This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A tag has been placed on User:Drmies/Stavoren lighthouse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Not written in English, and does not follow the rules about Wikipedia. (Ingliz tilida yozilgan emas, Vikipediyaga haqida qoidalariga rioya qilmaydi.)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Uzbekistan66 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite removed the PROD tag. "CSD#A2 only applies to articlespace." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. One wonders why a brand-new editor from Uzbekistan (?) is interested in the random sandbox of a random user. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh Ponyo is that who it was? Thanks! I was on it, but dinner intervened, and I just made buttermilk pudding and chocolate pudding with R. I just got back to my CU screens to find that dick globally blocked already. But isn't that sad, that an Alabama fan was part of it? Drmies (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that you are less of a "random user" and more of a "targeted administrator" in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, though I never actually watched the Camellia Bowl. It's next to the farmer's market; maybe the troll will want to meet me there Saturday morning to hang out. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

<humour>((uw-npa|The d word...))</humour>^[FBDB]. On a more serious note, mind to take a look at the disruption at Martha Stewart and see if there's any CU-match on those new accounts? Apparently it is an off-wiki campaign but with such obvious SPA we never know... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, all of this was actually pretty serious. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at a couple but there was really nothing to see... Drmies (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks well in that case. These off-wiki campaigns are getting annoying (last/ongoing one is about COVID lab leaks; now this...). Guess not too much can be done about it. Sorry for wasting your time, then. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No, not a waste. Sometimes it is actual socking. I would have protected the article but Cullen beat me to it. Yes, I am also sick of this kind of stuff. I want to say it's getting worse but I'm not sure that's true--there used to be 4chan mass hits on a fairly regular basis. I don't know how we are faring with the Instagram "Notable people" BS--I quit looking at the filter after some people whined over a block, but not looking at that saves me from placing a few hundred blocks a day, haha. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of "off-wiki campaigns"; I don't know if Special:Contributions/PleaseInvestIntoFusion is related, but any SPA in that area (especially one whose first edits are to write a detailed edit request...) is immediately suspicious... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How can the Tijme Loords not know who built something that was built in 1885, Doktoro? Anyway, I tried to find out about the Katwijk-on-Sea lighthouse [nl] but all that I could dig up was that some tourist named Peeters couldn't face the right way when photographing it and completely failed to get it into the picture. Uncle G (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

See the page history. A user there is accusing me of vandalism (while I added secondary sources a further content)... I see you blocked them previously. Mind giving any helpful tips? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well I have done my homework and went digging for quite a few sources. They're now claiming on their talk page that "a Reuters news article about the 14th Amendment" (while it is actually about both that and the relevant topic) is not a proper source... The "helpful tips" question might have been better worded as "have I done anything questionable here"? Anyway, cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

They emailed me something that seemed sensible enough, but I couldn't match it with the unblock request, which is much less sensible. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Autoblocks of IP addresses associated with blocked accounts last 24 hours, right? [1]. No further comment. Or actually, since I have my doubts, I'll note the similar confusion of the 12th and 14th amendments...; besides the similarity of the line of argumentation. Although the suggestions seem somewhat reasonable, despite WP:BE... Will take a more thorough look at that on my side in the morning. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

-- ferret (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I wanted to let you know that I suspect that an editor you recently warned is a sockpuppet of a previously blocked editor. I have not filed an WP:SPI report yet (I'm at work), but the obsessive use of 'rowspan' in filmography tables, along with the interaction report have me fairly convinced it's the same editor... Just so you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. The joy continues. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

there is a major issue of when scandals get caught up with subject articles, will reply later. JarrahTree 02:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I can think of locality pages in Australia where a form of scandal takes over the locality article, to the point the scandal removes any context of the article apart from the scandal (tautological that may sound) - in the case of the Australian items that I am thinking of the perpretrators as deserving a separate article. JarrahTree 04:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, a little while back you blocked the user 47.16.81.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a few months. They're back now, and don't seem to have taken heed of the warnings or the explanation I left on their talk page about why their edits were not constructive and how they could improve; they're still changing commonly understood words to links and changing wording to be informal. Eik Corell (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

has been deleted as an attack page. The creator's talk page has more info. Imissdisco claims to be the article's subject and claims harassment. I have given Imissdisco info on dealing with BLP's about oneself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I saw--I emailed with Harry. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I don't have to link to that appalingness. Best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• EvanTaylor1289 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Davidbowie35266 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, Drmies! I just wanted to bring these two accounts to your attention. They claim to be siblings. One of them appears to be a vandal, and the other one appears to be either incompetent at best, or an LTA at worst. Both of them appear to be related. Either this is a family situation, or we have some sockpuppetry going on here. I just wanted to let you know. EvanTaylor1289 was messing around on an SPI page (or I should say, jumping into an unfamiliar area) within less than a month of registering his account. And if this person reminds you of an LTA, you probably have a better idea of who it is than I do. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• EvanTaylor is weird, but it can be explained; let me just say that they practiced for a while before registering their account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strange coincidence, no proven connection. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Drmies,

In regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordimalo, I noticed a new account that was created today and their very first edit was restoring Caretaker John's edits on the article A Just Russia — Patriots — For Truth (with no edit summary). On top of that, I noticed in one edit how they referenced a source was very much identical, compare this with one of CJ's edit. Moreover, their edits are very similar to that of Caretaker John's (this is the same kind of edit as this. I find it very hard to believe that this is just coincidence after his two socks were blocked the day before. Mellk (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Dude needs to get a life. He reminds me of, what's his face, this guy with a fascination for war articles--Kraijin or something like that. Favonian remembers--hey Favonian, what is it with men and these obsessions? Drmies (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I am sure he's not going to stop, unfortunately, but I will try my best to monitor this. Thank you for the quick response. Mellk (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I appreciate it. And I'm updating the CU wiki. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Down Second Avenue".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I didn't mean to template you but this is the message that Twinkle sends out. Of course, you can restore this draft yourself should you wish to continue working on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I did. And I moved it to main space. Not quite sure why you didn't just tag it so I could have skipped the step of restoring it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

In hindsight, that is what I should have done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• 93.13.173.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi there! I want to bring this IP to your attention. They have only made a few edits, and they already have so much knowledge about editing Wikipedia. Could be a sock, IDK. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. ~ 🌀 SCS CORONA 🌀 13:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• User:Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, thank you. A few things. WP:ANI 2.0 is just like ANI, though less sophisticated. You can still expect that any reported problem might be carefully investigated. In this case, you might consider that a. you need more than "might" to accuse someone; b. many IP editors do have tons of experience; c. you (and you too, User:LightandDark2000...) would do well to actually look at the edits on their own merit.

  If you had done that, you would have noticed that the content that was removed by the IP editor contained what one might call overcitation, but worse, most of the references included articles by a certain S. Madeh Piryonesi, a Canadian (former) PhD student in Engineering, and that that content was first introduced by someone who, let me be careful, seems to have a strong interest in Engineering and also writes on Canadian engineering topics (as ref#5 in this edit suggests). Pirehelokan, you introduced that content, including the dissertation by Piryonesi (you should know those are not generally acceptable), and you restored it. You introduced material by that scholar elsewhere, oh and the dissertation again, and again, and again, and that article again, and is this a different one?, and what is this one?, and I don't know if I had linked this one already.

  And while we're on the topic of CITESPAM and COI, one can't help but wonder about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touraj Atabaki (and this, and this, where you had to suffer the good advice of Ritchie333 and Deepfriedokra). User:Randykitty, do you have any thoughts? You think I gave enough diffs? User:Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, the IP was absolutely right to call for an investigation, but y'all were a bit too eager to revert. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks @Super Cyclonic Storm Corona: and @Drmies: for adding me to the conversation. I do remember reverting that IP's edits because he/she deleted several references (without replacing them or participating in a discussion), and because the IP's edits were already reverted by LightandDark2000 I thought it may be an innocent mistake or vandalism. Regarding the reference, it is a peer review article showing the differences in the performance regime of random forest, GBT and decision tree and explains how the characteristics of data (e.g. level of informativeness of the attributes) affect the performance of these algorithms. Therefore, I think it is verifiable and reliable. If you find a source falsifying that or a more appropriate application feel free to change it. I do tens of edits across different Wikis everyday, and tend to use references that I already know insideout and are verifiable and accessible. Peer-reviewed journals and dissertations are good examples. Regarding citing a certain author I obviously cite the things I have read and think that they are appropriate. There are examples of other authors too. Here are examples of citing Kreyenbroek, P here, here and here or Chamanara's works here, here or here. There are similar examples of my edits repeatedly citing many more like Hastie et al, Khaznadar (خەزنەدار) and D. N. Mackenzie. If you have something against the content or the authors or find them inappropriate or similar to overcitation feel free to weigh in and edit them. But please replace the references with quality sources and do not just delete them and go. Thanks, Pirehelo (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the note, Pirehelo--but I'm really specifically asking about a possible conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think there are any. Again, there is no such thing as my content or yours. Feel free to tear them down if they are against the policies and recast and improve the article. Pirehelo (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Pirehelo, I'm serious: if you have nothing to say, and I'd be interested for instance in an explanation of the dissertation that you included (which you can hardly have come across through a database of published academic articles), then I'm afraid I might take this to WP:COIN. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Accessibility! That is why. Not every reader of Wikipedia has access to fancy academic journals. They are expensive. Another way is to cite articles on Researchgate that rarely do because I am not sure about the Copyright rules. The thesis is free and has almost the same content for a reader who cannot afford articles. It is available to the public and is a reliable source. Pirehelo (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, hope all is well. You may be interested in seeing Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln/archive1. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Eddie891, oh my goodness, what a lot of good work. Congratulations, and thank you on behalf of readers and editors. Funny, I heard a Lincoln impersonator on the radio today, reading from the second inauguration, and I heard about the response from Douglass and Whitman's coverage of the event. Thanks again, and thanks for the note too. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you care to deal with this accusation that I am paid by terrorists/fascists? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Do they pay better than my usual benefactors, Brian Krzanich and Intel? Drmies (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not know. I usually start off my bargaining by demanding my pay in Popeye's chicken or Talisker single malt scotch. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • What a strange combination. Mine pay me in bitcoin or in sex, like normal people do. Hey, how is that Popeye's fish sandwich? My son REALLY wants to try it. (You saw I blocked that jerk.) Drmies (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • My thanks. I have not tried their fish sandwich. I do like their shrimp though!--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Now that I'm retired, should probably get a sponsor. Any chance the WMF will provide a small stiped to admins, functionaries, and strong content providers? BTW, I have it on good authority that Popeye's fish sandwich is superb. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Now I will have to stop at Popeye's and pick up a fish sandwich after work. Bad influences....the lot of ya!--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Ok. Deepfriedokra is correct. Their fish sandwich is superb. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I appreciate that update. I'll save you some of my statins, but I guess I'll have to take my boy there... Drmies (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for your input. I deleted my text (and your answer as a consequence, you can put it back if you wish of course).

E: yes, the sources are talking about one book in particular, because this is the book that exposed the scandal, and about one article about this book because Le Monde published in advance the main content of this book. The credibility of this book and of the ground-breaking Le Monde article related to this book is not discussed, even by the person who is accused of rape, who did not deny.

Deleted texts:

• (Drmies asked not to intervene on the subject of this topic any more, which I did, but here you raise another subject so I write something on that subject). Just to tell you, E, that Asterix747 verified all the sources (and sometimes correcting the text and was right to do so), none of them are tabloid (New York Times, The Times, Le Monde, Le Nouvel Obs, etc.) and none of them raise what is said as rumours. Asterix747 and I have access to all the sources and they all state these sad facts; it is because they are so outrageous and factual that so many people are resigning and it is not finished. Regarding the length etc., I think it is justified, but anyway, once the XIIIfromTokyo issue is solved, I hope we can have in talk page good discussions between Asterix747 and me (and other people who want to weight in) to find a common ground. For now, I just stopped and let the template be (which is talking anyway about tone only, there is a thorough agreement on the factual basis – excluding XIII of course but you can see for yourself the nature of what he writes), because with XIII, the discussion has become impossible, but we will get back to it afterwards. --Delfield (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  Delfield, you are your own worst enemy. I asked you to stay away because you also have a tendency to be long-winded and to get into content details, when EEng made just one quick remark. This loquaciousness is why few people are interested in looking into the matter. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

--Delfield (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but the book to which you refer is Person X accusing other members of her family of various things. We cannot possibly base this kind of accusation on a source like that. Tell me if I'm wrong. Drmies, am I missing something? EEng 10:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • User:EEng, I must tell you that as a good administrator I haven't looked too closely at all the content matters. I did look at a couple of the publications cited by Delfield's opponent to see if they were represented fairly (it's borderline), but not this one. What I can say is that the allegations that I suppose are made in the book are widely reported by very reliable sources, but that's about all. I would hope that allegations would be properly attributed in Wikipedia articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not really. The book of the niece of the person is only reporting the rapes (one thing), and it has been confirmed by many people since (and never denied by the alleged rapist). The rest is the result of the accounts of many witnesses, to many newspapers (you can see the sources, even though most have paywall). In any case, this is not an article about the alleged rapist, it is an article about a dual academic institution whose two presidents have already resigned, others too and students and politicians are asking for more, and it is so big that it created two new metoos in France (Metoogay and SciencesPorcs). The story is the scandal created. If at some point it is proven to be false (it never will, the alleged rapist is not denying it and resigned, so he won't ever sue for defamation), these "accusations" and witness accounts will still be an extremely big scandal with huge consequences, but indeed in this imaginary case the section would have to state that it is all false.

Regarding length and detail, it is up to discussion, but, in my opinion, the importance in the media justify this in itself in my opinion. Have you seen a scandal about any academic institution, anywhere in the world, that had so important social and institutional effect and that led to so many long reports in major international newspapers, like the NYT or The Times? Perhaps it exists, but I have never seen that. You can check for yourself the enormous amount of sources and many more are to come (because people are now asking the resignation of the whole board according to the media, it is not on the WP article). The current WP article reflects that.

In any case, I created a topic in the talk page about the tone, because Asterix747 and me disagree on this. He severely rewrote the section already so that it sticks more with the sources, but anything can be discussed. If at some point XIII is not intervening to create long personal attacks so that discussion is not possible (as I said in ANI, I completely stopped any interaction with him, it is the only way at some point when bullied, and it ends up helping for this too – on top of the original goal: protecting myself), I would be happy to continue the discussion in the relevant talk page.

--Delfield (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What's widely reported is that there are accusations. I'm looking for high-quality sources that state these things as fact. And even then our article would need to attribute: "According to an extensive, year-long investigation by ProminentNewsOutlet, these accusations were confirmed, at least in part, by ..." Right now our article just say all these things (some of them vague and weirdly expressed) are just plain fact, period. EEng 18:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I think you deleted the section without having seen this discussion. I moved it after Drmies' comment. You can see my explanations above and in the talk page. You can also notice:

• that Drmies looked at the sources
• this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Narky_Blert#XIIIfromTokyo Narky Blert looked at the discussion in French, where the blocked user tried to make French people buy his account of this section, as previously written, and for example User:Fuucx says he looked at it and saw "clearly" nothing wrong ("Pour moi clairement, il n’y a pas de quoi fouetter un chat"). He was not the only one.
• Asterix747 felt at the beginning that the text did not stick with the sources, but after we co-edited the text said "thanks for your message and recent contribution, i think the section is now factually correct regarding the sources"
• that the sources are talking about Sciences Po, as I say in the talk page

Since the blocked user will continue to make personal attacks from his talk page and other wikis, I say this: I edited so much Sciences Po article because there were a lot of users making the article not neutral (you can see the article before my edits [2] and still a recent correction from Eeng [3]), so, with all the fuss around this neutralization, yes, I ended up from time to time editing the page in particular, and, secondly, I do not edit Duhammel own page, because it is not part of my ethics, I think, to edit the page of a person, at least in such circumstances

Please be aware that what the blocked user is saying is not truthful and it would take too long to explain why. I hope you are convinced at this point that he is completely twisting facts.

@E: I looked at it. In the main sentence Asterix747 alerted me about, it is true it is a third person account (even though in France it makes no doubt these things do exist), so I corrected it. The other facts, however, are stated as plain facts in the article, even though for people who do not know the French society in can seem strange and shocking. I hope the current version is fine now and in any case I can continue the discussion in talk page, in particular with French-speaking users.

@Drmies: in cleaning up the talk page to make it about Sciences Po, two of your edits were answers to the blocked users attacks are not there anymore. Another of your answer tells him in part to stop, but it is inside a bigger text about the quality of the sources I used. I did not want to alter you text, so I let it be so.

--Delfield (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delfield, please don't ping me unless you are willing to express exactly what you are talking about in 25 words or less without sending me looking at other discussions. If you are talking about one of my edits, include a diff. If you think I did something wrong tell me what in a sentence or two. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

On 6 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Honorée Fanonne Jeffers, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in The Age of Phillis (2020), American poet Honorée Fanonne Jeffers "fills in the gaps" in a white woman's biography of Phillis Wheatley (1753–1784)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Honorée Fanonne Jeffers. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Honorée Fanonne Jeffers), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

On 7 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Breton Ballads, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1996 book Breton Ballads studies examples of the Breton genre of gwerz, and discusses the Barzaz Breiz controversy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Breton Ballads. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Breton Ballads), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And because I was the first to point that out, I'm now subject to harassement like this... I've warned them but it's not the first IP who does something like that and there's another bunch of SPAs so the situation might need tracking. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not much we can do, though I dropped a rangeblock on that editor for personal attacks. Sorry. Please keep reporting them at AIV, with a note if it's an IP hopper, which makes warning them properly unfeasible. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not to make light of it, but you're definitely not the first to be harassed for following the rules... still sucks though. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  I guess it's a fact of life here, especially since it seems that this show is somewhat popular (or at least, given the number of accounts which are editing that talk page to demand an update - assuming, of course, that these are indeed different persons). @Primefac: Would you be so kind as to enact the current talk page request (here)? That should solve at least part of the lack of patience... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  And now Special:Contributions/146.7.15.12... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

They should try WikiAlpha. They have much less stringent requirements than we. One must register to edit though. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Silly me for falling on the one article that is their collaboration of the month via a semi-protected edit request and then ending up with this, which isn't likely to go away for a bit, then... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We could semi-protect the talk page, a rather unusual step but hey, this is stupid. Then those IPs are really ruining it for all the other fans. User:Deepfriedokra, User:Primefac, is it too early for that? Drmies (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Are there any legitimate edits on the talk. If not, not too early. The question is one of how much bull you a willing to swallow. (Cranky, ex-biker, retired nurse baby-boomer with a lot of suppressed anger.). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I never thought enforcing MOS:ACCESS would be so controversial. In the meantime, while I'm considering whether to just go back to my usual areas, there's an ip who keeps messing with my comments and I'm fed up with it (warned but they haven't stopped). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me at 'em. Happy to block! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra The one that is doing personal attacks is back at it... At this point talk page protection seems reasonable RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have semi protected to sift out the personal attacks. @RandomCanadian: Please help remove NPA's and pint out where revdel's are nneded. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A little late to the party but yes, when we shift from net positive to net negative on a talk page, it's time to protect. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW Wikipedia is a fansite: see DYK template below. I'm a fan. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Not the time for making counter-arguments... To be fair, I was a fan of this too (see this glorious fugue) before it got disabled. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

They have been judged. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry - looks like I mis-clicked my toolbar and failed to notice the edit was dmy rather than mdy when I saved - reverted. Thanks for letting me know. GiantSnowman 09:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Topographic map. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Unhelpful deletion of useful content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantiana (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Why did you block [4] this IP for such a short duration for just a single edit without a warning? I have not seen this kind of action done in response to vandalism before. funplussmart (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, "what's with this block"? Well, since you ask, I blocked because it was vandalism and because they continued what they did before. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

...but you're my go-to-guy for articles on fictional topics that clearly don't merit standalone articles. Would you mind keeping an eye on the recent developments at Talk:Khal Drogo and Talk:Viserys Targaryen. I !voted in the AFD two years ago and was the one who redirected both pages last year, in addition to being one of the people who questioned the pages' creation back in 2016/2017, so I'd really rather step back from this, and I figure if I can't convince you then I'm probably wrong to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring over Topographic Map? I started a discussion on the article's talk page (as per Wikipedia guidelines) but you insist on simply deleting information on the page that is valuable and relevant. You accuse others of vandalism, yet you are simply destroying information without discussion.Cantiana (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• You are turning an encyclopedic article on a specific kind of map into a directory of agencies that make such maps. You can say that's valuable and relevant, but you don't have any secondary sources that make it so. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You appreciated my patience in an AN/I issue a few months ago. This time around, I'm perceived by at least one of the users concerned as pro-TPLF instead of anti-TPLF. I've proposed two different users, who (most of the time) have quite different editing and discussing styles. El C has commented, for the first of the two cases, that the thread is getting too long to read, and even my post of the case is borderline too long, and that the thread might remain unclosed. Given the effort I've put in to listen to both users and to give explicit diffs and to respond carefully, as compactly as possible, but as specifically as possible, it would be a pity if these two cases are not closed properly.

My feeling is that the two cases should be dealt with independently, even though there is clearly some feedback between the two users. I won't say which case I would recommend proposing for closure first, although I think one looks easier to close than the other.

If you had time to get the closure process moving, that would be greatly appreciated. At the moment, development of several of the Eritrea articles is blocked (and could remain blocked, depending on the results).

PS: The discretionary sanctions instructions are not quite clear to me what to do with problematic users on DS topics: is it acceptable for me to ping an admin without going through AN/I? I'd be quite happy to do that in the future, if needed, since it's obviously a lighter and faster process than going through AN/I. Boud (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't have the time right now to give you a decent answer; maybe tomorrow. My apologies--I need to make a baked pasta and a strawberry galette. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that I have no interest in blocking anyone from editing articles. As for articles blocked Boud should question the methods used by him to get consensus. I mean sending Leechj or myself to discuss content disputes in ANI under the guise of bad faith editing on either of our parts is getting tiresome. I barely edit anymore and no I stopped reverting even if I’m justified. Boud has made editing articles difficult complicated and time consuming with his use of ANI, Wikiprojects, talkpage RfC. I literally have to go to several pages to respond if necessary to his content dispute. The issue is one article but he has used this one article to set two ANIs on two different editors. We all have our faults and mistakes but to continually use that to keep two ANIs open on two editors who happen to disagree with Bouds POV is quite demoralizing. I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia because of Bouds antics.Clownshking (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In case you do happen to have time, one of the two cases has been closed, but the other is shifting closer and closer to the top of the list. To me the case is clear: WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT, but I'm an involved editor. Boud (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

El C topic-banned them. I'm looking at Leechjoel right now, but I don't think administrative action is warranted right now. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the other of the two AN/I proposals. I respect your choice though I'm not convinced by it. I will continue to have some patience with Leechjoel9, but not infinite patience with WP:IDHT.

To get back to my other question, not necessarily concerning the same user: for DS|Horn topics, is it correct that I should (or may) ping an admin directly without going through AN/I if/when there's a problematic user? Boud (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you can--but the better way to do it is to file a (concise) report at WP:ARE. I know you don't like that close, but that's about all I could do. The user was warned... Drmies (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise that WP:ARE was the place to go to. Next time I read through the DS instructions I'll hopefully remember to see if I can make a proposal for making it clearer where to "newbies" to the procedure like me. Maybe the info is there, but I missed it. I see there's a quantified length constraint: that's fine by me. As for the specific population issue, it seems like there may be progress. :) Boud (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Based on our previous discussion ... somewhere, sometime in the past ... I'm assuming this is the correct page to document the last known use of the archaic term "Yeet" (previously thought (by me) to be extinct in the wild, and only used by adults who thought it wasn't extinct)? [5]. I guess you were right and I was wrong. But surely this will be the last instance? -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, isn't Deez Nuts well past its prime too? Are these adults pretending to be kids? Or are they really, really young kids who have just now heard rumors about what what cool big kids sometimes say? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Have you both managed to miss Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Common_vandalism_:_"YEET"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I asked Rosie and she said "only stupid people say it", so there. There's "uwu", but that is if you don't want to sound very smart, according to my expert (whose brother quit saying it only weeks ago). As for Deez Nuts, well, he needs to just get off his ass and win a primary somewhere. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

They even have a bot on reddit... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/59.103.126.46 is, well, suspicious... Is it just another drive-by vandal or is there somewhere here going on that I'm missing? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess this qualifies as a "go big or go home" boo-boo. Not that being stuck in my house will be anything new after the last year. — Ched (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I think it's somewhat amusing. Mistakes happen, and yeah, if you're going to accidentally block someone, it should be a big shot. Acroterion blocked me one time, but I totally missed it. Take care Ched, Drmies (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, Good day. Had tried to explain to involved editor in their talk page but no resolution. I have open a discussion at the article talk page. Request for comment on Lead. Thanks in advance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies for the intervention. The are actually two issues, one has been solved ("and while down on the judges' scorecards" in the lead and body text". The second is the " Jamaican American mixed martial artist". I have open the discussion on the talk page and also ping twice to user Belevalo, however, even they have been active in the Wikipedia but do not response to the discussion in the talk page. Without reiterate, the initial short conversation is HERE before I open the discussion at Talk:Aljamain Sterling. Since the user Belevalo doesnt seem want to engage, I would like to see you to comment on -Talk:Aljamain Sterling. Thanks in advance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, Just to let you know that user Belevalo has finaly engaged in the conversation and agreed to remove the "Jamaican" from the lead section - see here. I would like to thank you for assistance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this normal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alistair_Overeem&diff=prev&oldid=1009122052 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fabr%C3%ADcio_Werdum&diff=prev&oldid=1009122025 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankie_Edgar&diff=prev&oldid=1009121878

And here I reinstated the material myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dustin_Poirier&diff=1009121978&oldid=1009121155

I am willing to reinstate all the material. They are champions, contenders or at least top 10 fighters in the world (big wins). This Belevalo behaves like a dictator. Benjamin Adegbuyi .karellian-24 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• .karellian-24, Please don't make personal attacks like this dictator stuff. What they're doing seems like normal editing to me, unless they're fighting over it. I happen to think that those edits are unproblematic: that something is a "notable" victory needs to be proven in the article before it should be in the lead, and those victories over Alvarez are mentioned in the Poirier article but they seem no different than the other ones: there's no text there to make them stand out. This is a matter for the talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks! Just that it is involving in war edits for such matters. It is like it's trying to piss me off. Sorry to bother you. .karellian-24 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No bother. Talk it over on the talk page. I didn't see anything in their edit summary or the edit that gave me cause for concern, although the editor has a bit of a history, yes--but right now I'm not worried. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, You added a photo to Heleen Mees, and asked "we're supposed to name the photographer; is this the proper way?". I like to mention photographers (and always wonder why Wiki doesn't), but this photo was given a CC-zero license by the uploader (Bmwz3hm, who tried to upload several other photos of Heleen Mees). Who asked to name the photographer of this photo? Vysotsky (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, Vysotsky, that's the user who asked me to help, and I told them they should do it on Commons directly. I have an email here from the producer of the magazine (Nouveau) for which that photoshoot was done:"Je kan de foto gebruiken voor je Wikipedia met naamsvermelding Nouveau NL en van de fotograaf: Carin Verbruggen." That is, "you can use this photo for your Wikipedia (article) with mention of Nouveau NL and the name of the photographer: Carin Verbruggen". So that's what I followed. I can email you that email, if you like. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Drmies Sorry to butt in, saw this on my WL. We can't use Wikipedia only permission (hopefully it's not redundant with me telling you this.) CUPIDICAE💕 20:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Also we don't usually give attribution for the image on articles (to my knowledge, unless it's a work for art for example) because it's in the data on commons. CUPIDICAE💕 20:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As the uploader is not the photographer, best help might be to coach User:Bmwz3hm through the OTRS process. Uploading under CC-zero while at the same time demanding attribution in a private email is not the most clever start. (Which also shows that copyright rules on Commons are too difficult for normal people.) Vysotsky (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's not something that I can do--I'm also pretty normal, I'm afraid. Maybe you can ask the user to submit that email and then someone over there can figure it out? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the email needs to come from the copyright holder directly (we also don't allow for forwarded permissions.) I'm about to run but they can go here. CUPIDICAE💕 22:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Either way, it's not my problem: I helped the user on Wikipedia, but this is out of my jurisdiction, so to speak. I'm sure they'll get a notification on Commons if something's up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Seconding CUPIDICAE💕's point about attribution; the attribution is satisfied in the commons metadata, and shouldn't be included on the image caption. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, but I think it's only fair to let you know that Osomite has included you on their list of editors to "check out", here, along with myself, Slatersteven, and Fram. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, that's kind of exciting, to be talked about that way at my age. What would they want with David Gerard? But honestly that page is too long and dense for processing. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Now I don't know what kind of person wastes their time by adding unnecessary whitespace in wikilinks; or by unecessarily changing sentences from the passive to the active voice; and adding unecessary cleanup tags in the lead for information summarised and cited in the body... Ever seen this kind of stuff before? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Those spaces are unnecessary of course, probably idiosyncratic for that user. "the historical interpretation((which?))" makes sense to me, but other parts not so much. That static IP is used by the same editor for a while; perhaps have a chat with them? And ask them to use edit summaries... Drmies (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of How Did I Find Myself Here? 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorted - Template:Did you know nominations/Chronographer done. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've reported all of the involved users here Drag Race ANI ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I saw, that's why I looked at it. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  There's a whole bunch of new single-edit or nearly accounts there too. See

  • Special:Contributions/GinnyLemon
  • Special:Contributions/Iiisssaaaccc
  • Special:Contributions/Fumegar
  • Special:Contributions/65.87.46.164

  And then there's Special:Contributions/24.72.74.56 who keeps posting empty requests all over the place. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

    I'd give a warning for this (very subtly saying I'm "ignorant", via wikilink); but feel like I'm not exactly an impartial judge... Anyway, think I also need a break from that whole discussion, but there's that issue which needs resolving. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

    Sorry for being annoying. This is blatantly ignoring the HTML comment and this (removed, then re-instated) is also quite uncivil... gah! looks like they're not interested in building an encyclopedia, more a fansite. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed GiaoThongVN had some same edits as 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk · contribs) and ChanComThemPho (talk · contribs). Check here and here. First, they had the same edit topic: Administrative units of Vietnam; second, they had the same manner of edits: change redirect target from A to B, move page A to page B, and more edits. You are the one who blocked 30ChuaPhaiLaTet and his other socks so I think you know about them better than me. Maybe this is just my overly skepticism so it's best to let you think about it and decide. My English is bad. Hope you don't mind. ３ ▪ １４ 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Come now Doktoro! Things seem to be going awry. You have PPP's famous bus stop earlier on this page, unnoticed. And lower down you have Dan Trotter, more formally Daniel Trotter, fairly well documented maker of ladder-back chairs and owner of properties on Elfreth's Alley.

• Castrodale Golovin, Anne (1970). "Daniel Trotter: Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia Cabinetmaker". Winterthur Portfolio. 6. The University of Chicago Press: 151–184. JSTOR 1180528.
• Naeve, Milo M. (November 1959). "Daniel Trotter and his ladder-back chairs". Antiques. No. 76. New Hampshire Historical Society. pp. 442–445.
  • Republished: Naeve, Milo M. (1975). Snyder, John (ed.). "Daniel Trotter and his Ladder-back Chairs". Philadelphia Furniture & Its Makers. pp. 80–83.

Too much K Pop and banination, and not enough Articles for creation, Doktoro. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Look, Uncle, I'm getting pulled into the Horn of Africa, and I've not yet survived the Algerian War... But your Trotter case is pretty solid, and it reminds me of a very solid Dutch joke. Woman goes to the butcher. "Slager heeft u varkenspootjes?" "Jazeker mevrouw!" "Dat zal wel moeilijk lopen denk!" Drmies (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Wilt u een ossenstaart, mevrouw?" "Nee, waarom?" "Ik dacht dat u wel aan een nieuwe pruik toe was." Well, that's a bit mean. Ucucha (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Ouch, Ucucha--that is kind of mean. What was that French movie, 1980s or 90s, with this big old butcher in it? I imagine him having varkenspootjes. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Uncle, I made you a start, but seriously, writing about furniture--ugh. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I was slightly worried when you started telling dirty jokes in Foreign. What, I wondered, would you do with a subject where even the most innocent Google search turns up things like "the Chippendales" and "chest-on-chest". Maybe I was worrying too much. Don't forget the obligatory external link farm to the spam site. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, there is their newest puppet: Special:Contributions/SMorevinen. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ed Byrne has a new video podcast called Ed Venturing and I can link it via his website or YouTube whichever works. It's his work and don't see why it can't be listed? Other comedians have their podcasts listed on their wiki pages. Please stop removing things you don't know anything about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxyguardianship (talk • contribs) 03:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I know plenty about secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies! Stumbling down an ANI rabbit-hole from a week or two ago, I noticed where you’d scrubbed some very old, egregious nastiness off a UT page but presumably didn’t notice that the edit had been restored & reverted a second time. (I can’t see the earlier edit, of course, but I assume the later one, with the same character-count & an “Undid …” ES, was the same.) Thanks for all you do here.—Odysseus1479 21:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks--I got it. BTW I also cleaned the stove today. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That was ugly. Not your stove, but the other thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • They were both ugly. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks again. At least the schmutz on your stove is unlikely to be infectious or to be passed on from generation to generation.—Odysseus1479 22:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Sure thing! Drmies (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/CutePeach... First edit being to that talk page. Similarities with others in the line of argumenting; especially in repeating points already debunked. Is this the same person as (the rather un-)ScrupulousScribe? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, or not that I can prove. Is there an admin who's been active there and can help out? Drmies (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't got a clue about which admin would have more of one. @El C: You blocked un-ScrupulousSribe's sock, so in case you can be of any help. I've looked through the talk page history, and this now looks even more suspicious - a new editor suddenly picking out the names of all those who remotely support their point (and pinging them, additionally...)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm, like, 75 percent sure CutePeach is ScrupulousSribe, but since they've expressly denied it, maybe worth CU'ing first...? El_C 11:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Smallbones. Give me a day or two, please. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• User:TimothyBlue, thank you. My personal favorite saint's day is 5 June, but I appreciate it! Drmies (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've recently realised that on the Wikipedia page for Destiny, a lot of the points pertaining to his personal life and political views are sourced from YouTube videos. Since this hasn't been brought up with the editors of that article, could you maybe help enforce the rule about using YouTube videos for BLP information? Many thanks --Vember94 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Vember94: The usual requirement for WP:BLP is that such information be sourced to secondary sources reporting on it (to establish both neutrality and significance - and also to avoid any controversy in controversial areas, such as American politics in this case). I'll trim some of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! Unsure of what I've done to be labelled a stalker, sorry if I wasn't supposed to post here. --Vember94 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Vember94, RandomCanadian self-identified as a stalker. Anyway, yes, they are quite right about sourcing, and it's a huge problem in all those articles for influencers and YouTubers and Streamers and Twitchers and TikTokers and what not. I saw the same in Yungblud, by the way. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vember94: "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous." - did you actually read the whole page or just the title? :) Anyway in this case the template is self-referential; nothing about anything you have done. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Per this edit, the tables are standard practice for all events and are much more organized than just a simple bullet list that doesn't tell us much (the bullet list is also very informal for this type of article). Also, it doesn't really matter if you think tables are cumbersome. Most if not all other editors would disagree, but that's beside the point. You made a large change that is based on consensus. You would need to somehow get a new consensus to change it to a very plain bullet list.

You also removed sourced information in this edit. The first bit talking about the match being the main event is straight forward. The second saying it was chosen over those other names was in reference to a poll where WWE let fans vote on the name of the PPV (admittedly, it wasn't very clear there, but had you checked the source, you would have saw what it was for and could have clarified it instead of outright removing it). --JDC808 ♫ 17:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Tables are cumbersome, and this table was needless: the links to the articles are good enough (that is what it means to work on wikis). I'm glad you admit it wasn't very clear writing--it was also a bit of useless trivia. "The fans voted on a name"--that's trivial. The sourcing is a to a couple of fan websites, so that doesn't help much either in establishing importance: those websites write up every single thing. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How exactly are tables cumbersome? They lay out the information in a very organized way. If we want quality articles here, a super simple bullet list of links is not good enough for this type of information that we are trying to present. The poll is actually not trivial. It's how the name of the event was decided, which is important to the history of the pay-per-view (it is trivial for a lead section, but that's all the article really is at the moment aside from the concept and events sections, but I'm going to be fixing that soon). Also, both of those sources are reliable sources, not fan websites (WP:PW/RS). --JDC808 ♫ 06:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

They are cumbersome to edit: it takes practice to get it right. Anything that can be done in a list should be done in a lost. No, I do not believe those websites are reliable sources, and since (like all such publications) they report every single detail, they simply cannot establish that this or that detail is actually important. A fan poll over a name, that's just marketing. ProWrestlingTorch is pretty much the epitome of a fan site--stop the press! Seamus has no facial hair! WrestlingView is the same, but fancier looking. These sites regurgitate the press releases and the "results" from the organizations they cover, and add factoids and interviews. You'd think that a real reliable and independent publication would do some investigating--well, the Chris Benoit case would be interesting, but the best WrestleView has to offer is this, and it is nothing: two sentences sent in by some unnamed party and a link. So no, these are not acceptable sources. I am sure they won't lie about who supposedly won which event, so that may be reliable, but they are not independent, and can thus not be trusted to make informed editorial decisions about content, let alone be critical of their subject matter. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Tables can be cumbersome to edit, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them or remove them just for that reason. You are entitled to your opinion on the integrity of the sources, but according to the project, they are listed as reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Reliable sources. If you think their listing should be reassessed, that is something to bring up with the project (side note, completely revamped the WWE Hell in a Cell article). --JDC808 ♫ 20:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

They would never pass muster on RSN. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Well they had to go through some kind of assessment to even be added to the list of reliable sources. Would they uphold in a reassessment? We won't truly know unless they get reassessed. --JDC808 ♫ 21:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, would you mind blocking this IP editor [[6]]. I suspect they are a logged out editor but even if they aren't I don't appreciate the harassments on my user talk page. Thank you. Springee (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Springee (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. User requests vanish per request. A glance at their user talk suggests they are "under a cloud" an ineligible. Would like your opinion before I accept/decline. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• I can't see that--amazing, but there are permissions that I don't have, haha. I don't have a corner office either. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was a public record, BostonBowTie feels their expertise is "denigrated" and wishes to bid us (an unfond) adieu. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Forgive the intrusion, but it's a shame that expertise, however good it may be, is not combined with a) an interest in understanding the purpose and limitations of the project, and b) people skills generally. They seem to feel their 600 edits should make them untouchable. My sense is that it was only a matter of time. General Ization ^Talk 00:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I would have been in favor of showing more lenience in regards to his rant. Sounds like he is a subject matter expert, whom we need more of. Perhaps he had some of the bad experiences that subject matter experts sometimes have. WP:CHEESE is a good essay about this. I think we as Wikipedians should be very careful about deleting talk page comments. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, genuine SMEs have enough self-confidence to avoid loudly advertising their expertise and abusing others when it is mildly challenged. Those who do these things are generally less expert than they believe. General Ization ^Talk 00:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae, we need content editors, but we are still, and will always be, a collaborative project. And someone who complains about users that "can't work within written rules"--well, AGF and all that are written rules too. I will not stand by while editors of good faith are ridiculed on a talk page. If they are going to leave over the removal of that rant (that is really the only word for it), then, well, what can I say--then the content they were going to bring wasn't really worth it to them, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward vanishing 'em. I don't think they'll sneak back with a new user name. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our article on the prudent man rule doesn't mention its more modern name the prudent person rule, fails to mention that it fell out of favour in most states of the U.S. at the turn of the 20th century only to see a revival in the 1940s, and indicates that we don't have Justice Samuel Putnam. I have been beaten to an AFC submission by Talk:Putnam family#Samuel Putman.

• Haskell, Paul G. (1990). "The Prudent Person Rule for Trustee Investment and Modern Portfolio Theory". North Carolina Law Review. 69: 87 et seq.
• https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/159576184.pdf

Uncle G (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Abdallah Oumbadougou 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello again,

In regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordimalo, I noticed another account that was created the day after another sock (Grounds Only) was blocked. Its first edits were on some of the same articles that Caretaker John edited on (minor Russian political parties like Civic Platform (Russia)) but it didn't restore any of the edits made by the other blocked socks (though making similar edits). As time went on it began editing on more and more of the same pages that CJ edited (there seems to be a strong overlap here on such rarely touched articles like List of members of the Federation Council (Russia)) though not really restoring any old edits (yet) however now on 2021 Russian legislative election, it restored one of CJ's edits (compare this and this where it fully restored the paragraph in the lede). And despite being a new account, to me it really doesn't seem like a new user. The way they talk in the talk page for example on Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party seems very similar and again odd for a supposedly new user. Do you think the evidence is strong enough here? Thanks again. Mellk (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I should also note that on a talk page for an article where Caretaker John was pushing for his edit, after more editors disagreed with this edit, a British IP user showed up to leave a comment saying why CJ's edit should be left alone, quoting a source that CJ introduced and making the same spelling mistake that Caretaker John consistently made ("Zhironovsky" rather than "Zhirinovsky") which no one else on the entire talk page has made. This was 17 March and they did make any more edits after that. Mellk (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mellk, thank you. I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously we're in conspiracy since we both created ANI section at the same time! Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I know it. Hey if you're walking by the copy room on your way over to my office, grab me a cup of coffee please. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

All because of "the", *sigh*. I'm going to change my wallpaper with the word "the" with a cross over it. :) Fizconiz (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am a relatively new editor and wanted to know why my reference to the different religious faith groups was removed. I provided a cite for most and was going to have a cite for all but ran out of time today as I have a real job. Thanks for taking time to educate me. OneMoreByte (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• User:OneMoreByte, thank you for desire to improve Wikipedia articles, but student/religious organizations are typically not of encyclopedic value. Plus, you are adding not references, but URLs to various organizations, and that is not helpful--it is considered promotional. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I added the Hillel section prior to realizing your deletions. I am now earnestly trying to follow the rules you have elucidated. I have some 1/340th the amount of edits as you and acknowledge there is a lot to learn. I will try again next time I have time. I apologize for wasting your time with my mistakes OneMoreByte (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    • You are not wasting my time. Productive editors of good faith are always welcome. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I wrote almost every part of the history of blacks at Penn in 19th and early 20th century section and do not know why you preferred by more awkward penultimate draft to last version. I am an amateur happy to learn OneMoreByte (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me give you another view on this. It is about the level of fact checking. The sources cited are Facebook groups and WWW sites asserting things about themselves. I could set up a Facebook group claiming to be the UPenn official group for some religion or religious order and have the largest number of devotees in the country, or biggest building, or whatnot. It would not be actually true, but with this low level of Wikipedia editorial gatekeeping, the falsehood would make it in to the article. The editorial bar must be set higher by Wikipedia editors. We want things that can be supported by things published by other than the entities concerned themselves. If it's a Facebook group, it shouldn't be the Facebook group's own self-description as a source. It should be someone who is likely to have checked that that is actually true, who is identifiable, and whose reputation for accuracy is known and good. Uncle G (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write to explain to me about why the religious groups were removed. I was trying to be inclusive but agree with why you deleted what you deleted. On a different note I think the way I wrote about the 1st black woman to earn phd and attend Penn Law and be admitted to practice law in Penn was better in my last draft as it gave her more prominence rather than relegate her to a parenthetical while talking about her great uncle who graduated 40 years before her as my penultimate draft had done. Please re read both versions and see if you now agree with me. In any event I will defer to you as you have literally 320 times more experience than me. Thanks again

OneMoreByte (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

OrangeStrawberry32 (talk · contribs)'s edit summaries look very much like those of HoneyCrispAppleMan and Lukepicardkirk, and they're editing Sallie Mae. Too bad about CoffeeCupCandle - they might have made a decent gnome. (realisation dawns) And I'm BlackcurrantTea, right. Erm... Well then. Carry on as you were. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's time for a full-blown SPI. But for me, it's time for morning exercises and breakfast... Srsly, if you have a mind to write that up real quick, that would be great. What needs to happen is for all the available CU information to be placed side by side. I looked real quick but didn't find a smoking gun yet, but I think I know in which corner it might be standing. Having another CU look at all of them and compare them is a good idea. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Chiming in that behaviorally, I agree with BlackcurrantTea that this is another Luke/Honey sock, at the least. -- ferret (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, all three are probably in the same city. Mustycrustacean is definitely Lukepicardkirk, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks! But, eh, I can't focus right now--listening to Agharta. I'll be back in a few days. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I need a detective show whiteboard with marker pens in different colours to draw lines between them all. I can't do anything more with it today, but a few points found whilst down the rabbit hole: NinjaRobotPirate said Oliver the twisted Ankle is almost certainly part of a UPE sock farm with Bipitibappitibap, RuneLynch, Acbora, Zhang7891, and Stealknots. Bipitibappitibap, RuneLynch, and Stealknots have been globally locked by علاء (Alaa) as LaurelWest; Acbora, Zhang7891, and Oliver the twisted Ankle have not (yet) been. I don't believe you've met Gargar77 (talk · contribs), whose only edits have been to a draft created by Oliver the twisted Ankle, and to Commons, uploading a related image as 'own work'.

    OrangeStrawberry32 claims they're editing Sallie Mae as work for Clyde Group, and it seems Sallie Mae is indeed one of their clients. Guess who else is a Clyde Group client? Randy Pitchford. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: What's the missing part of this one? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

In real world, you get mail. . . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not as funny if it doesn't refer to 'Soviet Russia' in some way... Mail as in snail-mail? Who still gets that in the 21st century? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Got nothing. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ever since AOL, I never think of snail mail as mail. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bounced. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Strange. Do you have Gmail? Or did you use a lot of obscenities? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. No. Only when describing Wikipedia. FWIW, Bish's "respond all" bounced too. Not that important though. Occam supplied an answer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for your friendly and helpful advice.

Austinatlanta (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sure thing--good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

As ever, I am here to assist you in your quest for youth cred, Doktoro. On that score, you appear to have missed the mark slightly with your recent interest in Hanson.

Whilst you could have had John Hanson (poet), born 1604 and whose disambiguator would be "bad poet" in a more opinionated reference work such as a DNB, your command of Foreign might be able to explain why Google is telling me that "Jan Hanssen" is a bit "twee" according to J.K. de Regt. Is that another of J. K. Rowling's aliases?

Now I might have steered you toward Johannes Hanssen. But, knowing you, you will be more interested Johannes Hansen, Danish furniture maker and founder of the Copenhagen Cabinet Makers' Guild, before getting covered in Inc and associating with the likes of Hans Wegner; and who is not to be confused with Johannes Hansen, also Danish.

• Byars, Mel (2004). "Hansen, Johannes". In Riley, Terence (ed.). The Design Encyclopedia (2nd ed.). L. King. p. 304. ISBN 9780870700125. ((cite encyclopedia)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)

You don't get to have professor Karl Heinz Hansen [de], though, as xe is not a dead English professor, and thus unsuitable for the English Professor Vacuum. Nor is Karl-Heinz Hansen [de], for that matter, so do not get any ideas.

• This is not the Foreign that you are used to.

Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Whilst"?? NO MORE FURNITURE....

• @Uncle G: Unless you're under some form of restriction to not create articles directly in mainspace; this seems like it should go directly there... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Then Doktoro and you lurkers would not check my Foreign, albeit that it is not Old High Gallifreyan in this instance, as it was at /Archive 123#Some baklava for you! and /Archive 121#Credibility, Doktoro. Or, indeed, my arithmetic. You can help Drmies retain that youth cred, lurkers. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Robert Magill Young. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • That picture of my old house on the Egelantiersgracht brought tears to my eyes. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Das sind für mich böhmische Dörfer. Aber ich verstehe Deutsch, und kann die niederländische Sprache natürlich ein bisschen herausfinden. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As you can see from Special:Diff/1014068305, Doktoro keeps trying to blame me. But you'll find Special:Diff/981623325 even more amusing. Apparently, Doktoro jumped in xyr TARDIS and travelled back to last year to persuade someone to update the disambiguation. Uncle G (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking that IP! 😄 HelenDegenerate (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, sure thing. It's all in a day's work. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

On 26 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article How Did I Find Myself Here?, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 29 years after their last album, alternative rock band the Dream Syndicate released a new studio album, How Did I Find Myself Here? in 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/How Did I Find Myself Here?. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, How Did I Find Myself Here?), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah! This would have been fine for April's fools! :( RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Re Page Didan Kimathi

Your edit line indicates that you seem to be in some confusion about actual events. Didan Kimathi was convicted for murdering thousands of Kenyans by an all-black jury of Kenyans. Ian Henderson was a police officer. He did not capture him. Didan Kimathi only surrendered to the authorities when he was about to be captured and killed by another rival Mau-Mau gangs.

On Wikipedia, citations are required for sources, which are provided here. HarrySime (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• HarrySime, there is no objective person who believes that that was anything like a fair trial. And on Wikipedia we don't typically condemn a man's reputation based on the word of a mercenary murderer. I invite anyone who comes by here to look at your edit and your edit summaries, your accusations of vandalism--but especially at your continuation of what are, essentially, racist and colonial attitudes and fabrications. I am going to revert you again, because your edit is unacceptable; by all means, keep this again and attract more attention to your edits. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It took quite long until I realized what a strange rule (+ strange infobox) we have there for names such as The Beatles. Happy am I not to have to deal with such a thing. I bet I'd rephrase everything in defiance, having the band at the beginning of sentences. - No question of life and death, however. In memory of Yoninah, I wrote a little article, departing from our last work together, Psalm 148, so Psalm 148 (Bernstein), which not is his earliest surviving music but also contained on a CD "A Jewish Legacy". Made me cry once more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I had no idea... Drmies (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  After nobody else did, I began the Signpost obit. Tough. Music to the rescue, Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  ... and the first performance was on a Palm Sunday which is today, and Yoninah's obituary with the beginning of Passover today - putting some little ego-battles in perspective --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, Tympanus whom you blocked has signed a post as an IP here.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, thank you very much for your hint. Since I work with Huggle, the messages happen automatically via this software. In the inserted message this is also clearly noted. This text cannot be changed in Huggle. Therefore I do not understand your comment. The message also seems to be justified, since you have blocked the user. How can I understand your comment and what can I change to make it easier for the admins to work on my messages? I am looking forward to a feedback from you. RacoonyRE ^{Message me}_{Contributions} 18:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• User:RacoonyRE, I don't know what Huggle does or does not do, but something shouldn't be reported to AIV unless it's clear that it's vandalism. If you report it, you need to be sure, at least in your own mind. And in this case, there were at least two edits that made it perfectly clear that this was just pure vandalism--so I went from "well I suppose I need to check very carefully" to "why did I have to check this at all". Admins are simple people, and we eat simple food--so we like our meals to be easy to digest. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Addendum: so in this case, there is no point in leaving a level-2 warning or go "if this was a mistake"--no, no mistake, this person has a stable IP and has been vandalizing in the same way since January, so warn at the highest level, and/or report to AIV and say "they've been doing this for months". Does that help? Drmies (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Drmies, Thank you for the information, which I will gladly implement. In fact, at the moment I am still cautious about the messages on AIV. I actually come from dewiki and there are different rules than here. Even though I have read them all, I would rather be prudent. I appreciate your comments very much and will implement them that way. I am well aware that admins are normal people. You will certainly have noticed that this Huggle text is used by many. But you can be sure that Huggle will only give this message after 4 warnings have been given. I also make sure that not all 4 warnings come from me, so that we have a 4-eyes principle here.

  In this sense I wish you a nice evening / day and look forward to a good cooperation. RacoonyRE ^{Message me}_{Contributions} 18:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, but keep in mind that one takes ownership of every gadget one uses. As for more eyes--if someone makes some racist or sexist kind of comment, there is no need to wait or get others to look at it: in that case the admin will (or should) take action immediately. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Earlier this month, you blocked User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, an account that had retired in January 2021. The editor User:CaliIndie appeared in Feb 2021 and immediately started editing in a way similar to a veteran editor and in particular, the retired account. Per the editor interaction analyzer, CaliIndie has edited 30 pages in common with the blocked account out of total 102 pages edited, which seems like a startlingly many articles edited in common.[7] The blocked editor was not a 20-year veteran editor or anything like that, so it can't be that the blocked editor just happened to have edited every other page on the website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yup. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello friend! Comes to know that there is a sockpuppet investigation is happening. Let me know whether you guys confirmed that I'm the sockpuppet of Phoenix man?

The man who nominated me described that I'd made an edit on Priya Prakash Varrier, is that wrong? Anyone can edit anytopics on this project, right?

I'd created two article on this encyclopedia, one is Divya Gokulnath - who is the co-founder of Byju's, with the help of Beccaynr. And the other is Prarthana Indrajith.

BTW, I haven't done anything wrong here. I'll surely quit Wikipedia If you want to..

Thank you Faithfully YogeshWarah^Talk 04:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yogeshwarah, I opened as SPI against you not only because of your edits on Priya Prakash Varrier. I have provided evidences there. This is alos just one of them. And the thing is that, the SPI against you is about to get closed. And if the investigator needs more evidence, Im ready to present it there. But I think the current eevidences are enough as well as well the CU confirmation. If you havent done anything wrong, you must present it in the SPI rather than coming here. Its just a waste of time. By the way,dont take this as personal and if you are editing here based on our guidelines and policies, you can stay here. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies,

User talk:GrignardReagent007 removed their failed unblock request from their user page (which you edited), counter to WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. I have no dog in this fight, I just bumped into this and thought I would let you know.

Kind regards, RWalen (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you--Black Kite kindly restored the material. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! can you permanently block the account of Gardo Versace (talk), Johnra 21 (talk) and Pipamidalton (talk)? because I looked at their Checkuser and it confirmed I was Ajhenson21's (talk) sockpuppet and I tried to block them but they can still edit so I really want to block them permanently so that there is no Edit Warring, Thank you. Jricaplaza (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jricaplaza, sorry, but you did not look at CU data because you are not a CU, and you should not put those templates on anyone's user pages. And you can't block because you're not an administrator. I find it very odd that I have to explain this. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah that's right, but can you just block Gardo Versace permanently because I saw in Categories that he has many accounts. Jricaplaza (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Gardo Versace is a Ajhenson21. Jricaplaza (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• OK. No, I am not going to block them now. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • So please block Gardo Versace permanently. Jricaplaza (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:THREAD. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note I have now taken the discussion at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) to Dispute resolution. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Lord, people are still fighting about this. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: They also spammed the talk page with edit requests... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

And now the IP who was messing with my comments seems to be back... They also blanked their TP when warned so likely same person as before... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Another SPA with the same kind of comment, though it must be a diferent IP. The IP is probably the same person as Special:Contributions/78.152.245.98, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, next time please put the link there to save some clicking around. I blocked the account for a week: let's see if they can come back in a more civilized manner. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous Special:Contributions/51.37.186.36 (already blocked) vs. Special:Contributions/51.37.69.16 (apparently, me providing a link to the ANI discussion is a deliberate attempt to "have the last word" - when the discussion right above is about just forgetting all this ever happened and moving on to something else [like writing actual articles; or catching the obvious and annoying vandals on the edit filter or recent changes])... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like I'm reaching the end of the "this is so stupid it's funny" line and am rapidly approaching the "this is just so so stupid" point. This is just a monumental lack of patience (and a blatant disregard, if not provocation, based on the comment I made 2 minutes before that), though (prob. no action required other than removing the comment, but I'm unwilling to get bothered with that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I hate to say it, but if there's other editors active there, maybe you can step back and do other things. We don't need you to start wikilinking "patience"--it's one of the Seven Signs. BTW that IP editor has a bad track record and I acted on it. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried chess but apparently whoever was white wanted to play this so that was equally a waste... Any suggestion of a backlog I could help with clearing, besides recent changes? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I shouldn't be telling you what to do; it's dickish. Still, there is something that always needs attention: Category:BLP articles lacking sources from August 2014 and all of the others. Take care! Drmies (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh well a further SPA, Special:Contributions/Qiqi_Minaj. At least that one isn't accusing me and others of working for the CCP... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that someone else has already sumbitted Political views of American professors (AfD discussion) to AFC. But I did find a Dutch professor who seems to be on to something.

• Floré, Fredie; McAtee, Cammie, eds. (2017). The Politics of Furniture: Identity, Diplomacy and Persuasion in Post-War Interiors. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317020479. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)

It even has a Canadian connection, which will please M. Canadian. That said, for your quest for youth cred we probably need something modern.

• Wright, Virginia (1997). Modern Furniture in Canada, 1920 to 1970. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9780802073778. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

I am curious about the fact that the "/64" range for this IPv6 address has been involved in a comparatively large amount of conflict, does it not make more sense to block the entire range? Or does the capability to do this not exist? And FWIW, is there any inference of improper editing for an IP user to blank their own talk page, while the state of this dispute is this recent? Would it be improper for me to revert the blanking of the IP user's talk page? Fabrickator (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I looked at that, but I don't agree: that is not a comparatively large amount--it's a fairly small amount, and it's not very recent. It did not seem worth it to me. They can blank their own talk page all they want, and yes, sorry, you reverting that would be improper. If they return to the same pattern, the block can be extended and lengthened. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ha, the block is extended and lengthened. Drmies (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pressestelle Messe München (talk · contribs)

Uncle G (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello D. I hope you and your family are well. I am wondering if some of the edit summaries by this IP on my talk page can be r/d'd as purely disruptive material. Turns out that after I went to sleep they came back here and here but neither of those hit my talk page. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 17:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, someone really needs to get a date, or a talking-to from mom. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• BTW, ToBeFree, they're all throwaway IPs; I don't know if there's much point to dropping a two-week block. If you see them coming from the heartland, that might be different. I did yank talk page access, and I think that should be our standard MO. Thanks, and thank you too Ferret, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks DM. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 18:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, reduced to 72 hours; there had been no other contributions before, so collateral damage seemed unlikelier than someone re-misusing the IP address within the next 2 weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, they have some technical skills that they are wasting completely on some bullshit, inserting company names in various articles. What a shame. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, you may like to have a look at my block of Jricaplaza (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) regarding your block of Shadzarie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Thanks in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry I forgot about this, ToBeFree--I just confirmed it. Gardo Versace 24 was also on that range. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, I had already forgotten about it :) Thank you very much and no worries ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, ToBeFree, the party is not over. I just found another and blocked them, and I turned a range block into a hard block. I'm about to check their other, busiest range--if you're interested, see my log. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1015709810

Given your recent edits de-linking furniture, Doktoro, for which you will live in infamy, I have to declare a furniture emergency. Uncle G (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• I can live with that. I mean, I already do. Did you retire recently? Does that explain this deluge of furniture and engineers and bricks? Drmies (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

For other people named William Radford, see William Radford.

William A. Radford was a prolific author of architectural and construction books via his company the Radford Architectural Company in Chicago, Illinois.

Early life

Radford was born in Oshkosh, Wisconsin in 1865, where he attended school and then joined the Radford Brothers Sash and Door Company, eventually in 1890 becoming the company secretary and treasurer.^[1] He married and had two sons with Helen M. Manuel, and by 1899 was living in Riverside, Illinois.^[1] He was a Mason and a Shriner.^[1]

Radford Architectural Company

It was the Radford Architectural Company for which he is remembered, whose output over the years comprised more than 40 books on various types of construction and more than 1000 plans and specifications for buildings ranging from homes to small commercial buildings.^[1] Radford founded this company in 1902, and his publications were collaborations with prominent authors in the field at the time including Frank E. Kidder, Alfred G. King, and Ira O. Baker.^[1] He was also the founder of various magazines: Beautiful Homes, Farm Mechanics, American Carpenter and Builder, and Cement Homes.^[1]

Although, in the opinion of his biographer Neal Vogel, some of his designs were "lackluster versions" of Queen Anne or American Foursquare designs, some of his designs reflect the Prairie School aesthetic and his publications helped to spread it across the United States in the early 20th century.^[2] Radford embraced what were then modern innovations, with books on construction types that were just coming into use such as his 1700-page long 1910 Radford Cyclopedia of Cement Construction which dealt in the use of concrete and whose articles were written by a team of experts on the subject.^[2]

Retirement

Radford retired to a ranch in Cupertino, California at the onset of the Great Depression and died there in 1943.^[2]

Bibliography

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

• Radford, William A. (1910). Radford's Garages and how to Build Them. Chicago: Radford architectural Company.
• Radford, William A. (1907). The Steel Square and Its Uses. Vol. 1. New York: Industrial Publication Company. (The Steel Square and Its Uses at the Internet Archive)
• Radford, William A. (1912). Brick Houses and how to Build Them. Chicago: Radford architectural Company. (Brick Houses and how to Build Them at the Internet Archive)

Cross-reference

1. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Vogel 1993, p. 24. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFVogel1993 (help)
2. ^ ^{a b c} Vogel 1993, p. 25. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFVogel1993 (help)

Sources

• Vogel, Neal (September 1993). "William Radford". Old-House Journal. Vol. 21, no. 5. Active Interest Media. ISSN 0094-0178.

Further reading

• Roger Chambers (2019). introduction. Cement Houses and How to Build Them. By Radford, William A. (republished ed.). Independently Published. ISBN 9781797443270.
• Daniel D. Reiff (2013). Introduction. The Most Popular Homes of the Twenties. By Radford, William A. Dover Architecture (republished ed.). Courier Corporation. ISBN 9780486156439.
• Mansgerber, Floyd (1999). A Tale of a Great Chicago Rivalry: The Radford Architectural Company versus Fred Hodgson and the Frederick J. Drake Company. Springfield, Illinois: Fever River Research. OCLC 911649886.
• Reiff, Daniel D. (2010). "The Radford Architectural Company". Houses from Books: Treatises, Pattern Books, and Catalogs in American Architecture, 1783–1950, A history and Guide. Penn State Press. pp. 150 et seq. ISBN 9780271044194.

This submission to Articles for creation is about a member of the Radford family.

• Wonderful prose there: "Wooden potting benches are potting benches made of wood" ... "You can find wooden gardening bench without without sink" Acroterion (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Acroterion, how nice to see you here. If you don't mind, have a look at this, and the history of this little edit war, before I blow my top. In a nutshell, the reputation of this man is evaluated by a colonialist mass murderer, Ian Henderson (police officer), and a few notes in a sensationalist newspaper article. Whatever the crimes of the Mau Mau were, they don't need to be reported in this article without any kind of context, and certainly not in this way, with that witness, whom User:HarrySime inexplicably seems to regard as a valuable witness. The more I think about it the less patience I have. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Can I stick to the advantages of different bench materials? I was looking forward to hearing about recycled plastic materials.

      I'll give the Kimathi article a look. At first glance I would tend to agree that the assessment of one of the antagonists shouldn't recieve significant weight. Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

      • Funny that you should say that. While helping Doktoro with youth cred at /Archive 133#Youth cred I almost, but not quite, found enough material for a stub on Hansen's and Wegner's plastic injection-moulded stacking chair. I'm not kidding. Uncle G (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I wasn't sure that I wasn't getting the Foreign all mixed up, as well. It could have been a conflation of the Panton Chair with the Elbow Chair. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Do not worry, though, Doktoro. As you are interested in benches, we might be able to get you the Lutyens Bench or the benches of Dumbarton Oaks Park if Dumbarton Oaks Park ever fills up, although it has not yet.

        "Site furniture". Cultural Landscape Report, Dumbarton Oaks Park, Rock Creek Park: Site history, existing conditions, and analysis and evaluation, Part 1. United States National Park Service. 2000. pp. 237–239. (Cultural Landscape Report, Dumbarton Oaks Park at the Internet Archive)

        Uncle G (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

      • The fact is that WP is seriously deficient in matters of the visual arts, with furniture in general being a useful example.

        As for Henderson, yeah, he's not somebody on whose words I'd base any serious account account of history, nor would I feel good about extensively sourcing contentious biographical material to the Torygraph. Surely there's serious scholarship on the Mau Mau Rebellion? and its leaders? Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you know …

• https://www.kshs.org/resource/national_register/nominationsNRDB/Sedgwick_GuldnerHouseNR.pdf

… by the way, that the Guldner House on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Sedgwick County, Kansas is Radford Design #7082 in William A. Radford's 1908 Radford's Artistic Homes? Uncle G (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The Guldner House in Sedgwick County, Kansas is a Queen Anne style house built to a design by the Radford Architectural Company.^[1]

Cross-reference

1. ^ KHS 1418.

Sources

• "Guldner House". National and State Registers of Historic Places. Kansas Historical Society.

Further reading

• https://www.kshs.org/resource/national_register/nominationsNRDB/Sedgwick_GuldnerHouseNR.pdf

This submission to Articles for creation is a stub. Perhaps the lurkers could expand it for you, Doktoro.

• Special:Diff/1016365355. The robots know the truth, Doktoro. Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Doktoro, you lost a bunch of stuff in Special:Diff/1014753071. I've put this back. Gerda Arendt has put xyr comment back, too. Uncle G (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you know …

• … that Adolph A. Tiscornia's obituary in one newspaper gave him the titles "King of Kearny Street, Earl of the Eyesore" because of how he let his properties in Larkspur, California run down?
  • "Adolph Tiscornia, King of Kearny St., is Dead". The San Francisco Examiner. 1967-01-10. p. 42.
• … that Adolph A. Tiscornia's estate once chopped the top off the Little King without permission?
  • "Emergency Meeting set in Larkspur". Daily Independent Journal. San Rafael, California. 1972-05-12. p. 1.

Uncle G (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

… and no pineapple

I will probably laugh quite hard if fortuitously you end up closing Pineapple cheesecake (AfD discussion) too.

In the meantime, you might enjoy Edgar "Eddie" Ray Woolbright's old restaurant. He didn't just help invent Balut (game) (AfD discussion). He knew Imelda Marcos from school and once sent her a note, to his advantage. I don't know whether the restaurant puts pineapple on the corned beef, though.

• Bacalso, Jude A. (2017-07-12). "What to eat in Cebu: Corned beef at Eddie's Log Cabin Coffee Shop". Smile. ((cite magazine)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Uncle G (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Uncle G, I made corned beef last week, with all the spices and the liquid and all that, and I don't care for it. I'll take corned beef from a can with some jerk seasoning on rice, please. Drmies (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What we do, M. Canadian, is lure Doktoro in with bacon, and then hit xem with a bus stop, otherwise xe goes off and improves the Jada Facer article again.

Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Holy moly, Uncle, you've been busy. But all this will have to wait a little bit--spring break and all that, you know. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • M. Canadian might know why Julian Ruggles Seavey went to a Normal School. Uncle G (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Although I suspect that M. Canadian did not know that Frederick S. Barnjum was a P.E. teacher. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • M. Canadian would be excused for not knowing Bernier the Lumberman's name. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I am! And now my IKEA order is stuck in the Suez Canal? Drmies (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah. Reasons for furniture delays is it? For sure! Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Abdallah Oumbadougou.
Message added 04:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, sorry to bother you again about this; this is a continuation of User_talk:Drmies/Archive_132#Ronald_Lee_Moore. The same user is over at the Ronald Lee Moore article again edit-warring by adding unsourced, WP:Original research to the article, and is trying give undue weight and push a non-neutral POV fan conspiracy theory to the article. Do you have any advice on how to deal with this? The user also went to my talk page to cast aspersions and attack me. Thank you, Some1 (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see what's happening in the lead; the way it is now strikes me as straddling the line between due and undue for the lead. It's important in that it continues a pattern of ... well, the thing he's known for, but it is true that the content itself is slim. I responded to the editor on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with you; I re-worded the sentence to better summarize the article and remove the undue weight problems the user had presented in the lead; I see that they are satisfied now [8]. If only they had gone to the article talk page first instead of threatening me on my talk page. Anyway, thank you for stepping in and responding, I appreciate it. Some1 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • And I think they responded as well as I could have expected, so maybe we'll all be able to get along better. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• DonKihot1989 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

My intuitive reaction, given the username pattern and the edited article, would have been to add a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071; but this doesn't look like that master: this one is more interested in promoting Serbia than the Ottomans. Unless this KB1071 guy is actually a sock of an even older master... (the username seems to be referring to Revolutions_of_1989#Yugoslavia). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I was recently doing a review of all the page restrictions I've placed or taken ownership of over the years, and I noticed that a majority of the pages were no longer battlegrounds and didn't require restrictions anymore. I was looking backwards a couple of months on the article history and talk page looking for major diputes, and for the most part things were pretty quiet. I've removed the BRD restrictions from about 70% of the articles that I had put them on, and the 1RR restrictions from probably 90% of pages.

I figured while I was at it I might as well try to track down the other pages with active sanctions and see if the admins who placed them might also be interested in doing a similar review. The following list might not be complete, but it's the best I could come up with by tracking usages of the American Politics AE template. (Perhaps you can compare it to whatever system you have for tracking your active sanctions.) For convenience I'll put links to the edit notice page and the talk page.

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

I'm hoping that removing some of these restrictions can help restore some sense of normalcy to the topic area. In any case I hope this list is helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Awilley, thanks for your note, but especially for your diligence. No, I don't do a lot of sanctioning: by all means, do what you think is right and remove any restrictions you think no longer serve a purpose. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll put it on my list of pages to review :-) ~Awilley (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• 2a00:23c8:a310:e901:d598:5f26:cae1:5700 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I see you've used your surgical scalpel (more like wholesale blowing up) on that article before... Time for something other than just keeping it on watchlist? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Shamelessly appending an entirely unrelated thing: Special:Contributions/WanderingEskimo (SPA, Covid, immediate tendentious restoration of material removed by plenty of others on that talk page of a redirect). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • CU blocked now. Do me a favor and file a new pro forma SPI, and ping Maxim from there--they might have an interest, given they ran a check on a range earlier. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Will do. Thanks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

There's also something on an entirely different matter, a wee bit stale from a few days back, but not too important. Hopefully the newer one didn't bounce like DFO. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Since the SPI for the other one is in progress; I'll add Special:Contributions/Spyreguy; who seems to have a strong proclivity to cite the WSJ despite the repeated explanations about MEDRS... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • zzuuzz, I can't make sense of what I'm seeing--how the account was created, what else is there, the really really old accounts that are there... Can you help? Drmies (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I did LOL. That was a robot-ized mass account compromise attempt, on a scale I don't think I've seen before. Hopefully my recent logs will provide more information, or if you want to know the magic involved drop me an email. I think I've cleared up this little lot, but I'll obviously now have to look further into whatever you and they were talking about before. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • zzuuzz, you should be on payroll. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Zzuuzz: Thanks! Any opinion on Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#This_article_is_propaganda; where one editor keeps accusing some of us of, and I quote, "this article and its editors continue to run interference for the CCP"? This reminds me of both the now blocked sock and of Special:Contributions/Dinglelingy... Though to be fair anything that looks like an SPA and goes in the COVID pages is immediately suspicious (ex. Special:Contributions/68.148.28.136, even if I can't link it to absolutely anything else)... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Compromised or just a sleeper (created February last year)? Special:Contributions/CatDamon whose sole edit is to concur with another editor's accusations... Hopefully we don't need protection for the talk pages. Or I'm just being too cynical and seeing ghosts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
          • The account histories will be a useful thing to keep an eye on... but I think (as well as probably some socks) there are probably some different people. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
            • @Zzuuzz: Yes, indeed. You aware of that AN thread where there was reports of explicit off-wiki (Twitter) canvassing? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
              • No, but that sounds about right to me. I'm still catching up on this topic (having already reviewed the SPI), plus I have a metric tonne of compromised accounts to sift through. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Eh, you're welcome? ... Drmies (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've seen this table before, right? This is clear evidence that this new editor is either a sock or a canvassed editor... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, tell me who you think they're a sock of, and I'll look further into it. A MEAT or NOTHERE block is a possibility. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The natural guess would be this one but with all the unrelated results I'm not quite confident it's that one in particular. I'm 100% sure I've seen that page (or something very similar) before, though, I just can't seem to remember who it was, and it appears to have been deleted at some point since an "insource" search for some phrases from there doesn't yield anything but that page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Now service rifles, for real: List of service rifles by country. Could be A10 to List of rifles. Or maybe it is a valid split. Anyway, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "List of..." is the tried and true way of getting shit content into Wikipedia or keeping it in. One wishes that User:JoePhin had followed the guidelines in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia--perhaps they'll have a look at WP:RIA. Asking for proper, reliable, secondary sourcing is too much to ask, I think, and that's the hallmark of such articles. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think what bothers me even more than the terrible quality of that content is the blatant machismo of it, the gun fetishism. It confirms some of the worst stereotypes about Wikipedia. I mean, American Girl is bad too, but these guns are in thousands of articles, including ALL THOSE articles listing all the military equipment of all the countries in the world. And of their armed forces, and the branches. I mean, Sweden isn't even the worst offender, with List of equipment of the Swedish Army, Military equipment of Sweden during the Cold War, Military equipment of Sweden during World War II, List of military aircraft of Sweden, Swedish Air Force weapons, Swedish_Navy#Equipment, Home_Guard_(Sweden)#Equipment. Q: how do you know it's cruft? A: if it has pictures of guns and little flag icons of the manufacturers. (Which is another thing that irritates me: weapons represent their countries the way athletes do at the Olympics?) Drmies (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Well at the very least List of service rifles by country spares us the FLAGFARM... But hey it's unlikely to get deleted at AfD (even stuff like this didn't, so...) so better get frustrated at something else? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

	Gratitude of the Kakapo
	These lil birds and I want to thank you for bringing a moment of peace to State v. Chauvin. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Iqra Quraishi, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kartik Mistry ^talk 04:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, could you put some sort of restrictions on the State v. Chauvin article? Things have been running a little out of hand over there. Thanks, Gandydancer (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I think y'all could have done a bit more in terms of reporting and all that. I suppose you were talking about Declanhx, whom I just blocked for edit warring--they reverted three editors who reverted them, so that's pretty clear. I can't tell if their edits are decent at all, but I can tell they were editing against what seems to have been some kind of consensus. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi, I ended up here to thank you for the edit warring temp block. Since I'm still learning, what should we have reported earlier? Feel free to take your time or not respond at all. I'm sure you're busy! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Firefangledfeathers, one of the things that could have happened was a ton of warnings on the IP talk page. I see you placed one, but there could have been more (your fellow editors are experienced and should have realized it) for subsequent edits--including this personal attack in the edit summary. So by the time they actually logged into their account (and announced that), you could have reported them at AIV for edit warring, editing against consensus, disruptive editing, etc.; it was a pretty clear case wouldn't even have had to go to WP:ANEW. And I see now that Bagumba made sure to prevent further IP shenanigans--thanks for that, Bagumba. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I am grateful for your response! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You removed external links from Ritu Beri in 2018, and the comment said "rm improperly verified". What verification does this refer to? Jay (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi. I mostly removed supposed awards that did not have proper secondary reliable verification. The links were in violation of WP:EL. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just for reference, which point of WP:EL? Jay (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, look at ELYES--the two links are for interviews (and one is dead). Item 3 can allow an interview transcript, but if this interview is to add anything worthwhile, it should be used as a reference in the text to prove some point. An interview transcript would have to offer something special, more than a few factoids, in order to be a valid link--otherwise we can just start adding everything. One could imagine an interview transcript to be reasonably linked in Nixon interviews, for instance. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I ran into some incivility issues with another editor here and specifically this and this and a quick search showed that you had recently blocked the editor a few months ago for similar behavior. I have no desire or interest in responding further on that AfD, but after looking at their previous AN/ANI...fustercluck, I suppose is the only description, I am concerned that this is a chronic behavior problem with this editor. I don't know if I should report this to ANI (or how to do so)? Or report it to you as the last person who blocked them?

I had considered commenting on their talk page, to tell them about a time I almost responded very uncivily to another editor and how I found a better way to express myself, but that was before I saw their previous case (and the ones before that) and their block, and learned that this was not just a one-time misunderstanding or loss of perspective. I am perfectly willing (EAGER) to just drop this and never see that editor's name again, but this looks like chronic, toxic behavior and I'd feel bad if they wind up harassing other editors after I chose to say nothing. I'm sorry to bother you, and feel free to delete this and tell me if it was inappropriate for me to bring it up. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm. OK I see that these are not very civil comments, and they still have a tendency to be irritatingly verbose, but I can't go and block someone for one or two comments. What you can do is place a warning template on their talk page, or you can leave a note there, if only as a record in case there's more such warnings and an admin takes an interest in it. If there's more, that's a different thing, and then it can become a matter for ANI or AN. Sorry but that's the best I can say right now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

On 13 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abdallah Oumbadougou, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Abdallah Oumbadougou, the "godfather of all the present-day Tuareg musicians in Niger", distributed illegal cassette tapes of banned ishumar music while in exile from 1984 to 1995? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abdallah Oumbadougou. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Abdallah Oumbadougou), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• That reminds me, you want me to write about the motorcycles at Stratford General Strike of 1933. They were tracked carriers, of course. I believe that Zaphod Gearbox knows about motorcycles. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you want me to write about guns at Boozefighters (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Enjoy the chickens and butter. Uncle G (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note that "Hepburn's Huzzars" are already at Oshawa#Strike: 1937, although a main article is probably possible, as your mate Irv has written at some length on the subject. You'll need M. Canadian, though, to translate the Candiaian on the WWW page and find some history books about the Oshawa strike of 1937 that aren't by your mate Irv.
  • Abella, Irving (2006-02-07). "Oshwa Strike". The Canadian Encyclopaedia.
  • Abella, Irving (1974). "Oshawa 1937". In Abella, Irving (ed.). On Strike: Six Key Labour Struggles in Canada 1919–1949. James Lorimer & Company. ISBN 9780888620576.
  • Pendergest, James Alexander (1973). Labour and Politics in Oshawa and District, 1928–1943 (MA thesis). Queen's University.
  • Sefton MacDowell, Laurel (1993). "After the Strike — Labour Relations in Oshawa, 1937–1939". Relations Industrielles. 48 (4): 691–711. JSTOR 23073975.
• But enjoy the chickens and butter nonetheless. Uncle G (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I haven't heard from M. Canadian in a while; I'll see what he's up to. He's been moving and grooving. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. I'm not sure if you're aware of the current community consultation around Discretionary Sanctions but as someone who has participated in DS related activities recently I'd like to invite you to participate. You have the opportunity to participate at whatever level you wish; there are questions that are higher level (theoreticaly) in scope as well as opportunities to give feedback about specific areas of DS. The consultation will run through April 25th and I hope you'll participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. Are you serving drinks? I hear you make a mean Old-Fashioned. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

...did you find this script? I wrote it, what, 10 minutes ago? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm clairvoyant, dude. What's odd, though, is I can't understand a single word of it. I thought of you a few weeks ago; I was watching a documentary about a Mongolian place and tribe and thought back of the good old days when the world was young, Trump was still just a TV person, and we worked on shamanism. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hah, that's funny, I actually got a notification about that article not too long ago. The world certainly has gotten more...complicated since then (or, I suppose what's more likely, its complications have become more visible to those who might not be experiencing them directly), but you know, there's actually a lot of good things that have happened to me since then too, and all in all, I don't think I would go back if I had the chance. I definitely look back at those times with some fond nostalgia, though. I hope you and your bubble are all doing as well as can be under the circumstances; we're doing the best we can over here, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I thought about M. CripesIts1942 when writing Escalle, Larkspur, California, the other day. It could do with one of xyr photographs, in fact two as there's the station as well. A rather longer drive, though, I suspect.

      However, you can always help Drmies out with more furniture, eh! I found a puppetteer above, but am hoping that that is an aberration.

      Uncle G (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)