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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Merry Christmas Drmies I hope you are having a happy holidays S201050066 24 December 2021

Greetings and all the best in New Year, this ip [[1]] appeared today and started doing unsourced changes on Ajvar page, I have warned them but they just ignored me, also since this page was under attacks in December too, is it possible to semi protecting it? Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 18.January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I took a pic in 2009 that was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March songs

Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on Bach's birthday: the places where I sang his Dona nobis pacem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: the TFA is a young writer's first --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment moved me to tears. - Bach's No. 1 today - stand and sing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Duke of Denver (AfD discussion)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small example

A small example of what Doktoro is talking about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Gerald Wilkinson (AfD discussion)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with Traffic?[2] O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poetry? Indian!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Drmies. You blocked this user ("Σύμμαχος")[3] recently as a result of this ANI case.[4] Their very first edit, after their block ended, was to revert HistoryofIran (who opposed their disruptive edits) at the Afsharid dynasty page[5] thereby reinstating the absolute bogus edits by an user who's account had been created for vandalism only (and was indeffed on the very same they were created[6]). Given that user "Σύμμαχος" had never edited the Afsharid dynasty article before, and given their previous conduct which resulted in getting blocked temporarily, it is clear that they followed user HistoryofIran to the Afsharid dynasty page in order to conduct a revenge revert. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, was about to report him. This is not the first time he has done such [7]. Judging by this and his past actions, I think it's safe to say he is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

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

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