Drmies

Hi Drmies, I just took note that The Matadors article afd discussion was closed as "delete" earlier today, under in my opinion rather dubious circumstances. First of all, I'd suggest that claiming that any form of "consensus" was arrived at in this instance, even after being relisted twice in an attempt at gaining one, is stretching it a bit. I've always understood that it's both customary and somewhat encouraged by policy to default toward retaining an article in a context like this, when it's far from clear that a consensus has been arrived at in an afd discussion.

The admin who closed the afd discussion today mentions in their rationale that some of the article's existing sources seem rather 'light weight', which I'd have to agree with. However what wasn't addressed in their conclusion, and was even acknowledged by those who weren't all that fussy about retaining the article, was the fact that the article did contain what appeared to be potentially substantive references in support of its retention.

In my opinion, the closing admin failed to look closely at exactly what references were being challenged in this instance. They mention that it "might meet the local clause in terms of notability guidelines for bands in (WP:BAND)", but then appear to imply that the references supporting that contention were themselves being challenged. I'd have to argue that that position is not clear at all in the afd discussion that was engaged in and that a minimum amount of research would strongly indicate that the band winning a locally significant [[1]] "Jack Richardson Music Award" three times in the past ten years is strongly indicative that the band easily meets the minimum criteria under the "local clause" in WP:BAND. What compounds the difficulty for me in this instance is that the article itself was locked for the duration of the discussion and thus IP editors such as myself were precluded from directly adding supportive references that would have potentially aided in the article's retention. Could you please have another look at this situation? Thanks again for your time. 99.249.137.197 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matadors (band). I'll have a look when I can. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
• Sorry, I don't see that the decision would have been incorrect. The closing admin looks at the evidence and distills a consensus opinion out of it--and really, the only evidence of notability is that award, which is local and therefore minor. You can challenge this, if you like, at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but you should first talk this over with the closing admin, Slakr. Arguing over the precise applicability of some phrases in the notability guidelines is typically not a fruitful venue: a brief case, precisely stated, with evidence from reliable sources will be necessary to recreate the article, but "new" evidence is not likely to cause the AfD to be overturned, since the AfD is decided on the evidence brought up during the discussion.

  One more thing: IPs may have been prevented from editing the article, but it's at the AfD discussion that evidence should have been presented. In the end, there may simply not be enough--sure, psychobilly is underground, which means less coverage in the mainstream press, which means it's more difficult to keep an article; that just can't be helped. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I'm a fan of psychobilly (Even have a vintage Gretsch and a Telecaster with a Bigsby and Gretch pickups, but I digress....) and I went and listened to a few of their songs, Teenage Zombie Sluts, Burning Desire and 9 Shots Of Bourbon. Good stuff, clean chops, well produced and very likable but I think Drmies is right. There just isn't enough sources from mainstream publications to pass WP:GNG. The closing admin did the best with what they had and seemed to acting in a way that is perfectly consistent with similar AFDs. If you had an account, you could ask for it to be userfied, although as he points out, psychobilly is very underground by its nature and sources are always hard to come by. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi User:Drmies, I realy want to now Why did you remove the page Reyna Avila Ramírez-Arellano and redirect it to List of Camp Half-Blood characters???, it was a own page and I don´t know why did you do that?

Explain it to me please, Tonys99 (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• (talk page stalker) I see it was a rather large article, but I didn't see any citations from 3rd party reliable sources that would show the character was independently notable. This is pretty common, actually, and they get redirected to the best place. Unless the subject can be shown to pass the General notability guideline via reliable sources, this is pretty much the standard way to deal with those articles, no matter how long and lovely the article is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
• Tonys99, Dennis is correct--that's why I did it. Individual characters etc. are notable only if they are discussed in reliable sources, in-depth. That they are some main character in a notable game or whatever doesn't mean they should have their own article, and a redirect is the best solution. Thank you, and thank you Dennis, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Book series in this case, but the point is the same. LadyofShalott 18:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deleted a rant about you and the article, but the editor does have a point (which I left) about the pov tag without discussion on the talk page. Time to remove it? Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Where was the rant? And did you see this version? Someone in that history had a bone to pick with Schliemann. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

It was here.[2]. See also[[3]. Not sure if I am too involved to block. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Blocked after the responses to my post at User talk:Thumperward#Please take a look at the edit I reverted. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I saw--thanks Doug. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you reverted my edits on Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt and Carla Connor. They were the original pages to begin with as that is what the characters are most commonly known as. On List of Coronation Street characters, since the characters have been married one editor keeps changing the names on the list, and now have changed the name of the pages so that they match the list. Look at the edit history. This is wrong which is why I keep reverting them. Basically the original pages need to stay and the new ones - Rita Tanner (Rita Sullivan), Carla Barlow, Gail McIntyre (Gail Platt) and Fiona 'Fiz' Stape need to be deleted. Never has a character article name included their new name and their original name. It is only their common name which they need to have, or if that article is already taken then "Rita Sullivan (Coronation Street)" for example. The user also needs to banned from editing as he continues with disruptive editing and a number of different editors have warned him against this. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

There has already been discussion on List of Coronation Street characters, and look at the hidden messages on the page. The link MUST match the article name. But that user keeps changing it to his needs, and because people keep reverting him he has now changed the article name as well which as I've explained is wrong, and when I've changed it back my edits are being reverted. All I'm doing is trying to fix things. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Don't take it up with me: the discussion is at ANI. All this moving and reverting is highly disruptive, and no matter what side you're on it only makes things worse. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Drmies. I have a slight problem. I have repeatedly asked User:Demiurge1000 to stop modifying my comments as I object to his interrupting of my comments on ANI. He recently did this against my objection, after I had previously asked him to stop many times. I have given him another warning here.[4] Could you ask him to stop as well? Per our Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." I have objected, many times now. The last time I objected on his talk page, he deleted it with the edit summary, "remove dishonest filth", which is a bit over the top and out of the ballpark.[5] The talk page guidelines also say he needs my permission, which he does not have. He is welcome to add his comments below my comments at any time, and previously I moved his reply out of my comments into a section below mine, but he removed it. His edit summary above also seems to be a bit trollish as it reads "no justification for removing my comments per WP:TPO", which is ridiculous, as he is the one who keeps modifying my comment by interjecting his own comments in between my own. I would like this behavior to stop. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Eh...I'm trying to figure out what's going on in that edit on ANI--the revert of Johnuniq's revert. Maybe John can explain? Is this a case of me getting a headache because editors intersperse their responses inside another's comment? Phew. As for the "dishonest filth"--sure, that's over the top, but you came out rather strong as well. But it is said on occasion that Demiurge1000 has been known to be notable for being a reasonable editor and a net positive, and one might say that some have said the same about you (all this needs to be proven, of course, in the court of public opinion), so maybe can you two please work this out over Hawaiian beers, or anything else of your fancy? I'd blabber more, but I also have to make the dough for pita, or there will be no dinner. Sorry if this is not much help to you. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Going off on one of my customary tangents.... It's been years since I made my own pita bread, but I remember the excitement of watching them magically puff up, and then cutting into them and seeing the pocket! I hope yours turned out well. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I don't have the patience to sort out the diffs, but it looks like what Viriditas wrote is back at ANI. Demiurge1000 has a legitimate complaint about harassment from WO, and there is a mounting tendency for regulars from there to overwhelm a discussion here while they push some minority view, so they are a problem for the health of this community. Nevertheless, messing around with comments from other editors because they are listing evidence from WO is not helpful. I suppose that if Demiurge1000 pushes the disruption button on a few more occasions some kind of topic/interaction ban could be devised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I realize this sounds totally crazy, but let's look at the facts:

1. Demiurge1000's complaint about WO has nothing to do with the discussion and is completely off-topic.
2. I do not participate at WO nor have I ever contributed anything to that site.
3. There is no "minority" view being pushed. In fact, the view is mainstream and supported by solid evidence.

I hope that clears up any outstanding issues. Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

It looks like my above comment is open to misunderstanding, so let me clarify. I was saying that Demiurge is correct that certain WO actions are bad, and some discussions at WP are overwhelmed with WO advocates. I do not think either of those applied to the ANI discussion we are reviewing—the fact that some WO things are bad is not a reason to reject anything connected with WO, and my remarks about "minority view" were about the general WO problem, and nothing to do with the ANI discussion or you. Sorry about the confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Beatrijs (Dutch magazine) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! C679 05:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Done. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

As one of our resident Beowulf experts I thought you might want to take a look at this new product of mine. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Wow--that's impressive. I'll have a closer look later; I still haven't ordered my copy, haha. Listen, make sure you nominate this for DYK--you'll get a million hits. Great work, and thanks for letting me know. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
• BTW, that New Yorker review has been laughed at among the professionals (I suppose I'm one of them but I'm only now reading it). For instance, I just saw that Wiglaf is called a "knight", which is of course an impossible anachronism. And the poem doesn't tell us that the dragon is fifty feet long, unless I missed it--did I? Anyway, I need to check what that review says about Heaney, and the comparison, since the problem with Heaney's is not the alliteration, which isn't the foremost characteristic quality of his translation. (It's the scullionspeak, as he called it.) BBL, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Your input will be most welcome. Oh, and I've taken a shot at DYK. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • You did an excellent job; I couldn't have done that at such short notice, giving so much context.

      I tweaked, and noted that the reviewer mentioned "rhythm" as well, so that's a fair observation, though she overplays the "gobbet" bit. She was being laughed at for calling Pearl and SGGK Old English poems--it's a mistake, sure, but not one to be ridiculed for. In the profession, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't: someone writes a decent review in a national publication of an Old English poem, and all the folks that will never make it into such a publication have to find ways to criticize and yes, ridicule, perhaps for some kind of validation. It's a bit sad, and the same happened when Heaney's came out. We should be happy with any kind of publicity, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

      • Thank you for the compliment and also for tweaking the article. I guess this review business is much the same as in other professions there are always those who prefer who count beans over seeing the whole effect. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Alright De728631, I ticked the DYK nom off--it was completely unproblematic. I think I made one or two more tweaks. Oh, yes, to your line about Kevin Kiernan: he isn't so much a reviewer for a magazine as he is the most outstanding scholar on the manuscript, and I made that link blue as well. Help from you or any of the onlookers will be appreciate: he deserves an article as well as a DYK slot. You may know that I hate writing biographies (says the fool who just wrote up Ben Essing, two days late). Drmies (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
          • And I just thought my Wiki-fu was weak! When I wrote the Beowulf page we didn't have an article about Kiernan... Hats off to you and your mad biographical skillz. Thanks again for waving my DYK through. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here's the weird thing. All of Kiernan's pages are at uky.edu/~kiernan, which is dead as a doornail, and there's nothing on the UK website. Did I miss a scandal? Did he get disappeared? Writing an academic's bio, one looks first at the academic page... Drmies (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, there must be an NYT article in which Kiernan is interviewed. I hope he'll forgive me for including the negative info on the Electronic Beowulf but, well, ahem, mine doesn't work well either, and the ANSAX mailing list is full of complaints. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • The remains of his webpage at Google say that he's emerited so apparently UK has now decided he doesn't need his own pages any more. De728631 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • De728631, I'll see your "lecturer at Birmingham", and trade you a professor at the other Birmingham--not a BLP, unfortunately. Thanks for the addition. Hey, I dropped a line to the ANSAX mailing list, announcing the Tolkien and Kiernan creations. Some of those tenured cats may be vandalizing our articles soon! Or, create new articles on A-S scholars; I left them a sort of challenge. Thanks again De, Drmies (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey could you add a protection template to this page. Thanks! —KirtZ^Message 17:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

This edit summary seems to fit RD2. If so, would you please change its visibility? Thanks again! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm...well, as long as he's not called a scumbag, I don't think so--I don't mind being called a scumbag by someone with nothing but all-caps, but YMMV. Dennis Brown, what do you say? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • More disruptive (RD3) than anything else. I could take it or leave it. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • You're Canadian--you wouldn't know a scumbag if it scummed you in the bag. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • Wit!  davidiad { t } 02:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Oh look who came back to troll some, while I was putting Old English scholars on the map. you finally found your way out of that Arkansas motel? They spell "E X I T" backwards there, I heard. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
          • I wouldn't RevDel it myself. For starters, it is a general statement about all of us, not specific to anyone, and next, I tend to see RevDel as a very strict thing that should only be used when it is really bad (calling someone a pedobear, nazi, etc.) I've been called worse on my own talk page and didn't even revert it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

If this were the Canadian Wikipedia one would be blocked for something as harsh as:

You sir, are a rather unpleasant individual, and quite frankly I don't care for that sweater vest.

--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some of us UK editors are proud to have attended Scumbag College, I'll have you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ha. They rejected my application--I was too bourgeois, they said. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since you had a look at some of Historian's edits today, I thought you might want to see a summary of all of them. I really don't know what to do or where to take this. Should he just accumulate templates and continue patterns of about 9 months? One of his first edits was to call another editor (the CEO of the subject article) a criminal. Would you like the link? Am I wrong to ask you and give you this info? Am I myself attacking or canvassing? I'd appreciate not being called a banned user without evidence. Okteriel (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Ha--after looking at some diffs I was going to suggest ANI, but I see it's already there. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I heard this is the place where all the scum of Wikipedia eventually settles. Had to see it to believe it. Anyways, greets from ,Wil (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, that pretty well covers it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

settles?! ...floats, surely. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Did I miss someone getting famous? Drmies (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not only is the SPA user making edits to this article that require careful scrutiny under WP:BLP, he is citing to his own work in support of those edits. At this point I would block him myself, but I'm WP:INVOLVED. If you or one of your talk page stalkers (preferably an admin) could take a look at it, I'd appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

After a closer look, the work cited is by other people, but he's citing it in the article as if he is the author. In addition, he's getting chapters of the book from his own website. Probably a copyright violation of the original authors or publisher.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for the onslaught. Apparently, Bryant wrote part of the book, and the "authors" of the book are the three editors. I'm assuming, therefore, that he is citing his own work after all.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Bbb, Liz reverted, which is a good thing. I applied full protection for a week, time enough for you or Liz to post on BLPN, maybe, and figure out what needs to be done. I don't have much of an opinion on the editor right now; citing oneself is maybe not so great, but I don't know that it's illegal; if he is indeed the author of that article it is possible that he owns the copyright and can link to it--but I'm not expert, as you know. Perhaps Moonriddengirl has an opinion. Sorry, I'm not of much help here. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Your and Liz's actions are much appreciated. Citing oneself is akin to writing about yourself. It may not be prohibited by policy, but the policy encourages you not to do it, particularly if other editors object, without at least having a discussion on the talk page. In other words, the presumption is that it's non-neutral. As for copyright, generally the copyright of an author's published material is owned by the publisher. Therefore, citing an online version of it on the author's website is probably a WP:LINKVIO. That, of course, doesn't prevent the author from using an offline citation of the book. The BLP issues have been hashed to death on the article talk page and at BLPN in the past. There are the usual camps, but the outcome thus far has been not to include Bryant's material nor to cite to Bryant's article. None of that, of course, even addresses the material itself and whether it should be included, even if it is reliably sourced, but without reliable sources, it doesn't get off the ground. I don't believe I personally participated in either the talk page or the BLPN discussions, but I may have at some point (there's been more than one). I'll start another one at BLPN now and let people knock themselves out, but we should always err on heeding WP:BLPREMOVE in these circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• "As for copyright, generally the copyright of an author's published material is owned by the publisher." That ain't true. While there are certainly cases where the copyright may be originally held by the publisher (material written by a employee rather than a freelancer, collective works created under a work-made-for-hire contract), and some cases where the copyright might be sold to the publisher, in most cases of prose books the copyright is held by the author, from whom the publisher licenses publication rights. (I'm saying that as author of dozens of books and the publisher of dozens more.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• There's no way of knowing what arrangement there may be between the author and the publisher. All I know is the publisher has a copyright notice on the book that says the copyright belongs to it. My anecdotal experience is that's standard. And in response to Drmies's comment below, I don't think journals work the same as books, but that's speculation on my part.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Of the one I have none, of the other a few; in academia often the writer of an essay keeps the copyright after journal publication. I cited an article by Howell Chickering (a red link for you, Bbb23) yesterday in a bio of Roy Liuzza--Chickering has the offprint of the article on his own website, and since he published a dual-language edition of Beowulf he has to be legit. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Drmies, since you have some context about this page, I was wondering if you could take a look at my Request Edit here? CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you have time, I've also been poking around for a couple weeks looking for someone to review this request edit. I'm afraid North8000's ban has left me bugging quite a few editors looking for those with a willingness to collaborate. CorporateM (Talk) 17:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• You may or may not know that I was not in favor of North8000's ban. Funny to think that I have to pick up the slack for him: we couldn't disagree more on important issues. I hope he's doing well off-wiki. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
• CorpM, I started reviewing and am making comments one at a time. I'll tell you when I'm done. So these Ivy League minions make more in their first year out of college than I'm doing as a tenured professor, with almost twenty years of experience teaching. I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to my check--which probably pales in comparison to Marvin Bower's monthly dry-cleaning bill. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Imagine how I feel about Wiki-PR making millions, while I do 10x better work for, you know, less ;-)

Actually though, there seems to be some wildly different estimates on how much they make. McKinsey doesn't publish any accurate information because it's private, so a lot of it is guesswork. I'm sick, so take your time. I'll look over your comments when I'm feeling better. CorporateM (Talk) 22:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll take that "imagine" as a kind of hypothetically impossible imperative. Sorry to hear you're not feeling well. Hey, I'm not doing so well with your draft, I'm sorry to say. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

•   Done Drmies (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

For the sources you don't have access to, would it be better if I added a quote parameter to the citation template? Or is there some other way to do it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure, that would be a start. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done I've corrected and/or responded to each comment. There's a mix of stuff in there - some of it is just minor differences in style. There are a couple errors I accidentally carried over from the prior version and a couple areas where I put the wrong citation. There's a few places where you didn't see the material in the source, which was in-fact there - I provided some quotes, etc. to make it easier to see the source material supporting the article-text. The source material on this company is both extremely vast and extremely polarizing, making writing the article and making it representative of the sources feel like an impossible task, but we're getting there inch by inch. CorporateM (Talk) 00:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Drmies, I'm sorry to see that you were thrown out of Saudi Arabia. My wife would like to know your friend, Omar Borkan Al Gala. She refuses to allow me to delete the article. She says she has much research to do. I wonder why she is booking a flight to Alabama with a dreamy look in her eyes? Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• My wife has started talking to an imam.... Drmies, what have you done? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
• He's my twin brother, actually. And since Mrs. Drmies is at the beach, Mrs. Bgwhite is welcome here. Though she just missed a delicious dinner involving roasted broccoli. </sarcasm> Boys, flattery will get you anywhere. I love it. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • At the beach with no broccoli, what is this world coming to? Also, for the record, I have never been to Saudi Arabia. You can infer from that what you will. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Doc, I didn't mean to diss you by ignoring your ping. I was out of town and offline and am just now really catching up while continuing to deal with RW issues. The controversy was here and, frankly, dispute resolution wouldn't have provided them with any help because neither of them have even attempted to discuss their dispute. Or use edit comments. Or sources... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• No worries: thanks for your note. And thanks for the job you do at DR: I couldn't do it, and it needs to be done. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The coverage was not significant. I do believe I did not call it unreliable. However, it cannot make a proper article. Regardless, thank you for your time and assistance. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I disagree: the coverage was significant, and you cut it with an edit summary saying "Removed all unreliably sourced material and all material without sources"--I'll suppose that it simply got thrown out with the rest of the trash (because the rest was trash). But please be more careful next time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Will do! Thank you! --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re Dick Dastardly, I was quite surprised and amused to learn that his full name was "Richard Milhous Dastardly." What are the odds of that? 28bytes (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Ha! Yes, reality is stranger than art sometimes. Yes, the good old days when American politics was clean and above the board. In my Advanced English Grammar class we tackled another great moment in US politics just the other day. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Trotz in reality (remember "Trotz dem alten Drachen", you archive so fast) happened on 11 June, see my talk: I started OTD (on this day) of my fading memories, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

ps: growing here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Does the word "unaccept" really exist in the US? I've just rejected a pending change at Prithviraj Chauhan and the button says "Unaccept revision". I recoil at "disinvite" but, sheesh ... - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You can't unaccept something that hasn't been accepted, so it doesn't really matter if the word 'really exists'. Of course it exists, you've just used it and I've seen it discussed. It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary though if the discussions are correct. Why doesn't the button say 'reject' I ask? Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Hello and welcome to Wikipedia- the encyclopedia that all can edit but few can accept. Thank you for your contribution, which has unfortunately been unaccepted, and has now been uncontributed. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Where's the unthank?" - it's in Norwich. - [6] Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Reply

I suppose it was considered the short form of "do not accept" or perhaps "unacceptable", which it really isn't. Maybe reject was just too harsh language.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've heard that "niceness" was added to the dictionary only after being spoken by a former US president as a then-made-up word. I think if the president has the right to make up words, then so do I. The dictionary is just a fluid reflection of a large number of words that are all made-up anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The OED has cites for unaccepted from the 1612s through 1899 [7], so I think its provenance is as an "Americanism" is perhaps weak. Rejected is a better choice - but harshness may be the reason. On the other hand, the "default" mode of wikipedia is to accept all edits, so from that perspective, this edit was indeed "unaccepted". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

CorporateM, whoever you heard that from made it up. "Niceness" is an old, old word, and appeared in the preface to the original King James Bible long before such things as presidents had ever been dreamed of. 80.43.231.147 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You hack away with a machete, killing the good plants along with the weeds. Destroying the work of others is so very easy and makes you feel like such a big man. You deleted the article I spent hundreds of hours on, after one person vandalized it to remove the sources before nominating for deletion. You didn't even read the previous AfD, did you? The one where it was decided that the article met notability requirement--notability requirements that your fellow deletionist does not even have a grasp on. You equate reliable source with scientific source or prestigious source--this conflicts with wikipedia's very explicit definition of "reliable source." You delete pages by citing policies you don't even understand.

That article was terrible, but not due to a lack of notability or a lack of cited reliable sources. It was terrible due to vandalization. The correct move would be to protect it, not to destroy it. But your kind would rather destroy heaps on the basis of a 2 person vote. Shameful and disgusting. Petty minded destroyers like you are why I will never write another wiki article. Yossarianpedia (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Yossarianpedia, thank you for your comment. Next time, please place them at the bottom. Yes, I did the previous AfD. I do not equate "reliable" with "academic", and there was no "vandalization" of the article. You claim I don't know policy, but at least I know my ass from my elbow. One more thing: if you can't exercise self control, the internet may not be the right place for you. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • You deleted the page, you are responsible. The man who nominated the article for deletion also vandalized it by removing 32,000 characters. He basically deleted the entire article with a sweeping determination that all 30+ reliable sources and the 32,000 characters of prose were somehow bad. This man is new to wikipedia and doesn't even know the definition of reliable source, as shown clearly in his pathetic comments. By deleting the article based on the word of a vandal, you have demonstrated your gross incompetence. You should be ashamed of yourself and stripped of all admin privileges. I have no interest in attempting to quote the obvious facts of this case when the admins are so incompetent. You could have viewed the article history or read the previous AfD consensus to ***keep***. You chose not to, and so you are at fault. You are an irresponsible hackjob deletionist who has failed in his duty to perform due diligence. I am being completely civil in pointing out the deficiency of you as an admin. All admins are subject to scrutiny. Only responsible behaviour of an admin can justify their increased powers. You have shown yourself to be an ally of a vandal and irresponsible. The fact that when you discovered your error you chose not to correct it confirms your wilful irresponsibility and your guilt. If you can't conduct yourself properly--with the responsibility that comes from the power of your office--then you should recuse yourself from your duties and get off the internet. Yossarianpedia (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)I was moving it but too slow! Ignoring the nonsense from Yossarianpedia, I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (2nd nomination) which deleted an article with that name - and we also have a currently running AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (Ra material) which seems to be the same article. The existing one looked like [8] before Thoughtmaker removed most of it, very similar to the deleted one before Thoughtmaker removed most of it.[9]. This is because Bilbo moved the material to the deleted article. Then Nyttend reversed this perhaps not realising that it created a duplicate article? Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• (talk page stalker) @Yossarianpedia: I looked at an earlier version of the article and then ransacked the house looking for a second source, since Drmies has added a statement at the AfD noting that there was one good one. To get the deletion decision reversed would require at least a second, preferably a third. I see several books cited without page numbers. Some of those might do it. Could you possibly find us page numbers and if possible be ready to quote specific sentences that support the statements made in the article about the books' influence? Unfortunately, although this household has an extremely good library in related fields, we're weak in New Age. The situation with the second article complicates things, but at least it means non-admins can see what sources have been cited. Can you help us out here with anything that will demonstrate the issue should be revisited? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• • • Hi (talk). The reason there are two articles is because of vandalism. There are a lot of morons who don't understand wikipedia policy that keep fudging up the article. Then there are other people trying to fix it who may not follow the regulations perfectly. And then you have admins who are so thick they don't even know how to read the notability guidelines. They don't understand that wikipedia has a different definition of "reliable source" than a chemisty classroom. It's a tremendous failure of education; but what do you expect for an amateur encyclopedia? Thoughtmaker's removal of 30+ reliable sources and the content based on them can only be described as vandalism. It's an absolutely joke that anyone would see that as legitimate; at the very least you would remove bad prose but leave the sources in the reference section. Anyway, the article is about a series of notable books, and the series of books is factually called "The Law of One". If you or your fellow lawyers would bother to actually read the history of this case, you would see that that argument has prevailed in the past, because it is absolutely correct and strictly conforms to wikipedia guidelines. It conforms to the letter. Let this case stand as an example of vandalism, hacksaw deletionism, and laziness--with people sticking their noses into a conversation without even reading the history of the conversation and familiarizing themselves with the facts of the case. I'm looking forward to this article being removed so I can cut all my emotional ties with this ridiculous joke of a website where the authorities don't even know their own rules, and where judges pass down judgements without even reading the established facts of the case. Where the workers who do all the work are given no respect and expected to spoon feed previously established consensus down the throats of lazy and entitled admins who feel their snap judgements should invalidate and erase hundreds of hours of other people's work. Welcome to Wikipedia. Can't wait to say goodbye forever. Yossarianpedia (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Yossarianpedia: - so you are simply going to continue to emote without being willing to do the donkey work of suggesting a specific source? Emoting is so much easier of course. No one is stopping you from reverting Thoughtmaker - why do you expect someone else to do that? Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• @Yngvadottir:

  @Dougweller: Are you fing kidding me? There are 30+ reliable sources listed in the pre-vandalism history of the page. This debate in this talk page has no importance and will not receive justice. I am making my objections public for the sake of posterity alone. If you want to see the sources:

1. Go look at the history of the page pre-vandalism.
2. Go look at the history of the talk page pre-vandalism.
3. Go look at the previous AfD discussion where 30+ sources are extensively discussed and analyzed, and consensus found that they were reliable according to the wikipedia definition of "reliable" which you have not familiarized yourself with.

• This debate has already been done and it's very visible in the history of the page and the previous AfDs; the history which has not been consulted by the current deleters attacking this page. Without an "admin in my pocket" my claims fall on deaf ears; I understand this all too well. If you or your allies were interested in due process, you would examine the history instead of asking that all that labour be repeated. Your kind will always demand that others do all the work even when it has been done in exhaustive detail. When you've read this entire page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One then you may speak without embarassing yourself. Anyone who has not read that entire page and understood the poles of the debate speaks from ignorance and exposes themselves as lazy deleters happy to erase hours and hours of work without a care. Shame on all of you for your intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and irresponsible deleter reflexes. Yossarianpedia (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply