User talk:Drmies

• With thanks to User:RexxS: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Please read and edit accordingly.

Geolocation

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

Yo Ho Ho

M.Bitton (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Reasoning behind Ping

I make it short, the reasoning behind my ping was I am still behind hassled by Rusf10 (I was pinged by him). Since I am not allowed to comment on his comments and I have had no contact with him, I asked you and Floquenbeam to kindly ask Rusf10 to do the same. While I am disappointed you are "not interested", I am doing what I said I would and was told. This concludes my reasoning/explanation behind my ping of you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:29 on April 5, 2021 (UTC)

Mail

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

Question

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

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

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

If you have the time...

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

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

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

Re: LTA of Ajhenson21

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

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

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

User: One way system Possible Sockpuppet

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

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

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

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

Harnoncourt

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

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

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

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

Compromised account

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

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

Page edits

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

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

Dedan Kimathi

This [1] continues to be a thing - apparently if it's spaced out and labeled vandalism it's OK. Lots of warnings from me, no response. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Drmies,

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

Lyodra Ginting

Dear @Drmies,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(correct my grammar if I wrong)

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

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

Chasa caste.

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

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

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

Lynching of John Carter

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

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

A sound close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Lynching of John Carter

On 22 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lynching of John Carter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some 5,000 white people looted a Black church for wood to burn the lynched body of John Carter, a Black man who was hanged and shot in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1927? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lynching of John Carter. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lynching of John Carter), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Commander Waterford

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Helena Kuipers-Rietberg

On 26 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Helena Kuipers-Rietberg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during World War II, Helena Kuipers-Rietberg helped create a national underground network that supported Dutch Jews, downed airmen, and people conscripted for forced labor in Nazi-Germany? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Helena Kuipers-Rietberg. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Helena Kuipers-Rietberg), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for remembering her! ... and the difficult review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Of course--and thank you for your help. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

CU question, duck?

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

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

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

Hello, Drmies; I suspect some ongoing sockpuppetry; nearly identical userpages (previous: [2],[3],current: [4]); same old Alabama-related haunts (Mobile Government Plaza, Lagniappe (newspaper)), but I don't recall the staleness threshold for previous investigations. Would filing a CU relating to User:BigDwiki or User:ManuelLopezz be likely to yield anything substational? I think this may be approaching WP:DUCK, but I'd like a second opinion on that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for help

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

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

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

• OK. Anyone's problem, first of all, should be with the poor writing, and the bare URLs that are thrown in there. TruthBuster21223, if you want to play here, you have to play by the rules, and in this case that also means that if you add sources to an article you should do that in the existing style, meaning that in this case you need to use proper citation templates. You also need to work on that writing. "Resides" is just "lives", and the second sentence is ungrammatical. User:Wallyfromdilbert, "Aryan Style" is not in the article, but "many in the community concerned of an “Aryan Nations” style compound" is, and that's pretty close--just a matter of writing. The inflammatory language is in fact supported by the two sources, but it might need to be ascribed in a more clear way to the neighbors--"supposed" helps, but maybe not enough (for your taste). If that content is rewritten, I don't see any problem with it; it seems like a serious enough thing, especially if it's being advertised as "his new Ruby-Ridge-style compound". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies, the source you quoted both times is a self-published website by Mike Weland ("Kootenai Valley Times" about page). I did not think that was an appropriate source for any information on a BLP, much less this type of content under the BLP policy (WP:BLPSPS). The other source does not use the word "cult" or "Aryan", but does mention "alleged 'Ruby Ridge style' compound", although with no additional details about any connection to a cult or white supremacy, and it only discusses the zoning issues after that regarding the dispute with the neighboring residents (article link). The language about "Ruby Ridge" is from the complaint by the neighbors, and not how the property is being advertised by Benjamin, who describes it as "a community campground with cabins and utility" according to the non-self-published article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Others advertise it as a Ruby-Ridge thing, yes, as that local newspaper reports. You keep calling it a "self-published website", but at some point that gets a bit silly. The question is whether we have good reason to doubt their accuracy, and how much we base on that source. Which is why I said to write material based on the second and use the first to add. Again I ask, do you have reason to doubt the existence of that citizen's advocacy group? Or that the neighbors are scared of what might be happening there? Or conversely, and this is your opponent's question, why would you want to leave it out? Some sources are more reliable than others, and some sources need to be handled with more care than others, and some sources need to just not be used. But this little paper, even though it's run by one person and a business manager, meh. If he were lying he'd be out of business already, so assume some good faith, and handle with care. And if you are convinced this is a BLP violation, then take it to BLPN. But right now, I don't see one. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)