User talk:Drmies

User: Zokmokijaar

Even after your Level 4 warning, this user continues to edit war and make unconstructive, apparently WP:OR edits. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalari_cheese&action=history

Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Drmies, after their block expiration, this user is edit warring again. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umayyad_campaigns_in_India&action=history

Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Kayaking

Amusingly, I had this one lined up. I had not even got to it yet as there is still more to mine from the sociology professor.

• Maccracken, Jim (2017). Leslie County Kentucky Fishing & Floating Guide Book. Kentucky Fishing & Floating Guide Books. Lancaster, Ohio: Recreational Guides.

Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• We each have our sociology professors, Uncle! Drmies (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks to the sociology professor dropping a name in a footnote, I have someone else, too. And there is another Possum Trot! Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Another Possum Trot

Ha, I'm trying to get my hands on a copy. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Uncle, I won the auction but the sale was canceled--apparently the book was damaged... Drmies (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
  • That's a shame. I hope that you have better luck with that book by Evan Nooe that you are going to take with you on your trip to Castleberry, to read as you are waiting in the queue for visiting the Dollar General. And coincidentally since I mention Nooe, I have just tripped over another history professor, a professor of mining, at Raft River, Idaho (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
    • If the book is When They Hanged The Fiddler and Other Stories from "It Happened Here", there are numerous copies easily purchasable for abut $40: [1]. If the book is Leslie County Kentucky Fishing & Floating Guide Book, there are numerous copies available for under $30: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Sirvinlex

And Bbb23 says my sense humor is impenetrable I guess this wasn't the sudden realization of having made a terrible mistake. BTW, Bbb23 asked me about jumping his car, but I don't know where he lives and, I was wondering if you were available. 😋 Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Bbb drives? Well, I checked that range again, both ranges actually, and it's so full of spammers. I don't care if you unblock that account or not. They produced a promotional piece of trash, and if they do it again you can just block em for either undeclared COI editing or just spamming. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Will need some convincing nonpromotional edit -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm off this weekend so either I will remember or I won't -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Alright, you enjoy. What are you doing? Deepfrying some okra? Drmies (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
        • Bbb23 probably doesn't drive if the car has a dead battery.😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
          • My brother was in the hospital, so I broiled some pork shoulder steaks, learned how to cook bottom round fillets, and broiled some chicken legs. Oddly, after i chose this user name, I lost all taste for okra. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
            • I need an invite. BTW, my elder brother called okra "God's greatest effort." Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
              • You know what, I have a hard time putting "pork" and "steak" together mentally. I do note that DFO has no fewer than three food groups in one sentence. I had three in one meal: okra, sausage, and chicken, in gumbo. Gumbo is good. Softlavenver, you're always welcome here.
                • I would love a good gumbo, so count me in. My mom didn't make gumbo that I recall, but she did make a mean shrimp creole, particularly when we visited Pawleys Island for two weeks every summer. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
                  • It was decent--I'm not going to flatter myself by saying it was great. My colleague (she's from St. Louis and lived in New Orleans) makes it much darker. I didn't realize a good gumbo needed hours and hours of cooking--I thought a half an hour or something was OK. But I'm not displeased. Pawley's Island--that looks interesting. I love those old coastal communities: it's all going away faster than we can write them up, certainly at the Gulf Coast here. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

                    Still not convinced to unblock. Never stated what constructive edits -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sino-Spanish conflicts

Hi, asking you about this because I reached a point of wondering who had perpetuated the thing and whether it had been through articles for consideration etc, and saw you had been in the article just now and were equally appalled. I normally rather like to repair bad articles on important topics, but this comes with the assumption that the author isn't currently writing more.

It isn't just the cutting and pasting that bothers me here; there is little to no effort made to integrate the parts of the whole, and there's little wonder that the article has been tagged as incomprehensible. Who, for example, is Cencelly? A Chinese national named "Eng - Cang", which seems unlikely... Anda was apparently a governor, but he is mentioned out of the blue with no context or timeframe. Ditto Ali-Mudin. "Generals Corcuero and Almonte made peace with Corralat": that's great but who are these people? It all seems pretty careless.

A 1905 Filipino schoolbook is cited. What could possibly go wrong? I have changed "any Chinaman" to "all Chinese" and Mussulman to Muslim but I am not confident that I have gotten everything of the kind.

Good luck to anyone who wants to know more about the Sultanate period, as this editor seems to be involved in all of the related articles, and surprise, was just at ANI over something about Japan in World War II, which concerns me deeply. I guess I should go check out that thread but lookee here:

Japanese women in Manchukuo were repeatedly raped by Russian soldiers every day including underage girls from the families of Japanese who worked for the military and the Manchukuo rail at Beian airport and Japanese military nurses. The Russians seized Japanese civilian girls at Beian airport where there were a total of 1000 Japanese civilians, repeatedly raping 10 girls each day as recalled by Yoshida Reiko and repeatedly raped 75 Japanese nurses at the Sunwu military hospital in Manchukuo during the occupation. The Russians rejected all the pleading by the Japanese officers to stop the rapes. The Japanese were told by the Russians that they had to give their women for rape as war spoils.[158][159][160][161][162][163] It might even be true but that kind of reference stack usually indicates something that someone wants, maybe even believes to be true. Lots of times they are wrong. Do you have tools to determine the authorship of that paragraph?

I am reluctant to ANI this. Maybe they are new and mean well; also the likely outcome is that I will be told to assume good faith and the editor will tell me to piss off and I will become the bad guy because Lourdes once said so. I stumbled into this while taking a break from trying to settle the incompatible histories of WW2 in Lithuania so I seriously don't have time for all this shizzle, but something needs to be done and it is genuinely difficult to improve the article because the article text and the reference quotes are identical but need to be edited in different ways. (I keep having to backtrack because I just edited the quote, or losing my place when I scroll up to see where I am, etc)

help? Elinruby (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144 -- something about the Moro rebellion. There's a link to a section on this page in which you say that Trump is too important to relegate to the Popular Culture section, if that rings a bell. Given some of the participants in the ANI and the apparently combative nature of the editor, who wants us all to know he's an admin on Fandom, I emphatically choose not to die on this hill, since I have other hills to die on, so I am bowing out at this point from further investigation. By grouping the references I have somewhat masked the problem, though, so I will commit to fixing the cite overkill on this one page. Over time. I guess you have it watchlisted, so let me know if you think I have erred in my choices. I am out of my usual element. I may also attempt to verify the references for the lulz. Thank you for any brainpower applied to this issue. Elinruby (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Ha, it's going to take a bit more from me than I can give right now, but I'll try tomorrow. Don't die on any hills. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Check me if I am wrong, but the editor isn't actually breaking any policies even if the titles of his antique references refer to pagans, is he. Since the ANI mentioned above was initiated by *him* and he seems to think his editing is fine, perhaps he needs someone to tell him that this cut and paste stuff is essentially a very early draft. The thing is, I have identified and wikilinked some of the names and broken up some of the long paragraphs and see no sign that he doesn't consider this a finished product. I can't verify Jstor on this device but my verification sample is... meh. Not egregiously bad. Elinruby (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say. That article is awful; I can't tell if it can be saved in the first place. What could be done is strip it entirely to a stub, with a couple of references, and then build it up--in which case one can see step by step what is verified by what. That ANI discussion was...well a kind of a disaster. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There's another thing: what even IS this article? It's like Spanish–Moro conflict but worse. It's a list of 200+ years of conflict? You could consider turning it into a list article... Drmies (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much a discussion of all the times the Spanish and the Chinese got into it in the Philippines, yes. My issue is that even once I edit it at the sentence level and it is ok-ish on that level, it is still a series of out-of-context sentences. I am about a hundred edits into it and there is no end in sight. Meanwhile, are there more like this in the pipeline, is my question.

Is there precedent from making him go through AfC? That would require ANI, right? I guess I can try to ask him about it but based his behaviour at that ANI I'd expect that to go poorly. AfD won't work as there clearly are sources. Thanks for deleting that section btw, that was what I was talking about when I said the sources were meh. I didn't doing anything about it because I can't check Jstor on this laptop, but the other reference says the Chinese killed a "minor Spanish official" which could be taken to support "constable"... I was going to see what the Jstor was. But you are right, it's very weak to begin with, regardless. Elinruby (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I did wonder how one could possibly create a 71KiB article in its first edit. I've tried that and I know how difficult it is. I wondered even more when I looked at the revision and it didn't seem particularly long. Then I noticed that almost half of the bulk was taken up by lengthy quotes of the sources in the citations.

That Spirit of '76 magazine that you still have an enormous quote from is a little magazine published in New York and was the official magazine of the Sons of the American Revolution. It folded in 1906. It's not exactly the best and most academic of historical sources for a conflict that was on the other side of the planet one and a quarter centuries earlier.

Uncle G (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

References

You and Doktoro, Elinruby might enjoy that this magazine is currently the only sourced content at Sons of the American Revolution#Merchandise. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My talk and others

Would you mind semi-protecting mine and others talk pages that are the target of that LTA, it is getting annoying. Thanks, v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 02:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm sorry you're getting this too. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Meh, I've had worse, the internet is certainly a strange place, you would think these people would have something better to do. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 02:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Youth cred

I know that I say youth cred, Doktoro, but writing about penises in an encyclopaedia takes that down to the youngest of youths. ☺ Anyway, if you want what the modern kids say, I went and Google Booked for "world's oldest" and many of the modern texts in the 21st century cite this fella:

• Dunsmuir, W. D.; Gordon, E. M. (January 1999). "The history of circumcision". BJU International. 83 Suppl (1): 1–12. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1001.x. PMID 10349408.

That Grafton Elliot Smith fella is still on the shortlist, as you can see from page 1. And it seems to pretty much support, as of 1999, the sentence that you and Joe Roe are disputing; although if you wanted to go deeper you could always look at the 1958 and 1956 sources that Dunsmuir and Gordon in their turn cite.

You three owe me for what's now in my Google search history.

Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Scientists from other fields tend to treat prehistory as just a source of colour for their paper introduction – no evidence required. The paper you link doesn't even get Elliot Smith's name right. I haven't been able to find anything that isn't baseless speculation, usually tracing back to him or other Victorian thinkers. The 'oldest surgical procedure' claim is particularly dubious in light of the demonstrable antiquity of trepanation. – Joe (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Dunsmuir and Gordon spelled the name correctly, as one can see from reading the actual Journal. Which leaves you with two arguments, the fact that people still agree with a Victorian era person, and the claim that trepanning is older. Your claim that trepanning is older is negated by these two fellas:

    Is circumcision the oldest known surgical procedure? The oldest operation for which there is tangible physical evidence is trepanning, since several Neolithic skulls […] However, iconographic evidence puts circumcision much further back — well into the Paleolithic period […] The other basis for assigning a vast antiquity to circumcision […] It is probably not stretching the evidence too much to suggest that modern man evolved as a circumcising species.

    — Cox, Guy; Morris, Brian J. (2012). "Why Circumcision? From Prehistory to the Twenty-First Century". In Bolnick, David A.; Koyle, Martin; Yosha, Assaf (eds.). Surgical Guide to Circumcision. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9781447128588., pp.243–244

    Guy Cox and Brian J. Morris are respected cobbers from the University of Sydney.

    I am saddened to tell you that you are up against pretty much every urology and circumcision surgery textbook in the 21st century that there is, on this one, from Al-Salem's 2016 An Illustrated Guide to Pediatric Urology to Heyns's and Krieger's entry on Circumcision in Andrology for the Clinician (Springer Science & Business Media, 2006). And not only are the modern day urologists massed against you, so too are the neurologists:

    trephining […] Osler states that this operation is the oldest known surgical procedure, but it is likely to have been preceded by circumcision.

    — Pryse-Phillips, William (2009). "trephining". Companion to Clinical Neurology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199710041., p.1021

    Pryse-Phillips is a Newly found Canadianian, and what xe tells us is that your idea about trepanning was a Victorian idea from William Osler which modern scholarship thinks is wrong. Which seems ironic given that you want to dismiss Victorian ideas. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

    • They call him "Sir Graham Elliot Smith". His first name is Grafton, not Graham. I don't think we can consider textbooks on urology or surgery reliable sources for prehistory, nor be surprised that such sources simply parrot what they heard from someone else who is parroting someone else who is parroting 19th century speculation. The only relevant point here is the mention of Paleolithic circumcision depictions by Cox & Morris, which would indeed make it older than trepanation (I've seen prehistoric trepanned skulls for myself, there are thousands of them, so no need to rely on Victorians there), and can be sourced to this article, so thanks for finally getting to the bottom of that. – Joe (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Untrue. The article in the Journal clearly says Grafton. You are looking at the Journal article, with the "1" at the bottom right-hand corner of the page, right? It's amusing that you dismiss urologists, only grudgingly concede that your arguments are contradicted, and then cite a urologist's article in Urology after all that. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

        Oh am I grudging? Didn't notice. Glad to amuse though. Thanks again for the references. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Uncle: try the Private window next time. My aunt might appreciate that too. Drmies (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • It's going to take just one person announcing on some noticeboard somewhere that there's a discussion of penises on your talk page, Doktoro. Just one! ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Fact. And I'm reminded of how I met User:LadyofShalott--over a bucket of semen. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

      Indeed. What a strange way to make someone's acquaintance that was. Hah! LadyofShalott 20:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

February music

story · music · places

Today I am happy about a singer on the Main page (at least for the first hours), after TFA the same day last year. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Music, something I know a little more about than literature. The Tchaikovsky song is lovely. However, I'm a bit confused about the Kelsey Lauritano article you created. It says in the lead that she's "Japanese-American", and her website, along with a bunch of other bios from places where she's sung or been repeat it, but there is no support in the article for the dual nationality. I assume one or both of her parents is/was Japanese? That needs to be mentioned along with a source for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Give me one and I use it. If she doesn't know who would? - I haven't yet added Suzuki to her achievements: very authentic and lovely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that's not how it works. Such a claim has to be supported by a reliable source. I would even stretch it to self-sourced (her website) if on the website it provides something that supports the claim, but she has almost no personal biographical data on her site. Unrelated question: why on earth does her homepage look like that of a sex kitten? Is that what PR people recommend to young classical singers these days? Stupid.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Biographies of very dead people

There's a noticable communist in that sea of blue in your cemetery, Doktoro. Are we still waiting for the keeper of the Hank Williams Museum to write us a biography? All that I have is what I could get from the souvenir shop, and you know what the souvenir shop stuff is like: glossy and superficial. The tour guide skipped over the bit about the Lanier House slaves in 1861, and it isn't in the souvenir shop stuff at all.

Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah that red fellow is still in user space, for a very specific reason. I'll explain Saturday morning, at the Curb Market, over croissants, and then we'll walk over to Oakwood: all we have to do is cross the street and walked past Paterson Field. I'll be there at 9: don't be late. There's no souvenir shop, unfortunately, at the cemetery. I need to go by anyway--I took pictures of his grave last time but they're not great. Thank you for looking at the father--by all accounts a mediocre lawyer with a great love for literature, really old and flowery literature of course. What I don't know if he showed up in Montgomery often. I imagine he was there at Clifford's wedding, of course; pity Clifford couldn't take him for a drink at the Beauvoir Club (that will go live when I finish up the country club section). But please do tell me about the enslaved servants. Their very existence is so transparent in the historic record that it's really difficult to get a grip on it; it was hard enough to find anything of the kind related to the Montgomery hotel. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Well if you want to find out about Sterling and Robert, Doktoro, the Internet tells me that there is stuff to read about Indian Springs, Lanier House, and Sterling going to New York on pages 84 to 85 of this:
    • Norwood, Martha F. (1978). The Indian Springs Hotel as a Nineteenth-century Watering Place. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Office of Planning and Research, Historic Preservation Section.
  • It's not in the souvenir shop.

    Beware of gazumpers whilst you are there, Doktoro, and of land grabbers, and (even more importantly) why is the One Armed Man not on your list?

    Uncle G (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

    • Uncle, I'm in the process of downloading a ZIP file with some 2000 letters/documents from Clifford's collection in the Johns Hopkins archive. My colleague says his dad's handwriting is not so bad, but I'm despairing. I'm at 7Gb and it's still running. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
      • I probably shouldn't point that there's mention of the "Cobb Papers" with more Lanier letters on page 67, then. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes, I visited today; I'll upload my photos soon. Saint Margaret is nextdoor; it's not exactly clear to me what's what--three cemeteries? I read that article about the swap and I need to have a word with Yawn about that joke, "any problems caused by the error are now buried". I wish I had thought harder before I left--I took a 55-200 lens, rather than the 18-55 which was also in the bag. Foolish. As for the unarmed man--I ran out of free article views, apparently. I ended my subscription when the paper ran a stupid anti-Hilary Clinton cartoon (one of those conspiracy things) the day after that nutcase dropped a bomb at the gate to her house: that was in such poor taste. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
      • I suspect that you are about to discover that you need to go back. You didn't get Sarah, did you? ☺ Nor the other soldiers, since the Advertiser has forgotten them; and didn't even know that the turf was artificial. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Enjoy, Lurkers, the bind that Doktoro is now in: xe has to admit that F. Scott Fitzgerald is either not popular or not culture. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Fun fact, Uncle G--as a loyal follower of my program you've seen Mary Ann Neeley's name pop up here and there. The city named a park after her, and I live in the house that her daughter used to own. She was a wonderful lady, a true fount of information. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • If you thought that sorting out 3 cemeteries was hard, consider that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axborough I was faced with a source partly written in Latin and Old English, using the original spellings with eths, wynns, and thorns, and lacking the letters "V" and "W", which made the fact that its subject was Wolverley quite interesting.

    You should take another walkabout and fix the article on NewSouth Books now. You also need to track down a source for your popular culture fella and that Sam bloke, who just weren't in anything that I had. Amusingly. even the Neely going weekend walkabout news item was more interested in your popular culture fella's girlfriend and her family's plot.

    Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN again

Sorry to trouble you again, Drmies. Since you're familiar with the background, could I ask for your input here? Thanks. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you stop with your bullying campaign, Jean? Admins have better things to do than listen to your whining. The Banner talk 12:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC) And yes, Drmies is on my watchlist.

Jean-de-Nivelle, it's no trouble, but it's not something that I am going to jump into: I don't really have the expertise or the interest. I'm not a MOS expert, and Banner and I go way back: I should be the last person to get involved. Banner, it's OK: this isn't whining, as far as I'm concerned, and I'd prefer it if you used more collegial language despite your disagreement--please, old friend. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's precisely because I know that you and The Banner go back a long way that I thought your involvement would be beneficial, not as an admin but as a sane and calming presence. The MoS issue is, I think, secondary at this point. Still, thank you. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Proxy?

Hi. I'm pretty sure that this is a proxy-[3]. It shows a bogus ISP of Agile Networks, Ohio and is being operated by a well know block evader who is known to geolocate to Pennsylvania when he edits logged out. If I'm not mistaken, almost all proxies will have some sketchy, non existent ISP listed and often times doing a cursory search of the ISP leads to fake websites with defunct services. Your insight would be appreciated as I dont particularly have much knowledge on these topics but have to deal with a persistent block evader who employs a large number of proxies. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm--yeah, I'm not the best person to ask here; people like zzuuzz and Ponyo are probably better at it. And if this is a returning customer, they might know them. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Suthasianhistorian8: It doesn't seem too extraordinary to me. It's registered to Agile Networks; Agile is listed as a subsidiary of Altafiber. Sources say that Agile operates in Pennsylvania.[4] I have a couple of remaining suspicions, but I'm applying Occam's razor. Why they're using this network I can't say, but it just may be the person you're looking for. Handing it back.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. I will continue this discussion on zzuzz's page. Thanks again. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Question on BLP

I'm the first to admit my understanding of BLP policy is not the greatest but I think I'm right on this one. I have an article in which editors claim that by quoting the original remarks from a twitter controversy via a secondary source WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPPRIMARY are irrelevant. I have commented that the secondary sources are only used to source the original remarks not for the commentary added by secondary sources, which includes the fact that some of the claims made are untrue.

So whilst they've added a degree of separation, they're simply quoting the original remarks ie back to the original primary self-published source. I also point out that not including the commentary the remarks are untrue is a WP:BLP violation and risks victimising the subject of the controversy once more violating WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The subject of the controversy was driven to consider suicide at the time. Having suggested we have a responsibility to consider the victim here, in response, I'm getting WP:PUBLICFIGURE means we don't have to consider the feelings of the victim.

I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this. WCM_email 08:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm. I don't think it says anywhere that if you were to quote a tweet from a secondary source that quotes the tweet you should include all relevant material, but I do think that the spirit of the BLP is clear here: let's say a president or former president tweets something that is blatantly false. It would behoove us to include the secondary source's comment that the claim is blatantly false--I'm presuming that the secondary source, if it's any good, will comment on the falseness of the tweet. Otherwise, why would they be reporting on it? And of course the tweet should be properly ascribed and all that, but I assume that that's done by way of "person X claimed in a tweet". So yes, if a real person can be harmed, in their reputation or otherwise, by verbatim quoting a tweet that's a lie without adding the context as offered by a reliable source, that's a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • If the only purpose for using a secondary source is to provide attribution for a tweet, then no, it's still a primary source. As Drmies says, though, if the reason that secondary source mentions the tweet is because there is something problematic with it, then that context should probably be included (since that is the whole reason the tweet being quoted, n'est pas?). Primefac (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
    • For what it's worth, as a BLP Noticeboard regular I know exactly which biography this is, and the talk page on this goes back seven years. It's a whole Hell of a lot more complex than the hypothetical, including considerations at some points over the years that it was most of the article by word count because editors never wrote about anything else in the biography, meaning that the push to shorten this in the biography and cover it in another article on collective incidents of this type conflicted with the people who wanted to put every detail into the biography including all of the quotations of Tweets and interviews and supporters and detractors. There's a very difficult timeline to sort out, including whether the article subject was aware of what the context was when interviewed for a country's national radio broadcaster, with supposedly reliable sources proffered where the people who wrote them didn't sort out the timeline as Wikipedia editors were able to do on the talk page. As well as the author of at least one self-published source being a participant on the talk page and adding unverifiable details there. Then there's who-transcribed-what and people who disagreed with revised news publications by Tweeting. It's a right old mess.

      If I said that I can name two editors who have stood largely alone on the talk page over the years about glib misrepresentations that go back to Tweets when it is known that the Tweets were challenged, and there is now an open administrator discussion about banning one of those editors for repeatedly objecting to how people want to re-expand the article with raw quotations again, even though there are now talk page discussions where other editors opposing the lone voice are drawing parallels between the article subject and Adolph Eichmann and throwing around random conflict-of-interest accusations in response to the lone voice's objections that editors making BLP-violating accusations of their own against the article subject on the talk page is not a good thing, you'll know which biography this is, too.

      Yes, more people are following this than you might realize, Wee Curry Monster, and given that historically, from the days of Siegenthaler onwards, it has so often been the case that one person stands alone against a lot of people who need their heads knocked together (such as about not drawing Nazi parallels even on the talk page) this whole situation seems problematic. And I share the viewpoint expressed that this is but a short step away from Arbitration. Which is bound to give you flashbacks, Doktoro. ☺

      Uncle G (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

      • I recuse in advance. Drmies (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
      • No worries Uncle G I appreciate your comments and it is with some relief that there is someone keeping an eye on this. I was looking for some advice, because I am no BLP regular and I have had my fingers burned by misunderstanding BLP policy. I also rather suspected that the author of some of the SPS was involved, its nice to have that confirmed. WCM_email 07:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
        • See Talk:Tim Hunt/Archive 2#Is that Medium article reliable?. Also Talk:Tim Hunt/Archive 2#Controversy for Sir Tim Hunt controversy at WCSJ, and Talk:Tim Hunt/Archive 2#Split proposal: "Distractingly sexy" online shaming for the prior discussions of handling the thing in detail in another article. Uncle G (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure if this is the place to mention it (I did comment on ANI) but they seem determined to out one of the editors who has been a lone voice. There does seem to be intimidation tactics and I'm suspecting a WP:COI with one of the active protagonists; or am I just paranoid? WCM_email 10:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that while this was seemingly very difficult to cover around the time it happened, some editors are highly immersed in the raw material and stuck fighting old battles while, in the meantime, quite a lot of quality scholarship has appeared which gives a more distanced perspective on events and which should make it comparatively easy to cover in an encyclopedic manner. In general, my experience is that the solution to gnarly disputes on Wikipedia is to raise sourcing quality. Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What you advocate as "quality scholarship" are feminist publications that simply don't examine what happened objectively. Your comments in the talk page have been particularly unhelpful in covering events in an encyclopedic manner and your content proposal gives a platform to commentary that is basically untrue. Uncle G's synposis above accurately summarises everything wrong with what you're trying to do. It also appears to me that you're following me around and this is getting rather uncomfortable. WCM_email 12:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How is DOI:10.1111/ejop.12543 a "feminist publication"? (as if that's a bad thing anyway)

I think surfacing scholarly coverage (we have four new journal articles and a couple of book chapters so far I think) is useful surely. Surely better, at any rate, than raising the WP:DAILYMAIL, blog posts, and tweets like it was still 2016. Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Youth cred, Jerome, and Cicero

• Fex urbis lex orbis (AfD discussion)

I'd take you away from Arbitration flashbacks ("Incoming!") Doktoro, with some happy quest for youth cred material; only now I'm stuck with some very dead people and something that Victor Hugo claimed that fails verification. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• As fascinating as that sounds, dear uncle, Ima be a bit absent today. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • No worries, Doktoro. I was apologizing for not having some happy quest for youth cred for you, after all, because an article sourced solely to an old French novel had intervened. Although I did later find a subject which I am sure the Lurkers will agree is inseparable from you in their minds: Bulgarian womens' football and Kremena Prodanova (AfD discussion). Hands up, anyone for whom that does not immediately conjure up Doktoro's name when they encounter it! Uncle G (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Oh I'm not worried. I looked at the AfD for the phrase and my head is spinning. For football players I always go with the snowman--this is not America. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Hello hello hello - my ears are burning... GiantSnowman 18:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
        • That's as maybe, but look at all of the hands that have failed to shoot up! Uncle G (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about adding sockpuppets to a sock cat

I've got a few socks that should be added to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Go im so horny based on edit summaries. Based on the evidence I've provided below, all of these can be proven without a checkuser. Is it alright if I add them to the category?

Socks

Sock	Evidence
Special:Contributions/Cailiou the bulldog	Special:Diff/1205986703
Special:Contributions/GoCowboys3	Special:Diff/1205702071
Special:Contributions/I hate STD	Special:Diff/1205576957
Special:Contributions/Mr Backwards 3	Special:Diff/1205144574
Special:Contributions/Obey my fing rules	Special:Diff/1205111259
Special:Contributions/I think the way is yo smoke all the way	Special:Diff/1193860471
Special:Contributions/It cryd it sucks	Special:Diff/1182731435
Special:Contributions/Lets do it at home only	Special:Diff/1194057345
Special:Contributions/Mr Backwards 2	Special:Diff/1188379802
Special:Contributions/Dear santa i hate you	Special:Diff/1196639216

Thanks! Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Philipnelson99, I'm Drmies' understudy. The categories are populated based on the SPI tags added to the user page. These are throw-away vandal accounts, there's not much benefit to tagging them. WP:RBI/WP:DNFTT and all that. If you feel they need to be tagged, you can start an SPI and a Clerk can review for tagging and tracking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo understood. Wasn't sure if it was necessary. I'll defer to your explanation above then. I don't think SPI would be useful here since they are all blocked. just wasn't sure. I know this particular LTA tends to go xwiki on some accounts but tagging them as sockpuppets here won't make a difference either way. Appreciate the feedback!! Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Philipnelson99, Ponyo is actually my master, my god. Plus they live in a place where I could probably get the Ozempic that keeps my A1C under control, paid for by insurance. So, follow their advice. Personally I'm a fan of tagging, in part because I like to know, years after the fact, what happened, but that's probably a million tag for that one time it's useful. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I have seen both of you around during my counter vandalism work, appreciate you both! Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, right, that asshole--yeah, I already forgot about them. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

IP sock

Hello, Can you block 128.194.2.38 (who you just reverted on my talk page). He is banned user Thespeedoflightneverchanges, confirmed off-wiki. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for revision deletion

Hi. Asking you because the "recently active admins" tool pointed me to you: would you mind WP:REVDEL this reverted vandalism revision? It has Unicode special characters in the edit summary which are annoying when looking at the revision history of that article. I think deleting this revision should be non-controversial due to WP:REVDEL criteria RD3. Thank you very much. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's true: I've been a babe magnet for years now. No, I don't mind at all. I've seen that child before, I think. I don't know how that a-hole does it, and I wish we could stop it. I also upped the block a bit. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your help. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Raul Ruiz (politician)

Hello, this edit suggests your change was minor, but you did remove enough content and a citation that I wouldn't consider it "minor". Could you provide more context when reverting edits like this in the edit summary in the future? Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• What. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah, shame on you, I've blocked the user you reverted as a sock of Thmymerc. A voice from the past, eh Tamzin? --Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Haha, big surprise that it was a sock! Bbb, I'm grateful for your memory. Is Tamzin still around? I thought they left me after I came out as gay. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Are you familiar at all with the master that I just blocked a dozen or more accounts from? Drmies (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Maybe Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apeexterminator - take a look. How come you didn't invite me to your coming out party?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
        • Didn't have a party, Bbb. I'm still in mourning--my coach retired. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
          • We held one for you on Discord. It was lovely. -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) You must have a party. All late bloomers have parties, it's required. And if you have bloomers, so much the better. How about a combination memorial service/coming out party? Those can be fun...or so I've heard. Truth is I'm not much of a party animal. What does the missus think?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
            • I'm happy to hear it! I haven't told Mrs Drmies, BTW. But if it was on Discord, my boy might find out. Hmm. But kids these days don't care. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Sniper Lights

You blocked SniperLight46 indicating in the block log that they were a sock of SniperLight47. For whatever reason, you chose not to block 47. Right after your block, OnlySL (notice the SL in the username) was created and edits the same articles. I think there's enough for me to block the new account and 47 (now that there are at least two socks), but I thought a check might be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Whatever reason" is probably advanced age, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• OK: check done, CU-confirmed blocks placed. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• "probably advanced age". You may be old, but you're still priceless. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Aw ❤️❤️🌈🐐🐔👍🏽 Drmies (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Ignore the white flowers!

We need to drag Doktoro away from staring at xyr socks again, M. Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb. Otherwise xe might notice that Blanchefleur (AfD discussion) is nominated for deletion. We don't want Doktoro upset by Mediaeval romance literature topics that connect to Carl Orff. That's not a way to youth cred. If Kurt Hugo Schneider has not done a cover of this Orff fella's "Blanziflor et Helena", can it even be called music at all?

We should distract Doktoro with more Eastern European womens' football, with which xe is justly synonymous. Ștefania Donica (AfD discussion) is currently listed for deletion.

Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm I could do with a relationship expert. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
  • No doubt, given your recent awakening, you have watched Heartstopper. One scene comes to mind. Tao is telling Charlie that it's fine for Nick to come out as long as they are fine with the consequences. Elle overhears and says (sarcastically) to Tao, "You're giving relationship advice?"
    Uncle G, I have confessed in the past to not understanding half of what Drmies says. I will now add to that confession: I rarely understand anything you say. Many in my family are proud of how neurotic we are (my sister, not so much, she insists on thinking she's "normal"). Me, I'm also proud of my ignorance. Education is a valuable tool, but it's not for everyone. You may now go back to your arcane references.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Bbb, I'm merely looking through a glass darkly, but my uncle is correct in assuming that I could never leave a white flower alone. That this is proposed for deletion is an almost logical consequence of centuries of disrespect for women in romance. I give you the opening passage of a 1950 article:

      Among the many good qualities of Marie de France found in the Lais, one of the most endearing is her feminine attitude and style in a great number of places. Although some of these characteristics are not peculiar to Marie, yet all of them used by her suggest various facets of her personality and add piquancy to the poems. The passages where these womanly touches occur may be divided roughly into stylistic and psychological passages.

      And this guy, Woods, was a lecturer at Tulane at the time, and then became associate professor of Romance languages at the University of South Carolina--which is a significant jump in pay and status for someone who was as interested in praising the lovely but delicate ladies as he was in philology. I do not think that User:AllTheUsernamesAreInUse is very up to date on the study of women in medieval literature. I can't blame them for that, or for the poor quality of the article, but it's a fact that these characters are not non-notable, as any quick search in JSTOR will show to those who don't read romance. The ones who do read romance--well, one of them is working on the article. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Not quite sure what this discussion is about, but no, I may not be very up-to-date on the study of medieval women in literature. I nominated for anthroponymy reasons, a subject I am quite active in. I will read the new content on Blanchefleur soon. Sorry for any perceived ignorance. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

References

As we know, M. Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb, Doktoro's quest for youth cred is on-going.

Jada Facer's first YouTube video defines the beginning of the modern era, and Kurt Hugo Schneider has to be the definition of what constitutes modern music. You can see the twain together at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPM6E19Cg8M where they dug up a museum piece, whose marginalia on old records revealed it to be written by some bloke we believe was named "Shakespeare or summat, lad" but whom conspiracy theorists have long asserted to be Bacon and someone only whose first name is known to history, and performed it on modern instruments. The museum piece itself contained references to much earlier works such as the old Latin folk song Redi, Puer, Iterum!, which indeed in its turn can be traced to an earlier Britannic work from a millennium ago.

The same is true here, of course, as history repeats itself; or at least rhymes. It is a good thing that Doktoro is writing this, I hope with the aid of other Lurkers who know the botany, such as The Onion Lady and others. Because if it were me writing about this, it would be just another "In popular culture" article sourced to the writings of people who lived back in the 1900s and who went around saying "SUP!" and suchlike to one another:

Uncle G (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting, Uncle. I want to have a look at that Robertson article. I was busy with this. Wish my students luck: I'm quizzing them on it, God knows why. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• I was quietly wondering which of the citations would pique your interest the most, and that one did seem the most probable. Interestingly, most people that cite it cite the posthumous book, rather than the original in the ABR. Only a few, like Chauncey Wood who got in early and called it "the definitive treatment of Si linguis angelicis", cite the ABR article. If you want to feel smug, Doktoro, https://www.americanbenedictinereview.org/previous-issues has the entire issue in full. Do not get side-tracked with that article by Dr Oetker about Oswald William Moosmuller that you are forced to scroll through! Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Does she appear in Wolfram's Parzival? LadyofShalott 13:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• I was hoping that you could tell us. Apparently a professor of studying Germans thinks that Doktoro should mention someone named Condwiramurs, and spends a lot of pages making the point. Which I am going to simply ignore wholesale and put in further reading. Studying Germans does not seem like popular culture to me. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• I also hope that finding a fella with the dinkum name Bruce will distract Doktoro from the temptation to read the professor of studying Germans going on about "the intertextual subversion of Chrétien's narrative" and "chronotopic differentiation" and why Doktoro should not deny dialogic discourse on a priori grounds. Bruce went to Kentucky, once, I read. Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm a Boniface junkie, so anything that says "Benedictine" on it is of interest to me. I'll have a look, but unfortunately I got a few other things to do today, plus the tediousness of a class evaluation. One used to go in, observe, and write some notes. Now there's a preliminary interview, a 20-part questionnaire before the class, and an evaluative meeting afterwards, followed by the writing up of what will probably be a dozen pages of platitudes. I'm sure we will get evaluated on how we evaluate. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ah! Memories of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggerati. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• OK Robertson does not disappoint: the master of allegorization struck again. I can't help but wonder about "gastric flatulence" after lovemaking. Still, what a masterful reading, but clearly Walsh wouldn't have any of it; I don't really understand why he restored "Morpheus": Robertson's argument is quite convincing. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The Onion Lady's question about tungsten is still pending. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • And I apologize for not yet doing my bit and finding a Simpsons reference for you. I tried, and somehow I ended up with some cat named Virgile Reiter, whoever that is. Xe grows Swedes in Paris, or something. Maybe I should try Disney. Yes, that is an idea. Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Apparently, Blanchefleur ~ Condwiramurs. I'm not sure yet if that can be used to help this article. LadyofShalott 13:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Ha, that question applies to this entire thread, Lady! Drmies (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

Patrolling Recent changes gets me into so many weird areas of the project. Shirke, an Indian clan (worse than other Indian articles), is being mutilated by WP:SPA Anvesh.rajeshirke. I restored a much earlier version of the article (pre-mess), warned the user, who promptly reverted me, was themself reverted by another user, reverted again by Anvesh, then me (leaving a final warning), and now restored by Anvesh. No point in my continuing to edit-war, and WP:INVOLVED stops me from doing what I want to do, which is to indef the user, so if Uncle G doesn't object to my distracting you with Indian clan stuff (at least it's not socks, although the edit history of the article alludes to socks), maybe you could tear yourself away from flowers and attempting to educate me (hopeless, although I did read what you wrote) ... --Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see what they do in a couple of weeks. There's a fair amount of incompetence mixed in to this.

Did you have a premonition about Tamzin?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No but now I'm worried--it'll take me a while to read up, though. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Barnstars/Sandbox

Hi Drmies, I came across this page (linked from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards/Archive 20) while doing some barnstar-related wikiarchaeology. I noticed that you deleted it in 2012 under G6 - I was wondering if you would mind undeleting it for historical reference (& turning it into an {{R from merge}} to Wikipedia:Barnstars). Let me know if you have any queries, or if I'm missing anything. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 01:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Sure. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Alert

Did you see this [5]? Also commented on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#bnnbreaking.com_?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Do me a favor, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and email the Trust and Safety team real quick. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jewish cemetery, Hoorn

Hello! Your submission of Jewish cemetery, Hoorn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The Death of Emmett Till

Hello,
Thanks for rev-del ing that, those were just horrible things for that IP to write, have you considered protection in light of this? Thank you very much! Geardona (talk to me?) 00:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would he need protection? Protection from what? — Python Drink (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The article, long story, an IP wrote some horrible stuff that they rev-del-ed and blocked the IP, I was asking about the article being protected in addition to this. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona Protection is used only for on going patterns of disruption. This article has not seen any substantial edits for 1.5 years. The IP is blocked so nothing else is required. -- ferret (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Figured, I will watch out for if they hop IP's Geardona (talk to me?) 00:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Geardona, we're not going to protect an article after one IP vandalizing it, like Ferret said. Just a drive-by racist. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Re your "thanks"

It's a funny thing, but accounts with "cheese" in the name are always vandals, had you noticed? We might as well block them on sight. Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

Pretty much, yes. I saw that you had blocked them already, and so I missed out on another five bucks, didn't I. I wonder if five bucks would buy me a triple nut biscuit at the Vissefjärda Café. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, oh, is that the village where Sonja and Siv live? Cornelis refuses to say.

I alla fall så kom jag dit på cykel en kväll

den ställde jag ifrån mig i ett cykelställ.

Sen gick jag in på fiket för att få mig en kopp

och det första jag fick syn på det var Sonjas kropp.

...

Ja, nu lever jag I rosenrött med Sonja och med Siv

och tillsammans har vi hittat på en massa tidsfördriv.

Var afton uppträder jag på deras kafé'

och med denna melodi har vi gjort succé'.

Bishonen | tålk 19:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

I don't know--I raced through so quickly I didn't have time to ask. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Your comment on edits to Dresden, Ontario, page.

Greetings, Drmies. Thank you for your message. I don't have a conflict of interest as far as I know :). I'm a historian living in Brussels, Belgium. Your further advice is welcome. Kind regards Protalina (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Protalina, my concerns were with the amount of detail. This wouldn't be the first article where we see such relatively small localities being written up with what is really way too much detail. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Drmies, thanks for the feedback. Point fully taken. I'll trim and rein it in. Protalina (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A quick thanks

Over the last couple weeks, I've crossed your path while dealing with a couple vandals/disruptive editors. In each instance, I've found your responses to their actions to be both patient and effective. Thank you for your administrative work–it certainly does not go unnoticed and it does a lot of good. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hey, Pbritti, I appreciate that. And let me return the compliment: when I see your edits I know good things are happening. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

180.195.85.171

Hello. I'm a little confused. Why have you reverted 180.195.85.171's edits? They seem harmless to me. The vast majority of them are simply the addition of the {{Commons category}} template to various articles' External links sections. Is there something wrong with that? –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Not the ones I looked at, but they are also evading a block, which my colleague ferret alerted me to. So, per WP:DENY, this is a good candidate for a mass rollback: I'm not going to investigate every single edit and take ownership of it. Besides, if they can't even be bothered to provide an edit summary... Drmies (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I understand that they should be blocked for sockpuppetry, but the edits themselves seem harmless and made in good faith. You speak as though the vast majority of the reverted edits were disruptive and that only a minority of harmless ones got reverted along the way, but that is not the case. I didn't see a single edit that I would consider definitely bad. Did you? They're definitely not among the very best of editors, hence the lack of edit summaries, but I still don't understand the reasoning behind a mass revert. Sorry if I'm missing something. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    • @CopperyMarrow15 You're free to make the edits yourself. WP:BANREVERT and WP:DENY is to discourage serial LTAs and sockpuppets. They are blocked/banned for very good reasons, and encouraging them to continue to edit is counter-productive. -- ferret (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
      • I see. Very well. Thanks. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
        • User:CopperyMarrow15, what Ferret is also suggesting, in his their usual kind way, is that these edits were not made in good faith. That's what you are missing. If a blocked editor evades a block, a block that we can assume didn't come out of nowhere, and they evaded that time a few times already, why would we assume that a. their edits are made in good faith and b. their edits are productive? If they can't even explain what they are doing? Ferret and I, and many others, deal with this every day. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
          • Interesting. Thanks. I'm still trying to learn, and you both have done well to explain this to me. By the way, Ferret is a she according to her profile here and on Discord. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 02:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Eyes needed on The New York Times

Three editors are now splitting the article and making massive changes and massive deletions. One of the editors does not leave edit summaries even for massive deletions or massive changes, even though they were reported to ANI 12 days ago for similar behavior on this same article [6]. In my opinion, more eyes need to be on the article and on what is being done. Thank you. I'm tempted to take this to ANI right away because the editor in question is arguing that he doesn't have to explain his edits in edit summaries: Talk:The New York Times#Edit summaries. But I thought I'd stop be here first. Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Please see the discussion at Talk:The New York Times#Getting the article to GA where we're currently working on a plan to bring the article to GA, and eventually FA status. Due to the length of the article, that involves splitting off some extensive content into dedicated sub-articles per summary style.

I do agree however that the current lack of citations in the history section is less than ideal, to put it mildly. The exact structure of the history sub-articles is still under discussion, so I'm not sure why Elijah is removing and transcluding content from them at this time however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussions on articletalk do not preclude explaining every edit in edit summaries, especially when making mass deletions or mass changes, and more especially when doing both at once, and even more especially on a WP:VITAL article, and even moreso when the editor has already been (A) recently taken to ANI about similar behavior on the same article and (B) very recently warned to provide edit summaries, including precise details. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I don't disagree. I do wish Elijah would use edit summaries more consistently and more descriptively, and I find his approach in general here to be not helpful towards the wider GA/FA goal. I was just giving some background to your point about the article splits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked ElijahPepe from the article for a while. I understand what they're trying to do with a very long article, and being bold and all is good, but they need a little more clue about justification, process and collaboration. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Acroterion, I see that you just did what I was going to do--though you're the nice one; my partial block was going to be for a month. Softlavender, just for the record, not for you: I would have blocked partially for the things you indicate, and things that are clearly on the record: unexplained edits, unexplained massive edits, uncooperative editing, refusal to clearly engage in communication, and refusal to act in a way that shows that collaborative editing is important. And it is entirely possible (feel free to bring this up at AN, if needs be) that this partial block needs to be extended, if it turns out that other articles are affected by it. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, a week might not be enough to get through to them. If you want to make it a month, I'm OK with that. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope one day we'll sit somewhere and have coffee and eat pastries, like in some fancy lounge of a fancy New York City hotel. That's what I hope. And that Softlavender will join us. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think there may be a CIR issue. Simple language and simple instructions and simple concepts and simple guidelines are not getting through to him, and/or he seems intransigent to the point of immaturity. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)