Jump to content

User talk:Drmies/Archive 138

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140→Archive 145

Well

I appreciate your policing of my talk-page. Without wanting to drum up too much drama: I observed that the next step in the ridiculous sequence of events was the creation of a borderline Wikipedia:Attack page with me as sole target (borderline because it articulates a reason to exist independent from the PA). If you happen to enjoy dealing with tantrums, maybe you could have a look? (If not, I'll live with it.) --JBL (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC) P.S. I am not really a sportsball fan, but a lot of UM alums in my family are quite excited at the moment; so good luck to you & them on Saturday.

  • Oh, you mean User:Buffs/disallowed? Yeah, that's not much of an attack page, though its creation is obviously pointy. But I'd just leave it be--the editor doesn't seem to know how to act when in a hole, and didn't seem to appreciate that that's exactly why I closed the ANI thread. No, you don't need that in your life and neither do I. It's going to be hard enough already to get the running game going on Saturday. And I need to do laundry--I need a clean lucky Alabama shirt for every quarter, so I can change quickly in case things go south. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I feel like I'm gonna need more than four lucky shirts to make it to the end of the semester, personally, and that doesn't even involve making it past any UGA linebackers .... Anyhow, thanks for your advice, I'll let it go. --JBL (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Hey, it's a red link now. Interesting. Yeah, the end of the semester--need to post a final, need to finish two classes worth of term papers, grade a bunch of exams, get my syllabi ready for next semester...good luck to all of us! Drmies (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Aha, HighInBC agreed with you! Good, I stand corrected. Thanks Chillum! (Got your two shots--no booster yet? Maybe you're a youngen! Mine was delicious.) Drmies (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Hope to get my booster once it is my turn. I had a brief discussion with a couple of other admins about that page and we all agreed it was a shitlist. I suppose it could have been taken to MfD but I feel that would have just been more drama. I don't think the user needs another discussion about them just now. While not much of an attack page, it was enough of one for me just to delete it. At the time I was not aware of the discussion here, nor was I contacted about it. I noticed it myself. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you take a look at a promotional account?

User:Niranjanpansari started an article on their own company, has been inserting links to it in other articles, has been brought up at WP:COIN, and isn't communicating. I reported them as a promotion only account on AIV, but it got removed as stale. I'd appreciate if you, or an admin TPS could take a quick peek. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sock?

Although they intersect on only one article, I think it's likely that O'NeilFreeDumb97 is a sock of Nvtuil. It's also clear that O'Neill also edits logged out with Special:contributions/49.181.53.114. Without technical confirmation, though, the behavioral similarities are not compelling enough for me to block. Up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23: I still have some uses :). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
My god, Tony, and you did all the paperwork, too! What should I do about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inloggat? Delete it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm on a roll today: G5'd. If someone else who isn't a sock wants to make the case, they can file it on their own. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I think I said a bad word on the master's talk page--I apologize. You may have been on a roll, Tony, but we all know who was on a roll today: Bryce Young. And I know for a FACT that Bbb couldn't tear himself away from the SEC Championship game. Also, thank you all. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I was right

I told you we'd take care of Georgia for you. UGA was worn out by all that running up and down the field last week against Georgia Tech. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Ha, yes, I'm sure that's what it was. Then again, that 350-pound defender can only be in for two plays at a time, right? I have to say, Acroterion, that Nick Saban indeed totally got his shit together again. And that dog is ugly. But thanks--it was quite a game, and for a long time it could have gone either way. That Bryce Young though, I've never seen a quarterback so cool under that kind of pressure. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it was more a matter of Alabama overcoming Georgia in both directions than a lack of effort on Georgia's part - they just got outplayed. I thought it would be a lot closer. Acroterion (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI close

Saw that you were active, and WP:ANI#Continued disruption by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C appears to be a slam dunk case at this point. Would you mind reviewing/closing? Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I tried! Enjoy Ertugrul time! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the block, but I think it needs to be longer than one week. This user with a different [IP range] was previously blocked for three months. I'd ask that you consider making it six months or permanent.—JlACEer (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
JlACEer, looks like Cullen328 actually applied the block. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
That's strange. I could have sworn that last night it said blocked for one week by Drmies. That's how I found this talk page.—JlACEer (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
No, yes, no, I blocked /64 range (this one, and that doesn't show up on any talk page. This shows that Ohnoitsjamie blocked a bigger range. I know, it's irritating not to see that reflected on a talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

POVs and Coatracks

I saw your comment here. I definitely don't agree with edit warring. But there is a serious problem of making articles about certain ethnic groups into WP:COATRACKs that demonize said ethnic groups. For example, there was a recent RfC at how much weight to give the "terrorism" section at Islam in Finland. I did a survey of sources and argued that coverage of that should be reduced from 25% of the article (current situation) to about 5-10% - meaning we mention that some Finnish Muslims are terrorists without letting it dominate the article. Unfortunately that discussion was bludgeoned with long, meandering comments that went nowhere. Posting this at WP:NPOVN also didn't yield any external input. Attempts to reduce the size lead to accusations of censorship at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. A slightly older discussion about undue weight regarding Norwegian Muslims also went nowehere (the opposed incredulously doubted the utility of scholarly sources in determining weight because they opined that universities were practicing "self-censorship"). I agree edit-warring is not the way. But at this point discussion has also been exhausted. This is not just limited to one article, but there is a pattern to it across multiple articles relating to minorities in Europe.VR talk 17:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Can't look into all of that now, obviously, since Tide rolls and I are way too tense, what with Georgia and all that. But there was an editor who did that kind of stuff, from Sweden? doing that stuff--I remember they kept fighting to remove some Somali or Ethiopian journalist, and maybe a long distance runner, from the "Notable..." lists. If you could find who that is, and what happened to them, maybe we can get somewhere. But the general point that you make is of course more important, and when I can I'll have a look at those links. Thanks for pointing them out, and for your attentiveness to this issue: Wikipedia is easily abused. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    • This is the discussion you're referring to and yes its the exact same user across those articles. But I want to add tht lack of clarity around what DUE weight means is half the issue (tendentious editing being the other half).VR talk 01:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Shoot, that was the same guy?? God my memory is really failing me. That user needs to be topic-banned from ALL this material. Yes, I agree: there needs to be clarity across the board. And RfC on a project page could help do that. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Vice regent, I pinged you twice already today--I strongly recommend that you make a note/diff of those discussions (one of which follows on things you discussed with them) to compile a file, and I think you have some material already. This has gone on long enough, and there's actually a staggering amount of incompetence for a user who likes to throw alphabet soup around (this was pretty basic). The alandsnyheter thing shows an incompetence or unwillingness to understand what reliable and unbiased sources are; both are damning. If I hadn't edited those article I'd block them on the spot for POV editing, but what we really need is a community-issued topic ban. Arbitration isn't really helpful here, since the BLP arbitration case is the only one that touches on some of their edits; there has been no arbitration case on islamophobia and alt-right editing with BLP violations. But a NOTHERE block is by now also appropriate, I think. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

History merge for Sarah Louisa Forten Purvis

Hi! I was hoping you would actually be able to help me with the history merge for Sarah Louisa Forten Purvis’ biography page that you had been discussing with me yesterday. I was told I could do a bunch of small copy edits onto the current page to preserve the history of it. But I was wondering if there was a better way to accomplish this via a “history merge.” I will be moving my work to the live version in 2 days time. I still have some editing to do on my draft before I integrate it. So, I was wondering if you could give me the resources to learn how to do that, it would be much appreciated. EmilyMeeds (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Petecover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Petecover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Quidster4040

Hello, Drmies,

I saw that you put a checkuser block on this editor but there was no linked SPI case so I couldn't look into the details of the situation. However, they have a doppelganger account, Quiddy4040, that has been recently editing their user pages that might have been overlooked when the original blocks were imposed. Just stumbled upon this and thought some checkuser should know if you all weren't aware of it. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A birthday present barnstar for you!

The birthday present barnstar
A birthday present, sent by me (check my userpage.) Congrats! Severestorm28 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI

FYI - regarding your recent nominations of Jack Johnson tour articles and the "keep" voters, I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biggles325... this should give some more background. There's too much similarity in their editing patterns to be coincidence. Richard3120 (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I totally understand that there is no point in blocking stale accounts. I merely added them for context, and to show that both of them, as well as the previously blocked socks, edit the same subjects as the current pair of accounts you just blocked, as evidence that there was interaction among all of them. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Right--well, let's see what the next admin will do on that SPI. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Odd new account

Drmies, would you mind taking a peak at this editor [1]. The edits on Dec 8th (and other days) strike me as odd. It's like someone had a whole bunch of edits all lined up and ready to fire off. Their first say of editing was Dec 4th. On the 5th they made 26 edits to 26 articles. Many were in very rapid succession and in three blocks of time over the day. You can see the same thing on the 8th. It looks like they had been given a list of things to change and were able to just type and move on. This doesn't strike me as a sock so much as a paid editor being given a list of changes to make. Anyway, I thought you might have a better idea. Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked as a sock. I think there's something to be said for a mass rollback of their edits (and any that remain from the master). --JBL (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
JayBeeEll, Who is the master account? Springee (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@Springee: Bbb23 tagged them as a sock of User:Mrtarkin. (I dunno if a CU was involved, but the editing style was certainly identical.) --JBL (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Paul Erik, you're on this, I see--thank you for cleaning up. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
OK Springee, JBL, there is a little bit of excitement, and more homework in removing their POV material: User:Elkridge, User:Holdonlosely, User:Rhett & Link are also part of the scheme. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Putting aside my curiosity as to how you were able to confirm Elkridge, shouldn't that account be the master? It's by far the oldest.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, whoever is the oldest is not a matter that I'm really occupied with. I just check and axe, and the SPI clerks are much better at tagging and moving and renaming than I am. I see what you mean, but I was checking "users", not "edits", and I didn't feel like opening up another screen to see the individual attempts--I assume they tried to log in or something like that. I will say I was somewhat surprised at the number of accounts. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
But unless you file an SPI, the clerks won't be able to retag. Any objection to my doing so?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Just a general question, was this thread helpful? Is this the best way to point out a suspicious account? This is rather typical in that the behavior looked illegitimate but without naming associated accounts I think this would have been a failed SPI filing. What's the best way to handle an account like this in the future? Springee (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
An SPI is always the best way to go, I believe. I know the SPI clerks have a ton of work with the many cases, but having that paperwork makes everything easier in the long run. Or do you mean if you don't know who the master might be? That's more tricky--I think in this case the best way to go is to ask Bbb!! Drmies (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I was thinking of a case where I don't know the associated accounts but the behavior is clearly suspect. I'll ping Bbb in the future. Springee (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Bbb knows everything. You should ping him all the time. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Kristen DiMera

Hey! I hope you're well. On Kristen DiMera, I saw you remove a sentence about the character appearing on a spin-off movie as you said that it was trivia. I have restored it as I do not believe that it is trivial at all - character pages are meant to talk about casting and what shows/movies/spinoffs the character appears in - that is the whole point of character pages! I wouldn't say it is trivial at all, I would say that it is simply real world information. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Character pages, like all encyclopedic articles, are supposed to present relevant and well-sourced information. I know that character pages frequently become a trash can for trivia, factoids, plot lines, original research, speculation, and such, and that's what is happening with that page too. It should be on Wikia, not here. 2/3 of that huge article is plot, and the sourcing is poor. Your addition had no source at all. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for the mess on my talk page. I've been dealing with SPAs trying to edit war in unsourced caste info for an Indian soldier bio I did a GA review for several years ago. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Oh, don't apologize--I figured there was something that prompted those posts, which initially seemed just weird but at second glance appeared more like disparate elements in some conflict. Is there history? Is this really old history? Drmies (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Request

Is this kind of stuff acceptable (in light of WP:ADMINSHOP)? Or am I the one being the dumbass here (the problem I've noticed might also be a bit too complicated to solve for the time it will take. Anyway)? For context: this discussion (which has unhelpfully been blanked on that talk page, which was probably the most appropriate place to discuss this issue); and this other one. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I'd never call a Canadian a dumbass--I have too much respect for Canadians. It was Kelapstick who taught me how to grill, and he gave my kids millions of bells out of the kindness of his heart. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh I remember Ian Hislop--from way back when, when I still lived in the Old World. Funny. I don't know, RandomC, what to tell you. Mathsci does have a penchant for calling in the troops, but as with so many cases that approach canvassing, I wonder about its effectiveness, and I think User:Johnuniq is a pretty levelheaded person who will act fairly--if they feel the need to act at all. Responding economically is probably the best thing to do. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll do you a deal. I'll be level headed if you can host the two of them here. OMG. @RC: It's a category! Don't sweat about it. Yes, it's inappropriate to raise it at my talk but it's a big world full of different people and when they ultimately are a benefit to the encyclopedia it's best to overlook minor provocations. One of you will have to show the maturity to move on and I think it will have to be you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you Johnuniq. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Yep, patience finally run out, John was right, I have to move on to something else (plus, now Mathsci has started stalking my edits, so I'm effectively better off staying as far as possible, or at the very least taking a short break). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
          • There's too much WP:ESSJAY-ness here (2007!). On Talk:Napoleon, I mentioned the Bonaparte family and placed two of them on my watchlist. I explained the problem with two categories (folks from Ajaccio & La Corse). They exhorted me to WP:FIXIT. Having forgotten that entirely, they now "believe" I'm stalking them. They have come here admin-shopping. They wrote[2] I have muted you, to prevent any further excess. Returning to reality and 2021, I'd forgotten that ESSJAY was from Kentucky, which has it's own awful problems ... Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Thanks for the advice. Hopefully this does get less (and not more) tense. Anyway, I have end-of-term papers that really need completing (deadline's two weeks from now, and I don't particularly like the stereotype of doing stuff at the last minute), and I haven't been particularly productive today, so off I go to write about Dieterich Buxtehude, the place of music in 17th-century North Germany, and this piece. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah that would be stereotypical. Good luck with it. I fondly remember writing papers for classes--in hindsight it looks like fun. There was a North German organ tradition? Drmies (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

My mistake on that revert then. It looked to be blanking. Thanks! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 18:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick question

I have a quick question for you and your talk page watchers. Would it be vandalism if I were to replace the entirety of the 6000+ word Optimus Prime#Animated character biography with He is a big truck guy, who sometimes is just a big talking truck. He is one of the good guys.? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Maybe going that far would be a little bit too much? But yeah, this is Wikipedia, not "Optimus Prime fansite", feel free to trim a fair bit of it (there are, after all, some [few] sources in that...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, I deleted a bunch of crap, and the article is still a bloated morass, but at least I gave it the old college try. I imagine the edits will be reverted within a week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
OK that would count as vandalism, I suppose, but that monster edit you made, I'm perfectly fine with that. If that kind of material were deleted from all those articles, we'd save enough money on electricity to power GorillaWarfare's Bitcoin operations. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
On a related note, I'm selling an NFT of that edit, payment in the cryptocurrency of your choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
So I can't ever turn my PC off? We mine day and night? Drmies (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
You solve sixteen blocks, and what do you get? Another day older, and you're deeper in debt. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I tell you what, I blocked a lot more than I unblocked. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

ODNB for Sir John Hunt

Hi Drmies – could you drop me a Wikipedia email with your email address so I can email you with the attachment I've just downloaded. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 03:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If I am reading the room correctly, I belive it is in relation to [3]. He didn't notify you so I am NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 03:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"leech" vandalism on IXFORM

They are back with two new accounts after the protection expired. Maybe a longer protection is required. EN-Jungwon 13:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Country comparisons

Hundreds of editors have worked on the "country comparison" charts. (I have not myself done much work on any of them) Instead of erasing them you should raise your concerns on the appropriate talk page and allow these editors to have a voice in an important matter. You seem to have a bias against ALL of them, linering for under three seconds to make your decision as to their value. Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI...

FYI. -- Valjean (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of these two edits?

You've edit the article. It's these[4] which no longer seem to match the article content. Typical of the editor. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

2601:282:1781:DC70:0:0:0:6A78

I reverted a bad edit by Special:Contributions/2601:282:1781:DC70:0:0:0:6A78 at Noose just now and noticed they have been partially rangeblocked by you so I'll bring this to your attention. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

IP sock?

Hello Drmies. While I admit that you and I have had good interactions in the past, I wanted your opinion on this as a check-user and someone who has a blocked a previous confirmed sock of this user. The user in question is G.-M._Cupertino. Back in October, you blocked the IP range 2001:818:d900::/41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock of this user. Recently, 79.169.252.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making similar edits on similar articles. Specifically, they both change the date of birth and death on recently deceased people from mdy to dmy dates, then also change Japan to a link to Empire of Japan, or other countries with people not from Japan. Next is one diff of this from each IP but there are more instances of this in the history; 79 IP, 2001 IP. I personally think this is a case of WP:DUCK, however, I admit that this isn't something I have much experience in; you have much more experience in this than I do, so I would like your opinion on this. Link20XX (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Link20XX, please note that the block on that range wasn't a CU block, and was based made on evidence and behavior outlined in the SPI. Same here--CU is probably useless, and I couldn't talk about it anyway. But the DUCK thing seems evident to me, and they've been using that IP for quite a while--so I blocked it for quite a while. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts?

We seem to be going around in circles at Talk:Krishnamurti's Notebook; any ideas on the best way forward? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Songs of the season

Holiday cheer
Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 D. MarnetteD|Talk 02:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Protection on Massinissa Akandouch

Is the text He belongs to the Ibuqquyen tribal group of the Rif Tribes in any of the revdel'd stuff from the edit warring before protection? I'd like to know, so if I see that popping up in edit requests there, I can just remove it. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't know. I mean, if it's unferenced it's obviously a BLP violation, but I don't know if there's any kind of stigma, for instance, attached to that designation in this context. There's lots of problems in the history, including in this edit--Tamazight, Amazigh, Berber (see the sixth paragraph in the lead of Berber languages) is a complication, but to say that "Amazigh" is not neutral is wrong, in my opinion. And the article as a whole strikes me as inflated; on the talk page there's one accusation of COI editing. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

User:JTommyZ

Why am I not surprised to see that notice on their User page? Thanks for dealing with that, they seemed intent on disrupting any productive dialogue between myself and Jellylovers. Mako001 (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Drmies: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

User:MaghrebiPatriot

I was actually writing an SPI report as you blocked them, thanks so much for blocking the socks. InvalidOStalk 16:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ICookie

Hi, did you mean to thank User:zzuuzz instead of User:Zzuzz on ANI? Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks/You're welcome. We communicate telepathically anyway. While I'm here (@SVTCobra:), anyone can quote me when I say I wouldn't bother with an SPI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Thanks, I didn't intend to unless something else happens. --SVTCobra 20:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, I sent you an e-mail. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Drmies

Hi Drmies, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and healthy New Year,
Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,
   –Davey2010Talk 17:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Share similar holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Davey2010/MerryChristmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas!

Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Christmas!

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Nightscream (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas and/or a Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Nightscream (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wishes

Hello Drmies, I wish you and your family a merry christmas and a healthy and happy new year 2022. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!!

Hello Drmies, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. 

scope_creepTalk 02:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Drmies, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays Drmies, and happy new year! DirkJandeGeer (щи) 23:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Drmies! I just wanted to thank you for all you do for Wikipedia, and especially for your help at BLPN; that all-important policy that protects both our subjects and our readers. I'm always glad to read your comments. I wish you a happy holiday season, and may the coming year bring great happiness and good fortune. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is safe, festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2022 will be safe, healthy, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A somewhat premature New Year's greeting


John Vanderlyn, Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos (c.1812),
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts 		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2022.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.
BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Moral lesson: John Vanderlyn was an American painter who studied in Paris, and his life-sized
Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos was one of the first large nudes exhibited in the United States.
Peddling the poison as well as the cure, this overtly sensuous work was presented to the public as a
moral lesson on the consequences of lascivious behavior. Visible in the distance is the ship of
Princess Ariadne's secret lover, Theseus, for whom she has betrayed her people by helping him to
escape the Labyrinth and slay the Minotaur. Ariadne's bliss will come to an end when she awakens
from her post-coital reverie, only to discover that the faithless Theseus has sailed away without her.

User:106412AB562533

Their contributions seem very similar to User:FCKLDP who you CU blocked a few weeks ago. Happy holidays, Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Go Nonaka

Can I have any pointers to help improve the page 'Go Nonaka' and restore it from deletion? Thanks Djt333 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Sure. First of all, you need more text than "‘‘’Go Nonaka’’’ (born 22 July 1964) is a Japanese film maker and director. His main focus is directing documentary films featuring people with physical and mental disabilities. In 1996 he founded the film production company ‘’’Landscape Co. ltd.’’’." And that text needs to indicate why this person is important. And then you need to have secondary sources in there that verify the information in the text--a link to the production company doesn't help (it's really no more than a kind of spam link), and a link to the IMDB doesn't help either--it's not accepted as a reliable secondary source. So find books and articles and reviews. Something similar applies to Hilde Holger: School of Contemporary Dance, which Donaldd23 correctly tagged for deletion: you need secondary sources. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2022

Happy New Year Drmies I hope you have a great 2022 and lets hope things go great. S201050066 — Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Happy New Year, Drmies!

Happy New Year!

Drmies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

DYK nomination of Peter Hackett (mountaineer)

Hello! Your submission of Peter Hackett (mountaineer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:The Anome/Archive 14#Hey

FYI. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beowulf: Prince of the Geats

Notice

The article Beowulf: Prince of the Geats has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the block on 'Eris Hayley'

You zapped him/her right as I was saving a reply on my user TP back to him, so it didn't go thru - but this person 'sounded' like he did know Wiki jargon somewhat - do you suspect he is a sock of a banned user who was out to vandalize pages? HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi - hope you are well and all the best for 2022! Working within parameters is a great idea - thanks for the idea. And the icing on the cake, is that over Christmas I managed to find both of Ministry's live albums in my CD collection. So What indeed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note. Happy new year to you too. That's a great find. Me, I found that I bought two copies of two Neil Young CDs, but fortunately I could get send them as birthday presents to a friend. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The Rice Thresher

Thank you for your comment about the changes on The Rice Thresher page. I appreciate the conflict of interest, and I am happy to follow the rules. The bulk of the information put on the site originally was a part of a history project for The Rice Thresher's 100th year anniversary. There is no attempt to advertise; only inform and memorialize the history of the paper, but I understand the COI exists nonetheless. I have read the rules you provided, and I will gladly propose changes in the Talk section. Since I was uninformed on the COI disclosure (my fault), and I am the source of the information on the page now, is there a means to provide that disclosure now that will follow the information going forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presklein (talk • contribs) 23:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Edits on False Protagonist

Your edit on "False Protagonist" was a bit too "throw the baby out with the bathwater" don't you think? Maybe you should have mentioned it in the Talk page of the article first or flagged the section for improvement. I mean the famous examples do in fact need to be mentioned so people can understand the actual concept better, because it's not "Beer"(but actually the Beer article does give "Examples of Beer" in its Varieties section and links to another article "Beer Industry" describing the famous brands too), it's literature. I won't undo your edit, but if you're upset with lack of sourcing it's pretty easy to find good sources yourself. Especially with the famous examples from Psycho and Les Miserables. I would expect it's probably going to be restored later on mate. Colliric (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm not "upset" with anything. Please read my edit summary there, about putting meaningful examples in the text. I don't know that it's "pretty easy" to find sourcing, but I do know that sourcing is the responsibility of the editor who inserts/restores text. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Honda CX series

It's been a long time. But You deleted the Nickname Section of the article. Why?

Asks Harald wehner (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Addendum

YGM. You should probably ask the blocking admin for their opinion, before anything is done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Autism Therapies

If a section needs to be rewritten, could you please help rewrite instead of just deleting it? Thanks Ndwikifixing (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I could, but you know this material better. You want to improve that article? Trim it. It is way too big. Section headings are not MOS compliant. The lead is too long and has too many citations. Hell, the article is too long and has too many citations. There's vague section titles and phrases like "New model" and "As in a 2020 program". There are things that look like opinion but are written as fact ("...is based on oversimplified theories"). In "Other methods" there's one citation that supposedly verifies all of the methods up until that citation, which it doesn't. Can't see the forest for the trees. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to trim the article however I have been trying to go one section at a time and I was not sure what to delete, because people have got mad at me for deleting stuff even when I found it appropriate and said why, so I was adding new information. I don't know what MOS compliant means as I'm still learning the formatting here. Same with "too many citations", literally didn't know that was an issue, so thanks for pointing that out. If you have suggestions on renaming title sections please go ahead, because just saying "bad" isn't that helpful for me to be able to fix it for you. Phrases like "in a 2020 program" refer to the publication date of the source citation and are used to clarify the timing of the program in the study in question. If you could clarify what you mean by "one citation that supposedly verifies all of the methods up until that citation but doesn't" that would be great because I don't understand that comment. And please do not be rude with comments like that about the forest and trees, we're both trying to improve this so really it's unnecessary to say that sort of stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndwikifixing (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Ndwikifixing (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • WP:MOS is our Manual of Style. A set of policy/guidelines about how we do things. When can you can use country flags, when to use color backgrounds, Oxford commas, how to do tables, etc. The MOS is a HUGE area, broken down into many subsections, so it sometimes takes a little effort to get to the right information. Yes, that article needs some trimming, bad. One of the things to keep in mind is the goal here, which is NOT to exhaustively discuss a topic. The goal is to summarize the most important parts, and provide excellent sources so people can research those if they want greater detail. This is why we try to limit examples and being redundant. Being concise is hard work. I'll let you know if I ever master it. But yes, a few paragraphs is all the lede should be, and each key point, or section, the same or less. Otherwise, people stop reading before they get to the part they were looking for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "In a 2020 program" means nothing if the text doesn't explain it; you can't let the footnote explain it. If you were to actually look at the "Other methods" section you would see what I meant. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molotov Cock/Archive

Hi,

You filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molotov Cock/Archive but the contributions have been revdeled, so I cannot check if contributions are similar. It looks like your LTA suspicions on that may be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atac2 where I filed a new instance. -- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship

January songs
in friendship

Thank you for being around! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page, DYK, and even made it to the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Not right

You right it was Donald Trump not RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

One Piece (season 20)

How is the Amazon refs spam when they are only used for the blu-rays & dvds? SpectresWrath (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • What does it matter what they are allegedly used for? There are 35 "references" in that article. 7 through 35 are to Amazon--if you can't see how that, especially given the ratio, is spam, well, then I don't know what to say. And let's see: the first link is to the company website, the second is to Anime News Network which reports every single animated fart, the third is a tweet, the fourth is to ANN, the fifth is to a website that according to their About Us page has really close ties to the industry, and the sixth is to the TV channel that airs the show. Maybe I should add a notability tag to this fan article. Who writes this kind of stuff? Why isn't this on Wikia? Drmies (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Plots in episode lists

When writing plot summaries in episode lists of TV series, do the summaries need to be at least 100 words, or that's just optional? Rattatast (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't know--I don't know what the MOS says about that, but it seems at least reasonable... Drmies (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I see. Well, do you view writing a summary of less 100 words as some sort of a potential copyright issue? I'm aware that some users agree with this paranoia. But as for me, I don't think words in this encyclopedia are copied unless I come across a source with identical text. Rattatast (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
      • No, copyright is an entirely different matter, unless you were talking about copying the plot summary in the first place, and I have seen summaries that read like the blurbs you see in TV guides. Who knows, they might have been copied. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
        • In The Chicken Squad, two summaries were added to the episode list as shown here. But some user removed and called them "copyvio" all because they're under 100 words but does not have any evidence. Sounds unjust. What do you think? Rattatast (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I see no evidence of copyvio. User:BaldiBasicsFan needs to be more careful in their edit summaries/accusations. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
            • I know that some users maybe confused here, but per MOS:TVPLOT, summaries should be about 100-200 words in length. The last summaries written have less than 100 words and felt like they were pasted from another site. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
              • There is nothing confusing here: less is more, first of all, and second, "felt like they were pasted", I don't know what that means. You can either prove something is a copyright violation, or have reasonable evidence, or you don't. And if something is, or is most likely, a copyvio, then that should be marked or reported so we can remove it. Otherwise, what's the point? Drmies (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

WEBHOST

Apologies for stepping on your foot; I was under the mistaken impression that the user restored it to their talk page, didn't realize that you'd done so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking into this situation a bit further, Codywarren08 is a pen name for Gavin Hetherington, and he spent much of his early time on Wikipedia working on his autobiography, Gavin Hetherington and an article on one of his books, Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned. He originally edited under his own name, User:Gavinh2008, but when this fact came up at the first AfD (there were two AfDs) that he might have a COI, he changed to an account with a different name. He used some sockpuppets and did a lot of editing logged out but that was back in 2008 and so that's pretty stale and he was a teenager back then, so.... He's done a little editing not about himself lately but has been mainly focused on documenting his career on his User pages. That's gone now but looking at the entire picture, it might have been predictable but no one noticed until today. I'm sure that today's page deletions came as a shock. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
That may be so, Liz, but I'm losing my patience with this person, who is now an adult but not behaving like one. I hope they copied their stuff. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Abyssal Sanctuary is going to be the name of my death metal band, and Remnants of the Damned will be our first demo. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
[6]. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh my! "Coffin Fodder. It's actually quite beautiful." Geoff | Who, me? 21:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
You may already know this, but in Preferences --> Notifications --> Mute users, you can block pings from tiresome individuals. It's a quite beautiful feature. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Another ANI 2.0 report

​Now in month 16 (I think?) of finding ways to avoid filing ANI reports. Been a couple near misses, and I'm sure my luck will break sooner or later and I'll land in a situation where it's the only suitable venue, but for now hoping I can prevail upon 2.0 once again. Would you or a talkpage watcher mind taking a look at User talk:24.78.140.235 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)? Given how the IP responded to my warning for personal attacks, I'm not sensing a paramount level of HERE-ness. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Hmm I kinda wish Walter Gorlitz would have stopped earlier. That stuff about the IP address is not helpful. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Cullen328, you just dropped a block and I hadn't found the legal threat yet in that way-too long exchange. I was about to block for "retarded little stalker arsehats", and remove talk page access, for 31 hours maybe. Anyway, if you are convinced about the legal threat, consider yanking talk page access, since that's where they uttered them. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Which I would have seconded. Celestina007 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
      • To me, Also, for the record- stalking somebody by using their IP address to intimidate them is illegal, and carries a punishment of 50 years to life in prison. That's why I use an unlisted IP address- to protect myself from lunatic stalkers who may try to hunt me down and kill me for any reason! Where I'm from, it's as easy as counting from 1 to 2! Just figured you should know- in case you have a SWAT team busting down your door for breaking the law! constitutes a legal threat. What do you think? Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Walter Görlitz, sorry, but what were you thinking? How did this get out of hand like this--why did you not just walk away earlier? Drmies (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Pacific Justice Institute

Do you know if we have any guidance about listing "notable cases"? Doug Weller talk 14:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • No Doug, I don't think so. I'm sure there's a few talk page discussions somewhere, though not much for that one. I have edited that one, but I think I've done more work on a similar (conservative) article. Ha, ask Etzedek24 for their opinion. An editor noted for their conservative taste restored that content years ago, but with highly questionable sourcing. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It's likely they're mostly cruft. Needs a good look. I would wager than unless the case itself has an article and the sources mentioned specifically highlight the PJI representation, they're likely not notable. I was much less experienced in policy when I first encountered that article, but I would still stand by my view that the section is undue, badly sourced, and gives free PR to this group. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't know, Etzedek--I want to agree with you on the "have an article part", but that's a bit high. I do agree with the "highlight" part, and I think that means a lot might have to go, yes. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I've always worked on the idea that notability requires having an article, although some would argue that enough reliable sources discussing it would qualify. I know I've seen similar articles where the firm was just one of several involved in a case. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) has an RFC

Hello Drmies,

Given your past involvement in WP:BILATERAL and past interest in bilateral relations at AfD, I wanted to point you towards a RfC that is proposing to change bilateral relations articles from noun form to adjective form. If you'd like to participate, please see the discussion page. Best, Pilaz (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Recreation deleted article

Could you, or one of your talk page watchers with the right glasses take a look at Kutni Island Resort (Khajwa)? It showed up earlier as a creation on my watchlist. I don't remember watchlisting it, but I assume I did because of promotion concerns. Is it similar to the original article? Also, the user that created it is very new, created it with the same title, and their username follows the same format as the original user that created the article twice. Thanks for any help you can offer, and happy new year to you and yours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Vreau să îmi întorc pagina de utilizator, te rog Samizami2308 (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Pagina mea de utilizator

Poți să o reîntorci Samizami2308 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ernie O'Malley

Hello there. Where is the best place to locate material which is written or composed by other people (e.g. films, documentaries and biographies)? Clearly, they can't go into the section called 'Writings', which details what the subject is best known for. And the 'See Also' section has two Wiki links to people (other Irish Republicans of the time) that are barely mentioned, if at all, in this article, and are not that relevant to it! Cheers, Billsmith60 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi. "See also" is for other Wikipedia articles. There are various options here, but the first question I'd ask is, do you have secondary sources that verify that the book, movie, etc. is correct, and that it is worth mentioning? If so, there are various options--"Legacy" if the person is dead, etc. But secondary sources are always first. Actually, what comes first right now is the Alabama game, so I gotta go. Tide rolls will be happy to answer your questions for the next three hours. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi, Bill. A great editor (our present host, Drmies) once schooled me on "see also" additions. My take away was worry about the article content. Don't be distracted by the outliers. Quality, well sourced content is what our readers deserve. Halftime is over so I'm away for the present. Please ask for clarification as needs be. Good to meet ya. Tiderolls 03:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem at all – will do! Thanks to both for the messages. I see the Crimson Tide were well beaten last night, but as a (very) long-suffering Gang Green fan... 09:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19

I think this draft is ready for mainspace, and would like your opinion. I have moved the list to the talk page for now, to develop a specific consensus as to how it should be included. BD2412 T 02:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm a long time talk page watcher of yours. I have to say this is a really distasteful article. It really feels like grave dancing and I can't see how this is an article Wikipedia should produce. My gut feeling is this is likely a BLP violation somewhere. It's wrong when people who don't like AOC laugh that she got COVID. It's wrong when people grave dance on those who died based on their own misinformation. I hope Wikipedia doesn't go down this path. Springee (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The draft as written is about the reporting phenomenon, not the victims, and is actually much more sympathetic to the victims. It could be written with no mention of any specific victims at all, although to me that would seem like a suppression of notable information. BD2412 T 03:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, it this is about the phenomenon, not a list of victims I would feel differently. I can understand if the article is basically required to mention a few (Herman Cain for example) but I think we should deliberately not mention names, certainly no more than absolutely needed to illustrate the point. I don't agree that it would be suppression of information since said information would exists in the individual biographies. I appreciate your considered reply BTW. Springee (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Springee, the problem is really your "to illustrate the point"--Wikipedia articles really shouldn't have a point, beyond the old "is notable because of". I don't like this list, but I don't like any lists. I don't see why this would be problematic. I think BD2412 pinged me because I added one anti-vaxxer to the list, but that's really nothing more than "this person's death of cause X was noteworthy because they said ...". Drmies (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
While objections to an article's tone (for example because it doesn't duplicate the tone of the sources, as required by NPOV) would be a legitimate objection, I'm shocked and concerned that an objection to the very existence of the article (on a very notable topic based on potentially myriad very RS) has been uttered by anyone but a newbie. We are fucking REQUIRED to do this. Jimbo's marching orders are clear and legitimate. We write about ALL human knowledge that is found in RS, with very few exceptions, and this isn't one of them. User:BD2412 should be commended. -- Valjean (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that very much depends on how the article is handled. My concern was that this would be simply a list of people. That looks too much like grave dancing for me. However, BD2412 said the article was about the phenomena of other sources compiling these lists. That is different. Regardless, we need to be careful since, even though these people may have been wrong in the end (and it is not certain in all cases that their views directly resulted in their deaths), BLP still applies to basically all of them. Also, we are never required to create an article. Springee (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
We agree on everything but your last sentence. If a subject is notable enough for an article, then someone should start it, regardless of whether it's a tasty subject or not. If it's not notable enough for an article, then try to include mention in an article. There are of course exceptions to every rule, but our goal is to document the sum of ALL human knowledge. Wikipedia is unlike any other encyclopedia. We are the Internet Archive of all knowledge. -- Valjean (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The concept of gravedancing on Wikipedia usually refers to unfriendly remarks dropped on the talk pages of controversial blocked or banned editors. This is not an example of that. Although I agree that this metaphor might be extended to articles, in this case, the specific topic seems to be one already widely reported about in reliable sources. And one does not need a crystal ball to conclude that this topic will certainly receive coverage in indisputably secondary reliable sources, such as books published by university presses in years to come. This pandemic, is of course, of world historic importance. Of course, all of this content should be written neutrally, and avoid "rubbing it in" for the purpose of embarrassing friends and relatives. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just want to say, to be clear, that I understand the objection to a raw list of people who opposed vaccination and then died of Covid; is such a list really helpful to readers outside of some context? Probably not, and there have been several such lists deleted. In the course of researching further into that question, however, I found that the phenomenon of other people making such lists (some with an utter lack of taste) was something that was being documented in sources. That is what I have aimed to cover in a draft. BD2412 T 05:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: Now moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Per discussion on the article talk page, I have removed the names of victims from the text of the article, and replaced them with descriptors based on age, occupation, and activities of the victims in question. BD2412 T 01:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Haven't read it, but honestly, not a fan of the concept. At all. It does seem to be political grave dancing, even if that isn't the intent. I can already see the drama at AFD once it goes live. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • That AfD will end in "no consensus", I have no doubt, Dennis... Drmies (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Which doesn't stop the drama. I see he pulled the names, but you and I both know there is going to be a fight to add names, which is problematic, as then it really does become political. I could be wrong, but you've seen it before as well, no need to me to explain it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Another talk page watcher here. There is definitely political grave dancing going on throughout the media, but I don't see any such thing happening in this article. If anything, the article may be seen as calling out the mainstream media for POV pushing. Now if the article included a list of anti-vaxxers who died of COVID, then I would have s problem with it, but again, nothing like that is happening. - ZLEA T\C 01:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Blanco

Please re-consider the removal of the Maine literary award from the Blanco page. The award can be documented: https://www.mainewriters.org/events/https/webarchiveorg/web/20191226175958/http/mainewritersorg/2013-maine-literary-awards?rq=2013. It's a major prize from the organization that gave it. The organization that gave the award is a significant organization that got a PEN award.Kdammers (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Kdammers, content, especially this kind of content, needs reliable secondary sourcing. And in this case, you may well say it's a "significant organization", but there is no evidence of that. If the organization had an article, that might change things. In short, esp. for non-notable organizations (meaning, really, with no article), secondary sourcing (of some stature--not the local paper) needs to establish the correctness but also the noteworthiness of the award. I don't know how many of these articles you've written or edited--I've written dozens, maybe hundreds, and I've edited hundreds, maybe thousands: many of them are simply resumes with no regards to Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • PEN is definitely significant, and they gave this Maine organization a special award. Kdammers (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, but notability is not automatically inherited or transferred. You can write up the article for that organization, that would be a step in the right direction--if it stands. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
      • That is not what inherited notability is about. I am talking about PEN honnoring the organization. Taht is what secondary sources are about. Kdammers (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Yes it is; see WP:INHERITED. "X got an award from Y; Y is notable, therefore X is notable". All that depends on Y, and on the award. If you get a Nobel prize, hell yeah you're notable. If you get a faculty award from the university you work for, not so much. Getting an award from PEN--it depends on what award, how many people/organizations get it, etc. Simply getting that award does not mean that the Maine organization is notable, or that an award they hand out is noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Using " for inch

Is it really a legitimate to substitute " for vinyl releases on Wikipedia? I'm thinking about readers who aren't into music, the younger generations who don't know what a vinyl disc is, and people unfamiliar with the term "inch". Is there a statement somewhere that says it's okay? If there's not, and if you think it's not a big deal to use ", then I really think there should be a note somewhere in the MOS. MOS:UNITSYMBOLS clearly says: Do not use ′ (′), ″ (″), apostrophe ('), or quote (") It doesn't say anything regarding vinyl, so this could become an issue if other editors believe the same as I do. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I really don't know that. I think I used the symbol years ago, when I did something on some record. Maybe 78.26 has some ideas--they've yet to move into the age of the CD. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think " as a symbol is limited to vinyl records. It certainly has universal use among record collectors. And speaking of "younger generation" which, the young kids today buy more vinyl than CDs, so if music is purchased as a physical medium it is likely to be a phonograph record. Most "kids" I talk to certainly know what a phonograph record is. Maybe this is a USA thing. Of course, most kids today call phonograph records "vinyls" which does cause me some despair. Not that it should, I guess, as "acetate" is completely wrong, but it has come into common usage even among knowledgeable collectors for any instantaneous phonograph recording. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks, User:78.26--so you would not be opposed to suggesting " in the MOS? User:ResolutionsPerMinute, if you ever feel like proposing it on some MOS talk page, please ping both of us. I may not have to say much, but I'm interested nonetheless in hearing the arguments. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Not opposed at all. It is common use. However, I'm truly ignorant regarding how they may be referred to in the rest of the world. "LP" and "45" are universally used. However, pre-1920 and particularly in France, records were measured in centimeters (21cm, 25cm which was equivalent to the most common size of the time 10-inches, 27cm (called by Americans 10.5") and 29cm (11.5") are the most common "odd foreign" sizes, plus there was 35cm (14") and 50cm (20") (the largest commercially produced phonograph record, by Pathé Records). These cm-sized discs did appear in the United states via American Record Company because of its ties to Odeon Records and then later and much more commonly the previously mentioned Pathé. These sizes were common in Europe early on but were used infrequently after the first world war, and never after 1930 that I know of. However, I think LPs are measured at 30cm and small singles (45rpm) at 18cm in Europe. All said, " 12" " and " 7" " are commonly used in most of the English-speaking world for record collectors. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Franz Oppurg

On 13 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Franz Oppurg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Austrian mountaineer Franz Oppurg was the first person to achieve a solo ascent of Mount Everest, climbing alone from the South Col to the summit on 14 May 1978? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Oppurg. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Franz Oppurg), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know your name is being invoked

Over here. - MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • MrOllie, they're absolutely right: if secondary sources don't comment on it, we should not assume it's worth including. That the LA Times prints it, meh--newspapers print lots of things. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RE:IMDB is not an acceptable source here

well, it mentioned Bradley Steven Perry was on SWAT (TV series) and i saw the episode online, in anyways, i'm no longer gonna try and improve anything here since people can find more trustworthy info elsewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliez148 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, yeah it’s true, since he’s my favorite actor and I’ve been following his work for a while now, but anyway whatever I’d want to do here requires a lot of philosophical procedures so I’d rather not since it’d be a pain Eliez148 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I feel like I need to find situations in which I can deploy the phrase "philosophical procedures" in my own life. --JBL (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • They exist, believe me. Eliez148, it's really not that complicated. I hope that most students who've had one year of college will know what reliable secondary sources are, and I also believe that everyone who comes here should play by the rules, and that it's incumbent upon newcomers to spend a bit of time learning the rules. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

I invite you to take a look at persistent vandalism on the article about Danilo I, Prince of Montenegro by user User:Dwarvenk1ng. Shadow4ya (razgovor) 1:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • User:Shadow4ya, what that history proves is that it is ALWAYS a good idea to not get into an edit war. It's you against them--I could flip a coin to decide on who's the vandal and who's saving the encyclopedia. And what's more, you don't seem to spend a lot of time explaining why you are reverting.
    User:Coffee, I have no idea what the DS on this article/this area are. Is there a 30/500 minimum here? I'm about to drop a {{subst:alert|b}} on their talk page, but that's just stalling, since I'm not quite sure what all that entails in this area with this long arbitration history. At the very least, that warning will allow for simply and, even if temporary, administrative action. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It falls under WP:ARBEURO, which is what you've properly warned them of. The current restriction is: Pages which relate to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. So, there isn't a 30/500 set rule, but you can certainly choose to use your discretion to implement that as a specific page sanction under the authority of WP:ARBEURO's DS. Alternatively, if you feel Dwarvenk1ng is the only user in the near future who will be causing an issue with this article, (and that they won't stick to discussions vs edit warring), a topic ban or 1RR restriction is entirely permissible under the ARBEURO DS. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I thought it would be self-explanatory so I didn't bother to provide additional info. Several accounts were used to make some changes on that page, and by the first glance, they all come from the same user. Changes are invalid since they describe Prince Danilo I (19th century person) as a follower of Montenegrin Orthodox Church which was created in 1993, and the same change was pushed to related articles. That's why I didn't explain reasons behind my reverts, since the same problem is popping up for quite some time. I was also thinking contacting you earlier, but couldn't find enough energy and time for these longer discussions. As user Dwarvenk1ng said,"this will just keep going on until the end of time - if not by my hand, then by someone else's", the best solution is to place a protection on these pages. Shadow4ya (razgovor) 11:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit wars are one thing, a 15 year long subjugation of my nation's historical figures, cultural heritage and everything else is another. You can prevent me from edit warring, but that won't stop other people from doing the same as long as an injustice is being done to my people. I've explained, quite lengthily, why I am editing what I'm editing. I suggest we talk it out in some form, as this will just keep going on until the end of time - if not by my hand, then by someone else's. I also don't see why one singular historical interpretation (in this case Serbian) is accepted and protected, while the Montenegrin interpretation is deemed as vandalism. It is absurd and comical that Montenegro and Montenegrins are alienated from their own history, by the very people running and editing this website. Dwarvenk1ng (talk)

The Montenegrin Orthodox Church was established near the end of the 15th Century officially, and became entirely autocephalous in 1766., way before any "Serbian Orthodox Church" which was created in 1921., 70 years after Danilo's death. So yes, he was part of Montenegrin Orthodoxy, which was the recognized church authority in Montenegro all the way until 1918. when it was dissolved. Placing protections on these pages so a Serb can continue with their insane historical revisionism would be quite an interesting thing to do by Wikipedia, which would also confirm its bias for ethnonationalist agendas. Dwarvenk1ng (talk)
Dwarvenk1ng, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for airing grievances. It is not productive for you to walk in here with guns blazing and assume that somehow the world is already out to get you. As for "the very people running and editing this website", all I can think of in response here is what the flying fuck? I mean, WP:AGF is important here, but who do you think you are that you can read minds and think that I, for instance, have some kind of interest in this one way or the other? That is precisely the kind of attitude that points to discretionary sanctions or, more simply, a block per WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wishlist

Hello again, I've no access to a desktop workstation, so with a software bot preventing my making a suggestion via my mobile phone, would it be any trouble to ask if this could be considered? Quite simply, is there a way to ensure that any accredited user (like myself) will never be prevented from editing, when logged in, due to an IP block on the workstation he's using? Often, I use a local library but am continually thwarted in my efforts to edit pages because of 'vandalism blocks'. This is really frustrating when, otherwise, a whole page could be edited at one go, instead of having to do it by sections on my phone. I hope you see what I'm getting at. Regards and thanks, Bill Billsmith60 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi--most IP blocks are not hardblocks, meaning that registered users like you should be able to log in and edit, regardless of the block; see the second section of WP:HARDBLOCK. In some cases, Wikipedia:IP block exemption applies, but this is somewhat rare. If you are caught in a hard IP block, you can always let an administrator know and they can look into it, and see if the conditions that prevailed at the time of the block are still relevant. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Warning ignored

Ran into an editor that keeps circling back to the same articles and adding "plot bloat", despite your warning about this two years ago. Thought I'd mention it, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

My edit to The Search for Santa Paws, as for most pages, was to fill in or correct vital details that are either missing or incorrect due to other people's edits. Same with my recent edit for Rugrats in Paris. I kept the plot within the word limit and it was still reverted it. Plus not everyone who edits these plots gives a reason for editing. --Nashwalker (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • That others don't explain doesn't mean you don't have to either. I'm glad you posted here--that's communication. But 700 words is not some required number: it's the upper limit of a range, and whether a summary should be at the bottom or the top end of that depends on the movie. Here, it was deemed unnecessary. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • And just to provide some context, Nashwalker... One article that caught my attention here was John Q., in which you add a ton of bloat here, essentially doubling the word count to 1451. It eventually gets reverted here, followed by notices dropping on your talk page in early 2020. Then nearly six months later, you reinstate your bloaty version here. While other examples aren't as dramatic, there's a clear pattern of this in your editing history. Glad as well to see that you've chosen to communicate; that's a positive step in the right direction. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Hackett (mountaineer)

On 19 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peter Hackett (mountaineer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in October 1981, American doctor and mountaineer Peter Hackett became the third known person to complete a solo ascent of Mount Everest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Hackett (mountaineer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Peter Hackett (mountaineer)), 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) 12:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sissy-Boy logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sissy-Boy logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Drmies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- ferret (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I SAW that! Very exciting! Not as exciting as getting a package from Amazon, but more exciting than this show with Topher Grace that I'm watching on TV. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, would you please revdel this edit? Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing on User talk protected template

The IP editing is an LTA/sock, see my comments on WP:AIV wizzito | say hello! 17:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Revoke blocked IPs talk page access

Hey Drmies! I'm contacting you since you appear to be the most recently active admin. I would like to request you revoke the TPA of the IP: 209.133.102.164 since they copied and pasted the page Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood onto their talk page, replacing everything already on it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

FAMU

Why am I blocked from the FAMU editing page when the person who reported me refused to discuss a controversial edit on the talk page, engaged in edit warring, has been known to only add bad or misleading information about FAMU, has been quick to erase or question any good information on the page, and isn't acting in good faith.Broadmoor (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Relative pronoun, etc.

Hi, Drmies. At Wikipedia, exclusive of talk pages, the majority of my edits relate to grammar fixes. The majority of my substantive edits relate to linguistics. If that's an area of particular interest to you, feel free to ping me re any questions, comments, or observations on the topic. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sadreddin Elahi

Hi Drimes,

I wanted to thank you for your contributions to the Sadreddin Elahi page. I did notice, however, that you did delete paragraphs relating to people Dr.Elahi interviewed, as well has his entire bibliography. I understand that some may not be familiar with his work, but many Iran-Americans are, as he has been dubbed a pioneer of modern Iranian journalism. I get that in current-times, these people may not be “relevant”, but I believe people like the First president of Algeria and the 18th Prime Minister of Iran are relevant enough. I also understand his children are not public figures, but there are many instances where the descendants of prominent figures are still listed on their Wikipedia, as it is still valuable information. I would love to discuss further with you to understand why you deleted this information and/or if I misinterpreted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SF81104 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you take look for me...

... to see if I am too harsh for a user? In this case BrianODoherty820 who does not respond to any communication (see: User talk:BrianODoherty820) and is adding mistakes to articles (like here). He started with editing (i.e. expanding and adding) the short descriptions, what is highly strange for new editors. I start to get some nasty feelings. The Banner talk 11:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks--let's see what happens. BTW I wouldn't worry about them starting with these descriptions--it's a relatively easy way for new users to "get into" editing, esp. from a phone--I don't know if you've done that, but if you click the first "edit" opportunity on your phone, you have a choice, to edit the description or to edit the introduction. I've edited many short descriptions from my phone. But I agree that, well, quality matters. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this?

[9] It's been open for many days (and the disruption is still ongoing). - LouisAragon (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Conduxt of user MrStephenLeon

Hi Drmies,

I note you blocked the user User:MrStephenLeon for a day for contuous edit warring and inserting information that directly contradicted the citations on Overseas Chinese and Chinese immigration to Mexico. Since the ban was lifted, this user has been at it again adding demographic numbers which contradict sources cited on Korean diaspora, Overseas Vietnamese and Chinese immigration to Mexico which various users have had to revert.

I feel that this user is maliciously damaging the integrity of Wikipedia by deliberately misleading readers by making edits which he knows contradict the sources, and continuing to do so again immediately after the lifting of the ban. Accordingly I ask that you consider banning this user permanently or for a much more considerable period of time, as I feel he has had his warning and gone right back to doing the exact same thing immediately.

Thank you for your consideration of this issue.StormcrowMithrandir 08:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


Draft:Chris Ojigbani

@ Drmies Hello Drmies,

Many thanks for the detailed explanation. I am new here even though I have done two other little editing on football topics. Please would help rectify the article and at the same time, I will learn from the work? Thanks in anticipation. Nellly2022 (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Chris Ojigbani

Dear Drmies, Thanks very much for your contribution on the page I created, Draft:Chris Ojigbani.I have improved the references with independent reliable sources. I hope the article will be rapidly accepted. Thanks a lot. CheersNellly2022 (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it for another reviewer to take a look cheers. Theroadislong (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@DrmiesGood morning Drmies! Thank you for confirming that saw some improvements on the page, Draft:Chris Ojigbani. Since then, no one has reviewed it. Would you please help review and approve or get someone else to do it. Best regards! Nellly2022 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • User:Nellly2022, here's what I think. The article has improve, yes, but it is not there yet (and I'm pinging User:Theroadislong and User:Princess of Ara--please read along and feel free to comment).
    First of all there is the writing--with phrases like "In an academic book, The Role of a Culture of Superstition in the Proliferation of Religio-Commercial Pastors in Nigeria, the author mentions of...", which has grammatical and semantic issues, besides the fact that it's not really an "academic" book because it's published by AuthorHouse, not an acceptable publisher. A similar problem is with the Palgrave book, which is an edited collection. But there's also still plenty of really promotional content, for instance in the biographical details that are not verified by reliable sources (like the "On the 14th of February, 2005..." paragraph). That is, it's content that in itself is neutral, but since it's not properly verified it's not valid content.
    Now, I looked at the Palgrave book, and that's actually significant coverage (User:Celestina007, pinging you too, and User:4meter4, from the AfD--User:4meter4, note that the Agazue book is self-published). So, if you put that together with the somewhat skinny news coverage, you might have notability there--but ONLY if the content is represented fairly, and that includes the coverage from the Palgrave book, which is hardly very positive: it has description, but it also places Ojigbani in the context of a rather sexist and hierarchical model that denies agency to women.
    Besides, the biography is just really unclear--UK based? But Nigerian? With notable appearances in Kenya? That just needs to be cleared up, and that's a matter of good writing based on good sources. I would say "no" to the current draft, but a good writer might be able to pull something out of the (scant) materials, and I'm not sure if you are that person, also given that you clearly have a conflict of interest and might well be the subject, or the subject's representative, for all I know: this is a matter you need to address, following the links and guidelines on the template I just put on your talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Two requested moves discussions are not being closed

Hey Drimes, I hope you have been well. There are two requested move discussions there [10][11] that are not being closed (or at least relisted, though there are a large number of comments already) 9 days after being opened. Are you interested in taking a look at them, or do you know someone who would like to take a look? If not, is there a place where a request for closure can attract attention? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies, much appreciated. I see from your editing history that you worked for a considerable amount of time to read and evaluate all comments. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
No problem. Yes, the first one took quite a bit of time, but the second one was very similar. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Corry Tendeloo

Hi Drmies I hope 2022 is fulfilling all your wildest dreams .. and more! I just came across a peer review for Corry Tendeloo and I thought you might be interested, seems like an excellent prospect for the frontpage. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  • So far it's been a professional nightmare, but hey, the only way is up. What an interesting article--and I should confess that I'd never heard from her... Indeed, it is time to put her in the textbooks, and my thanks to User:Edwininlondon for writing it, and to you for bringing it into prominence. What exactly are you proposing? A DYK nomination? But you know the way, right? I just saw Olive Morris--wow. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh I just thought you and your friendly talk page stalkers might appreciate reading about Tendeloo and maybe help the article along at peer review. Plus i wanted you to plug Olive Morris and you walked right into my trap mwahahaha Mujinga (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • But the peer review is a done deal, no, and the article now a GA! I'd say only one or two things. Some of the paragraphs are a bit long, certainly for my old eyes, and particularly the third paragraph from the lead could be condensed a bit, with some small judicious cuts. And the second paragraph from the lead, I'd find it more useful to prune the names of all those organizations, and their translations, and just generalize that a bit. But it's really a fine piece of work. (Yep, I fell for it--I'm a sucker for good article writing.) Drmies (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you liked it :) Good tips here for @Edwininlondon:. I wouldn't say the peer review is finished, I just gave some comments today as the first response and I believe the idea is to prepare it for a featured article review further on down the line. Anyhoo, my job here is done and I look forward to seeing it on the frontpage. Cheers and hope the professional matters improve! Mujinga (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That IP range

I checked that range, and the whole /16, but there's no account using the same user agent as the person who left those messages. I see the same person jumping about the /21, leaving similar messages for people along the lines of 'you're biased, how much are they paying you', but there would be a lot of collateral to a block. Apologies, again, for the other thing - I should have thought more carefully about who I was talking to before typing that. Definitely wasn't referring to you, and I hope and expect that there is a sensible reason for it all anyway. Girth Summit (blether) 14:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Hey, again, no problem--so besides the odd fact that we were doing the same thing at the same time on an article I'd never seen before, there's the oddity that your description of the person matched mine. Maybe you should check me, and find me a sock of the other--though I strongly disagree with their name, since I think that doubled consonants in English are a mess. And can you believe that my nine-year old son got 3/6 on Wordle today, and I had 6/6?? Drmies (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I've been hearing a lot about Wordle from some of the other staff at school - the Latin Master (yes, we still have one) and Head of English are always vying with each other. I'll need to take a look at some point.
    • Folk from the US always seem to have an issue with doubled consonants. I had to revert someone recently at Ozymandias who took issue with the poet's spelling. :) Girth Summit (blether) 19:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Kindly deal with this vandal

Hey , yesterday i took to the admin attention page to get some action taken against an IP vandal (42.105.113.93) vandalising my talk page , edit warring , breaking the 3 revert rule and calling me names on my talk page. Names like "Andbhakt", "Snowflake". This user has already received admin warning on his other IP account (42.105.3.36) but his actions haven't changed. This IP user is the person who did this edit which was fixed by you and just before this , he broke the 3 revert rule. Can you take some action against this because my admin attention plea yesterday wasn't dealt with. Extorc (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Extorc, please consider being a little bit less demanding here, and perhaps working a bit harder on getting the terminology right. IPs don't have accounts. The 3R rule wasn't broken. The IP editor isn't automatically male. And then there's the writing: I still don't know what that "He claimed that many cases were given to him" means, and changing it to "He claimed that many cases were made on him by ruling party TMC" doesn't make it much better. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

I don't suppose GreenishDragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would happen to be NerdyGenius1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by any chance? Very much the same editing style on the same articles. FDW777 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

My IP adress

Hi drmies, it appears that you have blocked my ip adress from editing, may i know the reason why did you block my ip adress? Theonararya (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't know. If you found it was me who blocked "your" IP address, then there was probably an explanation in the same place. Also, does it matter? You have an account; you are using it; you can edit. What is the problem? Or are you just curious? Drmies (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

You may be interested in this IP [12]. I suspect it may be a sock for the recently blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErikFelik Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Pleasant surprise from Gordimalo

I long forgot about this user and his many sockpuppets until he decided to leave a sweet little message on my talk page over... tennis... Well, I never followed tennis but glad to know he is still thinking about me one year later. Maybe next time it will be some flowers. Mellk (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Going the whole 9 yards for triple metres

I think that the cargo-cult encyclopaedia article writers are trying to refute, by pile-on example, the oft-held claim that pop music isn't written in triple time. I know that one can go to YouTube to refute this, even going as far as a robot talking about your favourite musical genre, but in deference to your sensitivities I wondered whether we could find an English professor saying this, which we could then pass along to M. Canadian. Unfortunately, I could only find a Musical Chair, Doktoro.

  • Everett, Walter (2008). "Musical time: rhythm, metre, and tempo". The Foundations of Rock: From "Blue Suede Shoes" to "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes". Oxford University Press. p. 306. ISBN 9780190294977. Despite the great preponderance of quadruple meter, triple time is heard in a good deal of pop music. […] David Seville […] The Chipmunks […] Bob Dylan […] Louis Armstrong […] Tom Jones […]

Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

    • Oh well, I've gone through it and removed some other stuff (including a staggeringly anachronistic mention of "Latin America" - you can't really speak of "Latin America" when most of the people there did not speak any language even remotely related to it)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Interesting, Uncle! My boy looked up with surprise when I played the K-pop thing. That other song, that's just absolutely amazing. Yes, the previous fucking government promised a lot, but it was under Obama that we had (short-lived) dreams of the railroad coming back. Anyway, I like what RandomCanadian is doing. Yet another article that suffers from accretion and lack of attention--there are so many of them. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Sing along, Doktoro!

  • Benjamin Britten referenced The Minstrel Boy in his opera Owen Wingrave several times, starting with the principal characters Lechmere and Owen not using exactly the original melody, but a slightly distorted version of it, in scene 1.[1] In the analysis of music history professor J. Harper-Scott, Britten's assumption would be have been that the opera's audience would either know the theme being referenced, or at least recognize its type.[2] Lechmere's recital diverges from the original after the first arpeggio and progressively drops in pitch by semitones and tones at various points thereafter, ending a perfect fourth below the where the original would have been.[2] Owen's recital is even more divergent, and not only progressively drops in pitch from the original as well to a major third below, but even omits notes.[3] Lechemere uses the original words from Moore's song, given in quotation marks in the score for the opera;[2] but, in contrast, in the final scene of the first act, the character Sir Philip uses the tune and adheres more closely to the original than Owen does, but applies it instead to the final two words of "for right and England".[4] The tune is also used, distorted, at various other points throughout the opera, including Lechemere's conversation with Kate where he sings "But Kate, does he reject you?" to a less distorted version of the original melody.[4]
  • Charles Villiers Stanford made overt political commentary on contemporary politics in Ireland in his music, including, amongst other places, the quotation of the first verse of The Minstrel Boy as preface to his score of his Fourth Irish Rhapsody.[5]
  • James Joyce parodied the song in Finnegans Wake as "The Leinstrel boy to the wall has gone".[6]

References

  1. ^ Harper-Scott 2018, pp. 51–52.
  2. ^ a b c Harper-Scott 2018, p. 52.
  3. ^ Harper-Scott 2018, pp. 52–53.
  4. ^ a b Harper-Scott 2018, p. 53.
  5. ^ Allis 2012, p. 87.
  6. ^ Benjamin 2009, p. 311.
Bibliography
  • Harper-Scott, J. P. E. (2018). Ideology in Britten's Operas. Music since 1900. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108416368.
  • Allis, Michael (2012). "Stanford and Tennyson". British Music and Literary Context: Artistic Connections in the Long Nineteenth Century. Music in Britain, 1600–1900. Vol. 8. Boydell Press. ISBN 9781843837305. ISSN 1752-1904.
  • Benjamin, Roy (2009). "Waking the King: Faction and Fission in Finnegans Wake". James Joyce Quarterly. 46 (2). University of Tulsa: 305–320. JSTOR 27820960.

We know how Doktoro loves popular culture, lurkers. So please feel free to help Doktoro to sing along, too.

Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Doktoro: We already knew of your love of J-pop and K-pop. Now we also know of your love of I-pop.

Uncle G (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Howdy Uncle--were you topic-banned from adding this material? Am I proxy-editing for some nefarious purpose? Do both these verbs actually need to be hyphenated? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Well sing-along I find to be often hyphenated as a noun, Doktoro, if that helps. G.B. Shaw climbed upon the I-pop train, too. So you are in elevated company, although Shaw would probably have you spell it ipop. William Brough did a novelty version for the hit parade, which you could try singing instead. Not true I-pop by your strict standards, perhaps, but still popular, and still culture. Uncle G (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"Thou shalt have a fishy, on a little dishy …"

I noticed that you were trying your hand at some L-pop, as well. I'm not sure what you were looking for, but I believe that sheet music exists.

You can dance to this one, Doktoro, as well as sing. So come on!

The number is clearly an intentional detail, given the lack of precision and detail elsewhere in the story;[1][2] and theologians have lent much credence to Augustine's numerology simply because it comes from historic rather than contemporary theology.[2]

Jerome reached much the same conclusion as Augustine that the figure is an allegorical representation of totality, but through more straightforward means rather than through numerology.[2] In his Commentary on Ezekiel he propounded the hypothesis that 153 was meant to represent the whole universe of fish, citing as proof that contemporary poets, giving Oppian as an example, believed that there were 153 species of fish in the world.[2][1] However, Robert M. Grant disproved Jerome's hypothesis by noting that Oppian actually enumerated only 149 (as catalogued by Alexander William Mair) fish species in his Halieutica (or only 152 "by adding 3 worms", in Grant's words).[2][3][4] What Oppian actually said, moreover, was that only the gods knew the number; and other ancient authors gave different numbers that still were not 153, such as Pliny The Elder in Naturalis Historia (9.43) recording only 74, 104, or 144 (depending from how one counts, and whether one includes hard shelled animals) species of fish, and Quintus Ennius as reported by Apuleius enumerating "countless kinds of fish".[3][4][5] "Every ancient ichthyologian counted the number of species differently." stated Grant.[4]

David Strauss had in fact pointed out the same thing about Oppian in his Leben Jesu the century before Grant.[6] From a strictly biological point of view, moreover, only 24 species of fish had been recorded in the Sea of Galilee by the turn of the 20th century.[7] Theologians have continued to support Jerome's hypothesis despite Grant and Strauss, arguing variously that Jerome may have had access to other works of Oppian that are now lost, that Oppian was writing a century after the Gospel of John and at least came close, and that perhaps (despite his having mentioned Oppian by name) Jerome's reference to multiple writers actually meant other writers entirely.[3] Grant himself opined that "there is every reason to suppose" that in fact Jerome had not actually checked Oppian's writing directly for this information, but was rather recounting secondhand some earlier Christian commentary on the Gospel of John.[4]

Many other numerological interpretations have been propounded, from adding numerological representations of Simon's name to the Greek word for fish through the additions (100+50+7) of Cyril of Alexandria to the multiplications (17×3×3) of Gregory the Great.[8][6][9] Frédéric Louis Godet characterized them as "strange".[6] There were at least 18 distinct numerological explanations when John Emerton performed "a quick survey" in 1958.[10] Emerton proceeded to then add a gematrial explanation, to which 8 others have been added since.[10] Professor of the New Testament, Crag S. Keener observed in 2010 the several gematrial explanations, critiquing ideas such as reversing the order of the Greek alphabet as being "forced", noting that a "children of God" reading of the number "import[s] a ministry image from Mark 1:17 that John never mentions", and commenting on allegorical suggestions linking to Moses that "one wonders whether John could have expected any members of his original audience to catch"; summarizing that gematrial explanations that may scholars have put forward are too complex to be discovered without starting from the answer desired and working backwards from there, and that the plethora of such explanations all distinct from one another itself indicates their weakness.[11]

However, there have been more prosaic and literal explanations, including the simple straightforward one that the detail is simply correct, and 153 is the number of fish caught.[8] John Bernard argued by quoting Edwin Hatch that "The idea that ancient literature consists of riddles which it is the business of modern literature to solve has passed for ever away.", pointing out the irony of a Gnostic-like search for meaning in the tale when John himself was simply being quite literal.[8][12][13] Godet, likewise, asserted that it was just "a simple fact recalled to mind".[14] R. Alan Culpepper (who was dean of the McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University) observed, in his 2021 overview of seven distinct classes of argument about the number, that whilst there are arguments in favour of symbolic interpretations "Nevertheless, the text gives no basis for interpreting the number.".[8] Professor of New Testament Studies Timothy James Wiarda stated that "It is sufficient to note that the text offers the reader no hint concerning any symbolism in the miraculous catch of fish.".[15] Keener, having discounted gematria, Jerome (per Grant and Strauss), and Augustine (with a simple analysis of how probable it is to pick numbers have have at least some special property, be that they are triangular, square, prime, or otherwise), concludes that the straightforward explanation is the more likely one and that "the number could simply stem from an accurate memory of a careful count on the occasion", quoting Archibald Macbride Hunter in hise 1965 Cambridge Bible Commentaries that it is "no more symbolical than the hundred yards that Peter swam. It is the remembered number of a 'bumper' catch."[5][16]

Culpepper's 3 other classes (aside from Jerome, literalism, gematria, and Augustine) are algebraic interpretations based on 153 itself, algebraic interpretations based on the number 17, and the hypothesis that the symbolic meaning of the number exists but is no longer discoverable.[8]

References

  1. ^ a b Flanagan 1992, p. 1018.
  2. ^ a b c d e Twelftree 1999, pp. 218–219.
  3. ^ a b c Culpepper 2020, p. 539.
  4. ^ a b c d Grant 2002, p. 23.
  5. ^ a b Keener 2010, p. 109.
  6. ^ a b c Godet & Dwight 1893, p. 443.
  7. ^ Edwards 2008, p. 205.
  8. ^ a b c d e Culpepper 2021, p. 537.
  9. ^ Edwards 2008, pp. 204–205.
  10. ^ a b Manning Jr 2004, pp. 189–190.
  11. ^ Keener 2010, p. 108.
  12. ^ Bernard 1928a, pp. lxxxvi–lxxxviii.
  13. ^ Bernard 1928b, pp. 699–700.
  14. ^ Godet & Dwight 1893, p. 444.
  15. ^ Wiarda 1992.
  16. ^ Hunter 1965, p. 195.
Bibliography
  • Twelftree, Graham H. (1999). "Miracles in the Fourth Gospel". Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 9780830815968.
  • Flanagan, Neal M. (1992). "John". In Karris, Robert J. (ed.). The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Based on the New American Bible. Liturgical Press. ISBN 9780814622117.
  • Edwards, Mark (2008). John Through the Centuries. Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405143196.
  • Culpepper, R. Alan (2021). Designs for the Church in the Gospel of John: Collected Essays, 1980–2020. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Vol. 465. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 9783161602627.
  • Bernard, John Henry (1928). "Introduction". A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel According to St John. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: ICC. ISBN 9780567050243.
  • Bernard, John Henry (1928). "Notes on the Greek text". A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel According to St John. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: ICC. ISBN 9780567050243.
  • Grant, Robert M. (2002). "Unusual animals". Early Christians and Animals. Routledge. ISBN 9781134633753.
  • Manning Jr, Gary T. (2004). Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period. The Library of New Testament Studies. Vol. 270. A&C Black. ISBN 9780567639288.
  • Godet, Frédéric Louis; Dwight, Timothy (1893). Commentary on the Gospel of John, with an Historical and Critical Introduction. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
  • Wiarda, Timothy James (1992). "John 21.1–23: Narrative Unity and Its Implications". Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 14 (6): 53–71. doi:10.1177/0142064X9201404604.
  • Keener, Craig S. (2010). "Epilogue (21:2–25)". The Gospel of John. Baker Academic. ISBN 9781441237057.
  • Hunter, Archibald Macbride (1965). Hunter, Alan (ed.). The Gospel According to John. Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New Testament. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521092555.

Further reading

InterVarsity is some sort of football league, ne?

Uncle G (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Petey rains soon in gentle Hertford

How does one operate your English Professor Vaccuum again, Doktoro? I tried to get Edgar F. Shannon Jr. into pity, but it turns out that xe is dead. Uncle G (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Visibility

Hi, can you change visibility on this edit, because it may be disturbing to some viewers who are looking at the page history. Thank you. Severestorm28 02:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

  • 1Lib1Ref 2022
  • Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Lodowys

Notice

The article Thomas Lodowys has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of notability. See WP:GNG

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dispute notification

Did you know … that while accounts of the Toho actors' union strikes [ja] in the 1940s describe a "cry-in" including several prominent actresses, the women involved stated that they do not recall crying?

Following Setsuko Wakayama [ja], Chieko Nakagita, Yoshiko Kuga, and others "putting on a crying act" came "a cluster of unfurled red flags with everyone singing The Internationale"[1], Donald Richie is quoted by others as saying, Doktoro. But Shirota Takako and Ishikawa Masako did not remember it that way.[2]

  1. ^ Anderson & Richie 2018, p. 171.
  2. ^ Gerteis 2009, p. 45.
  • Anderson, Joseph L.; Richie, Donald (2018). "New Sequence". The Japanese Film: Art and Industry - Expanded Edition. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691187464.
  • Gerteis, Christopher (2009). "The Erotic and the Vulgar". Gender Struggles: Wage-earning Women and Male-dominated Unions in Postwar Japan. Harvard East Asian monographs. Vol. 321. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674035690. ISSN 0073-0483.

Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Alpha

You may want to reprotect the page, after it is changed back to Hedgeman. I'm in the middle of an WP:RM discussion over at Ethel Hedgeman Lyle. I'm proposing the change, and honestly until the page and AKA National agree, we'll get SPAs making the change to the end of time. You may even want to direct them to Talk:Ethel_Hedgeman_Lyle#Requested_move_4_February_2022 .Naraht (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies/Archive_138&oldid=1073240148"