User talk:Drmies/Archive 94

ice breaking
	a political statement, DYK?

User:Fireass500

Is that really appropriate for a username, I find it humorous when I read it out-loud...just saying...Cheers!— JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JudeccaXIII, I gotta say, I wish I had taken that name all those years ago. Yeah, not really a firing offense--but also not really an editor who's here to stay, it seems. Should one ever trust editors with numerals in their username, Roman or Arabic? Do they suggest entitlement? Or do they dehumanize us? Hmm. (Sorry this is late.) Drmies (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are on ArbCom now. Can't you arrange to ban all editors with numerals in their usernames? Let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Husain Haqqani again

Dear Drmies, Can you please take a look at the issues raised at Talk:Husain_Haqqani#Comments_from_Mansoor_Ijaz. The gentleman is involved with the subject of the article (and has COI). He claims that the sourced text that I included in the article defame him, and he is disparaging perfectly good sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you Drmies! Will you have time to look at this issue again? GreenBeret65 is reverting my perfectly well-sourced content on Husain Haqqani page, asking me to achieve consensus with Mansoor Ijaz. The latter has a serious conflict of interest in the subject and I don't see how he can be involved in the discussions concerning the page. Your guidance would be highly appreciated. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm still catching up. I'm slow--too many oliebollen. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, this is too complicated for quick perusal and snap judgment. From what I can tell you're on your best behavior, at least in the first exchange. I'm looking at the current lead and it's...well, it's not good. (I don't know whose it is: you may know I'm an equal-opportunity offender and don't play favorites, unless it concerns Kelapstick, the poor soul.) It's poorly written and the second paragraph especially needs work--I don't know if that's GreenBeret's work. I see some other problems as well and I'm about to wave my BLP stick and disappear a few things. As for your opponent, after reading the piece in The Nation, I'm inclined to think they are the last person who should be involved in editing the article though, of course, they are welcome to contribute to discussion on the talk page (concisely). The article as a whole really needs attention from other BLP editors. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the lead is old, representing the Pakistani media viewpoint. I am working on the article body at the moment, and rewriting it based on scholarly sources, replacing the news media-based content. I will get to the lead afterwards, which will be a bigger battle I expect. I will post a note on the article talk explaining what I have done. I basically need you to give guidance concerning COI to Mr. Ijaz and his supporters. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies I am new to Wiki family but am still trying to learn fast, to be a productive member of the community. I have reverted Kautilya3 content on the basis that it pushed a specific POV. I was told by Kautilya3 on my page that I am involved in an edit war, an accusation which I categorically rejected and responded by telling him that if he go by the history of the Hussain Haqqani article he will find that I have contributed sourced content to the article incompliance with the Wikipedia rules.

My only concern is that instead of pushing a specific POV a consensus should be reached before making any edits. The article supported by Kautilya has not just been challenged by me but also by many other editors and commenters who time and time again have expressed their concerns about the bias nature of the article this can be visibly seen in the talk page sections as well. This specific POV which has been pushed has been challenged by so many people that the prime witness of the memogate case i.e Mansoor Ijaz was forced to come to the page talk himself and tell Kautilya to stop pushing a specific POV especially with the content he added from Ayesha Jalal`s book, my only request is to listen to him and reach a consensus with him as per Wiki rules as he is the prime witness of the memogate case and also please to not ignore numerous commenters who have voiced their opinions in the talk page. Thank you GreenBeret65 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreenBeret65, thanks for dropping by. Kautilya has gotten support from another editor, as you saw, Hebel, who's kind of an old hand here. I do not see what you see, a multitude of editors who disagree with your opponent; I see the opposite. Now, I don't know about edit warring--you made some reverts but I don't think it adds up to edit warring. Still, I don't see you arguing a point on the talk page, and User:Mansoor Ijaz's argument about "Ms. Jalal's book" is not very convincing yet, stating rather than proving that it's based on hearsay. I don't think any objective reader of that talk page would agree right now that the source is somehow not to be used. And, Mr. Ijaz, if you are really "affected" by all this, that's also a BLP matter: your person must be protected and respected, but by the same token you have a conflict of interest here, and I'm glad to see you've stayed out of editing the article.
I now see that all this hullabaloo started with that IP editor's work in December--what a mess. But then, I suppose it was a mess to begin with. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Thank you for your response, as I said earlier that I am still a newbie but I still strongly feel that Wiki being an important source of information shouldn`t be used as a platform to present a specific point of view but then again I still have a lot to learn. I also feel that the judgement of the commission on the memogate scandal should be presented as it is and not via any sourced newspaper opinion. The irony is, somehow the article negated the findings to the commission which was set up by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to press a rather sinister POV by linking it to the Osama`s killings. You have no idea how strongly such an opinion will be taken by the Pakistanis, including myself. This is ridiculous and I have strong reservations with it. Thankyou GreenBeret65 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreenBeret, I don't know about sinister. I haven't looked very carefully at the content (not yet my job) but it seems to me that the Osama business was there to provide context--a destabilization that was seen as an opportunity or a danger or something like that. What you could argue, and what I am going to argue against your POV, is that this may be too much information for this BLP given that there's a main article. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Dear Drmies, pleasure to make your acquaintance although I would have hoped under better circumstances. Permit me to wish you and yours a Happy New Year 2016.

I want to make a few observations that perhaps will help you understand where I stand on all this because in fact, I have no axe to grind other than to ask that false or misleading statements about my person not be repeated without considering either (a) the other point of view (in this case the direct factual and forensic findings of the Judicial Commission), or (b) redacting contentious material that obviously serves (or better, favors) only one person's interest -- the subject of the article. The specific objections I have raised are available for review at the article's talk page.

There is no evidence that either book author cited by Kautilya3 even bothered to look at what the Judicial Commission wrote. Whether WP administrators, arbitrators or editors agree with the Commission's findings or WP guidelines compel us to ignore it as a source of information, the data is there and it is forensic and well-documented. That is doesn't portray Mr Haqqani in a good light is not a matter for you or I or anyone else to decide by portraying only one side of the story where my person is concerned -- the article is a biographical sketch of Mr Haqqani's life. It should not be used as a tool for casting aspersions on me.

Further, many of the sources cited by the books' authors, including the ones where statements are mistakenly attributed to me that I never made, are from some of those very same news sources that Kautilya has cited over and again on Talk as being no longer of relevance because now a book has come along to validate the statement by its inclusion in its pages..... A false statement, no matter how often made, is still false even if it appears in a book published by Harvard. Cloaking it in legitimacy does not make it correct or a proper recantation of facts.

I am not an opponent or supporter of any point of view when it comes to Husain Haqqani. I long ago left this matter behind for the courts to decide, and that is the way I intend to leave it. I don't know any of the other editors involved, including Kautilya3, and don't really want to be further involved in this matter as I have much else to attend to. But as you are an arbitrator and administrator of repute on Wikipedia's pages, I thought I would make one last request of you and make clear that the manner in which Kautilya3 has written up his version of the article is defamatory to my person, and I must object to it as it stands.

I have asked for this matter to be reviewed in arbitration as well. I leave it now to you and others much more qualified than I to figure out the best way to deal with it, but there are easy ways for the matter to be resolved that are simply not being taken into account because of a particular editor's notion of what is the "right and wrong" of an issue that clearly he/she feels they know better than the rest of us.

Thank you for taking my point of view into consideration. Forgive me if this is too long but it says all I have to say in this matter now. Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Mansoor Ijaz, thank you for your good wishes: I wish you and yours the same. Thank you also for your note, and I'll say one or two things, quickly and succinctly, in response. First, the article we're talking about is not about you, of course, but whatever is in there about you should be correct; my first instinct as an editor would be to trim that content as much as possible, leaving only what is necessary for the reader to understand the subject's biography. There is an article on the affair as a whole, and that is a better place to concentrate editorial attention on. Second, I don't have much of an opinion on the book yet, but the best place to raise such issues is, if discussion on the talk page does not lead to a consensus, a noticeboard such as WP:RSN.

Now, if you would say (better yet, state it on the article talk page) exactly which parts you think violate our BLP or are otherwise inaccurate, then editors, myself included, can see what should be done. Thank you, and again all the best to you in the new year, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, thank you for taking a minute to go through my request. Your edit has already resolved much of the concern I had with that key sentence, and I am satisfied that resolves one of the key issues I raised. FYI, I did raise all the points on the talk page of the Haqqani article -- these are grouped together under a sub-section titled 10 Comments from Mansoor Ijaz, each of which were written when a request was made by one of the prior editors to offer clarification on points of contention until that stage of the editorial revisions process. Of the four points I raised and asked to be addressed, Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have now been dealt with. Only No. 3 remains. If I may trouble you to go that area of the Talk page and review what I have previously written, I would be grateful.

The key problem is the opening clause of that sentence According to Ijaz,..... It is simply a false statement. I never said any of what is attributed to me, and no amount of referencing articles or books can change that. Indeed, exactly the opposite was found to be the case by the Judicial Commission when it concluded that Mr. Haqqani orchestrated the possibility of an imminent coup to both persuade Mr. Ijaz to convey the message [the Memorandum] and also to give it traction and credibility. My request is to simply remove the words "According to Ijaz" and the rest in any event can stand on its own to let the reader read, research and decide for themselves what is the truth.

As I do not wish to burden your time with this further, I will stop here and leave the rest in your capable hands. Thank you for your review and assistance.

Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mansoor, let me get this straight: your argument is with the words "Ijaz claims", in the Memogate section of Imtiaz Gul's book? But we cannot easily just remove "According to Ijaz" from the article--that would leave the claim that "the military intended to stage a coup..." without attribution, and states the drafting of the memo by Ijaz and Haqqani as a fact. Pardon me also for being a bit confused: that the memo was composed by Ijaz and Haqqani is a fact? BTW, I have an opinion on this book by Gul, but I will save that for later. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, thank you for requesting the clarification. I never made any such claim, and it is a factual falsehood that the concept of a coup, the idea that a coup was possible or imminent or anything related to a military coup in Pakistan came from me in this episode. I am not allowed to state without the word "allegedly" in front, that indeed these notions arose from Haqqani himself. The Judicial Commission found as follows on Page 108 of its report, as follows (with apologies for restating this -- I assure you I am not trying to beat a dead horse here....):

Mr. Haqqani orchestrated the possibility of an imminent coup to both persuade Mr. Ijaz to convey the message [the Memorandum] and also to give it traction and credibility. At minimum, if the editor Kaulitya wishes to put forward the argument that a book says this was all some figment of my imagination (which it surely was not), the article should also point out that the Judicial Commission found Haqqani had orchestrated the possibility of an imminent coup and cite the page on which it says that. It should also be noted that point (b) of the justices section conclusion stated Mr. Haqqani did not question Mr. Ijaz about the purported threat of a coup in May 2011, for the reason it suited his [Haqqani's] overall plan.

Frankly, and to be very candid, this is all now so old even for me that I don't really remember every detail anymore, and many of the sources once cited have now fallen off the radar screen as a natural part of the attrition that takes place in Pakistan's boisterous media about anything political/military/intelligence in that country. The facts I state above are inked in historical judicial body documents. They are factual testimony based on forensic analysis of my BlackBerry devices and computer systems that verified every word I had stated to the Commission was truthful and correct. At minimum, if there is a desire to present Mr Haqqani in rose-colored light, as -- forgive me for being so blunt -- seems to be the case with the current version of the article's Memogate section, then there should be some balance that demonstrates there was another point of view to reflect upon -- or just cut it all down to the basic facts instead of inserting colorful language that seems to do little to accentuate the hard facts.

If you permit me, I will propose to you here or on the Talk page language that I believe succinctly states what the editor is trying to convey without brandishing the tar and feather brush on me. But only if I have admin permission to do so... I think you are perfectly capable of coming up with the same good edit language once you understand the pros and cons of the argument, but I am happy to help since you have also a lot else to do.

Again, thank you for taking time to go through what you rightly called a "mess" in an earlier post. Spot on..... Good evening. Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mañana, dear Mansoor, mañana. I'll ponder this and see if perhaps mañana the muse strikes me--but I will do so without pondering anyone's intent or motivation: those are not within my purview. Thank you for your comments, Drmies (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Hi Drmies. I wanted to let you know in regards of a personal attack in this conversation on the talk page of Second Battle of El Alamein (not against me but another user, I just happened to see this in a third POV). Specially this and this, and the other user never initiated any personal attack from what I saw. Not to mention, the insulting user was once blocked by you in regards to "trolling in an article". Not really sure what I was supposed to do, so I'm just letting you know. (N0n3up (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings !!!!
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! And some drinks! Hafspajen (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Arbitration interview request

Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 22:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He'd love it. Hafspajen (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you his liaison or something? GamerPro64 22:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His conscience. But he never does anything I suggest, so don't hope -yet. _{^{(Don't bother, this is not a serious page - YET)}} Hafspajen (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:Just in case you didn't see this message. If you don't want to do the interview, that's all right. GamerPro64 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64, sorry, I've been occupied elsewhere. Feel free to email me some questions, and then I'll see if I can give you some juicy copy. I know you want to know what goes on behind the scenes, but obviously I'm sworn to secrecy--so I got nothing for you on Kelapstick's silk pajamas or the Bad Poetry DGG likes to post late on Sunday nights. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's disappointing. Hopefully the questions I have provided will be answered at least. GamerPro64 04:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret

Every April, Drmies is all over the Hungarian Wiki creating CRAZY ARTICLES. PSSSTT!!! Don't tell anyone. ^{(Must be him, looks exactly the same, no?)} Hafspajen (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this was his latest April article. The Small penis rule. Or is it Martinevans? He did declared he speaks Hungarian. Hafspajen (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You had me there for a moment, Hafs: that VisualEditor threw me off completely. Who could possibly work with that? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Levdr1lp / talk 04:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

You are incredibly busy...

...I'm sure, learning how to be an arbitrator -- do they make you leave your humanity at the door?; nah, just a joke -- but I did want to share with you two minor things which are aspects of Wikipedia which drive me right up the wall. The first is this, where some people seem to have no concept of using le mot juste and believe we must be as absolutely humorless as a cumquat. (Have you ever known a humorous cumquat? Saying "cumquat" is humorous, but the cumquat never says it.) And then there's this, where I apparently have to jump backwards through hoops of fire in order to convince people that one of the most significant men of the 19th century just might be more important that the 499th largest city in the United States. As they say here in my milieu "Oy vey!" Best, BMK (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know a couple of Bismarck's jokes- "The German flag can have crossed knives and forks and 'Dancing tonight' for all I care" and "Bavarians- they're a cross between Austrians and human beings". When he died a nation lost its sense of humour. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, BMK, I'm very busy not being at work, which seriously cuts into my wiki time. And when I'm behind my PC, I'm reading fifty messages a day, most of which are "families" of messages. It's just incredibly exciting. And then there's the new book on tacos I got for Christmas...the days are just packed (you remember your Calvin and Hobbes, no doubt). Yes, "chilling"...if I weren't a big shot I'd say "big fucking deal", but I can't say that no more. As for Bismarck, that's just weird, dude, with "being named after does not mean every visitor should get his nose rubbed into it" taking the cake. Visitor to Bismarck, ND? Like visitors to Bismark, ND, are forced to read the Wikipedia article on Otto before they're allowed in? Drmies (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since in a few days I won't be able to cry on your shoulder for a couple of years, let me just unburden myself while I can: I am now being called upon to prove that "Bismarck" is the usual short version for "Otto von Bismarck" and not "von Bismarck". Sometimes I despair at the ~~st*p*d*ty~~ unfortunate lack of knowledge of some of our esteemed colleagues, the consensus views of whom I will be required to follow. BMK (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that was like having to cite that the sky is blue... It's Sink the Bismark, not Sink the von Bismark. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, ya woulda thought. BMK (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unocal Corporation

Hi Drmies and talk page stalkers; I'm not up for edit warring, but suspect that the recent edits to this article are not merely in the service of neutral presentation. I do think a case can be made that there was WP:UNDUE emphasis on the company's less commendable activities, but what's being done now looks a lot like whitewashing. Further thoughts and assistance will be appreciated. And very best wishes for the New Year, Dr. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did consider bringing this to ANI, perhaps an overreaction, but the page is protected anyway. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to an earlier version: I looked at all the edits and agree that CityOfMirrors went too far; they need to take this to the talk page, and possibly you may take this to a noticeboard if it continues. It certainly needs more attention from knowledgeable and neutral editors. All the best to you and yours as well, 99! Drmies (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cheers and best wishes, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC) –[reply]

Happy New Year 2016!

	Happy New Year 2016!
	And if you get headaches over at ArbCom, you can always come work on an article with me. Rosiestep (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Started Jenny Visser-Hooft, Dutch mountaineer. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, a woman mountaineer! You know how to grab my attention, Rosiestep. Take a look at something I wrote as a newcomer: Miriam O'Brien Underhill. I climbed with a guy who climbed with her husband. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: that's right, you are into climbing, Sierra Club, etc.! Nice article on Miriam. I added a few cats. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 year of the reader and peace

Thank you for inspiration and support, including an excellent GA review in 2015, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) - One of your wishes was fulfilled: more participants on Joseph. My wish for the new year: none of that kind. Imitate Falstaff, in happy wisdom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an image like all the cool editors

Hey Drmies, have a lovely and joyful New Year's. I'm resolving to spend tonight and tomorrow reducing that everlasting backlog over at WP:ANRFC and preparing some homemade chili for me and my better half. I hope you have some delicious food to look forward to, oliebollen or otherwise. :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

!

M. made thre edits today, yippie! thumbnail|left Hafspajen (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Drmies,
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Hoping 2016 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! Quis separabit? 18:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Woo-hoo, some Auburn- or Alabama-related football thing! or something?!

Dear Drmies:

I am an entirely casual Wikipedian. But, I am, in fact, a Huntsville, Ala. native (and Grissom H.S. alumna). My undergraduate and law degrees are assiduously from Division III schools in Virginia, and I end up introducing myself in real life, more often than planned, as "from Alabama, but I have no preference as between Alabama and Auburn and so that's why I had to leave." I am taking up your time here just to say that, after a year of quasi-casual Wikipedia-tude, you are potentially my favorite current (I have significant evidence to assume is an) Alabama resident, and, frankly, after a really weird physical-health-challenged 2015, one of my top ten Humans of 2015 From Whatever Demimonde.

Thank you for existing, Drmies, and happy 2016. On the one hand, I hope my own 2016 is such that I have non-Wikipedia people to trumpet as my "top ten humans," but, on the other, if the worst things life throws at me in 2016 are such that you remain on that list, that seems like it will be no less than amusing, sir.

Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you been all my life, User:Julietdeltalima? I'm afraid I can only disappoint you, though I will promise that I will attempt to fail at functioning in a suboptimal manner (as another user phrased it). As for amusement, I'm afraid that's incompatible with my current High Status. Also, New Years Eve was a bit exhausting. That punch that our friends bought, I had no idea one could combine all those liquors in one bowl without falling foul of some ancient Alabamian law combining prohibition and the old ban on miscegenation. Happy 2016 to you! Drmies (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. A native Alabamian(?) doesn't have a preference?? .. I don't understand this language. — Ched : ? 20:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Drmies: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

May your 2016 fail to be suboptimal

Or something like that. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks. Yes, sounds like Bradspeak. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm trying to get you used to Arb-speak. Coraggio! Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks LesVegas--my son loves your fireworks. Happy new year to you too! Drmies (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Cotton Bowl Classic — Ched : ? 21:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe Ched--that was some game, wasn't it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Mies!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Mies, I wish you and those dear to you
golden days of love and joy in a

Happy New Year 2016!

Best regards,
Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on!

Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.

Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Need your opinion

Hi Drmies. You're arguably the most even-handed admin I know and certainly one of the more experienced, so I need your perspective on a matter before I take it to ANI. What do you make of Future Perfect's statements here (specifically: this, at line 555 and this])? I'm looking for any excuse not to escalate the animosity on that page further, nor put a valuable contributor in bad standing for one short-sighted decision, but I am having a hard time not seeing this as anything but the most blatant kind of abuse of privileges in a WP:INVOLVED scenario. Any advice would be appreciated, especially if you see a way to deescalate this short of going to one of the two extremes of either letting him just declare his preferred approach by fiat or calling a formal community review of his actions. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERPARENT. I fear that the facts do not support the claim which is requested to be placed in a BLP -- that is a reference to a "well-known photograph" for which no images have ever been produced. Collect (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERPARENT? Snow knows I know the meaning of dope, when they're looking for a super-tight rap that's cleaner than a bar of soap. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this thread is not to debate the content issue at hand, Collect. That discussion can proceed on the talk page where it belongs. Further, your suggestion of forum shopping is clearly not relevant, since this issue has not been previously raised in any community forum whatsoever. If I wanted to, I would be perfectly in my rights in bringing the matter to Drmies as a matter of procedure, but that's not even my purpose here. I'm actually trying to get his feedback on whether to proceed with an ANI, and advice on how to restrain Future Perfect short of creating a full-on investigation about his behaviour at ANI which. If you are really sympathetic to his interests, getting in the way of that process isn't doing him any favours by getting in the way of exploring options other than raising this at ANI. Please don't rile things up further; this is a hard enough situation for us to negotiate without pulling in further administrative oversight. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's just wait and hear what Drmies has to say. Not a bad idea to get a second administrative opinion here, as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, I accept your compliment, though probably Fut. Perf. is more experienced than me. I'll have a look but you must know that I totally tow the blue line, or whatever it's called. And now I have the power to suppress evidence! I think that makes me stronger than Fut. Perf. Who will I abuse today? Drmies (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly, that's one hell of an RfC. I don't think I've ever seen one with a table before--and what a title. If I were close that I'd expect extra points from Cunard--but that damn ferret is probably going to beat me to it. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little old me? I think I will leave that one for you, if someone else doesnt close it first. Though it does look interesting..... AlbinoFerret 18:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, with your detailed, incisive analysis of the close below, you definitely get a lot of brownie points from me. Cunard (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cunard, but I'm really sort of confirming what Fut. Perf. already argued. In the end, I don't think anyone should get extra points for it: invoking the BLP is always kind of a let-down. It's like preparing for LSU and beating them, to discover after the game it was the Bowling Green practice squad in purple and yellow uniforms. I wonder if Snow (and maybe others) feel like it's a kind of a supervote; if they do, that's unfortunate and I understand the feeling, though I disagree. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say I have not looked at all the sources, just at a couple. Second, you're both quite eloquent, but Fut. Perf.'s discussion of the required quality of sources for such extraordinary claims is both eloquent and, in my opinion, correct. Third, the discussion essentially also discusses whether the making of the claim is a BLP violation. As such, it is, in my opinion, within Fut. Perf.'s dominion to state they will treat it as such. (One could say "threaten" instead of "state", but that doesn't change the fact that us admins are sworn to uphold the BLP, which trumps just about everything except for table manners.) I do not consider that to make an admin INVOLVED, unless one argues that Fut. Perf. has a vested interest in the outcome which one can glean from some sort of longstanding or intense engagement with the subject matter. I think that the comment made on 09:38, 2 January 2016 is their first contribution, and I can't really find fault with it: it invokes the BLP and supports the claim that including the information would be a violation with an argument based on the available evidence.
This is a case where admins have to discuss and weigh content, and I can say with confidence that I support Fut. Perf.'s reading of the evidence. I am somewhat surprised to find the claim repeated in the Subotić article with nothing more than a reference to Glauben, and Fut. Perf.'s discussion of that source (and the BBC source) is convincing. I can only surmise that the passing reference in the Subotić article is done less carefully than it should have been, but in the context of that article I suppose it suffices--for us there is more at stake.
Collect, I have no problem with Snow Rise seeking a second opinion here. Snow could not, I think, guess what I was going to say, and the matter is important enough. Fut. Perf. and I have disagreed at least once or twice on important things, IIRC, and we could have disagreed here. I'm sorry Snow--you have presented good arguments, and I think I understand how you feel if indeed you feel that the BLP can be invoked as a trump card sometimes, but Fut. Perf. makes a good case, in my opinion.
This took a bit longer to type than I intended: my boy is with me, and he has discovered the marvelous technology of the thingy that makes my desk chair go up and down, and that LP trumps y'all to some extent. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to supply your thoughts, especially given the other demands on your time. I'll be quite honest that I still have deep misgivings about this situation, both with regard to the content argument being allowed, and especially the manner in which discussion was shut down by an involved(-enough) party. But those concerns voiced, I'll abide by the advice I sought; I figure you're a decent barometer for the admin corps in this instance, and there's obviously no point in raising an ANI challenge which will not achieve anything more than further grievance and division. Can't say as the end-result of the discussion sits altogether well with me, but of course that's the way the cookie crumbles on this project sometimes. In any event, I remain very grateful for your taking the time to help sort the matter before tensions rose further--hope the year is off to a good start for you, aside from the tedium of putting out little fires! ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 02:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, Snow Rise--my pleasure. At least you presented an interesting case on an important subject. Yeah, my cookie crumbled the same way it did for Fut. Perf. and I doubt that you'll get much traction on ANI. I've been pondering this off and on today since I wrote up my notes; I'm fairly liberal when it comes to INVOLVED, and I really need to see clear evidence of involvement with the subject, the subject matter, etc. before I am convinced that an admin can't judge objectively. But I'm sure this looks different from your side. Take care, and happy new year to you too! Drmies (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language lessons

re this: The text book can be found at User:Newyorkbrad/Bradspeak, and I think Iridescent is available for private tutoring lessons. :) — Ched : ? 20:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know--but it takes so long to type. Hello? Drmies? I thought Wikipedia:Bradspeak was deleted! It's not. That Iridescent person, I don't really trust them: too many consonants, and a name that starts with a vowel is an indication of a flighty personality. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO .. I've heard Iri called a lot of things - but I think this is the first time I've seen the term "flighty" used. :) — Ched : ? 20:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they use to have a very colorful signature, just to confirm that flightiness? No, I like the serious names, like "Ched"--heavy, dense, like a clump of Midwestern mud. I can't stand all that fancy stuff, like "Mandarax"--trying so hard with all those consonants, but no one can take a final "x" seriously. It's like reciting the constitution and ending that by whistling Dixie. I won't stand for it. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effective immediately, I have abandoned the username "Mandarax" in favor of my backwards alter ego. Alas, I still have the same number of consonants, but at least I no longer end with the dreaded "x". I would like to point out, however, that my username is 62.5% consonants, while yours is 66.7%, and Ched's is a whopping 75%. XARAdNAM • MAИbAЯAX 23:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, that signature ends in an "X". I guess that won't do.... Effective immediately, I have resumed using the name "Mandarax". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarax/Xandaram, you are awesome. But don't give me those numbers: you can't blind me with science. At least I don't end with a consonant cluster, like that frivolous Iridescent, whose Latin etymology--well, don't get me started on their butchering of that iri business: it's either "going down" (from eo) or "descending into wrath" (from ira). Either way, it's a violation of AGF and our collaborative spirit. It's a miracle they've been allowed to play here for this long and that someone made them admin. As a good Stalinist I shouldn't stand for it, but Iridescent has important friends, I heard ("content creators"--awfully alliterative, and I don't believe in c). And have you ever said their name backwards? Tnecsediri? That is SO clearly an abomination of creation that I'm surprised their mother didn't spank them for it. No, if you're going to play with vowels, do it lightheartedly but not frivolously, like Floquenbeam, whose q is whimsical, unlike your x, and whose ue expresses respect for the days of yore. If you want to be a strong admin, have a strong name. Ched. Or, and you may think this is coming out of left field, TParis. If I ever got blocked by TParis I wouldn't dare asking for an unblock. Unless it was from Bishonen. Ah Bishonen...all that and a dactyl too... Drmies (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno how you'll feel about the TParis username after I share my theory about its origin. I get the impression that you're not a big fan of sci-fi TV, so it seems likely that you're not familiar with Tom Paris, a character from the Star Trek universe. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you refer to the period when Iridescent and (then also) I included "toxic personality" in a pinkish colour in our signature? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so...I am not allowed to mingle with toxic personalities, let alone think of them. I'm probably misassociating. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get the message across that we should never think of fellow editors as "toxic" but that was a futile effort, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The colour scheme of my old signature (and current talkpage) is a very obscure in-joke from the days in which I was writing articles on 19th-century railways. The two colours #660066 and #006633 are the colours of the first ever subway line and second ever subway line, color-coding my first and second accounts by their signatures, while the border around my talkpage mirrors the operators of the corresponding section of the original Inner Circle (London Underground).

I know my Wikipedia obituary will read "coiner of the terms 'Bradspeak', 'Civility Police' and 'Indefinite not infinite'", but for the record "Bradspeak" was never intended as an insult. If you read my original comment (linked on WP:Bradspeak), I was actually praising NYB's ability to write without ambiguity. I've made many strong criticisms of NYB in the past (since you now presumably have access to the arbcom-l archives, you can read some rather harsh critiques of him from myself and Elen should you desire), but his use of language is not one of them; that particular criticism I reserve for the arbs who think dropping Latin into statements somehow makes their opinion more important than anyone else's. ‑ Iridescent 17:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those colors, that's topical. Very nice, actually; I love it when people have a reason for doing things. I've used the term Bradspeak in jest frequently, but I mean it as a term of respect and as an encouragement to think before I speak--granted, I don't always do so. I don't think I ever knew you had coined that term, so I shouldn't be the one writing your obit. Wait, "indefinite not infinite" is yours too? Damn Iridescent, that's a good one as well. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bish may want to clarify - but I think I'll say no more. Memory can be a scary thing. — Ched : ? 22:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Seriously Doc, you need to get auto archiving set up on this page. I know in the past you have been hesitant about letting robots manage your talk page, but this is the future man! --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all the Christmas cards, dude. Can't just throw those in the trash. Also, I haven't yet read half my talk page. If you could read my Arb email for me, that would be a great help. How's life above ground? Drmies (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stalinist Cabal Barnstar

	Stalinist Cabal Barnstar
	Congrats on being an "'enemy of transparency" and an "obstacle to true democracy", comrade! Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel wins the internet today. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nothing says Stalinist like an unprotected wiki talk page! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you. Next time I read Darkness at Noon I'll make sure to enjoy the ending. Also, we're a democracy? Don't make me use my teacher voice! Drmies (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your opinion?

Have you seen this RFC? WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES

I kind of think it slightly mad that straight after it was closed, they're energetically removing all image galleries on articles where they have been entirely uncontroversial. Its one of those things where men of zeal are likely to create conflict where there was none. Or am I just mad? W C M_email 02:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't seen that. I'm glad it went the way it went, though--oh, wait, admin arbcom and stuff not supposed to have an opinion. Screw that, I agree: it's a neverending source of conflict. Personally I don't think it means we should start purging; let sleeping dogs lie, maybe. BTW, Sandstein's close is pretty impressively concise; it would have taken me a lot more words to reach the same conclusion. I saw Poeticbent's comment at the end--Poeticbent, I didn't see that every single keep voter was harangued; I see some lively discussion, sure, but in all this could have been worse. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's water under the bridge now. I have nothing else to say, but you're right Drmies, there was one 'keep' vote not harangued, that of Zoupan, I don't know why, perhaps because his comment was inovovative. Zoupan agreed with my idea about keeping the cap on a number of individuals, but asked for even less than me. His comment makes for an interesting read. The community has spoken, it's time for me to go. Poeticbent talk 06:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Poeticbent. The mouse had a little tail on ANI, but not for very long. I tell you what, I need to do a better job of keeping abreast of the RfCs. Take care, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Drmies, with great energy, people are embarking on a purge of image galleries, whether the article is poorer for it or not. See Japanese people. W C M_email 12:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On your American revolutionary War revert

The edits you reverted were not mine. Twas me trying to say that former reverted edits were in good faith and reasonable. Ya know? Kinda give this new guy a break? I guess you wouldn't understand that since you were just revenge trolling me? Read the page a bit. Go after me. BUT get a life. Juan Riley (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC) More wordier? Juan Riley (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opposition is noted. Now please go improve an article, like Snowded did. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone be willing to take a look?

I know that the good doctor Mies is now busy driving wooden stakes through the hearts of vampires, but I am wondering if anyone who hangs out here would be willing to look at something I have written. I heard that a few MacArthur fellows didn't have biographies so I wrote one. Then I thought I would write a second one and got sucked in. So, if you have time or interest, please take a look at Marina Rustow, and give it a rating. Or criticize it. Or improve it. Or all of the above. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more secondary sources is always a good idea, but that's precisely the problem with academics... Thanks for writing articles, Cullen. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four out of ten ain't chopped liver, right? I will see if I can crank up the percentage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lower case?

Did you have any reason to change "Universe" to "universe"? I can only assume your trying to get me blocked — please correct me if I'm wrong. I tried talking to you, and I'm just getting a "sorry, no". It's childish; you tell me to stop changing the capitalization, yet you do so without any explanation, and then go off to tell an admin about it? --Are you freaking kidding me (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were already warned that your unilateral changes were considered disruptive--or at least that's what I thought I saw on your talk page. So yeah, I pinged the admin who had warned you before when you did it again. And then again. I'm not trying to get you blocked; I think you don't need my help with that. As for discussion, you are aware of the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters, since you started it. I reverted you because you changed a long-standing consensus; simple. I have invoking BRD, but it seems appropriate here. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, but I'm pretty sure that the page originally had an uppercase "Universe" before you edited it. So was your edit considered "disruptive" too? You can see why I reverted it, right? --Are you freaking kidding me (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right you are--I was thinking of this one. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Er...But that wasn't today. So what are you pinging an admin for? --Are you freaking kidding me (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, now I get it. Gotcha. EdJohnston, false alarm: editor is not on a spree. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you, I've been reading Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_16#Evidence_supporting_lower_case_when_used_in_an_astronomical_context_to_refer_to_a_specific_celestial_body_.28and_in_general.29. It's fun. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

At ANI, heading something like trouble ahead.Doug Weller talk 06:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The gift that keeps on giving. Your turn, Doug: I'm gone. :) Drmies (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't it you who asked for more participants in a discussion? The wish that keeps on being fulfilled ;) - Close! - Tell them that Falstaff is the model to be followed: no argument. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You pointed at this earlier, Gerda, and I'll get to it, I promise. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I pointed at the difference in 2013. Then we had the so-called infoboxes case in which I got restricted because of "disruptive" edit such as this. - Viva-Verdi - RIP - created the present version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I thought you were talking about the one I closed and then unclosed for you. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From 2013, I pointed - with mixed success - at the difference of trying a new feature a project offers, and resisting it. The template was created then, to be used. You closed the strongest point of resistance (and by now the only point) as "no consensus". In 2013, 19 opera infoboxes were reverted, that's what the case should have been about. 18 look now to my liking, including all by Verdi (Falstaff TFA to start the year) and all by Wagner, and 3 14 other FA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[1] and Happy New Year! 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'preciate it, and thanks again. Happy new year to you too. Isn't it amazing how long it took for someone to really notice and block that user? What was that, 20 or 30 edits? Drmies (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that. *Sigh* 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs to buy me a new netbook... Drmies (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Apple offers discounts to teachers/university staff? I may be able to save $100 on my upcoming purchase. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good indicator that Wikipedia needs a lot more administrators, just for basic cleaning of tripe and blocking, is that I can dip my toe into recent changes for just a few minutes and find so many serial disruptions. Some days it's like, er, [2]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I bluff sometimes, in class, when I demonstrate Wikipedia, that I can look at one batch of recent changes and find at least one instance of vandalism or disruption. I'm never wrong. Edit filters must catch a lot of this stuff, though. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Clark Young

Look, I feel awkward defending this guy - but deleting a list of his published writings? Is that really fair? I think people agree he's (if maybe marginally) notable as a writer himself, and it's normal to have a bibliography for writers. These are published essay articles (even, I grant, in journals of little notability), not self-published blog posts or whatever. Blythwood (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blythwood, this has nothing to do with "this guy", so please don't feel like you have to defend him; we're talking about an article. Listen, I have made at least two more such edits today, one to another writer (Jason Sanford--so you see, I don't pick favorites), and another to an academic. In my career on Wikipedia I must have made this edit hundreds of times. Yes, we should not list published poems or articles or speeches or book chapters; Wikipedia is not for resumes. (All too easily we become a link repository for barely notable writers...) We can list books and edited collections and Festschrifte and stuff like that, but we have to draw a line somewhere and, as you said, these weren't exactly high flyers. So let Young publish a book or two, if he has it in him, and I'll gladly list it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Cumpănaș. Proof that only one word in the English language rhymes with 'orange'. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universal question...of sorts.

The food images on your TP make me incredibly hungry...but aside from that, is it your belief that while some of these tasty morsels are out of this world delish, they can't be out of this universe? [3] I thought about emailing Steven Hawking to set him straight....with a plate of oliebollen, of course. <--- no scary elves this time. Atsme^📞📧 19:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty much my belief, yes. But you're talking to someone who had some chipotle-infused chicken for lunch, and I'm riding this buzz as long as I can. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise...

...to you my dear wikifriend! For a moment, I thought (feared?) it was more of this (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:84.90.219.128&diff=697904018&oldid=697666143), happened this exact time of day some days ago. Don't know what I have done to this person to merit this harassment (four years and going!), but oh well...

Keep up the great work --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--I used Google translation. Is this guy really saying he'd rather fuck a herd of chickens than spend five minutes in the same country as you?!? That's uncalled for: I could last at least a half an hour with you. So, is there an SPI/block/whatever kind of case? We can do rangeblocks, you know, if only to protect the chickens... Drmies (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no chickens mentioned, but I'm all for their protection nonetheless! For your eyes only (cover your ears!), the translation is as follows: "Cry Portuguese crybaby fag***, justice comes late but it comes....I won, three long years later I won. Do the right thing (or "get a job", I don't know the exact meaning conveyed there), get a woman and leave WP because in the end one gets nothing out of this..." --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, VASCO, let me know if this joker bothers you again; I'll gladly block them. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{(talk page stalker) Ohhh...the profanity using the term crybaby "blank". Three years later? That is what I consider not being able to DropTheStick. But the comment, "get a woman and leave WP" - now THAT is something that needs your undivided attention! How does the latter equate into "one gets nothing out of this"? Atsme^📞📧 03:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

I know of at least one Wiki-marriage. Atsme, I think the IP editor is still available; they have great taste in football (I mean the real football). Drmies (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have my email addy. 👙 Atsme^📞📧 03:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. That emoji. I can't tell if it's a face of a guy with sun glasses and a beard, or an invisible woman wearing a bikini. I need better glasses. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity - an editor's BFF. . But beyond that...it indicates the expansion of thought; a desirable trait in a WP editor, and what contributes to making GAs FAs. It's an appreciation that may or may not be limited to a select few. Perhaps a new project in the making - Project Appreciation? Atsme^📞📧 04:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Braddock, Pennsylvania

I'm sure it's a lovely town, long blessed with a poorly sourced directory and chamber of commerce publication (recreation, youth sports, events, town council members etc), disguised as a Wikipedia article. It appears that one account has pretty much owned the article here since November 2009, and was blocked once in 2013. As far as I can see, it's pretty much been the same issue ever since. I'm dropping this here, Dr., since ANI is protected from IP editing--in the realm of disruptive editing, this is as dull and persistent as it gets. Any observations from you or your talk page stalkers will be welcome. And nice work here [4]. I considered adding something from this [5], but would be in over my head on the subject. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, please, help out any way you can: you might learn something, haha! Thanks for the source--that looks interesting. The topic came up because I was working on a syllabus. Turns out most of De Pizan's work isn't written up yet here. I think we have articles on every wet fart by every Kardashian, but not on these wonderful works by (allegedly!) the first female breadwriter. Pennsylvania? Never been there. (I don't think Philadelphia counts as PA, right?) Sounds fascinating. Is that where "Penn State" is at? Alabama–Penn State football rivalry isn't much of a rivalry--look at the sourcing. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is from the U of Pennsylvania Press, 99... Coincidence? Drmies (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My relevant essay is WP:SMALLTOWN. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - K-stick, I apologize for having slandered you here and there on the project. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, you never send me flowers. -kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dr, what a great idea for a new article: Kardashian wet farts. I'm sure sources shouldn't be hard to find. How do you do it, and on a medieval lit professor's salary? Nice essay, Kelapstick. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never sure how much of your posts are subtle humor - but there are many Penn State campuses throughout PA.[6] The "main" one is in the middle of the state [7], and outside of the "college town" that feeds it - it's very rural, but beautiful if you like the countryside.
North Braddock is east of Pgh, and somewhat an "old community" by US standards. I suppose I could get a few photos if that's what's needed. — Ched : ? 04:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ched, I think the IP (a longtime disruptor of COI and OWNershippy editors) was looking more for a cropping, so to speak... As for humor, sorry, I don't do that anymore; it's part of the paperwork we have to sign with the WMF. In this Brave New World jokes aren't allowed, and Atsme's bikini (see above) is probably already a breach of community guidelines. DYK that I twice interviewed with four-year colleges in PA? None of them hired me, obviously. If they had, I'd sing a different tune, no doubt. I'll tell you another secret: at one time I was offered a job in Lebanon (the real Lebanon, the country), years after I dated a person from Lebanon (in PA!). Coincidence? I think not... Drmies (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
99, that book, that's some pretty fancy footwork. I have to brush up on my Plato, my Aristotle, AND my Aquinas! And I haven't gotten to the section on Kristeva and allegory yet! It's a lot more challenging than wet farts... Drmies (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, thank you for deleting some of the cruft at North Braddock--I would have cut more, but sometimes you wield a larger axe, so over time let's say we even out. Or something. It's just that even if I have a good nose for such stuff, I'm uncertain about what goes and what stays. As for the book, I read a half page and my eyes got glassy. Cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

I admire you. I think you're an excellent admin and will be a fine arbitrator. And I don't see the world, or this place, as falling apart into neat little camps. If there are camps here, I'm not in any. You and Bishonen are actually two of the three admins I most respect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate that, but you did rake me over the coals in ACE, and you just did it again on ANI. By aligning me with Jimbo, and aligning Jimbo against Bish, well, what's the suggestion there? Also, I didn't say you're in any one camp, but I certainly am not, at least not when it comes to Jimbo. If I "enable" him it's by trying to help his brainchild run decently (someone is going to charge me with neglecting Larry Sanger...), not by sidestepping any faux pas he might have committed. Those faux pas have limited use on Wikipedia, and that's where I think Writegeist and Dan Murphy have it wrong. That's not to say I agree with his giving some award to some government shill, if that's what happened--far from it. And I think that Jimbo could pay more attention to schmucks like me and Bish and certainly to all the content editors, who are making him look good every single day. I like to joke that I never got the shirt--well, fuck it, it's true: I never got a shirt, or a six-pack from Straight to Ale, from him, and I wrote him over a thousand articles. Wrote one today. But yelling at him on his talk page, like so many people do, or writing up bad shit about him in user space, that's so tacky.
Take care Anthony--talk to you later. I gotta clean the kitchen and make some lunch boxes ready for tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got a fucking shirt. Well, a t-shirt. I've seen the photo. Rummaging. I'll be back. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC) OK. Yep. You definitely got the t-shirt.[reply]

"I think you're his kind of guy." I was thinking Alabama, hard-working Wikipedian, lining up against Writegeist (whom I don't know from Adam) for saying what he thinks of Jimmy on his user page. But basically it was a cheap shot. Sorry. You and Bish are the two most intelligent actively-adminning admins on the site by far, and I'm not trying to pit you against her.

My only regret about you winning the arbcom election is that it will dangerously lower the collective IQ at ANI. Signing off for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait: I got that shirt from my kind editing colleagues, not from Jimmy! BTW, I also got a hoodie/sweatshirt, for participating in an education thing. I wore it the other day cause it's cold here; my significant other says I look good in it. :) Best, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report

How do I report a user? I'd like to report "JonRidinger" for changing helpful edits I made. No other NCAA team page identifies every single conference title won by the conference name when I change this to be CONSISTENT with Wiki's style he changes it back stating that it is consistent to leave it the wrong way. Show me any othet NCAA Basketball page that does this. Also, the info that was there (the conferences being referenced and their acronyms are inaccurate/wrong anyway. Whoever decided to target and single out NIU by trying to put ever conference there got their info wrong. Please stop him from screwing with the NIU pages. Thank you in advance.

Please add "Corkythehornetfan" to that Report.

He just undid my undoing and is ganging up on me along with "JonRidinger" saying that "most do what you say are not." AGAIN, show me one NCAA page that singles out the years by conference. There isn't one that I can find and if you find one I can guarantee that "MOST" don't do this as they are claiming. Why would they claim something to be true that can easily be exposed as untrue? Seriously, check the team pages, hardly any or NONE do this. And AGAIN, the info that is there on the page now because they keep undoing my changes is WRONG. There is no "(ISTC)" in 1932, that would be the "IIAC" that was wrong in two places before I made changes. Also, the 1991 title that links says "MCC" and links to the "Horizon League" is actually the Mid-Continent and that because the "Summit League" not the Horizon. Whoever VANDALIZED the NIU page by putting that info in there in the first place THAT NO OTHER PAGE HAS got most/a lot of it WRONG. Please stop them from undoing my changes. Thank you.

Here's some evidence, are ALL of the NCAA basketball team pages for EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE MAC (Please note that NONE of them have what these two clowns are asserting):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_State_Cardinals_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Michigan_Chippewas_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Michigan_Eagles_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_Rockets_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Michigan_Broncos_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron_Zips_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Green_Falcons_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bulls_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Golden_Flashes_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_RedHawks_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Bobcats_men's_basketball

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneMorgan88 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnneMorgan88

Please see the edit summary here: [8] among others at Northern Illinois Huskies men's basketball. If you're not sure what "FDA" stands for in the edit summary, see the fourth line here. All for reverting the editor twice (along with other editors who also reverted) and leaving two messages on their and the article talk pages. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AnneMorgan88 and JonRidinger: I have continued the discussion on Talk:Northern Illinois Huskies men's basketball, where this content dispute belongs (not on user talk pages, edit wars, or snarky edit summaries). Editors need to remain WP:CIVIL, avoid edit-warring, and follow WP:BRD if a change to an article is reverted. AnneMorgan88, that means you need to establish or follow WP:CONSENSUS on that talk page rather than reverting. If no consensus is reached, the editors involved may avail themselves of WP:DR. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Softlavender. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My post here isn't about the content of the article, it's about the edit summary, a violation of WP:CIVIL. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. AnneMorgan88, if you really meant for "FDA" to mean "fucking dumb ass", right here and right now is a very good opportunity to take those words back. Same applies for "targeting", by the way. Besides, you really want to stay out of the edit warring business. I understand you're new here, but the shelf life of newness is limited. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Da Lem

Hi Drmies. Would you mind taking another look at Da Lem. The non-reliable sources you removed have been readded by an IP who might be engaged in block evasion. Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ha, I think "sources" is overstating the case. I see that Doug Weller is already on the case: people think he's all nice, but he can be real strict. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking another look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...

... for your new year's wishes over at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. I hope that yours is a happy one, too. Deor (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good, Deor. I'm a bit fat and happy and sleepy, and unfortunately I'm going out to see movie. A bit late for an old guy... Drmies (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Right--yes, you're right--thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that revert on Talk:Spyro (series)

User:Fangusu, a banned sockmaster, has been such a regular to that page that when I saw that their sock DJ Autagirl's edit was reverted again, I didn't even look at the editor who reverted it and thought it was the IP again. So, sorry about that. Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good--and I made an error too. See your talk page for another question. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol!

I just spat tea everywhere when you cited WP:FART as a rule! XD!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 23:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking it's a guideline, but it's endorsed by both the Bacon cabal and some ArbCom members, though they'll never say so in public. Now clean your keyboard. :) Drmies (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Having been pushed against a wall recently where I was banned, I have a selfimposed 1 or 2 PR restriction on myself. Can you please talk a look at the Muhammad page and the talkpage. The most recent attempt to put "selling of slaves" in the article is not supported by any source, but an editor is undoing me everytime I remove it. Please take a look. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't easily do that immediately but I will later. Maybe a friendly talk-page stalker can have a look? Drmies (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I haven't got a clue. The sources quoted appear to be Hadith- are they primary or secondary? Presumably an RS commentary on them would be accepted by FreeatlastChitchat as a secondary source? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would qualify that as primary, but that doesn't make the claims prima facie "laughable", to use Freeatlast's words. Freeatlast, if your first response is more...diplomatic, you will find other editors to be more inclined to work with you. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuly Yanklowitz

Nice work. It got a bit shorter, didn't it! Incidentally, I'm afraid the "Jews for Human Rights in Syria" is a very obscure organization, too. Not sure whether to remove it or not — one doesn't want to be petty, but Google finds only self-sourced passing-mentions. No website, no "founding". What do you think? Bishonen | talk 16:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Ha, I was just on it, having seen your edits--thanks. I wouldn't have removed the undergraduate, but there also the sourcing was not good. Feel free to cut more. I started off thinking it was a puff piece, and ended up thinking it was well beyond that. (Note how his dissertation was stuck in there as if it was a real book--note the claim here.) Q: what of the criticism? I haven't restored any of it; I haven't looked closely but the sourcing seemed not so great. Gotta go: kids and dogs are restless. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The book award link that was dead when you looked[9] has revived. Maybe we could put the sentence back, though I vote no. Turns out he was one of 34 finalists altogether. The Jewish Book Council lists many separate awards for different subjects, and Y was a finalist for the Myra H. Kraft Memorial Award for Contemporary Jewish Life and Practice. Isn't that too minor to mention — just being a finalist? (Wikipedia has material about the JBC's awards here.) I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere for which awards deserve mention. Subsegments of industry reward themselves and each other to such a ridiculous extent that one is needed, anyway, but I can't find it. And as for finalists… maybe if it was the Nobel. (Except they don't publish their finalists.) Pat the dogs from me! Bishonen | talk 10:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Astrid Roemer 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! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

191.7.157.249 returns

191.7.157.249 is back. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that special. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes DYK outdoes itself

As in this from today. I'm glad the experimenter verified the escaping gas was hydrogen (by lighting it). Nothing mentioned about whether there was enough thrust generated to achieve liftoff, much less orbit. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is one sick article, Glane23. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Jones (writer)

You blocked a mobile ip in preference to semi-protecting a page with a long history of vandalism from a clearly obsessed individual. Poor call. --ℕ ℱ 00:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you have poor manners, nonsenseferret. Please make complete sentences on my talk page, unless your two-word sentence is "Roll Tide". Also, wut? You reported something vaguely at RFPP, not saying anything about anyone's obsession. I don't have a ferret's nose. How was I supposed to smell this "clear obsession"? I blocked two accounts and an IP (you're welcome!). That these edits would be from some "clearly obsessed individual" is original research at the very least (and you never explicated them); and there was this spelling edit. The most recent IP edits before those were made in...are you counting...September, and they were hardly vandalistic. Think about what the next admin is going to think when you make your next report: this one was a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roll Tide. Congratulations to you and the fans. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My report at RPP said "Persistent vandalism – ip vandal has returned as an ongoing campaign of abusive edits to this BLP." wasn't this enough of a clue to notice the, well, persistent ongoing campaign of vandalism involving multiple accounts, which is clearly obvious even from the last 50 edits in the history? The ip is clearly flagged as a mobile phone, so a block to a dynamic address like that will be as effective as a not very effective thing. The article has been protected in the past. All these little clues were obvious at the time you considered the request, but sure let's keep playing whack-a-mole with the personal abuse on the BLP. You aren't doing me a favour, this is not my circus, these are not my monkeys. --ℕ ℱ 09:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Are these the September edits you class as "hardly vandalistic"? --ℕ ℱ 09:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You have a nice day too. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only IP edit in September. It is not an act of vandalism. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know that "Roll Tide" means "Fight On, Don't give up, Keep fighting, never give up, never surrender . and or Just a way to say beat em' pretty much".^[1]

... and dyk that the Steelers are still in the playoffs? — Ched : ? 07:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, annoying? I've always been bothered by Auburn's grammatically nonsensical "War Eagle". The Steelers game was discussed on NPR again this morning for its...tastelessness; I missed the end of the game and thought it was a done deal after AJ's touchdown. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ SHEETS, CONNOR ADAMS. "'Roll Tide': What Does Alabama's Rally Cry Mean, And Is It The Most Annoying Slogan Ever?". Retrieved 12 January 2016.

Userpage

Hi Drmies, are you sure your Userpage is correct, I mean the categories mentioned below the picture? It couldn't be, or? Poepkop (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, it's the internet, so no one really knows. I'll admit that Category:Wikipedians who edit by smartphone is somewhat unlikely but it is in fact true--it's Cullen328's fault. BTW, poepkop? I remember when I first saw your name: I came pretty close to blocking you on the spot for that name. :) Drmies (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was more surprised about the "Wikipedian sex workers" category, though (red colour)? Yes my username, so far it was decided it is no blatant violation of any policy (there has been discussion about it, in my archive number 2 talk page and elsewhere), maybe in the future I might change it, if this keeps on following me :-). Despite my name, I hope I do good to WP, though.ted Poepkop (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I take responsibility for the smartphone category. As for the others, well, it was dearly departed David Bowie (photo above in editing mode) who taught us, starting when I was a teenager, that gender identity is malleable. And David Byrne taught us that there are times to Stop Making Sense. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say Malleusable? EEng (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Sex workers" category came from an editor from long, long ago, back when folks had cool usernames: User:Malleus Fatuorum, may he rest (and do his sex work) in peace. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you better watch it -- some intoxicated admin might wander by and block you. EEng (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And then he came to my talk and chatted about balls still in place, and changed to real name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page

[1] SHEETS, CONNOR ADAMS. "'Roll Tide': What Does Alabama's Rally Cry Mean, And Is It The Most Annoying Slogan Ever?". Retrieved 12 January 2016.

[1]