Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:31, 27 May 2013

Wait a second, I think you're right.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151

HiLo48

Given that HiLo48 resorted to rhetorical insults, trying to undermine the intelligence of anyone who disagreed with him and his take on the Castro case, the inconsistency of your warnings about personal attacks says a great deal. Hypocrisy abounds. Bravo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

IP 153, I would remind you that you received an only warning from Drmies about making personal attacks about that editor --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I filed this report at AN/I. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha, I think mine is the last name you want to invoke right now in a "civility" case. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, why? You're civil. Anyway, can you please look at the chaos that's going on at 68.50.128.91's talk page. My head is spinning. And immediately after I commented, Bbb23 (who wanted to marry me last night lol), protected the page, apparently solely because I posted. You can read my comment there. IP 68 is obviously very sensitive and, as a result, gets very worked up and says inappropriate things on impulse. But the way this is being handled is only making things much worse. It's like this IP is being attacked from all sides. Look at his talk page history. Anything you can do to calm this thing down would be appreciated. It doesn't take a platoon of admins to beat down on this IP, especially consider his relatively minor offense. I've seen him participating in the RfC at Pump and he seems to be a very nice person when he's not being scolded. That's enough for now. I think you'll agree. Haha. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I see that Bbb23 just removed my comment from 68's talk page. Drmies, please, you've got to intervene. That's totally inappropriate. Are they're just completely throwing all the rules out the window? This is getting crazy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the appropriateness of the block and duration - the IP is simply continuing his prior disruption that was previously done on the article talk page. It is entirely appropriate to lengthen subsequent blocks for continuation of the same disruption. The fact that he changed from the talk page to the article itself does not dispose of the appropriateness of lengthening blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Barek, I really respect the fact that you are commenting here. But the overkill with IP 68 is remarkable. And the removal of my comment is totally inappropriate. Bbb had no right to remove it. Please restore it. And you will see that I try to be as fair as I can in my thoughts. But an admin censoring me and then protecting the page immediately after I post, solely because of that post (read the edit summary) is completely inappropriate. Again, thanks for coming here, but please let's bring the heat down on all this. It's out of control. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I can actually see good arguments from both sides on the removal. Unfortunately, it appears to be another gray area in site policy (or, more accurate to say it appears to be a gray area intersection of contradicting policies/guidelines). This is another issue that may be better served via WP:AN, rather than the talk page of individuals. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which removal you're talking about... my comment or the endless things IP 68 removed. Haha. But there's absolutely nothing that allows Bbb to remove my comment. Especially when it's civil, fair, on-point, and tries to calm things down. Again, please restore it and unprotect the page. And I suggest you ask Ymblanter to stay out of this. He was clearly involved before he blocked 68; I mean they reverted each other in an article right before the block, for goodness sakes. How much clearer can "involved" be than that? ;) So the block coming from him is so blatantly inappropriate, that it's going to take an admin with integrity to simply tell him that he shouldn't have had any involvement in the block. And I see that he also has blocked 68's talk page access. Ymblanter is all worked up, and his one edit summary on 68's talk page clearly shows it. Again, thank you for commenting here but please be the hero in this and do the right thing(s). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point about the block by Ymblanter being procedurally inappropriate; but that does not clear 68.50.128.91 of his disruptive behavior, and given the IPs ongoing disruptions to force BLP violating content into the article, I would have done a longer block had I seen the behavior before Ymblanter placed the block. So, if you really want to be procedurally accurate, we could ask Ymblanter to remove his block so I can instead place a longer one - but, I don't think the exercise is worth the effort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

76, I love you like a brother (I think), but I'm not going to wade into yet another mess, especially one involving a whole bunch of talk page comments and reverts and what not. I don't know what 68 is up, but it's attracting a lot of attention; if three (or more) admins are already involved then I would only hope in vain to do anything useful. If a block was made incorrectly there are places to address it, and that talk page is probably not the right one. I have great faith in Bbb, I love him like a son, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt; if he erred, then Barek (who's already there, and whom I love like a distant cousin) can judge that well enough, I suppose. Ymblanter, I don't know if you're watching--I love you like my neighbor, and if that block was involved that was not good thing. Still, there are levels of involvement, and if a block is warranted the community has a tendency to overlook a certain measure of involvement. Sorry, but that's the extent to which I will get involved. There's way too much heat in this place, or maybe it's just my street which is on fire; I trust it's not Rome that's burning while I'm fiddling. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, I still think WP:AN is the best place to take up the dispute with the revert by Bbb. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of love, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Barek. As I'm sure you know from my prior comments, I fully realize that 68 has done some inappropriate things. But that's not the issue. And I'm not aware of any continuing/recent BLP violations. If I'm wrong, please show me the diffs. The only thing I saw he did was to add a simple tag to an article, like in this edit You keep saying he's done all these terrible things that warrant a two-week block but no one has shown any diffs at all to support it. I saw him revert twice over that silly tag in one article. And Ymblanter was one of the editors who reverted it. What else did 68 do?? I see absolutely nothing, except participating very productively in an RfC discussion. Please Barek, I not only think you should ask Ymblanter to revert his blcok, I think you need to be honest with him and let him know that he should not have done been involved in that block in any way because he was clearly involved. And, for the third time, please restore my comment and unprotect the talk page. That's clearly improper and, respectfully, you know it. Policy without question allows me to post that comment and does not allow anyone to remove it, except 68. (Well, not while his TP access is revoked lol.) As far as blocking him for a longer period, or even long at all, it is unjustified without providing any diffs to show specifically which edits warranted it. If I saw any edits like that, I would be the first one to say it. And I'd tell 68 myself that he was wrong. I've done it before. ;) But all I see are the two reverts of that tag at Rob Bell (Virginia politician). Big deal. A low-key admin like Yunshui would have just talked to 68 calmly, especially knowing how sensitive 68 is, and explained why reverting that tag was wrong and asked him nicely not to do it again or else he'd need to block him. Just because an editor acts immaturely doesn't mean several admins treat him like shit, and like he's worthless. I see not one admin involved in this showing any kindness whatsoever; trying to open a door to getting him back on track productively. That is the biggest shame in all this. But again, you can be the hero in this. If you choose to be. Thanks again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Love you too, Drmies, but a brother would help a brother. Haha. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. And, honestly, I don't even know why I'm defending 68. I just feel bad for him because I know how hurt he gets by criticism and I've seen how pleasant he is in various discussions (when he's not under the gun haha). If one of you wanted to do the best thing, you could've offered to mentor him, or at least hook him up with a mentor. Being ganged up on (not meant pejoratively) by several admins at the same time is an awful thing to watch. And I can imagine how he felt being blocked by the same guy he just traded reverts with. I know when you guys take off your admin uniforms, you are really fun, cool people. But some of you get really tough when your warning and sanctioning people on here. Perhaps it's hard for you to see or understand because you're in the power circle. Well, I'm not. I'm on the outside, impartially looking in. I honestly believe that a few admins here totally forget that there's a real live human being on the other end of your computer screen. Someone who has feelings and is just begging to be understood and treated with a little friendliness and respect. Even if 68 is a pain in the ass sometimes, big deal. Be the great admins you are and find a good way to stay above it, while getting him to do things the right way. If he thinks you give a shit about him at all, he'll respond positively. Enough, you get it. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw Drmies, this thread was actually supposed to be about HiLo's admirer, 153.161.195.137. Anyway, check out this ever-so-cordial response I got at the AN/I I filed on your behalf (while you were dreaming about bacon explosions). See, I try to make your life easier and this is what I get. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U

I get the feeling that a couple of these need starting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Basalisk ⁄_berate 14:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Commencing countdown, engines on? - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Two are very obvious. I don't care about the snarking on my talk page, but it has gotten to the point that every discussion anywhere is subject to disruption, editorializing and derailment by individuals that are desperately seeking attention and apparently, martyrdom. As RFC/U is a necessary step in dispute resolution, I see no other choice. Drama is unavoidable regardless of what is done, so it is better to channel that into a process custom made for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You know I hate civility blocks, but some people just push it too much. And yes, there's derailment, and the enabling/goading on thereof by some others. I restored DanielTom's TPA after a very polite and friendly message and then saw a complete turnaround. I don't know what's happening on that talk page right now and I don't care; I expect a note from the boss any day (that's a metaphor--two metaphors). Drmies (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing, email doesn't match talk page. I hate it, but the train has left the station for a couple of people here, it is just a matter of time. I'm tired of wasting my time with this, and the two of them have successfully located the limits of my tolerance. It is my opinion that both have well exceeded the threshold for WP:DE, not in a singular incident, but in everything they do. By their own admission and acts, they don't want to be here and hate this place. Everything they do seems to focus on spreading this misery so they don't have to hate alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm a certified asshole, that is well known. I've never seen your limits get tested. You're the nicest guy I know (well, on Misplaced Pages--my real-life friend Rob, who is a seven-foot tall carpenter, is maybe the nicest one in the world). I'm not going to start something, I've done enough damage already for the time being, but I am interested to see what you think should be done. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pondering it. I'm not mad at anyone (I save anger for the real world, stuff that matters) but the actions of both of them have gotten to where it is interfering with helping people that have no relation to them, it is hurting other editors, and it is drama mongering. I think I've been as patient as I can be, but have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Misplaced Pages is better without either of them. This isn't something I say lightly, nor a conclusion that I jumped to without a great deal of consideration. I have tried very hard to not come to this conclusion, but it is what it is. I'm not sure if someone needs to make a proposal at WP:AN or try RFC/U. RFC only works if the editor is simply misguided but still has the best interests of the project at heart, but I'm running out of good faith and beginning to conclude that they are disrupting purely for the sake of disrupting. One has flatly stated " I reject this place with its dumbed-down double-standards and abusive environment & culture" so I'm not sure I can make a stronger case for WP:HERE than he has himself. Why would someone stick around a place like he describes, except to disrupt it? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that over a fairly long period, the editing of both of these parties (just as an example, I believe there are others) is detrimental to a collegial editing atmosphere. Of particular concern is the fact that a lot of these editors don't really seem to do anything else other than perpetuate this vitriol (which is, to his credit, not a criticism which could be levelled at IHTS). Dennis - your point about derailment is spot on; I can think of a recent RfA where this debate spilled over and we all know RfA is contentious enough without becoming a platform for the anti-admin brigade. The thing is, these editors apparently enjoy the sensation of being engaged in what they feel is a battle between two homogenous groups and so I can't see how anything is going to change without some form of escalated dispute resolution. Basalisk ⁄_berate 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not that this makes any of the above invalid, and it's not as who should say on topic, but when the nebulous "we" remove people's talk page on personal attack grounds because they said an admin needs to be desysopped, I find it difficult to pin the blame entirely on them. Granted, I'm still not familiar with the entirety of these editors' histories, so maybe I don't have much of a right to talk about this. But I honestly don't care how unsubstantiated or inflammatory it's meant to be: I think that that's something that anyone and everyone should be able to say freely. I mean, it's not like their statement itself will get someone desysopped; it takes a lot of work to actually do that. (Okay, I could see it being an actionable problem if they keep harping on it constantly without actually showing any effort to make it happen, per WP:SHITORGETOFFTHEPOT. But for this narrow instance, that doesn't seem to be the case.) It has a very unsavory appearance of stifling criticism otherwise, and I think many will agree that admins are already accountability-challenged to begin with. The reason that I'm (marginally) participating in the discussion over DanielTom's block without being fully-briefed on the entire history is that I feel that blocks like his are acute, not chronic, remedies, and they need to be used in response to acute, not chronic, problems, which shouldn't require an intense study of edit histories to understand. It just seems to me that this is an acute block without all that serious of an acute problem. Actions like removing talk page access make a little more sense if you look at the overall history there, but I don't think the overall history is the right thing to be basing unilateral actions like that on; it needs to be in response to an immediate problem. Maybe that's naive of me, I don't know.
• I guess the TL;DR summary here is that I think we're interpreting "personal attacks", "prevent disruption" and "admin discretion" too broadly here, and that if we want to address a long-term pattern of behavior, the way to do that is through community processes like AN or RFC/U, not through isolated blocks. For whatever my opinion is worth. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I actually agree that admin should have large enough shoulders to tolerate more than would be expected from the average new editor. It takes thick skin. And I wouldn't have reverted that comment, just as I didn't revert out the comment that was clearly in violation of the talk page block when it was done by proxy. For an abusive admin, I'm pretty tolerant of protest. They can both call me an ass all day long, it doesn't affect me. (I've seen all the hidden and reverted mocking comments from them both "vomiting" over my comments in areas unrelated to them, meh.) What does affect me is when I'm trying to help someone in an area that has zero to do with them and they try to turn the conversation into an essay on why admin are teh sux. It derails the process and turns what could be a couple of paragraphs into a long drama fest. To me, this is clearly disruptive behavior designed to undermine my ability to help someone. It doesn't even have anything to do with me being an admin, as I'm not using the admin bit. On my talk page, I'm free to just revert it out, but doing so elsewhere is more problematic. I love a good skeptic, they keep you on your toes, but this is cynicism taken to the point of disruption solely because they think every admin is too involved to block them. It seems obvious that the purpose is solely to disrupt the normal and necessary functions here, and their comments have made it clear they hate everything about Misplaced Pages. Do we need people here who are obviously trying to undermine Misplaced Pages? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Your turn now, Dennis, to suck it up... Drmies (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The comments about me? It really doesn't bother me. It is just venting. My self-esteem is not based on anything anyone says here, it just isn't that hard to overlook. Interfering when I'm trying to help someone is bothersome, but not mere words. I've been called worse. They always have the option of seeking sanctions against me if the really believe all that. I sincerely doubt they do, it is more likely just baiting. Meh. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, I just cracked open a Mason jar full of apple pie flavored moonshine. No, they don't sell it in stores, but living in NC has its advantages. Just took my first swig, and it tastes something between mom's apple pie and sake, oddly enough. Wife is coming home, got Netflix cued up and wings in the oven. I was planning to work on the Sunbeam article, but that got cancelled due to drama. Think I will go drink some pie and watch a movie for the evening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        • You still eat pie after 20 years? Good for you--Clitoris Awareness Week wasn't wasted on you. Also, I love moonshine, though I'd forgo the apple pie. I made margaritas for us and some friends: it's pooltime, and vacation has started today (for them, not for me--I'm working all summer). Me and my buddy Jim are drinking old-fashioneds, since the girls are done. The Sunbeam will still be there tomorrow; Kitsch might not be, from the alarm I heard earlier. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd largely have to concur with most of the comments above. --Rschen7754 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Does that mean you're joining Dennis for dinner and a movie?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Haha I was at a meeting and didn't have time to write a more lengthy response. I'm sufficiently concerned about DanielTom - looking at his en.wikiquote talk page I see some pretty nasty comments. This smells of "HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED!" and his criticisms are typically ad hominem attacks now.
• Lately I've found admin work less stressful than my content work, however - maybe it's because I don't patrol ANI that much anymore, though I do a lot at SPI. The level of pure vitriol that my colleagues out at the U.S. roads project and I face on a daily basis now has become astounding, as can be seen in my contributions and on my talkpage. We've had to put up with people making wild accusations against us (including calling us the "road cartel") without proof, and without any ability to defend ourselves. We've had people try to force their conception of a road article on us time and time again. And yet our only goals are to create *good* road content and revert edits that degrade quality; we've written 52 FAs and over 850 GAs in the process. If this is how we treat people who write content, then we've got a problem. Yes, I have gotten quite frustrated in my talkpage messages lately, but when you've been constantly attacked from every angle for months, that tends to happen. It's times like this when I enjoy crosswiki work, since I lose the politics of enwiki. --Rschen7754 11:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rschen, the number of FAs and GAs is just an indication to which extent you and your other abusive admin friends OWN that wiki project at the exclusion of everyone else. You're probably abusing your tools in the process. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Excuse me? If you're gonna make a serious accusation like that you need proof. --Rschen7754 21:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Come on Rschen--"admin abuse" never requires proof. Do I need to add sarcasm tags? :) Drmies (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dammit Mies, I ECed with you, was about to post a "lets all be friends and have a tea" speech. :p Your impersonation of an asshole is very convincing ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently --Rschen7754 22:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh ... seems that every year at this time these things happen. And every year it gets a bit worse. School lets out for the summer, and young people with the best of intentions try to right great wrongs. As hard as I try to not become that "get off my lawn" guy - it gets old and tiring. Ya know, there are some admins around this joint that I think need to rethink their approach - but here's the thing: We end up with these kids that have time on their hands who want to change the world. The one thing is with Misplaced Pages though ... all admins. were at one time new users. New users were NEVER admins. WE understand what they think because we've been there - but they can not know what experienced editors go through because they HAVEN'T been there. Yes - there is a divide between admins and non-admins ... I don't know how to fix that. I don't know folks .. I just don't know. — Ched :  ?  02:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's because the basic wiki model is hosed and wiki was not handled properly from day one See this PumpkinSky talk 02:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And don't answer any more emails. Unless there's special circumstances, I respond to them on-wiki. With a bunch of wikiawyers around who all know better after six months than we do after half a decade, gotta be careful. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes think I should slip away from the front line and just plod through the CSD cats like many others do. But I would find that boring. Some of us have to do the dirty work and take the slings and contempt of the audacious youngsters and some older members (some as ancient as me) who still seem to be stuck in a schoolyard mentality. A lot of it comes from the Internet tradition of anonymity which lets people get away with stuff they wouldn't dream of doing/saying in RL. I've even heard that some are actually quite nice blokes in the pub. All the Wikipedians/medians I've met in RL with one exception who is both an admin and a WMF contractor are quite nice people - and I've personally met literally hundreds. I don't care two hoots what people say about me - I've made too many enemies among the children (and not so young) here already to ever succeed to higher office - but I look on with great distaste at those who have a general antipathy towards admins. Most of them reaped what they sowed; I'm convinced that actual abuse by admins is quite rare (although I've been at the brunt of it myself before I got the bit), and it's extremely unfair to tar us all with the same brush. Is it just my perception or is bashing admins on the increase? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ya know Kudpung .. I should get to know you. I've seen your work, and I gotta admit ... I'm impressed. — Ched :  ?  03:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ched, I shared a table for a little while with Kudpung at Wikimania. Don't tell him (don't know if he's vain or not), but I found him to be a perfect gentleman. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Good lawdy .. I never met another wikipedian. I probably should some day. Oh .. and up above - if you want to talk about "experience" and "being in all shoes" ... crap ... PumpkinSky/Rlevse ... good hell what has to go through that man's mind. New user, .. admin ... crat ... os ... cu ... arb ... beat to hell and back over a few sentences on a TFA? ... geesh. — Ched :  ?  03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"blinded by power and driven by revenge". Yep, that's me. Not a personal attack, of course. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we need a userbox: "This user has been called an abusive admin $x times", but I'm sure that would be seen as too pointy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, DT has retired - IMO an overreaction as many of these kind of retirements are. I suppose the next thing will be accusations that we have been driving editors away. Perhaps he'll come back when he's reached an appropriate level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We'll see if he stays retired. Diva-like behavior. Kudpung, if someone is seriously shocked that they got blocked, they were dedicated to the place, then they'd place an unblock request. I have no idea how many edits were made to that talk page, and not a single one to request an unblock. Why? Because a. maybe they figured (correctly) that it would be denied and b. it's much more cool to be a martyr. Throw in some misrepresentations and some misreadings (about my "acknowledgement"), and you got a poster child for a victim of the system, no wonder we're losing editors, system is broken, no respect for content, etc. This continued editing of articles bit is not credible either: they stopped editing articles, basically, at the end of March. Since then, it's all talk pages and notice boards and what not. Anyway, that's water under the bridge, though nit for long, possibly. I hope you are doing well, Kudpung--I did remember our all-too brief chat in DC. I always think that meeting people in real life takes away a lot of this internet distance which easily leads to animosity. Who knows, Scotty Wong and I might even get along if we met in person. Did I tell you I had lunch with DGG? And hung out frequently with Chzz in Boston? Now there's an editor who's sorely, sorely missed. OK, too many words. Time to hop in the pool. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • DGG is on the top of the list of people from here I would like to have lunch with. I would gladly pick up the tab, I owe him more than that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well you can be envious of me then - I was a guest of DGG's in his home in Brooklyn for several days. It was one of the nicest experiences of my life (no exaggeration). I couldn't have wished for a better welcome for my first (and probably only) visit to the USA.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm regularly in Eric's neck of the woods. I wonder what he's like over lunch. Basalisk ⁄_berate 07:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I said above I've even heard that some are actually quite nice blokes in the pub, but I haven't had the pleasure(?) yet... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I know you guys think you know what it's like for someone who leaves for whatever reason, but if you've never worn those moccasins, you'd don't truly understand. I'm truly sorry I've caused so much trouble, I never meant to and but despite my best efforts I caused more last night. PumpkinSky talk 12:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

cont.

Not sure what PumpkinSky "caused..last night"; but just some passing thoughts.

As wonderful as technology is, and as much as it has benefited mankind in so many ways - I think in some ways it has tended to isolate people even more too. No one can truly know another person; hell, we're lucky if we even understand ourselves in just a small way. Would that we could all share a "Vulcan mind meld" - but it just ain't so. When you throw communication such that comes with the Internet, texting, ect. into the mix - we lose even the body language and voice inflections to try to interpret. Is it really any wonder that people all too often feel isolated, and alone? Then you throw in the concept that when you communicate with someone only through digital means - where you tend to fill in the "blanks" with your own/our own thoughts ... when a dose of reality shows up uninvited .. it's a harsh thing to deal with. Don't mind me folks .. just running my mouth on the way through the pedia. For those of you in 'da States .. have a great holiday weekend. — Ched :  ?  13:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jordaanlied

On 24 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jordaanlied, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Jordaanlied, a genre of sentimental songs celebrating the Amsterdam neighborhood the Jordaan, was popularized by a cabaret artist from Utrecht, a composer from Rotterdam, and a singer from England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jordaanlied. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(Once featured article)..

Nobody is interested in Bad Taste any more?

Slow decline of once featured article.

More decline in slow motion.

Until nothing is left.

only a vast amount of book titles on the literature list and a few lines. Warrington (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• My dear Warrington, after dinner is over and everyone's teeth are brushed and the guests have gone home, I will have a look at this article and see what's going on. Also, we're having salmon--I would kill for some sik, or however it's spelled. Thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Did you see the FA reassessment? Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Kitsch/archive1. That was seven years ago, pertaining to this version which indeed isn't an FA based on references (lack thereof) alone. When the article was promoted, in 2004, FA standards were quite different, I suppose. To bring this up to anything will require a lot of work, for starters with bibliography and footnotes. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I did. But I think it is strange that an article like this got ruined. And it is an interesting subject, thought. Taste, and likes and trying to find a line. How about Dutch taste and American? Do you mean sik, *Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology - SIK or you mean herring? Warrington (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  

  • Well, I don't think it got ruined since it was not a very good building to begin with. I looked at a huge chunk of material that was removed, and while it seemed to be well-written and made sense, it was unverified, and had been so for four years. The rationale for removal was that it's a monk's labor to seek references to verify those statements, infinitely more difficult than writing it from scratch with newly found sources. I couldn't disagree with that. I found a few things in the biblio that helped me add a couple of sentences, but this was beyond repair, IMO. The original author should have come back to help out some; now it's up to us. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • As you say... Warrington (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I mean the fish that's somewhat salmon-like (but smaller--maybe like "salmon trout", though here that's a redirect to rainbow trout) caught in the Baltic Sea, specifically the Kalmarsund. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Salmo trutta? (that is latin)... Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading a book

This came out a couple years ago, was introduced to me by my niece, but I think of you every time I watch it. He has several surreal and exceptional videos. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, that was funny. I Facebooked it and got a like within seconds from a fellow former English student. Thanks! I'm reading a book, pig! Drmies (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Glad to help. Another one of my favorites is the Movie trailer for every Oscar-winning movie ever. Probably seen it 50 times. I do enjoy the surreal, and this is an exercise in cliche. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Cat. discussion

This page fills up quickly. I don't know what became of that list article with which you'd intended to replace the rape victims category, or if you still have any interest in the topic, but that discussion was closed as no consensus. I've not added any more antique members since it opened, but will now perhaps, though that would probably just lead to a second nomination.  davidiad { t } 02:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• List of rape victims from history and mythology. Note how incredibly incomplete it is, and note the parameter in the opening paragraph, to do away with BLP concerns. The category still exists, yes, and I haven't done any work on the list since then. BTW, at some point there was some discussion somewhere about history vs. mythology, I think; for our purposes (historical importance and meaning) it doesn't matter, of course, whether a character/god/sacrifice/victim/author "really" existed or not. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's a start. My position on the ancient members of the category was basically that narratives which informed the early modern rape topos which continues to be the crook in the hourglass that we can't get past needn't be authorized by historians as factual because the historical and the mythological were equally valid exempla in moral discussions which involved rape during antiquity, as they should be in a current epistemology of rape. This is a perennial topic at classics conferences, and I remember at least one panel on the topic at a recent APA conference. I'll see at some point if anything methodologically helpful for the ancient side, at least, of the list has come out of the discussions, hopefully more than an online abstract. In the list as it is, I'm most interested in the addition of Leda, not least because of what the editor who added her entry deleted a few days later.  davidiad { t } 03:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that's my position too, just not in such nice words. Reminds me--I'm reviewing a real academic book: I can't even read the damn introduction. It's not jargon, it's concatenation. You think that editor realized they were giving swans a bad name? You think they're sweeping something under the rug, abusively? If Leda is in there, what about all Zeus's other "girlfriends"? Drmies (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the editor probably thought it trivialized the entry, but what I find so interesting about Zeus and Leda is that when gods take advantage of women in Greek poetic texts, it's often pretty metaphoric language (like "take advantage of"): the sort of stuff that's open to modern reactionary attacks about "anachronistic" conceptions of rape if someone chooses to call it "rape" and discuss it as such. But when you read accounts of Zeus and Leda, it reads like rape from the beginning: as though the sexual aggressor has to be a magical animal for the poet to be granted the license of realism. Is the book you're reviewing a first book? I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts it is, if I could afford a donut.  davidiad { t } 03:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Worse, it's an edited collection. And it's awful. The essays themselves seem to be a lot more readable, at least the first one is. It often seems as if the editor has to blow everyone else out of the water in such collections. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's why it's nice when folks with secure chairs organize these things: nothing to prove, they just write a true, brief introduction to the topic and place the papers that follow within the current state of the question. I can probably one up you on review curses. I have one that's six months overdue and the next (and final) volume in the series comes out this summer. Still more fun: I don't give a shit about the book. My shit, your shit, my cat's shit, any shit: no shit would be promised by me in return for this book. I just said I'd do it since the journal that's publishing the review doesn't generally do papyrology and I thought they'd have to apologize and offer to return their copy like they generally do with these editions, so I'd be a fucking hero for doing a couple day's work and clearing the review from their roster. Now I'm a dick and the review's a burden that I face every weekend. I'm working on it now, though the lady's in bed.  davidiad { t } 04:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

hey ...

I'll tell ya what. You, Dennis, NYB, etc. all have etched your efforts into a "hall of fame" as far as great admins., ... but I gotta tell ya ... keep your eyes on Bbb23 - this guy is GOOOOOOD. He has some sort of ESP or something - and he reaches out to people when they are down. Just sayin. Oh ... and by the way - take a break from the AN boards... they will really twist your concepts of the project. You folks have a great weekend and holiday. later. — Ched :  ?  04:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, I know. Whatever goes on at AN and ANI can't be that exciting since I wasn't notified. Later Ched! Don't forget to lick my dog next time! Drmies (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking below, looks like you spoke too soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A point of information

Hi Drmies. Did you mean to remove my comment with no acknowledgement, or was that just a bug in the edit conflict software? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't see that until now. I was confused by the notification system but didn't check the history. (I noticed such edit conflicts on ANI a couple of times recently; I think there was one yesterday.) Feel free to restore your comment, even though I disagree strongly with the content and the context from which it came. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

AN

Hi Drmies. There is a discussion at AN in which your name is mentioned. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Great, I guess. You just quadrupled the number of Google hits for "questionable admin conduct + Drmies". Drmies (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, not my intent. And remember, I know there are many great admins out there. It's no surprise at all that Dennis Brown unilaterally closed the AN abruptly, while there was active participation, no less. And even though Barek is the one who told me to take it there. I let Dennis know my thoughts on the matter. I guarantee you that if I was registered and started that discussion, it wouldn't have been shut down like that. Well, figuring out where to take the kids later. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this comment 10 hours after the unblock request was denied. It can certainly be perceived by some as rubbing salt in the wound. The guy is gone for two weeks and he can't even say a word on his talk page. So I don't understand what your point in doing that was. How could it possibly help an already volatile situation. An encouraging word and maybe a nice piece of advice would've been a lot better. Disappointed. I'd suggest reverting yourself. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Phead128

Hi, I took a chance and unblocked Phead128, given the new direction on the template's talk page. Please don't shank me for it. Ed  13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ed, I have no problem with that. Thanks for the note, and thanks for sticking up for your opponent. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That was a disappointingly serious reply. ;-) Ed  18:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I left you an insult at ANI, as you've no doubt seen. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I actually hadn't, but now I'm chuckling at my computer and my roommate is looking at me ... strangely Ed  21:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Chocolate teapots

Someone left me a link to how to make a chocolate teapot on my talk yesterday (long story). Thinking of you and your children (the ones at home, not the ones you deal with on WP), I thought you might want to stash it away as a school holiday project that is both educational and fun. Mind, you'll need a lot of chocolate. Enjoy! - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delicious!!! Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You want me to invest 1.3kg of chocolate to produce a tea that is "not unpleasant"? Come on Sitush... Drmies (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Spoons are okay. BTW, Drmies, your boids flew the coop and got hit thirty thousand times — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

AAH

Hi,

Note my revert to an old version of the AAH, my reasoning is found in the ANI discussion. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Belarus Free Theatre article

Hello Dmries!

I'm looking at the talk page of the Belarus Free theatre article and wondering how to get the neutrality tag removed. Could you help me understand what it takes to do that? Thank you! GayleKaren (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, I can take a stab at it. I didn't put the tag there, and it would have behooved the editor who did to put something on the talk page. But what I see is an article that has lots of borderline non-neutral language in there. There's a section "Subsequent international support and press reviews" which for the most part is a list of--of what? press clippings? (Those articles, if they exist, can be used to reference information in the article; they can't be used to build a resume.) There's too many external links, there's a section with "International Festivals and Tours" that also looks like it belongs on a resume... It seems there are plenty of sources linked in the article to write a decent one. Right now, it has too much "activities" and "aims" and resume-type sections to be a decent article, and tone and word choice just aren't neutral enough. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Spekkomissie is back - under a new name

Sorry to bother you, but that despicable creature is back. He set a clever innocent looking trap for me at the Help Desk - WP:Help desk#Famous question and then revealed himself at my talk page - User talk:Dodger67#Poet. I'd be very grateful if you could do the necessary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WK. I revdeled the usual. This is worth keeping an eye on. Roger, usually my page has a decent amount of admin traffic, and those admins provide excellent customer service. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Pinged a checkuser on IRC, and started a SPI for sleeper accounts: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Spekkommissie. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'm off to bed now - hope my page will still be here in the morning. I've just watchlisted the SPI. Goodnight! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. WK, thanks: you're so much more adept at those things that I am. I take this personally for reasons of historical shame, I think. When I was young, the word "kaffer" still had currency in a racial context. (Now it just means "sucker".) Drmies (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, my proverbial pleasure. It's pretty obvious what needed to be done, even though the unclear filter of Google Translate. SPI's already turned something up, so I guess it was a good thing we checked. (And by the way, I messed this one up already, so I guess I'm not as adept as you think. Dennis is more the mark for SPIs.) I'm sure most of us have similar memories of saying things we would cringe at hearing now, and no doubt we're saying things even now that we'll come to regret. The world moved on, as they say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted a pair of Help page topics initiated by the sockpuppets. BTW in South Africa the word "Kaffir" or "Kaffer" is still a fully serious racial insult - fully equivalent to the American "nigger". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting byte count

(diff | hist) . . Talk:Wikipediocracy‎; 01:43 . . (+666)‎ . . ‎Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Lede grammar and style and content)

Gasp! ;) Optimom (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just confirming what we already knew. Ignatzmice•talk 03:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's right y'all. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Go to bed, doc. When you start encoding secret messages in byte counts (or am I mixing up my shows?), we know something's wrong... Theopolisme (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Cause that's how admins roll. >:-} — Ched :  ?  13:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Should have known, the second you ditched your tits for the Hound of the Baskervilles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It was time for a change, Crisco. Plus, I really miss ole Spiffy, even though he had a pretty poor taste in guitar players. For the record, I've never watched a single episode of Lost; I am, of course an old fan of the X-Files, though the most memorable show I remember (ha) is Twin Peaks: it is happening again. That still gives me shivers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

Interesting

Actually it is 594. This user is ranked 594 on the list of Wikipedians by number of pages created, you I mean. Do you remember Blue Lacy? Still alive. ... Warrington (talk) 12: 787, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do remember Blue Lacy. That was, initially, not fun. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

hello

I have been on the road for a bit, am now In Akron, Ohio, fumbling away at my daughter's laptop, a species of computers that I find even more confounding than the male mind. So I am not exactly sure what was wrong with my edit, (see my talk page, I can't figure out how to do links here) that I re-formatted another editor's posting, or expressed my sometime inability to understand the male mind. As you probably know (though to assume that anyone else is aware of something easily leads us into the trap of projection that is or can be a problem with all assumptions) the female mind has been considered one of the unfathomable mysteries of the universe and it has been clear to me (i.e., opinion) that the male mind is just as incomprehensible. This is wrong to say? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• "something you probably know how to do but for some reason (who can understand the male mind?) chose not to" is a personal attack. You're saying someone should have known better but the intricacies of the male mind made them stupid enough to not do what they should have done. And this on the talk page of Men's rights movement, where dicks are waved around constantly, as are accusations of dick snipping and sniping. What I personally find offensive is the essentialism that underlies the remark. If you have an inability to understand the male mind, that's fine, but a. it begs the question of what a male mind is and b. if you don't understand what someone whom you suspect of having a male mind (whatever that is) is doing or not doing, the rhetorical question you asked clearly indicates that you blame the editor's male mind (whatever that is, and supposing that editor has one) for the mistake. That's the essence of essentialism, and in my book that's a personal attack. "You made that mistake because you're a woman"--if I said something like that in all seriousness, I hope that someone would block me for it. It's no different from saying "you're just arguing that point because you're a jew". Not all opinions are to be made public on Misplaced Pages, especially not if they are offensive. And that's why I warned you. Thank you, and all the best. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Good. So it was not my formatting. In any case, I consider myself warned and will try really really hard not to upset the guys at MRM. Or you, for that matter. Carptrash (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be better if I said "the human mind?" or would that then become some animal rights thing? Carptrash (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Block request

If next week is like this week, will you indef block me and take away talk page and email access? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done Sorry. You're not allowed to take a break. MBisanz 01:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Apparently not. I love helping people, it is my favorite thing to do here. I'm just wired that way. I don't get mad or blame those that completely misunderstand my reasoning, but it can be discouraging when people are so blinded by their own preconceived notions that they conclude that anyone who disagrees with them must have secret or nefarious motives. More so when it is coming from different directions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Concurring with MBisanz, not only not done, but you are expected to be on duty 24/7, 365/365. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• In Leap Years, you are supposed to be on duty all 366 days. Don't think you get a day off just because of the convoluted astronomy that I haven't bothered to try to understand :) Go Phightins! 02:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Long time...

... yes very well thanks. Just don't get the chance to come on here as much as I'd like. Hope you're well too, and that you enjoy this sweet snack. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)