Archives

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

Template:NoBracketBot

The WPPilot arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Liz. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I've been thinking about throwing my hat in the ring for a RfA. I've been here nine years, it's clear I'll meet the qualifications. On the other hand, I've made some enemies, though for the most part they are all blocked. You and I have crossed paths many times over the years, so I thought I'd ask you what you think? Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Montana, you're one brave girl even thinking about it. I'm no expert, but I think you've made far too many enemies, who will all come crawling out of the woodwork, and who are probably rousing themselves to crawl out even now as we speak. All I can say from experience is that it's a bit of a kick in the guts to be told that you're unfit for anything other than the relatively unimportant and menial tasks of writing articles and suchlike. Eric Corbett 02:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want to be an admin. I've been an admin, and I've been a not-admin, and being a not-admin is better. You lose the ability to see some juicy gossip that have been revdel'd or whatever but nothing that matters. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff that gets revision deleted is nasty crap nobody wants to read. The only funny stuff tends to be in deleted hoax articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think you'd pass unless enough people decided to go with the usual bullshit excuse of "not enough experience in admin areas" or the even dumber excuse of "doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools". I die a little on the inside whenever I read that one.... I don't know which cliques you've supposedly pissed off, but it largely depends upon how many friends they can canvass to the opposition. After a spot-check review of your last thousand edits or so, I'd say that you look like an excellent content editor, one who I'd be glad to see join the admin group. Again, all I can do is speak in hypotheticals, but I think you'd be a shoe-in.

If someone really wants to see you fail, be prepared to have something taken out of context and twisted to the point that you won't even be able to recognize it. In this case, the best thing to do is to let someone else call them on their shit—or find someone privately to do it for you before too many mindless drones read it, don't check it, and parrot it ;). If you reply and tell them they just spewed a bunch of crap, you'll likely get more ridiculous opposes citing your "badgering". Good luck if you do try, and I hope you'll succeed! Let me know if you want anything from me—a nomination, co-nom, or whatever. (Not that my nomination means much, and it might get you more opposes just because it's me and I'm seen as too much of a radical maverick at best.) Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support you, but I'm afraid Eric may be right. In any event, you are exactly the type of person we need to be an Admin. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I think Eric and Greg make valid points. The longer you're here the more enemies you make, and you've been here long enough. I would support you, since I think you have good sense and know what needs to be known. Of course you don't know until you try, but I think one of the things to ask yourself is how many old feuds you have, how many of those editors are still alive (let me know who I need to block two weeks beforehand, so it won't arouse suspicion), how you're doing on Wikipediocracy... Drmies (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I checked Wikipediocracy, other than a indef blocked user over there calling me an "utter berk" with ownership issues, I've gotten off pretty light. I think it's almost a badge of honor! Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well. You asked the question on the talk page of someone I consider a friend and have watchlisted, and I am not blocked, so ...

When people mention GGTF issues about how women are treated in here, I am always reminded that some of those who have consistently behaved the worst in here have been women.

And then your name is one of the three or four that comes to mind.

Should you launch an RFA, I won't be "crawling out of the woodwork to oppose you", but I don't think you have the temperament or the self-awareness, and I am aware of any number of diffs that any number of people could post that show how you routinely treat other people. That you have been able to get away with it the many times those diffs have come to ANI doesn't mean they will pass at RFA-- it's a very different mindset there. I suspect that some of this behavior is so habitual for you that you don't even realize you do it, but diffs are likely to surface in an RFA.

In fact, you are the reason I no longer frequent Eric's talk page; I found the way you speak about and deal with others too hard to be around, and I didn't want others to think I was part of that. Good luck should you launch; you know where I stand, but I won't participate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm sorry Sandy--but I can't block you for that. I appreciate your comments. BTW, Montana, whatever you may think of Sandy's comment, the dramah surrounding the GGTF (I had totally forgotten about it) may indeed continue, if indeed you were that outspoken. (I've not been on Eric's talk page much recently, to my own detriment.) Drmies (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Drmies I suspect SG was thinking of this one you were there! Montanabw^(talk) 05:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had forgotten that one ... but it's some mighty fine invective! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm...TParis was there too--coincidence? I think not. Hey, that's Nikkimaria you were talking about. As most everyone knows I stayed out of the infobox wars, but I have a lot of respect for Nikkimaria, a lot, which explains my harsh words, I think. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • • I think it's blown over between NM and me, it was 2013 after all. NM just signed off on my last FAC for Bazy Tankersley. The infobox wars had us all a bit crazy, and the context was that I blew up because someone else was being picked on. At the end of the day, the admins did what you should do; proportionate action. I actually have immortalized your advice on my talk page, Drmies! Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocking me wouldn't be any fun, anyway ... someone else already got their 15 minutes of fame on me! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got nothing to lose, maybe I should go ask a 'crat for my tools back temporarily.--v/r - TP 04:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Go for it :) You gave up the tools? I need to email you ... that's just dumb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, candid comments are why I'm asking publicly. Nothing like a test drive. I guess one is judged not only on the qualities of their friends but also of their detractors. Bring on the diffs! (though before posting, may want to note how many are from now-blocked users and sockpuppets! ) LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 04:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• We've locked horns on one or two infobox wars Montana, but I'd still support you. I think you'd make a good admin and that's what it's about at the end of the day. Cassianto^Talk 07:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Go for it and find out, and if it doesn't work listen to Short Brigade Harvester Boris, it's not the last judgment, if it is judgment at all. - I often need an admin and have to molest poor Drmies, - missing some others greatly. ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reason I am contemplating this is the dearth of admins. Some of my favorite ones have retired or vanished from WP and no one has stepped up to replace them. Montanabw^(talk) 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Since you are inviting comments, I will have to sadly echo this comment above by SandyGeorgia, who I do not know, but the sentiment is painfully true nevertheless: When people mention GGTF issues about how women are treated in here, I am always reminded that some of those who have consistently behaved the worst in here have been women. yes, yes, yes. I shall spare this page the details but I do type from profound personal grief and pain...In addition you have created some vective with your "Duck box" (which I favour, incidentally). Just envision a certain someone currently writing music articles that you targetted and who can rise to lash out and bring all their canvassed friends. You would make a good admin but you should weigh the personal cost to you. Fylbecatulous talk 13:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would advise against, because you definitely have enemies and they would come out. And to be honest, you probably would find being an admin to be not a good experience - you too often want to call out behavior that will get you in trouble as an admin. Snark and calling things like you see them will not make being an admin pleasant. The best admins are not easily ruffled and take things as they see them. Karanacs as opposed to say .. myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am listening to what folks are saying. That said, you haven't discouraged me yet; in fact, I am using this opportunity to see if and how I can respond to fair criticism.  ;-) The admin hat and the user hat are different things. On one hand, WP:INVOLVED exists for a reason and I have already decided that if I do file a RfA, I agree I'll need to be very quick to recuse if a request to do so indicates a possible conflict with a person or topic (lucky for me that 90% of my edits have been to horse articles!) On another hand, it's a very different "me" when I am neutral and not involved, and even when involved, I think my actions at my FAC articles demonstrate how I can keep a much cooler head when I need to. On the (looking around for a third hand...), I think there is a need for admins to call it like it is, I particularly respected the no-nonsense candor that characterized the now-gone grownup admins like User:Lar and User:Dreadstar. Many current people with the mop - like Drmies - and others are also good models. My basic position is that RfA tempts me because I want to support GOOD content editors: Tendentious editors, POV-warriors, bullies and trolls interfere with good content editing. I also dislike dishonesty aimed at gaming the project and making more work for others, rather than improving it; this is a characteristic of the returned users with undisclosed accounts that I have looked at for sockpuppetry - Copyvio and other RL legal issues are things that WP has to be grown-up about. Montanabw^(talk) 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just so long as you're prepared for the psychological battering that you'll inevitably receive at RfA, justified or not. I speak from experience when I say that having editors you've never even heard of lining up to say what an immature piece of shit you are can be a little bit difficult to stomach. In my opinion nobody who's been around as long as you can ever hope to get through RfA, but maybe you can prove me wrong. Eric Corbett 17:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which is why I'm running trial balloons, for sure. It may also be an experiment: Can someone like me - with a looooong track record - make it at RfA? Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe there is definitely a need for admins who have a good grasp on the issues that plague editors who focus on content (which makes my comments somewhat hypocritical since I don't use my bit that much). I think RFA could be a good test for you - if you can keep your cool surrounded by the wave of negative comments, then maybe it's good for you (and if you can't keep calm, best to withdraw). I am pretty difficult to offend, which helps...and I was raised in the South, so I've had significant training in reframing criticism in the most polite manner possible (bless your heart ;) ). But still, I don't operate in a lot of the more difficult areas, because I suspect at some point I'd get fed up and say something stupid. Have a good idea of what you want to do with the bit, which areas you'll work in regularly (if any) or whether you'll just step in occasionally when something needs done. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • • @Karanacs: I do admire your style - and I am impressed with you at the LB case. Brave soul! I admit I'm more prone to engage in cowboy diplomacy and administer justice with a wiki-Smith & Wesson. But I was raised out west. We tell it like it is, then go actually get together and have the beer... (OK, so I don't really like beer, but a good Merlot works too). Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, do I (unfortunately, now, as opposed to when I was younger) understand that Southern "bless your heart" thingie! It goes along with "We should get together sometime", and then the invite never comes.

OK, well, Montana, since you are still contemplating it, be aware that I really was not at all referring to that big blowup with Nikki and whoever that other editor was. I tend to forget such things, and agree with you that those big sorts of "explosions" often blow over (reminded of the time I called someone a ... <gulp> name ... and we seem to be little worse for the wear today). I was referring to a constant low-level snark and talking about other editors as if they are insignificant or invisible, that undermines work worse than the infrequent frank and straight-up blowup blowout ... you will find out at RFA if others have registered that. Maybe they haven't. I was just pointing out that because editors excuse it at ANI doesn't mean they will excuse the same at RFA: it can be one diff that craters an RFA. Coupled with a tendency that I see for you to set aside principles when Wikifriends are involved ... But again, we do need content admins, and I won't stand in your way. I would ask you to reflect (we all should), and realize that it may not only be people you characterize as "enemies" who show up with diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Sandy. I appreciate your candor and that you are willing to point out what I could run into at RfA. I think it's interesting that you don't see my assorted worst moments as a huge barrier. There have been times here I've damn near wanted to put up the "retired" banner myself because of the cruelty, trolling and other quite horrible behavior I have seen and been subjected to. But there have always been those people - most of them with a mop and usually a good bullwhip to boot, who are able to see the situation with clear eyes and deliver an appropriate blend of justice and mercy. I like those people and I get tempted to seek the mop because I want to be one of those people. But it takes rhino hide and I'm trying to decide if I've grown a thick enough layer. Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks before my IBAN with Catflap08, I removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were attached to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[1][2] Catflap08 the other day reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely directly reverting me is? (He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My dear Hijiri, I have so little interest in policing anyone's iBan that I couldn't even see that interest if it were on my desk and I had my reading glasses on. It is a shitty job, and not one that necessarily needs to be done on an admin's talk page. Bring this to AN, if it's a big enough issue to bring there (a matter of judgment). Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, or any of your page-watchers, review this thread at ANI that I started? It has been languishing at the board with minimal input from "uninvolved" editors/admin. Abecedare (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I saw your commentary about the l8r, g8r page and I have made substantial revisions to the page to make it more neutral in tonality. If you still find it to be biased, feel free to talk to me via my talk page. If it's not too much trouble, please be specific as to the line, phrase or terminology you feel isn't neutral. I'll be happy to find more neutral words. Additionally, you claim that some of my sources aren't reliable. Is there any specific source or sources that you don't find credible? I can check to see if there is a more credible source with the same information. I look forward to your response. Have a great day drmies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadetv1 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cadet, I think you have made great strides with that article. This is good work, and the sources added are quality. This, even if it were alive, doesn't seem to be reliable--scrap that (and tweak the text accordingly) and the "reliable sources" tag can go. But the "background" section still has no relation to this specific book and is thus redundant, and the second part of the "style" section--well, "cultural references" really aren't by themselves a stylistic element, and they are really not worthwhile mentioning, esp. not since they're referenced to the novel, not to a secondary source. (In other words, things matter if reliable sources say they matter.) I've removed a few of the tags: the article is much better than it was, and making it even better shouldn't be too difficult. It's not easy to remove stuff you wrote (or to see it being removed), but if the end result is a better article then it was worth it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

I think you already got them, but just in case you haven't. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unreliable source you indicated and added a source that had useful information. I also scrapped the whole background and writing section. Thank you for letting me know how to improve the page! I really appreciate your help!Cadetv1 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you look at Seculert?--v/r - TP 17:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed site ban for User:MaranoFan. Thank you. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a bit confused as to why you think the "Radio plays and readings of books" section on Andrew Scott's page is irrelevant, and also why you disregarded my linking to his agency? If you scroll down on it there's all of the plays/book readings in the lineup...Am I missing anything? StardustIsEloquent (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I don't know why. WP:RS is an easy answer, as is WP:PROMOTION. Come on. This is an encyclopedia. You can't link to someone's agency, and this is not a depository for resumes. Your actor has done a lot of things, and not all of them need to be listed here. Simple. They're relevant if they're discussed in reliable secondary sources, that's a good rule of thumb. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly, you speak as though I should know this, while truthfully I've never edited a Wikipedia page before, so I'm new to all of the rules. Second, that seems a bit of a silly guideline for deciding relevant sources, but that's just me. Also, I wasn't the one to create the section, I simply added the rest. That section has been there for quite a while now, so clearly someone else besides me thought it a good idea to list them. But well, if you're the expert... StardustIsEloquent (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't see why anyone would think that an agent's website is a good thing to cite as evidence. Yes, unfortunately there are a lot of bad articles here. If you want to make this one a better article, it's easy: find reliable sources and use those to improve the text of the article. The rest, really, is ancillary and leans on the text. If those reliable sources are found and added they can be used to create a list of "notable" works, the ones that are deemed notable by writers and critics. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]