User talk:Drmies/Archive 142

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex

I am very curious why you added the {{notability}} template, which is the most ridiculous one among the three you added to this article. A simple Google search can do it but you choose to add this template to an article which has been created for more than a year (and the article was not created by me btw). All your edits have been reverted by me. I am not happy with how easy the edits could be reverted, which means how wrong the edits were. Please do you research before you reverting my edits next time. Thank you. Hijk910 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Googling is not researching. We're an encyclopedia. We work by way of secondary sources. If secondary sources don't prove something is notable, then how are you going to argue it's notable? And speaking of ridiculous: saying that a source for an announcement is primary makes it even worse; what you are doing is using a promotional link to "verify" an announcement, as if Wikipedia is just an outlet for PR. I think you should consider doing this as a hobby on Wikia. What is this supposed to prove? There's a dozen of em. How is this not a spamlink? How is the External links section not a blatant violation of WP:EL? The only secondary sources in the article are announcements from ANN--and those in turn are, explicitly, based on the company website and Natalie.mu, which also bases itself on company websites and are no more valuable than Discogs. In the end, they are all parts of the commercial machinery. Where does actual notability come from? Not from Google or from the company's PR. What you and some fellow editors are doing is merely compiling information from commercial sites and formatting them for Wikipedia, that's all. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why, while Anime News Network is generally considered as reliable secondary sources (per WP:ANIME, it is a notable website), they can't be used as proof of its notability. All secondary sources in nature include information from primary sources. Just claiming "they are all parts of the commercial machinery" does not mean you are right. -Hijk910 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    • ANN reports on anime. They are good at it, and thus are considered reliable, but it's what they do. This does mean, though, that if they are writing about an anime, it's not because it's new or different or special, but because it's their job, which makes it a non-notability-granting reference (type 3.1 on my reference types breakdown). Primefac (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
      • I don't think those ANN reports are "name drops/passing mentions". You guys try to raise the bar of notability to an unreasonable height. WP:GNG mentions "Reliable" and "Sources", and ANN fulfills both. With the same logic, Nature cannot be a notability-granting reference because "it's their job" to feature research. "It's their job" for any media to report things within their scope. -Hijk910 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
        • That's Trump-style bullshit, and an utter misrepresentation of what academic, peer-reviewed publishing does. ANN is really a fancy website for fans of anime. Find me something where ANN publishes actual research. Or where they publish articles critical of something, of anything. Deep dives. Investigative journalism. There is nothing unreasonable about asking for secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
          • I found you an example, which is against your point. -Hijk910 (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

            Hijk910: Anime News Network is a website that Wikipedia uses as a reliable source. This is a list of the sites Wikipedia allows for article citations. Just because you don't agree on using it doesn't mean the editors will all do the same.

            P.S. you need to rethink on how you use links and cite notability. And if an article is of a subject that is not notable, chances are it's gonna be flagged with this. Wanted to give my two cents. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible block evasion/abuse of user talk

Hello, since you enforced the block of Ki999, I wanted to let you know that the user has continued the content dispute he led at Talk:Andrew Tate#Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr on his talk page post-block. Please note that the user has not bothered to make a formal unblock request yet, only further underlining the WP:NOTHERE argument. The user seems to be here to debate above anything else, thus talk page access should be reconsidered imo. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

vice versa

Infinite would work for me-- meow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

AmySEOPro

Hi Drmies, I was considering whether and how to file at SPI due to the Dana Parish AfD and Andrew Hollander AfD. I began by reviewing User:AmySEOPro and saw the indef block you made on August 30, 2022. Should I formally file at SPI or is this flock of possible ducks quacking loudly enough for you to maybe review and address without a formal report? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• You can, if you like--but I checked a few and found nothing useful. One thing, maybe--Crazy4science need to be looked at. If Thomasmcsweegan starts editing the same articles, they need to both be blocked. But what I think you are dealing with is off-wiki cooperation. Writing styles etc are slightly different, but there are formal similarities: someone posted/emailed a model of what to do and how to do it. It's a matter for the closing admins, really, to make sure that the meat doesn't win. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies - I had wondered if this was a meatpuppetry situation and appreciate your review and insight. I have watchlisted the articles and both AfDs and can follow up as necessary at SPI. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, sorry--sometimes these things are easy, and you blocked a half dozen of those jerks, and sometimes, they are a bit more complicated. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
      • I noticed the Crazy4science link as well, keeping an eye on the other account but I feel like it will just fade away; definitely getting more of a meat vibe than a sock vibe. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
        • As it turns out, other AfD regulars had similar concerns, and it is de ja vu all over again. Many thanks, Drmies and Primefac, and I wanted to make sure you both are aware of the ongoing developments. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Editor reinstating a certain author as a source

Hello, Drmies. Sorry to bother you. But I am notifying you regarding an editor trying to add a source by an extremist author (Xhufi) in the WP:BALKANS, and specifically the article Greek revolt of 1567–1572 even though Wikipedia's WP:UNRELIABLESOURCE clearly states that the editors shouldn't be doing that. extremist sources are not reliable should not be used, but the editor insists in restoring the questionable source even though there is a clear lack of editorial consensus on the Talk page for using this source and the academic scholarly also has dismissed that particular author, Xhufi, for their extremist views. Relevant talk page discussion may be found at: [1]. I tried to explain to the talkpage the Wikipedia's guidelines but the editor is brute-forcing the source into the article without providing evidence about the source's reliability on the talk page, while sources discrediting the questionable author have already been presented on the talk page. Your attention is needed. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A note for thoughts: After notifying the editor for the disruptive editing on the article: [2] the editor counter-responded with this [3], suggesting the use of user talk page notifications and warnings for retaliatory means. It is the same editor who is defending the extremist source, replying on the article talk page about how they consider the extremist author to be "reliable" while failing to provide sources defending the extremist author's reliability: [4] I just replied to them telling them that editorial opinions don't matter here - when the WP:RS discredit the extremist author, such as this: [5], then the editors are supposed for the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability to find another and more reliable source instead. IMO, sticking to WP:RS is important considering that the WP:BALKANS topic area is a politically sensitive topic area and extremist authors have no place in it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Pëllumb Xhufi is still alive, so I would be careful about WP:BLP. 2 RSN reports have been made on him, first in November [6] and most recently in the last month [7]. Both failed to discredit him, so I am not sure how Ahmet's actions constitute a violation that ought to be reported. Users should first try to explain why the author is not RS, either via (a third) RSN report or at least through RfC, tools given to the community to create discussion and to achieve consensus.Alltan (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Both failed to discredit him" is not an accurate statement I am afraid. The RSN simply did not conclude in favor of Xhufi despite your hard efforts to convince the others that they should be considered reliable. From the moment RSN did not conclude in favor of Xhufi's reliability, then the editors should refrain from using an ultra-nationalist politician of the far-right as a reliable source. Drmies, I will appreciate your attention. Citing extremists ought to be a big no-go for Wikipedia! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Considering I am the subject of this discussion I would like to leave a comment. Xhufi is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania and he has collaborated multiple times in international publications. We haven't had any RSN which excludes him from being WP:RS and just recently this book which SilentResident wants to remove was cited extensively in an article published in Cambridge University Press [8]. SilentResident wants to remove a source which is used in a Cambridge University Press article as being 'unreliable'. The sources meets the objective criteria of WP:RS and it hasn't been decided in any other dispute resolution discussion that it's not RS, although consensus itself can't override policies. So I really don't understand why SilentResident is still doing this. @Drmies: could you also look more closely in recent comments SilentResident made towards me? I am getting repeated inappropriate comments from them where they say that they will report me etc: [9][10][11] Also, Xhufi is a living academic who is subjected to continuous BLP violations. SilentResident may not agree with what Xhufi writes, but Xhufi meets WP:RS and is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Whether someone agrees with him or not, it is a fact that he is getting cited in highly reliable journals. Therefore, his name cannot be dragged around Wikipedia anonymously and be called a racist and extremist. This behavior is disturbing and has to stop, I have asked from SilentResident repeatedly to at least follow this basic decorum principle but it only keeps getting worse. Nobody should use the privilege of anonymity in Wikipedia to call living academics "racists" with no evidence, this is blatant defamation. Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Well, all this is great. Ahmet Q., none of the three diffs you dropped here, that you called "inappropriate comments", are inappropriate by our standards. Sorry. The rest, that's a matter that requires more time. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• User:SilentResident, I really see no evidence that the scholar in question is unreliable or extremist, and no consensus to call him that. The RSN conversations are inconclusive, and that first talk page discussion you linked to is clear as mud, in part because too many of the involved editors use too many words. Suggestion: try again. At RSN. With a list of links to citations that disqualify him. Same for your opponents. Invite broader discussion. What we have right now is nothing to base any decisions on, unless it's the usual edit warring or whatever. And if someone publishes something in a reliable journal, we really have no good reason to exlude it, only to properly ascribe it. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. However, if the RSN doesn't conclude in favor of Xhufi, then what? Does this give Ahmet Q. and Βατο the right to 1) ignore opponent's WP:NPOV and WP:RS concerns 2) declare the author "reliable" and then 3) using their numerical superiority to brute-force everyone else of us into accepting that author as reliable on the various articles? Because in case you didn't notice the contribs logs of these editors, they already resorted to this tactic on other articles before coming to the Greek revolt of 1567–1572 and repeat the same tactic here without any consequences.

I thought Wikipedia doesn't encourage such disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviors disregarding any consensus and brute-forcing additions to the articles. I am asking for your opinion, because their behavior both on previous articles about Xhufi (where I wasn't involved) and the present article, is always succeeding despite facing strong opposition by other editors, is discouraging. To this, they use their numerical advantage like how you saw them doing against me now: Ahmet Q. reverts me despite my valid concerns on talk page, and right then, Βατο proceeds with adding even more of Xhufi's work to the article: [12]. As if my concerns are unimportant to them. What's the point of me ever trying anymore if Wikipedia allows the editors a free reign over the WP:BALKANS using, not reliable authors, but questionable ones, and in disregard of guidelines and the importance of consensus-building? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident I don't particularly agree with Xhufi's work (note the wording: Xhufi's work not Xhufi as a person) but it's too much to go at length with such personalized comments about him. His work is RS and he is a regularly cited medievalist. Agreeing or disagreeing with him is another subject and you may even consider his work POV, but POV ≠ not RS. The other point is that the disagreement about Xhufi is somewhat pointless because in many cases he's not really proposing any original research that you won't find in other sources and sometimes the other sources which are published in "reliable journals" (#academic_privilege) cite Xhufi.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not arguing about biased authors. I am firmly against nationalist racists who have expressed historical revisionism and governmental propaganda. Heck, 80% of Wikipedia's sources are biased so as you see, bias is not my problem here. My problem is this particular author and your behavior on insisting him too much despite other authors being able to provide similar or the same information as Xhufi, except better. Why not cite them instead? And importantly: why you ignored the fact that Xhufi lacks consensus on the talk page before adding them? Why would you edit war to extreme ends just to have them on the article if indeed there are other and better authors? Its a rhetoric question which shows that the editorial motives here aren't exactly convincing. And no, don't argue with me that "Xhufi has unique information that none else can verify" because that's not an argument for making them more reliable or Wikipedia a place for such authors. Now, if you excuse me, my participation on this talk page is over.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• User:SilentResident, you asked me for my opinion and I gave it. I cannot address all the other loaded questions that you folded within your comments. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry about this. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightbreather appeal

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Barkeep49, thanks. I trust you all handled this matter with an open mind and in confidence. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Fred Orton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fred Orton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Orton until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Gilded Snail (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2404:8000:1027:85F6:48BA:BD4D:9475:4C35

User:Cyberllamamusic?  --Lambiam 17:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Well, seems likely given the SPI, but I encourage you to add it to the SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Grenish stone circle

Hello, Drmies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Grenish stone circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Aviemore stone circle

Hello, Drmies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aviemore stone circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Delfour stone circle

Hello, Drmies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Delfour stone circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Writers' tip

further reading: wikt:Project:Tea room/2022/September#mot du règne

Just for reference, Doktoro and any Lurkers who might be interested: I understand that the adjective du règne is "Carolian", from "Carolus", as used in the names of various things associated with King Charles I School, for example. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

One can of course always rely upon The Guardian to mis-spell things, and others to then follow suit.

• "Carolean age dawns as Britain begins long goodbye to the Queen". The Guardian. 2022-09-09.

In fairness, this spelling from The Grauniad is supported by books written by experts in interior design from outwith the United Kingdom.

• Seng Handbook: Furniture Facts: Commemorating Eighty Years of Service to the Furniture Industry, 1874–1954. Chicago: Seng Company. 1954. p. 55. Carolean: 1660–1688

But "Carolian" is the spelling, in contrast, that has been used for the past 2 centuries by others, from Black's Guide in the 19th century discussing Ashburnham Place, through the aforementioned school (and other schools) named after various Charleses, to recent academic history books. The Carolian Chapel is also a common translation of the Karolinska Gravkoret at Riddarholmen Church.

• Black's Guide to the South-eastern Counties of England: Sussex. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black. 1861. Scarcely less interesting, perhaps, are the Carolian relics; Charles the First's watch, his white silk drawers, the blood-spotted shirt which he wore upon the scaffold […]
• Tresham H. Gilbey (January 1881). "Stage Pictures by Old Painters". Baily's magazine of sports and pastimes. Vol. 36. p. 344. The object of this paper is to give a stage view of life in London in the time of Charles the Second, as sketched […] It will be readily understood that all the comedies of that period had the Carolian favour; but Etherege possessed the instincts of a gentleman, and touched dangerous matters with a gentle hand.
• "Silent Auction Brings Grateful Carolian Community Together". St. Charles Preparatory School. 2021-12-07.
• Childs, John (2013). Army of Charles II. Routledge. p. 14. ISBN 9781134528592. Carolian England was ripe for plots at any time and during the first three years of the reign there were a huge number.

Much as we know that furniture is dear to your heart, Doktoro, I think that we should go with the spelling used by the schools and the scholars rather than the one used by The Graduian and the antiques dealers.

Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yonkers Police Department Page (Again)

Hey sorry to bother again but I am having a bit of a issue. I am attempting to post the Yonkers Police page again which I revamped but it is not letting me stating "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist." Is there anyway you can help me out with posting the page again? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ?????? (talk • contribs) ?? ????? ????, ??:?? (UTC)

Adding unsigned as this thread had been untouched for a while. I did consider it, but could not find who added it in my search throughout the page's edit history. --WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

User:JCThring

I'm not able to spend any more time right now looking at this user's contributions, but they seem entirely to consist of cluelessly oververbose references to the scholarly output of one person named Malcolm Tozer, and you and your followers have not only better menu selections, but better vocabulary words for such academic phenomena. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ha I have followers? I feel like Aeneas! Drmies (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oh dear--what a shame, and thanks, User:Bbb23. So, former professional educator and headmaster retires, dedicates time and energy to become a well-published scholar in precisely the right field, then (likely) discovers Wikipedia and goes all out--likely well-intentioned but not in accordance with our rules of behavior. JCThring, there are things you can do here, but there are other things you must do first, and I'll leave a note on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Um, not sure if you would have blocked despite your "thanks". If at some point in the future you wish to unblock him, you don't have to ask me first; I'm sure you'll do the right thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • You saw my predicament. I suppose I would have given an only warning, which they would have likely ignored, after which I would have blocked. Maybe. We'll see what happens, Bbb--whether my AGF was justified or not. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

CU Goggles

Hello, Drmies,

I have been trying to follow some ongoing vandalism that is being done to the Farnborough Hall article (and a few associated articles), by Kenyon2005 and by some other new registered accounts and some IP accounts. I noticed that similar editing was done by Kalorama20008 earlier this summer and they were blocked by you after issuing some bizarre legal threats. They eventually got globally locked. I don't believe there is an SPI case yet but I'm thinking that Kalorama20008 has spun off into some milder acting sockpuppets who are continuing this crusade on behalf of some convoluted sense of family history involving this house and other people in their family line. I thought I'd approach you since you had blocked Kalorama20008 and ask if you see anything here before I filed a SPI case.

I have protected this article for 3 months so I think it is safe from vandalism but this conduct has also spilled over to other articles. Thanks for any help you can provide in looking into this matter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hey Liz--I was about to run a check on that IP, but saw, in the CU log, that it's already been done--see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalorama20008. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, well, thanks anyway for telling me about the SPI case. I'll go there in the future. This one, if you take time to read all of the content they have posted (hey, I had some free time), is pretty off-the-wall, made-up, pseudo-royalty and rich family tragedy garbage. Why do people love to pretend that they have ancestors who were wealthy or important? It seems to happen a fair bit on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) Same reason most who believe they are reincarnated also believe they were, in their past lives, kings, queens and/or mighty warriors. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't really get it either. It's all so desperate. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Selected Biography in the Article Neoplatonism.

Hi

I have reverted the removal of the selected bibliography because the citations link via sfn tags to the bibliography making it explicitly clear what book it refers to. Without the selected bibliography, there is no way of telling what book the citation came from. Also, when hovering over the reference to a citation, the cited book is displayed. By moving the entire selected bibliography to another topic means you can not easily determine which book the citation came from.

The bibliography is selected because it only contains translations and 21st century references, no 18th, 19th or 20th century references.

Could you please discuss major modifications to the article on the talk page before making them so you can understand why the Selected bibliography is needed.

Regards Daryl Prasad Darylprasad (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• I see. This was not clear, in part because of the unusual formatting. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I formatted the Selected bibliography in small font to reduce the length of the article. Darylprasad (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I think there are better ways to reduce the length of the article. For instance, why is there a biography of Proclus right under the link that goes to Proclus's biography? Why is there a biography of Iamblichus when we already have a biography of Iamblichus? Etc. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance templates for Neoplatonism Article

Please discuss the addition of templates on the articles talk page before adding them to the Neoplatonism article.

With respect to the questions of:

"The question of This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (September 2022)"

This has already been discussed in "Length of Article'. Please add your response to that discussion there before adding the template.

"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (September 2022)"

That may be said of a lot of Wikipedia articles, not just this one. For example, articles on mathematical, physics, and other topics. The audience that it is of interest to are people interested in neoplatonism. The detail is needed to explain the philosophical and religious system adequately.

Could editors please reasonably and logically discuss these issues on this talk page before addition of templates which seem to be specifically targeting one article as many articles in Wiki could be said to have the same properties. Darylprasad (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect to your comment on addition of the template again:

"no, the templates are as valid as ever"

That comment does not address the comments I have made about the template on the article's talk page. Could you please elaborate.

Regards Daryl Prasad

• No. Please discuss the removal of valid maintenance templates: this is on you. I see that post now, on the talk page--but that talk page is you talking to yourself. There is no consensus that somehow the length of the article is acceptable, and I do not believe that 418,049 bytes is in any way appropriate. What's more, this post of yours should be on the article talk page. That you removed the templates, and then removed the valid warning I placed on your talk page, is indicative of the fact that you do not seem to appreciate the "collaborative" part of our encyclopedia, which is precisely what Johnuniq suggested you work on almost a year ago. User:Pppery put the same "too long" template on the article, and you promptly removed it, put your monologue on the talk page, and then made the article even longer. Your statement, "discuss on talk page before adding templates", suggests only one thing: WP:OWN. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • There are already two posts on the length of the article on the Article's talk page. Every time I remove a template I start a new section on the article's talk page. My reasons for significant modifications in the article are always discussed on the talk page as you will see that the many topics there (45 to be exact, 22-67) have been started by me and I explain why I have made significant modifications to the article. I think that is what collaboration is about. My talk page is rarely used for collaboratively discussing an article's significant changes.Darylprasad (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you just put another post there that basically said "it's not too long." That's not collaborating: that's you claiming you know what's best for the article. Ownership. Your own talk page is where other editors go to discuss your behavior, and that is exactly where you remove posts that discuss your behavior, without responding to them. And seriously, you must made almost a dozen edits to my talk page. You'd be pissed if I just rolled them back without even acknowledging them. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Aha--so you did exactly the same thing on Proclus, and I remember seeing how ridiculously long that article is. I guess it was User:Epinoia who put the "too long" tag there in January, which you promptly removed, without consensus? And it seems that User:Aza24 had similar comments, on the talk page, which you didn't do anything with. By the way, I don't care how long 2021 in American television is; that's not the topic of discussion. At 357,229 bytes, Proclus is a monster. I mean, there's 25 footnotes before the first sentence is even over. You can't do all those notes for the dates in one single footnote? [edit conflict: I don't know what "not displaying the text" means. And please respect the asterisk; if you don't, I don't need to extend you other courtesies.] Wow. The first sentence of Plotinus has 32 footnotes. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
      • It is the first time I have come across an asterisk. I am used to semi-colons. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages for more examples to lengthy articles. Why isn't there a template on ‎Presidency of Donald Trump ‎[497,540 bytes] or COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait ‎[574,553 bytes] to name two. Proclus and neoplatonism have been around for 1600 years and there is vastly more scholarship material on them. The articles provide a summary of that vast amount of scholarship. The reasons for the number of sfns is to give the reader a wide range of scholarship that supports the statement. Certain facts about Proclus and neoplatonism are different depending on the century or years within a century of scholarship. The sfns also provide readers with information as to what scholars thought and when those thought were published. This adds significantly to the reliability of the article and adds significant depth to the article. Readers can then easily see the leading scholars who support a particular fact or opinion.Darylprasad (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
        • @Darylprasad: There's a thing you seem to be missing here, and it's called "summary style"; neoplatonism shouldn't contain everything there is to know about neoplatonism, only a summary of said knowledge; and more detailed content should belong on, for example contemporary neoplatonism, modern neoplatonism, renaissance neoplatonism, neoplatonism in the Caucasus, etc. This is not at all my area of expertise so those may not be the correct titles, but it should be sufficient to convey the idea.
          Why isn't there a template on ‎Presidency of Donald Trump ‎[497,540 bytes] or COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait ‎[574,553 bytes] to name two - for the same reason there are 137,000 articles with no sources at all - Wikipedia is imperfect and has lots of unresolved problems that the community works together to fix, and you can't wish away the existence of these problems by saying "other stuff exists" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
          • @Pppery:, thank you. I think we ran into each other recently but I forgot where--sorry. Yes, Daryl: our articles need not/should not be comprehensive. And in the section above I actually gave examples of what is excessive, and where. Biographies and footnotes. Those 32 footnotes in the opening sentence of Plotinus also make that lead unreadable; there is a very good reason we do not need to cite in the lead. You have to think about the reader. Shit, there's 45 footnotes for the lead. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
            • Probably Kirby Super Star Ultra, which I note still has the fancruft content you removed. Also, since I'm here, do you have any objection to me redirecting Bibliography of Neoplatonism back to Neoplatonism#Reference bibliography now that the purpose of that section has been clarified? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
              • Yeah, I guess. I actually thought we could do something useful with that. The whole setup of that bibliography (look at the paragraph I trimmed in the main article) made no sense at all, and I was led astray in part because of the "Selected" bit, which is inappropriate if it's the bibliography for the article. So after the editor explained, I thought about redirecting, but if that bibliography is so "selective" that it has only sources from the last two decades (which is not a bad thing, not at all), one could make a complete bibliography, and that might be a valuable thing. But I'm not sure the editor is willing to consider that, or has thought about it themselves. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
              • Drmies: your language is offensive. You have been muted by me.
                • Well, that's just awful, that you would say that in passive voice--you could have said in three words what you said in five. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm just sayin...

Just a heads-up that your wholy appropriate warning here was followed-up with this ("wikipedia [is] a pointless place where people with nothing more important to do pretend they know more than they do.") And this ("All this brilliance being wasted on the comments section on Wikipedia.") And this ("It's hard to assume "good faith" when it is clear they have none.") And this ("I received your uninformed POV"). And this ("I do appreciate all the time you guys spent explaining your, cough, cough, "logic.") And this ("Get a grip, pal.")

I tried to help them here, apparently with no success. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the IP you page blocked

For a month, tpa revoked, attack on you suppressed for possible doxxing. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

IP sock

Hi Drmies, hope you're doing well. An IP user 212.174.38.3 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Alexyflemming, who is still evading their block, see contributions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ha, I'm on the Greek team! I had no idea. Well, you reverted them. If they get disruptive again, we'll block. But I had nothing to do with the SPI, BTW. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • lol I haven't even seen that. Yeah I think misread the log, other admins blocked for evasion your block wasn't related to the SPI. Thanks for clarifying. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure thing--that was a long time ago. And the admins in the SPI, that's from 2016 or so, if I remember correctly. Some people really just need to find a new hobby. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

New sock?

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunshine773, see these IP edits. I only noticed it because the editor touched Don't Worry Darling, and all of their edits are today and tend to be as well-written out and relatively knowledgeable as the two user accounts. Not to mention the fact that they went from editing older movies to the only new one. Thoughts? I'll make your gin and tonic a double? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• No--that is, the technical evidence doesn't support it. Hey, I think that's another gin and tonic! Drmies (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks anyway! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

I saw you tagged Draft:Mark Mills, actor-manager for G3 as an obvious hoax. Can you clarify what makes you think it is an obvious hoax? It doesn't jump out and scream hoax to me like some hoaxes do, and I've spent the last way too long (about half an hour) trying to determine if it is a hoax or not. I'm able to verify some details - like that there was an actress active in the right time period named Nellie Boyd (but not that it was a stage name for someone named Helena Tomkins), that there actually is a character named King Multifaker in Little Jack Horner (that name was what I thought was an obvious hoax - but it's real), and a few other things. The draft is totally unsourced though, which is a problem. I considered declining it as not obvious enough to meet the G3 burden, but I'm not convinced it's not a hoax, and I respect your judgement so - - what am I missing? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• User:ONUnicorn, I also spent a good bit of time on it. First of all, Google searches for any "Mark Mills" with words related to that profession delivered nothing to me, and likewise with his name combined with "Marquise Attavanti" or "The Worst Woman" and other names. Worse, the supposed quotes in the article, they do not show up in Google whatsoever, and those should be available on Google since there's no copyright on them and they are "regular" 19th-century periodicals. So yeah, I think the whole thing is made up. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. I've deleted it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. That reminds me--as I was clicking that button I was thinking that it would have been great if I could have put an edit summary in. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Gilley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Gilley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gilley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Tom Reedy (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

New IP

Hy , hope you are well, can you please protect the Kosovo Serbs page, it has been a subject of this ip vandalism [[13]] who changed information from the source, source is open access pg 97. [[14]] with information according to the article, but the ip keeps on replacing 150000 figure with "a number". Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi--well, I can't see the page, but I'll take your word for it, and I've reverted another of the IP's edits. But I am not going to semi-protect an article because of three edits, all of which have been reverted; I see nothing in the history that warrants that. Actually I'm surprised at how little the article has been fucked around with, given BALKAN and all that. You warned the IP editor: if they keep it up I'll be happy to block them. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay thanks, but just been wondering how can you not access the source or the page? [[15]], it was quite easy for me. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    • The mysteries of Google Books will not be unearthed until the stars fall from the sky. Plus, your link was for "hrvatski" and I'm here firmly in "en" territory; I have seen this before, where Google Books links from one language/country don't work in another. Or, I have no answer for it, haha. I see it's rainy and sad today in Croatia, so take care, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

What are the odds

That those same talking heads that discounted Bama's one point win will scream unnecessary run up of the score today. Asking for a friend. Tiderolls 23:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm tell your friend (who likely plays golf) that that's par for the course. I made a rude joke in response to a rude joke by a Georgia troll on an Alabama Insta page. Georgia is just absolutely overwhelming this year, but talking trash never improved anything or anyone. Alabama might have scored 60+ points in the first quarter but I was grading and forgot to check when the game started. OMG, I just saw the finish of the Troy game. Ouch. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Rude? You? Pfffftt. Yeah, App State is a giant killer. Like Coach says, discount your opponent at your own risk. Tiderolls 23:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    • App State should be paying ranked teams to play them! I remember that day. If I was Troy, I would not have played them! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Yeah, me too--but didn't Troy beat some giant too a few years ago? LSU? Haha years ago there was a proposal to change something curriculum-wise on our campus, and it was perceived to water down our excellence (yeah), and one of my colleagues said "No! We're not Troy!" (We have a Troy campus in town.) Then, I thought yeah, we're not. Now, I feel different. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Article hijacking

What the heck is going on with all these articles related to "chandler" being hijacked into articles about a completely unrelated person? Is there something in the water/news lately that I've missed? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know, but it's an LTA, and the less you do the better. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I suspect you've wandered into the morass regarding online forum Kiwi Farms. My apologies. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    • You know more than me! Please, enlighten me. As far as I'm concerned I'm dealing with an incel troll who needs a hobby--for the second or third time in a couple of days.
      • Kiwi Farms began as a forum dedicated to harassing and making fun of someone they know as Chris Chan, whose last name is Chandler. This person has repeatedly been suggested as an article subject and/or for inclusion in the Kiwi Farms article, and rightfully, to my mind, has been roundly rejected as a form of victimization. It seems the denizens of the forum are branching out in their quest to continue victimizing this person in particular. I'm sorry I had to impart that information, and even sorrier I knew it in the first place. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Not just kiwifarms, any place where shitbags congregate. 4chan and others I won't mention, as to avoid promoting them. The level of harassment is one of the worst things about the Internet, and that's obviously saying a lot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Dumuzid, thanks. There really is no lower limit, is there. Where did Milton's Satan say that, about perceiving a hell below his hell? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

          Ayeah, it's hells all the way down. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank your for your kind advices.

I will apply them. I recognise I've made mistakes such as using the edit reasons for writing long texts. I will improve myself as an Wiki editor and I won't edit again as an unregistered user without this account. Thank you! Navarran94 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Good luck, and thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I have never seen an IP with so much crap on them and so much evidence against them being spared. You know how User:Asilah1981 operated and have an experience how these kinds of accounts work. The case for Sockpuppeting is more than clear, despite the subtle evading technics. The editor above is obviously not new in the ENWP, and has not provided any explanations on that.

    I can only foresee more toxic activity by the account above. He has populated Juan Sebastián Elcano with my name and that of another user associating us to a ideological profile. Do walls and noise pay off? Sadly, it looks like it does. Iñaki LL (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    • Iñaki LL, by all means start an SPI if you think there were other accounts before. That's all I can say right now--sorry. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    "With so much crap on them" @Drmies: can you block or punish this user for deliberately doing constant personal attacks breaking WP:NPA against me? This user is shameless and doesn't know the meaning of that word it seems.

    Now he even accuses me of being another user, of course @Iñaki LL: you have a strong ideological profile that determines your edits, it's proven in your edits, the way you break WP:WALLS and WP:NPA against me, with his extreme hatred against my persona, to the point of arriving to a WikiAdmin's Talk Page where I said thanks for the advices and you insult me "so much crap on you" you should be ashamed of your hooligan-style behavior.

    Wikipedia is not your personal blog and it has to remain unbiased. The fact that you didn't revert the actions of a WP:SPA that changed the stable lead in that page indicates it might be your sockpuppet, I'm open for any SPA as I have never used any other account, if you are obsessed with another user is your problem, not mine, but what I won't tolerate is you to come here to insult me. Shame on you.

    Sorry @Drmies: for this. This is the last time I will tolerate this. I have been receiving constant and repeated personal attacks from this user against myself, constant and repeat claims saying I'm someone else, and I'm tired, next time he goes directly to the administrator's noticeboard because I am tired to see attacks, insults and accusations against myself. Navarran94 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Surrealistic. Again a textwall for an account that has only contributed noise and rage to the ENWP. Outside goals in Spain and pressure on admins, just take a look at the names. Only hope that noise does not pay off. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Navarran, if you take something like that to a noticeboard, you should expect a boomerang. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Please, note that he is again reverting the edits even when the lead is being discussed. The misrepresentation of sources is even more clear when he claims that the maximum authority in Basque language is "some kind of association". If we allow everything, then I don't know why we have discussions and rules. Theklan (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay I understand, I've just said that to prove until which point I can I arrive to prove I'm not any other account like that user says. Now both came here when I've just made this to thank you for your advices.

I've also received another personal attack and false accusations (check Elcano's talk page) these users are desperate to get me banned. But I won't fall in that game. And yes, the Basque Language Academy is an academy, not an association, my bad, now Theklan sticks to that (both here and in the talk page) to say my edits are not valid.

I don't understand why they come here. They still try to get me banned after 2 ANIs. Personal attacks against me are still present. I say thanks to an admin and they come here to accuse me. I think now they try to force me to leave Wikipedia, I feel harassed. I'm sorry but this is not right. Navarran94 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted you on a minor thing: please see WP:OVERLINK, which suggests that linking to "Spanish people" is unnecessary. Navarran94, your continued insistence that all the others are out to get you is just not helpful. What I see on the talk page looks like a consensus to me, and I'm afraid that the way things stand right now you are just going to have to live with it. The only way that I see for you to change that is to start an WP:RFC, but you would have to phrase it neutrally. You could ask "should we add a link to Spanish people"--but that's kind of silly, given the link I just gave you. Or you could ask "should we add 'currently in Spain'", which I think will be met with an overwhelming "what's it matter". I'm telling you this from experience. But you are welcome to try. However, if it is not phrased neutrally, it will very likely be shut down and only lead to more disputes. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies, well the first thing is only by these 2 specific users and their words against me, but it seems both have changed their mind and they engage in the talk page without making accusations so I am glad of that. That's a start to solve a dispute.

And yes I am eager to find a consensus as well but unfortunately there is still no consensus in there (I hope it will be one soon) I support the proposal of another user, it would be the most factually accurate lead, either that or the actual one which is practically the same as it was before the SPA changed it to just Basque, something the sources mention but don't support as most mention Spanish too and more say just Spanish than even mentioning Basque... but I am okay with keeping Basque as well.

I didn't know the overlink thing and I am ok with that, I won't add it again since now I know what it means. I really appreciate your advices and I will apply them, they are very helpful for my future edits in the Wikipedia. If I do something wrong please tell me and I will improve it. Thank you! Navarran94 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent/edit warring IP

Don't feel like dealing with this person any more. Their standard response to disagreement is to revert and call the other editor "retard".[16][17][18][19]. They have been warned about WP:CIVIL. They are insistent that a mere rumor from one line of text from a data leak be included as a confirmed fact. Will go to 3RR then ANI if necessary. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. 31 hours -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Deepfriedokra. If I continue to develop the article (emerging information on a new and important subject), leaving alone the contentious line about "Blackwell", do I run a risk of 3RR for in some part possibly undoing the work of this IP editor? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And thanks to User:Jauerback also. Sorry, User:DIYeditor, I was doing dishes and discussing styles with my dog. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As long as you do not revert their content, I think you can just add more of your own. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And (Jauerback, Deepfriedokra) IP is back at a slightly different address with a 3RR violation[20] after being warned yesterday.[21] —DIYeditor (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Jauerback malformed ping. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Unfortuantely, a rangeblock would require a /18. 😪 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately this user has some solid knowledge about the topic, but resumed their disruptive editing and confrontational edit summaries[22] (sans the slur word) immediately along with the block evading. They don't seem to have much interest in learning how wikipedia works or how to collaborate. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Jauerback, Ponyo back again with the slurs too [23]. What's the next step here, don't want to keep spamming Drmies with this. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Aggressively renewing DHCP leases now[24]. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I will prepare an ANI I guess to see about a range block? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Widr blocked /18. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• OK--thanks, and thanks Widr. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Persistent toxic behaviour after warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Drmies, the dishonest approach, judgmental and confrontational attitude and level of aggression against veteran editors in Talk:Juan Sebastián Elcano and other articles is just untenable, right after you warned seriously the editor in the ANI. I am only seeing textwalls and noise. I let you know, more toxic action was to be expected from the IPs/Navarran94, and it is happening. Dr Jeckyll, brings next Mr Hyde, an attitude you are familiar with, since that is what happened continually with Asilah1981.

A clear case of WP:NOTHERE that sucks all the energy from constructive contributors who work and comment on content, except when talked about and there is no other option but say sth on behaviour. If this edit in the talk page is not disruptive editing and harassment I do not know what it is. I urge for immediate protection and closure of this circus (sorry to put it like this, but that is what it is), making good your warning in the Incident. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I was about to open a complaint about your lack of WP:NPOV and I've actually hit "ping" for Drmies in Elcano's talk page to prove your history in Wikipedia like in that 2018 ANI (well, both of you 2 users) also I don't understand what "harassment" do you refer to if I've just posted a link to an ANI which was as well for the lack of NPOV in your edits.

You call me toxic when you've harassed me since day 1 in Wikipedia, making 2 ANIs to get me banned (said by yourself in the 2nd ANI) didn't assume good faith in any of my edits, precisely targeting me in talk pages, saying I'm a sockpuppet, even coming to an admin's talk page to accuse me in a talk section made by me where I've said him thanks for his advices.

In addition, in the article Kingdom of Navarre you made 2 reverts (I've made ONE and I left it to evade an edit war) when I kindly asked you to provide reliable sources saying it was a "Basque Kingdom" (the sources talk mostly about the Basque language) for more than 2 weeks yet you didn't provide anything but reverts and false accusations, just as saying I'm disruptive yet without proving your edits with sources.

The way you edit and accuse wikiusers, is exactly the same you were accused of in the 2018 ANI against you and you still act the same in 2022 as your true purpose is to impose your POV by making other editors "stop" with your threatening words. I'll let below the ANI where many other "veteran users" (still active nowadays) have said exactly what I say about you and even more things related to your edits.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987 / Iñaki LL you often boast about your "veteran" status yet you have been accused of a clear lack of WP:NPOV for many years by other "veteran" users. In the ANI from above (please Drmies read it) you made in 2018 what you've made to me nowadays, like making reverts and accusations without sources/proofs, opening ANIs asking deliberately to block a certain user, and so on... Leaving that aside, as it's said by other users as well, your edits are clearly pro-Basque Nationalistic and this has been said by many users during many years. Even your own wikipage says it and you have political wikitags. Why do you feel offended if I make these remarks? It's publicly available in the Wikipedia. Navarran94 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, that really is a matter for a noticeboard--you can't really ask one specific administrator who's already spent so much time on this matter to come to a judgment. And it needs more pair of eyes than just mine. As a reminder: the more concise an ANI post is, and the less it plays the personal angle, the better. Navarran94, I think that all those frequent and lengthy posts are going to sway editors and administrators to perhaps issue a topic ban, or more. It is not at all clear to me what that now-interminable thread is about, and you're not helping the cause. I don't even know what the cause is anymore. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. I looked at this, went cross-eyed, and said to myself, I said, "Drmies will sort it. Their reading comprehnsion is far greater than mine." 🙄 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay , I'll make it fast. This user has exactly the same behavior as in a 2018 ANI made against himself , where he made an ANI trying to get another user banned (like he tried with me last week) and he got warned by an admin, above you have the link of that ANI where it's proven this user edits with a lack of WP:NPOV and reverts for no reason putting untrue edit diffs. It's 2022 and he does the same as he did 4 years ago despite being warned by an admin.

Also, in the page Kingdom of Navarre he's at the edge of making an edit war to impose again his POV while I've been asking him for sources for +2 weeks already but all he does is reverting without providing any source backing up his claims. Navarran94 (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. Don't make it fast, just stop. I hope you understand by now that no one is following you down those rabbit holes. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you in that I cannot even follow what he says, just that he is tracking me and scavenging among my edits in search of evidence of my alleged ideology, jumping to his own conclusions and posting it all in the talk of the article Juan Sebastian Elcano. Also he is erratic and angry, from the first day he came out of the blue. That is what I get.

Navarran94, above: "when I kindly [italics is mine] asked you to provide reliable sources saying it was a "Basque Kingdom" (the sources talk mostly about the Basque language) for more than 2 weeks yet you didn't provide anything but reverts and false accusations, just as saying I'm disruptive yet without proving your edits with sources".

Well, if one clicks on the references provided by me before and during the litigation in that article, one sees this:

1. World Monarchies and Dynasties: "By late in the thirteen century, the Basque kingdom had been transferred through marriage to the French king (...)"

2. Medieval Queenship: "A complicating factor was the existence of the Basque Kingdom of Pamplona or Navarre to the east (...)".

3. Caliphs and Kings: Spain, 796-1031: "New players enter the game in the form of the Basque Kingdom of Pamplona (also called the Kingdom of Navarre") and the Frankish counties of Catalunya (...)".

4. The history of Basque: "In 1514, the Kingdom of Navarre, greatly reduced in territory and power, was quietly absorbed by the Crown of Castile, bringing to an end history's one great Basque political entity"

5. The Britannica makes reference to the main linguistic base of the kingdom ("In the Middle Ages much of Navarre was Basque-speaking", although it holds true it does not call openly a Basque kingdom, and it does state it was a kingdom "of Spain", in a broader sense (geographical, but that is my guess).

Here below are the reactions of the IP/Navarran94 in question (article Kingdom of Navarre). Some of those diffs I posted them in the ANI, where the case was more than clear.

Diff I added above, 1, + diffs 234 On the Basque names of Pamplona: [25] (Basque, stating the ruling of the Royal Academy of the Language in favour of "Iruñea", but acknowledging the existence of "Iruña", a matter of nuance), [26] historic records of the name.

I will not dwell on the waste of energy and time this is bringing to productive editors, and administrators alike. This should have been closed in the ANI, else executive action according to the warning. Sorry for this long set of contrasted evidence of the last 20 days in the article Kingdom of Navarre. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, I'm trying to stop this, but if you respond and comment in detail on content questions, you are just prolonging the agony. I thought I had made it clear that I am not interested in becoming a judge on content and sourcing. I'm not going to read over that evidence, those diffs, etc.--what matters is this. If you think that Navarran is so disruptive that they need to be blocked, or blocked from certain articles, you should go back to ANI. That earlier thread, the one I closed, did not lead to what you want, but it did take away one thing: the IP editing, and you should be happy about that. The "deeper" matter, of the disruptive behavior, was not handled because a. the thread combined (or, muddled) two very different issues, and b. the initial post was way too ... excessive. Do it again, focus on behavior, keep it short, keep personal stuff out of it, don't bring in every single accusation that you can think of. If you do that, it is also easier for administrators to ensure that the person in question will have to be concise. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have spent too many hours by now on this issue, so do not know if I want to go through another ANI, that actually becomes a punishment for regular contributors that see their editing environment conspicuously altered, as it is in this case. I am sorry to hear you interpret the above evidence as content, because it is not, it is all about sectarian behaviour and disruptive attitude with very few diffs and commented, trying to focus, I do not know how to make it clearer (read the references, read next Navarran94's edit summaries). "the initial post was way too ... excessive": I am lost here, to be honest. It looks like I need a diploma on ANIology in order to navigate this bureaucracy.

The relation with the outside-of-the-WP campaign (linked above) waged in Spain including certain high-profile Spanish politicians and some influential Latin-American personalities is all too clear in the moment chosen and anonymity of the account, his cockiness and type of language, you "be neutral!", "neutrality!", etc. A clear WP:NOTHERE. I will see what further actions I may take. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you are sorry for etc. The disruption and the content stuff go hand in hand. This is NOT a thing that one individual administrator should decide on. There's so much on this talk page already--it could have been handled at ANI, and a topic ban or whatever might have been handed out already. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: Assumptions and accusations, once again blaming me... It seems it's a never ending loop. After 2 tryouts to get me blocked in 2 ANIs now the reason is some kind of ... online campaign no one has ever heard about? Are you really grasping at straws again to prove some kind of point based on your own assumptions?

I have shown a 2018 ANI where Iñaki LL was warned by Wikiadmins to stop doing ANIs by putting real effort by trying to get other users blocked repeating exactly the same behavior. It seems you are bothered because Elcano's page is being decided by consensus and a RfC and your POV doesn't prevail anymore. But like I said, this is not the Basque Wikipedia, here the admins are on the neutral side.

@Drmies: I won't continue his game anymore. I'm glad the Elcano content dispute is being discussed in a RfC, since the beggining this user bullied me and didn't WP:AGF on none of my edits. The prove is coming to this page where I've just said thank you for your advices. Last time spreading this mess on your talk page (from my part) and again, thank you for your advices as I try to improve my Wikiedit skills. Navarran94 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You should both chill out -- stop antagonizing each other, stop justifying antagonizing each other, stop explaining why everything is the other one's fault, & generally take a break from editing in the locus of antagonism for a few days. JBL (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Am I the prude?

Really, I'm not a prude, although I think we handle sex related articles best following the path of least astonishment. An editor, Leesjy2k, seems to be on a mission to do the exact opposite. I reverted one addition that was pretty obvious, on Doggy style, then took a look at his contribs, which all seem to focus on adding the most graphic photos he can find to articles. To me, this seems like a problem, but wanted an outside opinion from you and/or your stalkers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that the picture doesn't add anything educational to the article. The illustration provides the necessary visual context, and the other images provide historical context in art. Seems somewhat disruptive to add those images just to wave around notcensored. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Prudishness aside, the image was a very poor illustration, compatible with a wide variety of sexual positions. There are many good reasons to have reverted. JBL (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I am clearly not needed here, but want to chime in to say I think we're capable of walking a line between prudishness and prurient middle school sensibilities--so yeah. Very much in agreement. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd leave it in. The 2 top pics together give a pretty clear illustration. If you look at Doggy style you shouldn't be amazed to see this... Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Skiyomi? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of them. I think it's all way too much. One of the images was a diagram that I'm fine with but the others, no so much. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So the user went on to do more, here (reverted by AndyTheGrump, and in Urination, which I just reverted. User talk:Leesjy2k, we are well into disruptive territory here. User:Dennis Brown, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:JayBeeEll, User:Dumuzid, User:Johnbod, User:Deepfriedokra, this is really fetishistic editing. I'm wondering if, if the user doesn't respond and if they continue, if we shouldn't get a topic ban, via AN/ANI. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Didn't want to bring this up, but you said the magic word (fetishistic), so you win a prize. Could this be User:Male Masturbation? When you see the user page, you will understand. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not the one, and I know because I just ran CU on the Leesjy2k account, thinking they might have been hijacked--look at the editing pattern. Ponyo, are you still active? I think CU suggests that the last batch of edits may suggest evidence of a hijacking. In the meantime, I am going to block the account until we figure this out. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

When I saw the topic when you pinged me I thought maybe I was going to be asked to give my opinion on the doggy style image. But no, it's a Plain Jane CU check. I'll grab my magic 8-ball and some pixie dust. Hang tight.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, Dreamy's on it. I'm too old and slow for you now, Drmies.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo, feel free to also have a look as a 2O would be useful for me. I've sent an email to Drmies so I can discuss the specifics. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, thank you. Ponyo, I think I may have jumped the gun, but I'd still appreciate your opinion. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait a little bit for Ponyo's opinion if they want to give it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I think we have come to the conclusion that the account was likely not compromised. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ponyo, Johnbod has an opinion on that one, but I don't. Speaking of doggy style--Porter is lying right here, and his style is to sleep and snore. God he's adorable. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, over here please--thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

endorse indef, nothere block if/when adequately warned.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

😥 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I figured this was going to end in a block. I have no problem with nudity, I was born that way myself ;) But JayBeeEll, I was thinking the same thing, that image could have been one of many positions, being so close in. The nudity has to serve a purpose and be the "least astonishing" way we have available to visually represent the topic in a fair and thorough way. I would agree, this user's edits were more prurient than informative. And yes, Drmies, now that I look it, it does look hijacked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Dennis, I really don't want to think about your naked butt right now, but thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No one does, that's why I'm single for the 3rd time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to revert all these recent photo additions? Under the circumstances, I'd have thought it appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

RE: "sleep and snore.} FWIW, I sleep on my face. More apnea that way. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, AndyTheGrump, and I reverted some--but given that my hijacking block may be wrong, it's probably best to give an actual explanation instead of saying "hijacked user". I was fine with one or two, but hijacked or not, I do not have that much good faith here for that user. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted him on Creampie (sexual act) where he basically took a few edits to add an entire gallery of post-coitus closeups, very, very unnecessary. Similar to NudistPhotographer, I don't think they are here to build an encyclopedia. When there is zero encyclopedic value for many edits (or even having them at Commons...but I digress), that is nothere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I just set a record for vulva removal: 511 in two edits. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I left a note on the users talk page. If the CU block doesn't hold up, I'm willing to block for WP:NOTHERE. They have had some problems with sources/OR/etc in the past, but nothing like this. Still, and indef is due, to be lifted with some restrictions if it comes to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

At Sexual intercourse we now have (after reverts), several ye olde pornography images, & other drawings, but no photos showing the subject (with humans). That doesn't seem good to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, we have houseflies, and I've always wondered who it was who loves Avril so much. Hey, have at it! It does need a few decent images. But did you see this? Scroll down for the full effect. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, there are rather a lot, but I think the degree of minor anatomical variation is a very important thing for this article to cover, & photos are the only way. The article was already (rightly) committed to having lots of photos, offering a very stark contrast to Sexual intercourse as it now is. I know which I think is more encyclopaedic. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Before the Committee of Public Safety disperses, what about using this image in a gallery in Life of Buddha in art? It is already mentioned, with a link in the ref. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Seems fine, but if someone were sticking it in dozens of articles I might be inclined to bring out the guillotine. JBL (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh that's lovely. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of another anatomical issue

From the recent history, looks like a bit of an edit war is underway. Perhaps a bit of page protection? I know English is your subject, but lately it seems biology has been knocking, at least on the Talk page door. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Congrats, Drmies, you're now the admin people think of first when naughty pictures are involved. JBL (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

JBL, this is not a new thing. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well that's gross too, but at least clicking on the history doesn't suggest it was ever well illustrated. (BTW I can't help but wonder what it says more broadly about a person that in 2009 they were obsessively editing that and in 2022 they were getting themselves indeffed over this.) JBL (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoa--no kidding. That user was SO disruptive way back when already. Then they got blocked for right-wing edit warring on Planned Parenthood, with a blatant disregard for our sourcing requirements (their history showed a whole bunch of, eh, misunderstandings and BLP violations--here's some OR/BLP violating material from the same time). The SA Farm Attacks prove they're just not getting it. The real miracle, I suppose, is that they didn't run into a block sooner. But yeah, that sperm eating stuff, that wasn't just disruptive, it was seriously disturbing. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Something else

thoughts on this, especially "I just hope.." at midnight on the 22/23. Also his last comment. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone is just very strong in their convictions... even when it involves mythological figures. That being said I have left them a note about the appropriateness of their comment. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

And I've warned them for edit-warring at Selene. JBL (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just straight-up pblocked them from articles for that, actually. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow. So much craziness. Sorry Johnbod. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Primefac, what if we simply block that user until they actually explicitly take that comment back? I think Johnbod is owed that. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I can get behind that. Would you care to do the honours or shall I? Primefac (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Primefac, it's done--thank you. Johnbod, I am sorry you had to read that. I've removed it from the talk page and the user is blocked until they retract it and promise to improve. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention. I can't believe I'm saying this, since I'm one of the people he was arguing and warring with, but perhaps the administrative sanctions are a bit much—he wasn't actually expressing a wish for anybody to be raped, just that our perspective might be different if we were. His comments were intemperate, but he seems to be motivated by genuine, if misplaced outrage on the behalf of rape victims. And all of the comments that he left in the discussion came before he received any warnings. He seems to be a fairly new editor, who doesn't have a clear grasp of policies regarding verifiability and collaborative behaviour. Perhaps he's unable to understand the distinctions we're making between raptus and "rape" in the modern sense, or between mythology and modern human experience. But these things are fair topics for discussion, even extended discussion—and while I can't speak for Johnbod, if anybody felt particularly upset by the remarks (which I assumed were addressed to everyone, not just one editor), I'd be surprised, given how bombastic he was, and how calm everyone else involved in the discussion seemed.

At the same time, if the editor is having trouble understanding the problem, I fear he will also be confused by the instruction to "take back" his comment, since it's already been deleted by the admins, and he wouldn't necessarily know where or how to say anything further about it, or to whom. Can he even edit in the place where the discussion was/is taking place, or somewhere else he might be expected to find on his own? When you don't have much experience with the administrative process, it can be hard navigating it. I'm not sure he had much opportunity to cool off and talk to anyone about the warnings before he was blocked, or that he knew how to do so. I've never been banned from editing, so I don't know what he can still do, besides appealing the ban—or where he can do it. I'm sure he has less of an idea than I do. Maybe an indefinite ban is a bit much? Not being an admin myself, I could be way off base here. Just thought I might be able to help. P Aculeius (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

P Aculeius, thanks for stopping by. The editor has been for a year, so they're not that new, but yes, they're not L1 in English. But I can judge effect more easily than intent, and after all the question is how it is received. If you think they don't understand what I mean with "retract", you are welcome to explain it to them differently--in fact I would appreciate your mediation. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I must say I thought the removed comment was directed just at me, though obviously "None of you are human. You don't even have blood in your veins" was addressed to all. As Drmies said at the top, he's getting very worked up about a mythological story with few direct real life comparators, I'd guess. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if my response was insensitive to you. I thought he was addressing all of us, and that he stopped short of actually wishing harm to us—but I can certainly see why it might be upsetting. If it got to you, you did a good job of not responding to it—wish I could be as sanguine when people are nasty to me! But I found it difficult to take his remarks seriously, seeing as they were so over-the-top. P Aculeius (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that certainly. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be good for someone who knows something about this topic area to check their related edits on other pages -- e.g. [27] [28] [29]. I reverted a couple of others that seemed like RGW POV-pushing with inappropriate sources, but I think some of these require some actual knowledge. JBL (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but perhaps we can steer him toward better sources and more reasonable claims. P Aculeius (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I've attempted a friendly note to our editor, suggesting where he went wrong and how to make it right. I hope it isn't too long and that the tone isn't inappropriate. Feel free to edit or delete what I wrote if you think it's problematic! P Aculeius (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Polish złoty, appropriate threading, and apparent time travel

In Special:Diff/1110828418 and the next edit after: The comment you "fixed" the threading of was actually posted a whole 11 hours prior to the one you made it appear to be replying to! I appreciate the hard work, but please take care not to create any temporal paradoxes—we don't want to unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum, here. ReGuess (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't exactly know the best course of action, here, by the way. I'm going to be bold and edit the now-closed discussion to fix the error, even though closed discussions usually should not be edited; I figured that would be less disruptive than creating a new section on the article talk page to point out the mistake. But if there's a better way to go about this, I'd love to hear your advice. ReGuess (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Vadaism0nlyAcount

This user is vandalizing their talk page after being blocked. As the blocking admin, could you revoke their TPA, please? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The eternal Reaper did the job -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This childish shit, I'm so tired of it. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

😥 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Talk page posts are ongoing on the other (apparent sockpuppet/sock master) account: Smart macaque. Same remedy? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that they should also have their TPA removed. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 12:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

September music

September songs

This rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and that day in 2022 was full of music, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto (my brother played in the orchestra), and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

travel and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Deep cleaning

Thanks for your deep-clean[30] of Ribe. It seems to have been triggered by my application[31] of a {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner, but I rarely see such a prompt and thorough response. Good work!

Hope you are keeping well, and not letting too much of your soul get sucked into the dramas of ANIland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ha, I don't frequent that so much anymore. Yes, I saw that tag and wondered what it was about, and then I saw the state that article was in. I like Denmark and it seemed like a manageable thing for me to do. Take care, BHG, and thank for all your work. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Greatest Corrector to call your own is ...

... Evlekis, so would you please remove TPA &c? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

... and Grooverider9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also Evlekis. 16:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• No problem. Sorry that that troll is so infatuated with you. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lycée Lamartine

The article Lycée Lamartine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BilletsMauves^€500 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Welp,

at least they removed that horrific image of someone being tortured to death.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing and WP:BITE

Hi, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways and the spillover at [32]? I'm not trying to prejudice you too much into this discussion, but there seems to be too much heat and not enough light, and I fear that one (competent) editor has already been discouraged from contributing. Rschen7754 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm interesting. I was just discussing primary and secondary sources in my composition class. I am not entirely convinced that those maps that Floydian discusses are really secondary, but I can see the argument for it. I assume you're thinking that HEB is coming on a bit to strong, right? Wait, I'm looking at the ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• I'm halfway through the ANI thread, but have to take a break. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd help out, but I've previously blocked one of the subjects of the ANI thread, and scolded the other, so I'll have to settle to listening to some old Ziggy Stardust Tour recordings I found on t'interweb instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Let all the children boogie. Dumuzid (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm going to see Moonage Daydream this week. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
      • I saw it last week - one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. I won't spoil it for you, but it includes some classic footage that I don't believe has ever been released anywhere, officially or otherwise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Ritchie, if you blocked one and scolded another, you are not prevented from doing so again--or perhaps this time scolding the one and blocking the other. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• What a mess. I don't quite understand what Roads is doing--oscillating between incompetence (or borderline incompetence) and acting like a veteran in dragging a real veteran to ANI. Rschen, who is the discouraged editor? Because both protagonists seem to still be active. Heat, light--it doesn't seem like any administrative measure will be taken against either, unless of course the copyright matter turns out to be a huge thing. At ANI we are not going to establish a decision on what can and what cannot be removed if it's unverified, and that part of the discussion is not going to be very productive. Personally I can't help but think that it's over (setting aside the copyvio matter), and I'd be happy to close the entire thread. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As far as the ANI thread, I think it would be frowned upon to tell you what to do, but you can dispose of it however you wish (notwithstanding the copyright issues). I just worry about discouraging posts like this [33], and HEB showing up at various articles [34][35] [36] today and demanding answers (and saying wonderful things like FAC got it wrong). --Rschen7754 00:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Not to mention adding a cleanup tag to a FA to prove a point [37]. --Rschen7754 00:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Please don't speculate about me behind my back... I'm not proving a point, I'm trying to address a widespread problem of primary source overuse in a topic area. Take a step back and look at the situation objectively, imagine you have no connection to WikiProject Highways and tell me how this looks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Horse Eye's Back, I have no connection to WikiProject Highways and I'm looking at this objectively, and I am telling you that you are coming on way too strong in that ANI discussion--a thread in which I am not involved, nor am I actually aligned with Rschen. Turning up the heat here serves no purpose, and you will have seen that "heat" is what started this. Thank you. And just to make something clear: this is my talk page. People can come here and speak (mostly) freely. Rschen is under no obligation to ping you or involve you in this conversation; if we are talking about you, so be it. And look, you are here, and I am not kicking you out. You are welcome too--as long as you know that this is a Locus amoenus. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
          • Thats why I said "please" and not "do not or I will make you pay, muhahahaha." I'm asking for a courtesy not demanding a right and I respect your ability to control who posts to your talk page and what is written there. If Rschen7754 or you or any other editor wants to know why I did something just ask on my talk page and I'l explain as best I can. I take your point about my behavior (I can be a bit strong on my best days, the off days you could say rank), but what I was asking for an objective look at was things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special routes of U.S. Route 76 which are I think you will agree is frustrating for all involved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
            • Ha, that's not a thing I can help anyone with, because I don't really understand all the notability and sourcing rules for roads--part of that is actually under discussion at the ANI thread. I think that we are overdoing it with the roads, that too much of it is primary, but that goes for a bunch of other things too, like license plates. Vehicle registration plates of Alabama? To me, that's in the same field, and I'm not comfortable in it. But I don't really see the problem in that discussion--you say delete, Rschen says keep--that's how it goes, but you two aren't all that far apart. More people will weigh in, and maybe you'll win. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
              • I meant more the underlying situation than the discussion itself, everything seems to have calmed down to a reasonable simmer. You and I are of the same mind re roads and primary sources, the difference being my instinct to dive head first into what I don't understand rather than avoid appears to have gotten me into trouble once again. Chalk it up to wisdom. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 52

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

• New instant-access collections:
  • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
  • Project MUSE
  • Taylor & Francis
  • ASHA
  • Loeb
• Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What?

Dude? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

And I quote: We have the Arbitral sentences we have the historical proofs Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In my Pavel Chekov voice, "Well, Arbitral sentences." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Chekov had a first name? And it was Pavel?? Dude that guy was just a pretty face who looked like Davey Jones. Don't confuse me with names like he was an actual three-dimensional character. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Three dimensional characters? In Star Trek (TOS)? Heavens forfend! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

None of that was ever going to get anywhere in the first place. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think they are using Google Translate for Italian to English. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Harder Hall

If you have some time, could you take a look at the promotional edits added by a relatively new user to the article? I've reverted a couple of times and advised the editor that they are too promotional, but although they've for the moment taken it to the article Talk page (at my request), I think another voice would be helpful. Also, you're better at this than I am. I am sometimes overly brutal, meaning I take out everything when possibly I could just remove parts. It isn't helped by the fact that the principal source cited by the user is behind a "7-day free trial", so I can't see it. I might add that the user has infringed copyright before on another article. Even if the user insists on re-adding the material, I'm not going to revert again as it's not worth getting into trouble over an article that, judging from the number of page watchers, very few people care much about. The user thinks I've threatened to block them, no doubt not seeing the distinction between saying "if you persist, you risk being blocked" and "if you persist, I'll block you". If you decide to help, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Haha, all of a sudden I'm the nice guy? Well, I had a quick look. I can imagine one or two paragraphs being kept, the factual stuff about the construction and all that, if proper citations are provided. And I don't even care about whether they're freely accessible--they need to be documented correctly. Let's see how many pages I need to visit to get my point across. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I never said anything about you being "the nice guy", just that you are better at dealing with these sorts of issues. And, given what you said to the user about the connection between Harder Hall and Blackmon (I should have read more of that draft), as well as your other comments, I'm absolutely right. It'll be interesting to see whether the user declares their conflict. If not and they continue to edit, they should be blocked. In addition, if they edit Harder Hall again, as opposed to the Talk page, they should be blocked. Oh, and did I say thanks? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Hmm no, not yet, oh wait yes, you did. I don't know that I'm better at anything, really. I'm also interested, actually--if it's them, and they have any common sense, they should. Can we expect that from a Florida politician? Is it just a staffer? Drmies (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

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

Administrator changes

ScottishFinnishRadish

Staxringold

Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes

GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

TY for blocking that IP vandal. Phew, they sure were persistent!

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 01:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• No problem--just watching SEC football and dropping blocks. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Request extension of temp IP range block

On 2 July, you 3 month’d this range after persistent vandalism and edit warring mostly by an indeffed sockmaster. Less than four hours after the block lifted, the behavior resumed (plus a handful of minor edits, including at least one case of obvious vandalism apparently unrelated to the sockmaster). I request consideration for an extension of the block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Charles W. Flanagan High School

• Charles W. Flanagan High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It did seem even worse than usual school articles. But I think there is some viable content in what you deleted/rev-del'ed as BLP. One issue is the sexual-relationship situation. That one is cited to adamhorowitzlaw.com (no idea whether that's RS or not) and to people.com (I would think that's generally tabloid-level for BLP). But both of those cite mainstream media (local news sources). It's reasonable to consider whether it's DUE and whether those sources are reliable (or whether the ones they cite are), but given it's cited tracelable to presumed-reliable news publishers, I don't think it's "rev-del as BLP". On the other hand, the pushing/scratching situation appears to have not led to any substantive outcome, since the person is back in position at the school, so I think it should be excluded from the article. But again, given it was a situation covered in mainstream media (and the content appears to be worded with proper indication of the level of certainly, I don't think it's a rev-del BLP issue, just UNDUE/NOTNEWS. DMacks (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• DMacks, what can I say--if you want to go back in, undelete some things, rewrite the content, you are welcome to. From where I sit, UNDUE content on BLP material, especially if there's not some sort of clear and verified conclusion to the legal process, is revdeletable, especially if one of the sources is a law firm recruiting possible victims. Yes, it seems there are more reliable news sources underneath the references (though local news also needs to be handled with care), but I do not think of revdelete as some blunt tool that needs to be exercised with extreme caution--regular caution is enough for me, and this is the kind of example that I think qualifies. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't care enough about this article's subject to push for inclusion, so I'm not going to bother changing anything. I think I am just generally more conservative about rev-del usage. DMacks (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't reply to your last email about my surgery

Email blocked again. Thanks though! Doug Weller talk 10:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Maybe consider using an ordinary gmail address or similar for Wikipedia, Drmies? Bishonen | tålk 12:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC).

I don't like using gmail. I already had to have it for ArbCom, and it's more than I want to. In fact, one of the reasons I don't really want to be on ArbCom again is that the learning curve for all those communications is getting too high for me. Doug--thanks for the note, I'm so happy you're out and about. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I did ask our system administrator, again, what the problem is. Sometimes emails get through, sometimes they don't--there seems to be no rhyme or reason for it... Take care Doug. Lots of people are thinking of you. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks that’s what I figured. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, they tell me it's the link in your signature, which is flagged by the system--whatever system that is (and so threaded messages that have one from you in it are also filtered out). He said, "As a quick fix, can you check if he can email you without the link in his email?". But Bishonen, you've had problems getting email through to me also, didn't you? Drmies (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Have I..? I believe I've mentioned the problem to you four or five times over the years. Frankly, I've given up. Bishonen | tålk 14:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC).

Tried again minus signature Doug Weller talk 15:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

First I've heard of this, Doug Weller! I hope you are feeling well now and are out of the hospital or on your way out. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

3rd day home. Still exhausted and no comfortable p

Ace to sit and watch tv. I’ll make it though. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I hope the painkiller drugs are fun though. I recall demerol was pretty fun but gave me convulsions if they gave it too often. Be extra good to yourself and let your wife spoil you. Have fun watching the tube and I hope you will be in fine fettle soon. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Linking MusicBrainz and WikiData

I have a WikiData and MusicBrainz page for this Wikipedia page article draft Whitenoise I need help properly Linking it into authority control. I also would like you to proof read the career section on the Wikipedia page article. I also wanted to know is there a reason the info is displayed under the info box usually some info is displayed above like the main source. Would like help for my page and I would like to know how many more sources do you think I need to get this published and approved. Toledohiphop (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Whitenoise

Wiki data page is here https://wikidata.org/wiki/Q1919004

MusicBrainz Page is here

https://musicbrainz.org/artist/21b023ce-16d3-4df2-aaa6-1533a384b4ef

Toledohiphop (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Toledohiphop, just from a quick glance I'd say you will need at least 2-3 more reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail (Discogs and Allmusic do not fit that bill). The added benefit of doing so is that you will have more content to include on the page. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thank you Primefac--I couldn't agree more. What's funny, though, is this--one EP in K-pop will get you immediate Wikipedia notability because the publicity machine for K-pop is so well-oiled that the subject typically passes via the GNG, because we accept all these websites that are really just extensions of the management companies. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Dunno, WP:KO/RS stays reasonably up-to-date, I just think that most folks don't realise it exists. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not really a question of reliability but of coverage. If an outlet is reliable but reports on everything, then we have immediate notability for all of the topics covered. In other words, a K-pop star farting is already one step toward independent notability... PS did you also get an email asking if you'd participate in this? Drmies (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point, and no, only the one you forwarded. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is this a problem? A lot of the fundamental point of our notability guidelines is to make sure that we can have a reliably-sourced article that's useful to our readers (and isn't just a stub). If there's lots of published sources on a topic, then that's satisfied. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Elli, if an industry that generated 5.5 billion dollars in 2018 can essentially create or support the media coverage needed to pass our notability guidelines (besides, of course promoting their product in the real world) then I think that's a problem, yes. Because it's not just about reliability here--it's about volume. I think any company trying to get their business and their products on Wikipedia would be jealous of it, and if you can generate "coverage" for every single thing, including coverage of all the associated marketing efforts (YouTube series, reality TV shows, appearances on TV programs, etc.), then you've essentially ensured that whatever it is you do gets covered on Wikipedia. That's not about "useful to our readers" anymore--that's just us basically accepting press releases as coverage toward satisfying GNG requirements. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, I kinda wish more industries were like that. Imagine if we got that comprehensive level of coverage on, say, most YouTubers, we'd be able to have so many more articles that would be useful to our readers (instead of often not even having articles for YouTubers with over 10 million subscribers). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not want more industries to have more influence on media and, in the end, on us. And I would rather see more articles on undercovered areas than on YouTubers, but unfortunately I'm in the minority. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Winky Hicks

The article Winky Hicks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LimonesMI (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Have I made it?

Hi Drmies. Hope all is well. Today I emailed Jerome Loving a question about whether Andrew Carnegie was present at Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln as I polish up the article for FAC, and he responded with the text I had researched and put in the article (attributed to Wikipedia, but still). Does this mean I have finally made it? Will royalty checks start appearing in the mail? Just an interesting little anecdote that made my day... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• YES! Good man. I am proud of you. That might actually be better than mine--I had a student plagiarize the text that I put in the article for the Aeneid. Really, congratulations. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The HCF Conspiracy

Hey, I'm a totally random Wikipedian. I just found my way here through one of the big RC edits (flagged as vandalism) and saw that you found all those people are from a certain course. Or college? Yet the course isn't registered with Wiki Ed somehow and here you are trying to clean up the mess.

I just think the whole thing is kinda nuts and also think its funny how you somehow managed to uncover all of what you did haha. This should go in the next edition of The Signpost! — That Coptic Guy (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Ha--well, sometimes my nose works. I wish that one of these students would actually answer the question. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

School question

Hi there. I know you often edit school articles so I'm hoping you can help.

In 2020, Stratford Central Secondary School converted to an intermediate school, and all its students were merged into Stratford Northwestern Secondary School (which already had its own students). I've made edits on both articles to support this.

After the merge, Stratford Northwestern Secondary School was renamed Stratford District Secondary School. Should the Stratford Northwestern Secondary School article be renamed, or should a new article be created for the "new" merged school?

Should both Stratford Central Secondary School and Stratford Northwestern Secondary School now state that they are "closed"? In other words, be written in the past tense?

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I previously deleted Stratford District Secondary School, but the only contents of the page I deleted was the word "Yay". So, obviously there is no reason another page couldn't be moved there or started.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm complicated! I'd go with moving it to what is is today: Stratford Intermediate School, and having the lead say something like "Stratford Intermediate School is a public school for grades 7 and 8. Until 2020, it was called Stratford Central Secondary School, and served high school and middle school students..." The "History" section should really repeat that, IMO, and that's where a redirect for Stratford Intermediate School should point. And yes, I do think you should move Stratford Northwestern Secondary School to Stratford District Secondary School. I think it makes sense to go with "current name" and try to write up the history as clearly as possible--we do that for universities as well (though it's almost impossible to understand what Trinity College and Duke have to do with each other, on both the article for Duke and for History of Duke).

The actual confusion is a different thing, of course, and not easily solved--because we conflate the building with the "inside" of the building. So I wrote Georgia Washington Middle School, which of course started as a "general" school (for students of all kinds of ages--see this version), and became a junior high school in 1970 and a middle school in 2012, and then was taken over by the new "nextdoor" school system, and is now Pike Road High School. But the only reason that I can make that sentence is because I'm actually talking about the building--at least the building that was put up in the 70s or so. The "school" as such is not tangible, I suppose, so all we can hope for is that it doesn't get too complicated. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've previously attempted to get the schools project to reach a consensus on how to consistently handle similar issues (schools merging under a new name in one of the original school's building, and a school moving to a new building but the original building continuing to be used as a school, or later reopening) but with no takers. Meters (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. We have one here. Sidney Lanier High School was to be renamed because of Lanier's Confederate past, but then the board decided to simply close the building and merge the students into George Washington Carver High School (Montgomery, Alabama). The school was the result of a merger between Lanier and Montgomery County High School (Alabama), but Lanier used to be in the building that is now, or is now occupied by, Baldwin Arts and Academics Magnet School, which is to move to the building occupied by Wilson Elementary, whose student population will merge with Blount Elementary. I hope that's clear! Drmies (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still unsure. Let's say the landlord at "Fred's Barber Shop" won't renew the lease, so Fred merges his business (and all his customers) with "Joe's Barber Shop". Now Fred and Joe cut hair together in the same location (which used to be just Joe's location). Then they decide to change the name to "FJ Barber Shop". Should we start a brand new article entitled FJ Barber Shop, and note on both of the former barber shop articles that they have "closed" due to the merger? I mean, it really is a brand new business (though it's still located at the site of one of the former businesses). I'm leaning toward creating a new article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia, I'd be more opinionated if I had dived a bit deeper--I think it all depends on the sourcing and I don't know how much there is. So, Georgia Washington's school must have had a name before, but I don't think I had sourcing on it. Now, FloridaArmy moved it to "People's Village School", but didn't explain why--maybe that's the old name. They then moved it to the current Pike Road High School, no doubt because it's sort of common practice for renamed entities. Then again, there's more sourcing on the "old" school than on the new one. And I think that if some venerable institute has been somewhere for a while and has generated coverage, then maybe it should stay. So if Fred's Barber Shop has independent notability, a lot of it, and on a non-local level (for instance the Woolworth store from the Greensboro sit-ins), then keeping the article under the old name, and starting a new one for the next business in it and/or the new FJ Barber Shop, has validity. I don't think I can really make that case for the schools I just mentioned since there's really not enough coverage to make a fully-fledged article. So I'd lean the other way--but there's arguments for your position as well. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, would you please revdel this edit? Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks--I saw you just beat me to it. I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry to steal your thunder. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We used to get a buck for each revdelete, but that's all gone too now. For the hell of it, look at my recent contributions--dealing with a school project, where apparently some professor has, for years, been sending unprepared college students into our article space. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I am totally shocked and surprised at this revelation. </sarcasm> Primefac (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Ha, Primefac, it's all fun and games until that list starts getting out of hand: User:Drmies/College of the Holy Cross. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No doubt. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, Primefac, I'm getting kind of tired of it--and none of them will tell me who the professor is, and they just keep on doing what they were doing. It's pretty obvious that the professor just throws them in with only a basic understanding of the guidelines, and they keep sending them to the same articles, so some of them have been fluffed up for years now. I'm seriously thinking about placing a hard block on the school range until we hear from the professor. It's drastic, and I'd really appreciate your thoughts, or maybe those of your colleagues on that committee. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Email received. If you don't want to do the range block, I will; this sounds like it has been going on for too long with too many issues, and if the carrot (i.e. discussion) isn't working, we need to use the stick. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Gin and tonic for you

Hi Drmies, have a short break and enjoy your drink. Thanks for your kindness.

Mhhossein ^talk 13:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• User:Mhhossein, I appreciate that, my friend. I hope you get a lot of hits for your article. I also hope that one day we won't have to write such articles anymore. I am so sorry for the poor Yemenis. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • That was a great wish Drmies, hope that happens very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Just got over 5k hits while on the main page. Thank you again. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Query at SRG

Hi, I've left a comment at your request on SRG. Many thanks — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:AN thread you started a few weeks back

About vandalism where a huge list of words was added, e.g. this. Do you recall what the resolution was? Seems like this should be edit filterable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• I saw your other ping, on the protection board, and looked at the IPs--they're from all over the place and I'm sure they're proxies or whatever. Really, if someone could just check and block the ranges, that might save a lot of agony in the future. As for the thread, I could search the archive but I don't think there was a resolution. It was late (in the US) and there wasn't a lot of feedback, but I do believe that someone put up a filter and that put a stop to it. But this is a returning nuisance, and I don't know (with my notoriously faulty memory) who it was. I do remember there was some really repetitive verbiage in there that made the filtering easy, and I know that I've seen that ... person before. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

RADAR user

I know you just love the jpop articles with blood type, personal colors, and official! fan! nicknames! so here I am. I've been keeping an eye on a new WP:RADAR user Satsukihuffingtoon40, since they popped up on an article I was cleaning up after a series of socks/IPs got blocked. They've been mostly making unconstructive infobox edits to kpop/jpop/model/actor BLPs, while also working in their sandbox to make an article on a 16-year old TV actor not look exactly like the Fandom article they obviously started with. As you can see from their talk page, they're completely unresponsive to communication, whether personalized or templated. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (if wrong) or modified (if partly correct), many by me (with explanations), some by others. Lately they've taken to adding unreliable sources for hair color in infoboxes [38], adding fan nicknames to infoboxes [39] (told you!), and now re-adding correctly removed article text so that it no longer matches what the cited source says [40]. Since this is a classic WP:RADAR case, is it possible to apply a partial block from article space until they respond on their talk page? It might just be that they are new and don't know they have one. If you don't want to deal with it, no worries, a lot worse things are happening in the world. Like AKB Team 8 going on hiatus, OMG! Thanks. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm I didn't see hair color or bloodtype--what I did see was a huge amount of incompetence and incommunicado-ness (surely there's a word for that). Wait. What did you say about Team 8? I need to ask my kids. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Argh, you're right, it was eye color. Got lost in the multiple refs to hair color there. Thanks for taking care of it. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I got zero response from my kids after I sent them this alarming message. Passing strange. (And I did not look at all the edits, BTW.) Drmies (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Your NOTHERE block of user:GripFast88

Nine months in and still ranting. After edits such as [41] and [42] I think talk page access needs to be removed. Meters (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Handled by user:Cullen328 Meters (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that behavior is utterly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I revdeleted all their rants. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Libertarian Party of Virginia

Hi Drmies, it might be time for protection now. Or at least a block of this user, who had already been reverted by an admin in September and has now vandalised past a level 4 warning. Currently dealing with endless WP:WALLOFTEXT non-policy arguments by SPAs over at Talk:Libertarian Association of Massachusetts too... they are relentless. I try to explain that it is is just about sources and I have been on both "sides" of their civil war (as the Daily Beast calls it) based on the sources, but they of course are not interested in anything short of "winning" and will post endlessly. Tartan357 (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I blocked them from those two articles. If their talk page behavior gets out of hand we can revisit this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies and Tartan357: Something is afoot in the LP articles. A SPA account just nominated Caryn Ann Harlos for deletion (and I could've sworn it was at AfD before). —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred There's a factional civil war going on in the party and a corresponding influx of SPAs promoting their "side". The Daily Beast [43] and Reason [44] have reported on it. Caryn Ann Harlos is at the center of it (she is a prominent leader in the hard right faction), and has been alleging misconduct regarding the actions of the VA, MA, and NM parties (though thankfully the NM page has been left alone so far). Tartan357 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is really quite interesting. Cullen328, libertarian turf war! Drmies (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Haha there's a Twitter war in there! Drmies (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a correlation between small political movements and factionalism. There are dozens of Trotskyist sects, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Trotskyist organizations in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center dropped a report on the LP today if you're interested: [45]. Tartan357 (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting--well, up to a level, haha: those internal conflicts aren't really headline material, though it is amusing to see them bickering. I was actually wondering what was happening to libertarians in the US, who used to be much less right-wing. Mises--isn't there a Mises research institute at Auburn? Apparently they've been trying, for a while, to change legislation and sell my pension plan to the highest bidder. Yeah, I was friends back in college with a Libertarian (with a capital L), who at the time was a somewhat reasonable but very argumentative person; last time I saw them on Facebook it was all right-wing and anti-COVID, and the guy's a biologist, doing science and stuff. Passing strange. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking this IP. Appreciated. Sarrail (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sarrail, I'm sorry you and Suonii180 had to endure that. I semi-protected their talk page and can do the same for you, if you like. But if you click on the vandal's contributions you'll see that I dropped two long range blocks, and that may alleviate the problem somewhat. It's really pathetic, isn't it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey, your choice. I don't mind if you semi-protect my talk page, but it was good to see you block fast and furiously ;) Sarrail (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Well let's see if they come back. You'll have seen that Suonii was being hit hard. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of edits

Hi Drmies, nice to meet you. You left a comment on my talk page concerning my recent edits. Thank you for giving me awareness on the policy concerning racial articles. You also mentioned the Prince of Wales edit, which I also thank you for pointing out. I don't remember making that edit, but I may have not seen or I may have been confused by the cited lead there. You are correct in saying collaborative projects, such as Wikipedia, are bettered serve by discussing these type of things so that there is improved facilitation of discussion and understanding between users. What can I further do to ameliorate this situation that will assuage your fears going forward? Auror Andrachome (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Well, what you're doing right now, that's communication, and that's good--thanks. But I think the main thing, and this is what brought other editors to your talk page, is that a few times you edit-warred over your preferred content--and as I pointed out for George Floyd and Killing of Daunte Wright, for those specific cases there was plenty of talk page discussion about precisely those things already, and you could have prevented getting into an argument over them by checking the talk page and the archives there. The other thing I would suggest is not simply blanking your talk page, but responding to editors who post there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Signature contrast

Regarding [46], I really feel like discussion of my previous signature contrast is important, because honestly upon reflection, I agree with you. I wanted to start a thread to make sure your concerns are addressed. I work with designers regularly, and issues surrounding color / design almost always require some back and forth. Anyway, please let me know if my new signature addresses your concerns. 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 19:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that--it looks a lot clearer, and I appreciate that. I do like the flower--but it was seriously difficult for me to read it, and I'm not even "officially" vision-impaired. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ByteOr and possible sock

I just noticed over on Talk:Kiwi Farms you blocked ByteOr. It seems to me that Brennieor is possibly a WP:DUCK, as they were created on the same date, share similar userboxes and username (B*or). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Should an SPI be made? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Good call, Isabelle Belato--you should think about running for admin! ;) Very nicely done. If you have more yeah, an SPI would be a great place to go--but I'm sure this guy already has one. Magnatyrannus, if you don't mind--I gotta clean up the kitchen, so if you could do that, that would be great. You'll find the four or so IPs I blocked in my contributions; you'll see easily enough which ones they are. List those as well, and the admin will say "we're not looking at IPs", but it's useful nonetheless. Thanks! And Isabelle, good luck. I saw it was going well. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion, this guy. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

But wait, why list the IPs if they're already blocked? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Because that helps the investigating admin/CU. "Already blocked" means nothing: it's about identifying and hopefully forestalling more of that nonsense. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Probable sock

You blocked Sir Dougie Parella for disruptive editing a while ago. Sirdougieparrella98 is probably a sock, given the username and editing behaviour. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Didn't you misspell the first name? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's Sir Dougie Parrella. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, shall I open an SPI? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

They can probably just be blocked, given how obvious the case is (though what do I know about blocking socks?) — Qwerfjkltalk 22:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Meh, no need to open an SPI, not at this time. Yes, I can block them, but who knows, maybe they have learned from the first time. I left a message. Thanks, to both of you, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/BreezewoodPA

I think you should reconsider your assessment. Based on the previous SPI, BreezewoodPA's current argument, the claim by BreezewoodPA to having 'alts at the ready' this is pretty obvious to me what's happening here. I've been suspicious of this account for months now and having them admit to using alts to evade bans was pretty much confirmation. Hyderabad22 (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I think that SPI was premature. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Medieval history...

...possibly straying into BLP libel? Revdel maybe? Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm baffled. It starts with such nonsense as "misperceived illegitimate daughter" and goes downhill rapidly. I'll need to reread that to see if it's only absolute lunacy or if there's more. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • And in the other corner, this--someone who writes for the Who's Who, an engineer, a vet--one of the six has a PhD. But they do have royal patronage, with Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia. I can't read the article, but all this doesn't inspire much confidence, and the author is an amateur. But revdel, yes. Thanks Johnbod. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Brad Verity is just a blogger. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Isabelle Belato

Hello, Drmies,

Some more oversight needed here. I'm not sure if autoconfirmed protection is enough as the latest vandal waited 4 days before they vandalized. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

3RR violation Cold Mountain (North Carolina)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnvr4 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Divya Dwivedi

This article came to my attention because it was incorrectly speedy tagged. I wish it hadn't. The article itself could use a lot of work, but my main difficulty is a new editor who has been making problematic edits to the article. I stopped battling with the user as I didn't want to come close to violating 3RR. I was hoping another user, who originally challenged the user as well, would assist, but they seem to have dropped out. I left the user two warnings, one for 3RR and one for a COI, but that hasn't stopped them. I just followed up the COI warning with a more personalized warning. Anyway, Dwivedi is a professor, and you are responsible for the maintenance of all articles about academics on Wikipedia. So, if you're around this weekend and feel like looking at the article, that would be lovely. As an aside, you pinged me to the Talk page of a sock you blocked a day or two ago (everything blurs), and I didn't get your reference to hounding.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, that one--their first edit was to some article right after I edited it, and they went on to edit a bunch of obscure Alabama politicians articles. It was a sock of someone you blocked. I'll have a look. Hope you're having a good weekend, Bbb. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• So far, so bad - hope yours is better.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Disregard. Johnvr4 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm that doesn't sound much like an apology, Johnvr4. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  No it doesn’t. I interpreted a rule incorrectly, in my view, much like you’ve done. I withdrew my concern. But the results of your poor editing choice(s) in this particular instance are still problematic. You were asked to fix what you broke. I can’t make you do anything but you are kindly requested to. I posted a link to our content discussion that you deleted to the article talk page in case you didn’t catch that mention. It was relevant to the ongoing discussion there and you should consider moving it. I would like to apologize for my over-the-top Ben Stiller comment. It was uncalled for and in poor taste and I would like to remove that if you do happen to restore it. I went to delete it myself and also strike out all the 3rr stuff when I found you nixed the topic. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

MTV Splitsvilla 13

Kindly do not remove the informations again what you have done numerous times on the page of MTV Splitsvilla (season 13). The informations currently removed are relatable to the show & they are much informative. Ems 27 03 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked socks

Hello, Jasper Tomlins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mailballs 9900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are both, based on edit summaries and targetting articles I have edited, Evlekis, so would you please remove TPA and email access? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• I see Acroterion took care of it--thanks. That got out of hand quickly: how pathetic. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Jose Glover

Hi hope you're well, I started this on Dutch Wikipedia and somebody has a problem with it and wants it reviewed. I don't know if my translation is good or if there are any issues, but it makes me less likely to want to create articles on there. There's nothing wrong with it as a start, given that I couldn't find an abundance of bio info to write sections. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not the best person to ask, not anymore--my Dutch is totally US-Anglicized. I think you did a pretty nice job (and of course it's much better verified than the average article there). I made a few very minor tweaks, and I'm sure a better writer of Dutch could find some other things to improve, but I left a note saying that I think the translation is fine. Thanks for the note: hope you are well! Drmies (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Bedankt daarvoor! Ik begon hem in een aantal verschillende talen omdat ik dacht dat het een van die traditionele artikelen was die we moesten hebben. Het is een goede oefening om artikelen uit het Engels te vertalen en te lezen/vergelijken, al is het veel werk als je er meerdere doet! Ik denk dat de Nederlandse Wikipedia het artikel beter heeft dan niet, ook al zijn er kleine problemen. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Dr. Blofeld: Since I happened to stumble across this I thought I'd add that aneditor on the Dutch Wikipedia has added some interesting, and apparently well sourced, bits about the widow, the printing press and Harvard to the article there, info that ought to be added here too. Info that I of course could add myself but would rather have someone else do, since I'd hate to see a certain LTA mess up that article too... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"Elizabeth Harris remarried in 1641 to Henry Dunster, Harvard's first president. After her death, the printing press was donated to Harvard, beginning the Harvard University Press" it says. That is interesting. It was unbelievable to me that this article was missing on all the wikipedias. Perhaps it was because he died before it was set up so isn't remembered in the way he should be. He has an entry in the final Columbia Enyclopedia 6th Edition though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16)

Hello. Please block User: Ems 27 03 from editing Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16) also as he/she doing persistent disruptive edits and has been warned several times on talk page or edit summaries or articles talk page. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Imsaneikigai, I'm leaning that way, and I saw your warning, but what I really need to see is a specific example of a specific thing they did wrong/against consensus/etc. Put that on their talk page, with a diff, and I can consider that--but it will also give them a chance to respond and that's only fair. I will add that their response, or an absence of it, can be a factor too. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Actually he/she violated WP:NOT and started predicting the future. Again and again edited a contestant’s status to eliminated even before the episode was shot. He/she also edited according to their whims and fancies.

Here are some of his disruptive edits: 1) [47] 2)[48]

Several warning by me: 1) [49] 2) [50] 3) [51]

So what you suggest shall i post this on his talk page too? Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, that is where I want you to post that. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok. I have posted on his talk page. Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    • There's two diffs there (to mobile? not easy to see) to unexplained and unverified entries. That's something, but I'm not going to block them from that article just for that. Your warnings aren't all that helpful, sorry. If they're edit warring, for instance, that's something, and that's why I blocked them from that other article. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Freetown, Alabama

On 12 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Freetown, Alabama, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Freetown, Alabama, was founded by free and formerly enslaved African Americans in Alabama, whose church, built in 1929, burned down in 2022? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Freetown, Alabama. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Freetown, Alabama), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,773 views (481.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

An important article. Thank you. Urve (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Urve--I appreciate that. I wish I had a photo. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

October songs

thank you, better late than never - a tree for you - TFA Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, third time went well --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I probably should have asked sooner if you could help to translations from nl in three cases for Ella van Poucke? - Your edit notice looks like inspired by Pierre Soulages, - an article I struggle with for two days now. Nobody there speaking French? Knowing about 20th-century art?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

... followed by the new hall where she played - I always like to see my pics on the Main page, - then the mezzo of our Verdi concert, finally don't miss Hannah Pick-Goslar, - met a cat today, pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

leaving the month with reformation and a cat treat (same cat) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

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

Administrator changes

• 
  • Isabelle Belato
  • Whpq
• 
• 
  • Atama
  • Astronautics~enwiki
  • Athaenara
  • Eddie891
  • GraemeL
  • Marianocecowski
  • Natalya
  • Pratyeka
  • SB Johnny

Interface administrator changes

• TheresNoTime
• Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

• 
  • Blablubbs
  • Firefly
• Joe Roe

Oversight changes

• DGG

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

RS Noticeboard

Good afternoon sir, I was wondering if you would comment in this discussion because there are three users who are friends that are literally attempting to deprecate a source that is recommended as reliable on the library websites of Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, Yale, Princeton etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Association_of_Religion_Data_Archives_and_World_Religion_Database Foorgood (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, your behavior in that discussion is terrible. JBL (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Their agenda driven behavior is more ridiculous- conducting original research with no reputable source supporting their position while all the top Universities recommend the source as reliable.Foorgood (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

How quickly you jump from disagreement to "agenda driven behavior". Drmies (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

AEOs literal argument has something to do with "because the predecessor to World Religion Database was a Christian, it is therefore deprecated." If someone showed me the Top Universities in the world recommending a source as reliable and yet I still argued against them based of my personal opinion, I would be rejected as agenda driven as anyone should be.Foorgood (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you think repeating the same terrible behavior here will improve things? --JBL (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"AEOs literal argument has something to do with..." is such a gross misrepresentation that I'm wondering about your aptitude for working in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I've done a rangeblock in your neck of the woods ...

... On 207.157.0.0/17 ... after reviewing over a school-years' worth of contribs on that range, which is registered to the Alabama Supercomputer Network (with a very unhelpful redirect that I nominated for deletion), I've concluded that they're absolutely not a net positive here. There do seem to be some occasional good eggs in there so I left account creation on just in case. You (or anyone else who reads this) might also want to put Danville, Alabama on your watchlist ... I rarely have to revert two years of edits to an article but that's what I ended up doing there. I trust you're going well. Graham87 14:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've heard that term before in a similar context. Thanks for letting me know. My wife wants us to move up to the northern part of the state, BTW; it's really pretty up there, at least closer to Huntsville. Danville? Dave Albritton--never heard of him, but he was on the same Olympic squad as Jesse Owens, who was born not far from Danville. We used to drive through Moulton, the closest town to Danville and Oakville, on our way to Mississippi. There's a statue for Owens there and I think they named that part of Alabama SR 157. There's a great little barbecue place. So both Albritton and Owens left for Ohio. When you drive through that area, and you think back to the 1920s or so, it's pretty easy to see why. Take care Graham, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wow, all interesting, and now you've gotten me reading about the Great Migration ... the stats there are kinda amazing. Ah, Huntsville, Jimbo's birthplace! And on looking through Wikivoyage I found out that Danville isn't too far (relatively speaking) from Tuscumbia, the birthplace of Helen Keller. What were you referring to re your first sentence? Graham87 15:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh, I mean "Alabama Supercomputer Network", but that was years ago that it came up on Wikipedia. Yes, the Great Migration--and there's a smaller migration back down. So many (Black) people I teach come back down here to go to school, and they all have family here. I've also chatted with some older people, who've told me all kinds of stories--including about leaving and coming back decades later, and re-establishing themselves on their family's land, to live and grow a garden. I read Isabel Wilkerson's book a while ago; here is a link to a recent bit on NPR. Yes, it's a fascinating story and, by the way, I think it explains a lot of hip hop and the language of rappers ("y'all") in the US. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Graham, guess what. Went to the curb market this morning, got eggs and boiled peanuts from Mrs. McCord, and chatted up her neighbor, who sells jewelry and was walking around shamelessly in an Auburn outfit. I had to take issue with that; I always wear an Alabama shirt at the market in case anyone gets ideas. Turns out she was from Brooklyn, but her family had over a hundred acres of land down here, just north of Montgomery, so at some point she came back down south and now lives on that land. Her grandmother had a big garden as well. In other words, her family exhibited/participated in all the swings north and south of that migration. They have their family reunions in Brooklyn, Alabama, and Seattle--there's all kinds of meaning in those locations. (Also at the market: two kinds of homegrown persimmons, Satsumas, and croissants. Saturdays are good days here.) Drmies (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
        • Wow, sounds amazing! Graham87 01:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
        • Doc, I hope you are making persimmon pudding or pie. (Did we have this conversation before?) Yankees and other clueless people do not even know what a proper persimmon is -- they apparently think those giant Japanese monstrosities are persimmons. Hell, a possum has more sense than that. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure, Softlavender. The lady had two kinds--a rounder one and a flatter one, and apparently they were two different types. We ate one. I can't remember which. It was tasty. If you have a recipe, share it, and I'll see if she has more next week. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
            • I don't have a recipe for persimmon pudding on hand (my cousins in Greensboro would but I haven't been in touch with them for ages), and I haven't lived in the South for 40 years. Anyway, I found what looks like a good old-fashioned recipe complete with story [52], or you can choose any of these that come up on Google [53]. Or your vendor may have a favorite recipe. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
              • (Just dropping in): There's a convo on this talk page that briefly mentions persimmon pudding here. Graham87 07:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
                • Yup, that's what I was referring to and remembering, Graham. BTW, I quite enjoyed reading the story accompanying the recipe I posted above [54], and the fact that it is from the same Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point metropolitan area as my comments Graham posted, and the story mentions Southeastern U.S. as persimmon territory, makes me wonder if persimmons are not as known and loved as far west as Alabama. Also BTW, growing up in the South Carolina Piedmont my family had an old persimmon tree off to the side of our house, but it just sat there forlorn and ignored. No one ate the persimmons, and upon the rare occasion I picked one it was usually mouth-puckeringly astringent. That recipe article explains why. Anyway, our family always experienced the exquisite delight of persimmon pudding every Thanksgiving, at my grandmother's/cousins' in Greensboro. One last comment: There is a delightful old book Persimmon Jim, The Possum by Joseph Wharton Lippincott that I and many others loved as a child. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Castilloaivee

Hello @Drmies! It me, Allyriana000 again. I have a problem with the user Castilloaivee. This user makes erroneous mistakes always, especially against beauty queens from the Philippines and Thailand. For example, this user frequently replaces Catriona Gray with Donnalyn Bartolome at the pages of Miss Universe 2018, Miss Universe 2019, Gazini Ganados, Philippines at the Big Four international beauty pageants, etc. And Pia Wurtzbach, Miss Universe 2015 with Ariadna Gutierrez as Miss Universe 2015 in Binibining Pilipinas 2015, Miss Universe 2015 etc. These erroneous edits are considered as an act of vandalism and these types of edits go back to as early as 2018.

I also have a problem with De Boni 2007. This user, when editing, always creates complex sentences, and sentences with wrong grammar. I do not know if it is an act of vandalism or not. However, I wish you could give a keen eye with these users. Thank you and godspeed! Allyriana000 (talk) 09:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• OK--Castillo and four others are now blocked. Their edits are really similar so it's easy to spot; CheckUser confirmed that they are likely versions of User:Rachellegeneroso, so next time you can simply file a WP:SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)