1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
D+H article deletion
Hi! I will start by disclaiming that I'm an intern (paid) working for D+H's PR firm, Kaiser Lachance Communications. They recently tried to update their Wikipedia page, but failed to meet community standards and were nominated for deletion, which you completed (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D%2BH). I've been working with them to identify ways to improve the article, remove biased or promotional language and add more information on the company's notability, including more news sources rather than press releases. Would you be willing to discuss reopening the article or reviewing the new one I have drafted to see if it meets Wikipedia's standards? Thanks! M.stanoeva (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Paid? Benefits too? I hope so! Well, the idea is that an AfD discussion doesn't just look at the article in the current state, but at the topic. "Delete" supposedly means that in this case the firm isn't notable, not that the article wasn't good enough. That's the theory at least. But you know what, CorporateM owes me a small favor since I just did him a good turn (well, he suggested I do Wikipedia a good turn), and he knows COI editing better than most people, being on the other side; perhaps he has some good advice for you. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Their website says the company has 5,500 employees, $1.5 billion in annual revenues, and 150 years in business. As Drmies implies, often editors say something is "not notable" because it is the only criteria for deleting articles technically, but really the reason is that there is almost nothing in the article worth keeping for an encyclopedia. Because the article has been deleted previously, there is a strong presumption against you. I would start out at the position that AfC really should start at, which is determining if the company qualifies for an article at all. As a rule of thumb, you need two national sources (books, national press, etc.), where the company is the subject of the article and covered in-depth. These shouldn't be short blurbs, mentions, quotes, etc. but biographical profiles that talk about what the company is famous for, their history, and so on. In most cases, no such sources exist at all and companies spin a lot of cycles trying to create an article that meets Wikipedia's standards, whereas in reality the topic itself is forbidden from the site. CorporateM (Talk) 12:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- PR firms really should have a Wikipedia manual thrown at them first before they even contemplate entering the fray here. On second thought, they should just stick to Talk pages. Karst (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Benefits? I wish. Thanks for the info Drmies and CorporateM. Will let the client know and see if they can meet those criteria. M.stanoeva (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- PR firms really should have a Wikipedia manual thrown at them first before they even contemplate entering the fray here. On second thought, they should just stick to Talk pages. Karst (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Their website says the company has 5,500 employees, $1.5 billion in annual revenues, and 150 years in business. As Drmies implies, often editors say something is "not notable" because it is the only criteria for deleting articles technically, but really the reason is that there is almost nothing in the article worth keeping for an encyclopedia. Because the article has been deleted previously, there is a strong presumption against you. I would start out at the position that AfC really should start at, which is determining if the company qualifies for an article at all. As a rule of thumb, you need two national sources (books, national press, etc.), where the company is the subject of the article and covered in-depth. These shouldn't be short blurbs, mentions, quotes, etc. but biographical profiles that talk about what the company is famous for, their history, and so on. In most cases, no such sources exist at all and companies spin a lot of cycles trying to create an article that meets Wikipedia's standards, whereas in reality the topic itself is forbidden from the site. CorporateM (Talk) 12:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here are two articles about D+H that appeared in two of Canada's national newspapers: http://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/investors-buy-into-davis-hendersons-transformational-deal http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/cheque-please-a-canadian-play-on-the-us-recovery/article16420184/, as well as an article from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-30/dh-to-buy-financial-software-maker-fundtech-for-1-25-billion. Would these demonstrate notability? M.stanoeva (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @M.stanoeva: in my opinion, that looks very promising, especially the first one you link. User:CorporateM may be able to give a more experienced evaluation. MPS1992 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Sorry to bother again, Drmies. Just wondering what you would advise based on the articles I posted above. M.stanoeva (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- M.stanoeva, I think you got three solid sources there, much more than trivial mentions. Well done. I hope you fare well in your internship. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies Great, thanks for the feedback. Would you suggest I start building a new page based on that in drafts and have an editor look it over, or should I try to get the old one up again and update that? M.stanoeva (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
A football puzzle for the brains trust here
Our article on West Brook High School doesn't mention that they won the state 5A football championship in their first year of existence, or make any use of this tremendous source. After I got through picking my jaw off the floor, and tracked it down on GoogleBooks because Texas Monthly's archive is a bait and switch ([1]), I decided I had to write up Hebert High School. In the course of doing that, I discovered that our article on Hebert's, then West Brook's, football coach is a chimera: see Talk:Alexander Durley#Composite. The article wasn't even mentioned in the discussion at the inconclusive mass AfD, and doesn't do either Durley justice. So the question I put before y'all here is: are a math prof and SWAC hall of fame college football coach whose birth and death dates appear irrecoverable and a twice state-winning high school football coach who got an obituary article in the papers (and bearing in mind the importance of the high-school game in Texas) equally notable, in which case I'll split both articles and reference them as best I am able, or should it be AfD time for the current sad mix-up that has the man starting as a head coach at TSU at the age of 12? (Of course I ask partly in the hope that someone can find a reference or two that I couldn't.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: There's now a separate Alexander Durley (high-school coach), and thanks to Wikiproject College Football, Alexander Durley is vastly better. If anyone AfDs the high-school coach, please let me know. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Seeing you are following the anime/manga chat, I wanted to bring up Zentradi. Kronnang Dunn has uploaded multiple non free images for that article, and has undone my edits in the past despite my attempts to explain our copyright policy. Any advice? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) directed at... whoever thinks they know the answer... On a somewhat related topic, I was recently going through a bunch of stuff I had in storage and came across some old action figures from the Robotech/ExoSquad crossover series, including some of the Zentradi mechs. (I collected this stuff for a while in the early 90's) I was surprised to find no images of any of these figures, and indeed only five images of any action figures of any kind on Commons. I would have thought that with all the other geeks on wp there would be tons of such images. Is there some trademark/copyright issue that prohibits uploading images of action figures? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- You can't upload a photo of a copyright action figure, any more than you can upload a photograph of a page from a copyrighted book. See Commons:Derivative works for chapter-and-verse. ‑ Iridescent 21:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- (add) In fact, this specific situation is explained at COM:TOYS. ‑ Iridescent 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to look closer at this after I'm done with a few things that need doing, but can I just say that my boy is dressed as Luigi for Halloween, who apparently has something to do with SuperMario, and he looks as cute as can be? Drmies (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- We'll have to take your word for it, as we wouldn't want you to get sued by Nintendo... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ha, well, he looked great. And while trick-or-treating he ran into Mario! There's a photo to prove it, which I won't publish. To the parents: I am sure I don't have to tell you how gross it is to clean up the after-trick-or-treating puke, mostly chocolate. Yay for holidays. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel bullied
Hello, as childish as this might seem, but I really feel bullied from a former accident. Back then, I was talked to as if Im in a Syrian secret service agency! ("Do not post any more material about the case I closed, either at ANI, my Talk page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia")
Now, I opened a new case and it was closed within half an hour by the same admin. I do not ask you to re-open it, nor to annul his "verdict". But the way he handled it is so bad. Before presenting the new case, I asked for advice at the talk page and I was told that the evidence isnt based only on IPs but also on behavior. I brought an evidence in the new case but the admin just looked at the IP! and considered that there is no convincing proof for meat puppetry although the evidence presented is anything but unconvincing.
I will remove the pages from my watch-list and congrats, a one purpose account with strong ideology will take control over the articles. Im tired of the constant IPs and accounts emerging suddenly to support his edits and nothing can be done about them. This is so bad. Please, I am not asking for any action and I do not wish for any action. I just needed to let it out cause I feel really weak now. Cheers and you can delete this message (not that you need a permission) if you think it is not suitable.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, as you know I looked at that the first time around, and I just refreshed my memory. Bbb was strict in his word choice, but you've been here a while, and so I assume he assumed that you knew about outing. Now, I see that Bbb has responded at the SPI, so I assume this isn't over yet--but I tell you, if the SPI "investigator" doesn't think there is enough behavioral evidence, then that's it. Laying a guilt trip on Bbb or me about what will happen to the articles is kind of a low blow: the better way is to make a better case. BTW, Bbb said "odd case and odd presentation of evidence" or words to that effect--I agree. What those two blocked socks are doing in there is not clear to me (please don't explain it here), and your evidence/presentation only related to the IP, as far as I can tell. So I understand the comments by Bbb. Also, please understand that things that may be crystal clear to you aren't always crystal clear to outsiders, and that's part of the difficult. You are asking us to make huge decisions--blocking--based on things that we may not know as well as you do, or see in a different light. That's why explanations are always so important. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- No guilt was laid on you really and I dont wanna guilt anyone. You were nice the last time so I felt like I could let it out to you cause sometimes, Wikipedia feels like a dictatorship. Thanks for understanding and sorry for bothering you. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it was: look at the sentence that contains the word "congrats". If nothing else happens at the SPI and there continue to be problems, you could consider different options--ANI or maybe arbitration. I looked into the situation a bit but not being all too familiar with the material I couldn't easily see whether there was POV editing etc. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I understand, but the congrats was aimed at the way Wikipedia in general handles those organized groups pushing their ideas in articles, not at you or a particular admin. As for my options, I took the easy way and removed the pages from my watch list. Let them edit as they wish, no point of stopping them cause even when you block one of them, another will come and you need to have a headache for another 2 months and so and so (1A2Z is only the last incarnation of a series of editors who all have the same style, edit from germany, and who came to that article for a year now. Im done).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it was: look at the sentence that contains the word "congrats". If nothing else happens at the SPI and there continue to be problems, you could consider different options--ANI or maybe arbitration. I looked into the situation a bit but not being all too familiar with the material I couldn't easily see whether there was POV editing etc. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- No guilt was laid on you really and I dont wanna guilt anyone. You were nice the last time so I felt like I could let it out to you cause sometimes, Wikipedia feels like a dictatorship. Thanks for understanding and sorry for bothering you. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you ready
for this year's edition of the friendliest rivalry in the SEC? Lizard (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is ever ready for that, or they're lying. Strange to go to Death Valley and not find Les Miles there--passing strange. I heard some of those Cajuns were talking smack about Alabama; I have no doubt that Tide rolls's Twitter is on fire. And I think Tide rolls still remembers that old joke about why the LSU players are still in New Orleans after the 2012 BCS National Championship Game. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I just looked at that Game of the Century article again. That was one scary game, but it's always nice to get a rematch. I think one of the last times I was back in Tuscaloosa LSU beat us in overtime with a TD pass--maybe 2006 or 2007. On the bright side, LSU fans were always the BEST. I loved them--they were polite and friendly even when completely hammered, and even after a loss. But we always played some two-step and zydeco for them in our bar on the Strip. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
fractional reserve banking
Hi,
I saw that you made edits to fractional reserve banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but my edits there were hardly content related, and "fractional" only reminds me of the relationship between my salary and my debt. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
not vandalism, but drip drip drip
Hi Dr, this small item may be the last I drop on you for awhile. This is an IP that mostly adds unsourced birth dates to BLPs [2]. I reported to AIV and this wasn't found actionable; instead I was counseled to try to engage the account. I appreciate the letter of the law, but am disappointed by the lack of spirit. This is, for me, one of the ways in which the standards are degraded. Maybe I'm off, but the laxness I've observed in stopping this sort of editing--which unchecked tends to drag on until dozens and hundreds of such edits accumulate across the site from just one account--is discouraging. That said, thanks for listening. I'm determined to take a long vacation, but always appreciate your presence here. Very best, 99. 2601:188:1:AEA0:254F:3247:6BA4:7C70 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- My hero Ponyo already blocked, with a reason I agree with: "persistent addition of unsourced content". I can't find your report or the response to it. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't look through the AIV history to try to find the decline, however the addition of unsupported full dates of birth (often based on the very unreliable IMDb) is a huge pain in the ass for our BLP subjects. It came up repeatedly when I was active at OTRS and it was embarrassing that I couldn't explain why we allow editors to add dates without reliable verification. WP:DOB is policy for a good reason. The IP was warned, continued, and was blocked as a result.<steps off soapbox>.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the replies. Here's my last correspondence on the matter at AIV, which followed the reply to my report: [3]. It's pretty much done me in, which is okay. Need to spend time in other pursuits. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The initial report: [4]. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- And here, hours later, was the administrative reply [5]. There it sat, until it was deleted many more hours later. In the intervening time no other administrator saw a problem. So I'm just through with it. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, Jayron32 totally outranks me, so I can't go up against him--but I agree with Ponyo's verdict. Don't be through with it--that luxury is reserved for young people. Thanks for all your good work keeping the place clean. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's okay. One thing I don't intend is to start brush fires between administrators; I'm oblivious to rankings anyway. Much appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, Jayron32 totally outranks me, so I can't go up against him--but I agree with Ponyo's verdict. Don't be through with it--that luxury is reserved for young people. Thanks for all your good work keeping the place clean. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't look through the AIV history to try to find the decline, however the addition of unsupported full dates of birth (often based on the very unreliable IMDb) is a huge pain in the ass for our BLP subjects. It came up repeatedly when I was active at OTRS and it was embarrassing that I couldn't explain why we allow editors to add dates without reliable verification. WP:DOB is policy for a good reason. The IP was warned, continued, and was blocked as a result.<steps off soapbox>.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 19
Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti
- New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
- New Library Card Platform and Conference news
- Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links
19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Harassment
You seem to be around. Care blocking 2600:1000:b073:fb39:562d:2fe5:1c53:f02a (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and consider a few hours of semi for User:331dot's userspace? TimothyJosephWood 19:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Looking at the history of User talk:331dot, it's obvious that this is the blocked User:Portlandpie just editing, which is probably an account used by the Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll, editing logged out. Unfortunately they seem to have considerably more than a /64 range at their disposal, so I've merely semi'd 331dot's talk (Floq has blocked the IPs). Bishonen | talk 19:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC).
- Sorry I missed all this excitement. Antisemitic troll, that's quite a moniker. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
PLEASE Review my Article
i greatly appreciate Your Numerous Contribution to the Wikipedia community , i Doff my hat for you . and i look up to great Wikipedians like you for guidance . please with due respect , i humbly wish to seek for your help in reviewing and article by name Olagist, which has You marked for speedy deletion . please kindly review or possible help remove the Deletion Tag . which i believe the Article is wikipedia worthy due to its Contribution to the Nigerian Education Sector . thanks in Anticipation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebilz (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Mikebilz, you came to the right place, and I appreciate the recognition. Oh, Olagist--the website! Yes, I did mark that, sorry, because the article didn't make any kind of claim to importance, nor did it offer references to reliable sources to verify any claims of importance. I think it would be a good idea if you were to try WP:FIRST for your next article. Now, I hope you don't mind, but I removed those pleas for help you made--the article is gone now, so they don't really serve a purpose anymore. Best to start from scratch. Thanks again for your note, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Please i want to ask if it will be proper to channel any proposed article to you for review and publication to forestall future speedy deletion ? Mikebilz (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- WP:FIRST includes a review mechanism--that's the way to go. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!!
Thank you for taking the time to close that... Whatever "that" was. Much appreciated. If after reading it you have any feedback for me I am all ears. Thanks! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- If I have feedback after reading that entire thread, you'll be the first to know, I promise. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Close a thread?
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait, sorry. You don't need to close anything. Fut.Perf already did. You can still read my email if you like and do with it what you wish. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
ILL of Famine and household coping strategies
Hey Drmies, tks for all your help. Have you heard back about that ILL? Tks again! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Remind me of the title--my ILLIAD screen is completely full. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
AN Comment
Thanks for your advice you left here. It's definitely something I'll do if the RFA ends successfully. I'm not the type of person to take a measure that drastically if there's a question posed like this, but consensus was pretty clar that the edit summary was over the top. (And I didn't comment but I concur, that was too much). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I just happened to run into that right after I saw your RfA, and thought you might take an interest in it. As you can tell, I'm still learning the job. Ha, I ran into another one--I suppose I should ask these questions at RfA: what about this user name, User:Grammer Nazi? or User talk:Friendlyneighbourhoodgay? or Rickinbaltimorê should not be an àcdmin, who was revealed by CU to also be I put my peniz im your moms mouth? OK those last two are easy, but the first two, not so: judgment calls. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Grammer Nazi? Well isn't that an insult to Frasier? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
UAA
Thanx, schmuck - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Miss Cosmopolitan
Hi Drmies (or any well-equipped TPS). Is there anything that can be done about the sock-hydra at Miss Cosmopolitan, like maybe salting the article or blocking some obvious socks? If I'm not mistaken, there are now three new editors with a sudden uncanny interest in this article. - MrX 17:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Salted. I could run CU but there's not much point to that, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Interaction ban
Is there an easy way to get an interaction ban between me and Kleuske? She is definitely introducing a grudge from the Dutch Wikipedia here. And she is always poking for a block, often based on selective reading, when she has the chance. Very annoying and disturbing.
By the way, on the Dutch Wikipedia I was highly critical about the extremely blunt way she treated newcomers. She was so angry about that, that she filed a case at the ArbCom to get me blocked. That failed but the ArbCom did, on my request, instate an interaction ban. That made her extremely angry but it did do the trick of calming the waters... The Banner talk 08:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- An easy way? I don't think so, unless it's imposed maybe by way of discretionary sanctions. I don't know Kleuske, I don't think, though it's a pretty cool name, and I do have a fondness for Dutch women, and not just cause one of them was nice enough to birth me. Sorry, I don't think I can be of much help here. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Too bad. Than I have to endure her behaviour. The Banner talk 18:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I know it's a nit, but can you look at this hyphen issue? I don't mind if you think I'm wrong, but in my view hyphenating it is crazy. Still, I can't edit-war with the other user over it, even though he is calling me a troll. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Professional editor/copyeditor/proofreader here. It's correct to hyphenate "gas-can return" here, because otherwise in the phrase "gas can return" the word "can" looks like a verb. Hyphenating it makes it clear that "gas can" is a compound-noun adjective. Softlavender (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing worse than a professional. :-) The word "can" can't reasonably look like a verb in the context. In any event, I've revised the language in the article to avoid the hyphen. Personally I think the revision is better than the original version without the hyphen and the modified version with the hyphen, but I suppose we'll see how invested the other user is in their precious hyphen.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gas can indeed return, and that can be dangerous. Also dangerous, making compound nouns like "gas can return". Now, I probably would hyphenate it, but I would never come up with a term like that. As for compound-noun adjective, as a professional nitpicker I'd call it a compound noun used adjectivally, but hey, it's a football Saturday, and if Bbb are nitpicking over anything it's whether Leonard Fournette is going to cross midfield or not today. What do you say, Tide rolls? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- In the Tolkien trilogy, one of the characters says that all paths lead to the Withywindle. With you all paths lead to football. And that's the Leonard-Fournette truth.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Withywindle, Old Hobbitish for Tuscaloosa. Tiderolls 18:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gas can indeed return, and that can be dangerous. Also dangerous, making compound nouns like "gas can return". Now, I probably would hyphenate it, but I would never come up with a term like that. As for compound-noun adjective, as a professional nitpicker I'd call it a compound noun used adjectivally, but hey, it's a football Saturday, and if Bbb are nitpicking over anything it's whether Leonard Fournette is going to cross midfield or not today. What do you say, Tide rolls? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing worse than a professional. :-) The word "can" can't reasonably look like a verb in the context. In any event, I've revised the language in the article to avoid the hyphen. Personally I think the revision is better than the original version without the hyphen and the modified version with the hyphen, but I suppose we'll see how invested the other user is in their precious hyphen.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Alexandria's Genesis
Hello Drmies, in the past you protected Alexandria's Genesis from creation. I just want you to know I have a small draft in my sandbox that I would like to create. The subject has been mentioned by one notable news site and hoaxes can sometimes are notable for example: Shabbos App. I just want you to know before I trigger some alarm on Wikipedia if it's alright with you to create the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am not Drmies, but I think the information about the mutation having been fabricated in 1998 as a back-story for fan-art connected with some animated television series, should come earlier in the article, rather than relying on the reader spotting the single word "fictitious" and then remembering to apply it to sentences such as "Years later, Augustine would give birth to other girls who inherited her genetics and exceed a hundred years lifespan".
- People at WT:MEDICINE may perhaps have stronger views than I do. MPS1992 (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to be bold and create it, please don't block me. :( — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I can't block you. Drmies is probably too busy earning his huge salary to block you. The people at WT:MEDICINE are probably too busy dealing with bigger problems to notice, although of course they should all watchlist this talkpage just in order to make things simpler. I do hope my thoughts were useful in some way, though. Have fun! MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- JudeccaXIII, I've already met my block quota for today. I'd like to know what the "notable news site" is--it sure as hell can't be Medhealthdaily, which sounds like Worldnetdaily in name and in content--"Over the years, there has been a significant amount of controversy over the existence of Alexandria’s Genesis. Some attribute this condition to an urban legend or a myth that has grown over time. According to scientists, the condition does not current exist. The speculation that surrounds this topic makes it an interesting point of debate." No, it does not exist, and speculation about its existence does not exist, and even if it did that would not make this an interesting point of debate, and even if it were an interesting point of debate it wouldn't necessarily be of any kind of real-world value. We used to discuss whether Brand X redeemed Phil Collins, and that's also not encyclopedic. And if you are right about this fiction thing, then Medhealthdaily's next sentence, "This condition is thought to be a genetic mutation..." is even worse, since it's not "thought" to be that. Poor writing, the downfall of our civilization. Anyway, I suppose your "notable" one is Snopes? But if that story is correct, this is nothing but a meme and you need to rewrite the lead to reflect that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Drmies, just want to say thanks for protecting the Picarones article. (N0n3up (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC))
Billy the Angel
Looks like he's evaded the block via User:Yet another sockpuppet of BillyAngel. Feinoha Talk 03:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Already blocked by User:Materialscientist so I guess there's nothing to do then. Feinoha Talk 03:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dr, if you or another admin sees this promptly, could you block the vandal and perhaps protect the page? Definitely rev/delete the edits, too. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Holy moly. Who says shit like that? Materialscientist already blocked, for which I thank him, and I'll start cleanup. This is scary stuff, 99. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- My thanks to you both. Meh, the reason the Internet sucks: it's amplified that sort of bilge. AT least there are cat videos. 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- And Christmas stories! Drmies (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh you're no fun--you insist on finding real teachable moments, and none of them are my online essays. By the way, watched the family in Corfu installment this evening with Mrs. 99, and was hooked. 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- And Christmas stories! Drmies (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- My thanks to you both. Meh, the reason the Internet sucks: it's amplified that sort of bilge. AT least there are cat videos. 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- It was another Hamilton whose actions led to the ban on handguns in the UK. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
iKon
Hey you were very helpful last time (thanks you again btw.) so I would like to ask you something regarding the site yg-life. Many articles with YG groups (for example iKon) use this site to cite a source. At first I thought it was a fansite so I removed it but another user told me it's an official site which is apparently true, the website provides translations of Korean news articles to international fans. But what I would like to know is if it's okay to use this site for wikipedia? As far as I can see the website does not link to the original article or mentions an author and it is a website operated by the music label for their own artists. Some articles here on wikipedia only use this site as a relibale source like iKon, the page has almost no references left now that I removed these sources. I've checked out this site as well but it looks like the sources haven't been updated or discussed in a long time. According to Identifying reliable sources I would say the site falls under "Questionable and self-published sources" but I'm not sure, I'm not doing this for long. Anyway I would need a second opinion before I removed the source from more sites or add it back again.--Thebestwinter (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thebestwinter, the problem is that too many K-pop editors accept that every single factoid is worth mentioning (in clear violation of WP:FART), and thus everything that's "official" is acceptable to them. They fail to grasp that editorial discretion should be exercised, lest we get those well-known litanies of factoids, and that reliable secondary sources need to help determine what's in and what's out--so not K-pop portals, not fan sites, not official websites, and not translators of news releases. This YG site is just another industry site, which one can call official--but it's not a secondary source, though it tries to look like one. In other words, it might confirm whether some person has this or that blood type, or this or that favorite color, but it cannot be used to state that such information should ever be in an article. Does that help? Thanks for the pointer, by the way. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you this helps a lot. I'll improve these articles as soon as I can but for now I'll simply remove these sources when I see some and hope the other K-pop editors try to help instead to add random fansites and twitter accounts. Nowadays there are many reliable sources in English especially for new groups so I really don't understand why some editors still use random fansites, blogs, allkpop, soompi etc. Anyway I still have so much to learn, it's the first time I participate on wikipedia. Also I'm afraid my English is a bit rusty after I moved to Germany and my Korean is very limited but I'll do what I can to help.--Thebestwinter (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Cervantes' Exemplary Stories
Hello again, Drmies. This is a quick note to recommend Cervantes' Exemplary Stories, which I had never read before, and which are spectacularly wonderful in the way that Don Quixote is wonderful. Excitement! Variety! Plenitude! Adventure! Depth! Everything you could want. I've only read about a third of them, and I'm told that the best is yet to come. If you've read them a dozen times already, feel free to pity my ignorance. If not, you won't regret trying them. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Macspaunday, I will get right on it, though there is a line ahead of Cervantes. For reasons unknown I am reading The Silmarillion, and after that it's Bruno Schulz, recommended to me by a fellow Wikipedian. BTW, I can assume you are familiar with the scurrilous work of Pietro Aretino, no? Drmies (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Pietro Aretino is on the far-too-lengthy list of authors I know I should read. The WP page makes him look even more interesting than I guessed. I'm pretty certain I've got at least one play (?) of his at home (am away this week), and will put it next to Cervantes on the optional-reading table. Thank you! - Macspaunday (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Related?
User: Judtojud [6]
edit: [7]
edit: [8]
- User: [9]
edits: [10]
- User: [12]
edit:[13]
- User:[14] and
[15] and more in edit history
edit:[16]
There may be more.... and someone may already be dealing with this. I'll push off and leave to experts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC))
Thiyya
THIYYA WIKIPEDIA PAGE IS REDIRECTED TO EZHAVA. THIYYA ARE NOT EZHAVA.WE HAVE ENOUGH PROOFS FOR THAT. PLEASE UNDO REDIRECTING TO EZHAVA PAGE. Kadathanadan chekavar (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'll cite the admin who protected it: "see Talk:Ezhava, Archive 7, for instance". And please stop yelling. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- All your base are belong to us. Geoff | Who, me? 17:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Better to be a dog in a peaceful time, than to be a human in a chaotic (warring) period. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh, all too true. We are living in interesting times. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
SockofShawn
Indeed a sock. I don't know if you've run into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gonzales John. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
A talk page for ethnic slurs?
Almost completely unsourced [17] and unrelated to the article here [18]. Maybe there's a rationale for its presence, but I'm missing it. Sorry, but this would normally elicit little patience, and today it seems especially offensive. Thanks to Dr and talk page stalkers. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- From what I can tell it was moved years ago from article space and the main article was re-started. I've never seen that before and I don't get why people are still editing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I went ahead and deleted it as WP:CSD#G6 as it served no apparent purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Beeblebrox. 2601:188:1:AEA0:8D0A:6D57:2982:44AD (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I went ahead and deleted it as WP:CSD#G6 as it served no apparent purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks all. Beeblebrox, you old cracker, I made some tweaks to the article--please see what you think. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I've moved Mansel G. Blackford to my userspace as you were destroying the article. Please leave me alone.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean. Improving text and templates is not "destroying". It is possibly the best referenced and worst-written academic biography I've ever seen; congrats on getting all the JSTOR hits in. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Look what I just found in Recent changes--[19]. Same thing. In academia we don't list publishers for journals: they simply don't matter, unless we're talking about something with an obscure title published by a professional organization. Saves much space too, which is good in combating global warming, which some scientists say exists. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You should've discussed what you didn't like on the talkpage first. Really, I freaked out. You've been quite hostile regarding Clinton and I have to wonder how you came across my new article?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that I discuss basic edits. I'm not "hostile regarding Clinton", I think--though I'm not quite sure what the phrase means. You can wonder all you like, though you don't have to: the magic words are "Recent changes". I have a particular interest in academic biographies, having written a fair number of them. Boring stuff, sometimes! Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You were in the process of removing whole chunks of information. Yes, the article is a work in progress and I've requested an account on WP:OUP to add more from a book. But removing referenced info makes things worse, not better. It was completely counterproductive. I agree that we need a summary of what each book says, but after that we should also keep the book reviews as it shows notability. Also, ideally, we could add what each reviewer said.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- If you have suggestions to improve the article, I am happy to hear them, but not by removing referenced information.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I left all the references; what I removed was the numbingly repetitive "was reviewed by professor X from institute Y in journal Z". Please point out where I removed a reference, and see the note above on the redundant publisher's information. You can look it up in the MLA as well, or the APA. Zigzig, I don't know who you are or where you come from, but I am in fact the kind of person who writes those kinds of reviews in such journals, and I've written plenty of these articles on Wikipedia. There comes a time to understand that you're not always running into rookies. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is there an official WP policy against citing publishers for journals that you can show me please? You were not just removing that though, you were also removing the names of the reviewers, etc. The whole thing. Very discouraging.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- No I wasn't, and I actually added wikilinks to the journal names in your citation templates, and the authorlinks as well. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- The authorlinks are good, but I had already wikified the authors and the journals in the body of the text (where they belong), and you were removing the reviewers's affiliations, which is very important: it's not the same thing if a book was reviewed by a professor at Harvard or the University of Southern Mississippi.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is not how we write such articles here--certainly not if all you do is simply list reviews. If you're going to say something meaningful and quote from the review or so, that's a different matter, but that is not what you were doing. Your question about my making it up is insulting. Now, Southern Miss isn't that bad a school, and your comment smacks a bit of argumentum ad verecundiam--plus, it's not entirely correct. If the prof from Southern Miss reviews a book in Speculum and a prof from Harvard in the journal of the Rocky Mountain MLA, then the first one weighs more heavily. But seriously, you need to look at that article objectively, at section User:Zigzig20s/Mansel_G._Blackford#Career. Read it out loud and tell me how enjoyable that reading is. What you have is a list of titles and reviews, just with a thousand more needless words--and because you list the books below as well, you have two lists. I also saw you restored "served as an emeritus"--this is simply not how these words are used in academia. "Serving" is done on committees. Being a professor is a job. Being an emeritus is an honor. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please show me the WP policy regarding academic biographies?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure if we have a policy that says "you must write digestible prose"--that's common sense, it seems to me. Or, show me the policy that says your version is somehow right. As for the "serves" stuff--there's a dictionary for that, besides experience. Now, you moved that thing back to user space and reverted my edits without justification. If that is how you wish to do collaborative editing, you really have no business coming here to complain. If you want to improve an article, I'm all ears, but that's not what you're here for. And please stay on topic: you started with some weird allegation related to Clinton, which you never took back or explained or apologized for. I think I have answered every single question you asked, and you just keep moving along from one odd complaint to another--enough already. You're wasting your time here, and mine as well. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't discourage other editors. I have been editing Wikipedia for a decade and I am one of the most active Wikipedians. If there is no official WP policy regarding academic biographies, then you have an opinion regarding academic book reviews but so do I. Yes, I've had to salvage the article in my userspace for the time being, because you were removing referenced content without following any specific WP policy apparently, but I'll want to move it back to mainspace eventually--perhaps once I've had a chance to add more content via WP:OUP. Sorry this has been such an unproductive exchange. I would appreciate it if you left me alone now. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s, I'm pretty active too. I reject the notion that you had to "salvage" something--it's prima facie a ridiculous charge especially since I didn't remove any information. You could charge me with removing useless duplicate information, but I think even you understand where that would go. As for leaving you alone--I think you perhaps don't realize that you keep making these false attacks (of vandalism, of removing information, blah blah blah) on me on my talk page. It says "User talk:Drmies" here. You're more than welcome to drop by in this happy place anytime you like, but you're like the guest who doesn't wipe their feet and leaves dog poop marks on the rug, and then complains that the hallway smells like shit. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't discourage other editors. I have been editing Wikipedia for a decade and I am one of the most active Wikipedians. If there is no official WP policy regarding academic biographies, then you have an opinion regarding academic book reviews but so do I. Yes, I've had to salvage the article in my userspace for the time being, because you were removing referenced content without following any specific WP policy apparently, but I'll want to move it back to mainspace eventually--perhaps once I've had a chance to add more content via WP:OUP. Sorry this has been such an unproductive exchange. I would appreciate it if you left me alone now. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure if we have a policy that says "you must write digestible prose"--that's common sense, it seems to me. Or, show me the policy that says your version is somehow right. As for the "serves" stuff--there's a dictionary for that, besides experience. Now, you moved that thing back to user space and reverted my edits without justification. If that is how you wish to do collaborative editing, you really have no business coming here to complain. If you want to improve an article, I'm all ears, but that's not what you're here for. And please stay on topic: you started with some weird allegation related to Clinton, which you never took back or explained or apologized for. I think I have answered every single question you asked, and you just keep moving along from one odd complaint to another--enough already. You're wasting your time here, and mine as well. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please show me the WP policy regarding academic biographies?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is not how we write such articles here--certainly not if all you do is simply list reviews. If you're going to say something meaningful and quote from the review or so, that's a different matter, but that is not what you were doing. Your question about my making it up is insulting. Now, Southern Miss isn't that bad a school, and your comment smacks a bit of argumentum ad verecundiam--plus, it's not entirely correct. If the prof from Southern Miss reviews a book in Speculum and a prof from Harvard in the journal of the Rocky Mountain MLA, then the first one weighs more heavily. But seriously, you need to look at that article objectively, at section User:Zigzig20s/Mansel_G._Blackford#Career. Read it out loud and tell me how enjoyable that reading is. What you have is a list of titles and reviews, just with a thousand more needless words--and because you list the books below as well, you have two lists. I also saw you restored "served as an emeritus"--this is simply not how these words are used in academia. "Serving" is done on committees. Being a professor is a job. Being an emeritus is an honor. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- The authorlinks are good, but I had already wikified the authors and the journals in the body of the text (where they belong), and you were removing the reviewers's affiliations, which is very important: it's not the same thing if a book was reviewed by a professor at Harvard or the University of Southern Mississippi.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- No I wasn't, and I actually added wikilinks to the journal names in your citation templates, and the authorlinks as well. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not grant you that authority!
I have found your comment with the talk page of x86, but I am sorry to say that I never grant you any authority to say something like that! The only right you have is to shut your door! You have no right to tell me what I do! Let me wait that expire, I would change it too! I am in patience, and I did is right. Sorry, idiot!
Best Regards, Aaron Janagewen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.149.34 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Aaron, I didn't leave a comment, but I appreciate your apology: it means a lot. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I only show my apology towards ladies or female, even what they did is wrong. If you are a lady, single or not, I would love to make apology. Or else, what you did is wrong! You removed my words, my positive words. Anyway, that is ok. --- Aaron Janagewen (owe millions thanks towards software HideMyIP, which enable me to write anything here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.110.183 (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh! But you said "sorry"! As it happens I may well be a ladies or female. So please do apologize, and accept my heartfelt acceptance. Hey, listen, you handsome devil, you've been socking here for two years with your chatter about computer chips or whatever. Can you maybe start signing your posts? Awesome! These edit conflicts are irritating. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I get $5 for an IP block, so keep em coming. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Only $5? I thought Administrators made the big bucks. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, you are so lucky! I would tell you that there is nobody paying me for anything, I just make completely devotion. So I do not care whether you block this IP or not! I am just living in the world of other spices just with similar appearances. This time I obtain an IP from UK, where I love most of all. If one has his previous life, I believe I were British in my last life. But I give you another $5 this time, next time, would you please invite me a cup of coffee on your land? --- Aaron Janagewen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.107.109 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- the world of other spices just with similar appearances sounds like a riddle to me. Where's Bilbo? I feel like I am rapidly becoming British in my current life, never mind any previous lives. MPS1992 (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- The spice must flow. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- the world of other spices just with similar appearances sounds like a riddle to me. Where's Bilbo? I feel like I am rapidly becoming British in my current life, never mind any previous lives. MPS1992 (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- By the power vested in me as Visitor To This Thread, I hereby grant Drmies the authority to revert edits on, and place edit-protection on, Talk:x86. There, that should settle it. Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dr and talk page stalkers; this bio has recently been edited by a new account that appears to take a promotional interest in its subjects. Most recently they've dropped a lot of patents into this article, and though I'd like to remove them, am uncertain as to rationale and policy. Any help appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dr. Have a good weekend. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Your vandalism of Fred Meyer article
I added one word to the products section of the Fred Meyer article to show that the store sells firearms. I, apparently like you, would prefer that the store not carry guns. You deleted the entire products sold section about an hour later. Wikipedia exists to spread knowledge, not hide it. And as a practical matter, if more people knew Fred's carries firearms, maybe action will be taken about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.167.254.52 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- IP editor, this is a content dispute, and is most certainly not vandalism. Please refrain from making ridiculous accusations of vandalism. I oppose restoring this unreferenced content, as does Drmies. Your "call to action" is contrary to Wikipedia's purposes as a neutral encyclopedia. We do not exist to promote activism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Cullen, I bought a whole bunch of dried beans and now, apparently, I'm a "prepper". So yeah, I should buy some guns too, before that liberal Trump takes them away. (He used to believe in gun control, right?) Drmies (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Mrs. Cullen thinks that we should support the Bill of Rights by buying a couple of matching "his and hers" firearms, just in case the Trumpies decide to attack our estate. That, plus donations to the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. As for your dried bean purchase, there is a very chic boutique in Napa called Rancho Gordo that specializes in selling nothing but gourmet dried beans. What a business model, huh? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Must be a business model that's working- they've sold out of a few types of beans, including Yellow Indian Woman Bean. "Easily one of the staff's favorite beans." Methane is lighter than air, so if you're visiting the shop remember to crawl on the floor like you would in an airplane fire. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't know exactly what this means, but I'll ask on Reddit, where they helped me come up with a good password last time. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Here is my password suggestion for you, free of charge: "J1mb0G0tHack3d". Case sensitive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Kurtis (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Someone needs to learn to use the "new section" button
Drmies my name is jack oneal you made a comment about the kristin conzet article. I know Kristin Conzet. And with the new american bible translation, it is actually the first one to come to existence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JACKONEAL (talk • contribs)
- JACKONEAL, thank you for your note. I do not know Kriston Conzet, but I do know that you shouldn't be adding such information unless a. it is relevant (this isn't, yet) and b. it is well-verified. As for the Seven seals, I don't know what you mean with "the first one to come to existence". The NAV is obviously not the first translation of the bible, and it is certainly not the first version of the bible. Before you make such changes, you should discuss on teh talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Tapad edit-warring
Original GA-ranked version of the article here. An IP added the same content here, here and again here. I reverted here and another editor reverted here.
I am affiliated with the company and brought the article up to GA status with a COI. I am especially concerned about other editors adding promotional, poorly-sourced content as here, because people tend to blame the COI editor for that kind of editing, even when it wasn't me! However, I also cannot continue reverting boldly under WP:COI and have no way of communicating with the IP. Additionally, my providing a warning might be seen as COI bullying/ownership (or whatever excuse editors use to assume bad faith against COIs) and felt it may be best to simply draw attention to the issue. Maybe you or one of your watchers can jump in. CorporateM (Talk) 17:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw 78.26 was on the job--thanks. I would have no problem with your revert citing "unreliable since dependent source; rv promotional error", or words to that effect, and you can leave the IP a warning. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, woops! I thought 78.26 was just a random IP and it turns out they are an admin with a functional Talk page and all the bells and whistles. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It's the exact speed of a "78 rpm", record, i.e. 78.26 rpm. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Only in the US, in Europe it was different. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sound_recording_and_reproduction#78_RPM_gear_ratio_claim for the discussion that is linked to his talk page. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It's the exact speed of a "78 rpm", record, i.e. 78.26 rpm. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, your talk page stalkers have it right, 78.26 is the precise speed of most "78s" in the Western Hemisphere. Of course, pre-1920 the speed varied anywhere from 62 to 90 rpm, particularly in the very early years of disc recording. But "Approximately somewhere around a mean of 78 but with a variance of +/- 20%" is a worse user name than 78.26, so I haven't changed it . By the way, CorporateM, thanks for your work on this. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- It all falls into place now. My European background betrays me: you have a period where I would have used a comma (albeit a long time ago--back when I also had a record player). "78.26" to me, as it did to Corp, suggested an IP address, lopped off for convenience sake. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, it was a topic of some discussion at my RfA, but surprisingly the consensus was that I should keep this username since I've had it so long. When I first saw periods instead of the "correct" commas used to mark thousands places on the catalog numbers of European pressings, it confused the heck out of me, myopic American that I am. I wonder how that got reversed between continents anyway, Decimal mark and Full stop explains what, but not why. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- It all falls into place now. My European background betrays me: you have a period where I would have used a comma (albeit a long time ago--back when I also had a record player). "78.26" to me, as it did to Corp, suggested an IP address, lopped off for convenience sake. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Evlekis
Hello. Thanks for changing the block settings for MATT TAMMOCK, but unfortunately there are more of them. I nominated a number of attack pages on the talk pages of blocked socks for speedy deletion earlier today (check the deleted content...), and since Evlekis obviously checks in to see what I'm doing every day he quickly noticed, and showed that he still has the passwords for his old socks, and re-uses his old blocked socks to create new attack pages. So would you mind removing talk page access for them all? The latest batch of such re-used socks that I have found are Bravo Baby Burt, Blankawanka, Garaganap, Martin Number 1, Gold Bold and Sold, Samways Special Offer, More of the stuff, Mike the Mean Man Masters and Sugar Jack Johnson. The reason he's now re-using his old socks is that there's currently little else he can do, since there's a fresh 3-month range-block on his usual IPs, and a big one too (94.196.0.0/16...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, TPA removal is only $2 a pop, but it's worth it; as a prepper, I need to be saving. Did they tag you in those talk page posts? That would be nice of them. I didn't really read what they said--Radiohead is the only outfit that gets to intersperse letters with periods. Children shouldn't be on the internet. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I was mentioned in all of them, along with a whole bunch of other people here. But he didn't ping any of us, even though it looks like he did, since he didn't sign his posts, so I found them through the standard WP search function. Which is fairly easy if you know what search terms to use. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Multiple articles
Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, I'm heading out now, and if anyone can clean up and protect these articles tonight, the one from persistent promotion, the other from vandalism, I'd appreciate it. Carol Vorderman and TIMWE. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected both pages, since I judged the disruption to be severe enough. 2601, you do know this will lock you out too, right? Vanamonde (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Vanamonde93. I anticipate that someone associated with TIMWE will have at it again after protection lapses--they seem to be in it for the long haul. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Vanamonde93. This IP editor has a legion of socks and minions, like me and Mandarax, to do their dirty work for them. And all we get in return are hazy screen shots of oil paintings of nudes--but it's better than nothing. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Vanamonde93. I anticipate that someone associated with TIMWE will have at it again after protection lapses--they seem to be in it for the long haul. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Drmies.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Kan-je me helpen?
I was just in the middle of rescuing Fenna Vanhoutte, but I could really do with somebody with a more than tenuous grasp of Dutch to parse this source and see if there's anything in there that can be used to expand the one-liner that's currently there. Can you give us a hand? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any more in there that can help you--the tenth place already is. She trained with Johan Musseeuw, but I don't know what that might mean. Hey, did you hear about Rabobank's sex parties? Including collaborative masturbation and brothels? It's in the new book by/about Thomas Dekker (cyclist). Drmies (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I should not have Googled that. And I still have an account with that bank. Karst (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Rabowank? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think it was the professional cycling team that was previously sponsored by Rabobank that had sex parties, not the bank clerks. Rabobank stopped sponsoring them in 2012, AFAIK without saying why, but it could have been because of their odd "team-building" practices. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I should not have Googled that. And I still have an account with that bank. Karst (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this stalking?
Hi, sorry to bother you but can you take a look at this and see if hounding/stalking is about to happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Joseph#Nashef I checked out recent contributions to see what the fuss was about, while there I made an edit. Now I am being told that he will check out my edits " to seek out conflict." Isn't that the definition of hounding? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think Nableezy is just pissed at you and is returning the favor, though with some strong words thrown in to raise the rhetorical temperature. Seriously, sure, that's not OK, if that's what they're really going to do--Nableezy, tone it down please. But what started it in the first place? What's the diff where they're accusing you of abusing rollback? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- What started it is Nableezy accused Debresser of violating 1RR. So I went through most recent history to see what the fuss was about. I came upon this page and made some edits, including adding a filmography table. I didn't seek out conflict. As I come upon the page, I made a change. He is stating on the record he is seeking out conflict and will go through my edits. Isn't that a chilling effect? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please do something about this. I don't need to have this over my head every time I edit. I didn't do anything wrong and this is just bringing conflict into everything. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
this is the rollback violation. The first section of the talk page is the discussion that settled this back in 2010 with Avraham. Note that Debresser, who Sir Joseph was looking to support at another article, had never edited this. Yes, that was me pissed, though I have not returned the favor. I did not actually plan to go through this users contributions, was just demonstrating why somebody might find that annoying and hopefully causing the user to look at his actions with the perspective of having them turned around on him. nableezy - 17:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Again, this is you continuing to Not assume good faith.You are already putting defense into my intentions when all I did was just be curious and see what the fuss is all about. You are casting aspersions and creating a chilling effect. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)