** To be fair - I'm a hair confused here. Your notice to Gilmore was "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page." Did you mean the ban to be only from the article and its talk page or did you mean it in the normal sense of a WP topic ban, where it applies to the topic anywhere in WP, not just the article and its talk page? I'm assuming you meant the later, but your statement could very easily be read to mean the former. Granted, either way, Gilmore's pushing the boundaries, but there is a difference between pushing the boundaries and breaking a topic ban. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 14:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
** To be fair - I'm a hair confused here. Your notice to Gilmore was "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page." Did you mean the ban to be only from the article and its talk page or did you mean it in the normal sense of a WP topic ban, where it applies to the topic anywhere in WP, not just the article and its talk page? I'm assuming you meant the later, but your statement could very easily be read to mean the former. Granted, either way, Gilmore's pushing the boundaries, but there is a difference between pushing the boundaries and breaking a topic ban. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 14:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
***I should have just borrowed the standard language. I'm tired of this. Ealdgyth, you're an admin, and you're watching this. Just tell me, or Gilmore, or Ed, or DS, what to do. Tell me and I'll do it. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
***I should have just borrowed the standard language. I'm tired of this. Ealdgyth, you're an admin, and you're watching this. Just tell me, or Gilmore, or Ed, or DS, what to do. Tell me and I'll do it. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
**** I'm perfectly fine with the traditional "do not mention the topic ever anywhere on Wikipedia" topic ban. That's what I assumed you wanted. Unfortunately, for someone as wikilawyerish as Gilmore, that's not going to work. They apparantly need everything exactly spelled out. Unfortunately, I suspect if the actual admin who closed the discussion doesn't do it, we'll just get more wikilawyering from Gilmore. Some advice, {{ping| User:C. W. Gilmore}}, you should stop all mention of Patriot Prayer ANYWHERE on wikipedia, even your sandboxes. Don't lawyer about it. Don't pester admins with multiple posts. Just. Drop. It. And, I'll add, just as another piece of advice, drop the topic of Darkness Shines too. If you keep up with the trajectory you're on with him, you're going to end up totally banned from wikipedia. No, that's not an IBAN or anything, it's purely advice, but it's good advice. Stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground or a law court. It's not. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 14:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Canti
You graciously thanked me for three songs that are on DYK. Other planned ones are held up by tags discussed on the talk. The German is ahead this time, and once I translated the extras (perhaps tomorrow), the tags can probably go. I am just uneasy with one editor demanding certain content (which I invited him to add), as if it was DYK requirements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, Ceoil strongly dislikes me, and I have no desire whatsoever to interact with him, so please don't ping me from his talkpage. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you did have a good point on "denounce". Shows you we should be really careful, and I thank you for that. But you know I've been to that article before, right? and the talk page? Drmies (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, considering your obvious partisanship someone should keep an eye on you. Nice try at the SPLC page! By the way, I made my first edit on that page in 2010. Your first one came six years later (were you following me?), where you reverted Malik Shabazz, without explanation--and you were reverted by yet another editor, of course, for POV editing. I assume you followed Malik there? I note that your additions there typically consist of adding critical commentary by conservative blogs and policy institutes. Bravo. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If your recent edits are indicative I would gladly hold the neutrality of my edits up to yours. The distinction is an administrator your actions should be beyond reproach. They have not been. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I can't be everything to all people, though I try. Find where I chose "left" think tanks over reliable sources. Good luck. And if you find any, tell me about it so I can change them if necessary. And "but the 'mainstream media' ARE left-wing and blah blah" won't cut it. Now, if you want more people following you around, by all means keep posting here. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You all seem very satisfied with yourselves. I do not derive my happiness from arguing on the internet and I do not expect further discussion will be productive so I will abstain. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @James J. Lambden: It does you little credit to come to a talk page, start a conversation, and then magnaminously choose to "abstain" :D well, you can, of course; but isn't there an expression devoted to that situation? Something to do with an "ass", a "plate" and the one being handed back on the other?! — fortunavelut luna14:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand, James, that this is my talk page--it's a happy place, for fun and chatter between friends and foes. Everyone is welcome as long as they come in good faith, to help fill the bucket of human kindness and maybe solve a Wikipedia problem or two--or to start an interesting one. What you want is to empty my bucket and I can't let you do that. I have been wrong plenty of times on Wikipedia, and I hope I have acknowledged that and apologized for it, but in this case, I don't believe I am. You should save your energy to argue your case on all these talk pages and noticeboards where you are spreading the word: this is not one of those forums. I do find it funny, though, that I check out BLPN to see what you had to say, and run into a nest of obvious right-wing tennis socks trying to blackball Jemele Hill, John Skipper, ESPN, etc. At least you have the decency to be your own man and I appreciate that. Later, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching a lady called "Rachel Maddow" on TV right now. Seems veeery liberal. Anyway, she cites ProPublica--I don't think I've ever cited anything like that. No, my sister-in-law gave me a "Notorious RBG" t-shirt, which is pretty cool. So I wore it to a hamburger-tasting event, with lots of red meat and red meaty people, but the eaters were mostly hipsters, plus me. Anyway, one of the restaurant owners, a good old boy, looked at my shirt, angrily, and grumbled "oh that Hillary Clinton". My date says, "dude that's Ruth Bader Ginsberg" and he cheers up going "oh, OK!": it couldn't have been more obvious that he had NO IDEA who this was. Hmm--it was more hilarious when it happened, and that was without drinking beers. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea who RBG was until two days ago, when I was browsing SNL Youtube videos, and I had to consult my favourite online encyclopedia. Now you're wearing the t-shirt. I wear my "Skullfuck" t-shirt to teaparties 'cos I'm the only Deadhead in the whole of the city. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This might be Janina Cünnen: position and bio. Wouldn't it be great if everyone who published had an easily available cv? It's one thing when it's someone with a tenured and stable position, but when it's someone with a less stable job and/or for whom publishing is not required (e.g., a student or a curator), let alone someone from the pre-internet ages, finding them and the rest of their work can be a pain. But sometimes fun as well; you've just inspired me to figure out who Godfrid Storms actually was, and put together a brief article on him. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that's awesome! Short articles on obscure but cited scholars of the Middle Ages, sounds about my speed. You're definitely right that it's a treat to find out that they're still around. Afraid this has started a bit of a wormhole; just spent the last five hours trying to figure out a) who Caroline Brady is (see Sutton Hoo helmet#Bibliography), and b) why she disappeared from (visible) academia for 24 years. Fairly successful on the first front, not at all on the second. There's enough information to put together an article, but the quarter-century of silence is curious. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you do if you, yourself, are the source of information.
I was personally involved in something I edited. I tried to source it by using a source I found online but truthfully, the information is a correction of date and adds additional associates. Truth2120 (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hy Drmies, I listed a case at the adminstrators' notice board but it was not attended to before it fell out of the page range. Please let me know what you thing, it is here, with a number of links to his work. He is now under observation on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appears that this image is taken by Mellersh using a self-timer. Since he died in 1980 the file probably should be deleted. I originally thought that the photo was taken pre-WW1 by someone called Melluish; I just today made the identification. How Mellersh's negatives ended up at an East Midlands car boot sale will perhaps never be known; fortunately he wrote his name and a self-caricature on one of the boxes- recent interest in Mellersh meant that Google's autocomplete filled in the name from the "H E L" bit. One of Churchward's taper-boilered 4-4-0s passes behind. The wall gets broken down by the sea and rebuilt every few years, so the actual spot's unlocateable (I tried). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And that is why I just reverted it. It has nothing to do with the notability of the subject, which is what that discussion should be about. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought another and very recent example of collaborative bias (plus whose "vanity"?) would seem essential to that particular AfD. How does one defend oneself against group hounding, if not allowed to give examples? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You commies and Nazis are the same. Both ideologies of anti-Semitic socialists.
All of you deserved to be gassed like you did to us. Every. Single. One. Of. You. Evil. Degenerate. Bastards. [unsigned]
Nice punctuation, hipster. Please provide proof of your alleged background, since I believe you're just a little child who can't get a date. You can identify yourself to the Foundation--coward. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tornado chaser, is that an apology, for an editor of five months complaining on someone's talk page why that someone does something on that very someone's own talk page? At the risk of sounding grumpy, wtf? NorthBySouthBaranof, you know it's not just me; I'm just in a grumpy mood cause a. some Amazon seller fucked up my t-shirt order, b. I really need to order a #7 Kap shirt, c. it is such a fucking shame that children get to play on the internet without adult supervision. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear, that is very, very nice of you. It is well above my pay grade, though I am sure I deserve it, haha! Seriously, I appreciate it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I believe Jimbo Wales should have put you on payroll a long time ago. I'd ping him, but he never listens to me anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Drmies, boy howdy do I know it. I'm of the opinion that Wikipedians should be allowed to choose to indefinitely semi-protect their own userspace. The signal-to-noise ratio with IPs is just off the charts at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a lot of editors who have been victimized, many of them for political reasons--and some of them of the right-wing persuasion, though almost all of the cases I know of it's been "liberal" victims of right-wing vigilante trolling. You've had your fair share of it. I don't like keeping my talk page protected, since many an IP editor comes by here in good faith, bringing gifts and greetings. Ha, maybe we can have a setting that allows IP editors but not editors with a registered account who've made less than x edits in main space. I think we are moving closer to "you must register an account", and if the WMF would pay for someone to sit in a cubicle in San Francisco simply checking the user names of all the new accounts (on all the wikis, haha--a nominalist polyglot!), with a block button, man we'd keep this place a lot cleaner. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, despite being one of the more vocal proponents of ACTRIAL, I am very much *for* IP editing and opposed to limiting it in most cases. To the point where I think your new protection level might actually do more good than the current semi-protection. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think you know I am with you. When I say I think this is where we might be headed I'm not giving my opinion, rather an educated guess. Now that you're an admin you probably have an even better feel for how much vandalism comes from IP editors, and perhaps you have also seen that it's a numbers game: we simply have a lot of IP editors, many of whom make really good edits (I try to recognize them when I can). But you know, on a week day, when school lets out in Australia, the UK, or across the US, I feel a bit different. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I'm sorry to hear some Amazon seller fucked up your order. FWIW, if you complain loudly enough to Amazon, they might extend your Prime membership for a month. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, my wife is paying for it already. It was just sad: I got sort-of matching BLM shirts for me and my daughter, and they sent us four baby-size shirts with some weird periodic table slogan on it. I just need to get off my ass and return them. :) Drmies (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that was easy--package tracking says "it's not there yet--would you like to get a replacement?", so yes! When the right shirts come I'll post a pic of the four I have: maybe some of you have kids with those sizes.
OK, so they're all like "Ladies Small", two saying "I Got Books", one with a logo saying "Weapons of Mass Percussion", and one saying "I Play P Er Cu S Si O N Periodically" (get it?). When the right shirts come in, I'll post here, and then it's first come, first serve. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are an editor who I trust to do the right thing, I in no way meant to accuse you of anything, I saw the edit on my wachlist, and went to make sure the troll had been reported/blocked, when I saw you had put it there I was confused and asked what it was. It sounded like I assumed bad faith but it can be hard to convay intent in a written message, I never assumed bad faith, I was just wondering what had happened, sorry about that. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, I don't know. So many of the good, regular editors already hate me--I don't know how I did it but I did. If you look at how the "regulars" complain about ArbCom, and I'm not even talking about editors we sanctioned and had bad tempers to begin with, we must be doing a terrible job. And among the arbs I'm probably the dumbest: I can't even figure out fucking gmail and its threads, nor do I speak the language well enough to write up those cases. I've tried to handle the things that I can handle, over email mostly and usually quietly, but most of those things I can't talk about.
Iridescent would be a good candidate: an editor's admin, with a great name (literally) and a good record. I think that just about every arb but me should be re-elected: they are really a fine bunch of people. Y'all may not know this, and there's a lot of stuff we just can't talk about, but you want arbs like K-stick, GW, Keilana, OR, Callanecc. Euryalus and esp. Mdkw have been fantastic additions.
I'm really interested in seeing who's going to run. I think y'all should support some relatively new editors, not old farts like me and most of the other arbs. Grad someone with some common sense, someone who's been here maybe two or three years, someone who has a lot more patience than me and the technical skills of GW or DW. And ask them to report regularly. I kind of wanted to do that, but I'm never sure how much I can really say, plus after dealing with a bunch of the stuff we have to deal with, some of which is just pure shit, you're just not in a good mood anymore. Tell you what, have Yngvadottir run; we all trusted her with the tools the first time, so that she's a former admin shouldn't matter. Same with Malik: someone recruit him. He's less short-tempered than I am, he has a cooler name, and he's been a great admin. Oh, or Ad Orientem, who's older than me (HAHAHAHAHAHA) but doesn't have as much mileage on-wiki. TParis--it would be about time he shuts the hell up and pulls his weight! (this is worth pinging, TParis)
I tell you what, though: it's a privilege to be on ArbCom. First of all, people have trusted me to handle shit. Second, the secret cabal part, because there are really a lot of things we can't talk about, has an attraction of its own, I'll not deny that, though it also means we can't explain ourselves very well sometimes. Third, I feel privileged to be working with a group of people who have gained the trust of so many editors, a group of people who have their heart in the right place and are dedicating a lot of their time to making the joint run (more) smoothly. I am not going to forget that. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I only became an admin to get access to the super secret admin-only lounge with the free beer and cigars.--v/r - TP02:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come, doctor, is it really that bad? Some hatred must surely come with the job, as it does for any authority figure? Personally, I'd really like to see you run. I don't participate in very many admin-y discussions but I read a lot of them, and I cannot remember an occasion when I read something and though "well, Drmies was dead wrong on that occasion". I've not agreed with everything you say, but my disagreements are about things I would acknowledge to be matters of judgement and not fundamental understanding. And while we're on the topic, a person I'd like to see run is Boing! said Zebedee, though somehow I suspect he's not interested. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, I'm not sure what you mean--it's not the "hatred", though I get more of that than I used to. I think many of my fellow arbs will agree that the amount of time it takes seriously detracts from editing; that's a big thing. Plus, I am still not convinced arbness is something I'm good at; I have colleagues who are really good at it. You put it all together, and arb-dom brings you so much more of the not-so-great sides of Wikipedia, and less of the good sides. There is no joy (for me) in signing off on some decree that bans someone or restricts someone. I wasn't there for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 (previous ArbComs have dealt with much more difficult cases than we have), but where's the fun in that? That someone like DGG is still sticking with it deserves a barnstar, or a big fat check from Intel (JOKE JOKE JOKE). As for Boing--yeah, I can see that, that he'd be a good one and that he'd say no. You could recruit Rosiestep, but imagine the loss in article space. Anyway, thanks for your kind words. I feel the same way about you, and really about most of the editors here. See, ArbCom frequently deals with the dark side, but what we often forget is that we still manage to churn out awesome content, despite all this fighting and bitching... (Someone pull up a Virgilian metaphor about ants or bees, please...) Drmies (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean, truly. I've experienced similar situations; which is why I frequently avoid all admin tasks and write content, and indeed why I avoid indic articles and run to speculative fiction. The irony of course is that your distaste for the job and for placing restrictions on other editors is part of why I trust you to do it; if somebody genuinely enjoyed such things, I'd be concerned about it, and would likely not vote for them. Vanamonde (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It comes down to collective responsibility, of course. Anyone who joins arbcom will almost automatically be hated regardless of however much they were previously loved, not because they have done anything to earn hatred but because arbcom has. Of course, there are bound to be, as in any such group, individuals who make it particularly easy to earn loathing- indeed, probably revel in the opportunity :) — fortunavelut luna14:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard from Kiefer in a long time. I dropped him a line occasionally over the years, just to see how he was doing. Last I heard was two years ago. I'll email him again when the spirit moves me. OR is wonderful. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pull yourself together, man! Mop-wielders only clean the floor. If you know what it can do, you know everything about it. 3 months is lots. Are you claiming that you learned anything really significant about Wikipedia in your first month of being an administrator? MPS1992 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't learned much new about Wikipedia, MPS1992, but I have learned more than I want about the darkness of the human soul. Yesterday, an editor I blocked called me a "kike", a "nigger" and a "Communist". I immediately thought of Julius Lester, a guy I like a lot. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded for CambridgeBayWeather here, who in my mind, is the cat's pajamas. Doubtful I will be running again, although I am willing to host the Lobster Bake/Chili Cook-off again next year. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rosiestep, for thinking of me. It's not something I'm interested in, though. Most of my time, I create content, and that what gives me most pleasure. I'm grateful that there are editors who happily take on the ARBCOM role. Schwede6618:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A note to my detractors
"Drmies caught demanding bribes from Intel for Wikipedia edits: Wikipedia Arbcom member has been caught repeatedly demanding cuts from shady Wiki-PR agency Beutler Ink for edits to Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's Wikipedia article."
...says someone called "pinkminnow", a really sweet name, on something called Reddit. Further on down the thread the same person says this,
The language used by Drmies is precise and indicates he is demanding a cut for misusing his admin tools.
In the Julie Meyer paid editing suit, the PR company billed the client £76,000 for unsuccessfully attempting to fashion the client's Wikipedia article. Your own paid editing on Wikipedia probably gets chump change under the adage if you pay in peanuts you get monkeys.
Admin/arbs like Drmies are known to demand and get $5,000 for small paid editing assignment articles. Our sources say Roger (Davies) used to charge upto £10,000. In Brian Krzanich's case the bill to Intel could even be $500,000.
Let me be absolutely clear. I'm not Derek B., who gets paid in pounds, not in dollars, though 76,0000 pounds sounds like some good money. If I know that I was known to demand...wait, I'm not. If I knew I could ask as much as $5,000, I'd have gotten a subwoofer for my Prius a long time ago. Also, I think I only said I deserved getting paid once, though I could be wrong. For the record, I still haven't gotten a check, either from Intel or from George Soros. I thought I found a check in my pocket today, but guess what, it was just a dumb receipt from my kids' school, so today has really been a big fat disappointment. In that same "Reddit", one of our former colleagues, User:Singora, here operating under the handle ReasonablyAverageGuy, says I'm "...dogshit. The man is sick, twisted slime...", and that I'm a "sick worm" who banned him. Well, I only blocked him indefinitely (see WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, Singora), so that casts a bit of doubt on the whole "worm" thing too, doesn't it. Dennis, in a related thread this same pinkminnow talks about you, "Dennis Brown self-righteous "hacker" Wikipedia admin"--I tell you what, if I get that check (apparently by someone called "Beutler", for something like 2nd page Google result or some other techno-gibberish), I'll split it with you. Fair enough? Drmies (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. No one's ever accused me of demanding bribes. I get - from Mikemikev on the racist right "Communistuseful idiot Doug Weller supports the Semite led genocide of the European people and Semitic fake science and should be executed for treason== What an asshole" and "Doug Weller supports White genocide and the rape of little White girls in England by low IQ filth from Pakistan What an asshole." And a short while before those billet doux "U RoCk Bro Nuggers stfu and stay in theyre place. Kneelers banned! #MAGA 83/88 WP!" and a barnstar "For putting nigs in their place WP 14words they will not replace us" from Morty C-137 who is somewhere on the left. Does that make me an equal opportunity asshole? Doug Wellertalk16:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by that last one. Tell you what, Doug, ever since CU I run into so many of these jerks that they're sort of all the same to me now. Who was Morty again? Right--SkepticAnonymous, but I forgot who that was. There's so many of em... Drmies (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to psychologize, but the good-hand/bad-hand thing is more common than I used to think. But then, socking is already a kind of exercising a split personality. "Is your name Lulu, the crazy hot glue-gun guy, also known as the wiener man who runs a wiener stand?" Who can keep all that straight? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered to be called a hacker, but flattery doesn't pay the bills. If someone is paying £76,000 for edits to a single article, successful or not, then let me just say I'm on the wrong team and I'm officially for hire. Honestly, I would slap Drmies for a Klondike bar, but with that kind of scratch, I can edit one article a month and live like a king. I mean, come on, we all have a price, so let the bidding begin so I can finally put my s33krit h4ck3r s0ck 4rmy to work. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would a subwoofer for your car really be what you'd buy if you happened to receive a few thousand dollars in cash outside your normal salary? It didn't seem an obvious choice to me. MPS1992 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah baby, and a steak. Plus I'm going to the carwash to get the expensive treatment. Remeber, we're not talking about a "few" thousand dollars: 5,000 is the low end! Drmies (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm...y'all go ahead and fight over the Klondike bars...I want the phone number for Brian Krzanich and his contact info at Intel. And don't mention a word of it to JW...he may write the article himself for $500k. j/s Atsme📞📧19:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, well, you should get on the Reddit. Those characters there know lots of things that I don't, including about me, so I'm sure they know that too. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this old video (that's me on the Hammond organ) has been doing the rounds over on Reddit or somewhere. I've got no idea what they could have possibly said, maybe nitpicking about bum notes from me, but they're probably lucky Rhonda's even less likely to read it than I am, because although she's normally as nice as pie, you really don't want to ever get on the wrong side of her. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
?? - I play no instruments...however (gratuitous claim to fame) I did work in a hospital briefly with Deniz Tek who is a physician (Rock'n'roll royalty in Oz)...see [2] 20:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that I have re-opened discussion on the Talk page of this article and have raised the idea of administrator involvement. Given your previous input I would like you to be aware of the development, and ideally chime in. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sorry if you felt "dude" was an insult, dude. Hey, it's really quite exciting, and Ealdgyth is just being plain silly by not picking up on it. OK Ealdgyth, let's play this game: find me another example of that set in the Miller's Prologue, "For any lord to leggen in his bedde,. Or yet for any good yeman to wedde". Or that praise of the pearl in Pearl--yeah, you find that in the legends of St Margaret, and guess who wrote one. Or, or! remember the French from Stratford-atte-Bowe? a reference to ladies who lisp just to attract lovers? Who might have written on that avant la lettre de Chaucer? You guessed it. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit and the edit summary ‘we NEVER cite blurbs,’ I’m pretty sure from past experience reading your work that you have some relevant policy in mind. I hope you can improve my ignorance by directing me to that policy page. Thanks in anticipation. Does it say we cannot quote from blurbs cited in secondary or tertiary sources? because at a glance, the remarks you removed by Mearsheimer and Falk in particular are cited from Gilad Atzmon's home page, not the blurb, and are cited all over the web by authors hostile to the author and the blurb writers, such as Alan Dershowitz, who is definitely RS for this.
A final point. I think you might not have noticed that in erasing that section, you, I'm sure inadvertently, wiped out citations from Marc H. Ellis's book, which were culled from his book's comment on Atzmon, not from the blurb. I'd appreciate you flicking an eye over the edit to make sure you didn't mean to assert Ellis made those remarks on the blurb. That is a physical impossibility, since Ellis's book was published 3 years after the book and its blurb were printed. If I'm correct, then could you kindly, for the moment, restore the Ellis half of the erased material? Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani: if I removed material that is in fact cited to a reliable source, please go ahead and restore it (it is a dense paragraph). You're an experienced editor, probably more experienced than me, so I know that you know that there is no such "policy"--at least not explicitly. But I will amuse you, in this facetiousness, though I am well aware that you are a longtime editor in whom I have more faith than you seem to have in me.
"We never cite blurbs" is found in the Grand Book of Common Knowledge. There need be no relevant policy--in fact, if you want one, it's WP:RS. It does not matter who, in turn, cites a blurb--a blurb is a blurb, a promotional piece. I am tickled to read that the first example in our fine encyclopedia is of Walt Whitman, who, as you know...well, you can read that in our article. I am even more pleased to remember that I put that in there a few years ago; I was taught this by Philip Beidler, my mentor. Anyway, blurbs are not to be cited because they are not neutral, by definition. I don't know what you do for a living, but in my business we get asked, on occasion, to write them, and when we do we make sure to write them as nice as we can within, roughly, the parameters of truth. A few years ago I looked for the source of a whole bunch of blurbs for one particular book, and found that publishers have no qualms whatsoever about selective quoting. In other words, I'll be happy to write up WP:NOBLURBS, but I really don't think it's necessary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drmies. You misread me. I wasn't writing ironically. I really know nothing about policy, policy pages defeat my capacity to withstand boredom, and everytime they are seriously waved my way (often) I have to read the page, even a commonplace one, to examine whether the policy is actually being used correctly. Most editors who trouble to fix my edits accept that on policy and technical things, my knowledge is zero.
A book I wrote has been reprinted several times: it has a very high googled scholar score. When a second edition was being mulled, they asked me for input from the many reviews of it to give browsers an idea of the reactions it stirred, for a blurb. Well, I gave them a dozen, half highly flattering, and the other half extremely critical. All of the material from the blurbs was from tenured scholars writing reviews of it on its appearance. Nothing in the blurb was written as an advertisement. The blurb was edited to advertise the fact that the book elicited very powerful judgements for and against by 'competent' critics. Indeed, comments were 95% highly favourable, but I made sure the most hostile remarks of the few upset that their pet theories had been shattered, were given equal coverage.
In this sense, I still fail to understand why you think that what a scholar is quoted as saying about a book,. simply because it is reproduced on the cover, is nothing more than an advertisement. None of those scholars cited on the cover of Atzmon's booki wrote an advertisement. They wrote it full awareness that merely mentioning Atzmon's name would get them accused of being anti-Semites. They did so, sending him a page or two of impressions, with permission to print, I presume, because no journal would every review Atzmon.Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're confused. Book blurbs, in this kind of literature, cull comments made by experts who, in writing them, do not write advertisements. There are several types of blurb. The only problem is, has the blurb reported the original RS reviewers remarks faithfully or not Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this is about or the reason behind Drmies' edit, but a recurring problem at Wikipedia is that people use Google to find choice bits and pieces, then use selected items—the ones which coincide with the editor's favored view. Often easily found text comes from blurbs and abstracts, so the cautious editor would not welcome such text if it was found in an article. The ideal would be to find a longer piece written by the author of the blurb, then present a summary of the longer work. It is too hard to determine which blurbs are in fact an accurate summary of the blurb's author. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put the blurb up there. I looked through google scholar, found several pages by a tenured professor of Jewish studies analyzing Atzmon's approach, and paraphrasing it, added this to the text. It was wiped off the page, with the rest.That is the fourth time information regarding some assessment of Atzmon that is not hysterically negative has been ripped off the page. On each occasion, no removalist editor has provided a sound policy basis for the excisions. Drmies is a very careful editor, totally neutral in my experience, and I take this to be a slip, of the kind we all do. The issue still requires, at least I am asking for, clarity so that I can reorganize what is basically an attack page of aggressive quotes ripped from their contexts with, as Malik Shabazz notes, no use of material from secondary sources explaining what on earth Atzmon actually thinks or states in this contested book. These quotes can easily be sourced to the writers themselves, or polemical critics who cite them, and I wonder what the technical objections would be were I do restore the material with these secondary or tertiary RS? Alan Dershowitz on the article cites precisely Falk and Mearsheimer's comments, for example. No one questions him as RS, rightly so, but if I'm being told that one cannot cite a part of an RS where it in turns cites a blurb written by distinguished professors and chairs (while trivia from non-notable sources attacking him can stay), then we are in very queer waters.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can figure things out pretty quickly. I'll look at a first sentence [of a galley], I'll look at the cover and it just comes to me. ... Sometimes I try to read further — but you know, how far can you get? --Gary Shteyngart
Nishidani, I am not saying anything about who put what up there, but what I am saying, as someone who consumes books and is writing one, and as someone who has been asked to blurb, we shouldn't cite blurbs. My edit has nothing whatsoever to do with the article, the subject of the article, the opinions of the subject of the article, the opinions of those who wrote blurbs for the books by the subject of the article, etc. If a blurb ultimately derives from a review, as sometimes happens on the n-th reprint of a bestseller, find and cite the original. Blurbs are marketing. They are meant to be positive--that is why they are written, that is why they are reproduced. They are also completely devoid of context. And that is why we shouldn't cite them--ever. Read the article. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duly read, and thanks. I can now take Gary Shteyngart off my 'to read' list where it has been, with so much else, a prompt to a bad conscience about not reading everything. By the way, the wiki article on him cites his blurbing.
I'll take the issue to RSN to ask if a secondary or tertiary source cites a blurb of an author's book, and that blurb is used in RS debates regarding that author, can we cite the blurb from the secondary or tertiary source.
Last point. You removed, as a blurb, this material:
Marc H. Ellis, professor of Jewish studies at Baylor University, likens Atzmon's rhetorical extremism and harsh censure of Jews to the prophetic voices of the Old Testament, arguing that, for Atzmon, diasporic Jews are asked to construct their identity on the basis of the State of Israel and the Holocaust, an identity he regards as without foundation. He adds that Atzmon considers charges that he is anti-Semitic as 'last ditch attempts' to validate that identity. In Ellis's view, there may be, in the perceived anxiety in these repeated attacks, a reflection of the same anxiety Atsmon himself arguably embodies. [1][2][a]
I think it just common courtesy to correct an edit, if someone points it out, at least where an error of one's own making occurs. I'd appreciate it if you just put this material back, since none of it is quoting blurbs, but books, and therefore should never have been removed under that edit summary.
Best wishes, in the meantime, for your projected book. I've wasted enough of your time, and feel rather guilty that I might look needlessly remonstrative over small matters. I know nothing of policy, and my only editing principles on wiki are the one I was trained to do in several disciplines: write to the substance of the topic by using academic sources wherever possible, be fearless whatever the authority analysed or taboos or prejudices, and read closely. Mearsheimer and Falk have a lifetime of doing this on areas of great topical sensitivity: they do not chuck out 'blurbs' in Shteyngart mode. They write to illuminate topics rather than scatter shit on its subject, as most of our hack journo pieces all over wiki do, and typically on that page, to meet a deadline, be paid for it and cosy into a clubby network of (dis/)like-feelers. RegardsNishidani (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More about my £76,000
[[
File:Wikipedia editors are predominantly male EN.svg|thumb|right|OK penis bearers, time to show up.]]
Apparently there's still a few jokers who think I took money for some biographical article. I ask you, where's my subwoofer?
[–]ReasonablyAverageGuy 0 points 3 days ago
IMO, you talk too much about power. Try to remember this loser is just an English teacher.
If you can do it, do it. If you can't, teach it. And if you can't do jack shit, teach your own language.
I've only ever viewed Drmies as a pitiful failure. He's a man with zero skills, zero initiative and zero ambition. He's a very sad excuse for an adult. I would hate to have a son as worthless as him.
[–]TheDarkenedKnight[S] 1 point 3 days ago
I know what he is. But within the narrow confines of Wikipedia, he has power. And unfortunately, given its influence over all manner of real world things, that means his abuses of power have real world effects. Skewing this biography away from WP:NPOV could be worth millions to Intel as a corporation (i.e. its stock holders), in addition to Krzanich personally.
OK, so I should be taking a cut of "millions"! And ReasonablyPerson (I forgot who you are--Singora?), I am not just an English teacher, dude; I'm a really good English teacher--in fact, if you think I'm teaching my own language, I'm doing pretty good (better than you, with zero "points", whatever the hell those are). BTW, there's nothing easy about that, but you wouldn't know that, would you. TheDarkenedKnight, are you TDA? All those secret names... Please do tell me how I can get that cut. Toodles y'all. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, little birdies keep emailing me. I have no interest, and I keep asking them to stop, since it really doesn't matter to me what a few disgruntled idiots have to say--fools who can't read or write properly. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Drmies, the superhero name generator I randomly Googled suggested that you should be The Laughing Gladiator. Should you be in the market for a Reddit handle. Oh, and don't these people know the difference between a teacher and a tenured professor? TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to know how much I'll get for my edit on Dorsal artery of the penis. Most Wikipedia editors have one, and so does a significant minority of the world population. If they all chip in, surely that'll pay for a subwoofer--perhaps even a new rear bumper. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh, and don't these people know the difference between a teacher and a tenured professor?" - Please sir, is it that one of them doesn't have to worry about job security? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I only copied information from the banned Talk page to my sandbox to save for quick reference in my distant appeal. As it may be years before I launch such an appeal, I needed to keep such archives handy for a very long time. No editing or even mention of the banned page has been done in the sandbox, just 'copy and pasted' to store the information for my future appeal. I have been wrong accused of editing the banned page in my sandbox, by 'EdJohnston'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the notice you posted on my page: "I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston wrote to me stating: "Gilmore should not be editing about Patriot Prayer anywhere on Wikipedia, even in their own sandbox, and risks a sanction if they continue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)" and I took objection to it as EdJohnston was informed that I had not been editing, but only copied the archives to my sandbox for later use in appealing my ban. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Darkness Shines has been pushing this tag that:"How is this not a violation of your topic ban? You cannot be writing about Patriot Prayer at all, that's what a topic ban means."[4] And pushing it to other Administrators[5] but as Doug Weller said, "You actually have to respect the ban, but I'll ask DS to stay away from your talk page." Doug Weller talk 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Now it is on to EdJohnston.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C. W. Gilmore, I'm sorry, but what are we doing here? Lawyering the universe to death? Would you like for me to go back to the ANI discussion and draw a more detailed topic ban out of it? I'm sure I can--there were plenty of problems with your editing. Or shall I go back to ANI, and bring Darkness Shines with me, and explain how you keep pushing the boundaries of a fairly simple topic ban to the point of exhaustion? If the kids come home from trick or treating, and mama says "stop eating your Halloween candy!", and Kid A proceeds to eat Kid B's candy saying "I'm not eating MY candy", do you think mama will be upset? Drmies (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair - I'm a hair confused here. Your notice to Gilmore was "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page." Did you mean the ban to be only from the article and its talk page or did you mean it in the normal sense of a WP topic ban, where it applies to the topic anywhere in WP, not just the article and its talk page? I'm assuming you meant the later, but your statement could very easily be read to mean the former. Granted, either way, Gilmore's pushing the boundaries, but there is a difference between pushing the boundaries and breaking a topic ban. Ealdgyth - Talk14:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should have just borrowed the standard language. I'm tired of this. Ealdgyth, you're an admin, and you're watching this. Just tell me, or Gilmore, or Ed, or DS, what to do. Tell me and I'll do it. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly fine with the traditional "do not mention the topic ever anywhere on Wikipedia" topic ban. That's what I assumed you wanted. Unfortunately, for someone as wikilawyerish as Gilmore, that's not going to work. They apparantly need everything exactly spelled out. Unfortunately, I suspect if the actual admin who closed the discussion doesn't do it, we'll just get more wikilawyering from Gilmore. Some advice, @C. W. Gilmore:, you should stop all mention of Patriot Prayer ANYWHERE on wikipedia, even your sandboxes. Don't lawyer about it. Don't pester admins with multiple posts. Just. Drop. It. And, I'll add, just as another piece of advice, drop the topic of Darkness Shines too. If you keep up with the trajectory you're on with him, you're going to end up totally banned from wikipedia. No, that's not an IBAN or anything, it's purely advice, but it's good advice. Stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground or a law court. It's not. Ealdgyth - Talk14:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template removed
Just a heads up, the proposed speedy deletion template you applies to David Berger AZA was removed by the user who created the article. I have since restored it, but you may want to keep an eye on that page. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
The Wikipedia Library
.jpg)
