Archives

/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3/Archive 4/Archive 5/Archive 6/Archive 7/Archive 8/Archive 9/Archive 10

I just read this article. Interesting - it shed light on the mythological context for something that happens in a novel I'm reading now, Small Favor. Water coming out of a sprinkler system in a building is described as stagnant and stinky; however, after a Knight of the Cross uses his holy sword to kill a bunch of hobs, the water smells like roses. LadyofShalott 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the rose does that sort of thing. You find one at the end of the Divine Comedy also; maybe you should read that next (I just finished The God of Small Things last night). Did you see this? Drmies (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do need to read the Divine Comedy! I bought a copy of the Inferno a while back, but haven't actually read it yet. That's cool about the article; no I had not seen it previously. :) I may have to see if the university library here carries that journal. LadyofShalott 20:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, we don't even have it, but big Auburn does (electronically). The Comedy is great; which translation do you have? I teach Mandelbaum's--cheap and good. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember right off (and it's not where I am right now) - it's whatever version Barnes and Noble has for their bargain editions. LadyofShalott 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. I hate to break it to you, but you're in for a ride--it's Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's (available on the internet, copyright free). I once had a couple of students who thought they'd save money, and they never got through it. Say the word and I'll send you a different translation! Drmies (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that does sound right. (And I did start it right after I got it, but never read more than a few pages. It looks like I can borrow Mandelbaum's translation through PINES. Is that the one you'd recommend? If I had another translation, I'd probably have fun making comparisons of some of the passages. LadyofShalott 00:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Yes, I think Mandelbaum's is good (I'm no expert on Italian, though) and it has nice pictures and good notes, and a cool map of hell. And it's cheap ($6 for the Bantam pocket). Drmies (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If I want a copy I'd better hurry. Tiderolls 06:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what's going on down there? Is there no B&N at all anymore? The one in Tuscaloosa is nice--we could meet for coffee there before some spring training session! And maybe Altairisfar and the Lady will join us...will someone drop User:Alarob a line to invite them? Drmies (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That stinks, Tide. I think all the brick and mortar bookstores have been having a hard time competing with online retailers. LadyofShalott 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, one of these days we need to have an AlaWiki conference, with barbecue, wings, and wine. Y'all should come up for this. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be neat! LadyofShalott 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Although I still can't make that book conference this year. One of these days, I won't have to work every Saturday.) LadyofShalott 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me message about my edit to Disturbia(film). I didn't know I put a lot of info in plot. How am I supposed to know? Isn't alot of info important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.78.94 (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You have been told a number of times now that your edits are not according to Wikipedia's guidelines. I just left you a message on your talk page telling you to look at WP:FILMPLOT, the same thing User:Deftonesderrick told you yesterday. You've been blocked at least once for disruptive editing. To say now that you didn't know, no one will accept that. And to answer your question, no, that is not important, and if you look at your own contribution you will see that all of them are continuously reverted by other editors--such as here. Besides, those edits suffer from great grammatical problems, and you continue to insert personal commentary into plot summaries, which, as I have pointed out to you before, is a no-no.

  If you continue to edit the way that you are, you might face a longer block than you got last time. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • And stop blanking your talk page--it suggests that you are not paying attention to what other editors say, which explains why you started asking me the question you did--"how am I supposed to know". Well, you've been told plenty of times. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drmies, I'm really sorry. It was hard for me to understand Wikipedia's guidelines. Can you please tell me why does there have to be limit of info for plot? What's total amount of word has to be in plot? I want to know clearly so I don't disrupt editing. When I look at my user talk page, I reply to messages. After I reply, I delete them. Is it okay for me to delete them after I reply? If I'm blocked from editing, then is it possible to send messages to you or other user talk pages. If it's possible, then how do I do it? Hope I'm not vandalizing your talk page. Again, why's it bad to put alot of info in plot? I type every detail for movie, because some people want to know everything that happens in film. I added some info to Disturbia(film). If I edited Disturbia film plot in bad way, then you could delete it. Fine with me.(--99.88.78.94 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• No, you're not vandalizing my talk page, don't worry. You shouldn't delete messages; you should archive your talk page (see WP:ARCHIVE), even if only for your own sake--you would have seen the recommendation to read WP:FILMPLOT a couple of times. And no, it's not a good idea to put every detail in there. This is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive fount of knowledge: people do not want to know every detail. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it's me again. I received your message so many times. I'm just asking when I'm editing, what's the limit of info. --99.88.78.94 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Look up the page, where it says "read WP:FILMPLOT". Same thing it says (or said) on your talk page a couple of times. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your message on my talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Goya sofrito.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No! Damn deletionists... Drmies (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Beta Sigma has been vandalized again by the same user. A lot of information is missing.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They won't be doing that anymore. Hey, did I see a Puerto Rico box on your user page? Have a look at sofrito. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Geotomez is the author of the book that he cites. The book is self-published, and I have not yet found any reviews of it. He is correct that the founding date was 1926. I must have mistyped it originally. "The J.R.S. Foundation" but not "The J.R.S. Biodiversity Foundation" is supported by other sources, Business Wire for example, but apparently the attempted name change didn't last, as news reports continued to refer to it as BIOSIS. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your note, and for exercising patience in your edits to the article. I don't understand incommunicado editors. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now returned from an extended work-related absence. Left a note for you on my User Talk page; then decided it would be well to come here to point you to it. Looking forward to resuming my interrupted tasks here. Happy spring! PrairyWriterGuy (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your note. I'm having a busy semester myself and am not as working as much here as I did before; feel free to drop me a line anytime you like. Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to WP:Author, I was not aware that the Wikipedia:Notability criteria were so finely grained. Thepisky (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure thing. It's the author's variety of "existence doesn't mean notability," I reckon. Another way of putting is that books published by an author are "only" primary sources and don't, in their own right, establish notability, esp. given the plenitude of vanity and DIY presses. Later, Drmies (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies, how's it going? I noticed you recently edited the groove metal article and I need some outside opinion with the issues with that article. Should the article be put up for deletion or not? I've searched high and low, but they're doesn't seem to be very much info on the topic. What's your take on the situation? RG (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey RG, thanks for your note. I gotta say, I don't see much notability there (if your searches were done accurately, which I don't really doubt). Now, if you really want to get rid of the genre, ask Sugar Bear, haha. Seriously, a redirect (but where?) would be a good thing. Have you asked Blackmetalbaz, Portillo, and Cannibaloki? I value their opinion. Thanks, and take it easy, Drmies (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only things I could find on it were a Blender entry refering to a GNR song and Pantera's Allmusic bio. Musicmight uses the term sometimes, but they are a user edited website making it likely unreliable. I discuss the topic with other users here. In the mean time, have a good one. RG (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your note on the talk page. If you nominate it for deletion, please let me know. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously didn't want to do it, but I've nominated the article for deletion. "Deletionist", I personally find to be a dirty term and it's not something that I really don't want to be associated with. RG (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See note on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. I wasn't aware of the fact that you couldn't PROD an article previously put up for deletion. RG (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I finally got this deletion thing right. Feel free to comment on the discussion. Again, I absolutely hate to be the one who pulls the plug on this, but I just don't see any notability. RG (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work cutting out a lot of the problematic material in the New Weird entry. I've reinstated the definition section only because 1) I felt like this cut left a vacuum and 2) I think Jeff VanderMeer is a notable source for the discussion. Still, I agree that the definition section (and the rest of the article) needs work. Just thought I'd drop you a message to explain. --Junius49 (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the explanation and the courtesy. Still, it is too problematic to retain. First of all, the quote is way too long and gives undue weight in terms of length (it's as long as the actual article) and authorship (it elevates VanderMeer to the status of sole authority--and he is noted as a writer in the genre) and is written in a kind of jargon inappropriate to an encyclopedic article. Also, no reference is given, Tachyon isn't a very notable publisher, and the rest of the section, proposing all this debate (of which there is no evidence whatsoever), has nothing but fact tags. I'm sorry, but I am going to remove it. Reinstate text that is verified, please? Drmies (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Asaram Bapu. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asaram Bapu (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this was quite enjoyable. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the musical structure goes in songs, I know hardly anything, so I wouldn't let it stop you from writing on music. To answer your question, you can't have any original research in a music article. Any comments as regards musical structure and composition you need to have cited really. If you wish to take it to GA/FA, the Santana article, drop in at WP:ALM and ask some of the experts over there for some advice - without doubt, the lead would need expanding on. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Buck&diff=355859576&oldid=355859453 I wasn't doing vandalism but reverting it. So I deleted the un-needed warning from my IPs talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.213.249 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Odd, considering that an act of vandalism came from the exact same IP in the same minute. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand or agree with your edit summary on this edit to Earth Day. The fact in question is that CBS used a particular logo in a particular broadcast. Is not a video of that broadcast a valid reference to that fact. One can view the reference and verify the fact. Isn't that the point of the reference in the first place? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your note, Dan. Well, that it's a primary source, I don't see how you could disagree with that. But beyond that, I think that in this case a few statements can be made based on YouTube--but not a decision about CBS's decision making process, as mild as it is here, or the quantification of the "largest segment" part. Look at my rephrasing of it. Sourcing in that article is, in all honesty, pretty bad anyway--way too many claims are referenced with links to organizational websites (the first nine of them), and many of them indicate (like the statement currently verified by note 9) a measure of original research not wholly appropriate to Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification -- I'm always looking to learn more about the project, especially the validity of various sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to leave you a talk back template, but you beat me to it. I think there is some grayness in this area, which is why I didn't remove the entire section saying "no YouTube stuff here," and I wonder if there is some discussion somewhere as to what can and cannot be sourced from what kinds of YouTube material. If you ever run into such a discussion, I'd appreciate it if you could drop me a line. Thanks, and take it easy! Drmies (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Nascar1996's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Nascar1996 01:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I don't normally go around stalking you, but I did happen to check your contributions just now, and I was surprised to see you mention me in an edit summary. I'll have to check out a Grand Cru sometime, although the Triple Imperiale intrigues me with its 10% alcohol. I see that you also edited Regenboog Brewery, which I mention only because the similar word "regenbogen" is my favorite German word. [I only know the word because it was included in the title of a painting I saw in Munich's Alte Pinakothek (or was it the Neue Pinakothek?)] It's good to know that I'm not the only one who is sometimes guilty of DWI (doing Wiki intoxicated). BTW, I seem to be seeing a lot less of 99 these days (unless there's a new level of stealth), but the registered alter ego has been a lot more active. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening? Just had a BBQ, not Mongolian, more South African, those guys can sure make lousy steak turn out good, especially when they are cooking it over home made grills made of 45 gallon drums split in half. The weather is warming up 18 today (in "rest of the world degrees"), with not much wind. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey K, good to hear from you. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you yet, been kind of busy, but I'll drop you a line soon. I had barbecue for lunch today and yesterday, and last night for dinner, so I'm good for now, but I'm glad you're enjoying it. Thanks for the help on that Novotel hotel, by the way, and thanks to the lady also!

  PS Lady, it was great fun today--especially this guy. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I love Pete the Cat! I so want a Pete print. Glad you had a good time!LadyofShalott 16:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am about 300 charachters from expanding Oyuu Tolgoi to DYKable (see User:Kelapstick/Oyuu Tolgoi, it really should be at Oyu Tolgoi mine or Oyu Tolgoi project). Anyway I am done for the day, but I could use some of your excellent proof reading skills to cross my t's and dot my lower case j's. I have been scrounging for something reliable to say that the shaft is the largest (diameter and in depth) in the country, but haven't found anything (poor internet connection and lack of time). The #2 Shaft is going to be HUGE (that's what she said), 10m diameter, nothing like that in Canada. That I know of anyway. Hopefully I can find more in the coming days, but I would appreciate your assistance, I see a dynamite hook in there somewhere. Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Minimac's talk page.
Message added 13:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Xeno has replied to you. See bottom of page. Minimac (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes will do, sorry I'll keep it in mind in future since I merged articles in List of Neon GenesisEvangelion albums I will amend this quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrojesta (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I have made the same mistake in the past; I think undoing, then repasting the content in the target article, and then editing it should do the trick--but all edit summaries must say where something is going and where it is coming from. Also, please don't forget to sign your name. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my signature isn't finished about to edit it, otherwise even when I sign it doesn't really count since there is no link to my talkpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrojesta (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it counts. Just sign four tildes, ~~~~. Look above at your own signature, courtesy of Sinebot. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there, I had checked sign my name exactly as shown, my mistake. Necrojesta (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at that--you look great. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it's been a while, but my job (architecture) has put me on a seven day a week schedule for some time now. I tried the doughnut challenge, however, after calling specialty doughnut shops up and down the Hudson Valley, I could not find anyone who was selling that particular derivative of oliebollen. So much for the homogenization of our culture!

Could you possibly sidle over to my talk page and take a quick look at a Biographical information section that I'm working on for the Dale Bozzio page? It would replace her Career section. Also, the Personal life section would be deleted. Since I have found it awkward to separate her work outside of the music business into its own section, I thought that a Biographical information section would be more appropriate. It would be followed by as yet unwritten sections that would detail her work with Frank Zappa and Missing Persons. What do you think? Doc2234 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Doc, I'd love to have another look at it (the basic setup, I understand the struggle--I agree that very often these two things come together pretty quickly), but it will be a couple of days before I have time...Thanks for your note though, and welcome back. BTW, I made some oliebollen for New Year's, and they were delicious. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Doc2234 (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My hold on Allen Mandelbaum's translation of the Inferno came in today. :) LadyofShalott 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy reading! And you have facing page translations, wonderful. Have a look at 1.8-9, and you'll note there's no "also" in the Italian. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Fragin2010 reverted to an old version (I couldn't figure out which one) that wiped out all the improvements. I've reverted. I thought I'd let you know, since you seem to be more familiar with the article. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 01:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for notifying me about the reversions. Do you think Cherrypal is a legitimate company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blownfire (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you want to tell me why you're tagging my page for speedy deletion? (Itskyleharris (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• I didn't. Check the article history--and I gave you the explanation for why this could be considered a candidate for speedy deletion on the article's talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for quickly removing the heavy vandalism from my talk page. Imperial Monarch (D•R) 02:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite sorry about this link reinsertion. It was totally my mistake, and I put it back the way you had it. If it is meaningful to you, I assure you that I checked all of this guy's links (he had two here, then one about windows on another page) and found them all to be irrelevant to the article's subject. Then when I wanted to revert them, I failed to notice that you already had. By this I want to convey that my problem is a rectifiable lack of attention, and not inability to recognize a poor link. If you have further thoughts then bring them to me; I will try to be more careful. Blue Rasberry 02:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Blue, thanks for your note--I figured you had done the homework, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks, and happy editing! Drmies (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Boba Phat. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I can't believe we have such differing opinions on such an important subject....I thought I knew you...--kelapstick (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what my wife said too. BTW, DreamFocus, thanks for letting me know--I appreciate that you would engage in what amounts to anti-canvassing. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, K-stick, we're talking about a dude who dresses up as Darth Vader and goes to conventions, right? Not exactly a bacon explosion... Drmies (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, why isn't that notable doc? Do you do it? If not, it should be. —SpacemanSpiff 06:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Drmies, for not knowing the difference between Darth Vader and Boba Fett. Mrs. Drmies is invited over the next time we have Bacon Explosion. You can stay home...--kelapstick (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Well, if that is enough reason for deletion, then I'm gone! Spiff, I looked at the video, and all I can say is WTF. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the standards of notability have dropped heavily since that unsourced BLP thingy started. I haven't been around AfD for a while, but found this out based on participating in a few over the last couple of weeks. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the case of Kunej proves abundantly! Thanks Spiff, and have a great day. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone planning on asking for a review of the Kunej case? It seems I'm not the only one who felt the closing admin misinterpreted the results. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

<--Hey Agricola, I don't know. I see a couple of "weak keeps" from experienced editors, and a couple of "keeps" from relatively new editors, and I'm not impressed by any of them. The only strong keep from an experienced editor is from Turqoise themselves. I don't believe that this was the greatest closing I've ever seen, to put it mildly, but at the same time I'm sick of it: it's an autobiography of a non-notable person, period. However, Turqoise has already accused me of bias (in the first AfD they accused me of hating Croatians, or some such silly thing); this playing the victim mode is so irritating, and these hounding accusations so easily thrown around, that I don't feel like I want or should bring this up. I do believe that on further review the article itself won't stand up. I do thank you, though, for your level-headed and policy-oriented arguments, and I am impressed by your coolness under pressure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I'm fatigued as well, having spent way too much time on that discussion. The subject is very pugnacious and it seems that none of the folks who felt it should be deleted (with good cause) has the appetite to escalate this. FYI, I've simply added a dissenting statement on the notability verdict to Talk:Kresimir Chris Kunej. My guess is that someone else will prod or AfD this article in the future anyway. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

With all due respect, I believe it is in the best interest of the Genre page if you would restrain yourself from such heavy-handed edits, especially when drastic revision was called for for years on the talk page.

In response to your denigration of the theorists under History as "non-notable," I am forced challenge your understanding of the concept of genre (which is what the page is for), since especially Bitzer and Devitt contributed heavily to aforementioned concept. Granted, rewrites are extremely warranted and welcome, but blanking entire sections and literally setting back the section over two millennia is not conducive to a thorough and professional page.

In essence, I ask you to, rather than erase sections, use whatever knowledge you have of the topic to rewrite and enhance or replace what has been written with something of comparable value and do not dismiss scholars as "non-notable" simply because they aren't household names. - Sanguination (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For a critic to get a full paragraph or more on Wikipedia, they have to be household names--that's the nature of the beast. These are not term papers, they are encyclopedic articles. Your group's edits, while I applaud the effort, do not entirely conform to Wikipedia guidelines by placing undue weight on a number of lesser-known critics, and even (as I see now in the second paragraph of the "history" section) the bigger ones, Plato in this case, are treated indirectly, via the words of another critic. Not that Genette isn't notable in his own right, but one could hardly expect a structuralist critic to provide an encyclopedic overview of an earlier theorist: those are the kinds of things one finds in an essay, not in an encyclopedic article, and with all due respect, as an editor here and as someone employed in the business of teaching literature I think I can distinguish the two. That you would call my edits "setting back the section over two millenia" speaks volumes--you'd consider Plato useless unless a (post-) structuralist had addressed him, it seems. Anyway, while I dispute your contention about "the best interest of the Genre page," and while I believe that the history of the article clearly reveals that "heavy-handed" edits were made by you and yours, I will leave it alone for the while. I have left a note at the talk page also, urging you and yours to follow Tenebrae's advice. Thanks for your message. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just lazy and didn't log in --67.119.90.98 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) AKA Kevin Murray[reply]

• I figured I wasn't dealing with a newbie. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I am sorry, and will be more careful in the future. :) --MithrandirAgain (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure thing. As you can see on the talk page, I was momentarily puzzled also--but especially when you're leaving a level-3 warning, you should make sure that it is absolutely justified. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to the revision history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kendrick_Meek&action=history) before tagging an IP as a vandal. Now people think this IP is racist. I was just trying to clarify the petition section. I guess somehow the section that was vandalized by 98.207.79.173 got reintroduced because Mcydoogle and I were making simultaneous edits.

• Maybe you should be more careful then, reintroducing the subject as "Kendrick Nigger Meek". What you say is possible, but there is no way to deduce that from the history. The Preview button is a great device, please use it, and when you see an edit conflict, don't just overwrite the previous editor. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, when you reverse vandalism, please look at *all* of the changes before reverting to a previous version and tagging the IP as a vandal. Wikipedia has a handy "compare selected versions" that you can use. If you're unfamiliar with it, try googling or something.

• Wait--you want me to apologize for removing the word "Nigger," which you were responsible for, from the article on an African-American politician? Are you kidding? Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I want you to apologize for suggesting I put it there intentionally.

• I already removed the vandal warning, which was perfectly justified, since there was every indication that you used a racist slur on purpose, and there was no indication you were just being incredibly careless. You're an idiot, and you owe an apology to representative Meed and to the mother who gave birth to you--and I cheerfully bid you a good day! Drmies (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me a notice regarding providing references for Colonie High School informational page. I'm some what curious. There are NO references for ANY of the claims on the page, yet, it has content. How is this? I provided names of people for when I went to school there that I know made something special of themselves. I think I am within my right and experience to announce these individuals. Are you an Alumni? If you are so concerned about reference, can you explain to me on that page how you have Kenneth Olsen (b. 1984), Cellist in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra referencing the Founder of DEC? So, where is this reference? Wanna dig deeper? How about this: Jason Bittner never graduated from CCHS, but went to Linton High School in Schenectady. Are you sure you should be the person maintaining this page? And if you are going to enforce references on me, I better see some references for the rest of the claims on that page, or it should not be there. Or, are you only selectively enforcing references? Please let me know, and I appreciate if could restore my edits. I am actually making an effort to find out who from my high school made something of themselves beyond the norm. To leave off the name of a Super Bowl winner is laughable. I dont know about you, but I would want to know who from my school accomplished such a feat. Thats just scratching the surface as we have some other notables. Im just trying to confirm my details before I post further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.15.226 (talk • contribs)

• In all these articles, "notable" usually means "having a Wikipedia article." Barring that, such a name at the very least needs a reliable source (and classmates are not reliable sources--that's original research. Now, that a Super Bowl winner would not have an article, that of course cries out to the heavens--but the job then is to give the guy an article, see Wikipedia:Your first article. Follow the model of any decent article--like the one for this guy. As for Olsen and Bittner, no need to yell at me, I'm not the Wiki police, and I had nothing to do with this article until recently (check the history). That the one was incorrectly linked, I just corrected that. That the other never graduated is immaterial as long as he attended. A lot of the guidelines can be found on the project's section, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Sure, you are within your right to add them--but I, and every other editor, are even more in our right to remove them if they are not verified by reliable sources: just look right below your edit screen, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." I hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]