Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Gerda, you remind me of a perpetuum mobile. Good luck with the FA; I hope Schonken manages to stay out of it. --Oh, wait, it's that one... Drmies (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Third day of Pentecost: some inspired music. What do you think about my idea to leave the FAC and pass it on to the new - well, what can we say if not owner? Your voice would also be welcome on ARCA (look for the cat picture, added on demand by an arb). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Compare first impression and now. (Looking for my name on the "first" page makes me sentimental, "Hammer. Nail. Door.", reformation.) - Then please respond to the open DYK, and close the top ARCA, or whatever needs to be done to end that misery. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Gerda, I'm sorry, but I'm not following. I do note that Brepols is slated to publish a book on medieval illustrations of the Tristan and Isolde romance. What's the DYK? Drmies (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and ARCA--that's about an editor I'm not very familiar with in a case I am not at all familiar with. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Just because you are uninvolved you can support what Opabinia said: that the arbs can do nothing about that request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
ARCA archived, good news. Music: I heard this and even briefly met the composer, - more to write about! The soprano is outstanding, a red link in de, can't believe it. Makes me almost forget what we do to our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Two David Van Wies? One's got an annual hundred million dollar research budget and a staff of 5,000 at Johns Hopkins, the other's… no, sorry, I take that back, there's hundreds of David Van Wies. I'll just repeat that figure- $100,000,000 per year research budget. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, I posted this template on Fortuna's page, and received a reply requesting that I ping you instead. I hope you'll be able to take over. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Official information that's officially confirmed? That's still not a secondary source. What are you confirming? That someone with a certain name is on the show? If Facebook is the best confirmation of that fact you can find, it's probably not a very notable show. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Red noise.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello. In future album articles, please title "Track list" as "Track listing". This is per the album style guide, WP:MOSALBUM. Thank you. I cleaned up Sarcelles - Lochères to adhere to the album guidelines, also. --Jennica✿ / 04:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Can you please do something to stop this kind of thing: my modification than the revert from Panam2014 with a false reason "No source for the flag stop now" while in fact the flag is sourced with an academic source (Houari Touati, Aux origines du drapeau algérien : une histoire symbolique (The origins of the Algerian flag: a symbolic history), Zaytūn Editions, 2014, p. 38. Pr Touati is an historian specialized in the medieval arabic world. Panam2014 continues his Misplaced Pages:Wikihounding (Panam2014 modifies this page only to revert me). He is in fact importing the dispute from Commons where he failed to push his pov. Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. It is clearly a lie. First, the conflict began in french Misplaced Pages. After that, the groupe attempted to provok a new conflict here. Then, it is clear that there are no consensus to add that fictitious flag (see talk pages). And, in the end, from 15 April to 1 July Ms10vc attempted to impose the flag in english wikipedia, arabic, italian, spanish, and turkish (and has been reverted).
According to others academic sources, the flag was different: "
Alexandre Rang, Histoire d'Aroudj et de Khaïr-ed-din. « le déploiement d'un grand drapeau national formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte et jaune, et orné de croissant d'argent »
Nadir Assari, Alger: des origines à la régence turque. « A l'époque turque, le drapeau d'Alger était formé de trois bandes de soie rouge, verte et jaune. »
Marius Bernard, L'Algérie qui s'en va. « Rien n'y manque, pas même la longue hampe où flotta si longtemps l'insolent drapeau de la régence avec ses trois bandes horizontales, jaune en bas, rouge en haut, vert au milieu. »
Sander Rang,Ferdinand Denis,Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis, Fondation de la régence d'Alger: histoire des Barberousse, « ; c'était du haut de ses vastes terrasses sur lesquelles flottait l'étendard rouge, jaune et vert ».
Mouloud Gaïd : L'Algerie sous les Turcs, p.58 : « Le grand drapeau d'Alger, formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte, jaune, se déploya majestueusement au-dessus de la porte »"
But, if another member of the group such as Buxlifa, etc, I will also revert too. It is not a wikihounding. That pov pushing should be stopped. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
This is exciting--I see that Historian Student and Omar Toons were already duking it out over this matter years ago. Ah the good old days! I can't easily see which one of y'all's versions can claim to be a "stable" version. What I can tell you is that you all need to hash this out on the talk page, and find a way to solve this content dispute. Neither one of you have sought the talk page; if this is part of a bigger conflict on other wikis, we'll need a decent way to solve this--an RfC. Without accusations and bullshit, and with facts. Panam2014, announcing an edit war is not a way to ingratiate yourself with the admins here, and it would be a good idea for you to contextualize your sources a bit better: Fondation de la régence d'Alger, for instance, appears to be a tad slanted. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I have not violated any "en.wiki" rule, Ms10vc has been banned from fr.wiki so it pulls the strings from here. And for the rest, he and his band try to modify the other wiki (without source) in order to influence the french page. And before trying to impose this flag everywhere on the projects, he never contributed on these pages. We are in the midst of disorganization of the projects "WP: POINT". I am not announcing an edit warring, this one was caused by this group and as I am a regular contributor here, I will not let the addition of false information without consensus. First time when Ms10vc added the controversial flag without consensus and before that, there have no flag. It is up to them to obtain a consensus to modify from the contradictory sources. Why giving reason to Ms10vc? Also, I have a witnesse Jean-Jacques Georges. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, since I'm notified : I have no idea about the gist of the current dispute and no personal opinion about the history of the Algerian flag, however there have been lengthy discussions on the French wikipedia, in which I did not participate (see here) and apparently the conclusion was that this flag was not the correct one.
I also confirm that Ms10vc's behaviour on fr.wikipedia has been quite problematic : he tried for many months to impose an "Algerian nationalist" point of view in various articles, and was ultimately banned. There have been loooooooooong disputes about this "Algerian flag" matter - most of them caused by Ms10vc and some users with similar opinions - and it would be better for all not to import them here. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I have asked @Colokreb: to send to you a scan of page 38 of the book . Once you have read it, you can decide by yourself who is telling the truth and who is lying. Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The source is not enough. We have specialists who do not agree and who are divided between at least two flags. I have added four book's scans. So per neutrality, we shouldn't add a flag. Touati is not above the others. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not ANI, this is not the article talk page. And both of you please pay more attention to correctness: it is not always clear what you are trying to say. Now, please hash this out on the talk page, and get input from other editors at the relevant noticeboards. What happened on fr.wikipedia is, at least for now, irrelevant. Solve a problem on this wiki and you might solve it elsewhere also. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I never said that it not irrelevant. The greater the concordance of the actions shows that there is a good link. For the rest, in this case, there are an user who adds a controversial flag, I remove it according to the sources, and then he insisist. It is an editorial conflict. After, I launched the "RfC". Finally, Colokreb never contributed here and since he offered to come here, we are well confronted with an import of conflicts. The conflict must be solved by the contributors of this encyclopedia. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Help me doctor...
This article seems to me to be on very shaky grounds with respect to BLP because it names a minor who was arrested; yet I don't think it qualifies for CSDG10. It's at AfD, but that takes a while. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for striking out Nigario.sss' comments on the CNN controversies page. Would it be appropriate for us to strike out the other accounts blocked for sockpuppetry, such as DraKyry? DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont20:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't strike those out--I usually think that's too much trouble, and for most of those POV sock warriors their comments aren't worth the effort. But go for it, if you like. An admin will know what they're worth anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not as bad as it sounds, but a new editor is advertising. If have already reverted her three times today, but she replaced it again, this time because of a school project. Now I am confused what to do... see here. The Bannertalk00:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Vian bruits.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Vian bruits.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
This action by you almost appears to be harassing and Wikihounding. There simply are no so-called "weird edits" at all. Is there any Misplaced Pages guideline against "weird" editing or are there criterias for that? It looks more that you by accident came accross my account and cannot comprehend that i changed some "church images" in an article, since you would not do it yourself. And now you checked some edits by me and did not understand a couple of them or did not even bothered to try to understand them, and basically assumed bad faith in most of them - hence leading to your false conclusion of "weird editing". Concerning your: "is acting strangely. See (changed New York to Los Angeles in List of films set in New York City, then changed it back)," Never did I changed NY to LA and changed it back: I merely copied a part of the lede entry from the parallel article from Los Angeles into the one of NYC and forgot to change Los Angeles with New York, when pasting it into the NYC movie article. After seeing the mistake I obviously corrected it. Concerning your: "is involved in an edit war at Islamic Extremism, where identical edits are being made by Joobo and various IP addresses" — so a permanently globally changing IP is deleting sourced content most likely for agenda purposes (ignoring the hint to the good rated main article of the subject which points out to exactly what the IP has "doubts" about)- I do not think that falls under edit war if you revert that, do you? it also does not look like I am the only more experienced user having concerns about the IP edits, if one has a look on the edit history of the article. Concerning your :"deleted a table of political history from New Orleans ," I excluded the fresh included table for two reasons. One, it was too huge to fit adequately into the section as it was crushing into the following section. Two, it had no direct relation to the actual section. The table was about nation wide elections, whereeas the section concerned merely focused on the local gvnmt. If there is no direct relation from an imge or table to the section there is no need for inclusion. That is according to basic Misplaced Pages guidelines. Concerning your: "and is changing numbers slightly at Economy of Slovakia." Yes i reverted "slightly" back to the prior numbers after an IP changed them without giving an edit summary or using a source. I did the same for instance in the Economy of Italy article, after IP vandalism took overhand and I reported the article for semi-protection. Can you explain to me why reverting unsourced changes of an IP address is weird? Guess the case here is settled; and I hope from now on you stick to actual WP issues- foremost editing, instead of harassing other users.--Joobo (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
If I can chip in here, as it relates to a question recently asked by Joobo at the Help Desk. I've had a look at Islamic extremism since I had reason to edit it recently on an unrelated matter. The IP editor in question is undoubtedly from Iran (which obviously has an interest in Hezbollah) and they're using proxies - a lot of Iranian editors do, presumably to avoid some firewall or censorship rather than any restriction that we've placed. This does look a bit like POV editing by the IP address, but it also does start to resemble an edit war. The IP is using the talk page in a reasonable manner, and I'd suggest other editors also do that. But there's nothing really suspicious going on there. -- zzuuzz08:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you zzuuzz; I am so happy you're still around. Joobo, WTF? Can you not jump on the harassment horse immediately? Drmies (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
What would you then qualify such insinuations of another user pointing out to "weird" editing if there is nothing weird about it? Sorry, but no sorry, I have nothing to hide nor to excuse and I cannot comprehend how one can neglect WP:CIVIL by raising such a non-issue. I gave detailed and coherent explanation for every edit that was apparently "weird"- which should eventually settle this actual itself weird accusation. --Joobo (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Joobo, if you like, I can play admin here. You said: "This action by you almost appears to be harassing and Wikihounding." No. That is wrong, utterly wrong. It does not appear to be harassment or hounding, it does not even almost appear to be that. Your weaponizing a relatively ordinary question turns Misplaced Pages into a battlefield, and that shouldn't happen. I have no dog in this fight, I don't even know what the fight is about and who the dogs are, nor do I have an undisclosed relation with John Nagle or any particular reason to side with him in an unfair manner; to put it more succinctly, if you don't back down with those accusations I will block you for violating our civility code and for doubting the good faith of an editor in good standing. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Though the Iranian IPs might have a valid argument, the edit war at Islamic extremism can't be allowed to continue. In particular, two IPs are editing from the same range there and are obviously the same person. I've semiprotected Islamic extremism for a month. If other admins want to handle it differently they should take whatever steps they prefer. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Ed--like I said above, I've not looked into these matters at all and, as always, I trust your judgment and appreciate your dedication to our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not want to accuse someone of anything or point a finger but I also do not like the same done to me for truly no logical reason. I hope and believe that this is in some way understandable. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding but I am hoping that the user is going to review the brought up edits once again and realizing that there is nothing "weird" about it at all. I am sure you would agree with the statement, that in case one brings such an claim, there should be some basis backing that up- otherwise it is inconsiderate. Perhaps there is some more mutual understanding now. --Joobo (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The aforementioned behaviour seems typical for this user. Joobo keeps whitewashing the article on Germany's Frauke Petry, who falsely quoted German law (as expressly stated and explained in detail by the given source, one of Germany's most respected newspapers, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung). See for instance
This file {{{this image}}}. Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.
Usage: {{]|date=15 January 2025}} Notify the uploader with: {{]|1=Drmies}} ~~~~ Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}
Dear Mathmensch, you as well do not seem to even have checked the edits. You just, for whatever reason, looked into my edit history, found this discussion here on Drmies talk and jumped on the train to defame me because I some time ago reverted your BLP violating entry. If you have any problem with the revert do something adequate about it (which will be hard since the answer you hope for simply technically cannot be found- as it would violate BLP guidelines). Furthermore get to know the basic WP pillars and ways of editing. You simlpy cannot put everyting into articles according to your gusto or your personal belief. --Joobo (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Could please an admin become active in this case? The edits of Joobo are counter-productive, and arguing about them, resp. explaining the mistake, has no effect. I'm thinking about putting something on the admin's noteboard. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Drmies is an admin. Before saying "The edits of Joobo are counter-productive" simply because you do not seem to like me for whatever reason (perhaps the revert on the BLP is enough for you to feel like that) you should get familiar with WP:Civil and basic WP pillars. What you do is everything but productive WP activity with behaviors like this one.--Joobo (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry for that. Could you give me my collected material so I could make this case stronger? Also please guide me how to start SPI? Greenbörg(talk)12:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dr; please revert any content removal that may have been overzealous. I'm uncertain, for instance, if we approve of listings of town churches, but it strikes me as directory stuff. Very best, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
From the USS Arizona (BB-39) page:
"After a bomb detonated in a powder magazine,"
"The last bomb hit at 08:06 in the vicinity of Turret II, likely penetrating the armored deck near the ammunition magazines located in the forward section of the ship."
A bomb and a shell are different munitions altogether. Bombs are dropped from planes, shells have fired from guns. It was a BOMB that hit the Arizona as no IJN ships were within gun range. Zzsignup (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I know the difference between a shell and a bomb, thank you. I was looking at an earlier instance of "shell"--but indeed it says "shells modified into bombs", so you seem to be right; User:Beyond My Ken, I think we're both wrong. Next problem, though--verification. Zzsignup, you can import a reference from the Arizona article, that would certainly improve the article. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry if I sounded cross. I was a little frustrated a basic history based edit (Pearl Harbor was attacked with bombs and torpedoes, not large caliber naval guns) got reverted... twice. Is a reference really necessary? This isn't really a controversial assertion... That Arizona was attacked with bombs and torpedoes is well documented. Thought basic facts do not need to be referenced as they clutter up the article. Zzsignup (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem, I understand--and you were right! Yes, that's the kind of thing that needs verification--ha, if three people had to fight over it...the article really is not looking good in terms of verified content, and in that section there are lots of things missing. Ha, the footnote for the Shaw sentence is simply the Misplaced Pages article Look at that Arizona article--it's a Featured Article, and looking at what it verifies and how will give you an idea of a good standard. If I had to guess The ed17 or one of his pals had something to do with it; they may be interested in improving this article as well, and they can certainly tell you very precisely what the standards are in that WikiProject. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Apparently 16.1 inch armour-piercing shells, weighing circa 1,500 pounds and possibly type 88 as used by Nagato-class battleships (haven't got an RS for this). I've probably spent an hour trying to find mention of an 18mm caliber gun or rifle to identify an old bronze cartridge I pulled out of a junk box (base marked "T"). Sorry about the gun stuff. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
A great many World War I sources written before the use of grenades was widespread, use phrases like "we endured constant bombing" to mean "the enemy threw lots of grenades at us". And also confused some of this with shelling, which they also endured in close proximity. I think the shell versus bomb confusion also extended later, and to larger projectiles. The "shells modified into bombs" added to the confusion, as did the fact that aircraft laid mines from the air (i.e. into the sea for later use), but also dropped mines onto land targets (with parachutes sometimes) with the intention of their detonating in the manner we understand bombs. Large numbers of primary sources, and some secondary sources that draw from them, continue using the words shell/bomb/mine in a manner contrary to the clear distinctions ZZsignup rightly makes above, well into the middle of the 20th century. MPS1992 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
That bit I posted above appears to be a pile of crap. Haven't found anything online that is definitive as regards these "projectiles"- c.f. this page which manages to assign two different types to the bombshell that sunk the Arizona. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zzsignup: I helped write the Arizona article! As Xanth has noted, I suspect the confusion is coming from the explosive in question. From memory, the Japanese used converted armor-piercing shells, originally intended for naval guns, during the attack. See eg and Nathan Okun.* I don't have my reliable sources with me right now though. *Note that while I'm pretty sure Okun would meet WP:SPS' "established expert on the subject matter" criterion, this particular link goes to a non-reliable forum, so I wouldn't use it as a source. Ed05:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
So… (Okun's theory is) some old geezer holds up the replacement of Shimose powder by Trinitroanisole for years until he retires or dies circa 1930. The geezer's attachment to Shimose may be connected to its use at Tsushima in 1904. The Japanese immediately give up a futile research project to stop Shimose-filled shells detonating prematurely and produce a new AP shell. The stockpile of obsolete AP shells is converted to bombs. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Random, spontaneous HOUNDing my three new users?
Hey, I'm not sure if "Inactive" Arbs see the emails, but whether or not you have seen that email I sent today about the off-wiki harassment ... well, the on-wiki harassment is frustrating enough. In the last week, not one, not two, but three separate accounts have started "coming after" me. I undermined one of them on a frivolous ANI thread she started, so I can tell why she might just be angry, and I !voted in support of the deletion of a page created by another, but the third is just completely baffling to me -- I had a good faith disagreement with them over the definition of a word, but the more I have tried to back down the more aggressively they have attacked me.
And the fact that they all happened in such close proximity to each other makes me really think there is some connection. Some other stuff elaborated on in that email makes me really think that at least the first and third received the same "warning" about me through an abuse of the Wikimedia email facility by some slimey, cowardly wiki-stalker who instead of confronting me directly has been going around badmouthing me off-wiki for months or years.
Since I can kinda guess what the result of the Committee's deliberations regarding the off-wiki harassment will be (after how the last two incidents were addressed), any advice you could offer on dealing with the on-wiki stuff would be appreciated. And yes, I know the best idea from the perspective of my own enjoyment of Misplaced Pages would be to just give up and go write about Tang poetry, but the last time I tried that it made the problem worse for everyone else (you closed the resulting ANI thread in February and this page subsequently played host to yet more drahms). Is ANI really the only answer? It feels kind of like they are deliberately avoiding my talk page to keep my talk page stalkers from noticing them; all three of them have posted extensive commentary directed at me on a whole bunch of other fora.
Also, sorry if I was misleading above. "new" refers to the number of edits, not the date the account was created, although in the case of one (the first) it's not even accurate in that sense; I "borrowed" it from a comment by Softlavender on the aforementioned ANI thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Two of them have made out-of-the-blue comments about "my history" even though my conflicts with them were very localized (the other one ... well, I have other reasons for believing they have either been hounding me or receiving off-wiki contact). The relevant diff for S.tollyfield is here, although you appear to have noticed that yourself within two minutes of the above. Anyway, thank you for cautioning the user on their talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is all a bit much, and I don't see a lot of hounding. I see a lot of mediocre and poor behavior, that's true, but as so often I don't quite see how you get involved in these situations. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Me neither. If you look at my first comments on the ANI thread with Pyxis, I was actually quite cordial; she elevated it almost immediately. And ... well, my life would probably be easier if I watched movies but limited my Misplaced Pages editing to classical poetry. But ironically almost everyone who commented at WT:FILM agreed with me. It wasn't until Huggums showed up and started (deliberately?) misreading what the problem was. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Homechallange55
Cab you pleeeeeassseee block him and ban him. He's taking edits way to seriously, all he does is threaten people to pay attention to him and he harasses them in the edit summaries in the articles after he reverts an edit, he even blames them over his edits and anger issues. Please stop him, he gone way too far with all this. 2600:1000:B010:8056:5406:2687:5DF9:82B9 (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Southerners
I have absolutely no idea how my addition to the Stateless nations page was not impartial. I personally have no ties to the neo-confederate movement whatsoever, don't even agree with their stances, and don't even live in America. All the things I posted there were quotes from other places.
I'd appreciate it if you took another look at what I added, and looked at the linked articles. In all honestly it seems like you are the one not being impartial here, as you removed my post simply because it goes against your own political views. Specifically, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/White_Southerners and you will find that I copied the statement you called 'racist' directly from there.
Sure--when all else fails blame the editor's political views. Take it back and maybe we can talk. BTW, the bit that's most obviously racist is the claim that they are somehow a "nation". Drmies (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a racist. I am not claiming them as a nation, I am literally quoting other articles. I apologise for assuming your politcal views, but you've got to understand I'm not American and so have no dog in this fight.
That book is the definition of an unreliable source, the author lists himself as "a freelance writer and independent researcher", and no academic qualifications are available to verfity; Greenwood's editorial oversight also doesn't seem to inspire much confidence. I had to get the Featured Article status of Tamils removed because of this book, among other reasons. —SpacemanSpiff14:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, that book can be taken out of the equation then.
Still, there are other sources making similar claims. According to the Misplaced Pages article I linked (https://en.wikipedia.org/White_Southerners), a number of academics consider Southerners to be an ethnic group. Now, either all the academics listed have questionable integrity and therefore this page needs to be revamped in such a way that makes clear such claims are ungrounded, or my entry on stateless nations is in fact valid; if Southerners are in fact arguably an ethnic group, and there is at least some autonomist/independence movement (which there is- see the league of the south), then this fits within what should be included in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcM (talk • contribs) 16:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The other thing I would point out is this- one argument against Southerners being a stateless nation is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans in the South would reject this, however, you would most likely find that the vast majority of African-Americans would reject the notion of an African-American nation also, and they are included on this list also.
That there's a whole bunch of Confederate flag-waving white people gathering at NASCAR events doesn't mean they're a "stateless nation". The "League of the South" is a small group of idiots--surely size matters, and the size of any kind of group advocating some sort of Southern statehood is minute. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Even if "white southerner" is an ethnic group (which is ridiculous), that doesn't make them a nation. Wait, do I need to declare a COI since I'm a white southerner? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha, I suppose! What we have here is a confusion between desire and reality (the desire for nationhood and nationhood itself), an important side effect of the Internet. Niteshift, I got a big fat Alabama A tattooed on my right butt cheek. What about you? Drmies (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Greenwood Publishing Group has a very unique history, having been part of many well reputed academic publishing groups including Reed Elsevier. However, in this particular case, they don't list the book(s) by this particular author in their general availability section, you have to search specifically for this book, also, the author isn't listed in their list of authors ; according to an Amazon review this book is a copy paste of many other books in the same series -- just a repackaging and that's my conclusion too based on various snippets from Amazon and GBooks. I see that you have access to the actual books, so perhaps you can have a look in detail. While Greenwood does have a lot of qualified authors, they also have a submissions/evaluations process that doesn't necessarily inspire confidence as they may be looking to expand their portfolio significantly -- one thing I did notice is that the notable author books appear to be priced lower as I suspect that volumes drive that. At the end of the day, for this kind of a book I'd expect a lot more scholarly citations, not just another book, and also I'd expect the author to have published in journals etc. We are left wondering what the specialization of the author is and don't know anything about their qualifications, somehting that's usually very easy to find out from books! —SpacemanSpiff03:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Indian universities
Morning! If you are considering taking up the plight of the vacationing Melanie while she's away, would you mind putting semi-protection back on Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology? I think there'll be a number of Indian universities coming off protection in the near future, which I'll then report as they are hit by the faithful cell phone spammer. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
By my count there were 6 "Deletes", and 5 "Keeps". That is a majority of Deletes, to be sure, but how do you reckon it represents a clear consensus?
The criterion for deletion is "consensus" not simple majority. The two are surely not the same, and there was no consensus in this case to delete. Several of the Deletes didn't come in until the AfD was extended. Indeed until a couple of days ago, even with the extension, it was tied. One of the Deletes came in yesterday, after the AfD was held open. At the end of the first round of AfD, there were in fact several more Keeps than Deletes. How come that wasn't considered a "clear consensus"? It seems like the cards were stacked against this article, and the AfD was held open until there was one more Delete than Keep. Come on, that isn't consensus. Person54 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
My point was that whatever might one think of the merits, there were arguments on both sides, and the closer shouldn't be substituting his judgement for that of the editors involved in the discussion. There was no consensus, which means in the case of deletion, "Keep" prevails. At least, the admin in question should have explained how he arrived at the conclusion that the discussion represented a consensus for deleteion, and had the courtesy to those who participated in it not to declare the outcome "obvious" when in fact it was essentially evenly divided. Person54 (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The arguments to "keep" basically boil down to "he is notable" without evidence provided. One of the best "keep" arguments is this, "It's true that the coverage in the mainstream media does relate to the event of giving his company away, but there is material from other times in business press and brief mentions in books"--but it's not hard to recognize that a. this argument is also a good "delete" argument (the 1E-ish argument of that one incident, the "brief mentions", which amount to nothing) and b. there are no specific articles linked, let alone discussed. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Can this be stopped before it goes too far?
I've done some editing on the Lesbian article. I left a comment on its talk page on 18:08, 16 July 2017. Who replied? Hijiri88. I checked the article's revision history as far back as 21:23, 3 February 2011 -- and he has not been involved in this article. Yet he responded to my comment on its talk page. Q. How did he know I had left a comment on that talk page? Easy A. He has me on his watchlist. I told Hijiri88 to stay away from my talk page after he posted a tirade. Now he's looking for a way to encounter me elsewhere. Considering what transpired in the recent ANI, and the speculations made about me ... he should be stopped from pursuing a means to create contention between us. Can you do something before his conduct goes too far. Pyxis Solitarytalk11:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Can what be stopped? There is no interaction ban between the two of you, and there is no obvious interest in messing with you per se (there is nothing "personal" in their response to a question about citations), so I see no evidence of HOUNDING. I can't stop this from being a collaborative website, no. If you wish to weaponize a simple answer to a question about a citation, try ANI. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you know. Maybe consider advising him that after indulging the "mental health" tango, it's not a good idea to have me on his watchlist?
Misplaced Pages is, indeed, a collaborative website, but becoming involved in it as an editor is not for the faint of heart. Many times what begins as 'innocent' advice turns into self-appointed authority; and the pontification and officiousness exercised by some editors has discouraged many people from participating in this webopedia. You don't need to read about it here, there, or anywhere.
But I digress. Hijiri will continue to monitor my activity on Misplaced Pages and find "good will" ways to inject himself into them. All I need to do is wait for the molehill to turn into a hounding. Pyxis Solitarytalk18:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, as someone has been stalked/hounded a number of times, and continues to be, and who saw that ANI thread involving you, Hijiri88 and others, I immediately felt that he was hounding when I saw that post at Talk:Lesbian. He belittled the Carol (film) article citation style to annoy you. Don't worry. If he continues to act in this way, you will eventually have a case against him. I did not state anything, as to not inflame the situation, and because I know how Hijiri88 can be and I do not want him coming after me next (even though I would be able to handle it, as I've handled every stalker/hounder I've had). Anyway, just know that, so far, I see what you see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22, I do not see what you see. Feelings are one thing, but evidence is another. A case is made by careful interpretation of single edits--here, you'd have to explain a. how that citation thing is being belittled and b. that it is done to annoy the other editor. If you can do that, good for you, and it is very possible that you know a lot more about this than me. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Stuff like this is based on behavior. And based on the aforementioned ANI case that was about edits to the Carol (film) article, and based on the behavior that Pyxis Solitary outlined above, I can only come to the conclusion that Hijiri88 went to the Lesbian talk page, an article/talk page he'd never edited before, and commented after Pyxis Solitary, highlighting the Carol (film) article in way that was certainly not favorable in the process, only to annoy Pyxis Solitary. But, as is clear, that is just my opinion. I'm sure, however, that if Hijiri88 continues this route in relation to Pyxis Solitary, a solid case of WP:Hounding will be made (not by me, unless it's continuously at articles I edit as well, which will lead me to want to get involved due to being annoyed). So, hopefully, he stops. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
To give Hijiri88 the benefit of the doubt, though, he may simply be concerned about Pyxis Solitary's edits. After all, he is correct about the citation style of the Lesbian article; it's acceptable and fine (even though it makes accessibility less readily accessible). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
As I stated in the 5 July 2017 ANI that Hijiri88 overran (and the attacks against other editors cannot be ignored): "There are thousands of articles on Misplaced Pages to edit." There are also thousands of Talk pages to engage in. The fact that he replied to my comment in the talk page of an article he has never been involved in does not require a Sherlock Holmes to make a deduction.
Add that to his calling me a troll in an editor's talk page, his injecting himself in my message to Alex Shih with more false accusations, the inappropriate gossip about me that started on 9 July and was eventually blanked on 14 July, the message in my talk page — mind you, there are more examples — are indicators of confrontational behavior. Pyxis Solitarytalk14:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Pyxis, whatever the merits of your complaint may be, I don't think you want to point at this note by Hijiri since it points to this edit of yours--if I had seen that latter edit, I would have reverted and blocked you on the spot, since that's pure trolling. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
First: Pyxis is being somewhat hypocritical here, talking about me on an admin's talk page without pinging me, after criticizing me for "discussing an editor on ANI" without notifying them, when all I had done was link something that user had written as evidence that someone was going around badmouthing me off-wiki.
Second: Wow, Flyer ... I didn't think you were still holding a grudge against me for this interaction fourteen months ago, but I can't think of any good-faith explanation for how you came to the above conclusions without having some serious bone to pick with me. I don't know why you read through that very long ANI thread without deigning to comment on it, but it's utterly incredible that everyone, including at least one user who has no love for me given our history, could completely agree with me while you think my comments amount to "hounding".
Third: As ArbCom explicitly stated in their decision regarding the Hijiri88/Catflap08 case back in 2015, there are lots of legitimate reasons for checking an editors contribs, and calling this "hounding" is inappropriate and in some cases can be considered a violation of AGF. One valid reason to check contribs is surely that one is fairly certain the user is attempting to talk about one behind one's back -- Pyxis did this to me quite a bit over the last two weeks, and indeed did it right here. My happening to notice a questionable talk page comment and responding to it in a polite (and policy-accordant) fashion is not hounding.
Fourth: The questionable comment was completely out of sync our normal citation guidelines, and someone who has been here as long as Pyxis has should know this without someone having to tell her, let alone accusing the one who tells her of only doing so because of some bad-faith "hounding" imperative. If Pyxis is actually acting in good faith, and it can be demonstrated that others have come to the same conclusions she has, then I think it is a legitimate question whether the citation templates should be removed from the editing toolbar as they are apparently doing more harm than good. I have never found any use for automatically generated citations, and none of the experienced editors who have called me out for my sometimes-inconsistent citation style (not gonna ping him, but Curly Turkey comes to mind) have recommended that I change that.
Drmies: I have nothing to hide. If I did something wrong and got chastised for it — I own it. You already made the point on 13 July 2017. One time there, now a second time here. Whatever the official rule is, I got the gist of it: don't interject a tag (or anything else) into an editor's comment. I got it.
Now ... what are you going to do about Hijiri88's behavior? His obsessive accusations — repeated several times — that I have conspired with other editors against him are toxic. He engages in inappropriate gossip about me; he posts disparaging comments; he makes false accusations; he follows me to an article he has never, ever been involved in to reply to my comment in its talk page.
Whatever his "good will" contributions to Misplaced Pages may be, his disruption and confrontation with many editors is documented (in the linked ANI he went off the rails about another editor, which compelled that editor to defend herself). The reluctance to deal with Hijiri88's behavior is creating the impression that there is a behind-the-scenes "hands off" when it comes to him, which boils down to favoritism for one editor over others, and is to the detriment of Misplaced Pages as a whole. Pyxis Solitarytalk11:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, you didn't apparently do much with my request that you look into Pyxis's hounding of me beyond telling Alex Shih off for some stuff that went down on my talk page, and I'm cool with that, but when you and another user requested that I blank the section because Alex's comments were inappropriate, I complied. I really don't see why I should have to put up with comments like His obsessive accusations — repeated several times — that I have conspired with other editors against him are toxic. (I never made accusations about "conspiring" -- I stated as a matter of fact that Pyxis and one or two other users had admitted to receiving off-wiki contact about me, and was careful to include the exact diffs of them admitting so) he posts disparaging comments; (for example?) he makes false accusations; (for example?) he follows me to an article he has never, ever been involved in to reply to my comment in its talk page. (again -- if Pyxis doesn't understand the PAG rationale for my comment, that is her problem; monitoring her edits when she has devoted most of her edits over the last two weeks to harassing me and one or two other editors she doesn't like is not a violation in itself) ... etc., etc. anywhere on-wiki. If Pyxis can't understand why comments like the above are inappropriate, then honestly I don't know why she hasn't been blocked yet; if you want to be conservative with your blocks, that's your call, but could you close, blank or archive this "discussion"? I really don't want to put up with any more of this nonsense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's me the prima-donna AL, still kicking and fussing (enough with the WP:VANISHES already, no one cares :)),
can you please help out in this player's PERSONAL LIFE section (there is a source there in Dutch, for the first paragraph, what the fudge does - original writings, i have since replaced them - "He also revealed that he "took my first football steps in our ward, where he played with the neighbourhood small team."" mean?! And isn't it supposed to be of SPANISH descent, instead of English?)
This user, in spite of several warnings not to overdetail, continues to engage in it, mentioning pretty much ALL of the goals a player scores. I admit i was a little trigger-happy when i rolledback, but now am in the process of salvaging some content (everything is now cleaned up, with the exceptions of the SPARTAK and the SEVILLA sub-sections, will take care of that after dinner). He was also warned several times for his poor English (as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Timmy96#Disruptive_editing), i see that there have been no improvements whatsoever (i.e. "Pareja went on to make eighteen appearance and scoring two times"!).
Oh, I don't really know what to tell them. Yes, that's a ton of material, much of it sourced to (Dutch) blogs (I was looking at Stefan Thesker also, with huge amounts of detail--too much, really. There's some writing problems as well. User:Timmy96, sometimes less is more... Drmies (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really asking that you interact with Timmy, ball's on your court there :) My request is: please read reference #28 (http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/gk2v6h14) and "find" if he is of Spanish or English descent (i fail to see how the latter can be, with that name, but Timmy wrote it!), and also where on earth can "took my first football steps in our ward, where he played with the neighbourhood small team" relate to what is actually written in the Nieuwsblad article.
I read your feedback and this is the first time I have responded to your comment. I want to tell you that the way I edited is my own style. I do admit I look for an article that is short and intend to expand the article. I do enjoy editing Misplaced Pages because it's fun and I really hope you don't have a problem with that. I acknowledged that you removed most of the references from Nicolás Pareja. I like to say I respect Quite A Character and Yngvadottir's decision to make changes to the article. No problem that majority of the references on this article were removed.
You were warned over and over again not to overdetail (mention of all goals, several unimportant games and small injuries), you continue at it. Why? And why did you insert 100% false information in his PERSONAL LIFE section if you did not understand the contents? Seriously, i do not understand it.
User:Timmy96, i have reinstated more of your references, some were actually good and for that i apologize. Now, it's not very difficult to understand but i'll repeat it again, please just insert the basic information, like transfer fees, duration of contracts, debut appearance or debut goal, important goals, important injuries (not EVERY injury and EVERY red card a player receives, that is completely not encyclopedical).
Please note that the administrator Drmies has told you the exact same thing (you insert too much info, too much), i am not making anything up. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Words of advice fell on deaf ears, as seen on Lars Unnerstall (and level of English still displayed in sentences like "Unnerstall have since become the first choice goalkeeper, even Hildebrand made a recovery"). Shame... I was this close to rollingback again, but then thought: 1 - what do I care; 2 - I don't want to get all WP:OWN --Quite A Character (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
On 18 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abel Herzberg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dutch-Jewish lawyer Abel Herzberg and his wife were moved by train from Bergen-Belsen in April 1945, liberated by the Soviets in May, survived typhoid, and arrived back in Amsterdam in June? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abel Herzberg. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Abel Herzberg), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! Your submission of Dolly Rudeman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
