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

And you may want to read this. Or am I being too long? Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I read it. Perhaps Spartaz can shed more light on it--maybe they have a suspicion, or gave it up. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, everybody is giving up. Do you see that last comment? [1]. Do you see where that was inserted? And I wondered why on eart nobody cares nore for this nomination. Put it right in the middle of the starting info - so it looked like the whole thing was of. Bloody impudent. It makes absolutely no difference if lately the picture might been considered have a different painter. One might make a note later that it might be an other artist's work - or not. There are hundreds of great paintings like that, it doesn't matter. Hafspajen (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Disruptive editors sometimes attempt to evade disciplinary action by using several practices when disrupting articles:[reply]

• Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive.
• Their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.
• Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article.
• Their edits remain limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch.
• Conversely, their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles to make less probable that some user watches a sufficient number of affected articles.

Nonetheless, such disruptive editing violates site policy. And have you heard of Wikipedia:Disruptive users? One of their interesting features is: #Creating disturbances on featured article candidate pages, e.g. objecting just to object. ... Hafspajen (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hafspajen, even if this person is a supreme irritator, I can't take administrative action for all the reasons I've indicated, and since I don't know this area very well I can't assess the situation in the first place. But I do have a suggestion, and I think you should take it: start an WP:RFC/U. That is the first step, regardless of what road we're on, for a situation like this one. I'll be glad to help, but you have to start this, and I suggest you read the guidelines and then think carefully about what to write up. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, brilliant. Hafspajen (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The point about the school of Raphael image that Hafs nominated was that it has a pronounced yellow colour cast as a result of the processing it had received. That's inevitable when you make these kinds of edits in RGB space equalising 10% or more of the histogram. I simply opposed it, quite vigorously it is true but then the issue had arisen before. It was Hafs' fankly aggressive response that provoked the drama and in the course of researching the history of the painting (not my period) I ascertained its true provenance and of course I commented that, in an entirely neutral and non-challenging way (and I'm afraid the response was likewise extremely aggressive, the plainest of personal attacks by any standard). I also took the trouble to upload to Commons an annotated file on the painting Commons:File:Giulio Romano (school of Raphael) - Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens - Louvre 612 Joconde 000PE026978.jpg where I used a beautiful image by Hervé Lewandowski, the tinkering of another image by him of Manet's Olympia being the original source of all this drama.

And now we have this issue of Renoir's Bal du moulin de la Galette, where I pointed out (as a comment, not as an oppose) that the image nominated was in fact not the holding museum's image (as claimed I mean in the file description). When I nominated that as an Alt, a Google Gigaplex image if you please, following another long established editor's objection to the original that it lacked resolution, more drama culminating in a withdrawal of the nomination in what can only be described as a fit of screaming pique, ensued on the grounds, if you please, that the Google Gigaplex image's colours were inauthentic. And what is droll is that in this case too there seems a real possibility that the image nominated was in fact of an earlier version famously auctioned in 1990 for a record price at the time. I can't comment because I've never seen the painting, but I have ordered the relevant catalogue (I collect them anyway and this is something of a collector's piece) and I shall likewise upload an image of painting to Commons when I receive it if there's one suitable (though unfortunately these major efforts are generally illustrated with fold outs which can't really be scanned effectively).

What piques me about this is that following the original drama this editor love-bombed my Talk page, the only way I can describe it, in a way that ultimately made me uncomfortable. And then finally this, what seems to me a frank threat.

It worries me that if this drama exceeds its local boundaries, it really wouldn't be difficult to identify me. Not at all because I'm a celebrity or anything of the sort, but nevertheless if all this were seen by a number of former colleagues, one of which at least I know edits Wikipedia quite actively, then certainly I would be identified, and that would be a very considerable embarrassment indeed for me.

I would be glad therefore if you discouraged Hafs from this kind of activity. And in any case I'm awaiting the resolution of another matter not related to this or Wikipedia, and after some possibly concluding edits, I shall probably cease editing Wikipedia, or at least rarely contributing. Editing at Commons seems to be a gentlelady's pursuit, at Wikipedia my experience is not. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hafspajen wears his heart on his sleeve. I can't tell him to wear it anyplace else. As I've said before, I simply don't know enough about this entire process, so I can't decide, for instance, if nominating an alternate picture is acceptable or disruptive. The only thing I know is that I like Hafspajen and he's clearly disturbed by your behavior--whether he's right or wrong I'm not sure but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, though I wish he didn't care so much.

  Now, I've known Hafspajen for a number of years, and I don't know you from Adam, so I'm not a very good candidate to tell him on your behalf what he should do. If he's the only one who's bothered by your comments in those FP discussions, then maybe he should reconsider, but if he's not, then perhaps a community discussion (which is what an RfC/U is--it's not some process that ends with a block or a ban, quite the opposite) is helpful. At the very least, I'd like to hear from some other people, privately or otherwise, whether his concerns have any validity to them or not: I have no interest in judging when I am not a judge and don't understand or know the evidence. And that's really all I have to say right now, to both of you I suppose.

  Oh, one last thing: your "identity" should not be of interest, at least not your real-life identity, and I trust that no one here will consider outing you or anyone else. Whether you have been here before, wearing a different coat, that may be of interest, but let no one start fishing around for your name and job title, and cause embarrassment. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Trying to be nice with somebody is not a crime. Yes, I tried to be nice, but I also told C.o.m.c. not to do this kind of things, but it went on and I couldn't stop it. If one wants to participate in the project - ANY project - first - one has to be respectful, show respect for others edits, leave place for all the editors participating, one or two lines of comment in a polite neutral way is QUITE enough. One has to make intelligent, calm, moderate comments, and not starting throwing around words like horrible and silly and such. This kind of comment is not a comment but crap, a five year old can say things like this. Also showing respect for other peoples edits, you edited MY edits, changed files, and so on. Everybody knows one should not to start editing others works, others nominations - if not asked. Also it is important not to overwhelm everything with loads of comments because it is scaring away the other editors who just see it as problems - and stop participating in the nomination. The goal is that everybody should be able to participate. And yes, the so called 'what seems to me a frank threat - using big words again - it was simply meant - you will lose respect and appreciation, if you go on like this. I am not interested in real life identity at all, who cares. But after all this not so constructive discussion I might be interested in that fact, as Drmies said: whether you have been here before, wearing a different coat, that may be of interest. Hafspajen (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The kind of language you used in the Featured picture candidates nomination WAS NOT AS YOU SAY: an entirely neutral and non-challenging way , NO, it was like: horrible, a kind of art botox, just silly, inauthentic, and derisory, and you're wilfully not going to get the point , Chto xudshee sanskrtiskee akkcentee ya kagdee-libo slishal and the rest of similar expressions as: chocolate botox kitsch of trusty old DCoetzee's restoration and other personal attacs like he tries his hand at wit and subtlety, then he must expect me to respond in kind - should not be alowed to be used more in any nominations, not here, not anywhere. It is framed in with red: Please remember to be civil, ... to comment on the image, not the person. Which is why we have "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale. The above is not a specific rationale. Hafspajen (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding WP:RFC/U, a requirement is that he should already have been on my page to resolve the issue. He has, I responded with a constructive suggestion to the effect we should just record our difference of opinions and let be, he responded with a threat and came here. That should worry you. You're welcome to love him to pieces of course. For what it's worth, my experience of life is that people who wear their hearts on their sleeves usually have some sort of agenda tucked away upfront in their pants. You're right about not knowing me (as far as I know, I mean who can tell with the anonymity thing, but then I wouldn't be editing at all without that). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Coat of Many Colours, may I request that you explain in language that is not veiled what exactly you mean in your comment just above re: people who wear their hearts on their sleeves... I allow this courtesy before I read it how I wish. Referring to what is tucked away upfront in their pants sounds alarmingly misguided in courteous talk page discussion. Please convince me otherwise. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 15:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bon mot. I often wonder where they come from myself. Do you have shares in Hafs BTW? I see you're opposing my nomination of The Scream, which really was meant as sort of peace offering. (*Sigh*) just don't seem to be able to do anything right any more these days. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, C.o.m c. what you say above is not true. You see a threat where is nothing of the kind, that's one. I came here after you edited MY NOMINATION so it looked like you were in charge and YOU had the responsability of dismissing it, NOT ME, you treated it like you had the right to insert this kind of text there. WHERE YOU PUT THAT TEXT - THAT is the NOMINATOR's part. Do you see that last comment? [2]. After all this you just put a big remark in the middle of the information about the artwork. That was when I had enought. And when you kept reverting my edits when I decided am going to witdraw it but you editwarring with me and won't let me do that. It is my nomination, I can witdraw it if I decide that. If I wan't to remove it it is not up to you to revert me. AND on top of everything you go and nominate the very same picture again, the one that I witdraw. Yes I think it is disturbing and disruptive and disrespectful - sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Do you see that last comment? [3]." Yes I did. You deleted an edit I made indicating the proper provenance of this painting. You were very aggressive in my estimation. I shan't continue here.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deleted it, I moved it, down, as a last comment, where it belongs. WHERE YOU PUT THAT; THAT is the NOMINATOR's part. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO THERE. After that you got the ansver you try to make it sound like the way you did above, you say: I'm afraid the response was likewise extremely aggressive, the plainest of personal attacks by any standard. Really ? That came after all this happened FIRST:

• After you attacked Crisco. (in the same way, for Olympia - it is all in the Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates)

• After you changed the picture I nominated.

• After you used the above language in the nomination, not a calm rationale but horrible, a kind of art botox, just silly, inauthentic, and derisory.

• After you put a giant distracting big picture in the nomination that had nothing to do with it, bigger then the nominated picture. I remove it and you put that back, and refused to remove it, even after you were asked twice. It was an administrator had to remove it, because you won't do that.

• After you were editwarring with me trying to force not to withdraw a nominantion 'I wrote above: Withdrawn nomination', with big letters - something you call here: can only be described as a fit of screaming pique. Oh, really? Reverting twice my witdrawal how can that be described??

• After you were nominating MY nominated picture that just got withdrawn

• And after I discovered that you started editing in an other nomination the very nominators text area (my nominations ) : YES, I did said: Don't you make comments in the MIDDLE OF THE nomination text, got that because I got enough.

And you are not coming here to say - sorry this the above was wrong - you come here with a preposterous idea that then finally this, what seems to me a frank threat. That remark you are reffering to was the following :I don't like what you do. You may win the war, but you may lose something else. That remark was not a threat. I meant exactly what I said - you will lose goodwill. It was this what I was citing, Communication 101: If You Try to Win the Battle, You Might Lose the War:[Do you ever have an argument, and end up feeling badly even if you “win?” Winning and being “right” does not ensure that things will end well. In fact, if your sense of victory is dependent on another person’s defeat, the victory might be hollow, indeed]. Is that a threat? I don't think so. A warning - yes, threat - no.

And the way you go on like this it shows very well what kind of new atmosphere we have at the nominations. I don't like the way the words are used, I don't like the uncivil comments. I don't like the way Crisco has been attacked, I don't like the way I have been treated. When I make some remark or criticism, I try not to interfere with the votings, at least, unless it is some real big mistake going on. There was one picture, I didn't liked Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Skull with cigarette by Vincent van Gogh, but I waited until it got its votes with my comments. You maybe don't bother much but you destroyed at least two nominations like this. Hafspajen (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may not bothered much, but you were showing quite an attitude towards Crisco 1492‎ - one of the best editors on the project too. That did disturbed me - to start with. But I tried to be nice, anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• [Responding to stuff that appears to have been refactored - I mean who can be arsed with all this? Even the section title has been factored. Signing out]. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Skull with cigarette by Vincent van Gogh was promoted. I supported it. The only point of the few edits I made there was to smooth over ruffled feathers. I took the trouble first to stitch the VGM tiles and secondly to supply a file description at Commons:File:Vincent van Gogh - Head of a skeleton with a burning cigarette - Google Art Project.jpg. We have been here before Hafs in connection with another editor's contribution. The difference is that when I hurt I kick my tormentor in the bollocks. Really last from me. Let me know if you find a new matron's apron to weep into. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the title has been factored as you express it - because it was an other one just exactly the same that confused the bot. What's wrong with it? Is it a crime or an offense for real - or you just try to make it sound like it, like the remarks above? And yes the Skull with cigarette - it was promoted because I did not interfered with it - not before it had five votes, as much as needed to be promoted. If I was not waiting patiently with expressing my comments it would have gone down the drain, for sure, 100%. BUT YOU have succeded to destroy several nominations by opposing it vigurously - as you say yourself: I simply opposed it, quite vigorously it is true - well, you did, and not only that but all the rest above. Nobody has to belive me, it is all in the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates project pages. Hafspajen (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a last thing. The picture mentioned above did not had a pronounced yellow colour cast as a result of the processing it had received - it looks like that - just as yellow in the original. Hafspajen (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And yes, I am very much interested to start an WP:RFC/U. Hafspajen (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You were on my Talk page rather a lot these past few weeks. I would come down in the morning to check my email and find another dozen messages from you. I trust you agree I responded courteously enough, and of course I was flattered. Now I see you are engaged in the process of reverting your kisses on that page and that's OK. But I've already told you I think you have overstayed your welcome there and I don't want to see any further interaction other than, what would be courteous, giving me a heads up about your complaints you make about me in various forums, this by no means being the only such. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't. But I have to tell you two things. 1) You said, you felt it was too much. 2) I did not reverted it as you say above, I changed it to a smiley. It was entirely because you said you were not confortable with it. And you said you won't reply. Hafspajen (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question on behavioural problem

Thank you for this edit. here - even if Adam remove it - and he was quite right about it. Hafspajen (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Drmies, please remove those pictures, with the unpolite "Hafs' trusty old DC" comment on it. If anyone is interested in the discussion, there is a much more complete version here - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg. Also it would be appropiate to remove them from here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:The Scream Pastel.jpg - it has nothing to do with the Munch Scream. Hafspajen (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For your information, and since you made a post on my 'talk' page about my usage of the phrase "fascist Kiev government", let me share you some good news. The fascist government of Jatsenjoek finally resigned! Enough of the bloodshed and financial crisis and attacks on the standard of living of the people of the Ukrain! They will elect a new government in october this year. It will be released now soon enough what hands the Ukrain fascists had in this airplane crash (they have not released their data - e.g. radio communication with the airplane - about the crash, all they come with is false allegations without proof), which killed more then 280 people, of which 193 of the Netherlands. We know they have blood on their hands! Robheus (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry--you must have wanted to post this on my VKontakte page. <joke>But Mother Russia and Father Stalin will be happy with your message, no doubt.</joke> Drmies (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ha. After I saw what you posted on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, now removed as chit-chat, perhaps someone will block you for that. I won't, cause I am done for now, but you clearly violated a guideline that you were well aware of. If it happens again I will certainly block you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had to come by and say hi simply after seeing that section title on my watchlist. Everybody's a nazi in Ukraine, that's been my conclusion from twitter.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tis an attention getter. "Twitter"--I know what it is, I just don't believe it has an independent existence outside of TV programs reporting on what someone Twittered. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, you know--Yngvadottir took the bull by the horns. Thank you Yngvadottir. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I posted an appeal of topic ban you issued to me at AN (diff). All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...please read and/or participate in here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#PANHEAD2014_block). Vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasco!

Was looking at some ZZ Top and curious as to some redirect (steak and snake) and found that we are redirecting Tube Steak -> hot dog. Now, I'm pretty sure that if a burly man walks up and says he wants to give you a tube steak, he isn't going to hand you a Nathan's Hot Dog. Not sure if this needs an RFC, but topics of this nature are your specialty, so I wanted to throw it on your lap to fix. I'm busy, about to make some crab cakes, broiled shrimp over saffron rice and garlic cheese bread. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How should I know anything about tube steak? I mean, it means "dick", but do you really want to redirect it to "penis"? And go easy on the garlic bread: you know all those refined carbs aren't good for you. I'm stuffing monkey heads tonight. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now my planned dinner for tonight of roast chicken with white rice sounds really boring.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guess that's gonna be for tomorrow night. A bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken just came through the front door.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tube steak is also a slang word for "hot dog" though I don't think its in much current use for that meaning anymore. It is attested on p. 1013 of The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English (2008 ed.), which also lists "penis" as a second meaning.[4]. However, this confusion can make old articles like these[5][6] amusing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Milowent, answer honestly: were you User:Tubesteak? Drmies (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I don't know if this should go elsewhere. Maybe penis is the best place to go. And Milowent, that tremendous tube steak of yours, I mean the one you referenced of course, was it a ten pounder? Drmies (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This talk page never fails to make me giggle and still see the relevance in the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Stonner kebab could do with a photo. Anyone fancy cooking one? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, man. That puts the Bacon whatchamacallit to shame. Kelapstick, are you aware of this? Drmies (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Shawarmtastic! My left arm went numb thinking about it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not clicking on that link! And I hereby disclaim being User:Tubesteak. My earliest edits were indeed in 2007, but that was when I feared editing. I think redirecting it to hot dog is fine, it was a legitimate use in the 1960s-80s at least. And in the internet age, every word will eventually also be a sexual euphemism, so we can't just redirect 4.5 million articles to penis and such. BTW, I just googled images of Stonner kebab (with my eyes half-shaded just in case), but boy that looks tasty.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is why I drop stuff like this here, for people may giggle, but they still see the serious question behind it. I'm still not sure where it should redirect, but a discussion here might eventually come up with a good argument. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm...the most common use of "tube steak" is indeed for a hotdog. I used to be involved in some pretty cheap pRon, and "tube steak" was never ever in the dialogue - although I've heard it occasionally used in a puerile manner the panda ₯’ 22:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I will ask: wtf do you mean by "I used to be involved in some pretty cheap pRon"? Are you really Ron Jeremy? You can't just say that without providing enough details so that we can judge you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm better-looking and darker-skinned than the porcupine, but you're pointing in the right direction. Hey, I grew up in a small, poor country ... education isn't cheap the panda ₯’ 00:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, now I'm just jealous. I never had the muscular body for that. But then, neither did Jeremy. Anyway, getting back to the point, I've never heard a hot dog being called tube steak. I accept it was, and we have a couple of rather hilarious citations above proving it was, that is just new to me. I didn't hear it much regardless, but when I did only as a dick joke. For instance, in Cheech and Chong's Next Movie, I'm wanting to say it was Red (Cheech as his own cousin) that said "I got you a tube steak smothered in underwear", which spawned a small smutculture around that phrase, which I tried to link but it appears both are blacklisted. Probably a good thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Cheech and Chong also did "you ordered a pepperoni pizza? Well here's your pizza, *unzip* and here's your pepperoni!" (which is sadly very similar to a line I once performed). They did a lot of turn-food-into-drug-or-sex jokes the panda ₯’ 10:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ain't that a peach" is another example from Next Movie. Drmies needs to start Food related innuendo in film with all this gold. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I heard pizza? Good news from Italy and Ukraine, for a change, I call it peace music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, write it yourself. It's in the same realm of culture and importance as that muscle car of yours. Gerda, I have yet to hear good news from the Ukraine: I read the list of victims, with brief bios, in de Volkskrant--and I was selfish enough to feel relief that I knew no one on that list. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Drmies. I know, however, victims of a war here, and appreciate the most minimal signs of peace. The heart-warming hook was not taken but appears on my user page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And a lot more civilized than Dennis's tube steak. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nichts gegen Dennis, - see the farmer thoughts. Also admire his civilized AN close, - same players as in the article history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerda is entirely too kind to me. And thanks for the talk page space Drmies. I was serious about whether or not those redirects were proper, and now I know. I won't be using that slang term to describe my Ball Park dawgs, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheech and Chong have nothing on the finest lines from any movie, anywhere: Naked Gun

Frank: [looking up woman's skirt] "Nice beaver"

Jane: [climbing down ladder] "Thanks, I just had it stuffed" [hands man stuffed beaver]

Now that's some funny shit the panda ₯’ 20:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Keeshond was named after the 18th-century Dutch Patriot, Cornelis (Kees) de Gyselaer (spelled 'Gijzelaar' in Modern Dutch), leader of the rebellion against the House of Orange. The dog became the rebels' symbol; and, when the House of Orange returned to power, this breed almost disappeared. The word 'keeshond' is a compound word: 'Kees' is a nickname for Cornelius (de Gyselaer), and 'hond' is the Dutch word for dog.

Nothing on the patriot? Hafspajen (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) nl:Cornelis de Gijselaar. Not much, but there are two sources. And so much for modern spelling. (awwwww, doggie!) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are so smart, Yngvadottir. Correct link. Hafspajen (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a redlink anymore, but not much of an article yet. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Xanthomelanoussprog, I don't agree, pal, with those edits in the first paragraph. At the very least, you should ask for someone to oversight the edit summary: those are not copy edits (in the first paragraph), they are just yo personal opinion, man. Booyakasha. Now, howz about fixing some categories for me there, hey? I mean, eh? Drmies (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.petwave.com/Dogs/Breeds/Keeshond/Overview.aspx - dog ref. Hafspajen (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What categories? Citrus fruits? (you can tell he's an opponent of Oranges, as he is sucking a Lemon) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies! I just saw your comment about me on Bgwhite's talk page, and I have to admit I'm puzzled and confused... What lack of response are you talking about? Was I supposed to respond to someone and I failed to do so? I saw your comment on my talk page, I realized where I have failed and, as you saw, I took no further action on your edits at Intruders (TV series). Did I have to do anything more than that? You didn't mention anything. Please, assist me on this, 'cause I'm really at a loss here. Respectfully, CostaDax (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your note here, CostaDax: all I was looking for was a kind of "OK", but all I saw was that you deleted the message. In wikispeak that means "I read it", of course, but I thought it was a somewhat serious matter that warranted a comment. (I see now that that's how you "archive" your talk page...?) Anyway, I understand now that you understand, and that's all I'm looking for (Bgwhite, disregard my comment). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I take for granted that you are more experienced than me, and I'm always willing to listen to more experienced editors. And just so I can explain a little more why I included that passage on Intruders (TV series):

• the passage came from a press release from BBC America which can be found here: [7]
• I read on Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright that "while press releases are by nature intended to be reproduced widely, there is no inherent permission to alter them or create derivative works based on them, or to use them for commercial purposes". That's the reason why I did not alter it.
• the reason I did write it in the first place, was because it has been so widely reproduced (even released as such by BBC America on facebook: [8]), that I assumed that it is considered part of the public domain; according to Wikipedia:Public domain, the copyrights do no longer hold for works "that were released into the public domain by the copyright holder".

Maybe I misunderstood the instructions and maybe I made the wrong assumptions. But I did not intend to violate any principles and guidelines. I just did what I thought was compliant with Wikipedia's policy.

I'm glad that you contacted me, I just couldn't realize why you did what I thought was an attempt by you to chastize me. In any case, I know now that you did not have any intention to do so, and I'm glad. I hope this offers a bit more insight on my actions (and general philosophy), and that it clears the air. Take care! CostaDax (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, yes--you may not alter them, etc. and are to be treated like other copyrighted content, "and may not be freely reproduced". That they print it all over the place does not mean it's released into the public domain, though; if it is released as such, it's usually accompanied by a notice of some sort. Well, this is my understanding, anyway: if I'm wrong one of the many helpful talk page stalkers will set me straight quickly, I suspect. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.) You're more or less right, Drmies. This is a thing that many many people don't realize, but "public domain" is a very specific term in copyright jargon, and it does not just mean "the domain of things that are available to the public". One can release things to the public while retaining copyright all the time--which is why music/movie/etc. piracy is illegal, even though the works in question are being distributed widely; the copyright holders own and maintain their copyrights over the work even as they're distributing it. "Releasing something into the public domain" means that one relinquishes all rights to it permanently, and it takes more than simply making something available to the public to do that. One has to explicitly state that they're releasing all their rights to a work; disseminating one's work widely isn't the same thing. It's simply just a case of unfortunate linguistic coincidence that causes the confusion, I think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I made a mistake like that early in my career, thinking that since something (an image, or a photograph, can't remember) was on the internet, it was OK to use. It wasn't. Funny, though: we seem to be the only ones on the entire internet to take this seriously. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted such informative article it is a part of history it was the first digital anime magazine ever built, plus its free and no business occurs. Without the information from Wikipedia everybody could just claim that they are the first to launch a free digital anime magazine. Please participate in regaining the article its serious. Don't accuse an article to be an advertisement if its free and a non-business society do you even read the sources? You also deleted it without any warnings, please state your side. --Carlo ramos08 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)-- User: carlo ramos08 12:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a Facebook page; calling it a magazine is a bit of an exaggeration. You have no proof, by the way, that this was the first digital anime magazine, but more importantly, the article met all the qualifications for speedy deletion (see WP:A7); administrator Randykitty deleted Forezine (Anime Magazine) as advertising, a decision I agree with since it is written as a promotional piece, not a neutral, well-verified encyclopedic article (there were no sources). That the advertised product is free is irrelevant. Now, I didn't "warn" you because I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion; that was Largoplazo, whose notification is on your talk page, surrounded by similar notifications. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. I have a question regarding Dan56. As you know, we clashed at a couple of articles last month, and I subsequently took some time off and tried to edit pages that he doesn't. The problem is, no matter how little I interact with him, every time we cross paths he accuses me of following him, most recently here. I feel that he is inappropriately crying wolfhound every time I edit a page that he edits. What should I do, because as much as I try to avoid him, I am getting really frustrated by his repeated accusation that I "follow him" for some reason. I think that his continued actions in this regard constitute personal attacks that harm my reputation. What should I do? I also welcome input from Malik Shabazz. Harmelodix (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Malik, I find this whole thing odd. Why would someone go around and canvass (OK, "invite") a hundred people for an FAC and and RfC? Some clicking around is insightful. The charge of canvassing was not supported by two "outsiders" (Maunus and Simon Burchell), the latter of which says "it's not a problem if an FAC has stagnated". But while it may be true that some were sent while there was little activity at the FAC, there were others that were sent out on the 28th, right after Froglich's comments. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive5. (BTW, if Dan56 is looking at this, that was a lousy, lousy way to handle an oppose. Not just lousy in the sense of bad tactics--it's not an FA--but also just shitty, in that you seem to accuse a valid oppose of judging on the base of personal blah blah, and I don't see that there: awful wikilawyering.)

  I find this habit of sending out these invitations to be odd and bothersome. A note on the project page, that should be enough. And look at who those invites went to--who on earth would send a note about an FA review to Werieth (hey, Betacommand, how you doing?), who doesn't know FA from FU and may never have made a content edit in their life under any of their accounts? Strange. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what to suggest. As I mentioned last time, some editors who have had problems with Dan in the past have discussed starting an RfC/U, but I don't think it ever got off the ground. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Malik. That really is the way to go. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, thanks for your input. I guess at this point I am willing to try an RfC/U for Dan56, but per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Minimum requirements:

"Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."

Can I assume that either or both of you guys are willing to certify? Are the contacts that you two made with Dan56 at his talk page and at article talk pages sufficient to satisfy the minimum requirements? Please advise. Harmelodix (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's tricky. Unlike Malik (I think) I'm somewhat involved in the content of some of those articles, so I suppose I should check my admin bit at the door if those provide prime evidence--but I wasn't going to close this RfC/U anyway. Then again, participating in an RfC about Dan will probably mean I can't take any administrative action--not that I foresee having or wanting to do that. Anyways, yes, I will probably be willing and able to certify, though I will not likely go in great detail, and I'd love to have Malik's input as well. I think that those discussions on that one Black Sabbath page are probably enough to legitimize an RfC/U. The real question is whether it will serve much of a purpose. Dan56 seems a bit intransigent to me, and the end result of an RfC/U is typically a "word to the wise"--but then, it's frequently the first step, if more steps are ever necessary. Drop me a line when you're working on it. I will have to look at some diffs again. Tomorrow is not a good day for, but I'll have 48 hours. Make sure you define quite clearly a. what the problems are, accompanied by our alphabet soup (WP:EW, WP:NLT, WP:OWN, whatever) and b. what you think the wished-for conclusion of this RfC/U should be. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drmies. I too will be busy at work today and most of tomorrow, but I should have something for you to look at by Wednesday. Harmelodix (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started a draft here. Please feel free to add or alter anything as you see fit. Harmelodix (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the editor you mentor who has taken such an aversion to me, I wonder whether it would be worth mentioning to him that sometimes when you have an insufficient command of a language (clearly English is a second language for this editor) misunderstandings can arise. The edit in full to which he took such violent exception is as follows:

• Oppose - No way. I don't have enough computer memory to process these enormous images, but I did manage to get the retouching editor's last effort at FPC into Nikon X2 long enough to see that basically what's he's doing is "equalizing" the histogram (essentially pushing the "auto-level" button). That may be appropriate for a digital image, but it won't do for an art image. These images have simply aged, and they darken for a variety of complex reasons. Only expert restoration can bring them back to an approximation of their original appearance. This kind of processing is just silly, inauthentic, and derisory. The original still beautiful: " ... thy eternal summer shall not fade / Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st": but this is just horrible, a kind of art botox. Not on my account, sorry. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite forthright of course, but it's not an 'attack' and it didn't merit his vehement response. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

erm ... what's that about W above by the way :}? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to seriously ask you stop editing this nomination, stop posting more pictures here ( I removed some new ones added here again) and stop adding comments like this image sucks and now I am asking for administrators intervention agains Wikipedia:Harassment on this nomination, Drmies.

And also ask for stop telling Fylbecatulous not to vote here, above in the nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:The Scream Pastel.jpg. I care because it is my nomination, because it is a beautiful picture, it has character, grace and it is lovely. If it is attributed to several painters - this kind of doubt happens in the world of art history. Why do you C.o.m.c. care som much, that is on the other hand a mystery, that nobody seems to want to deal with. Hafspajen (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what a shame that nobody dares to raise their voices to tell you that you are a clearly Wikipedia:Disruptive editor, that nobody say stop - while you are sprinkeling the whole Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates with agressive remarks and behaving absolutely disruptively and no matter how many times you are told to stop you just go on like this and will NEVER stop, whatever happens. It is YOU, C.o.m.c. the person that you try to make poor Fylbecatulous into telling him: In this case we have a newbie wrong about everything and apparently unwilling to cooperate. It would likewise be kind, tolerant and generous of him simply to admit his mistakes, embarrassing and possibly unpleasant though that might be, and move on. That's you, C.o.m.c., not him.

'You started editing Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for a month ago and succeded to turn it upside down completely. You can always pick up one or two webbsites here and there aboutsome ongoing nomination or one certain painting but you don't have the training and ability to judge art or pictures. You are filling that project with a lot of weird nominations, and both your nominations and your comments show that you don't understand art, art history, have no deep understanding of most things that this project is about. Hafspajen (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I sincerely belive that you should be banned from editing Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Hafspajen (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Coat, I don't know who's being pointed at as the "retouching editor". Maybe not a personal attack, but not difficult to see how someone could take it that way. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Luckily I don't have to get involved into looking through everything that's gone on in detail. In fact some of the passionate writing above makes me less than 100% sure even as to who is being alleged to have said which part. But it's worth noting a significant difference in emphasis between the phrase "This kind of processing is just silly, inauthentic, and derisory" (pretty much the strongest phrase from the first paragraph), and "you don't have the training and ability to judge art or pictures ... you don't understand art, art history, have no deep understanding of most things that this project is about" (the key phrases from the last paragraph). I suggest to the participants (or some of them) that thinking over that difference may be useful in finding ways to de-escalate this dispute. (If that is the aim...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the retouching editor would be DCoetzee I suppose (an editor I admire and god knows I have spent significant time doing the same sort of thing he accomplished by bots - my position on copyright is a practical and realistic one, but off-topic here), but that's not quite what I meant. The point about DC's edits (I mean his 'retouched' edits) is that they serve a limited function as thumbnails. The fact is that these gigapixel images often simply don't thumbnail well. Nor even necessarily display well within the resolution of ordinary screen monitors. Why should they? I agree absolutely with JohnBod about the limited applicability of these images. But to take an image that has been digitally processed so severely and use it as Wikipedia's "best" strikes me as perverse in the extreme when a casual glance at it is sufficient to show it has suffered an egregious colour cast as a result.

As for our editor's latest intervention (if I call it "hysterical" I can be certain that another unpleasant posting will ensue), I think Demiurge is quite right. I shall just try and distance myself from him. I shall be sorry if I'm not able to contribute at that forum, but if it really is just a shoe-in service for a matey clique of friends, then I'm sure I'm best out. Happy to leave him to you to cherish all to yourself :). I notice by the way that he appears to have put me down for a Welsh Muslim - that will indeed please my ex-boss if he happens to alight upon it ... I await the blast any moment, he will go absolutely critical in several higher dimensions and beyond, and I really *will* have to close my account then. Oh well. Just a hobby. Thank god for booze.

Thank you for your time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And all that stuff that about ChildOfMidnight explains the weird allusions to 2009 he suddenly introduced into my Talk page. I spent most of 2009 in and out of hospital being replumbed and rewired and god knows what else - socking Wikipedia wouldn't have been a priority. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did manage to get the retouching editor's last effort at FPC into Nikon X2 long enough to see that basically what's he's doing is "equalizing" the histogram (essentially pushing the "auto-level" button). You appear here to be confusing two separate processing functions (and somehow using a lens or something to carry them out). You're making all this stuff up, aren't you? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not going to start another long series of responses. I do a bit of photography at entry level. I have Nikon Capture X2 as imaging process software. The most basic edit you can make there is to equalise the histogram, i.e. to map the lightest pixel to pure white and the darkest pixel to pure black, linearly interpolating the tones in between. You can accomplish this with sliders on the histogram or by pushing AutoLevel. It's usually quite a pleasing edit since it naturally gives a full range of tones, but its defect of course is that in RGB space it necessarily introduces colour imbalances. Now I don't have enough memory on my computer to input the very large files involved,but by dint of waiting long enough I was able finally, after several crashes, to get the source file DC was editing into the program and again, by waiting, able to perform the AutoLevel edit and confirm that basically that was what had been done (the image lacked the 10% lightest tones) and that that was the source of the yellow colour cast. DC himself has commented that he used the Curves function in Photoshop. I assume that's the same thing. I hope that satisfies your concerns about my integrity.

This is the last from me here. My intention was merely to make a constructive suggest to Drmies about this editor. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weird effect- use of levels in that manner produces gaps in the histogram, but doesn't tend to introduce colour casts. The yellow cast could be produced in curves by ramping up the R and G curves individually; if curves was used to increase the contrast, more than likely the RGB curve was put into an S shape. Introduction of casts could be avoided by using an adjustment layer in luminance blend. I did look at the two files cursorily and my impression was that (saving what you described as the "piss colour") the yellow one was superior in detail. I used to whop out the casts by picking, making a new layer, filling with foreground and inverting, then increase the transparency. In this case, a yellow layer inverts to blue, drop the opacity down to about 10%. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original Commons:File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF.jpg has a cast as well I notice. The nicest image is, or so at least I think, the museum image I uploaded to my file upload Commons:File:Giulio Romano (school of Raphael) - Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens - Louvre 612 Joconde 000PE026978.jpg by a very noted art photographer and which I think you will agree is absolutely stunning. I mean truly beautiful as all his images are. Unfortunately it's not high resolution so can't be offered as a Featured image. When I put the two images side by side in a multiple I'm afraid our editor just deletes it. Don't misunderstand me about digital processing. While not really a very keen photographer, I do know that it's always been the case that there's no "correct" print for a photograph, and that is truer than ever in today's digital age. But that is not so for a painting, and beyond that I don't want to spend the time. I don't mean to be in any way off hand, but I've reached saturation point with this drama. I can't understand how an editor who professes to love this painting can champion such a piss (yes indeed, literally) poor image of it, but I can see right now it's going to be shoed in for Featured by (so it seems) a bunch of Welsh jihadists waiting in the wings, and there's nothing I can do about it. Thank you for your time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Munich001 has added unsourced material to Bastian Schweinsteiger's article which was subsequently reverted here. Not sure if you want to deal with him. Kingjeff (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingjeff, any time you see that kind of writing, which looks not-so neutral but is well phrased and organized, Google it. In this case it was copied from http://m.fifa.com/worldcup/players/player=196752/profile-detail.html. Thanks for alerting me, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you removed this materials from someone else's talk page?? 101.221.128.62 (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Who's asking? Drmies (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean by Who's asking? Are you suspecting me a sock?? No no I'm not a sock friend. I'm just a wandering IP moving here and there, reading comments by experienced editors. I have a habit of checking history to see if the page has been vandalised or not. While doing that I came across to that IPs talk page. When I checked the history, I'm surprised to see that an admin removed most of the stuffs with an edit summary "archived". Why did you do that on someone else's talk page?? 49.136.27.35 (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking who's asking so I can guesstimate how much I will say. The IP is used by a friend of mine who announced his retirement. That's all. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Panhead2014 returned to make the same edits before being blocked by edit war. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Panhead2014 Gringoladomenega (talk) 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe so, but I don't understand this edit. I mean, there's a reference (that you removed) which clearly has him play 15 years in the Spanish league (and score eight, not seven goals). You removed an archived link, some information from templates... Drmies (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• That link--it's always better to have something as a reference than as an external link. Now, edit warring, I don't know: their last three edits seem fine to me, and they are explained. Whether they're really reverts, well, probably they are in the broad sense of the term, but they improve the article. Sorry, but your English can do with some maintenance sometimes. I'm about to look into the ANI report. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Randykitty has kindly done the honors. I'm just baffled at the complete lack of consideration shown by that editor: when you're in a hole, stop digging, and if someone does not want to block you, don't beg them to. Now, Gringo, you should be wary of committing the same mistake again (edit warring); however, as Panhead pointed out in the ANI thread that boomeranged so quickly, I am an "involved" editor and so cannot take action against you, in the same way that I did not take action against them--I'm sure he appreciates that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not good having to teach in the summer. I used to have to do this when I taught at the University of Birmingham. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

werde ich demnächst unter Händen nehmen ... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a little bit of a start, since I had those references handy, properly formatted. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written before the web page which is suspicious to be copied. English description at http://www.writv.us.edu.pl/strona/english was based on wikipedia article! I didn't change it, I've just only redirect it to the correct name of the faculty. Krzyztopor (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're saying that the university copied the Wikipedia article? Sorry, but I find that very, very unlikely. (Link here.)Drmies (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you are right, I am sorry. Isn't better to leave only basic informations from this article? Krzyztopor (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, here's the thing--it's only rarely that individual departments are notable by our standards. It's possible that a valid addition can be made to University of Silesia in Katowice, which is not a great article, but only if reliable sources prove, one way or another, that the department is worth mentioning. What you need to beware of is that such articles frequently turn into directories, and those are typically removed. So think of notable people, important projects that have been written up in magazines or the paper, etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this faculty is worth mentioning, even in short article, because of it's rare specialization. There are not so many filmschools in Europe and each one is quite known. This school produce short films and documentary which are presented at the most important film festivals, like San Sebastian FF, Palm Springs, etc. That's why I think it's untypical faculty. It's also untypical for any university to produce films. Katowice Film School at FB Krzyztopor (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're right, reliable sources will prove it. (Not Facebook...) Drmies (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you undelete article and delete those paragraph which are beaking rules please? I will add reliable sources to provide my argument. It doesn't have to be deleted from cover to cover. Krzyztopor (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Krzyztopor, it's in a sandbox: User:Krzyztopor/sandbox. I have removed all the copyvio stuff (which was, basically, all the content), and have attributed the remaining text to you in an edit summary (this is the easy way, chosen for logistical purposes). Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Marie Olsson is a page up for deletion at AfD. Editor now wants it deleted. Why they want it deleted depends on what talk page the editor has left a message at. Suzanne Olsson, same person, was deleted at AfD in 2008. After finding out about the 2008 article, reading it and other talk page messages, my instinct says to delete, but salt. But, I'm not sure. Bgwhite (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a different article, as I'm sure you saw, so G4 certainly doesn't apply. That user changed their mind very quickly, didn't they. Why not just let the AfD run its course? The editor suggests BLP concerns, but I don't see that there is a clear and present BLP violation happening. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same person and about 75% the same article. The latest keeps getting additions and deletions by the creating editor, so they share a majority of the same content depending on what version is read. Thanks, I'll let it run its course. Bgwhite (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for calling the Drmies admin help line, Neutralhomer speaking, how may I help you? :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]