User talk:Drmies/Archive 15

Hello :) I've started the review, just in case you overlooked it on your watchlist (mine looks like a buzzard's throw-up... heh) Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I have Huggle, or Twinkle, I don't know, so basically half the pages I edit are on my watchlist. I haven't looked at it in ages. To get to the point: thanks! I will have a look. If there are major issues that require time and scholarship, it may be a few days before I get to it--campus is closed. Happy New Year, and thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I responded to your review question. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me, without nonsense labeling, what was wrong with my revisions? GiantSquidAttack (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
Message added 08:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Can you please explain to me, without nonsense labeling, what was wrong with my revisions? GiantSquidAttack (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, as your user page seems to claim, I'm just anal. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are. So there is nothing wrong with them, correct? I would restore them, if not for fear of being permanently blocked. GiantSquidAttack (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think this edit, in its odd mixture of silliness and inside references, is indicative of a lack of good will. You know, of course, that I did not report you--perhaps you should take this up with that editor. And while there is nothing wrong with a few of your edits, there is a lot wrong with some of the editors. Thanks; it's been a pleasure. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a relatively straight answer. Nice dismissive remark, as well. So I should simply edit the Longview page again, correct? GiantSquidAttack (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, your copyedits were more than welcome. Now, if you could explain that weird edit to a closed AfD discussion, which WP newbies would be hard-pressed to find, that might help your cause--I understand an SPI on your behavior is to be opened, and that would be the place to leave your comments, not this talk page, which is a place for tranquility and enjoyment. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's an SPI? GiantSquidAttack (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your question has been answered: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Welshdave86. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we've discussed refs before, I thought you might be (very slightly) interested to see that I did something which I didn't even know was possible: refs nested inside a footnote! I hope you had a good New Year's Eve/Day. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy moly Mandarax--you are taking geekdom to a whole new level! I am very proud of you, and I will have a second and a third look at that edit to figure out what is going on. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's one of those things where you don't really try to figure it out – you just follow the examples and hope for the best. It's "explained" in
  WP:REFNOTE and the next section. That help page implies that it's only possible to have one ref nested within another, but I did ten. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Changes made to Subaru Outback are based on real world experience of Subaru Outback owners who are experiencing this problem with their vehicle. This is backed up by the FACT that subaru has issued TSB's And letters, which were referenced with URL links where people can confirm this issue. The fact that some are referenced in a forum does not take away from the credence of the information. As an educator, I remind my students not rely on sites like wikipedia due to the fact that info on this web site may not always be 100% accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.189.170 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You are talking about
  WP:RS. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

So how does this work? The dates, members and events keep getting changed, so how do we agree on what constitutes "reliable source(s)"? Muso88 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wholesale revert undone. Simple as that--no reliable sources, no changes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This way nothing gets solved. Edits are all backed up with references , I can make a hard copy and embarrass you all , try me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowitallfortoday (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately that's not making any difference because it's being reinstalled as fast as you're reverting and there are certainly no discussions going on Muso88 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Knowitall, you can't make hard copies of YouTube videos, and they're not reliable sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what ?? images speak louder then words ,especially her on this biased page . You cannot alter film and the truth, but i guess that is why all gets deleted all the time no ?

• Yeah, well, YouTube is not a reliable source. Read
  WP:RS. This is an encyclopedia, not a MySpace page. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To Drmies The message which you sent me implied that the information published on Clan Of Xymox wiki page was unverified. This is a false attribution on your behalf, each piece of information that was published on the page consisted of proper citations which exposed your dishonesty or at least showed the opinion of those who criticize other then ...you know who — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowitallfortoday (talk • contribs)

• A. sign your messages. B. the information you supplied was improperly verified. C. claims about my dishonety, that's a personal attack. D. the rest of your message is not very comprehensible. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

will get to the bottom of this

The message which you sent me implied that the information published on Ergun Caner's wiki page was unverified. This is a false attribution on your behalf, each piece of information that was published on the page consisted of proper citations which exposed his dishonesty or at least showed the opinion of those who criticise him. What has been added to the wiki page now are laughable refutations of the allegations placed against Ergun Caner which have already been debunked on fakeexmuslims.com. Just search "normal geisler fakeexmuslims.com" and "john ankerberg fakeexmuslims.com" in google, you will find all this information there. You as a supposed person of integrity should be willing to allow criticism of individuals to be published, unless of course, you are implying that Ergun Caner is infallible. Contact this email address for a friendly discussion regarding this matter: [email protected]. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo khan247 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no interest in email contacts, sorry. My supposed integrity on Wikipedia goes as far as
  WP:RS--that website does not meet any of the requirements for a reliable source. I am well aware of Caner's fallibility, which is even dished out in reliable sources, and those are the ones we use on Wikipedia. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• So the external links to John Ankerbergs positive words about Ergun Caner's lies are authentic and likewise for Norman Geisler's; but anybody else is not counted; that's very fair do you not think? If you actually went onto the links of that had been posted, you will see that the information within them were actual video/audio clips of Caner himself. They were not tampered with to make them seem like something they are not, they are just short clips with brief explanations of his lies and errors. I would have even published the evidence of John Ankerberg being the cause of the closure of the mokhan247 YouTube account, but according to you, that would probably not count as a reliable source. It does not matter, everyone knows that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information anyway; for there are many people who control what is actually put up and what isn't. The truly intelligent people will use their intellect and search other sources too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.67.81 (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• John Ankerberg and Norman Geisler are actually notable people. IP 78.146.67.81, Mo khan, and I are not. If 'people' wish to go visit YouTube to distill knowledge of the world, they are welcome to do so, but it is not Wikipedia's job to provide those links (that's what Google is for). For the last time, videos etc. are primary evidence, and encyclopedias use secondary and tertiary sources. Consider reading Wikipedia:No original research--there you find some of the guidelines and rules we are supposed to play by. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Right. So you post refutations of "notable" people, but you don't post the things that they are refuting. Great. I love your logic. This is not biased one bit(!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo khan247 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike other PRODS, you can remove the tag only if the article is referenced. PRODBLP state that

• Sure--but I wonder how reliable the reference was that I added. Not that I'm arguing--I'm just wondering. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article is referenced now but the page is down.. What happens next? Anka Wolbert (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: Here are some more questions. I want to make my Maurice Ingram (in my sandbox) public. You say "use the "move" function to move it to article space--and I would move it to Edward Ingram (1890-1941),". Where is the "move" function? You responded to this request on my userpage, but suggest I should drop you a line on your talk page...

I wanted also to put a photo of Leonard Shoobridge on the (my first) Wikipedia page. I have prepared the photo to Wikipedia's specifications, but what next? There are two 'image' type icons at the top of the Edit window (both orange coloured landscapes in a frame). The first is 'Embedded file', the second is 'Picture gallery'. They both insert text in the file that uses the term 'File:example.jpg'. I thought they might let me insert a picture... I need hand holding...Peter71947 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Peter. Hmm, good question. I have
  Wikipedia:Move, section "How to move a page," and see if that works for you. If it doesn't, I can move it for you. (I can do that anyway, but if you do it yourself then you'll know for next time.)

  As for the image, you should go to "Upload file," which is in the list of options all the way to the left (there's some fun ones there, like "Random article" and "Recent changes"), and then follow the directions. The most difficult thing is the selection of the copyright license. If the instructions aren't helpful, have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images. I'm no copyright expert, but my guess is that you are dealing with something in the public domain. We have a couple of experts here--one of them, User:LadyofShalott, occasionally glances at my talk page and might could help; User:Moonriddengirl has helped me in the past with particularly troubling questions.

  Anyway, once you've uploaded the image, you can add it to the article: see the section "Adding images to articles" on that Uploading images page.

  Does that help? Good luck, and let me know! Oh, Happy New Year! Drmies (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Hi, I'll be glad to help with what I can. Give me a message over on my talk page if there is something I can do. I have to say though that I am not an expert on copyright by any means. I've learned some, but I completely and totally defer to Moonriddengirl, who I think actually is an expert on that topic. LadyofShalott 03:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies

Thanks so much for your friendly advice! Your instructions solved my problems I moved the Maurice Ingram page. I fully agree with you that I should do it, not you. (But the instructions could read "Near the top right corner of the page there is a row of menu options. After 'View History' there is a star, and a triangle. Clicking the triangle should reveal the Move option.")
I also found the 'Upload' option, again, thanks to you. I answered all the questions, uploaded the image, and it now appears on a page called "File:LeonardShoobridge.jpg"

But the photo didn't appear on the Leonard Shoobridge page. Instead of hassling you again, I looked up "uploading images to Wikipedia", and found I had to enter a line of code -

- into the text. The example given was confusing - it referred, as an example, to the file name (not the caption I had given it). So I entered the file name (I thought).

Now, on the Leonard Shoobridge page, there is a box, with two lines of text (very similar to the one which is now showing on this page): Mine says "File:Image name LeonardShoobridge.jpg".
I dutifully went back to edit the box, but the text (the code) I had entered (which included the filename - as shown in the box) didn't appear.

I hope someone is paying you for your prompt help.
Peter71947 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the image link for you. If you click on this link, you can see exactly what I changed to make the image show correctly. LadyofShalott 03:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Peter! Congratulations. Interesting chap; pity about the grave. And Lady, thanks, as usual. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you need to step away for a little while, you could get caught up in a 3RR mess, you're reverting too many times. I'm reverting when I finish this.

• I know Doug--I have every intention of doing so. Trust me, I never wanted it to go this far, and I hope I have shown that my reversals were not without cause. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, if Knowitall's edits continue to stand, the article will continue to be a mess. Look at this edit, where they inserted stuff in the middle of sentences, wreaking havoc on grammar, making some references say things they don't, and inserting URLs to Flickr images as references--and cutting two members from the band. Then Nutville came along and inserted a spammy URL in the middle of a referenced sentence to a person who already has an article...it goes on and on. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, other things have diverted me.

talk) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

What, your kids going back to school today also? ;) Drmies (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no, I'm at the age where it's grandchildren going back. Wikipedia, going to the gym, etc. I just took a look, the two members are back, is there still anything else wrong? I can't revert back as too many others have edited.

talk) 16:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow, the gym...I wish I had time and energy for that. No, I still wouldn't go, haha. Good for you, though. See, as far as I'm concerned, the last clean version is this one. If you compare that one to the current version you will see what I mean--look at the third paragraph of what is now the "history" section (there used to be sub-headings, the one starting "The band began to sound more accessible...", and the grammatical errors will tip you off. Scroll down to the references, and compare my last version to the current one, for spam links, bare URLs, incorrectly formatted links, incomplete bibliographical information, etc. That section used to have a picture, in which the editor managed to change the file name so that a later editor removed what had become an incorrect link. I could go on. I am not going to claim that I'm some superior editor--but my last version is better than the current version, and since my version nothing new or positive has been added: the intermediate edits you refer to all involve the 'other' edit war, over that poster-size image. So, if you want to delve into it, good luck, and I appreciate the help. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page certainly has become a mess. We all know who Hablador/ Knowsitallfortoday is. It's not hard to figure out. Interesting how Knowsitallfortoday has not made another edit since Hablador got blocked. I wonder now - wouldn't that happen if two usernames had the same IP address? But it won't be long until he's/ they are back of course. I am certainly Anka Wolbert, and I do have a COI with this page, which I have already declared. I have very openly used my real name as my Username so that everyone (including Knowitall) can see it is me. I created my Userpage when I noticed that "Knowitall" was attempting to rewrite history like this. The reliable sources referenced in the article of course refute Knowitall's version of history. I co-founded Clan Of Xymox three decades ago and dedicated 10 years of my life to writing, touring and making the band a success. I'm truly sorry they turned into a goth band after I left (simply not my cup of tea), but that opinion is besides the point, and obviously I have nothing to add (nor edit) to the story after the point at which I left. Anka Wolbert (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<snip>

• Sorry, but what am I looking for, besides seriously broken English? Drmies (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anka, careful about trying to find the real life identities of editors, you can get blocked for that. I'm busy tonight, so can't spend any time on this until tomorrow.

talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Good point Doug--thank you. Anka, see

WP:OUTING. I should have thought of that myself. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

And I see you have, with success. Good work.

talk) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow...now why don't I feel happy? Drmies (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merci for the Saint Gildard series. Good supply of sources. Please review the slight edits I made to make sure I did not introduce any errors. I added a picture of the convent for example to the paragraph talking about it, of course optional. I marked the one paragraph sans citation in Saint Gildard (Lurcy-le-Bourg) to pass DYK. Also take a look at the establishments section Sisters of Charity of Nevers; not sure which of these are in past tense and which are current era. I will also add to projects for completeness. W Nowicki (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I added the ref for that paragraph. As for the Sisters' tenses, I can't place the convents and schools in the present tense because I have no evidence that such are still in operation. The two I singled out are verified by contemporary (news) sources, and so they are in present tense. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also wanted you to make sure I did not introduce errors by moving some text down into the body from lead. I tend to be ultra-minimalist on lead sections, starting with one or two sentences of context and then adding as the article grows. Others treat the first paragraph as an intro. Somewhat a matter of taste.

• BTW, good work on all of them! I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you ever get around to it, there is another project I have been trying to get someone to help with who reads french more fluently. Louis de Freycinet made some very notable voyages, but right now his article has no citations. I noticed other articles are inconsistent with some claiming he was in Australia the same time others claim he was in Hawaii. So details need to be added with sources nailed down. Perhaps put on your wishlist? Maybe he will count as an unref'ed bio. W Nowicki (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you see this? She's missing from the article. I'll have a look, or two. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as the article is controversial per se, I think a stable version will take some time. But there are good articles about presidents, even current ones, which is way more "controversigenous", so lets see. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the forum source isn't reliable but the fanzine is okay in your book? --Omar418 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I placed a note already on Talk:Green Brigade. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your efforts to keep Darrell Issa free of unsubstantiated allegations. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, thanks! I imagine a check from Issa will be in the mail--if I can trust Wikipedia, he can spare me a dime... Drmies (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to join the discussion concerning the portrait for the article Mehmed II? Talk:Mehmed II. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply