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.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkknight2149 (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 27 January 2017 (→More evidence: A final (Perhaps THE final?) note regarding what Drmies said. I fail to see how defending myself with logic at an ANI discussion while editors ignore them is "digging a hole".). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I have been dealing with Nishidani's condescending and holier than you attitude for quite some time. He routinely posts along the lines of "I know you won't understand this but...." and he issues personal attacks that just cross the line and it's gotten to be enough is enough. I asked at Bishonen's page the following but she doesn't want to deal with it. There is a reason why people are not editing in that area as much as they used to. Toxic editors who are smug and condescending is not a pleasant place to be. Thanks. Sir Joseph14:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
From Bishonen's page:
Hi, I was wondering if you can look at the contributions of Nishidani at Talk:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334. One of my issues I have with him is that throughout his editing tenure here, he is extremely condescending to everyone. He pontificates, and throws out snide personal attacks. Is this a personal attack: "You've obviously never read a paragraph of anything he's written, not only because it would require more concentration that you seem capable of." And also calling someone "foggybrained," I know this may seem small, but it's basically with every interaction, and it's not just with me. Finally, I ask you to notify him that his user page violates WP:POLEMIC. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Sir Joseph. Please ask another admin, or maybe WP:AE if you prefer. Palestine-Israel is a highly contentious and contested area under discretionary sanctions — as arbcom said in 2008, it's a bitter and long-standing real-world conflict — and I'd rather not stick my ignorant nose into it. Bishonen | talk21:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC).
Thank you, it was more of the comments I posted right above that I was questioning. I'm not going to take him to AE just for that, but I did warn him to stop insulting others. Sir Joseph23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
And he now responded to my warning with a post (in yiddish so people wouldn't notice), that "to write history, you need a head not an ass." Sir Joseph14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And even more, "Okay- I'll dumb this conversation down even further to help you grasp the point." This condescending attitude has to stop. Sir Joseph18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As for POLEMIC, his page was deleted on 11:51, 31 May 2015 and then he promptly recreated it once things died down. Sir Joseph19:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, I'm sorry but I can't do much for you this time, being spread a little thin. I've run into Nishidani a few times but have no recollection of their being a net negative or a jerk, but I have not looked at your recent conflict or their recent edits. I think Bishonen is right and AE may be the place to go. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like to know your opinion on this edit, where User:Esszet insists to delete the whole content of a section due to non-neutral. But I've read NPOV a few times and can't see a reason for an act like that. Can you help and guide me please, as you did before? Thanks a lot! MetalS-W (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I thought I was doing OK but then I read this and now I'm asking myself all kinds of questions. Rainbow! Sure, I'll have a look, unless that's too masculine and patronizing. I've always had a problem with "Starstruck", by the way. I'm certainly not ordering coffee for Ritchie Blackmore. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm OK--the sourcing is pretty poor, and the opening sentence is not neutral enough... The last bit, about that Iranian band, that's not well-sourced enough to prove any kind of relevance; if a more notable/reliable magazine had published on it maybe, but a Deep Purple fan site, no. This Schmier guy is (encyclopedically speaking) nobody, but Rob Halford is somebody and we appreciate his opinion. So, Byff and Halford's comments are relevant, if the whole thing is phrased much more neutrally. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh! I adore them both, I thought you were sarcastic! I take my word back, Sir. You have a very good taste in music! :)
BTW I've Googled and I found an article about that Iranian band on Bravewords but I can see it is already there, maybe I added it previously but I can't remember atm.I think Bravewords can be considered as a reliable source. MetalS-W (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
See WP:MOS-ALBUM. It doesn't say anything about including other musicians' opinions on the album at all. The entire section just seems like an attempt to make the album look good; what does it add to the article? Esszet (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It is about the 40th anniversary, which came with that SHOCKING tour. I think we should find a way bring that back into the article. Just check out the poster and you can see what I mean. MetalS-W (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Esszet, if the people commenting on the album are notable, and the comments are relevant and reliably sourced, then I see no reason to exclude them--it becomes a matter of editorial judgment. An Iranian band, maybe not, but that depends on the quality of Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles and the depth of coverage--not to mention the importance of that one band. The singers of Saxon and Judas Priest, yeah, their opinions are likely to be notable, but there also it depends on the source and the depth. No one cares for a passing comment, of course, but if it's more than that, perhaps. I'm not going to draw many conclusions from the poster, and some coverage from Blabbermouth is also not enough (too much NOT a WP:RS), but if the Byff and Halford references are valid, then why not? Or we could ask Blackmetalbaz (who knows metal and Misplaced Pages like few other people), or more generally Dan56 (who is likely, I think, to take a more conservative approach, and has wrote up more FAs than Blackmore had keyboard players). Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Quite simply because you don't need a 40th anniversary reflection section, even if the people commenting are notable. Look at articles for other famous albums from the 60's and 70's: Revolver, ], Led Zeppelin IV, and why not even ]. You might find some retrospective commentary, but a) it's generally from professional critics b) it's not for a specific event like the album's 40th anniversary. And MetalS-W, I looked at the poster, and I don't see what you mean. Even if you personally found the tour "shocking", you'd have to find a lot of other people saying the same thing if you want it to be included here. Esszet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Esszet, I find it very refreshing to see an obvious fan who is not eager to put such information in. However, if notable people find it relevant to comment on the occasion of the 40th anniversary (if that's what's going on), then, simply put, that 40th anniversary has become notable. BTW I do not base anything I said here on a poster. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, simply because they're not critics and it's critical opinion that matters here. Reducing it to a single sentence in the "Reception" section would be fine, but you certainly don't need an entire section for it. Esszet (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, those early albums are really good, and the live album, On Stage, is excellent--a bit noodly for some, maybe. Anyway, we are not limited by policy to "critics only"; that would also beg the question of what a critic is. Musicians can be critics as well. I've said already, I think, that I would suggest limited space. But if some terrifically notable person says such glowing things, yeah that's important enough. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Dutch musician
Up-and-coming Dutch musician: Leon Bolier. Now at AfD. Gets quite a number of Google results. Many of them, including the web, news, and book results, are in Dutch. You might take a look. (I noticed this at ANI.) Softlavender (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Xpanettaa edited the page once - in April. And while Bolier has released through Spinnin', he appears to have put out three albums. I noticed that the OP of the AfD indicated a withdrawn. I did not comment on this one myself as a previous edit resulted in the ANI case that Softlavender mentioned. Karst (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
What is "extreme prejudice"? What does it mean when people say shit like that? Bbb, I'm sorry I missed it and Bish, thanks--I was making totally spicy wonton soup. I can feel it through my scalp. Fun! Drmies (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh what a fool, and their edit still stood. One wonder whether such edit summaries aren't worthy of an immediate indefinite block, so they'll have to figure out how to behave properly in polite society. Jack Johnson--one of my heroes, one of Miles Davis's heroes. Bbb23, how are you involved? Drmies (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Making soup sounds so much better than monitoring your Talk page. You probably put pork in the wontons, though. Could you make some with chicken instead? It's cold here; soup would be welcome. Seems like reverting the user makes me classically involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
"... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias,..." So there. Yeah, cold here too--the pool was at 53, so the girls couldn't really go sunbathing after jumping in this morning. Keep warm, buddy. Also, oil, garlic, ginger, some red pepper, chicken stock--that's really all it took. No, I'm not making chicken wontons since ground chicken is revolting. Take care Bbb, Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't like to hang my hat on that qualifier, debatable. Revolting??? Use a clothes pin on your nose when you make it. Actually, you don't have to put anything inside the wontons. Then it becomes a sort of Chinese noodle soup with large noodles. Two of my favorite things of all time are fresh garlic and fresh ginger.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
No one is going to make a big deal out of it: that edit was obviously poor. Anyway, cold, no soup, no Drmies to keep you warm--I strongly suggest you find yourself a few Maritime Bhangra Group videos to watch. If that doesn't do anything for you, you may need resuscitation. Does this link do anything for you? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Initially I didn't block all of them since they made a few non-vandal edits, but that's all different now. Please see if I missed any of them. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that's all of them. I had been following that guy for a while. Every time he had his hiatuses, I figured he had gotten tired of it, so I would just let it go. But I guess he got his jollies off of monthly vandalism. Lizard (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There was one account that was a bit different, very interesting. And a new one just popped up cause they got nothing better to do. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Mark Regev, official apology
Hi there, it seems you were involved in a disruptive and counterproductive edit on the Mark Regev page, but you did not notice that the earlier contribution was perfectly well documented with a reference cited. If it was a flagged or automated disruptive revert from your account, please check such, as the page does not need any multiparty 3RRs or edit conflicts. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.131.8.208 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. Since I've noticed you seem to have a good sensibility of what is encyclopedic material and what matters on a BLP, if you get time, would you please be able to go through Ngaiire? She's an Australian singer who appears to have one main contributor who has puffed her biography up a bit over the course of a few years and I'm having a bit of a time cutting out what's relevant and what's not. It's not a very long article, so if you could cut out what's not fit for Misplaced Pages in your opinion, it'd be appreciated. Thanks. Ss11222:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ha, plenty of people don't agree with me! That article isn't so bad. The albums can have individual articles. There's a few flags in there that need to go. The lead has a crazy thing, "one of the greatest living people on earth by Monster Children magazine"--yeah, that magazine is nothing, and their opinion means nothing (today we're celebrating John Lewis, as far as I'm concerned). Wait--it's a clothing website? I do agree that there's too much verbosity--we can trim the quotes, remove some detail, and check closely to see what publications there are reliable and notable, and thus what can be cut. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Reference errors on 16 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Posting this here because I've had enough of carrying on conversations with people on other people's talk pages for one day, and since I'm aware that JC doesn't like me posting on his talk page. I figured one message telling him to back off would be okay but I'm not going to hazard editing there again.
Anyway, assuming you were referring to "have a word with you" being like something a schoolchild would say: I was being coy. I meant I would ask you to block him. John Carter's been taking wikibreaks of between four days (I consider that a wikibreak when during active periods the user doesn't go 24 hours without editing) and five months, and every time he has come back, with one exception, he has followed me and comments on something I was doing within about an hour (or does the same to one of my "friends"). I don't want another IBAN, but surely when obvious hounding is obvious it's a blockable offense?
If what you meant was that you are not interested in getting involved, that's fine. I'd be just as happy messaging someone else. Or posting on AN. Or getting one of the other people he's been hounding because they agreed with me at some point in the past to do it.
It sounded like you were calling on your big uncle, the truck driver, to intimidate someone. And I have no interest in getting involved here. I don't know what validity there is to your claim; I've worked with John Carter as I've worked with you, and I don't know John Carter to be a harasser. Please post on AN if you really think admin intervention is warranted. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how did you come to comment at WT:JEW? I don't assume you were following someone but I've never seen you at that page. Sir Joseph14:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, you mean Hijiri? I don't think I've commented there, though I hound Doug Weller on a regular basis. FWIW, I don't see why Arab Jews wouldn't be subject to DS. Having said that, what I think is missing on the talk page is a decent discussion of sources. I'm an outsider, but I see one of the arguments is that the IP's sourcing is inadequate, but I don't see much proof of that, or much in-depth discussion. Again, outsider here. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Just saw this now. In future, if you have messages for me, please you leave them on my user talk page. I have edited articles on Jewish (and early Christian) topics quite a bit, and if you look directly below your thread on WT:JEW you'll see that I had left a notification there of a related discussion on WT:BIBLE. I left the same notification on WT:CHRISTIANITY. I looked up the page and saw your notification, which I thought was inappropriate, and responded. By sheer coincidence, I had been reading and considered editing some explicitly-IP articles two days earlier.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, sorry for being unclear, I meant Hijiri. My concern with having that under ARBPIA is that most of the article has nothing to do with the conflict. Even the mention of Zionism is about Zionism, and not the IP conflict. Zionism can be viewed outside of the IP conflict, and in this case it was mentioned about how Zionism was trying to erase "arabism" from Arab Jews. More so, the article hasn't seen disruption or vandalism and in my opinion protection was sought to win an argument. In practice, Misplaced Pages should be as open as possible. We lock when necessary but in this case, locking is not needed. Sir Joseph16:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No, that's OK. I agree with you in principle, but I assume that the admins who made the call (there's at least two in the history, right?) know this stuff better than me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No, just one. And at RFPP, it was listed as regular protection, and then somebody just commented that since it's Arab Jews it should be under ECP so the admin granted ECP protection. I think it's silly and as was pointed out to Hijiri, who is in favor of keeping it at ECP, he violated the sanctions by his edits. We don't need more articles under protection if regular editing can deal with it. Sir Joseph17:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I am wondering if there needs to be better guidelines written. This page, Umm al-Hiran was just added to ARBPIA sanctions, when it's a Bedouin town in the Negev. It has nothing to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Sir Joseph01:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you on that point. I just don't think we should work within hypothetical better guidelines when the current guidelines are clear, even if they are overly broad. And the General Prohibition should apply to all edits by unregistered and new users, regardless of whether the article in question is actually related to the Arab-Israeli conflict; if an IP adds something about the Arab-Israeli conflict to another random article, that edit is a violation, regardless of whether the page itself deserves extended confirmed protection. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, my recent history is of editing almost exclusively on Monday and Wednesday, so describing the interim between active days a "break" seems at best questionable to me. John Carter (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that the traditional salutations are out of the way, your thoughts re: this new account will be welcome. Are the copious additions of external links to a college library's papers from a WP:SPA with conflict of interest constructive or spamming? I dunno. Thanks and best wishes, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have concerns about this as well. The links actually appear to be constructive to the articles for the most part, but I am concerned about it being a WP:SPA as well, and I'm wondering what the motivation behind it is. I'll attempt to reach out on the talk page (I noticed the welcome template there already, thank you!) Garchy (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Received a reply from the editor here - The mission does seem to be positive and contributes to the encyclopedia, but does appear to be a COI. Garchy (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not the same user I ran into last year, but this is not the first time. The goal is laudable, of course, and positive, at least on the surface. EL doesn't give much guideline here. Much of it will depend on the value of the collection (quality, comprehensiveness, etc.) by itself and in relation to the subject. I mean, an archive pertaining to Home Alone, I don't see much purpose there. Without specific guidelines (maybe they got added since I last looked?), and without an RfC or something like that, we should weight it individually, and in that case a mass addition of links is burdensome and can become disruptive; certainly the previous case I saw was disruptive, with someone adding links to hundreds of pages. Mind you, I am all for archives, in principle, and we should maybe have some advice on the EL page even if we can't agree on whether they should be in or out on principle (which would be silly anyway). LadyofShalott and DGG, both of whom work in dusty underground archives, will have opinions too.
As for the COI, meh. We can take our policy very strictly (the user has disclosed, but we can make them put a thing on their user page and a tattoo on their forehead), which I think would be counterproductive. "...whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content"--well, adding a link isn't much influence. We can call it spam, of course--but again, if it's a good archive, why not? Of course it will increase traffic to their site, and of course Jessica.holden would not be opposed to that, but we do need to think about the benefits for our articles. So it's a mixed bag. I would certainly get a few folks who know what they're doing to actually look at that archive, and at the individual links. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well put, on every level. The user's disclosure was welcome, and viewed, at least from this desktop, as an alleviating rather than incriminating measure. On balance I was unsure about the edits, too, and how the benefits mitigate the appearance of a mass spamming sort of approach. The pain is in reviewing each link to assess its relevance and importance for the article in question. Ecchh. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh absolutely--which is why it's imperative for Jessica.holden to discuss with us--on talk pages, but also on their own talk page. I'd like to see a bit of information given about the archive and, more importantly, about its individual holdings and what they add per individual article. Because, Jessica, here is the thing: a link to an archive is not automatically or inherently an article improvement. You'll look at that differently from your perspective, but that's the essence of COI: you think that what you're doing is helpful (as I think that what I'm doing is helpful...), but for the article that's not obvious. In other words, the burden is on you, and you need to meet that burden one way or another. 99, DGG, Lady, what's a good WikiProject where this can be discussed? Gotta go--and thanks for looking into this, 99. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Thank you for bringing me into this conversation. The mission of University Archives and Special Collections at UMass Boston is as follows: "The mission and history of the University of Massachusetts Boston guide the collection policies of University Archives & Special Collections, with the university’s urban mission and strong support of community service reflected in the records of and related to urban planning, social welfare, social action, alternative movements, community organizations, war and social consequence, and local history related to neighboring communities." The links that I have added to Misplaced Pages articles have been meant to enhance those articles - I have added links to collections of organizational records and personal papers that document the subjects of those records/papers. For example, we hold the organizational records of Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, WUMB-FM, and the League of American Bicyclists. I have added links to those records to the Misplaced Pages articles about those organizations. Similarly, we hold the personal papers (which include research papers, manuscripts, correspondence, photographs, etc of a particular person) of Robert Dentler, Phyllis Harmon, and James Green, so I have added links to those papers to the articles about those individuals. My goal has been to enhance the Misplaced Pages articles by providing access to primary sources that were created by the subjects of the articles. I think that if a person were reading the Misplaced Pages article about Gloria Emerson, it would be beneficial for them to know where her photographs are held, just as an example. I did not intend to spam, and will certainly delete links if I have added too many. Are there specific guidelines for how many links an individual can or should add? Thank you for your insight!Jessica.holden (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
our general practice is to add links only to the principle archival collection, and adding additional ones often requires justification. For most people who are famous, there are small related holdings in many university library archives that supplement the main collection. Researchers need to know about them all, but WP is not a archives directory, and the information is normally available from published sources--of the person is famous, there is inevitably a published biography. and any scholarly biography will list them all as a matter of course. Jessica.holden.please review your additions and see if all of them are justified by this standard. For any that are not, if you think they are nonetheless justified, the safest course is to remove them and ask for consensus at the article's talk page. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi DGG, thank you so much for clarifying. That makes sense! There are several collections that I linked to that are not the principle collection on that subject (for example, the South End News is a newspaper published in the South End neighborhood of Boston, but is a relatively small collection so I will remove that link from the South End article), so I will review all of my additions and will remove those sources. Please let me know if there is anything else that I should correct or if you have any more questions for me. Thank you again! Jessica.holden (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have responded to the above editors post on my user talk page, in the section you previously responded at, at User talk:John Carter#Stop following me, please, a post which is specifically in violation of an existing ban of that individual from posting to my user talk page. Given what is, to my eyes, a deliberate attempt at falsification of evidence to misrepresent circumstances, I also believe that the block might be more than just a few days. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey John--you know I love you like a brother, but I'm going to give you the same answer as I gave Hijiri. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood. But, FWIW, you should know that, after I posted here and didn't get a response for a while, I also posted at ANI. You might want to make some sort of comment, of whatever kind, there as well. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I was in class all morning. Sorry. I'll look, but I will tell you, matters involving Hijiri (whom I love like a brother, of course) are typically too wordy for me. Vita brevis and all that, you know. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Do not apologize for being in class, dammit. If one of our primary functions is to basically try to educate people about topics, there is no way I can see anyone having to express any sort of regrets for actively doing the sane thing on a more personal and direct basis. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
An article possibly related to your area of expertise
Hello Doc,
Since I know of your intense interest in and deep expertise about K-Pop music, I thought that I would bring this article, K-Beauty, to your attention. I learned that this worldwide skin care fad is based on ingredients such as "ingredients such as snail slime, morphing masks, bee venom (an anti-inflammatory “faux-tox” alleged to relax facial muscles), moisturizing starfish extract, and pig collagen". My confidence in 21st century journalism is restored by the incisive, in-depth coverage of this phenomenon by the Wall Street Journal, which may well win a Pulitzer Prize for artful repackaging of press releases. CullenLet's discuss it04:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Editor Softlavender (based on self-description) –EEng N.B. nails not shown.
{{nosy parker}} "ost of my patients are up to at least four steps, including a daily peel and a serum." I never understood the appeal of all that kind of rigamarole. I'm doing good if I manage not to skip brushing my teeth on days I don't leave the house or have visitors. Seriously, unless you have adult acne, or are a gay male, is all that stuff really necessary? I've never moisturized, never cleansed my face daily, never done a peel (although I can see the occasional worth of the last). I have never even worn foundation (and usually don't wear makeup). OK I eat pretty well so my skin is OK, but don't women look OK without doing all that stuff, and also without a lot of makeup (unless they are going to be on camera)? Disclaimer: Not criticizing; if anyone really loves this stuff it's fine, like a hobby; my hobby is obsessing over the shape of my fingernails (no I don't get manicures or paint my nails), which I never can get symmetrical. Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
We are doomed. Three promotional articles created in ten minutes by a throw-away account that has done no other edits. To add spice, DGG added a speedy delete tag to K-Beauty which was declined because of all the great references. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That is pretty odd, especially since the articles are in such great shape and so well-referenced. Are throwaway accounts the new thing? Also, I have to now totally flip (I'm a Libra; I'm allowed to contradict myself and argue the other side of the coin) and say that one should not discount articles on cosmetics or cosmetics-company founders out-of-hand; to do so would seem to slide towards gender bias. (Also, I'm going to totally flip and confess that one of my secret dreams – in addition to being a professional figure skater – was to start a natural cosmetics company, because I do like lotions and creams and soaps and natural perfumes and such and have a lot of ideas about them but the things I find, even in natural stores, don't meet my ideas/standards.) Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's Dr.K.|another doctor, whose name expresses his love for K-Pop, who can confirm that throwaway accounts are common in the area. First edit, boom, a fully-fledged article with formatting and references and all that, including infoboxes for Hangul spelling and all that. And navigation templates. And attendant discographies and list of awards received. It is truly a miraculous thing and that's all I have to say on the topic. Softlavender, hit me up on Whatsapp and I'll do you some counseling. I do want to talk lotions with someone in the know; I want to have delicious soft feet again. In the meantime, a 15-yr old black kid got shot in Macon, Georgia, for walking down the street and I'm tired of the world, just a little. Drmies (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Doc for the attempted ping and I fully agree with your comments regarding the socks plaguing K-pop. I only add that without your help, editing K-pop would be far more difficult. Nice connection of my nickname and K-pop, although that is purely coincidental I'm afraid. I also wish to thank John for fixing the ping issue. It is always nice talking to both of you after such a long time. In any case, I leave you to your discussion. I see shrunken heads and I am afraid the topic of this conversation may be above my pay-grade. Or else, EEng may be up to his usual, mischievous, sense of humour. I wonder. :) Dr.K.20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Emma Bunton
Hey again Drmies, just like the other day with Ngaiire, I've noticed a user has added a bunch of new information to Emma Bunton (50k of it, to be precise) and I think the article is bloated, but have no idea what to cut out. The user is Patricia CV (talk·contribs), who has previously added a bunch of ridiculous genre claims (claims that the former Spice Girl is a bossa nova musician when this is entirely unreferenced). If you get time and can take a look at it and maybe remove anything untoward, it'd be appreciated. Thanks. Ss11205:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want water, you have to pay in chocolate, or maybe that is vice versa. But I do notice that the water 'article' is a complete whitewash -- 'they' mention BRIEFLY that you should not pour water on an oily fire -- and then the only other 'danger' noted is drinking too little which you just know Big Water made sure was the POV the water article would push! No mention of *drowning* and the serious other fatalities that dihydrogen monoxide is known to cause. Avalanches... black ice on the roads... (well not in Alabama usually I guess)... baseball sized hail... tsunamis... gravitational pull of the oceans MADE OF WATER on the moon slowly halting the rotation of the earth itself! Stuff is deadly, and wikipedia just goes la la la, water is goodness, water is light... sickens me. The stench of universal solvent bias and polar bond corruption. Sick. To. My. Core. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree. Listen, it's not yet 11PM here. I am perfectly willing to make you a nice cup of peppermint tea (got other flavors too) so we can sit down and talk about this, and hammer out a more balanced approach. Having gone to the "ethnic store" recently I can even offer you a Marie biscuit. It's all good! Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
"BorderRuffian"
Drmies: "suggests a non-neutral point of view"
Really? You object to my username? I thought that was the business of the user.
It seems to me that objecting to it indicates a non-neutral pov. But, of course, everyone on Misplaced Pages has a neutral pov, right? -BorderRuffian22:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure? vs. . I'm doing better than expected, actually. You, not so much. And we're not yet talking about reverts, or about "unwarranted". Drmies (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's just a bunch of trolls gathering on that page for that particular inane joke. I'll check and see if it pops up elsewhere. Thank you muchly for ratcheting up the protection levels.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
An issue you were heavily involved in four years ago is at WP:AN. I don't think it really matters, since I can kinda predict how you would !vote and consensus is already unanimously on the same side. But messaging you anyway as a courtesy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, I'm writing to seek feedback on this article, which appears pretty well owned by a single account. It is profusely sourced, and a lot of it looks good, but I'm tempted to template it as an advert, based mainly on the hyperbolic headers and a lot of the content regarding the present day, which reads a bit promotional to me. Am I overreaching, or is there a whiff of the promotional here? Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
'Embracing the Market', 'Forging an Identity, Finding a Role' and 'Rural Setting' all seem more suited to a promotional brochure than an encyclopedic entry. Okay, they're not 'Greatest Cafeteria on the Planet' or 'Naked Happy Dorm Life', but they do raise a flag. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
They sound more local newspaper to me. The first two aren't great. I'd suggest you go ahead and improve them. Personally I'd shy away from "'Naked happy Dorm Life". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've reached out to the editor about the potential WP:COI. Also, I saw on one of your editing summaries "how much more of this has similar issues?" in regards to copyright issues - I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but here's a great tool for finding copyright issues.Garchy (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No harm in that, especially in a world where we've all become too quick on the proverbial trigger. And taking your advice, I did the copyvio check, too. I think I removed the content that constituted the 42 % likelihood. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Drmies, I wonder if you could perhaps help me out with something. So, this Dragnea fellow has become somewhat of a hate figure among Romanians, and one of us has taken his campaign to Misplaced Pages. The stable version twice mentions his criminal conviction - once in the text, once in the very lead. It's not as though there's an attempt to bury this. But no - the user in question insists on a short separate question, to signal to the casual reader, LOOK, THIS MAN IS A CRIMINAL! And he's also a revert-warrior who won't let up ("looks like we are in for a long ride"). If you could somehow shorten the ride, that would be appreciated. - Biruitorul15:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Duly noted. I left them a brief message and have semi-protected the article given the many BLP violations/vandal edits by IPs. Let me know if it continues. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
While I agree I did a mistake you mentioned it is not a fact. It is a fact that he was convicted, the court ruled it, regardless of how many people disagree. This could have been avoided if people actually took the time to explain to me what I did wrong instead of pointing to a MoS heading which doesn't say what I did wrong. More info at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Garchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is arguing it's not a fact; what you were stating is that the incorrect representation of that in the article was a fact, and that is simply incorrect. I don't know if things were explained well enough, but I do know that reverting without understanding what's going on is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
That is not what I was stating at all. I was saying it is a fact that he was convicted. I even gave an example of the ro wiki article for the same user, showing the counterpart which contained the exact same heading. My intention wasn't to disrupt. When I understood (the hard way) what I was doing wrong, I stopped because that was the correct thing to do. From my perspective, someone just reverting my edits and pointing to an article which doesn't actually say what I am doing wrong, won't teach me anything, regardless of how many times I read the linked article. Instead it incites an edit war. Which happened. It is very discouraging for newbie contributors, I am surprised there are no rules for more experienced editors to teach others, something which would lead to more quality articles and less.. well.. less of this. Going to let the waters clear for some time and start a constructive discussion (I hope) on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Am I missing something?
In a talk page discussion, I asked an editor a question and another one repeatedly answered so I said "Red, unless you are a sock for Nbauman (or he is a sock for you), I'd really like to get an answer from him." Said editor has been screeching that I accused him of being a sock and it's a NPA etc. Do you feel that was an allegation or a personal attack? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Meh, no, not at all, but I don't know why you'd throw the s-word in there. Gotta be careful in the New America, Niteshift--people are delicate and get demoralized easily... Drmies (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I kept asking one a question and the other kept answering for him......so "....unless you're a sock..." was an attempt to say "butt out" in a nicer way. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I know. I'm just being the old grumpy guy. Hey, did you know we have almost the same infobox on our user page? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you're talking about Rhode Island Red? That's funny--we have one and her name is Poppy; she's our oldest chicken, a lovely bird. That's a very long conversation and I hope y'all get to resolve your issues. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to bring this up so I'm parking it here. Two years ago this article was AfDed and deleted, when it looked like this: . It received a DRV which endorsed the deletion. Now it's back again with some slightly better notability, but it's bloated (and some of it is sourced to things on the order of Wordpress and GoodReads) and needs a trim, as well as extra eyes. (For instance one editor is militating for a restoration of a clearly inappropriate and non-useful Criticism section which was merely soapboxing in disguise.) I'd do the trimming myself but the subject bores me. Could some of your lovely (I notice 99 gets a lot of traction when he calls your TP stalkers "lovely") talkpage watchers take a look at it and excise the excess? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This editor has taken to editing articles under arbitration - they were warned that they could not edit the article as an IP address, but after 2 more minor edits they moved to the talk page. According to the arbitration notice "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." I'm not sure this editor (per the history here too) is really trying to be productive, especially this comment. Is this worth bringing up at arbitration? Garchy (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Garchy I don't know if that's worth the trouble. As you said, they're on the talk page now, though less productively than I had hoped. If they continue in this vein (and I don't mean just editing articles that are off-limits) they are headed for another block, for disruptive editing. A DS block is certainly an option, but I'd rather not be so heavy-handed right now; I am convinced they wish to improve the project though their methods aren't always so good. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I was thinking the same thing after checking out the contributions today. I'm convinced of WP:DUCK, but I can certainly find more productive things to do than wait for the editor to screw up :) Thanks for the advice! Garchy (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm seeing that now - looks like that businesses section had an advert tag going back to 2015, so it's been long overdue. Although this editor has been a little pesty and rude I'll have to remember IPs are human too! Garchy (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
...righto. But not only was the speedy tag added twice- it was removed both times by the article creator- and since they're not allowed to do remove tags themselves, that justifies its replacement...? O Fortuna!19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna, that's the edit I saw too. It makes sense to remove that tag once you move it into draft space. Interesting--if it is moved back in to main space, I think in principle editors should be allowed to tag it again, with the same tag, since the idea is that if it goes through draft space it is a "new" article, or at least a new attempt at an article. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know if something like that has ever happened, and how the community deals with it. It's not the first time that the moving back and forth obfuscates the history, to some extent. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Gina Loudon
I am fielding an inquiry at OTRS regarding Gina Loudon. You deleted the article on 18 October as a G 10. It clearly was at that point in time but it looks to me like the entire contents were replaced by attack language. The version as of 20 February 2014, on first glance, doesn't appear problematic. One possibility that this is a simple as you saw the content on 18 October and agreed it should be removed and miss that it was replacing a valid article; another possibility is that I am missing something. Would you be willing to take a look at it?--S Philbrick(Talk)01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't remember anything special, so I'm choosing option 1. The article underneath is pretty bad, but not an attack page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Not a big deal. I have removed many an attack page and while I try to remember to check the history, I can't guarantee that I've done so always so won't be surprised if I've done the same thing myself at some time.--S Philbrick(Talk)17:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
"There was canvassing"?
I would have responded sooner, but I haven't been on Misplaced Pages. You sounded so certain that the now dead "vote stacking" accusations are true, which is convienient given that you closed the WP:ANI discussion immediately before I was about to do a full breakdown of everyone that I apparently canvassed. All of the accusers completely failed to demonstrate how I supposedly knew what all of these editor's opinions were, especially given that I have clashed with some of them in the past. Some I've barely even spoken to. I have, of course, gone into detail about all of this, but the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT at the discussion was legendary.
"Stop doing it or you will very likely be blocked." - I'd suggest coming up with some actual evidence if an admin expects to get anywhere near a block, because repeating "it was clearly canvassing" over and over (and ignoring the many genuine points that I have made) isn't getting closer to proving anything. A block also would not be preventitive in any way, given that this is the first time I've ever even been accused of doing this. You said that like this happens every other Saturday.
In short, I won't be taking responsibility for vote stacking, because I never had any intention of doing so and the so-called "evidence" is flimsy at best. I fully intend on moving on now... DarkKnight214922:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no plans of WP:CANVASS in the future. As I said before, this was the first time I was ever accused of it. I even left a note on my userpage assuring everyone that I don't condone that behaviour. DarkKnight214918:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Just when I thought that things were wrapping up, more evidence just presented itself regarding what I've been saying all along. I am referring to this report-worthy exchange that took place behind my back yesterday. It not only confirmed my suspicions of Curly Turkey's intentions ("He's going to be a major roadblock in cleaning up the mess at WP:COMICS."), but it also confirmed my suspicions of some of the factioning that took place at WP:ANI. Hijiri88 even goes on to offer to allow Curly Turkey to WP:CANVASS him in future discussions, exactly what they accused me of doing ("Well, if you need someone to back up your claims that he dismissed or downplayed non-comics influence on Batman characters, canvassed, and engaged in some pretty blatant IDHT behaviour, you know who to call."). Even when you go back to the discussions at Talk:Joker (comics), Curly Turkey was pulling accusations like WP:NOTHERE out of nowhere in an attempt to undermine my side of the discussion, and later admitted to projecting his opinions of WP:COMICS onto me.
I'm not about to sit here and pretend like I know more than an administrator (you've been at this a lot longer than I have), but I feel like this is why you shouldn't just assume one side of the argument is true. I'm really conflicted on if I should file a report or not. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens from here. DarkKnight214918:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That note by Hijiri is not an invitation to "canvass". That you chose a select group of individuals to send your message to was stated by a significant number of respondents in the ANI section. I closed that thread because there was some agreement on the matter, and because a. I figured that sending you a signal that this was not OK would be strong enough and b. you seemed to be in a hole, continuing to dig: I was doing you a favor. Now you're digging again. Whatever you have to say about the content of some article or the behavior of Curly Turkey has no bearing on the ANI thread or its close. If you want to complain about Turkey's behavior, don't do it here--take it up on ANI, maybe, if you think administrative action is warranted. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, how is a biased party offering to help WP:FACTION in future administrative discussions not canvassing? And those "select users" were not selected based on their opinion. I had no way of knowing what their opinions would be. In fact, many of them were either already involved (some disagreeing with me before I alerted them), from the Wikiprojects, or have disagreed with me in the past. DarkKnight2149 18:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC) (NOTE: I should probably mention that I will now have to largely avoid inviting people to discussions altogether, just to avoid more accusations; it's sad to say, but true). Also, that behaviour does have a bearing on it when the user's motives for filing a false report are called into question. DarkKnight214921:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Just when I thought that things were wrapping up DK, please give it a break already. This is literally the third time you have unilaterally dredged this dispute back up, and the third time you have blamed me or Curly for it being dredged back up. I chimed in on ANI because I had personally experienced you engaging in the same kind of disruptive behaviour on a page that had nothing to do with Curly, and I have offered to point the same thing out again if it ever comes up. I also offered to point out that you are engaged in pretty gross IDHT regarding your canvassing behaviour, because that is the case. It's ironic that you would use the word "biased" because in reality what you mean is "involved", and notifying an already-involved editor can't possibly be canvassing; not notifying might be inappropriate, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"This is literally the third time you have unilaterally dredged this dispute back up." - Ha, what?! When were the first two times? Because I'm certainly not the one who kept bringing it back up at the deletion discussion.
"I chimed in on ANI because I had personally experienced you engaging in the same kind of disruptive behaviour on a page that had nothing to do with Curly" - When was this? Are you holding a grudge for our completely unrelated disagreement at Talk:Vulture (comics)? If so, you should know that Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield and you should take another look at our citing sources policies.
"It's ironic that you would use the word "biased" because in reality what you mean is "involved"" - Still continuing to lie. You were not involved in any way, shape or form when you commented at WP:ANI. And serving as a meatpuppet for your friend is indeed disruptive behaviour, as is suggesting that he WP:CANVASS you in future discussions (I've already linked to that little discussion). DarkKnight214921:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not a bad idea. The reason it was brought back up is because I haven't really been editing lately and was unable to defend myself against claims, while people are also continuing to insist that I canvassed (despite my overall clean track record from nearly three years of editing). I should also note that I did initially revert my message at HiJiri's Talk Page just to slow down the conflict, but he reverted the revert. You can read his reasoning in his own words at that Talk Page. In terms of the new evidence that has arrived, I'm probably just to see if anything further comes from it before filing a report (though I already have all I need). DarkKnight214921:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
A pair of doozies
Hi Dr and talk page stalkers, any thoughts about or assistance you may render at Frank Spotnitz and related article Big Light Productions will be appreciated. They're both press releases, largely tended to by a WP:SPA. A lot of unsourced and gratuitous tables of credits, and possible copyright violation content; the net result is puffery. They do appear to be identical, so once the dust settles one can probably be redirected to the other. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, in such cases you can do what Toddst1 did, which is tag it as WP:G11, which applies to user space also; if it's not totally blatant spam, have a look at WP:U5. In the meantime, RHaworth deleted it, and I see that DGG deleted a spammy article they wrote up. TJSMSQ appears to be headed for a block, for either NOTHERE or just for spamming. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
The Misplaced Pages Library
