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.

• Special:Diff/1069783373

The answer to your question is "No!", Doktoro. I've just read Newman 2014 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNewman2014 (help) and that is not the thesis actually put forward in the source. Nor is it supportable from Luscombe & Radice 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLuscombeRadice2013 (help) which Newman was reviewing, which rather supports something a lot more interesting on page lxxxviii.

Furthermore, page lxxxix goes on to connect the dots via The Golden Girls to Mr. T, of 'I pity the fool' fame, whom you were mentioning the other day for some reason at Talk:Prise d'Orange, and his Rocky MCCCXCII. You should turn your English Professor Vacuum on, because someone who has actually read Luscombe and Radice's book could connect the dots in our article and source some of these pop culture references in it, too. Our article is currently based only upon a review of said book by Barbara Newman, is based upon it badly, and has no sources for these pop culture things at all.

Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I do pity the fool. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you. I am very impressed--we're all being schooled here. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• DYK that Austrian director Herbert Fuchs is known only for making an animated film about Abelard and Heloise that's not even documented on IMDB for which a soundtrack was made by the English group Third Ear Band, and for directing the Eurovision Song Contest 1967 in Vienna? Drmies (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • That's peanuts. I have the show tunes that you asked for. Dmitry Shostakovich did L'Internationale on the theremin. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Amazeballs! Drmies (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A little bit of reading reveals what I expected, that Newman isn't the only one to have a thesis about Héloïse and marriage. Our article, however, represents that even less well than it represents Newman taken alone. I did in fact find one person talking about the "free love" that you rejected, Doktoro. It was Étienne Gilson, but (a) xe was writing in 1960, (b) xe wasn't really talking about free love, and (c) the 1970s have happened since then, as Newman 2014 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNewman2014 (help) notes, and the mainstream interpretation is a little different nowadays.

I did think up a cunning plan. I am tempted to leave out any mention of "Beasts of England; Beasts of Ireland" in Orwell's Animal Farm as the well-documented allusion to The Internationale that it is. This should make every English Professor on the planet grind xyr teeth in frustration and mutter "How can you leave that out, Wikipedia!" under xyr breath, and we can locate them with a carefully placed array of microphones and some judicious triangulation.

What do you think of this plan?

Uncle G (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's marvelous, up until the bit about English professors--not enough of them will care, unfortunately. But I love your drive. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies, thanks for blocking H2rty. I've blocked their sock TB99999 (privately confirmed by Doug Weller). Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Far be it from me to question Doug Weller or your interpretative skills, but that looks like highly dubious to me. Doug? Unless you or Doug strongly object, I think it would be prudent to lose the sock tags. (In fact I have a suspicion who this might be, but that's another story). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: please double check me then to see what I’ve missed. It’s possible I did. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You guys duke it out, please. I'm going to bed. Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC).

I got it wrong, shouldn’t cu when I’m tired. Doug Weller talk 21:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Natti natti, Bishonen! Drmies (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have a second, can you look into this report. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• User:FlightTime, I would love too, but real life is taking over. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

No prob. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm 애국심 존중. Please Add Block Template User:Xoghks And Socks of Xoghks. 💻HACKER (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hello. I continue to question your competence: those blocks and templates were made 38 minutes before you posted this message. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you've added a lot of comments at WP:BLPN. Could I get your opinion at Talk:Killing of Amir Locke#WP:BLP? This is the young man shot by police in Minneapolis last week. It seems police were looking for one of his relatives, who was arrested today and charged with murder. When Amir Lock was shot, he was in the apartment of another relative with a history of violence against police. Can some of these relatives be named? For example, Mekhi Camden Speed, and Marlon Speed? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1070279829

The professors of the last 40 years are not on your side, Doktoro. Victor Bers of Yale said not to even bother with Bulfinch's Mythology.

Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe Victor B. can explain what a "literary version" is; I still have no idea, and I've read that sentence a few times already. Besides, in my book literary versions are full of gratuitous sex and violence--otherwise, what's the point of an English PhD? BTW I'm kind of pissed at Bulfinch, for reasons I'll explain in a few weeks in a seminar on Race and the Middle Ages. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I did actually find an edition that used those very words as its blurb. I'd already discounted it as a good source for anything, based upon its provenance, before reading the blurb, however. ☺ There's more explanation to be had about the style and target readership from the sources now in the article, on the other hand, and I think that I know what the Wikipedia editor all those years ago (Special:Diff/3120862 — Look at that low number!) was reaching for.

    In the meantime, though, Doktoro, you could do two things for me:

    • Explain why Lurcio, the fictional comic slave in Up Pompeii!, rates a mention on List of fictional Romans (AfD discussion) but Messenio, the fictional comic slave in Menaechmi, does not. You are not allowed to mention User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing in your answer. Or bring a calculator.
    • Contrast Menaechmi#Plot with Walton 2016. I know how you liked the translations of L'Internationale. How come Wikipedia has nearly nothing about the translations of Plautus? You'd think that Wikipedia editors would be all over William Warner's "product placement" of an anachronistic potato in the play (Walton 2016, p. 48). Does it take a drama professor to pick up the slack for the English professors? ☺
      • Walton, J. Michael (2016). "Business as Usual: Plautus' Menaechmi in English Translation". Translating Classical Plays: Collected Papers. Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies. Routledge. ISBN 9781317300403. (also doi:10.1515/9781614511250.1040)
  • Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I got Bennett and Newth today from Robarts Library. Neither fantastic. Bennett lists four editions of Prise, which were already or are now incorporated, and then provides an opinionated (but, in my estimation, not comprehensive) survey of the secondary literature. Newth is heavy on translation, light on critical commentary. I might read his translation for my own edification, but it will not be useful for our purposes. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ha, AleatoryPonderings, what a coincidence--I just got my copy of Ferrante in yesterday and have been working through the introductory material--god what a fascinating set of material, and I was unfamiliar with so much of it. When I get through that, and I have some more time, I'll report back, and maybe help you get this up to FA status. Take care, and thanks for the update, Drmies (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I hadn't been looking for Guillaume d'Orange : ou la naissance du héros médiéval, but picked it up anyway, and have found it by far the most interesting and useful. My plan is to incorporate some of it over the next few weeks, my weak French permitting.

  The only big hole in coverage I've noticed is an account of the manuscripts and how the current text has been pieced together. Régnier covers that in his introduction to La Prise d'Orange : chanson de geste de la fin du XIIe siecle but when I was doing my initial expansion I found that part very dull and didn't want to deal with it. But a comprehensive article should probably cover that.

  I am also thinking there is too little discussion of Orable (Guibourc). I was thinking of bluelinking that and adding the key points back to Prise d'Orange.

  No rush on anything—this 1000-year old poem need not yield a featured article in the near term (or at all). And this would be my first FAC under this account so I don't want to rush into anything. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't know why you're casting shade on their English language skills, that's a great word, I might start using it. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sure but what does it mean? Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • They are socks, which by the actions of a puppy collecting and chewing on them, that are the property of a pupper. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    • UrbanDictionaryism! It is, obviously, the ties that are worn by one's "pupper" together with socks.

      This is no relation to Johannes Pupper from Dutchland, Doktoro. Did you know that Johannes Pupper was in the House of Cheese but was often ill? It must have been the cheese disagreeing with xem. Anyway, the smell got so bad, I suspect, that xe was the only person in the House in 1454. So Pupper went off to Sealand. Or so said a Gallifreyan professor. (Weiler 1999, p. 318)

      Weiler, A. G. (1999). "The Dutch brethren of the common life, critical theology, Northern Humanism and Reformation". In Akkerman, F.; Vanderjagt, Arjo J.; van der Laan, Adrie (eds.). Northern Humanism in European Context, 1469–1625: From the "Adwert Academy" to Ubbo Emmius. Brill's Studies in Intellectual History. BRILL. ISBN 9789004247482.

      Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Since it involves an English professor from Far Far Away, Doktoro, I have deposited a gift of socks and ties and despair with M. Around The Mountain. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Much appreciated. Can't remember the last time I wore a tie, BTW. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marianne Timmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nagano.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Lurkers: Doktoro needs to be told about plants. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know how you find this, and write it up so quickly, formatted and all. Were you not making breakfast, watching Olympics, and doing laundry at the same time? Drmies (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I did get to cheat a bit. Knowing that you were reading the translations, I told Google Books to restrict the search to Star Trek and SpongeBob episodes. Uncle G (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course, we all know that the way to write popular culture sections is to watch television. So after scouring an episode of Hudson and Rex I found another pop culture reference for you, Doktoro. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• In the meantime, I've been otherwise occupied... Can you help me put the alternator back together? Drmies (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Swimming to skool

I also hear that het Gallifreyan students race boots, Doktoro, and didn't choose Enki, who had an article. I think that this should be your Did you know fact.

• "HOOFDSTUK 2: Het ontstaan van Gyas". gyas.nl (in Foreign ). Algemene Groninger Studenten Roeivereniging Gyas.((cite web)): CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

Now Zaphod Gearbox might have been able to fix your bike. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I've seen that edit going back and forth for a while, and although it's sourced, per WP:DAILYBEAST shouldn't we not be using it for BLP/Recently decesased? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hey, I'll take your word for it--no problem, I trust your judgment (not that editor's and their deceitful edit summary). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I appreciate your trust. Of it gets picked up by any other media, there's probably something that could be added, but what was written was more or less incorrect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's noted on by user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kristieskunberg Kristieskunberg (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Added description of role to my user page :) Kristieskunberg (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Gotcha--thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Saw you were active recently. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ten bucks. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I only pay in Dogecoin. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Already done by Rosguill. (Ty, Rosguill.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Well maybe Rosguill knows how to delete that stupid picture on Commons too? Drmies (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Commons is all Greek to me, time to earn your $10. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Damn you User:Rosguill, I was trying to make some money here. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry, must have missed the admin cartel meeting _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I need one of these pull-down menus on Commons. It always takes me forever to find the noticeboard there. Hey, AleatoryPonderings, given that warning on your user page and a few other things, I think this is the same person as User:Joseanthreeni0, who was blocked by Ponyo last year for socking (with User:Mo20m0), and later as just a vandal. They've also been fucking around as an IP. Some people really need to find a real hobby. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

        Yeah, I'd say Special:Diff/1070005513 ("minor edit" inserting multimedia (!) vandalism) matches Special:Diff/1072109221. Fun stuff. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(for all watchers) - Unless I've gone mad, plot summaries should have at least one source, no? Primary is fine for this, no? Someone's trying to edit war over a tag This Is Spinal Tap. If I'm wrong, and we don't need sources, hey, great, please show me the policy so I can bone up. I've tried leaving a polite message on their talk page, but this is one stubborn "newbee" (who isn't...). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's assumed the work itself is the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling with that. They are already at 3RR, btw. Normally you want some source for all content, otherwise, you fail WP:V. I mean, I could put in the summary for A Fish Called Wanda in that article and no one could challenge it if WP:V didn't apply. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot is where I read that. It's not great, and in general I think plots should be a few sentences at most, but the article on Masters of the Universe is longer than the article on WW2, and I think my AfD on He-Man's sword is going to fail. Apparently that's just where we are as an encyclopedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source". This seems to contradict WP:V completely. I mean, again, if I say the movie was about something else, how can that be challenged? You can insert completely absurd information, particularly with older or obscure works and it easily filled with lies if you don't apply WP:V. I also take "basic descriptions" to be much less than this, ie: "A mockumentary about a British heavy metal band". That is a basic description. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the WP:V part is basically just citing the movie itself as a source. Like any other source, you need to have access to it in order to verify what's written. Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. Secondary sources must be used for all other cases, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and lost films, as these would not be considered generally available or verifiable. This does lead to difficulty in verifying if you don't want to watch an entire movie to get an idea of the plot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I source my plot summaries... But yes, no source required, officially. But that's yet another reason to write them carefully and economically. See this and the previous two edits: character descriptions are also deemed (erroneously, IMO) to be fair game, and many of them, esp. in anime and children's TV shows, verge into OR and analysis. So yes, I'm totally on board with the "basic description" you propose. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Then all I can do is walk away. If I start trimming it down, it will just start more reverting, and getting the guy blocked isn't my goal, getting fat trimmed and info sourced is. Like images, that is a gaping hole in our verification system that makes it pretty easy to insert false info and never have it get flagged. Not on popular stuff, but many films on Wikipedia are older, obscure films from the 40s and back. It would be trivial to vandalize them in a stealth fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Well, trimming it is legitimate, of course, if you feel it needs that. But you're dealing with an editor who may have never added a source to any Wikipedia article. Not their thing, perhaps. Whatever was here was simply copied. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, they are very, very familiar. I would be shocked if they didn't have tens of thousands of edits in their old account that they don't claim. Why, is another matter, but this person is not remotely new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Please make the article better with a critic and a Communicating Chair.

• Plantinga, Carl R. (2013). "Gender, Power, and a Cucumber: Satirizing Masculinity in This Is Spinal Tap". In Grant, Barry Keith; Sloniowski, Jeannette (eds.). Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video, New and Expanded Edition. Wayne State University Press. pp. 339 et seq. ISBN 9780814339725.
• Muir, John Kenneth (2010). This Is Spinal Tap. Music on Film Series. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 9780879107796.

Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• You heard it here first, Dennis! Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template ((db-afc-move)) has been created - this template is similar to ((db-move)) when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, could we please delete: The Foundation Trustees include American historian Dr. Stephen Dow Beckham and Kermit Roosevelt III, professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School and great-great grandson of Theodore Roosevelt. And replace it with: Linda Pancratz, CEO and Chairwoman of Mountain Capital, is Chair of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Foundation Board of Trustees. Kristieskunberg (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• She's not notable (in the sense of having an article), but I suppose the chair can be listed--if you have a reference for it, just go ahead and do it. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that the various contributions and replies surrounding this editor blocked by you almost a year ago are to do with working towards getting the block lifted. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, just curious what your Doctorate is in? Unbroken Chain (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ha, I have to check. I think it just says "English". Drmies (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Unless something changes in the next few months I will be starting one of my own, Management. Although different fields is there anything that you would tell someone that is pursuing one. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) [1] --JBL (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Talk:The Internationale#Bringing back the lyrics

Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

There's more than one source out there. Again, these are opinions, not fact. But that is why I am putting "been described." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnatsirt9794 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Don't be silly. History is not the news. And a bunch of websites, a newspaper article or two, and a primary links--that does not cut it. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm literally using an academic article being cited. But again, if you want to keep on telling yourself that, go ahead, and live a life of ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnatsirt9794 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Please use four tildes to sign, and respect the indentation. Your comment barely dignifies much attention; it is belied by the very first paragraph in that mass of stuff you reinstated: "Haiti has been described as a client state of [[Argentina]]<ref>https://www.argentina.gob.ar/2020-misiones-de-la-armada-argentina((Dead link|date=January 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes ))</ref> <ref>https://www.fuerzas-armadas.mil.ar/ONU-Haiti.aspx</ref>((better source needed|date=February 2022))" If you could speak to me like an adult, without all that "live a life of ignorance" bullshit, we might get somewhere. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• The majority of Special:Diff/1072496972 is not your work, and is an utter pile of drivel and bad writing by multiple editors, complete with information-free flag porn, some of which is your work. The only ((cite book)) is to the autobiography of the Lonely Planet founders, I notice. And having read the Sylvan and Majeski paper, I find your claim to be using it risible. You've pretty much ignored the whole paper, and everything that it has to say on the subject, in favour of picking out country names with flags. Uncle G (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone is back, and they brought their axe. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• … to the wrong part of the state.
  • Archibald, John (2022-02-09). "How Alabama's most notorious speed trap town was shut down". al.com.
  • Archibald, John (2022-01-19). "Police in this tiny Alabama town suck drivers into legal 'black hole'". al.com.
• Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This is weird--yesterday there was a post in my Facebook feed about speed traps, which led me to a Reddit thread about speed traps in Alabama. And here we are. But why are you telling me, Jamie? I don't live in Baldwin County! I see that Jpgordon handled it deftly. I'd advise Big D to get a Prius, like me, which provides all kinds of disincentives related to speeding. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Amusingly, it was on the front page when I researched Interstate 422 (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I didn't know about that. There's some gorgeous, gorgeous country up there; it's no surprise there's opposition from environmental groups. I saw the damage in 2012 of the 2011 tornado: it was amazing, the kind of thing you can't really imagine but have to see to believe. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to do this and/or talk to, but I need help. The following IP addresses, 182.1.170.96 and 182.1.184.252 (most likely the same person, but I'm not sure), insists on vandalizing the Kamen Rider Saber page, and I fear they are going to start an edit war over it. I've already sent them a message to stop, but if (most likely when) they continue, I forgot how to report vandals. I could really use some help in this matter please. Blazewing16 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Doktoro likes J-Pop, and possibly Japanese food. But that would put Doktoro over at Collon (confectionery) (AfD discussion) right at the moment. (Let us not mention Silbenstrich (AfD discussion). Only mediaevalists would be interested in that, and there are no English professors here in the English Professor Vacuum.) So I've raised the protection level myself. Uncle G (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Well that was interesting. I'll keep that in mind next time I'm at the Asian market--wouldn't want to buy the wrong candy! Drmies (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• To keep the English Professor Vacuum sucking, I have invoked the name of another English professor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melniboné (2nd nomination). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't think I have anything to add there, Nightscream: I don't know what this is about, I'm not sure I've ever seen one of those movies or read the articles, and it's not something I plan to do. I'm watching Kissing Booth and that's as modern as I can get. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • You have to put it in terms that Doktoro understands, people. Doktoro: Spiderman is sort of like an American version of 7FATES: CHAKHO. And the character MJ is played by a mononymous singer-actress, like Blackpink's Jisoo. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Park, Han-Sol (2022-01-24). "Webtoons grow as entertainment industry tool to expand intellectual property". Korea Times.
    • Wang, Jolie (2022-02-13). "Controversy surrounding the Korean drama 'Snowdrop' starring Blackpink's Jisoo". Los Angeles Times: High School Insider.

Comparative illustrations

Wyeth's stern-looking and bearded^[1] Arthur from the cover of the 1917 edition

Kappes' "Queen Guenever's Peril" used for the 1880 edition

Beardley's "Arthur and the strange mantle" from the Mort by Dent

Wyeth's illustration of Lancelot and Sir Turquine

The Boy's King Arthur was an abridged version of Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur edited by Sidney Lanier and published in 1880.^[1] It was intended as a children's edition, alongside Lanier's other "Boy's" works.^[1][2]

Contents

Lanier included his own introduction, an extract (with translation) from Brut by Layamon, and William Caxton's introduction to the Morte.^[1] There were 12 illustrations based upon paintings by Alfred Kappes in the original edition, although subsequent editions have been illustrated by many other people.^[1] Professor of English Siân Echard states that the 1917 edition illustrated by N. C. Wyeth is "particularly important" as its colour illustrations of large muscular figures contrast with Aubrey Beardsley's illustrations of the 1893 edition of the Morte for publisher J. M. Dent.^[3]

The 1917 edition had 14 such illustrations, and was an abridgement of Lanier's own abridgment, omitting things like the tale of Balin.^[4] The number of Wyeth's illustrations was reduced to 9 in later printings.^[4] Wyeth and Kappes only had two subjects in common, where they both illustrated the Lady of the Lake giving Excalibur to Arthur and and Arthur's final battle with Mordred.^[4]

Lanier indicated his joins, where he had abridged Malory's text with his own words, with brackets.^[1] He also modernized the spelling and added notes to several archaisms like "hight" and "mickle".^[4][1]

His abridgements and Bowdlerizations included the removal of Uther's rape of Igraine, and other items, sexual and otherwise, that would tarnish the image of the knights for children, including Malory's account of Lancelot's madness, Sir Gareth's pre-martical sex, and the relationship between Tristram and Isolde.^[5]

He substitutes an oblique explanation for Guinevere banishing Lancelot that does not involve Elaine but merely states that Brisen (whom he simply calls "a certain enchantress") had made it seem that Lancelot had "shamed his knighthood", manner unspecified.^[6] Similarly, he removed suggestions that Guinevere may be envious of Elaine because of her relationship with Lancelot.^[6]

Similarly watered down are Lancelot's reasons for fighting for Guinevere, reduced to an explanatory footnote, and to a vague accusation of "treason" by Sir Meliagrance, rather than that she had committed adultery with one of the wounded knights.^[7] The subtly alters the context of the fight, making it seem that Lancelot is on the side of truth and honour, rather that trying to hide behind the technicality that it had been him that she had slept with, not a wounded knight.^[7] Her later being condemned to death makes no mention of this, either, Lanier simply explaining that the queen was "again appealed of treason", no specifics given.^[7]

Although Lanier took out the sexual improprieties, he left much of the violence and ignore behaviour unaltered, including Gareth's killing of six thieves, young men throwing things at Lancelot, the killing of Tristram, and the killing of Sir Lamorak.^[8] The latter two are almost without explanation, as the sexual incidents that motivate them are omitted.^[8]

Influences

Professor of English Dennis Prindle suggested that The Boy's King Arthur may have been John Steinbeck's first encounter with Arthurian legend.^[9] While it is generally acknowledged that Mark Twain's introduction to Malory's Morte came in 1884, as noted in Twain's biography by Albert Bigelow Paine, Alan Gribben notes that the Clemens family had bought two copies of Lanier's book on 1880-11-18 and 1880-12-13, and that Twain may have read those, given his habit of reading his daughter's books aloud to his family, and have first encountered Arthurian characters there.^[10][11] Professor of English Betsy Bowden has taken the argument further, suggesting that in fact the change in tone partway through Twain's Connecticut Yankee is caused by his switching from The Boy's King Arthur to the Morte proper.^[11] However, this hypothesis founders on the fact that Twain is recorded a decade before as already having a jaundiced view of the Middle Ages.^[11]

Walker Percy stated in a 1987 letter that Wyeth's "marvellous" illustrations from the Boy's had influenced his novel Lancelot, recalling in particular the aforementioned final battle, the gift of Excalibur, and the illustration of Lancelot and Sir Turquine, with Lancelot "bloodied up in his chainmail and leaning on his broadsword".^[12]

References

1. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Echard 2019, p. 119.
2. ^ Moreland 1996, p. 4.
3. ^ Echard 2019, pp. 117, 119.
4. ^ ^{a b c d} Lupack & Lupack 1999, p. 75.
5. ^ Lupack & Lupack 1999, pp. 76–78.
6. ^ ^{a b} Lupack & Lupack 1999, p. 77.
7. ^ ^{a b c} Lupack & Lupack 1999, pp. 77–78.
8. ^ ^{a b} Lupack & Lupack 1999, p. 78.
9. ^ Mathis 2001, p. 26.
10. ^ Moreland 1996, p. 57.
11. ^ ^{a b c} Vernon 2018, p. 123.
12. ^ Lupack & Lupack 1999, pp. 75–76.

Bibliography

• Echard, Siân (2019). "Malory in Print". In Leitch, Megan G.; Rushton, Cory James (eds.). A New Companion to Malory. Arthurian studies. Vol. 87. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 9781843845232. ISSN 0261-9814.((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Mathis, Andrew E. (2001). "Steinbeck's early novels". The King Arthur Myth in Modern American Literature. McFarland. ISBN 9780786411719.
• Moreland, Kim Ileen (1996). "Mark Twain". The Medievalist Impulse in American Literature: Twain, Adams, Fitzgerald, and Hemingway. University of Virginia Press. ISBN 9780813916583.
• Lupack, Alan; Lupack, Barbara Tepa (1999). King Arthur in America. Arthurian studies. Vol. 41. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 9780859916301. ISSN 0261-9814.
• Vernon, Matthew X. (2018). "Failed knights and broken narratives". The Black Middle Ages: Race and the Construction of the Middle Ages. The New Middle Ages. Springer. ISBN 9783319910895.

Further reading

• Lanier, Sidney, ed. (1880). The Boy's King Arthur. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
• Gribben, Alan (September 1978). "The Master Hand of Old Malory: Mark Twain's Acquaintance with Le Morte D'Arthur". English Language Notes. 16: 32–40.
• Bowden, Betsy (2000). "Gloom and Doom in Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee, from Thomas Malory's Morte Darthur". Studies in American Fiction. 28: 179–202.

This K-Pop webtoons spin-off submission to Articles for Creation is a stub. You can help Doktoro's youth cred.

Obviously there should have been a girls version for Blackpink fans.

Is this Alan Gribben person some sort of conspiracy theorist? Francis Bacon is the true author of Connecticut Yankee? Probably a bit fringe, ne?

Uncle G (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Do you have access to that Gribben article? I'd love to see it. I don't have access to Bowden's article either. No, Gribben is not a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know--but then, he was my former boss, haha. The Wyeth illustrations first appeared in 1917 or so, I believe, when the copyright was renewed; I get this from the article by Rob Wakeman that you have no doubt seen. The upshot, for me, is that Twain was well aware of Lanier? What about Fitzgerald? We know about Steinbeck. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I put Gribben in because quite a lot of people mention it, and my sources were in their turn citing Gribben. I actually took the citation itself from one of the sources that I didn't use. Almost certainly there is more to say on this, but it is a only a K-pop webtoons stub after all. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't trust it to be a good place to externally link to, but I happened to find the full text of Bowden on thefreelibrary.com whilst looking for its DOI. Uncle G (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Fun fact: you wrote up a couple of things that I wrote up yesterday, in this paper I'm working on. Maybe you saw that, and maybe computer is running slow cause you hacked into it, while mining for bitcoin? Drmies (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I hate to tell you this, Doktoro, but the BBC has been broadcasting historical documents of your adventures in time and space since 1963. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you know … that there was a 1960 edition re-titled King Arthur and His Knights and illustrated by Charles John Andres? This is true, but very hard to find a good source for. Uncle G (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Gordon, Sarah (2007). "Much ado about bacon: the old French fabliaux". Culinary Comedy in Medieval French Literature. Purdue studies in Romance literatures. Vol. 37. Purdue University Press. ISBN 9781557534309.

I'm surprised that you and the lurkers didn't snap this one up. Enjoy the statistic on page 4. Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Very interesting. I've read some fabliaux--but I don't remember bacon. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • You obviously were speed reading, Doktoro. Or reading Linden and Bulfinch's BTS version.
    • Cobby, Anne Elizabeth (1995). Ambivalent Conventions: Formula and Parody in Old French. Faux titre: études de langue et littérature françaises. Vol. 101. Rodopi. pp. 42–44. ISBN 9789051838725. ISSN 0167-9392.
    • Mole, Gary D. (2002). "Du bacon et de la femme. Pour une relecture de Barat et Haimet de Jean Bodel". Néophilolgus (in French). 86 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1023/A:1012907729532.
    • Pearcy, Roy (2007). Logic and Humour in the Fabliaux: An Essay in Applied Narratology. Gallica. Vol. 7. DS Brewer. p. 195. ISBN 9781843841227.
  • Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Dennis Brown, look: plot summary with secondary source!. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I received a talk page message from the IP 203.111.5.53 specifically about pages Jediknight15 was unconstructive on. I think it’s just them evading their ban. The misspelling on “does” when trying to make their talk page their user page (because IPs don’t have userpages) also tells me such--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks. Turns out there's a set of school IPs there, some of which were already blocked, and many of which were used by vandals only. I extended and expanded that block. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There has been long term disruption on Talk:Harry Styles and Harry Styles adjacent articles and talk pages. For at least eight years(which is as far back as I looked), someone has been adding to articles and requesting edits that he and Louis Tomlinson are married. I started an AN thread at one point to see about maybe an edit filter for this, but it didn't really get much traction. Is there anything you (or your talk page stalkers) can suggest to try and curb some of this disruption, or is the frequency low enough that we just revert and live with it? Is it worth starting an LTA page to point to for requesting blocks before hitting four warnings? Any help would be appreciated.

A haircutDiscography[2][3]Harry Styles[4][5][6]2018201620152014 in PortugueseLouis Tomlinson[7][8] and so on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Semi-protection is the only answer here, I think. I checked, and looked at the IPs as well, and as far as I can tell this is from all over the place, not from one person. Sorry. I dropped a few blocks, but that's not very helpful. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm loath to request semi on talk pages, because once in a blue moon there is a constructive edit on those talk pages from an IP or new account. I guess I'll just keep reverting on sight. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Sad but true, yes. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm dropping blocks left and right. Time to do something else. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

      Thanks for the help. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• It's not a single person. This is a piece of on-line nitwittery that has been doing the rounds for about a decade. Ironically, they tried to set up an edit filter equivalent at Instagram to stop this half a decade ago. Unless someone can do a better job of edit filtering here, semi-protection seems the best route. Otherwise it's one person versus multiple BLP-violating nitwits. That said, you might try bringing this up at the BLP noticeboard, rather than the administrators' noticeboard, and having another push for an edit filter. It is, after all, a BLP problem.
  • Wong, Curtis M. (2016-09-19). "Louis Tomlinson Blocks Gay Fan Fiction Nickname 'Larry' On Instagram". Huffington Post.
• Uncle G (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I figured that, yes. An edit filter: I should have thought of that. Thanks Uncle. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

    At what point is an edit filter feasible? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Or, just hear me out, we convince the two of them to get married, and then it's a non-issue. Obviously, that's the easiest solution all around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, YeetaSkeeta chose not to read your comment and are now GuruOfSpeed. You can see the same content magically appearing in Draft:Deji Olatunji and the identical type of edits. Should I go WP:SPI or is this WP:DUCK enough to skip it? --Muhandes (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, I tackled it--thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Uncle G (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I actually saw that draft, Uncle. Very interesting. Thanks for making me clean up that Halcali article. Do you seriously propose to have Bacon in the fabliau? It is masterful. But why should I copy and paste it? Drmies (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This is something that I had been thinking myself, Doktoro. You have been focusing on naughty things of late, from Le Chevalier qui fit les cons parler to Sublimation (psychology)#Sexual sublimation. Can you say "Honoré de Balzac" without making it seem rude and getting la mise au coin? Mind you, I do not know whether the mystery author is willing for the userspace page to be renamed. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • 10 years have passed. Has its time come round again? Yes, please! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you can tempt Doktoro away from Mole 2002 which connects bacon in the fabliaux to naughty things. Uncle G (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Ha. The doctor got a flu shot yesterday which totally knocked him out. No naughty things of any kind today. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Good. I have in the meantime discovered from watching an episode of The Rookie a minor factoid about culture that is popular, which is probably of no interest. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I require help once again. The following IP address, Special:Contributions/114.79.38.0/23, insists on adding hoax cast lists to the Kamen Rider Saber character page and the main Kamen Rider Zero-One page. I know these pages aren't your cup of tea, but I have been working to stop this IP address from ruining these pages, and they are effectively edit warring no matter how much I tell them to stop. This has been going on for about three days and I don't know if I can keep this up anymore. Blazewing16 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• No problem. That range produced nothing good and I blocked it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Thank you so much for your help. Blazewing16 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi User:Drmies. I could use your help once again. The following IP address, Special:Contributions/114.79.37.74, which is apparently a similar yet different one from the IP address you recently blocked, is continuing 114.79.38.0/23's BS of adding hoax cast lists, this time with the Kamen Rider Zero-One main and character pages. If you can, could you please follow up on this? Blazewing16 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

February songs

frozen

... or latish happy new year! It started nicely with long vacation, pictured if you click on songs, and a few days still missing. I waited for a special day, a feast day for which Bach wrote several cantatas including Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, which was on DYK 10 years ago and TFA 4 years ago. I'm less happy that Georg Christoph Biller had to wait days for a Main page appearance under recent deaths, and then stayed not even for a full day. It would have been so meaningful today, with the man in the cantata saying he can depart in joy and peace. - The February pic was taken in memory last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• You'll be lucky. Doktoro is busy writing Tijme Loord propaganda that the Tijme Loords invented everything first. On which subject:

I doubt that Shocking Blue did a cover version, Doktoro. Uncle G (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I like my talk today (even explaining how it works), and managed to picture two more vacation days --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Today, I decorated my talk with a Bach cantata. I heard it last year when missing RexxS began, and "not letting go" was a theme. - Thank you for keeping his memory on top. I haven't counting how often I sen users there who haven't learned indenting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

my joy, thanks for coming over - more on my talk, RexxS pictured twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Precious

ten years

Thank you for constant help and thought-provoking articles! Today's recommended reading: Peter Merseburger, - couldn't believe he had no article yet, - so much still missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, thank you--and thank you for writing up articles like that one. That's just great service to our readers. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  thank you! - next: Prayer for Ukraine, with a history from 1995 to 2022, - the article a work in progress, help wanted - translation of some of it would also help --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I listed Michri michri at SPI... I suspect I got something wrong as it's listed as closed. How do I open it again? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michri michri Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's been caught... please ignore! Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Good! Drmies (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You blocked Amuroray11 from editing Rob Kirkland for COI reasons but User:TozenTicho and User:Duttonfanatic just showed up to edit this article, almost exclusively. I'm hoping you could run a check and see if they are all the same person. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Duttonfanatic posted a notice on User talk:Duttonfanatic as if the Rob Kirkland AFD had closed as "Keep" (see edit summary) and the AFD is still open. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Liz, the three are  Confirmed to one another. Always nice when they make it this obvious. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Liz, GeneralNotability, thank you both. I meant to come back after some scrubbing in that article and say thanks, but I may have been too upset at that editing style, haha. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. While looking at the history of some pages, I noticed that an editor currently using an account named XT RedZone appears to have a history of having edited with several accounts. Obviously I cannot state this with absolutely full certainty, but this seems like WP:QUACK. I found that the accounts User:Muffyogsan, User:Heated Hater, User:Trusted RedZone, User:Game for Game and the one currently active have a very similar editing style and have edited the same pages. For some evidence, you can see here that one of these accounts recently added back the same content that was originally added by another of these accounts here. There might be other accounts, but those were the ones I found. The editor also appears to have edited while logged out, for example like here. I understand that making a clean start is fine, but this editor has continued editing the same pages and all of the accounts appear to have a pattern of getting involved in disputes and edit warring, and even reviving old disputes with the different accounts, so it seems like this could be a violation of WP:SCRUTINY. Also, it is quite concerning that these seem to have been used to create illusion of greater support, like in this discussion and in this edit summary (where the claim "Seems you have did this same a previous user." referred to my dispute with this editor's (potential) previous account). Do you think that this constitutes sockpuppetry, and should I create a report at WP:SPI? Thanks. Carfan568 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, there's no point in that. There is nothing that CU can do, because the accounts are all inactive, and because they are inactive there's no socking going on--at least not now. But let me have a chat with them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Drmies. Hope you're well. I could use your advice about an issue. A while back someone created the article Principality of Mirdita. I nominated it for deletion and the discussion ended as merge. Since then nobody has shown any interest as to how the article should be merged. My opinion is that it should be turned into a redirect to Mirdita. Meanwhile as Principality of Mirdita stays online new editors read it and are led to believe that it actually existed, hence they write about it on other articles. What's the next step to take after the AfD conclusion?--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hey--well, that's a fine mess. An AfD with three different votes, and one that says "merge per above" when the above merge comment didn't make a lot of sense. Why would a potential COI matter in terms of what should be kept in user space? Was there ever any discussion about sourcing? Why did the creator not comment? "all likely to be RS" is really not an argument, certainly not when totally devoid of detail. Merge it is, then, but I will leave it at that--no deletion. If this is ever revamped, let me know. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks, I feel that our voting stance on wiki sometimes reflects the way we perceive voting in the real world. We may vote but we feel that we have no further obligation towards the outcome of the voting phase. I guess that this is what happened here. Several people voted for a merge, but nobody got involved in the actual process of merging.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Another one: I saw two new editors who were edit-warring at Kosovo Liberation Army and left both a standard notice about edit warring (both had reached 3 reverts)[9][10]. Then one of them came to my talkpage to complain about it: User talk:Maleschreiber#Spurious warning. I've told the editor to not use my talkpage as a place to discuss if their edits constitute revert warring or not, but they keep using my talkpage exactly for that. What more does one have to do to make others understand that a user talkpage is not the place for such a discussion?--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I got pinged to this and directed the user to the article's talk page. I too sometimes struggle with editors who insist on having a one on one discussion of content on user talk instead of article talk where it's more proper. -- ferret (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Now checkuser blocked. Does the ostrich want to double check my work? -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
        • The ostrich really wants to NOT have to drive to fucking Mobile tomorrow for a fucking Mardi Gras parade. Thanks Ferret--I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• OK, so the Mardi Gras was actually kind of fun. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Whilst you were away, Doktoro, I discovered from reading a book that all that you had to do in order to go to one of your naughty events with lots of youth cred was hop into your TARDIS and go back to Bullfrog, Utah (AfD discussion) in 1992. Not 1993, though. Do not miss by a year. (I did notice that you managed to get the TARDIS so confused that it put Fat Tuesday on a Sunday. Is this sort of movable feast what you meant when you said that it was Mobile?) I didn't put in the article what the book said about the woman and the funnel. I had to turn on safe search in Google Books, Doktoro. For a University of Arizona Press book! Why are you leading me to writing about all this naughty stuff? I want to write about the prevalence of pork in the plays of Plautus. Uncle G (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I actually could use some of that fat--imagine a slavink wrapped in paprika-flavored salo. I see now that I was writing up pork back in 2009 already, but had heard of Plautus only through Macchiavelli. I do wonder about that sex act. I didn't see anything like it in Mobile. Also, Mardi Gras is a set of events, not just one particular day, and down here I've gotten used to saying "the" Mardi Gras. Mardi Gras in Mobile, Alabama needs a bit of work; we caught the parade of the Mystics of Time, which was pretty cool cause it had dragons. Blow House was pretty good, though I assume they had been funneling beer all day. We had a long lunch at Felix on the causeway and I can recommend that--though the oysters from Bayou La Batre just aren't as good as those from Apalachicola Bay. Anyway, we need to write up the Kennedy-Cox House. I hope to be invited to the ball there. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Where did you write about prevalence of pork in the plays of Plautus in 2009, Doktoro? If it's already here all this time … Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Not in Plautus: [11]. And my slavinken, yesterday, were very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

A Mobile home

Disappointment

I am disappointed, Doktoro, that you never mentioned that your Mobile home was right next to the very historic Burger King and opposite the equally historic McDonald's, with a very historic Hardee's just down the road. Why, moreover, were you eating battered fish from a fast food place when you could have been catching your own moonpies? They go by quite fast, I read. I don't know what a Spanish Plaza or a British Park are, safe search on Google Books filtering out such things, but presumably the latter is where you should have been eating your battered fish, for the authentic Mobile experience. I do know what a Mobile library is, of course.

• Blejwas, Emily (2019). "MoonPies: Mardi Gras in Mobile". The Story of Alabama in Fourteen Foods. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 9780817320195.

Uncle G (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wait--you didn't see it? Across the street from where we stood? Yes, that is a very notable BK, and very well known among those Mardi Gras revelers whose bladders are too full for much dancing. And no, I did NOT eat battered fish: that's for children and savages. I had blackened codia, thank you very much. There were plenty of moonpies, though only chocolate and vanilla landed in our area. If you ever see one, I urge you to not eat it. Next time you should come along; I'm sure you're a better driver than my daughter. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You might not have heard of the University of Alabama Press, Doktoro, but it seems that it allows its authors to go on for a whole chapter about throwing moonpies, and not throwing Cracker Jacks, and the MoonPie Rise, and some cat named Big Bill Lister, which we do not seem to discuss in similar depth in our article. That said, you do get to tell the Pommiepedians that I can find no university press books about Wagon Wheels at all, so that article still does not get to use ((cite book)). Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes Modussiccandi BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes Callanecc Oversighter changes Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

EU-DE-NRW-SI (talk · contribs) has removed AFD tags at Plane shootdown over Syke three times. Twice after they were warned. Maybe you can have a word with them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks--they seem to have heeded your warning, though. "Excessive red in infobox" maybe should be a reason for deletion also. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Raymond H. Thompson (AfD discussion)
• https://english.acadiau.ca/faculty-staff.html

I tried and failed, Doktoro. M. Canadiaian could have a go. Everyone in Canadia knows everyone else in Canadia, ne? Uncle G (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Uncle G: Maybe this (also [12]) is the Thompson you're looking for? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Or maybe it isn't. In any case, I can't find much either; so this Thompson might indeed not be notable as a professor, and certainly not notable as an author. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Although there is this and supposedly the book it is reviewing. Probably something to be said about this too... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
      • That is a useful find. You should definitely mention that in the AFD discussion. It shows that we might be able to document this person's works, if not xyr life. Uncle G (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I had seen that, but I wondered whether Doktoro would be unhappy to see an assertion that Anthropology was the same as Arthurpology. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the ip address that you blocked for 31 hours has been doing this same nonsense for a couple of years now. The other ip address that he had is blocked for a year, I think Wugapodes or Oshwah were the ones who I contacted and they were of much help. A few hours ago he was using a different ip address, 172.58.188.128 both same person, location, subject and subject matter. I know when this 31 hour block expires he'll be at it again. Thank you for your assistance, Doriden (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• I did something. Let's see what it does. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again Doriden (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, the disruptive editing person ip address 172.58.188.128 has been blocked for a year. But the other ip address that he uses 172.58.188.231 is only blocked for 31 hours, after which he will probably be at it again. Wugapodes and Oshwah had him blocked about 6 months ago on some other ip address that he was using. It was one with many numbers. Thanks again for your assistance, Doriden (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again sir, but will the other ip address that he used last night that is currently blocked for 31 hours, 172.58.188.128 be blocked for six months also? Because I guarantee that when the 31 hours expire he will continue with the same behavior. Thank you, Doriden (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, I apologize for disturbing you again. I got a little mixed up. 172.58.188.128 is blocked for six months. The other ip address that he was using last night 172.58.188.231 is the one that is blocked for 31 hours by you. Sorry for the error, Doriden (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Look at this. No need to apologize, BTW--I get paid handsomely for this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am concerned about the other one he uses last night the one ending with 231 that is just blocked for 31 hours. The other one he was using last night 172.58.188.128 is blocked for six months. Again, I apologize for disturbing you, Doriden (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Doriden, the whole range is blocked for six months. Including that IP. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mr.Drmies, thanks for your kind assistance with that disruptive editing person. I don't know why he does it. But anyway thanks again Doriden (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please note that the editor you reverted here is back as this IP. To be fair one of their edits, this, seems OK but the others fulfil your "silly" criterion quite well. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• DBaK, thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts about why this hasn't received any administrative attention? (If not, no problem.) --JBL (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

just block them since they're socking too. I love their feigned ignorance when I explained why this lovely piece of garbage isn't reliable (scroll down to the author and the beautiful stock photo!) CUPIDICAE💕 17:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Beat you to it. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You'll always have the upper hand in that case, my block powers only extend to small wikis :P Thankss! CUPIDICAE💕 17:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If I have a chance today, I'll take a look at some of the proposed changes which weren't as bad and look to see whether they should be restored. (940 vs. 1000 may be true). But when the axe came out for *everything* that a sister might view as negative, I agree with your blockage.Naraht (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The edits to Ferrari 612 page you just submitted seem to be a bit disruptive. I am a professional automobile historian contributing updates to this page, since it had misinformation. I agree with you that every individual car doesn't need to be listed, but the list included notable examples and models that are distinct from the primary model. These are generally well-acknowledged within the Ferrari community around these. These edits should be reverted and allowed to continue to be cleaned up/edited for simplicity.

• We're an encyclopedia, not a fan site where every variant and color of every automobile should be listed. "Notable" is established by way of reliable secondary sources. Autotrader and Topspeed don't appear to be that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I see you've had issues with the IP recently, specifically at Abby Hatcher.

Not sure what much can be done, as this is an LTA IP issue coming from Malaysia. I previously reported the range here, but to no avail. See User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 20#The Casagrandes and User talk:EvergreenFir/Archive 20#Malaysian IPs for more information on the issue. Seems like it won't be stopping anytime soon- not sure if any sort of mass page protection/range blockings is possible to help curb this. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

… that Golden Lane, London (AfD discussion) near the Barbican has been the site of a brewery, a burial ground, and bombings? — blame Philafrenzy (talk · contribs) 10× expansion

Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Got a load of fresh prods now that seem a bit pointy. Not many central London streets turn out to not be notable, but it's a lot of work to expand them all simultaneously. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've been on the other side of this. Don't read too much into it. One finds one thing and one wonders whether it's a group of systematically created such articles, so one goes to Special:Contributions and turns on the new pages only filter. Thanks to the database-dumpers we're very sensitive to these things in the 2020s. And in fairness minor roads in cities and towns usually get consensus to delete at AFD. (Yes, including capital cities — I've seen a fair few go by at AFD for non-European cities over the years.) This is in part because the article creators often miss the actual subjects in their zeal to have an article on every bloody road in the world. Usually, the subject is an area or a district. Or a historic thing totally lost in the recentist noise of documenting a road in a suburban neighbourhood.

    I remember Grove Avenue, London (AfD discussion), which totally missed the historic item for some minor road that was built over it. There's a fair parallel to this, in that as soon as I looked up the road I found the eponymous brewery, just as Hanwell Park pretty much screamed at me back them. It's different here in that the road is the centre of the historical subjects, and not some later trifle.

    The important thing is to write a good stub. It's why I despair of things like Kinnoull. That's a parish, with over a century of documentation. (See User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 5#Geography cop-outs.) But instead we get a "I live on this housing estate. I don't need histories of my town. I know where the bowling club is." approach instead, and a vague "residential area" description because an editor hasn't really looked into what the subject even is. Or Kinnoull Terrace (AfD discussion) which is just a road in the parish and not the central subject. Bridgend, Perth and Kinross was a burgh of barony, for pity's sake, not some random housing estate that the article makes it look like.

    After shedloads of GNIS-sourced articles calling things "unincorporated community" more bad geography stubs that do not even give the basic description of the subject is a sore point for many people now. And Special:Diff/1060386480 telling us that the toilets are out of order is no substitute for cracking open a history book or two. But that's how badly a lot of this stuff is written.

    This is what the world looks like from the other person's point of view. That's why I do not gloat over things like Golden Lane, and think it is bad form to do so. And I do not make blanket assertions that everything in London (or even one part of London) is going to be notable, because Grove Avenue in London really was just some road. It is 2022, and after 20 years Wikipedia is part of a system that is actually massively perpetuating geographic falsehoods, in articles by the tens of thousands, with mountains of rubbish geography content surrounding us on all sides. Finding a genuine historic subject, which we've done with ferry landings in California and creeks in Kentucky, is almost like a tosher finding a tosheroon, and something to be celebrated with the people who are in good faith trying to clean the muck away.

    Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

    • That was a lot of reading--thank you. At least there was an elephant in the AfD room. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I might have sent an elliptical email or three during the plague - an even weirder one is being sent now, best wishes - and trust you are well and all...

It has been dealt with, apologies for bothering, maybe some other time... this time it is resolved... JarrahTree 15:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw, and confirmed. No apologies necessary--it's always good to hear from you. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you appreciate the help - very useful assistance given - cheers JarrahTree 16:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that you’ve curtailed the lists of published works on a handful of articles on authors that I have spent quite a bit of time on. Most of my time on Wikipedia is expanding bibliographies, citations and finding appropriate source material online, so you can imagine that was frustrating! The article I just noticed is Laird Wilcox, but the others slip my mind at the moment.

Since you’re an administrator with a lot more experience than myself, I’m hoping you might be able to help me better understand the specific criteria for inclusion of bibliographic material on Wikipedia so I can continue creating and expand lists of published works without misusing my time.

You removed all the articles and book contributions such as chapters, and included edit summaries saying “not a resume”. You also mentioned that articles shouldn’t be included unless secondary sources “prove them worth mentioning.” I’m having a difficult time finding where those parameters are defined or where guidelines for lists published works for individuals are mentioned at all, so I would really appreciate it if you could point me to a few resources where I can read more about this.

What is the preferred method for demonstrating sufficient notability for an article to merit inclusion in list of works? Would that be a mention of the article in the body of the text, or in the form of a footnote citation? I’m also wondering if you can expand on the “not a resume” part. That’s a helpful start but perhaps you me understand what the ideal list of works does look like. Regards Neighborhood Review (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to the question you posed in your edit summary: "and what is this series of PDFs with ‘quotations’?" Laird Wilcox is a researcher of fringe political movements, and his is primarily known for collecting source material and publishing directories, bibliographies, indexes, lists of organizations, publications, and quotes. The citations were for his published books of quotes and the linked PDFs were digital copies of those books that he made available online. Neighborhood Review (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hello Neighborhood Review--there are some guidelines in WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY, and note that it talks about books. Resumes, the way we use the term in academia, list everything, and that can't be the goal of Wikipedia. In particular, lists of interviews, articles, poems, short stories, and links to them have a definite resume flavor to them. Yes, I and others routinely remove them, because for all intents and purposes they have a tendency to turn into linkspam. And in this case that critique certainly seems to apply: most of the links I removed are to his own website, https://propagandaanalyst.wpcomstaging.com/, so that's really on the wrong side of promotion.
  There is a good reason to list books (not self-published ones): they typically are review by an editor and/or an editorial board, by outside readers, etc., and if the Wikipedia editor does their job well, they add reviews of the book from reliable sources to demonstrate that something is worth listing. For articles, poems, etc., that is often impossible. If an article is independently noteworthy, that should be demonstrable; for instance, Barbara Smith's "Toward a Black Feminist Criticism" could be listed, since there are plenty of secondary sources (though they are not cited in the article) that demonstrate it was indeed a key text for feminism in the 1970s and 1980s.
  So, it took me a bit, but I did that for Smith: see these edits. You may have to look carefully: I removed citations to the articles itself from the text, replaced them with text and secondary sources, added the title of the article by Smith to her "Selected bibliography", and footnoted the three references there. I don't know if you can do any of that for Wilcox's articles, but some of his books have been peer-reviewed, as you know. So that's what it is: a move away from resume and linkspam, and a move toward secondary sourcing. And to my Uncle's citation, below, you can add Mulloy, Darren (2004). "Conversing with the Dead: The Militia Movement and American History". Journal of American Studies. 38 (3): 439–56. Hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Small example

A small example of what Doktoro is talking about:

• Pierard, Richard V. (Autumn 1998). "George, John and Laird Wilcox. American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others (Book Review)". A Journal of Church and State. 40 (4). Waco, Texas: 912–913. doi:10.1093/jcs/40.4.912.

Approached this way, rather than hyperlinking to a publisher's/author's blurb for a book, and just having lists with no prose, you can actually have a paragraph of verifiable commentary on what's in the book.

Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears this pal is back as this user. I'll file an SPI later but the overlap is insane as well as the matching timecard. Unfortunately they're just shy of the 90 day limit (by 3 days!) CUPIDICAE💕 23:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• OK--but ask for CU anyway; who knows what they find. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1076949813
• https://www.eso.ky/preliminary-2021-census-report-published.html
• https://menafn.com/1103777532/Census-reveals-56-percent-of-workers-not-Caymanian
• https://www.eso.ky/UserFiles/page_docums/files/uploads/cayman_islands_preliminary_census_2021_r.pdf

The explanation is that the 2021 Census preliminary report came out a week or so ago, Doktoro. Of course people don't cite sources to explain this. They just leave the 2010 sources in place for the 2021 data, just like at Special:Diff/1076949435 which now has the (preliminary) 2021 figure supported by a citation to the 2010 census. Doing otherwise would actually be helping other editors. I have left a strongly worded note. I want people like this to distinguish themselves from the random statistics changing vandals; and not look like them. Which properly citing sources in this case could have easily done.

Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• I know that's what they did--it's typical. I also know for a fact that I'm out of cayenne and I need to fix that. Finally, I was halfway through filing an SPI related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gca.345. A few months ago I ran into a prolific sock who changed demographic information all over Southern and Central America, I believe, but I can't remember who this was. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for blocking 115.135.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). They're also active on a very similar range (same ISP/geolocation); 110.159.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)); with their latest IP from there being today. Hope you can help, thanks wizzito | say hello! 13:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like you added two entries to List of lynching victims in the United States, but they look a bit too similar, I suspect one needs a little more editing? Thanks for all your additions to this list! Jacona (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jacona--is it better now? Side note: I wrote these up because it turned out that two students of a colleague of mine recognized family names after a class visit to the National Memorial for Peace and Justice... Drmies (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Looks great, of course. That list is shockingly huge yet woefully incomplete! Thanks! Jacona (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, 7 years have past since we spoke last. At that time it was something trivial, as usual. Anyway, I am here again just by accident. I enjoyed completing this puzzle so much that I listed it for Peer Review because I wanted to know if you all like it... and that was all. Yes, I also explained what I did because that's what I do, for everyone. I guess maybe I was not so successful after all. Well, let bygones be bygones, right ? Have you seen The Chocolate Factory with Gene Wilder as Mr. Wonka ? Remember how the boy felt when Mr. Wonka yelled at him saying: You win nothing ! Maybe I should list the article for appreciation by more gentle people than just the regular half-a-dozen of 3 or 4. Your opinion is important to me. You see, I don't like to displease others. I am retired. Thank you my friend and be well. Krenakarore ^TK 12:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi--yes, it's been a while. I don't really know what to tell you. If you're listing it for peer review, you'll find someone asking you to make things conform to the MOS, which means, for instance, getting rid of the spurious bold for titles. You will also be asked to be more neutral, getting rid of phrases like "very bright composer" and "Chaminade occupies the foremost place in the motley ranks of women composers of our present day". But the more pressing thing is the revert, I suppose. I read the post on the article talk page; I encourage you to be more concise and to get straight to the point--explaining the need for your expansion and your formatting. User:Tim riley, I had to look around, but I see now you were pointing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Fixing_up_List_of_compositions_by_Cécile_Chaminade when you said "Restoring as discussed on article talk page", right? Anyway, Krenakarore, I think you should invite those editors who participated in that Project talk page to the article talk page--and explain briefly what your rationale was. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Mea culpa – yes, I meant project talk page rather than article ditto. Tim riley talk 20:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • No problem--thanks for dropping by! Drmies (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Gerald Wilkinson (AfD discussion)

On that note, Doktoro: By coincidence, the subject of using expert academic book reviews has come up again.

Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the user on the Leon Douglas page from editing. They created the account for this purpose, have other accounts as well, and from edits it appears a personal matter given information they've attempted to post. The page is accurate and I've done some work as a Pistons amateur historian (emphasis on the amateur). The page might deserve being protected for a period of time. Anyhow, much appreciated! Heathens87 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I looked through the entire account contributions history, and it seems clear that the account-holder wasn't editing in good faith throughout, so I've revoked the editing privileges indefinitely. Whether this is a sockpuppetteer I'll leave up to checkusers. There's no apparent other account and nothing that I saw led me to suspect such. (Doktoro: Gameballer2 (talk · contribs) is the best candidate, but behaviourally I wouldn't say so. But on the other hand see Special:Diff/940903449 and Special:Diff/1077442244. You decide.)

  Bear in mind that "the page is accurate" is not necessarily true. Be prepared to have made mistakes. Accepting and correcting mistakes in good grace is important. Furthermore, since you clearly know how to use <ref/> please make the work of Jdoug13 (talk · contribs) and Coachdouglas13 (talk · contribs) at John Douglas (basketball) much better.

  I leave you with a final tip, which is what I do: Get your sources lined up before you start a new biography page, and cite them from the start. Make sure that you have something, either a main source or a collection of sources to be taken in concert, that approximates an in-depth biography of life and work. See User:Uncle G/On notability and User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Always work from and cite sources. If you don't do this, you'll realize the wisdom of it the first time that someone nominates a sports biography for deletion.

  Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks Uncle, for your comments and the block. Heathens87, my Uncle offered good advice on writing BLPs. I don't see much reason to run CU on this user, even with the off-chance that the other editor tried to log in recently, leaving evidence that a CU could use. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Appreciate the work and advice. Heathens87 (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I have just learned, Doktoro, that Scott Circle (AfD discussion) is not and never has been circular. The U.S. Congress has been lying to us for some 150 years. It took a professor of architecture at the University of Virginia to blow the whistle on this government conspiracy, which further revelations show, including articles in the Washington Post, reaches all of the way to the Secretary of the Interior, and has involved hundreds of thousands of dollars of gasoline taxpayer money, some cars, a truck, and a bus. Andrew Ellicott drew a square. Did you know about this?

Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Good old Scott Hexagon. Once saw someone in an SUV run a red light there, get clipped by a sedan, and do a complete roll before landing on his roof. Drive safe, kids! —JBL (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That book by Bednar, that's fascinating. The Philippines embassy is indeed really nice. Can we imagine a world not dominated by car traffic? Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I oppose traffic. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with Traffic?[13] O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's OK. I was just virtue siganling. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I really liked being able to look at the list of all the templates used on the page during preview mode at the bottom. Helped me troubleshoot. Sorry for being a doofus but I decided I'd ask somebody whose user page nobody watches... BusterD (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• You came to the right place! Drmies (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Crickets... BusterD (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Hmm and I wouldn't know either. I know there's a list of templates, or there was, but I never looked at it carefully or noticed that something changed. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Well what heck good are we anyway... Building NCAAW team season stubs and I find it handy to be able to just click on the template link as opposed to cut and paste it. There must be a way for neanderthals like myself... Be well. BusterD (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
        • (talk page stalker)@BusterD: It is not on by default. You can opt in to use it on Wikimedia wikis as a desktop Beta Feature by going to your preferences, clicking the check box for "New wikitext mode", then clicking "Save". I'd tend to assume the opt-out is in the same location? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Thank you. I'd forgotten I'd opted in. Much better. There are things I like about the new setup (for example, I don't have to put all my stuff through a specific sized window), but I do miss the functionality. Do you happen to know off the top of your head where we provide feedback for this? My head is deep in NCAAW roundball right now. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
            • @BusterD: There's a "See also" at the bottom of that page, with a link to a feedback section. As for general feedback and feature requests, you should probably try WP:Phabricator. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Duke of Denver (AfD discussion)

Masses of in-universe fiction presented as fact. Nothing about how it would "not be accurate to describe Sayers's depiction of the aristocracy as adulatory or sycophantic", even though Colin Watson did. Please turn the English Professor Vacuum up, Doktoro.

Uncle G (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• • That article is irredeemably improved. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Two English professors, so far. Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Plus an assistant professor of English. Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I stopped when I saw Pornografie in de Nederlandse literatuur come up in the search results, Doktoro. That's naughty things in Gallifreyan. You aren't tricking me again. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Haha, don't give up so easily. I only looked at a set of newspaper hits. It's a wonderful little booklet; I have the first edition upstairs, but apparently the third edition has an interesting new addition. That area, of the Spui, and I don't mean single-point urban interchange, the Spuistraat, and the Nieuwezijds, that's a fascinating little spot, and I don't mind telling you that I had my very first club sandwich at the Cafe Luxembourg--with a person who once had a Wikipedia article, and then lost her life and her article both. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • So I found that book too, and it made me blush a little. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• You won't get me with your sneaky tricks. I still have safe search turned on in Google Books. So I can happily look up God Will Lift Up Your Head (AfD discussion) and find the actual Wesleyan title for the Gerda Arendts of this world, without any of your naughty things appearing. Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• I found out why that book came up even though safe search in Google Books is turned on. It transpires that Google Books has sneakily mis-spelled Rick Honings name as Joost Honings, and Joost M. van Driel and as Rick van Driel, to get around the filter. Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Sneaky--and I wrote up some porn for you. Thanks for saving that hymn, BTW. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Did you sneakily attribute it to "Honings, Joost", too? I am sensing the necessity for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Drmies&safesearch=on. Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have been asked at User talk:Uncle G#Maybe you could take a look about Mervyn Bunter. Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmm good luck with that; that article is messier than the average Marvel character's. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We were having so much fun though. I was about to ask if you wanted to block the account as NOTHERE or if you'd leave the honor to me, but I see it's already done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Could have been a CU block as well, but I guess you figured that already. The two of you should continue this on Facebook. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Lol. Obviously it was the same person as the IP Orangemike blocked. I'll stay away from the cesspool that is Facebook, thanks. There's spring training baseball to watch. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's why cricket's the better sport: since it isn't just played in the northern hemisphere, it goes round all year. And, on top of that, then you also get to laugh since England are always "terrible" (at least, if the British press has got it right? Right?) at whichever sport they've invented :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

But FYI I have been doing this longer than you. I have fewer edits, but as an admin you are probably using automated tools, and I have been reverted less. Almost all of my edits have involved translations, so I am highly familiar with the Wikipedia policies on the subject.

There are serious issues at the battalion page which I wish you would look into before lecturing me about how copy edits are bad. The edit war at that page that spilled into this AfD has now spilled over into vandalizing an article with 299 references, many of them foundational to the topic, because of course that editor knows better, based on the top three results of a google search.

I am totally prepared to die on this hill. Most of what I have done is in obscure niches, but I have been prepared to die on three hills before this:

1. Wikipedia, Google and Twitter went black for a day (SOPA)
2. Governments fell (Panama Papers)
3. At least two movies got made; consternation among the corrupt (Operation Car Wash)

Obviously I didn’t do that single-handed, but if you go back in the history of the many spinoffs of those articles I am in there saying nope nope this really is important and you cannot delete it. To be clear, Azov Special Purpose Regiment in and of itself doesn’t rise to that level of importance but it’s a stellar example of the topic of the other article, about Russian disinformation. (I don’t think I can link to it at the moment. Possibly a cache problem on my end, but its history says its title is one thing and it is displaying another. I think it might be a circular redirect. But I want to research that further before I escalate; I am just explaining why it’s important.)

Meanwhile my ask to you is this. Could you please read both Azov articles and their talk pages when you get a chance? I realize that you do have a life so if you don’t have time or you’re the wrong kind of administrator, could you please refer the issue or let me know so I can take this elsewhere? Discretionary sanctions apply after all so I think that somebody will care. I’m just telling you about this because you’re the closest admin. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you think I am delusional or in some other way the problem, please do refer *thst* issue if that is what it takes to get somebody to read the articles, shrug. If we are all too busy to read what we’re working on, we’re just bad AI anyway and I might as well go do this stuff for somebody that pays me. Elinruby (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is somewhat lengthy and out of the blue--I wish you had started by linking Azov Special Purpose Regiment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment, an AfD that is very likely to end in draftify/redirect. Automated or not, I am telling you that it is very good practice to work on this kind of thing in draft space, at least until a. there are enough secondary sources to satisfy en-wiki standards and b. all or a significant number of those 64 footnotes are in the actual article. And I'd prefer not to see people die on hills or anywhere else. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. You blocked this user ("Σύμμαχος")[14] recently as a result of this ANI case.[15] Their very first edit, after their block ended, was to revert HistoryofIran (who opposed their disruptive edits) at the Afsharid dynasty page[16] thereby reinstating the absolute bogus edits by an user who's account had been created for vandalism only (and was indeffed on the very same they were created[17]). Given that user "Σύμμαχος" had never edited the Afsharid dynasty article before, and given their previous conduct which resulted in getting blocked temporarily, it is clear that they followed user HistoryofIran to the Afsharid dynasty page in order to conduct a revenge revert. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, was about to report him. This is not the first time he has done such [18]. Judging by this and his past actions, I think it's safe to say he is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've indeffed them. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Goodness, Drmies, you're really busy! Have a kitten for all your hard work.

Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm only posting here because if this is ANI2.0, then it should be Helpdesk2.0 as well. You have over 1,000 talk page watchers, and many of them are the among the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. I'm trying to rescue Draft:Meera Isaacs, and based on what I've been able to dig up in english language sources, I'm pretty certain there has to be a pile more hidden behind the language barrier. Does anyone know of a way to try and find Indian sources, or is there a noticeboard or active wikiproject, or even a friendly Indian editor that can lend a quick hand? With the coverage I've seen, I think the article just on the cusp of showing notability, but if I can find one or two more significant sources, hopefully a profile, I think it would be pretty solid. Any help would be greatly appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Haha, I got nothing, but thank you for making me feel good. Sitush, you know anything? Drmies (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish you could try WT:INB but please be aware that press mentions in India will be slavishly glorifying & the award mentioned is not at all notable. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I figured the award was probably not notable, I only included it as I found it in a secondary source at first. I don't expect I'll end up going over the top and making it promotional, I'm just hoping to cement notability, and hopefully get some sort of biographical detail, other than she was a principal and a teacher. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since she was a principal of an ICSE school, the best available coverage (fwiw) is likely to be in the English-language media rather than the local Marathi, Hindi press which would care less about the happenings in such a school. So what you see through a regular Google search is going to be the best that's available.

And I too think her notability, for wikipedia purposes, is questionable. As is the notability of Lala Lajpatrai Institute of Management, let alone any list of excellence produced by it. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

IMO a redirect to Cathedral and John Connon School, where her principal-ship can be mentioned in a sentence would be the way to go. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There were some other awards I found sourcing for as well, but none of them looked very notable. It's tough when I'm looking at a different culture though, because I don't have a good metric to judge from. Someone else is taking a peek for sources for me, if nothing comes back, I'll probably go with a redirect. Thanks for the feedback.

Next up, anyone know how to summarize reviews for a book of poetry written in literary review journals? What the hell does The paradox of Madame X is that, while its speakers struggle to differentiate between their own thoughts and external language, the poems themselves seem dependent upon that language and thrive on its misinterpretation. mean? I'm tempted to just write "Literary journals resoundingly say IT'S POETRY!" and throw half a dozen sources after it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish for the poetry thing, you could do with someone who has a modicum of expertise in Eng Lit etc. I doubt this is a talk page where you will find that person (!) - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's Draft:Darcie Dennigan, and any help with the reception section would be appreciated. There's enough reviews of her works to meet NCREATIVE 1, and I gathered a half dozen of them into that section. I was going to try and take a whack at it, as well as find some reviews of her plays, tomorrow. Unfortunately I feel like I'll just end up picking quotes and saying "this person from this journal said this thing about her book" since I lack real familiarity with poetry and poetry reviews. Thanks for all the assistance and feedback so far, it's a big help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. The Southeast Review is the kind of journal that there are tons of (see this); I don't think it's particularly notable, and a lot is sourced to that one review--I would not, for instance, put stock in awards sourced to that article, since that blurb at the bottom of the page is submitted by the author, and I doubt that it was vetted by an editorial team. Prairie Schooner is a different category altogether, and it's the best of the reviews/citations that I see here, followed by the Kenyon Review interview. The HuffPo review--I don't think that counts for very much, since it's short, the publication isn't exactly known for its coverage of literature, and many editors here aren't impressed with it in the first place. Anyway, it's thin, and I couldn't find anything more that can really help her case. But she's got, what, five books? Two with "real" presses? It would be a fucking outrage if she's not notable, when any K-pop act gets a big fat article after one single record. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The way I look at it is if we have a novel with of prose on Optimus prime and He-Man, we should have a bit of space for a playwright in residence. There are more reviews out there too, a few for some of her plays, so I'm gonna take a swing at it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Poetry? Indian!

Look how you have got Doktoro all riled up, M. Neeps And Potut! Not only are there no English professors here, but Doktoro is already saddened by my revelation earlier that the University of Alabama Press lets its authors go on for whole chapters about moonpies, where no university presses will talk about Wagon Wheels.

Greenberg 2012 is JSTOR 23461509. Do not ask Doktoro what xe thinks of The American Poetry Review! Do not make me break out the emergency furniture to calm Doktoro down! I will just mention a Chaise a Bureau (AfD discussion) actually being a corner chair for now, and hope that that is restorative enough. Relax and look at the 19th century picture of a corner chair, Doktoro.

Uncle G (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well that is significantly better than anything I can do. I'll move it over to the article, and I guess link to the diffs of you putting it here for copyright attribution. Much appreciated, Uncle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find a way to work "Dennigan digs a hole in the earth the size and shape of Dean Young's literary organ and then shouts at it for 2,000 words." into it, I regret to inform you. Apparently this how English professors explain poetry. Uncle G (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    • That's unfortunate, because that would be a great quote. When I was pulling together sources for Shit flow diagram I found a quote from Bill Gates saying shit flow diagram, and knew I had to have it in the article. A good quote is like the star on top of the christmas tree that is an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
      • @ScottishFinnishRadish I understand the sort of angst that this creates - Optimus vs a playwright in residence etc - but this is precisely how WP has become less of an encyclopedia and more of a collection of fan clubs. I would prefer that we tighten our requirements, not let them creep to the point where everything is OK. We can't adequately maintain that which we already have. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
        • I definitely agree, and even the stuff that would meet almost any requirement is still overfull with anything fans or anti-fans can find to wedge in. I've previously said that Wikipedia is basically a giant ocean of piss, with thousands of people pissing into it every day. At this point all we can really do is put up some sandbags and bail out small islands. Even if all the notability requirements were tightened, and article inclusion criteria were made much stronger, we'd never drain the whole thing. Right now I'm just trying to plant a couple flowers on the small island of non-pop culture. I'm also working on an declined draft for a research professor. Unfortunately they don't have any crazy views on politics, or a pop-science YouTube channel so I'm stuck trying to prove notability based on h-index. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Actually, I didn't put it in there because it is not a great quote, in my view. Amusing, yes. Great for an encyclopaedia, no.

        Plus, of course, for a biography of a living person there's always the knowledge at the back of my mind how many bad biographies of living people happen because people just make quotefarms. I read some of the BLP things that happen across the BLP Noticeboard, and I wonder if there is any actual fact (other than "Person A said B") to be had from some of these quotefarms. I felt safe using Morrow for some straightforwardly descriptive stuff, because that's Morrow pointing out the facts of what Dennigan wrote. I personally think Morrow also safe for xyr opinion that it isn't a review and what it actually is instead. But Morrow's metaphor I think is over the line.

        Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

        • I agree it's over the line, I didn't mean great as encyclopedic, I meant great as in fun to read. I enjoy myself a good chuckle, but recognize that jokes and humor aren't perfectly apt for mainspace. That's why I didn't use any of the hilarious African news shit flow diagram quotes. African news media can be a hoot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• M. Neeps And Potut is too quick for you, Doktoro. You need to be at Draft:Darcie Dennigan#Works now. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • What I need is sleep. Breakfast, class, ITS, lunch, mortal kombat between children, psychiatrist, COVID booster shot, grocery store, pharmacy, dentist (root canal in two weeks), bathroom cleaning, laundry, dishes, dinner service, dishes again--I've had enough for today. Give me some easy ones, like VOAs and some hard promotional user blocks. And I don't mind telling you that I covered 150 years of South African history, including that Natives Land Act, 1913, in ten minutes, and covered just about every aspect of chapter 4 of Peter Abraham's Mine Boy, in the remaining time. This is all my indaba with you. Is it wise? Drmies (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a whole lot of yappinin and not a lot of happenin. Ash Williams quotes aside, thanks to everyone who gave me assistance, and thanks to you, Drmies, for letting me co-opt your talk page for a while. High fives all around! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Notice Special:Diff/1078828128/1078836949. Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

        Noticed and applied. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)))

• Hmm good luck with that. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, that persistent disruptive editing person is back again with another ip address 172.58.172.5. Doing the exact same thing. He has a history going way back to 2018. You blocked him recently for 6 months on another ip he was using. Can you please check it out and be of assistance, thanks Doriden (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• User:Ohnoitsjamie, thank you so much for taking care of this. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

:: sigh :: General Ization ^Talk 03:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Elinruby (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually don’t doubt you have heard about discretionary sanctions, but was under the impression when I left this one earlier that I had to give one to everyone involved, like you have to notify everyone at NPOV. I have also realized that you have an extensive talk history and I didn’t (and don’t want to) comb it to see if you already have have one for Eastern Europe. If you do then please feel free to remove it. In fact, feel free to remove it even if you haven’t. All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC, relying on the requestor’s representation of it, and this is not the hill I want to die on. We can discuss the RfD further if you like — I think if anything you should have voted merge and will be happy to explain why if you like — but my main point here is that you got the above notice because I was at the time under the impression that everyone had to get one, so sorry about that Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Elinruby, what "dishonest RFC" and what "RfD" are you talking about? And if you keep dropping terms like "dishonest", you might well find yourself sanctioned under the very discretionary sanctions you warned me about. Drmies (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Because they thought I had to, and for which I apologized. I interacted with you several times in the discussion over the AFD and asked you for help with it, so I thought you would remember. But ok. See my comment about your talk page.

Please allow me to start over. Azov Battalion is an article about a military unit that doesn’t discuss any of its military activities. These date back to 2014 and currently include keeping the Russians out of Mariupol. However people voting at the RFC on the page think that this alleged neo-nazism is all the unit is notable for. I think that keeping Russians from advancing along the coast is pretty notable. (Deleting long account of problems at the talk page for focus. These are why I would like to see sanctions. But for right now I will just explain why that AFD is dishonest.)

To be clear, I am pretty sure that the group’s founder at one time espoused neo-Nazi views, but the references in the lede don’t support the assertion that the group is now, although other references may do this. Editors at the talk page dismissed these concerns and tried to prove that the references are “fine” based on “lots of sources say so based on this list of Google search results” (paraphrase). Another editor greeted somebody’s attempt to discuss a split by ridiculing Deutsche Welle as a source.

I can go into this further and will be delighted to do so if you like, but: the AFD misrepresents a translation as my own editorial opinion. Most of the people who say it has no reliable sources are from the battalion page and don’t realize that all of the sources are reliable, and aren’t listening because they think that they know that reliable sources are in English. Hopefully this explains what I am talking about. Are you the admin I can talk to about the problems on the talk page? As I said the other day, if you don’t have time for that or are not that kind of administrator, I understand, but would like a response so I can know to talk to somebody else.

I realize that this could boomerang. Let me address that quickly. Creating a page about Azov Regiment was necessary, in my view, to demonstrate exactly how much notable material is currently being omitted. I actually think this should be a merge; I initially said otherwise because the article wasn’t finished. It still isn’t really, as this AfD and another overwrought proceeding by editors from the battalion page on a related page have very effectively sucked up all of my time in the past few days. I don’t know how recently you have looked at the regiment article, but this is a what articles about military units usually look like. I have translated a lot of them. And there is a there is a LOT of material there, all of it cited to really reliable Ukranian-language sources. Depending on what the rest of the sources say at the battalion page, I think that it and its lengthy discussion of purported extremism should be merged into the history section of the page about the regiment, unless there is evidence that it is currently true, in which case yes, it is more notable than that and perhaps even should be in the lede. But if we are going to reference it there then we should use references that support that. I will be tied up outside of wikipedia most of today and tomorrow but will be happy to answer questions or discuss anything you want to discuss; I will just be responding more slowly than I have been. Elinruby (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wait--so both RFC and RfCf were typos for "AfD"? I didn't see anyone mistaking the translation for your opinion, though at least one editor saw the fact that you translated this (in this way?) as a sign of POV. I'm not going to give an opinion on what this looks like compared to other "military" articles--that's a matter for the people who are active at WP:MILHIST, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if you are talking about the apology at the top of this. That definitely explains why you didn’t understand. There is however also an RfC on the battalion page about whether neo-Nazi should be in the lede, as well as a merge discussion about the regiment article and an inappropriate request for move at a related page.

The original AfD text says it is editorial opinion in my voice. While the article as it stands is unfinished and imperfect, it isn’t either my voice or all that editorial. A very early version of the translation, like the original, called the 2014 Russian occupying forces terrorists, which is an official designation, but a bridge too far for English speakers who haven’t been paying attention, which might describe many potential readers of the page. I therefore changed all instances of this to “hostile fighter” or a similar description. Whether any of them are genuine separatist Ukrainians is debatable. Based on sources.

I encourage you to run the usual format of a regimental page past somebody who works on military history. I assure you that they usually include a discussion of the unit’s campaigns and battle honors. I am saying this based on the many translations I have done of articles on various units of various incarnations of the French Foreign Legion. This is not particularly an area of interest for me but they came in a big dump of bad machine translation, which is where I wikignome, and they seemed worth rescuing. Elinruby (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not going to run anything by anything else, sorry. I had little bit of interest in the AfD, and you have not changed my mind about what should be done. I repeat, if the original of a translation has 65 references, and most of those are "represented" in the translation by numbers in square brackets with no references, then the article is not ready for mainspace. That was and is my point, no matter how many other things you insist on bringing into this matter. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Thank you for the reply. I asked for help with a behaviour problem not the AfD that is parting it, but the key point is that you are not going to look into this, so I should ask somebody else. Thank you for the clarity. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Question on best way to handle. We have two articles, Western Electric and Western Electric Export Corporation. The original WE went defunct in 84, and an employee bought the trademark and intellectual property in 95. They build tubes for audiophiles in Rossville, Georgia, maybe the only US maker. WEEC never uses that name, & the new company wp:commonname really is Western Electric. Even use the old logos and claim the history, but they really are different companies and can't be merged. My gut is to wp:rm WE to "Western Electric (baby bell)" or similar, and move WEEC to the primary name since that is their legal name. The new article, I just started after they made a huge announcement (and I discovered they exist), and I'm quite comfortable in saying they will pass GNG. There is a lot of work to do. I'm not sure of the best way to handle the names as this is a new problem for me, and figured some clever person would have a brilliant idea over here. Pretty sure I can't just boldly move it without protests. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say using the full name of WEEC is a more natural disambiguator than Western Electric (baby bell), and I expect most people looking for Western Electric will still continue to be looking for the old, defunct company, rather than the niche producer of vacuum tubes. That's just my thoughts on it, though. Maybe just opening an RM would be the best way to assess it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that most will be looking for the old, not the new. I thought about turning it into a dab page as well. Just not sure what is actually best, or what was done in similar circumstances. WEEC really isn't the common name, however, and they don't use it, so even if I left the old page alone (and just used a hat note), what do you call the new one? Western Electric (tube manufacturer) seems rather bulky. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's too bulky, but I think the baby bell disambiguator might need to be looked at. The people who would understand that are growing fewer by the day. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Western Electric (1995 company), like we do for film disambiguators? Project:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles and Project:naming conventions#Disambiguation both suggest that the formal Western Electric Export Corporation is more preferable than a parenthetical, though, even though it might not be the informal name.

  Enjoy a visit to Most Phallic Building contest (AfD discussion), and M. Neeps and Potut there is a diff from Doktoro above that needs you.

  Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Hmm "erection began in 1889"? Drmies (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

    I assume it lasted more than four hours, as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Still confused. The Western Electric logo was transfered (uspto.gov) to WEEC (original 1965, last renewed 2017), so without searching Georgia corporate filings, I guess WEEC is the legal name, but no one uses that, not the least of which is them, as they are instead claiming the history of the old company, which is a rather thin claim (but as a businessman, one I would also make). I'm coming around not not messing with WE so much, but still not sure about a new name that actually passes COMMONNAME. I think we have to use some kind of disamb in the title. As a side note, the parent of the original Western Electric, AT&T, still uses "Western Electric Company, Inc" for some branding, and of course, that is unrelated to WEEC. This is a novel situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm with the film-style disambiguation suggestion above, as those disambiguation policy links also notes that the alternative should be a "natural" name that is "commonly used in English," which according to you it's not. As long as they're interlinked with hatnotes or similar, I think film-style would be good enough. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm slowly leaning there, except I'm not sure (1995 company) is as good as a plain (tube manufacturer), as all they build are tubes, and are well known in the audio (and soon to be guitar amplification) industries. It's still long, but we're running out of options. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks dudes and dolls. I ended up going with Western Electric (tube manufacturer) just because it was all I could figure that works. Now to find all the links to Western Electric that actually mean this company and repair them. Appreciate the rental of the space on your page Drmies, the check is in the mail. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You had more than enough citations to make that summery of Sal Maroni other media/Gotham viable, stop making it not.

JosephWC (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Having definitively proved that all Canadiaians know all other Canadiaians, Doktoro, with that article about the Canadiaian Arthurpologist Raymond H. Thompson (AfD discussion), I am now stumped by all parts of Canadia being the same, and safe search in Google Books preventing me from learning about Lomond, Newfoundland and Labrador. Perhaps "logging" is one of those slang expressions for naughty things. I see that you have been enjoying some edits that were paid for in Canadiaian dollars and carried over the border hidden in a sock. I tried to help, but then I got to the article where the Canadiaian dollar-takers had taken out 8 years of the subject's career. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Fascinating subject matter, isn't it. I was wondering if User:Reginald Perrin was involved, given this edit and the block rationale (I discovered that the blocking admin dropped blocks on over a half a dozen likely socks, but without explaining why anywhere), but I'm not sure and didn't really want to fall down that hole. I tell you what, if I get paid for my edits they'll be better edits. Disclosure: one time I got a coffee mug with the logo of one of the benefactors of my editing. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not familiar with that scholar, but Arthur wasn't really my thing--though right now I'm working on an article about Sidney Lanier, who brought Arthur to the American masses, by which I mean John Steinbeck. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • User talk:Drmies/Archive 139#English Professor Vaccuum and the AFD discussion is where every Canadiaian in the world jumped in to rescue an article on a fellow Canadiaian, spurred on no doubt by the fact that the article dared to say "American". Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• If Lomond, Newfoundland and Labrador was indeed a site for this "logging" activity deep in the woods and mentioned on those grounds by Frederick Gordon Bradley (JSTOR 25142515), who was also concerned about not-quite-Canadiaian dollars changing hands, perhaps it needs some template warning readers about naughty things. Uncle G (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The only "Lomond" I knew of before was a Loch Lomond in auld Scotland... And this "logging" activity was (as I remember from my high school history classes) apparently some form of an important thing way back when Victoria was Queen of England and the world has still not seen such modern wonders as radios or even telephones... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, Good morning! Thank you once again for the suggestions you made in January regarding the article Draft:Chris Ojigbani. I have made the biography more clearer by adding that the subject is a UK based, Nigerian. I have also removed the term "academic book", and removed an unverifiable source. Kindly help check if it's fair okay. I also noticed that in your message in January, you said I might be the subject or the subjects representative. How can I be the subject when I am a lady? (The subject is a man). I am also not his representative. Though I have been greatly impacted by the subject's teachings, he doesn't even know me. Best regards!09:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Nellly2022 (talk)

Hello, Drmies,

I often navigate to editor's talk pages through the search tool in the upper right and while I was typing your name in, this file name popped up, File:Drmies' user page in popups.png. I'm not sure why the image was created and the editor is no longer active to ask but I could PROD it for you. I know I'd feel odd if someone had done a screen grab of my user page and uploaded it to the project for no discernable purpose. Hope you are well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• See Special:Permalink/646850353#A note about your userpage. Uncle G (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you both. I vaguely remember that now, and the fun part is that I would have responded in the exact same way: "I don't really understand what you're saying." Liz, I don't know--sure, delete it: it's not serving any purpose. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

[19][20][21] Two users, same vandalism, shady response to a warning. Is this enough to bother with an SPI, or just let it ride? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Democfesty = Democfestys = Unicorn123SL. Do with it what you will--if you want to take it to SPI, you can tell them it's CU confirmed and save them the trouble. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you kindly. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Democfest. I don't really know what they were up to, but it doesn't seem constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I feel bad opening a ton of new sections on your page, so I'll just tuck this here, since it's admin related. Can you (or an admin TPW) revdel from here to the creation of the draft, for copyvio. I'd prefer not to move it to mainspace until that's wiped. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you kindly! Appreciated, as always. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
        • No problem! Drmies (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)