelines that would justify its removal. —Neotarf (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I just noticed you have also changed my photo caption. The photo is related to my first point, which has nothing to do with a specific museum. Again, I do not understand why you are changing my edits. —Neotarf (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. It's a photo of real-life people, who can be identified by name, some of whom have been placed under considerable stress because of various things related to that project. I find it in poor taste to use them as poster children of suggested gender exclusion, and I suppose it's a pity that "incredibly poor taste" is not defined in our guidelines and policies--but then, a lot of things aren't defined in there. If you like, I can cite the BLP. Or I can just ask you to exercise some common sense and not stir up any more shit. I'm not saying you did this on purpose, but if I had been in that photo, used to illustrate the ole boys club, I would be offended too. And I changed the caption in the first one since it didn't make much sense without the second one: that edit was free. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RL considerations did finally dawn on me; I withdraw any objections to the photo removal. The "ole boys club" argument I find less compelling, especially since you participated in this inflammatory conversation without making any objections to the gendered insults, specifically comparing someone negatively to female genitalia as a personal attack. —Neotarf (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? These real-life consequences had to "dawn" on you? They seem pretty obvious to me--and that's before I start thinking you're purposely hounding that Manchester sausagefest network. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who's stalking who now? Why don't you leave those translations--people do use them you know, and there is no standard format for it--don't you think I checked? That piece started out with miserable sources. Reader's Digest? Catholic Online? The rest in Spanish, fed to me by a FB contact in Argentina. Then, finally, the BBCNews did a piece, and I had my first RS. Did they google her, as I had, and instead of finding nothing, as I did, they found a bedraggled assortment of foreign language links and knew enough to assign someone with a Hispanic surname to the story?
And no, I can't see the deleted diffs, I don't have that admin bit, that would allow me to bully people and accuse them of "hounding" without diffs, and quite frankly, if Phillipe's office is involved, the less said the better. —Neotarf (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "deleted diffs" you're talking about. You can get up on your high horse and start bluelinking stuff all over the place, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no way you randomly picked that photograph containing people you are in conflict with to make a point about male groups that don't invite women. I mean, duh. As for your comments on that article--you are obviously under the impression that Wikipedia is a repository for links. It is not. You have good sources in that EL section, so use them as references. That's how we write good articles. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 September 2014
_Still_life_with_tall_beer_glass_1647.jpg)
Done. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
_(4955856483).jpg)
Bishonen | talk 18:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC).
.jpg)
_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_(%D0%9E%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81)_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%80%D1%8F.jpg)
Hafspajen (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
here) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
.JPG)
... Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Maupoleum at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
