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.

Drmies, An these IPs of of Romania have been used by an editor who has become very active on several topics where pop-culture and politics are intersecting. The IP editor seems very familiar with editing procedures and talk page processes. This makes me think this probably isn't a new user. I'm also wondering about why an editor who is in Romania would be interested in topics like the removal of Civil War statues in the south. They are very interested with Gina Carano. Some of their edits are iffy in terms of civility, in particular being very quick to accuse sources of being far/alt right which appears to be based on opinion vs presented evidence. [[1]] [[2]]. The behavior reminds me of IHateAccounts [[3]] and the 27Jan timing aligns with the block of IHA.

[[4]] 46.97.170.19 17Feb - 12Mar

[[5]] 46.97.170.253 30Jan - 15Feb

[[6]] 46.97.170.112 - 19Mar - current

[[7]] 213.233.88.151 27Jan - 2Feb

Anyway, I wanted to put this on your radar. Thanks for the efforts on in this area! Springee (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm looking into it (blocked one sock account already), but tell me you didn't mark Ta-Nehisi Coates as a comic author. The Water Dancer is a fantastic book, and Between the World and Me is quite important. Anyway, I don't see the Southern statues thing in the history/interest of IhateAccounts or that Anonymous Skeptic... Drmies (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• No, I'm sorry, there is nothing there. And if you look at 46.97.170.0/24 you'll see they seem to go back to May 2020, with edits on US politics, race, gender. As for sources etc., I can't judge that, not right now anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Coates was the author of the issue of a Cpt America comic that appears to reference Jordan Peterson so in context, yes, a comic book author (I'm taking on faith he was the author in question). I wasn't certain about the IHA connection. The time stamps don't seem to line up that well as the IP editor seems to have, at least recently, a very narrow window. What I was actually thinking of is the rather aggressively negative way both the IP and IHA described people, things on the right that they disagreed with. This aggressiveness also applied to editors in a few cases about other editors such as this one [[8]]. Anyway, I would have trouble believing they weren't editing with some prior account. I think our only overlaps are the Peterson talk page and I noticed one comment with respect to Kyle Rittenhouse [[9]]. Regardless, I figured your sock spidey sense was more sensitive than mine. Thanks for taking a look. Springee (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm sure they are not just an IP editor, but I don't know who they might be, and I can assure you they are not socking currently--so they're OK in my book. Go read some Coates--it's good for you. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

He wants us to rule that CNN is not a reliable source, because: Project Veritas says so! See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.

Truly, it is to laugh. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

So that topic ban needs extension? Resuming disruptive behaviour right after previous sanctions expire is clearly sign they've either not got the memo, or they were never intent on actually following the advice given to them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Orange Mike, I think that's ridiculous enough to warrant some action. There are two options here: I single-handedly re-apply a topic ban, possibly an indefinite one, from AP territory. Or, and since I don't want to do the first one we'll do this: we take it to AE. I think it was Black Kite who said, in the last discussion, that this was really a matter for AE, so let's do that. And let's throw in this, for which "forum post" is really a euphemism, and this "discussion" at RSN: this comment, the last in the thread], by Masem indicates to which extent their original "question" was just, well, really, trolling: throw some shit on the fire and see if it explodes. I thought I was being positive with the three-month topic ban; it hasn't worked. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I see you've been looking at this editor's work too; I think you should consider taking it to AE. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Doing... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Well that was a first for me, but in any case,  Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hope you enjoyed it. And if that's not enough excitement, there's always The State of Texas vs. Melissa, which is a prime candidate for DYK. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Since we're dealing with sockpuppets of sockmaster Jinnifer, could we block 107.77.249.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), too?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies,

I don't work much with questionable editor usernames so I'm curious what you would think about User:SHaran (WMF). A page they made was tagged for CSD and I removed the tag considering that it was a testing page for a WMF staff member. But then looking at the user page, it doesn't seem evident that they actually work at WMF. But they aren't very active. What do you think, ask for a name change or just leave them alone? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: (talk page stalker) If the username is correct they would be S Haran here; and the meta user page seems to check this out. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, RandomCanadian, that is what I should have done but my mind was thinking of other tasks I need to take care of. Thanks for the follow-up. God bless talk page stalkers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, how fortuitous that I edit-conflicted with you, because I had not found that, and I had a rather different answer ready: they're not listed at Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff, and their edits don't display a lot of experience here--see the very syntax of the name of Draft:SHaranSandbox). User:SHaran (WMF), can you please disclose any other accounts on your user page, and maybe indicate your position etc. on your user page? Thanks, and thank you Liz, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• For the record: Accounts with the (WMF) suffix are restricted by blacklist and can only be made with the approval of the WMF. (They're also routinely globally locked when someone leaves the employ of the WMF.) If you have questions about a staff member's staff account, it should be directed to the WMF - especially if you are having doubts they're staff. And WMF staff members are allowed to have personal accounts. Perhaps a friendly note would be more useful than suspicion. Risker (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:50, 15 April 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.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I hope that it is about William Simmonds, the puppetteer who needs an SPI case. In the meantime, Doktoro was saying something about socks and coats, earlier. I'm thinking probably wardrobes, or chests of drawers. But that has led me to something even scarier.
  • Taylor, Lonn; Warren, David B. (1975). Texas Furniture: The Cabinetmakers and Their Work, 1840–1880. University of Texas Press. ISBN 9780292738010.
  • Taylor, Lonn; Warren, David B. (2012). Texas Furniture, Volume One: The Cabinetmakers and Their Work, 1840–1880. Focus on American History. University of Texas Press. ISBN 9780292728691.
  • Taylor, Lonn; Warren, David B. (2013). Texas Furniture, Volume Two: The Cabinetmakers and Their Work, 1840–1880. Focus on American History. University of Texas Press. ISBN 9780292745810.
• Dang it, Randy! Those dang Hippies in the 1970s smoked that marry-you-arner and went and wrote biographies of cabinetmakers in Texas, I tell you whut! Then they dang-well re-published it 35 years later. It surely makes those dang Canadians from Canadia look like regular folk, even though they are dang Yankees.
  • Baker, Peter E. (2017). "Une Vue de Dundas — J. R. Seavey". Le Canada chez soi: L’Histoire en guise de décor. Dundurn. ISBN 9781459740358. (in Foreign, Bottom Left Up-A-Bit Canadiaian it seems)
  • Cochrane, William (1891). "Julian Ruggles Seavey". The Canadian Album: Men of Canada. Vol. 3. Brandtford, Ontario: Bradley, Garretson & Company. p. 223. (in American)
• Uncle G (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

	A pastry or two
	Sorry, couldn't get the salt. Probably best, too much is bad for you (unlike pastries, of course...) Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I appreciate it--thanks! That is very nice of you. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi admin, is it possible that you could follow up on the WP:ANI#Skb7 false accusation against me? I'm pretty pissed and drained by Skb7 continously accusations against me which tarnish my image on Wikipedia. As seen in the discussion and in the linked See also, Skb7 continously acussed me for something I didn't do, I have also presented the evidence which fellow admin Black Kite agreed with the evidence, however Black Kite is currently offline hence would appreciate if you could help out with it. Thanks a lot. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: courtesy ping — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I missed this, and then I ended up there anyway. So I think I can still charge my usual fee, right? And I need salt. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Oops ... anyway thanks for helping out at Black Kite talk page. I don't have salt but here is a barnstar for you.

		Anti-Wikibullying Barnstar
		Thanks for standing up to the false accusations. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Goulven of Léon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Whiteguru, thanks--I appreciate it. It's part of a cluster of articles related to Breton culture. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Good day Drmies! I am very thankful to you and Girth Summit for reconsidering the block placed on me. Very many thanks too to the ever reliable NinjaRobotPirate for clearing my name as we have had a rich history of collaborating to weed out sockpuppets from Wikipedia. Now, as I have intimated before, I had been inactive from Wikipedia for a long while. It came as a surprise that I got blocked and the block was triggered by the actions of, ironically, a sockpuppet account. I would like to direct your attention to this. In that diff, the user that did that to me was Jricaplaza who was suspiciously eager said to implicate me as a sockpuppet of Ajhenson21. A big plot twist though, the user was a sockpuppet of Ajhenson21 himself. I have not had any activity on Wikipedia and have not reported said user for sockpuppetry as I would have done in the past had I been active. But given the fact of my inactivity and I was still the target of a smear campaign led me to believe that the user is somehow connected to Albe23413 and his string of sockpuppets. Why else would he attack someone who has not had any activity and whom he has not even interacted with? The reason I see is that he thought I was the one that reported him. Now after what he did, I don't know what stunt he'll pull off next. I just don't feel safe anymore at Wikipedia with users like that running amok. I fear that the next ploy he'll do, having failed at running me out of Wikipedia, is to track my location and attack me and those close to me. It's not a remote possibility, considering he just showed the extent of his depravity here. I implore all of you for help if we can find a more permanent solution of dealing with this sockpuppeteer. I feel like the more that he stays here on Wikipedia, the more that I'd be the subject of his attacks. I am hoping for a resolution of this concern. Thank you and warmest regards to you all. Gardo Versace (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Gardo Versace Concerns of this kind are probably best treated under BEANS (i.e. that is, not here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Apologies if I'm venting this at the wrong forum, but right now I am panicking over what is happening. Apart from the fact that I've been busy, I've been dealing with a mental health problem which I am not actually comfortable to disclose. After this occurrence, it has heightened my paranoia and I am now having anxiety attacks. I panicked that's why I went with this forum. Again, I am very sorry for going with the wrong forum. Warmest regards to all of you Gardo Versace (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, Gardo Versace, I think this is fine. Listen, I'll try to ease your mind: there is no technical way in which they can get to you. What I mean is it's not through the technical aspects of any of your Wikipedia edits that they can figure out who you are--now, if you divulged information, that's different. Like, there's people who drop email accounts, location information (in my case, it's not hard to figure out I live in Alabama), personal information, that sort of thing. I don't put my kids' names on here anymore, for instance--yes, I've had to deal with an online harasser.

But, by the same token, there's little we can do on our end. We can block accounts, we can scrub things they say if they reveal private information, that sort of thing. Have a look at WP:DWH: if such a thing happens, contact ArbCom--that's the first step. What we can do here is remain vigilant and keep blocking; I've semi-protected a bunch of the articles, but I know, that's not much. That person is a serious ... well I can't say what I think: they're following me around to just to fuck with me. That's pretty sad. So, as long as you stay safe on your end, and be mindful of what you put on this website, and you keep in mind what you put on social media and online, you are doing all you can and their harassment is not likely to spill over outside Wikipedia, and keep us (or ArbCom) posted of anything that goes outside of "regular" on-wiki harassment. I wish I could make it sound better. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand Drmies and RandomCanadian, thanks for having the patience in helping me to ease my worries. I'd be careful alright, knowing that he's lurking out there somewhere. I am not active anymore on Wikipedia and only check from time to time, I hope to not be surprised again with another block that I allegedly committed while I was inactive. In the 4 years that I've been doing this, I have given my best efforts to live up to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and I fear that all that hardwork would go up in smoke again because of another attempt at smearing my name. I fear that one day, he'll wise up and actually create a false account with which to finally pin me down. Sorry if I again used your talk page to vent out, I guess I could use someone to talk to and you've done just that. Thank you and warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace: You're welcome. I could also use some venting, but I guess that's entirely on me for being cynical about the "truth" sent from above from Trump. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Drmies (and NinjaRobotPirate), tangential to this - from a checkusery perspective, is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajhenson21 actually Albe23413? Similar interest in harassing Gardo Versace and Filipino TV, wanted to get an opinion from you all before shuffling the cases around (...again). All known Albe socks are stale, so this is going to have to rely on the CU log and/or any notes you might have kept. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't have any notes, no. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell, they're probably on the same IP range. I don't remember much about the case, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a barnstar for bacon? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, you can make them yourself. User:Kelapstick/Bacon Cabal has a picture. I'm not sure how active the cabal still is, but we're not very strict about membership; perhaps Kelapstick can inform us what the requirements are. After all, he is the MacDaddy, and those pictures are his. I wonder if his wife still allows him to make those. I understand he's been a strict diet of capybara for a while. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• I guess I can give it a try. Kelapstick is eating capybaras? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Kansas Bear you can use User:Kelapstick/Bacon Cabal/Bacon barnstar tempalte for the bacon barnstar. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I thought about giving someone a Bacon barnstar since someone else called them the "bacon of objectivity", but then I figured it might not be taken in the spirit it was given. Thanks anyway!--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me with my sockpuppet reports. Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 16:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Drmies,

With respect to your recent edit, I agree of course that "Wikipedia user space is for working on articles and other activities related to Wikipedia". However, your statement about "material used to harass on other WMF projects" is unfounded. It is hard for you to judge, so i'll give you some background.

The Arbitration Committee of the Dutch wikipedia has accepted my case against unlawful actions by User:Daniuu and Natuur12 against my articles and me for arbitration. (Google Translate Dutch-English has improved a lot recently, so you can read for yourself.) Daniuu has acted rashly here by removing clearly innocent Dutch text on a false claim and hoax. The text was intended for the allowed space https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Humor_en_onzin and conforms fully to the traditional rules there. So there is no harassment whatsoever by me, as User:Daniuu should know. You can check that i was, am and intend to be a decent Wikimedian on various wikiplatforms. I am a moderator on nl.wikibooks. Daniuu has no valid argument. We should not allow cross-wiki editorial violence.

• So, could you please restore the text you removed as would be correct? Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Seriously? You are blocked indefinitely on the nl-wikipedia for "Verstoring/bedreiging van werksfeer" after this extensive discussion about these jokes of yours, which you may claim are innocent and "conform ... to the traditional rules there" but that are clearly perceived as disruptive and threatening. So this is a no. And no, this isn't really hard for me to judge. If you restore that material I will block you: the content you are posting here, in your user space on en-wiki, merely serves to extenuate disruption across platforms, especially since Daniuu, an administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia, is also an active participant on the English Wikipedia, and thus has a right to complain about your shenanigans. If they were disruptive there, they are disruptive here, or, as you put it, "We should not allow cross-wiki editorial violence." Drmies (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% on both substance and outcome (because of course I do), I'm just encouraging you to be slightly more nuanced in your entirely correct statements :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 18:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks--but like so many people I also get tired of having to explain the sky is blue... Drmies (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Blue? Know your Dpbsmith, Doktoro! User:Uncle G/On sources and content#There are no exceptions to everything. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• And Zaphod Gearbox, on another matter, you may enjoy reading John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. See s:Page:On Liberty (4th Edition).djvu/66 from the point beginning "The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary’s case".

  If you want to pass your Senior Cambridge, you need to know what every schoolchild is taught on this subject: A Practical Rhetoric: For Instruction in English Composition and Revision in Colleges and Intermediate Schools at the Internet Archive

  Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I should keep item 6 in mind... As a side note, Señor Cambridge's Scribleriad was the inspiration for the title of The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats, edited by a late friend and colleague. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Cicero ("the greatest orator, save one, of antiquity") is an interesting example, since some of his most famous orations abandon nuance and civility in favor of unrestrained invective. And of course Mill himself recognized, in On Liberty, that tone-policing was an inherently partisan act and a way of taking the side of the powerful against the powerless:

      With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides... whatever mischief arises from their use is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless.

      So I'm not sure either of them would take issue with Drmies's bluntness, but who knows. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • You are getting Doktoro confused with Zaphod Gearbox. There may be a slight resemblance, and indeed the occasional crossover episode, but one does use a TARDIS and the other an infinitely improbable thing invented by Boris Johnson. It is M. Gearbox who is currently sitting xyr Senior Cambridge on the Turing Test. Doktoro is, after all, already a Doktoro. Uncle G (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Vacuum

The Engineering Professor Vacuum is of course awaiting a replacement pump, and an earnest pointer to Google Translate in case one has difficulty with Gallifreyan makes me chuckle. But: Doktoro, there's a Dutch Vacuum Society? When were you going to tell me this? I've just found a whole bunch of biographies, and if I find second sources you might find yourself with a Vacuuum Vacuuum.

• Redhead, Paul A., ed. (1997). Vacuum Science and Technology: Pioneers of the 20th Century. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9781563962486.

Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Uncle, I can't help but wonder if you're retired and just don't like fishing. It is true that Category:Vacuum is in need of some work. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• But I'm not sure what you are pointing at. I'd write up NEVAC, but the sourcing is poor in Dutch and in English--just another trade group/professional organization with a conference and a journal, and no coverage of it. Or are you interested in Pieter Clausing, and that erroneous diffusion coefficient in his PhD thesis, something that seems to have really bothered Irving Langmuir? Drmies (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely the biographies in the book, Doktoro. Vaccuuuming under the furniture seems long overdue. I shall be searching for second sources. Have some pity with the acronyms. I only recently had to figure out what FP420 experiment (AfD discussion) was, and I wouldn't just casually bring such technical articles like that, or immersion boiler or spice rack, here to Articles for Creation. The Time Lords did remove all knowledge of TARDIS-building from your memories when they sent you away from Gallifrey, and I wouldn't want to be the cause of any upset. On the other hand, maybe your lurkers know what a spice rack is. Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

On 23 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stratford General Strike of 1933, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Stratford General Strike of 1933 the Canadian military was brought in, with machine guns, to which the strikers responded with a rally and a parade? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stratford General Strike of 1933. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stratford General Strike of 1933), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you. I've just reverted this anonymous change which had for over 2 months successfully suppressed the reliably sourced (as in BBC) info that the snooker player who is the subject of the article was currently banned for 5 years for match-fixing. The edit also left the lead of the article ungrammatical (sentence not ended by a full stop - aka period in American English) and absurd (the guy is a snooker player, not a snooker). The fact that this was not reverted for over 2 months suggests too few editors have the page on their watchlist, so semi-protection limiting changes to auto-confirmed users seems required, but I don't know how to request this properly, except by asking my favourite admin to do it. The page seems likely to get quite a bit of traffic because the player who received a one-year ban in the same incident (for failing to report his knowledge of the matter) is doing better than expected in the current World Championship, and his page wikilinks to the abused page. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Tlhslobus, thanks for reverting that--you can make these requests at WP:RFPP, but I think you'd get the same answer there that I'm about to give you: there is not enough recent activity to warrant semi-protection. I'm glad you saw it, but semi-protection, given this history, that's too much. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Drmies, and sorry for bothering you. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No bother at all: thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. You spamublocked Pulsemedic back in March 2020, but they just resumed spamming on their talk page. You might wish to revoke their talk page access. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Drm310  Done GirthSummit _(blether) 16:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

JoAnne Lorenzana is an article created a decade ago by an SPA who has edited virtually nothing but this article for the decade she has been on Wikipedia. She also apparently has no clue how to cite things even after a decade. It was fancrufty enough already, but today she added a whole new level of misshapen bloat which I noticed via Recent Changes. I've trimmed 50% of the badly cited article, but she keeps adding more stuff back in. Could people help keep an eye on it? (By the way, I'm not even sure the subject meets notability; gets only a handful of Google hits; has some [mostly dead] links to Philippines news articles at the bottom of the article, but nothing comes up on Google unless perhaps in Filipino/Tagalog.) Does not even have an official website (website dead since 2015), so she seems to be making Wikipedia her official website. Thanks, y'all, Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know, Softlavender--"Web Paper loading" seems like a pretty promising article, though it seems to be a common title. Drmies (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks, y'all. In fairness to the editor (who I now think is just a fan and still a newbie with only 85 edits -- she recently reached out at the Teahouse to get a clue about editing, and has also contributed to another Filipino musician's article), I'm going to see if I can find Wayback versions of the now-deleted and dead references. (We commonly retain reputable citations if they are dead, and provide archived links.) Thanks again, Softlavender (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Uncle, for that link. I was able to find the direct link to the scanned article from it. Softlavender (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You might also enjoy the several history professors over at User talk:JzG#Concern regarding Draft:Republican Jesus. I am sure that Doktoro is even now sympathizing with Zaphod Gearbox. Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I wish "a certain amount of profanity" was more clearly quantified. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • In the words of the immortal Herr Doktor Mies: Fuck no. Shouldn't that title just be a redirect to Donald Trump? Also, I'm not sure a Brit should be doing articles on OUR politics. Softlavender (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
        • It has already been promoted to Republican Jesus. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Christ. Softlavender (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
            • I find all this very amusing. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
              • I'd offer to install a History Professor Vacuum for you, but you in fact have geography coming your way. And that two-sentence cricketer with a puppetteer. I suspect that Softlavender's suggestions here for improving and renaming Republican Jesus to add "Christ" are not actionable. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• By the way, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the reason JoAnne Lorenzana titled her recent album My Everyday Valentine is because she was born on February 14. I just realized that because I am a Super Editor. Softlavender (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, could you please block Hibby Dibsy? They're an LTA. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe take a look, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shuppiluliuma Shadow4dark (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Teahouse#A specific diff

Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

On 27 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William A. Radford, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that William A. Radford assisted in producing a 1700-page encyclopedia about cement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William A. Radford. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William A. Radford), 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, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• So everyone just ignored Guldner House and you didn't do a double. Uncle G (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, right, oops--that was a double DYK, or it would have been if I had nominated it correctly. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gwerz Skolan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It's good to see that 'ole Philo is still remembered! I know Clint is more likely remembered as Dirty Harry, his spaghetti western characters, or perhaps even as a great director. Still, I always liked the Beddoe. :-). The follow up may have been even better than the original outing. I thought the chemistry between Clint and William Smith was amazing. Maybe it was just the fact that Smith was a real-life badass. (but I guess that's true of many Smiths). Either way - it's good to know that the Beddoe character is remembered. Hope you're well Drmies. Always good to see your name in the mix. — Ched (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, likewise, on that last note. I always thought they were just silly, but every now and then I'm tempted to say "right turn Liam" when I take my boy to school. I need to watch Rumble Fish again, and get the kids to watch it. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On the "silly" side, I recently bought Uncle Drew, so I'm going to have to sit down and watch that one. I bet you're boy is growing fast - they tend to do that, lol. My granddaughter graduates this year, so I'm hoping my daughter and son-in-law will let me come out and do a photo shoot for her. Rumble Fish? Hmmm .. now that's a film I haven't seen in many years. Doesn't seem to be on any of my streaming services, so I'll have to check my DVD collection. Cheers my friend. — Ched (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Breton Ballads you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CommanderWaterford -- CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:41, 27 April 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.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 27 April 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.

Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Celestina007, right back at you. And now you have a mission. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Years of the 17th century in the Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a notice that this category is now empty. It looks like years during this time period are being classified as part of "the Dutch Republic" rather than being in "the Netherlands". This category will be deleted if it is still empty in 7 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I saw that earlier for another category. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

On 29 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vuurbaak van Katwijk aan Zee, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Vuurbaak van Katwijk aan Zee, built in 1605, is the second-oldest lighthouse in the Netherlands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vuurbaak van Katwijk aan Zee. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Vuurbaak van Katwijk aan Zee), 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) 12:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I am still relatively new to wikipedia, I certainly didn't mean to cause an edit war. Please let me know if I still did something wrong in my referencing, just added what I understand as secondary sources and removed primary ones. --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• BlackPantherDesert, if a person who is part of an organization gets a grant from another organization, then communications from the person, from their organization, and from the grant-giving organization are all primary. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Got it, thanks. Okay so, I found this source here, which seems to be a press release from the university that was printed by an independent press outlet: https://idw-online.de/de/news714678 -- would this be considered a secondary source then, because it is an independent publisher? And another question to the source I had found and you deemed primary: this source here is an independent scientific clinical trials registry (independent from any funding agency, projects or partners): https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT03855735?V_3=View Why is this not considered a secondary source? Thank you so much for helping me understand this better, this is so complicated! --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    • A press release is not a secondary source, and a registry, while likely reliable, is generally NOT accepted for this kind of information since it gives us no good reason to consider the referenced item noteworthy. That is what secondary sources do also: they bestow noteworthiness on items. If a newspaper or magazine or book, independent of the subject(s), publishes a bit of information, we can trust that they deemed it noteworthy, and so we can accept that. As for the accusations you made on your own talk page, I will address those there. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, got it, so there is no acceptable reference to evidence the fact of the existence of a large grant, until the grant is reported somewhere by some press. For example, I found it is reported and prominently showcased in this German nursing magazine here on page 18: https://www.pflegemagazin-rlp.de/sites/default/files/2020-06/12_PFL_Januar_2019-01_Rheinland-Pfalz_epaper_0.pdf An acceptable secondary source? --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • One more: on the SACCIA model (another section you deleted under "research"), I found this here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704615/ I would consider this a secondary source -- am I correct, or wrong again? --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but how can that be a secondary source on the topic of Annegret Hannawa when Annegret Hannawa is one of the authors? And it is certainly not independent. Please see Wikipedia:REPUTABLE, the first main section of the guideline for reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Hannawa is not an author of this article, this is a book review written and published by "Kai Schnabel" about the book by Hannawa & Jonitz in which Hannawa first published the SACCIA model. Schnabel's review was published in the "GMS Journal for Medical Education", this is a scientific journal. It seems as though there is no relation between Schnabel and Hannawa, at least I can't find any anywhere online. So is this an acceptable secondary source? --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Doktoro, your recent focus on owning Donald Trump socks is quite disturbing, and I went looking for some more furniture for you to combat that. Imagine my surprise at finding a puppetteer lurking unbeknownst to all bar one person behind William Simons, a slightly dead person that the puppet creator has cleverly and posthumously arranged for Google to steer everyone towards instead, and William Simmonds, one of those two-sentence mass-created cricket people that are so the rage right now. It's even a shared account, and even more cleverly Google is steering the other person's name to Eva Simons from Gallifrey. Uncle G (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wait, this William Simmonds? No, this one--but I think you should write up "Ms. World Automaton", who has the additional benefit of not being able to get married and thus losing her crown. As you know, I don't understand cricket or furniture. BTW I did receive that lovely bouquet of flowers you sent me for Vuurbaak van Katwijk aan Zee, and Mrs. Drmies and I both appreciate the box of bonbons--how did you know hazelnut is my favorite? Drmies (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Certainly the William Simmonds who was supposed to be linked from User:Magnus Manske/Your Paintings, although I only found about that afterwards. I was looking for furniture carvers for you.

    As for the bus stop, I fully expected at User talk:Drmies/Archive 133#Speedy deletion nomination of User:Drmies/Stavoren lighthouse that you, with your greater access to JSTORrery, Main Beaming, and — indeed! — Gallifreyan museums would be able to do far better than I could. The factoid about that tourist Peeters facing the wrong way and looking out from the bus stop was not enough.

    Although we have discovered that your ISP is hiding things from Eastern Kentucky University from you. That seems like the Scunthorpe problem taken to absurd extremes. I would ask some pointed questions about its WWW filtering if I were you.

    Whitworth Art Gallery (1976). "Peeters, Jan the Elder". Landscape in Flemish and Dutch Drawings of the 17th Century: From the Collections of the Musees Royaux Des Beaux-arts de Belgique, Brussels. University of Manchester.

    Uncle G (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

    • I found a few hits for paintings of the Vuurbaak, but they were all snippets. The one I looked into was not a notable painter, and I didn't feel like writing that guy up too. BTW the square in this poor picture, yes--the Vuurbaak was a bit of a problem. Everything around it had been leveled and the Vuurbaak was in the way when they were rebuilding the city after WW2. That odd square, the Vuurbaakplein, apparently was kind of a necessity. Actually, I have inquired about filtering, but to no avail. The last time it was all clogged up with obscenities from a certain banned user, and HR got worried about me being in imminent danger. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Tell HR that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It is fortunate that this is the English Professor Vacuum, Doktoro. So there are no English professors around to warn of the dangers of working from the Cliff's Notes rather than reading the book.

• Fagence Cooper, Suzanne (2019-12-13). "William Simmonds: The silent heart of the Arts and Crafts movement, by Jessica Douglas-Home". Church Times.
• Aslet, Clive (2019). "Craftsman of art". The New Criterion. Vol. 37, no. 7. p. 63.

Uncle G (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Uncle G: the Doctor's rage here seems to be directed towards service rifles (and "lists of ..."). As for the two sentence directories of non-notable people, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Doktoro knows all about robot cricket people I suspect. Doktoro is actually trying to get me to write about guns and bikers for xem right now, in fact, although I am having trouble reading Canadiaian.

    Perhaps we need to get Doktoro onto Wisconsin Cheeseman (AfD discussion), which xe will immediately recognize as 388 F.2d 420, being a former Lord High Pajama.

    Did you know Bernier the Lumberman's name, by the way?

    Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Re. the name: typical Quebec name; but never heard of him, no. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • That's alright. No-one knew for 35 years. Xe was from Maine.
        • Rounds, Leslie; Routhier, Jessica Skwire (2010). ""Bernier the Lumberman": The mystery carver of Biddeford, Maine, identified" (PDF). The Magazine ANTIQUES. pp. 70–72.
      • Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The zero-effort AFD mass-nominations including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottom (technical analysis) have led me to someone who wasn't furniture related, Doktoro. But it turns out that Richard W. Schabacker might be article-worthy despite having no relation to furniture. I discount the massive self-published biography, because there is nothing showing George A. Schade's credentials. But other stuff does turn up here and there. Perhaps the lurkers can find something more.

• Schultz, Harry D.; Coslow, Samson, eds. (1966). "Richard W. Schabacker — Pioneer of Sophisticated Technical Research". A Treasury of Wall Street Wisdom. Investors' Press.

Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have been somewhat distracted by Hog Farm's Impossible Challenge at User:Hog Farm/Missouri attention needed, Doktoro; but never fear. I have not forgotten this SPI case. Uncle G (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, please take a look at this Wikipedia article here. It is also about a German communications person, but it appears to use no sourcing at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedemann_Schulz_von_Thun . Neither does the page on the linked model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model None of the content of these two articles were deleted by editors. An issue of no sourcing at all vs. primary/secondary sourcing? Doesn't all content have to be referenced to a source? Just thought I'd draw your attention to this as an example of what I would personally consider an issue (based on my understanding of the wikipedia rules), but then again, I don't consider myself experienced enough yet to step in as an editor on pages like these without first understanding the sourcing issue better. That said, thank you for helping me understand this! --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think that if you're writing a biography, it's more helpful to look at a good article (or a Good Article) than at a bad one. Here's one: Art Spiegelman. We have over five six million articles, and a bunch of them are not up to snuff. The burden for editors is to write articles that are acceptable, which I am trying to do right now with L. Zenobia Coleman. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks!--BlackPantherDesert (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I already tagged it, so it's locked and loaded (they may try to remove my CSD tag):

User:Jithesh designer.

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm why don't you just run for admin? Drmies (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The article Breton Ballads you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Breton Ballads for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CommanderWaterford -- CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, CommanderWaterford, I had totally missed this. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker) Courtesy note about some scrutiny on quick-reviews by the same reviewer, but the article is pretty great, so I'm just leaving the link for transparency purposes. Vaticidalprophet 15:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  We really appreciate this @Vaticidalprophet. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm glad you do. Vaticidalprophet 15:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

We did manage to pickup 'Bama running back Najee Harris in the first round last night. TY 'Bama!! — Ched (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• No. 22 baby--he's magic. He's got that spin move, and he JUMPS. Nick Saban's way of doing things, it's like a machine. It's so much success we are spoiled. Just ask Tide rolls--and yet, please let him have eternal life... Drmies (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Alright User:Ched, who's next? Oh, someone from Penn State. Didn't know they still had a program, haha. Oh that dude is huge. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, I went to Pitt, so I was never a big Lions fan. I have some mixed feelings about Joe Pat. Hopefully we can get some O-line help here soon. Waiting patiently. — Ched (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC) (add) either you type really fast - or I'm on some sort of delay here. — Ched (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you talk to the guy who insists on converting every image on John Wayne to low grade colorized versions that he made himself? I've started a discussion on the talk page, and left him a message on his talk page, and I think he's seen them and just ignoring me. I've reverted twice and not interested in getting in an edit war. Since he has reverted back the same images that he originally changed, he obviously knows someone disapproves. If you, or an experienced talk page stalker has the time, thanks in advance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• I remember when those colourized old movies of New York came out a while back. The historians thought that they did bring history to life, but stated that they weren't good for actual history as they were clearly not historically accurate, and of course added and lost information in the process. I think that the same applies to an encyclopaedia. It is, literally, giving the reader a false picture of something.
  • Nicholson, Thomas (2020-01-10). "YouTubers are upscaling the past to 4K. Historians want them to stop". Wired.
• Ignore the clickbait headline and sub-head, by the way. The historians quoted said no such thing. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Goulven of Léon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Goulven of Léon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Whiteguru, I saw your comments, and I appreciate it. Yes, I'd LOVE to have more material to work with. On the bright side, a certain paucity of sources also keeps matters manageable. FYI this article was part of a set of articles I wrote pertaining to Breton literature, and the links between Brittany and Cornwall/Wales are just fascinating. Again, thanks for your review! Drmies (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I have this attachment to Wales. There is an interesting synchronicity between the Welsh language and Sanskrit. The links are fascinating, as you say! Cheers! --Whiteguru (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you were looking for the "himla med ögonen" emoji. And here it is! If lost again, you can always find it on Floquenstein's monster's page — that's what I do. Bishonen | tålk 21:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC).

• You are the best, Bish. I was actually thinking about you when I typed that, because this isn't the first time, haha. How are you? I got my second shot more than a month ago, so I'm ready for some excitement. Like, we got two new toilets installed--that's pretty exciting! Drmies (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The hubs and I got our second shots April 1st and it's been like Rumspringa. —valereee (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Vaxxed and waxed... Meanwhile, my youngest daughter, who had the COVID in November, still can't taste or smell... Drmies (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) I'm sorry to hear that. My family's been fortunate in that even though my wife works in a (underfunded) hospital, we've remained infection free. I hope she manages to recover, soon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
        • - while none can top Bish's emoji, there's a lot of other emoji codes at ((emoji)). And yes - best wishes for your daughter Doc. — Ched (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

      Sorry to hear it, Drmies, hope she gets back to normal soon. —valereee (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

[10]. It looks to me like someone won't discuss the issue, and since I've 1. reverted 2. posted on talk, and 3. warned them - I'm probably not the best person to block. — Ched (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Any (talk page watcher) are welcome to lend a hand as well. — Ched (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• I welcomed the new editor (after reverting), - I don't think they need a block (yet). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Gerda, but I had hoped my note was friendly enough... Drmies (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked for 31 hours and hope the editor starts communicating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The elephant in … on the podium

I've pointed out the obvious problem with Lucille Ball's hair colour, and why these robot colourizations are clearly faulty. In similar vein, enjoy what the real colours of the podium at the 1968 RNC were.

• robot colourization of the podium
• actual colour photograph in the State Library of Florida

The robot service is https://imagecolorizer.com/colorize.html and given this I think that we should not accept any of its colourizations, as these examples show this service to be a source of major falsehoods.

Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Good god that is awful! But the true color of that convention, wasn't that obvious from Spiro Agnew's acceptance speech, "A nation plagued by disorder blah blah"? Drmies (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Pretty bad, huh? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've seen 5 year old children with crayons do a better job. - well ... you asked. :) — Ched (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• This, kids, is why you don't let your bot take LSD before letting it colorize images. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Vuurbaak van Katwijk aan Zee

I've had, just yesterday, Google Books give me two different views of a single book according to what search path I used to reach it. And that was when logged in.

Uncle G (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I often have problems with non-US user links, yes. But I can't imagine writing Wikipedia articles without Google Books...well, I guess I might write better ones, because I have to work harder at every individual article... Drmies (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That book on the politics of furniture can be used to significantly expand Knoll (company) I think, by the way. I hope that you were suitably scared by the books from those pot-smoking Texans, too. We're still waiting for M. Canadian to translate the book that is in Canadiaian. And for that SPI case of the puppetteer to be decided.

    Did you see that someone has cited some books for you to write about the guns at Boozefighters (AfD discussion)? Mind you, if only those two had looked at the article, they wouldn't have had to research it nearly so hard. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

… and Babcock

Given your recent excitement over J-Pop and John Carter, lacking a furniture connection for the latter I find myself turning to the scary Texan books for a fireman. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

… and burning

• Lewis, Todd E. (1993). "Mob Justice in the "American Congo": "Judge Lynch" in Arkansas during the Decade after World War I". The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 52 (2). Arkansas Historical Association: 156–184. doi:10.2307/40019247. JSTOR 40019247.

Henry Lowry throughout. John Carter on pages 166, 168, 174, and in particular 169 which has stuff that you haven't got at all. Uncle G (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see that now. I wrote these articles without looking at JSTOR. The case of Henry Lowry is absolutely gruesome and obviously deserves to be written up. Dwight H. Blackwood needs an article as well, as does every other person on that two-page list. When you come visit me we'll go to the Memorial. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Did this stall, Doktoro? Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Everything is stalled, Uncle, and I'm doing stuff that is either class-related (and not necessarily on this account) or doesn't require much concentration. I have to grade...and get my paperwork ready for full...and work on the summer syllabi...and write up my work plan for next year...bleh... Drmies (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
      • More details of the letters (It wasn't Lowry's letter that was intercepted.) are at Beyond the Rope: The Impact of Lynching on Black Culture and Memory (Hill, CUP, 2013) ISBN 9781316790625 page 52, whose footnotes you will find more accessible. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Uncle G, I think I did about as much as I can do. I have not incorporate that last source you mentioned, but I need to take a break from it. If you can turn that one footnote into the other kind of footnote, and maybe regularize the notes (with that sfn format of yours), that would be great. Then we'll put it on the front page, and nominate it for GA. Thanks for your help. The enormous collusion across the board, the incredible cruelty, the pervasiveness of white supremacy, there is so much that still needs to be brought to light. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Doktoro, you might want to double-check that 1923 lithograph that you cited. Was there a caption added in 1928 or something? I do not have your access to magazines. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Uncle, the lithograph was used for the 1928 article of the same title in Opportunity: A Journal of Negro Life that listed lynchings that happened in 1927. Does that answer your question? I'm trying to find that edition (January 1928) in HathiTrust but for the life of me I don't know how to search that database. I found one issue of the journal, here, but can't click around to any others, and searching for "opportunity" in "Publisher" or "Series Title", in the Advanced Collection Search, is no help either... Drmies (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034654601 Uncle G (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The Law Is Too Slow. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Chapter 3 of ISBN 9780813534596 will help with that and indicates that This Is Her First Lynching (doi:10.1177/0146167217733075) is a subject, too, as are the 1935 exhibitions in New York if we do not have them already. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah I have that in there already; it's an interesting and I think correct analysis. It is contradicted, at least in terms of its political implications, by another source I just added--but then I've never had a high opinion of the Cambridge Scholars Group or whatever they're called. Can you come up with a good hook for Henry Lowry? There is so much there, I'm drawing a blank. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So let's see:

The 1935 New York anti-lynching exhibitions included Death (Lynched Figure) (modelled after the lynching of George Hughes), This Is Her First Lynching, and The Law Is Too Slow and were intended to support anti-lynching legislation (the Costigan-Wagner Bill) that would have made it against federal law for police to do nothing as they did in cases like the lynching of John Carter, earlier similar (Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill) proposed legislation having been supported by the NAACP using the case of the lynching of Henry Lowry.

Uncle G (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, Uncle, that is the kind of overview article I was pondering last night after shutting down. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If you are going to break the 200 character rule, you might as well power through and aim for 200 words. ☺ All of the other artworks in the exhibition at least need a mention from that book. And the dang Texans have got a dang handbook with a whole bunch of stuff in for George Hughes. I suspect that the sentence is tailing off, now, but I could be wrong. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't forget William Simmonds, above. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I just noticed an IP user 157.231.131.2 which you blocked for 3 months for being used by Gordimalo has just started editing again and they tried restoring another edit by one of Gordimalo's sockpuppets. Just a heads up. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

And now that IP is trying to edit war. Mellk (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• User:Mellk, I gave you User:One way system for free. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the update. And wow, this guy really doesn't give up. Mellk (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Another IP user that showed up to a RfC in the same article to support the sockpuppet's contribution which writes like someone who has used WP for some time and seems too familiar. Can you check this? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In fact, IP info is identical to another IP sock. Exact same location, same provider, same ASN. This is a duck. Any suggestions on what to do in this case? It's clear Gordimalo won't leave this article alone. Mellk (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Too much for a rangeblock, I'm afraid. If you find some more recent ones where these came from, I could look for a more targeted range. Thanks. Yes, they're irritatingly persistent; look at the comments made by earlier accounts: they are completely oblivious and uncaring. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Mellk (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you think all wikipedians are good at coding? I think yes, at least you need to know a little bit about coding... Qiu Warren (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don’t know why you block the iP 165.155.128.0/17, I don’t know what did this iP did cause you to block it. Your reason is ongoing talk page abuse, I think it did not abuse the talking page. So can you tell me the reason? Qiu Warren (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Talk page privileges were abused. I don't know what you are trying to achieve; you have an account and can edit. Nor do I understand what you were trying to achieve on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What I want to achieve, is only to unblock that iP. Qiu Warren (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • File an unblock request and good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      • By the way, I don’t think it had ever used talk page, or it never write anything on any talk page. Qiu Warren (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      • How can I file an unblock request? I am new... Qiu Warren (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Don't tell others what your IP is, for safety reasons, please. No need to ping me on my own talk page. For the unblock, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. As for writing on a talk page: this is what you did. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Ok, thank you Qiu Warren (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I will never give up, never!!!
          • Seems all the administrators are good at finding decline reasons, huh?!?!?!

I am going do some contributions on Chinese Wikipedia Qiu Warren (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe quit while you're ahead? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Comparing these edits to these edits, it looks like 187.39.133.201 is the blocked and globally locked editor User:ZaZooZee evading their block. Looks pretty DUCKy to me, but you might want to check. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest filing a sockpuppet report. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 21:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Helena Kuipers-Rietberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gouda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Good night Drmies, I saw that I was mentioned here, however, as you probably noticed, I have no relationship with this MarquinhosWikipediano. In my contributions, this is the first edition since December 2020. Perhaps I was mentioned because my account had a different name until March 27 of that year (my full name). In February I asked to globally rename my account so that it had a shorter username, but as there was a Commons account with that name, it was necessary to wait a month for my account to be effectively renamed. My English is bad and, since I don't speak Portuguese, I had to use the translator to write this message, but I believe I understood what I meant. Finally, pleasure to speak, I am sysop in Wikipedia in Portuguese. Marcos (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Marcos, nice to meet you too. Yeah, that sock, that's pretty irritating that they have a similar name. I don't know a thing about renaming, or about global stuff; it sounds bothersome. I don't know that you were mentioned here, but on the SPI? I'll go have a look. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Lynching of John Carter 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) 16:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Death (statue)
• https://www.noguchi.org/museum/exhibitions/view/birth-and-death/
• JSTOR 10.2307/community.14210332

Interestingly, that isn't a disambiguator. That's actually a part of the title of the work, as given by many people, including Abel. The Nogichi Museum seems to have it as an alternative title, "or Lynched Figure", but that's actually a rare exception from what I can see. Uncle G (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was wondering how you had that as a disambiguator, with capitals. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles

• Template:Did you know nominations/1935 New York anti-lynching exhibitions
• Template:Did you know nominations/Lynching of John Carter
• Template:Did you know nominations/The Law Is Too Slow
• 1935 New York anti-lynching exhibitions
• Death (statue)
• lynching of George Hughes
• This Is Her First Lynching
• The Law Is Too Slow
• lynching of John Carter
• lynching of Henry Lowry
• Aaron Goodelman — Sculptor, born Bessarabia 1890, immigrated to the U.S. 1904, creator of 1933 Lynching

Whether and how you connect all of these is up to you.

Someone with better access than I can do Goodelman. Perhaps one of your talk page lurkers will have a go.

I suspect that there might be another side-article somewhere.

Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well, it's up, with a slightly shortened hook. Goodelman, I'll give it a try. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Goodelman is good enough for DYK, though the man deserves more. What a story. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Xe was one of several people at Jefferson School named to the HUAAC. History doesn't record it, though. Google Books found the transcript. Uncle G (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Dwight Hale Blackwood (highway commissioner, born 1886-12-24 in Osceola, sheriff of Mississippi county until 1924) has a potted biography in a state report from when he was appointed (upon the death of the incumbent) State Treasurer in 1925 and successfully elected in 1926. Again, I leave that for those with better access. Uncle G (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm still new to Wikipedia edits, but am trying to update the Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge page to include activities, ecology, etc. as is listed in pages for other National Wildlife Refuges. However, you deleted my edits and said "that's for the website." I disagree. Several other Refuges/ wikipedia pages include the information that I'm trying to add. Is there somewhere to discuss this?Bpswiki (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Bpswiki

• Well, content should be encyclopedic, and referenced by secondary sources. Anything beyond that would need to be, well, special. We are not a tourism or travel website. What you can do is link the website, in the External links section, if that isn't already done, but Wikipedia is no substitute for that website. I don't know which other articles you looked at, but for comparison it's best practice to look at certifiably good articles, like Glacier National Park (U.S.) or Banff National Park (both WP:Featured articles). Actual improvement from Wikipedia's point of view means adding relevant, verified content of the kind you find in those articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the constructive feedback! I was working off of several other very popular National Wildlife Refuge Pages like Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. I'll be sure to follow Glacier National Park (U.S.) or Banff National Park and other WP:Featured articles as you suggest. Thanks again Bpswiki (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. I actually searched around a bit in Google Books and JSTOR but, unfortunately, did not get a lot of hits, as is often the case with parks and refuges. There's some primary material in government archives, and JSTOR gives a few hits for books/articles about bird populations, which makes sense. Sounds like a place I'd like to visit, BTW. I love grass. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Haha! Made my day. I love grass, too, which is why I'm starting as the biologist at the refuge. Trying to make the site more visible so people know it exists and why it exists!Bpswiki (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Right on. Well, I think a thing you, better than anyone, can do is write up the biology. Wikipedia needs serious content from serious content editors--about physical characteristics, ecology, that sort of stuff, but written up in an accessible manner and sourced by peer-reviewed academic stuff, including the stuff you used when you were getting your degrees. For Wikipedia, that's better than opening hours and stuff. We would love to have that content. Take care, and let me know if I can help. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This is how you do this. Uncle G (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is of course, simply Wikipedia:Citation templates#Harvard reference and shortened footnote examples. Uncle G (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for this! Lots to take in from today learning all of the ins and outs of Wikipedia edits. I'll have to dig in when my brain can handle it! Bpswiki (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

The article Gwerz Skolan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gwerz Skolan for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah! Yeah! The Gwerz an Aotrou Nann is the best known one.^[1] And some of us do not need robots to deliver the good news. Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Drmies, hope you're alright. You likely don't know me but I think there is a chance you may recognize the user Docholliday11.

I mean, how exactly does one go from accusations of vandalism and revisionism to blimming cyber-terrorism?

You blocked him right about 2 months ago, and after 3 appeals he finally was given a second chance, if I dare use your words.

He said this in his last appeal:

I would also like to add that if reinstated, I will spend time going over all the Wikipedia guidelines in order to make sure this never occurs again. Thank you.

...but after seeing what he had to say about me and the other three editors, I think he might have skipped a few bits.

So yeah thought I might as well report this 'incident' lets call it to somebody who may know the subject a little better. In any case I do apologize for cluttering your talkpage. Cheers Alltan (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Alltan, I assume you're talking about that post on User talk:Vanjagenije? (Please explain these things and point at them so we don't have to look around for them.) I see that Vanjagenije has matters well in hand--Vanjagenije, just FYI, the editor has not been socking, as far as I can tell, and that was of course the biggest contributor to the indef-block, so at least that's progress. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok then, I'll post the more important parts here

• For starters he said this: I truly believe that these users are committing a form of cyber terrorism on countless Serbian-related articles when referring to me and the other three editors.

• He accused '"us" (for lack of a better term) of not following rules and constantly breaking them: These perpetrators very seldomly follow Wikipedia guidelines due to the fact that they are not being reprimanded for breaking rules

• He accused us of being ill-meaning and vandalising/revisionist: many of the pages have some form of vandalism, or have been the victim of complete revisionism/negationism by various ill-meaning users.

• Outright proclaiming we belong to anti-Serb ethnicites: they belong to ethnic groups with some sort of anti-Serb sentiment. They are either Croatian, Albanian, or Bosnian.

• Accusing us of working in a coalition and that we are being payed off for editing: The scariest part of it is that many of them seem to work together in some sort of organized coalition. As well, many of them make disruptive edits throughout the day, leading me to believe that they might not have any other work, and are possibly receiving some sort of monetary award for their editing.

• And lastly accusations of Ustasa revisionism,, serbian genocide negationism: User:OyMosby Ustasa revisionism, serbian genocide negationism

I don't really know where the best place to report stuff like this is, but I've seen many editors write to admins directly and deal with it that way. What I meant with mentioning the block you gave him didn't have anything to do with SP accounts rather I just noticed it was you who blocked him, and as such thought you could possibly be familiar with their editing patterns. But more important to me would be the fact that he said he would spend time going over all the Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore I wonder how come he could just miss stuff like BRD and go straight into personal attacks. I would have no problem at all using the talk page to discuss any disagreement, but (in my case atleast) the user in question hasn't even edited any of the articles to begin with. So yeah, that's basically the jist of it. Alltan (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well, many consider BRD to be "just" an essay, or simply choose to ignore it... Drmies (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• You have a point, that is often the case sadly. Oh well it is what it is, thanks for the reply Alltan (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I am interested to learn from the author biography of ISBN 9781561640218 that there is such a thing as a professor of Florida studies and English.

Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• We're hiring a Southern Lit professor right now, and everybody knows Florida is not part of the South. Guess they had to do their own thing, kinda like hanging as an appendage off a real country. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As a native Floridian, I can assure you that a proper understanding of Florida requires the extensive knowledge and subtle understanding of a specialist.

    And meth. Loooooooots of meth... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    • I'm not sure that my uncle has met Florida Man. FYI I'm wearing a very loud shirt and am about to have a margarita or two. But no meth. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I have met Donald Albury, who is trying to find Hasan, Florida, as mentioned at User talk:Uncle G#Where is the best place to draw the notability line for places?, hence the aforementioned book. Uncle G (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I could have been an English professor (even though my PhD is in Linguistics), but I finished grad school during a recession in higher education, and so had to earn my living in the real world of government jobs. And I have met Kevin McCarthy. He was a new professor at UF when I was in grad school there. I have cited one or two of his books in articles. - Donald Albury 12:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I could have been one too, but I dropped out of high school and joined the Army. Also, as Drmies mentioned... Florida Man. Probably not the guy you want to learn to write from. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review:

Category	It's a vote.	It's not a vote.
Grammar:	Endorsed by a CheckUser	uses the word "entitled" in its first Wiktionary meaning.
Completeness:	Endorsed by a CheckUser	has "In popular Culture", "Plot summary", and "Controversies". What more does an article need?
Correctness:	Endorsed by a CheckUser	There are more French people than Bretons. It is inarguably a more popular culture. And of course bagpipes and Youtube videos are controversial. Have you met Drmies? The video doesn't even have the libretto.
Depth:	Inconclusive	"Plot summary" needs completion. This could be as simple as: Things go downhill thence;[1] and both lord and lady die. Fin. —  ^ Jigourel 2016, pp. 107–108. There is a possibility of extra grammar points for using the word "unbeknownst" about the lady with a more expansive plot summary.
MOS:	Endorsed by a CheckUser	external links correctly described. The Geocities-like site even plays annoying loud background music.
Sources:	Endorsed by a CheckUser	mixes Francis Gourvil, Bengt R. Johnsson, Mary-Ann Constantine, and the 19th century with wild abandon.

Conclusion: This article definitely fits the English Professor Vacuum, and will have English professors chomping at the bit to come and do better, lest this pass AFC.

Uncle G (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• One at a time, Uncle. Gotta wrap up Skolan first. I'm off to study some art for a bit. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Good. I'm meanwhile lumbered with articles like Owen Williams (artist) (AfD discussion) and sockpuppets like Critique & Calculation (talk · contribs), Bembo Bold (talk · contribs), Minimumminimum (talk · contribs), and Reggie Smythe (talk · contribs) who edit the same articles, insert links to the same person, and who disappear for the same 12 year period. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Largo, California (AfD discussion)

I have just discovered an entire area of California; and I've had to put an AFC submission in an AFD discussion. Sorry about that, Doktoro. Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your warm welcome! I'm still trying to figure out how talk pages work in wikipedia.

Corusant987 (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

After looking further through the edit history at Samay Raina, I concluded that the totality of the edits to the page since April 25th was significantly net-negative, and largely reverted all of them, keeping only a few copy improvements and the edits you just made, as well as making some improvements of my own. (The diff since 4/25 is deceptively large; most of the changes are yours and mine.) As this comes out to 167(!) edits by 66(!!) contributors over the course of 18(!!!) days (mostly) reverted, which is certainly the most extreme revert I've ever done, I thought I'd bring it to your attention for a sanity check. Was this a good use of the nuclear-ish option? Or could I have salvaged more from those 167 edits? -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 02:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, that seems fine to me! Sometimes that is what you have to do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good, thanks! Relatedly, can't say I have high hopes for Varunharkut (talk · contribs) once they hit autoconfirmed and can edit the article again, but... Guess we'll see how that goes. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 02:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you feel like it, Sebastian Deffner could use another eye. I don't think there's any doubt of WP:NACADEMIC, but there's an awful lot of primary sources, and a lot of awards etc mentioned twice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Right back atcha, with Catherine Nakalembe... Drmies (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but I actually put some independent sources in that one (also nominated her husbands pic of her for deletion on Commons, something I don't think he liked, but the BBC had it first). An editor thought AFP fit the lead as a claim to N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of any furniture makers who drive an Aston Martin DB5, Doktoro. But did you know that in 1831 the Botanic Garden of Ghent [nl] (a.k.a. the Ghent University Botanic Garden) gained a ballroom? Or that it was built in the grounds of Baudelo Abbey bordered by het Lys where het Baudelohof now is? Lots of straats and grachts for your Foreign-Sprechen lurkers, and more "ij"s than you can shake a stÿk at. Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• That's a good thing, I think, though now Liam wants one too. I know, he's too young for Casino Royale, but hey, it's got cars. I like abbeys. As for ij, cheers! Will you do me a favor and look over Gwerz Skolan? And two of the sfn notes aren't working. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that someone must have slipped in like a ninja and fixed them, because they appear to be working. Uncle G (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • How many times did he kill that priest, anyway? Was it just the twice? Uncle G (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Hmm. I thought it would be a good idea, given the ToC of that PDF, to have "Baudelo site" as a kind of disambiguator for the individual entities, but it's pretty complicated. Draft:Baudelo site. Plus, a bunch of the things don't have articles on the Dutch wiki either--the Ecole centrale, the lycee, the "Royal College", and I have not yet read enough of the thesis to have these things more clearly in mind. Ha, the Baudelo Abbey isn't even the Baudelo Abbey: it's the refuge of the "actual" Baudelo Abbey, which is elsewhere, that I guess at some point got to be called "Baudelo Abbey" also. Plus, we don't have have an article on the en-wiki for "refuge"! And none of the listed refuges there have an article here--but I'm saving all that for later. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • https://archive.org/details/memoirslibrarie05edwagoog/page/n556/mode/2up
  • https://archive.org/details/gardenersmagazi14loudgoog/page/n101/mode/2up
  • Mantels, Ruben. Towers of Books: Ghent University Library 1797–2020. Hannibal Books and Boekentoren. p. 141. ISBN 9789463887588.
  • Schrans, Guy (2013). "Foreword: A Tale of Ghent Bibliophiles — An homage to the intellect by an intellect". In Govaere, Inge; Lannon, Erwan; van Elsuwege, Peter; Adam, Stanislas (eds.). The European Union in the World: Essays in Honour of Marc Maresceau. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9789004259140.
  • Kent, Allen; Lancour, Harold (1969). "Belgium, Libraries in". Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. Vol. 2 AsSociation Canadienne des Bibliotheques – Book World. CRC Press. p. 307. ISBN 9780824720025.
  • https://archive.org/details/monthlyconsular46manugoog/page/n74/mode/2up
  • https://archive.org/details/belgiumandholla12firgoog/page/n88/mode/2up
  • https://www.frh-europe.org/baudelo-abbey-or-a-gothic-revival-in-ghent-belgium/
  • https://issuu.com/marcusboaz/docs/04_baudelo
  • Uncle G (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dermies, hope all is well. There is a RfC Rfc here on the talk page of List of Military Disasters. This has been going on for months and the arguing is getting less and less productive with all editors sticking strongly to their views. There appears to be canvasing as well given odd bursts of votes at times. I would ask Peacemaker67 as this area of military history is his specialty but he is an involved admin in the RfC. Would you be able to step in as here you can see the civility is taking a turn for the worst. If you are unable to, is there anyone you would recommend? I made an attempt to reach out in good faith to the user who initiated the RfC and was met with the usual nonsense insults. I tried. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well, not much I can say about that response to that talk page post of yours--your post seems in good faith to me, and the response dismissive and unfair. You tried. But that's another matter. I read over the discussion and if pressed I know how I would close it, but I'm wondering if you shouldn't try one other thing first, and that's posting on the MILHIST talk page. Keep it short and neutral: don't stack the deck. I'll ping one or two editors, who are, as far as I know, completely unattached to one or the other party: User:K.e.coffman and User:The ed17--can you have a look? It won't take too long. If you see a clear consensus, close it--but I'm actually more interested in y'all actually weighing the evidence and commenting on it. OyMosby, I do agree with the IP's comment--that such lists in general are "shit"... Drmies (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dermies. I agree with the most recent user as well that these lists seem pointless as I said to both users. Ill try MILHIST then. Thanks again! OyMosby (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dermies. It seems a non-admin closed the RfC going by a popularity voted despite an RS source explicitly saying: The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army. It also presented a turning point of international public opinion in favour of Croatia, contributing significantly to launching of procedure for recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence." Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991. I fail to see how this makes sense. Not to mention evident canvasing in the RfC. Some back to back even. OyMosby (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that. Buidhe, I can't say I agree--the general tenet of the conversation, it seemed to me, was that sources were presented and opponents said "they don't verify", but most of these comments did not address the matter in any detail, and I did not see many convincing arguments to discard them. That's why I was hoping for some other opinions from editors that I know are seasoned and experienced in sourcing, and that (as far as I know) have no involvement in the matter at all. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I felt the same but no one in MilHist would respond. I tried to contact a number of uninvolved admins but again didn’t hear back. I give up. 2+2=5 as long as majority vote it so. No one could explain why a source explicitly saying it was a catastrophe is invalid. Not even the closing editor. Thanks for your help. OyMosby (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

So this discussion, on multiple pages, heh? @Drmies I don't think I have a horse in this (besides having been emailed to it by Oy), but as far as I see, the dispute is whether the whole 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia or only the Battle of Vukovar should be included, with some arguing that sources describe only the campaign as a disaster, others that the main part of the campaign was the battle (this seems a wee bit WP:SYNTH to me, but nevermind). Why the RfC posed a false dilemma (by asking a yes/no on the battle) and why nobody proposed the alternative is beyond me, but this appears to be, in short, a legitimate content dispute and not one that can be handwaved away with WP:NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Ah yes so now you see I did not lie. I reached to multiple uninvolved editors as I said on my talk page where you insinuated I was canvasing. I approached Drmies first as you can see by time stamps). So sorry to disappoint. Not sure how it is “wp synth” when there is a direct source directly calling it a catastrophe. For those unaware, catastrophe means the same as disaster. Had it been one of our interpretations of a source implying something then I’d agre it sould be inappropriate, synth and OR.

Rosguill provided an explanation that more than one source will be needed to overrule the majority vote. Finally some sort of explanation of criteria. I am fine and satisfied with that conclusion. I am totally for the campaign idea as I have said numerous times as some argued it would have more sources to concrete back it up no matter even if voters still say they don’t like the “revisionist” take. I agree that the RfC was too binary with no other options but I guess no one thought of it until after the RfC was made. And months of time wasted on it which is what also frustrated me. Could have been closed a while back instead of extending given it was already 7:3. Thanks again for the input, Dermies. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Gwerz Skolan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gwerz Skolan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we block this particular IP94.114.14.177? I find this, unacceptable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done, by Ched: thanks. That was...well it was also pretty stupid. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • My sincerest thanks to both of you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Kansas Bear, you're welcome. Now go see what it led to: Bruno Flierl, and all this. I need some help with that, and I'd appreciate your attention. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of 1935 New York anti-lynching exhibitions 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! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noureddin Kianouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The World Today.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the proper board to discuss a user being WP:NOTHERE? The WP page doesn't say. --Steverci (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• If it's arbitration-related you could build a case at AE, I suppose. If it's about more than just stuff in one specific area, it's probably best to try at AN. ANI is also an option, but I think AN is better because it attracts more of the seasoned editors and admins. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. Unfortunately luck wasn't very good. Seeing as how I was only following your advice (If you want to make a NOTHERE proposal, then do so; that is not what you did here.), would you mind making a statement here? --Steverci (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Good day Drmies! Would like to get your thoughts on this Special:MobileDiff/1023575456. Well we got our answer straight from the horse's mouth that he is actively engaged into sockpuppetry. What bothers me is that he admitted to editing as an IP user as a way to get around the block placed on him for his LTA. Is there a way for us to deal with him permanently? Hoping to get a positive response on this regard. Thank you and warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: I did some snooping on the names of his alleged socks, and apparently, those accounts aren't connected to him. He is trying to pull the same stunt he pulled on me last month by making it appear that I was a sockmaster and his sockpuppets were mine. One account was even victimized by the same sockpuppet account that victimized me, Jricaplaza. Am hoping a more permanent solution may be had to address the LTA of Ajhenson21. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Gardo Versace, a permanent solution can only come from someone destroying their phone and laptop and Nintendo Switch. I think you should add this to the SPI (go to WP:SPI, enter their name, and type up an investigation). Please tell them that someone smarter than me should look at this, and at older accounts as well. Tell them also that I blocked a range but that may have been the wrong range. I did block one of the IPs they used to create these accounts, and I made a pretty drastic block on another range that is confirmed to them. Sorry, that's all I can do right now: we need someone smarter than me who is better at keeping a bunch of things (and screens) in their mind at the same time. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have run into this user several times, and I noticed that they were banned back in April as a sockpuppet account of another banned account. I believe that this user has again created another sockpuppet account—this one called User:Coats Indoors. I think this because if you look at Coats Indoors's edit history, it starts in March of this year, almost exactly one month before One Way System was banned, and the articles, content, and focus of the edits are nearly identical between the two. I'm not sure how to go about making admins aware of this, but I figured you'd be the first one to whom I should reach out, given that you were the one who processed One Way System's ban in April. Please let me know if you would like some more clarity about this. Anwegmann (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Having looked into it a bit more, I have found another clear correlation. One Way System began editing on April 6, 2021, and was banned on April 30, 2021. If you look at Coats Indoors's edit history, there is a gap in which they make no edits at all between those exact dates. They make edits from March 22, 2021, to April 6, 2021, the day One Way System started making identical edits, and then stop altogether until May 1, 2021, one day after One Way System was banned. That on on top of the obvious connection between the types of edits and articles between the two accounts makes it pretty obvious they are sockpuppets. Anwegmann (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Haha, already blocked while you were typing this. Do me a favor: go to WP:SPI, file a new report by typing in "Gordimalo", and put the two accounts in there. No need to ask for a Checkuser, and note that they're already blocked. You can do that next time also, as a new SPI (which will be archived under the main case), or you can tell me and I'll be happy to look at it. I have serious problems with what they are trying to do here (their big article edits are trash) and the way in which they do it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Haha, indeed! Almost as soon as I clicked "publish" I noticed that you had blocked them. I will do that, thanks. And yes, this user is extremely annoying, making massive, often speculative, untimely, and/or outright incorrect edits that are a pain to revert—and make me/us look like all we do is revert people! I'll keep my eye out for new socks. Thanks for your help. Anwegmann (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Messed up ping. Can you take a look here and confirm my doubts? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not much to see there. I just blocked them. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Also, while you're here, can you look up the three accounts that edited Markazi Masjid, Dewsbury (I've left a request at RFPP)? 12BillyBob12; Chillinte and JesterJonesYT likely need blocks even if they're not socks of each other... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Matter mostly handled by Spencer and Yamaguchi先生--thanks, you two. CU had nothing to offer: it was just little vandals that somehow coordinated. Spencer, Yamaguchi先生, I think I'm going to semi-protect for a bit longer--what else is there to do? Drmies (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This [11] continues to be a thing - apparently if it's spaced out and labeled vandalism it's OK. Lots of warnings from me, no response. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• User:Acroterion, you know what's going on--this is an editor who uses a murderer's memoirs to condemn a victim. That the victim didn't have clean hands is irrelevant; more relevant is that the victim was Black, and fought against a white colonial oppressor. The editor is, and there are no two ways about it, whitewashing colonial history by demonizing a man who was demonized already by the British in order to evade their own murderous ways. It's not unlike what's going on right now in Palestine, except that the numbers are off even more. HarrySime is very much concerned with blaming this article subject for 132 killings, which pales in comparison to the possible 25,000 children who died in the "conflict". In general, HarrySime is looking to clean up after the fact, which is essentially POV, and there are a couple of ways in which they clearly violate our policies and guidelines.

  Their love of Henderson was already clear: this is obviously as far from an independent source as one can get, besides the fact that the man was a torturer and murderer. That HarrySime likes to add editorial commentary is obvious too: here they get started; I reverted here; Sime reverted here without a relevant summary; here I removed that phrase again. And here is another such beauty, "contempory British foreign policy documents need to be cited to support this assertion", as if both sides are equal, meaning that a book by an academic should be balanced out, somehow, by a publication from the colonial oppressor--which is prima facie ridiculous.

  But speaking of ridiculous, this one takes the cake: "concentration camps and emergency villages" is changed to "fortified villages", and again HarrySime adds "oh there's no evidence cited". Now I don't have access to the book--but I note that a. it's editorial commentary anyway; b. I'm not convinced that Sime has read that book; and c. it's published by Knoph, and Wangari Maathai is a Kenyan woman who won the f***ing Nobel Peace Prize.

  I guess this is the long way of showing that HarrySime should be indeffed for perverting and whitewashing articles (the essence of WP:POV, for inserting awful and baseless editorial comments (a violation of WP:OR as well), and for longterm edit warring (which should add up to NOTHERE). Obviously I can't do this because I have been duking it out with this person for far too long. I don't often feel these things personally, but what this editor is doing is repugnant. If you don't see reason to either block them indefinitely or block them (partially) from editing all relevant articles, then I guess I have to take it to some board--but I think every uninvolved admin would know what to do here. Thanks Acroterion; I appreciate the alert. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Since I've been reverting on grounds of content, I would consider myself involved. I'll probably take it to a noticeboard once I get past some real-life work deadlines. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

...would you please take a look at this discussion (which followed on from this one and this one) and the connected edits at Shepard Company Building and evaluate the situation? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry BMK, but I don't think I have the time or the expertise. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• No problem, thanks anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Drmies I thanked you for several edits you made reversing my edits on the TutorMe page. They were not originally there by the page creator, I was only trying to help but per the result and your harsh comments I see I did not. I think it would be helpful to leave more constructive feedback rather than judgmental notes as to not to dissaude those of use who only want to help improve Wikipedia ultimately and learn along the way. I respect your feedback regardless though and it was not my intention to mess up the page, which it seems I did based on the fall out. Thank you kindly.WikiWonderWiki (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• WikiWonderWiki, I didn't revert you, and the material I removed, as far as I can tell, wasn't material that you added. Please check again. As for "judgmental notes", well, I guess "irrelevant puffery" is a judgment, yes, and so is "typical bizspam", but I am not going to write up a full essay in an edit summary for someone who writes a promotional article, one that reads as if they got paid for it. That's the creator, not you. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I greatly appreciate the reply and clarification, I thought I "broke" the page :). Still growing to be as prolific an editor as you one day! WikiWonderWiki (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Haha thanks, but don't waste your life on Wikipedia! Drmies (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with the review of Philipp Harnoncourt. I'll continue after outside work, - weather just pleasant right now. I'll head towards a Trinity hook (30 May this year), could be the prize and/or the chapel. Will write about the chapel later today. He wanted the opening on Trinity Sunday, and they obliged, although it was the day after his funeral. Quite a character. I was blessed with having met him once, on top of the funeral of Viktor Fogarassy which he held in a packed cathedral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

... and then I forgot what I came to say: I am behind with this person because I was busy making Raimund Hoghe ready for the Main page (where he is now). Even more of a character, and feel free to improve the lead, - hard to summarize, I felt, without using stereotypes. Not many award-winning dancers who did their first solo at age 40, and read why ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

... getting closer with Harnoncourt, needs a lead, but then ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

... also, today: Kammermusik (Hindemith), - don't miss caricature, "badboy" and the review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Drmies,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Harvard errors script throw up an error for "Bellows 1928" not pointing to any citation. Is that the name that belongs to the "The Law's Too Slow" reference? Or is this a question for Uncle G? —Kusma (t·c) 12:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• For two reasons I say "yes"--this is number one, and number two is that my Uncle is smarter than me. Kusma, are you smart with things? Can you get those coordinates out of the text? I guess having an infobox would fix that but I don't know if I'm ready to write Template:infobox lynching victim. BTW, that reference, that little article that's nothing but a list of names and an image, that started this entire recent series that my Uncle so graciously helped me with. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The coords are easy: Special:Preferences->Appearance->Skin->Monobook->save :) (Vector is broken, see WP:VPT or phab:T283206, but should become unbroken soon). I'll let your uncle fix the references, perhaps he knows the first name of the author. —Kusma (t·c) 13:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    • No, there is no name attached to it, that's the problem, I think. I don't know where "Bellows" came from. I tried the Monobook version, but I am so used to this that I went back: too many tabs and things! Can't teach an old dog a new trick... Drmies (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Chasa caste is part of khandayat community. This is the famous book on Indian caste. You can check page 147 chasa khandayat... https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n170/mode/2up Sekharblack123 (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I want you should edit it. In chasa caste page.. Sekharblack123 (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think you should be using books from 1896 to verify anything on castes. (ToBeFree, aren't there some guidelines on sourcing in this area?) Moreover, there are serious deficiencies in your English, and you need to stop removing verified information--as User:Chariotrider555 has also indicated. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Drmies, thanks for the ping – it's an honor to be consulted about policy by you, but I'm afraid there's nothing specific in this regard, no fixed set of sourcing guidelines for this area. Neither at WP:GS/CASTE, nor at the community discussion that led to it, nor at WP:INDIA if I see correctly. Today I learned we have a noticeboard for India-related topics, even with a handy "WP:IN"/"WT:IN" shortcut similar to "WP:AN", but I'm not sure how useful and active that is. For the specific case (outdated source), the closest I can provide is WP:AGEMATTERS. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:RSCASTE goes over this issue. We should never use sources from the British Raj for castes, for a variety of reasons. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Don't be silly, ToBeFree! You're making me blush. I really only watch the caste matter from the margins, and sometimes I watch Sitush at work. Thanks for the link, Chariotrider555. We'll be dealing with this stuff for many more years, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
        • 
      • Thank you very much, Chariotrider555 (and Sitush for providing this page). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

On 22 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lynching of John Carter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some 5,000 white people looted a Black church for wood to burn the lynched body of John Carter, a Black man who was hanged and shot in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1927? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lynching of John Carter. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lynching of John Carter), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be very hard to argue with your closure given CW's demeanour following the initial complaint. While it is regrettable to lose a prolific and mostly valuable editor they have made the decision to leave by their behaviour. All you have done is to enforce that decision in a formal manner. There was no appetite for allowing more rope. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw your defense, your attempt to salvage something, and I appreciate it. You know I like to think of the glass as half full. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

When the glass is smashed it is hard to know if it if full or empty, I fear. I mourn the loss of what was mostly a very useful, keen, and collegial editor. I do not mourn the defensive - offensive one. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No Timtrent, it's trivial to argue with the close, which was done only 12 hours after the discussion was opened. WP:Ban is policy , not just a guideline, and it clearly states. Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours before any sanction is implemented to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours..." There's good reason for this policy, including it prevents established editors from being permabanned by a witchhunt, where accounts collude off wiki.

While consensus did seem to be for an indeff at the time of the close, it was far from overwhelming, and the last clear vote was from an Arb who opposed. The discussion was opened just to review advanced rights removal, and was almost derailed into the ban, which if anything meant it warranted extra time. To be clear, Im not asking you to reverse your close. On balance of probability, it would likely now end the same way, only with more ill will towards the good Commmander, should he ever decide he wants to return. But for any future closes against valued editors, please be more careful to comply with WP:BAN. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, I almost indeffed him on sight after reading over his responses to the ongoing discussion. No one with that much contempt for other editors could ever be a productive member of the community. Doing it now saved everyone a lot of grief down the road. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Mackensen, I saw the discussion earlier, and their first response at 10:56, and thought that it was pretty clear where it was headed. But then I saw their second response, some six hours later at 17:03, and I had hope, though I was worried about what seemed like negotiating terms. And that got worse with this one at 17:45, and then it just went downhill from there. FeydHuxtable, they dug their own grave, as is clear from the trajectory of their comments. And I don't agree that it "derailed"--this is how these things go. BTW I didn't collude with anyone; I've only had one interaction with the now-blocked editor, and it was positive, and more than once I've seen their edits at Recent changes, vandalism reports and such, and followed up on them like I do with other trusted editors--so from my perspective all this came as a shock. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No one with that much contempt for other editors could ever be a productive member of the community -- the things he said to and about me on Discord after the block were enough that if he'd said them onwiki there would definitely not be any dispute from a single editor that Drmies' close was completely appropriate. I'm scared he's going to turn LTA and start stalking me. Vaticidalprophet 15:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet I think there is no need to be physically scared. I doubt CW will become an LTA. They have expressed deep resentment to me by email, somewhat intemperate, but I'm old enough and ugly enough to ignore things like that. I fear CW did not even notice I tried to offer advice to be calm., but they never have. I have offered that before. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I had pretty much decided to drop out of this discussion after CW proved I was wrong that he'd accepted responsibility in an EC with me saying he had. However, since this was closed as a WP:CBAN and not just your individual discretion, I want to note that even the SNOW provision requires it be left open 24 hours - this whole thread was only open 12 and didn't start with a motion to restore the indef - and it seems to me there was consensus but not SNOW consensus at the point it was closed. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• I know, Barkeep, and I appreciate the critique. I will say this: this discussion, it seemed to me, was getting out of hand very quickly because CW was getting more and more--how shall I put this delicately, defensive and offensive at the same time, in a very unacceptable manner. You might could say that I wanted to put a stop to that before they burned every single bridge there was. I have very rarely invoked IAR, and I remember looking at RfAs before I ran myself and wondering how I would answer that question, "when would you invoke IAR?" At the time I wouldn't have known how to answer that, but I think this is an example of it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I think cutting the discussion short was a mistake. I have no problem with blocking CW as a regular admin action for the comments they made during the discussion, but I really dislike ignoring the 72-hour rule for community bans. We've seen numerous ban discussions change course after the initial arguments, and leaving this one open for the full 72 hours may allow a more measured response. Basically, it shouldn't be this easy to just discard someone so prolific, especially while they're clearly having a bad day. Please reconsider. – bradv🍁 17:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Bradv, I am not going to reconsider this, but you are welcome to reconsider it for me: no hard feelings. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I have reopened the discussion. Cheers. – bradv🍁 18:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Well, good luck with it. It does not strike me as a useful exercise. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Agree with the Dr. - sometimes it snows for a reason. Disappointing use of WP:POINT IMO. — Ched (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:33, 23 May 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.

--Blablubbs|talk 07:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Drmies,

Please do not change the infobox on Lyodra Ginting article, especially the genres. She is a pop — specifically pop ballad — and R&B singer, not just a "pop music". I have cited the reliable sources on Artistry (from Indonesian musical news site). Lyodra's first three singles are pop ballad and the fourth is pop R&B. Cosmopolitan Indonesia has wrote about her as "the new face of Indonesian R&B music" — I have cited this on Artistry. Pop ballad genre is also exist on the Genre section in Sentimental Ballad article.

By the way, Billie Eilish article also uses flat list occupation template and they put more than two pop genres on infobox, e.g., pop, electropop, dark pop. Well, I am still confused about the deletion of those parts.

I accept your correction about YouTube cited sentences, but I cannot find any article that relatable to her interview on that channel. About Personal Life, I use the same format with Billie Eilish and other artist articles, e.g., where and with whom she lives now. For your information, the Early Life and Personal Life contents were accepted and didn't count as some mistake by the editors of Wikipedia Indonesian edition, including an administrator. One of them just merged them into one section: Life (bahasa Indonesia: Kehidupan) — although the YouTube cited sources still considered as abuse filter log by system.

I wrote she loves acting and a former member of theater club because it's relate to her occupation as an actress, the same thing happened to vocal class sentences. They also wrote Billie Eilish is a former member of dance class on her article.

Because of my limited English proficiency, I cannot write exactly the same as the Indonesian article version. You could read it on the Indonesian version of Lyodra Ginting (in Bahasa) article. Google Translate tools might help, although not 100% correct.

Thank you very much. Cheers, Fetus Lyly (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Fetus Lyly, thanks for your note. I removed the genres because they were unverified (in that box) and "pop" seemed pretty uncontroversial. I and other editors have an aversion to overlisting, and those flatlists are overused and overrated, IMO. Your frequent comparisons to the Eilish article aren't very helpful: that article has a plethora of very solid sources. That she's Catholic, that she has a younger brother, that she was bullied in school, that her sister lives elsewhere, that she's dating--that's trivial until it becomes such a frequent topic in proper secondary sources that it actually matters in an encyclopedic article. Please don't think that every factoid should be included just because you have a source for it. In the case of Eilish, note that the "personal" section is very brief, very well-sourced, and the facts cited there seem to be relevant to her career. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Thank you for your detailed explanation. I really appreciate it. I understand, I'll feel the same if I spend 14 years on Wikipedia haha. IMHO, flat list seemed pretty lit.

Pardon me, I didn't understand about "plethora of very solid sources". Does it mean in positive or negative way? It means too much of ....?

Ah I see, I can't find Billboard or Variety sources for Lyodra. Billboard Indonesia is suck, they never maintain their site. Kompas is pretty reliable though.

I don't know, maybe there's something like grey area? If possible, would you mind to save some lines in Early Life that still could be considered as relevant? For example:

1. Besides her musical interests, Lyodra loves acting. She is a former member of theater club at St. Ignasius Junior High School, Medan.

2. At the age of 10, she attended intensive vocal course with Derta Purba, who also taught Indonesian solo soprano singer Putri Ayu Silaen.

3. Lyodra raised in a Catholic family and given the baptismal name Margareta.

(correct my grammar if I wrong)

Once again, thank you. Greetings from Greater Jakarta, Fetus Lyly (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

"Plethora" simply means "a ton". Being a member of an acting club is just a piece of personal information; a solid secondary source can prove it's meaningful. An intensive vocal course can be relevant, if properly verified, but that the teacher also taught someone else is not relevant. Raised Catholic--well, how is that relevant to her career as a singer? Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that 49.149.117.75 might be a sock of Commander Waterford. Doing NPP, I saw a prod from this IP, and on the talk page, a note about adding GA stars to articles. Given the very recent indef, I just wonder if this is a sock. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't think so – their timecard indicates that CW is in Europe; the IP is from the Philippines (where we'd expect to see very different timing patterns), and I see no evidence of that IP currently acting as a proxy. Edit summaries like this do give off a problematic vibe, though. --Blablubbs|talk 10:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm no sock-spotter, but I don't see it either. CW has quite a distinctive cadence, partially from his linguistic background (some of his wording makes more sense in Catalan), and never expressed any particular interest in video games. My understanding from the prior SPI is that CW frequently edits through proxies, so I don't know how much the geolocation means, but the behavioural evidence isn't here to someone who's interacted with CW a fair amount. Vaticidalprophet 10:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know CW's work well enough to comment on that, sorry, and so I can't legitimately run a check. And I think the above two comments are pretty convincing. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm essentially certain that this isn't a proxy (I ran checks at the time of my comment). I do think this might be MRY based on the interest in video games and trolling. The filing states that if one was to check, one would find proxy use (Icewhiz does use them), but there is no data indicating that this is actually the case (Waterford was stale at the time). --Blablubbs|talk 15:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The CU log does not indicate that CW uses proxies. Not sure how that was garnered from that SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BigDwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) (blocked Nov 2, 2019)

ManuelLopezz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) (created Nov 8, 2020, blocked Feb 16, 2021)

AntoineHound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) (created Feb 17, 2021)

Hello, Drmies; I suspect some ongoing sockpuppetry; nearly identical userpages (previous: [12],[13],current: [14]); same old Alabama-related haunts (Mobile Government Plaza, Lagniappe (newspaper)), but I don't recall the staleness threshold for previous investigations. Would filing a CU relating to User:BigDwiki or User:ManuelLopezz be likely to yield anything substational? I think this may be approaching WP:DUCK, but I'd like a second opinion on that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think the Lagniappe edits are a clincher. It's too late for CU to show overlap; isn't there an SPI? That might have some suspected IPs listed? When you block, you can throw in that the geolocation matches what I remember (granted, that's not enough by itself) and some logged-out editing (which you probably already saw). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies. TruthBuster21223 is a single-purpose account on the Owen Benjamin article who you have interacted with in the past when they were attacking me. They are currently repeatedly inserting this information. This seems like an undue addition and potential BLP violation about a local zoning dispute that is using inflammatory language not supported by reliable sources, as neither of the cited websites use the term "Aryan Style" and the word "cult" is taken from a press release by Benjamin's neighbors that is quoted in self-published article on the "Kootenai Valley Times" site. I don't want to waste your time, but does that added content seem appropriate to you? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know--you're both in blockable territory. I'm looking at the actual edit and the sources. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I reverted the edit twice yesterday when it was only sourced to the self-published website, and then once today after leaving a comment on the other editor's talk page, which I thought was appropriate given the potential BLP violation. Would you be able to let me know what I should have done in this type of situation instead? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    • You may have been right the first time, but once the second source is added you're on shakier ground. It is hard to see the actual paragraph as a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The second source does not contain the word "cult" or "Aryan", and the other source is a self-published website by Mike Weland. I thought it was a BLP violation to include those types of accusations when they have no reliable sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
        • There is a fine line between "self-published website" and "small time local paper". You look at the "About this" page, it doesn't seem all that partisan or agenda-oriented. A BLP violation--meh, it's more about the piece of land than about the person, and in this case then the better route is to use the second source as the basis and the first one to add the neighbors' concerns. For instance, there is no pressing need to doubt that there exists "a citizen’s advocacy group opposing 'Owen Benjamin’s White Nationalist Compound in Sandpoint'", and that they presented a document to this country planner, or that this Vietnam vet said he was worried about the weapons bit. When you have legitimate reason to doubt statements like "A group met with Boundary County Commissioners this morning after filing a land-use complaint six weeks ago and hearing nothing back", then you have a case, but I don't really see that you can't use that website as long as things are properly cited and contextualized. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. Thanks for your time. I think my point has been proven. Two independent articles I used to source this information. It is further evidenced as Wally claims it doesn't state Aryan style, which it explicitly does. This proves either maliciousness or lack of attention. That alone should suffice to prove his reverts are unwarranted. Thanks. In fact, the point about an Aryan Style compound is in the first paragraph of the article. TruthBuster21223 (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• OK. Anyone's problem, first of all, should be with the poor writing, and the bare URLs that are thrown in there. TruthBuster21223, if you want to play here, you have to play by the rules, and in this case that also means that if you add sources to an article you should do that in the existing style, meaning that in this case you need to use proper citation templates. You also need to work on that writing. "Resides" is just "lives", and the second sentence is ungrammatical. User:Wallyfromdilbert, "Aryan Style" is not in the article, but "many in the community concerned of an “Aryan Nations” style compound" is, and that's pretty close--just a matter of writing. The inflammatory language is in fact supported by the two sources, but it might need to be ascribed in a more clear way to the neighbors--"supposed" helps, but maybe not enough (for your taste). If that content is rewritten, I don't see any problem with it; it seems like a serious enough thing, especially if it's being advertised as "his new Ruby-Ridge-style compound". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies, the source you quoted both times is a self-published website by Mike Weland ("Kootenai Valley Times" about page). I did not think that was an appropriate source for any information on a BLP, much less this type of content under the BLP policy (WP:BLPSPS). The other source does not use the word "cult" or "Aryan", but does mention "alleged 'Ruby Ridge style' compound", although with no additional details about any connection to a cult or white supremacy, and it only discusses the zoning issues after that regarding the dispute with the neighboring residents (article link). The language about "Ruby Ridge" is from the complaint by the neighbors, and not how the property is being advertised by Benjamin, who describes it as "a community campground with cabins and utility" according to the non-self-published article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Others advertise it as a Ruby-Ridge thing, yes, as that local newspaper reports. You keep calling it a "self-published website", but at some point that gets a bit silly. The question is whether we have good reason to doubt their accuracy, and how much we base on that source. Which is why I said to write material based on the second and use the first to add. Again I ask, do you have reason to doubt the existence of that citizen's advocacy group? Or that the neighbors are scared of what might be happening there? Or conversely, and this is your opponent's question, why would you want to leave it out? Some sources are more reliable than others, and some sources need to be handled with more care than others, and some sources need to just not be used. But this little paper, even though it's run by one person and a business manager, meh. If he were lying he'd be out of business already, so assume some good faith, and handle with care. And if you are convinced this is a BLP violation, then take it to BLPN. But right now, I don't see one. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The one self-published source says that the complaint by the neighbors included a screenshot with that claim regarding "Ruby Ridge", and I do think those types of details and discrepancies are important, especially on a BLP. I also believe there are valid reasons to doubt that the reliability of that source, especially as its owner/editor/writer also lives in the same small community, and the entire article is basically just quoting various aspects of the complaints against Benjamin by the neighbors. The website in general has little content and many days have no more than one new posting, with most of the content looking like press releases from local schools, police, and community organizations. I also do not believe I agree with your assessment about how the economies of local websites work (especially given that the most profitable news network in the United States regularly reports falsehoods), and I do still think there is a BLP violation here. I am going to take this to BLPN as you suggest, but I really appreciate your time as well as the assistance with the civility issues. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
        • wallyfromdilbert, do me a favor, and stop saying "self-published source", OK? It's a small-town newspaper. Everyone of them is "self-published", but so are a lot of other things, and I sense that you are using it to cast doubt on its value. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Drmies, I will certainly not use that term anymore on your talk page. However, the website appears to have one writer who is also the owner, editor, and manager. That is not how most small-town newspapers are operated. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Drmies, I think your recent comment to BLPN was a little out of line. I do not know why you would suggest that I go to BLPN if you are then going to post there accusing me of forum shopping. Also, my comment on BLPN was posted before MjolnirPants responded here (and obviously before Morbidthoughts could respond on the BLPN thread), and so I am not sure what you meant by being "pointed in the right direction". I try very hard to present issues on noticeboards neutrally, and I would appreciate if you would show me the same assumption of good faith that you mentioned earlier. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
              • You got it. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• I might be able to offer some useful tidbits here, as I've spent time in the region and co-own some property up there. I've even met the owner of kvt.news. For what it's worth, I'd treat it the same as any other small-town newspaper, and would not agree that it's a blog of any sort. Also, the locals are extremely spiteful towards white supremacists, owing to the recent (30 years or so) history of the area. I'm 100% sure that the "Aryan-style" comment is one of the more genial ways locals have described it, and I'd be shocked if someone isn't at least threatened with shooting or an ass-whooping by the end of this.

  I'll expound more if anyone's unaware and interested. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the note. It might be valuable for the BLPN discussion also. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone needs your help at Talk:Wises Landing, Kentucky#DYK, Doktoro, but has asked me thinking that I can spell DYK.

This came out of User:Hog Farm/Kentucky#References.

There are tens of thousands of likely bogus "unincorporated community" articles for the United States. Look how many books I've had to go through to handle just 33 of them.

(Anyone who isn't aware, see Project:Reliability of GNIS data/Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection for background.)

Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, I get another drink?? It's been a few years. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, why the reversal. The article says "Us has more policemen than the world average" What is the world average. And well since recently US is no more "35 %" below the average. The article is also very american centered.

--Joujyuze (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I din't edit the words by the way just marked them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joujyuze (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I know, and that's the problem. Please read the edit summary. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)