Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

User Talk:Drmies

Mail

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

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Happy New Year, Drmies! In 2024, other editors thanked you 1093 times using the thanks tool on the English Wikipedia. This made you the #11 most thanked Wikipedian in 2024. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2025! Mz7 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
story · music · places

École alsacienne

Es-tu encore malade? J'espere que non parce-que tu peux donc regarder l'article. L'ecole est dans un tres beau quartier residentiel. Comme tu peux voire, j'ai des problemes avec un nouveau utilisateur qui est un eleve a l'ecole. This is becoming too hard. I removed unsourced material from the article, some of which is not noteworthy, as well as some blatantly promotional material, although there's still quite a bit. You can see our "discussion" on his Talk page. Right now, we stand with his version because I can't revert anymore. I've left warnings on his Talk page for adding unsourced material and edit-warring, but that hasn't stopped him - although it's stopped me. :-) His latest accusation is that I'm "blackmailing" him. Probably a language issue coupled with a bit of old-fashioned French melodrama. After all, he accused me before of "defacing" his school.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree has reverted the user's edits and blocked him from editing the page for two weeks. BTW, I'd still like to know if you're feeling better.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping :) A speedy recovery from me too in case it's still there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merci, mes gars. Yes, better--it's an upper respiratory infection, bacterial, and it's getting better, but its aggravating this tooth business. Antibiotics are helping: I had a moment of clarity thinking wait, if my tooth is pounding, it's bacterial, and I can take some old pills. This was 1:30 AM, two nights ago, haha. The tooth will have to wait until March, grrr. Anyway, yes, getting better all the time, thanks for asking. Tobias doesn't play around, does he? One hopes that such editors see the light--sometimes that happens. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
💚🍀 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the responses from that editor are poor, xe did not actually write that content, most of which has been in the article since its first revision. I'm not sure that I agree with edits like Special:Diff/1271559474, M. Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb, when sources like MVDP, confirming the Beck and Rieder information (and itself citing a dictionary of biographies with an apparently relevant biography), basically fall straight out of the search engines. I think that we really shouldn't be hitting the editorship over the head with blankings without at least a little effort to try to find out whether there's a source for the names and dates of the directors of a fairly well-documented school.

I don't see why the two first heads of the school are sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Neither has an article, nor is likely to, what's the point? Maybe you should write an article about Beck (or both). :p --Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Théodore Beck? ;) Drmies (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, you're amazing! --Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jean Théodore Beck (1839-1936) and the special circumstances of the Ecole Alsacienne". Musée virtuel du protestantisme.
  • Encrevé, André (2015). "Jean-Théodore Beck". In Encrevé, André; Cabanel, Patrick (eds.). Dictionnaire biographique des protestants français De 1787 à nos jours (in French). Vol. 1: A–C. ISBN 9782846211901.
  • Mayeur, Jean Marie (1993). "BECK, Jean Théodore". In Encrevé, André (ed.). Les protestants. Dictionnaire du monde religieux dans la France contemporaine (in French). Vol. 5. Beauchesne. p. 61. ISBN 9782701012612. Agrégé d'allemand dès 1881, il devient le directeur de l'École alsacienne en 1891, succédant à Frédéric Rieder (1828–1896), qui en avait été le premier directeur. Sous la direction de J.-T. Beck — qui dure jusqu'en 1922 — Î'École Alsacienne connaît une grande extension en raison, notamment, de son goût pour les expériences pédagogiques novatrices.
  • Encrevé, André (1983). "BECK Jean Théodore". alsace-histoire.org (in French). Fédération des Sociétés d’Histoire et d’Archéologie d’Alsace.

Sex differences in intelligence socking?

On January 20, I blocked BoneCrushingDog for one week for edit-warring at the above article. Another user, AndRueM, older than BCD but with an editing gap between March 2024 and today, started editing at the article and the Talk page. Their first edit to the Talk page started with "You can see in my above sections that I had the exact argument as you to no avail." But the user hasn't edited in any of the above sections. Also, both users' editing style and editing platform (none) are the same. Behaviorally, I would indef AndRueM as a sockmaster and increase the block on BCD to indefinite as the puppet, but just in case I'm wrong, can you run a check? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the shape of its gusset.-- Ponyo 20:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously, if there is socking it's more of the WP:MEAT variety.-- Ponyo 21:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: I'm fine with blocking as meat, particularly because ARM is doing all this while BCD is blocked, but I'd need to know based on the CU, how likely it is to be meat. Maybe you could provide a finding as you would normally do if this was at SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Unlikely from a purely technical standpoint.-- Ponyo 21:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, y'all, thanks--missed this. I was distracted and the stupid cat wanted food. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your story has a ring of untruth...there are no stupid cats.-- Ponyo 21:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let the cat hear you, Drmies!--Kansas Bear 22:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the Kansas Bear. Hide your shoes if the cat hears you, lest you receive an unwelcome and odiferous nighttime deposit. Geoff | 22:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not keeping it. I guess that's not funny for the one or two people who don't follow me religiously on Facebook. And now for a dinner idea for Liam and me. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Above average section header

Hello, Drmies. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bessel_van_der_Kolk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request a review

Can you review these? If these articles are also insufficient, please add them to the draft page.

Kartal1071 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am using Google translation. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kartal1071, can you clarify what you're using Google translation for? -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to contact you Kartal1071 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The_First_Caucasian_Expedition_of_the_Seljuk_Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siege_of_Akhalkalaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is there any problem with these two? I will proceed with the arrangement accordingly. Kartal1071 (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're using Google translate to speak with other editors? What languages are you fluent in? -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spalding bloody common!

Main page: User talk:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB § Spalding Common

Oh no, Doktoro! Pommiepedia strikes again.

Did you know … that the Provident Allotments Club didn't lease some land because of Mr White's grand bullocks? 

I need to go and lie down in a darkened room. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help with editors ignoring Manual of Style

Hi. I was wondering if you could help. I have come into an unusual situation whereby what I consider to be edits that are indisputable have been disputed. On the Genesis article, I made an edit so that the use of possessive apostrophes would be correctly applied as per MOS:POSS. That edit is here. An editor, @ToaneeM: reverted me here, citing a discussion that was neither relevant nor policy. I confess I was bewildered, as I have never before encountered problems with what I consider to be an unambiguous application of the MoS. I have attempted to discuss on their talk page, but they reverted me, inviting me instead to seek CONSENSUS on the talk page to apply the Manual of Style, which I don't think is in the spirit of the MoS. After some back and forth, which I can only explain by my bafflement, I was again reverted by a different editor @Pickard's Facepalm:, who suggested I was incorrect in my understanding of MOS:POSS, while restoring singular nouns without 's, in what I understand to be a direct contradiction of the MoS. This edit is here. I then attempted to discuss with the second editor on their TP, as I don't believe this to be an article-specific issue, but rather one that relates to editors incorrectly assuming that the MoS is subject in its application to CONSENSUS. I was tempted to go to ANI, but I'm not seeking any retribution, just a simple correction/confirmation that I'm correct in thinking that the MoS should be applied consistently across English Wikipedia. If you think ANI is a better route, I can take this there. I think, however, that an admin's input would be useful, as I'm as sure as I can be that my reading of MOS:POSS is that there singular nouns must always be followed by 's in the possessive. Any help appreciated. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without having looked at everything yet, I think I'm on safe ground when I say that the MOS is not the law. As far as the law on genitives is concerned (better term than "possessive"...), even Strunk and White weren't so sure, and I believe there's significant variations in usage (what's funny is that I stumbled over one of them today while recording a lecture on the Odyssey--can't remember the word). If I am correct in those, and if those editors are maintaining what has been the status quo in that GA, then their position is the firmer one, but I haven't looked yet at who all said what and in what way, which is another matter. Until I can dig a little deeper that's all I can say right now--sorry. Who knows, some of the talk page watchers may have time and ideas. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted @NEDOCHAN:'s edit back to the state the article was in. I presented an edit saying they should not edit war but instead discuss the change on the article's Talk page. This lets NEDOCHAN present their reasoning and for all article editors to be able to see it. Unfortunately, they declined (later seems just refusal) and instead (a) unhelpfully reinstated their changes and (b) unhelpfully tried to discuss on my own Talk page, thereby shutting out all other article editors such as @Pickard's Facepalm:. I again put the article back to its original state, again repeated the invitation to talk to editors. Again, unfortunately NEDOCHAN edit warred, refused to discuss with the group and posted to me only. They've explained themself above this involved multiple editors yet refused to engage with them.

Despite requests to talk, there was no sign of WP:FAITH ("When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus. When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them.") but sadly instead there was relentless edit warring, ignoring all requests for group discussion first. The words and actions came across as, "I'm so right why do I need to discuss anything with the group, I'll just announce instead", and were very unhelpful. One-on-one discussion with me is not what's needed.

I just don't have time today to pursue this, I'm very busy elsewhere. It would have been simple and WP:FAITH for NEDOCHAN to start an article Talk discussion and let all the editors have time to reply. NEDOCHAN may have then found something beyond what they expected to find. They may equally have been discovered as correct and managed spread their message through agreement rather than edit warring. I will look into this further...but not right now, I can't drop everything. In the meantime, I have put the article back to its original state. I hope NEDOCHAN will take a new path for the time being.ToaneeM (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page watcher) Looks like @Picard's Facepalm: has taken both editors in hand. Geoff | 00:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Geoff. That seems valid to me. I'm not convinced BTW that this is a difference between BE and AmE, but I do know that the MOS is not a law, and that either way the s's thing is not a matter of grammatical correct- or incorrectness, but a matter of style and convention. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is the point. It has nothing to do with BrE or EngVar. Perhaps I misunderstood the MoS, which I thought took precedence. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geoff, Not, let's not redefine it as some 50:50 playground spat. NEDOCHAN refused to discuss before editing on article's Talk page, edit warring instead despite multiple reverts/notices from me (earlier one thanked by Picard's Facepalm). The problem is solved when NEDOCHAN observes WP:FAITH and discusses first to resolve, not ignores and forces changes in. Resolved now but took the long way round. ToaneeM (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Throwing my 2 cents in here. Firstly - I mostly conducted the edit with the very pointed summary because you both had crossed 3RR, and it needed to stop. I opted for that vs. 3RRing both of them - as they are both experienced editors. While some consider it bad form to notify experienced editors with templates, I often refer to WP:Do template the regulars. I opted not to this time.
    However - I also did it for a few other reasons:
    • On the band's official website they use an apostrophe without a trailing s. It has been this way for many years, and I believe that it may even be a part of BE that isn't documented (or at least not on WP).
    • In Eats, Shoots & Leaves by English precisionist, Lynne Truss, it is stated "that an exception should be made for words ending in an "iz" sound such as Moses where the possessive is Moses'". Seems Genesis falls squarely into that camp, as well.
    • Just like was or were they a band, and was/were they a band which has broken up or are they a band which has retired - this trailing s issue has been going back and forth for many years on the article. Every time it seems to achieve a consensus or otherwise gets worked out - several months later someone new comes along and we start the whole darn thing all over again, with editors even ignoring the wikicomments within the code. It has gotten insanely repetitive and exhausting.
    Like @ToaneeM, I also stated in the edit summary to take the issue to the article's talk page, where it had gone before. Instead @NEDOCHAN opted not to, first bringing it to my talk page, then on to this one - and who knows where else. I don't like chasing conversations around WP and I am not at all a fan of fractured discussions split across multiple pages. Talk pages on articles (and policy/guideline pages) exist expressly to solve that issue.
    This situation - among others on that page - has become quite testing and tiring, and I am even considering removing it from my watchlist to avoid WP:OWN - as at this point it seems like a losing battle. Appreciate the input left so far, and any more to come. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • Engage! • 15:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I think that it's very unfair of all of these people to ask you to explain Modern English. They should know that in your field, Doktoro, the use of singular "you" is still a bit of a shock to the system, a novelty that is employed by the trendy youth of today, that makes the grown-ups think that they might be anarchists, or Protestants. Never fear, though, Doktoro! As always, we support your quest for youth cred, and will help you in keeping up with all of these hep and trendy fads of the modern beatniks. We will have you spelling "ghost" with an h in no time. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back a while--this isn't even the first example from one particular editor, a different one from the three above. NEDOCHAN, if you want to argue that this is a matter where the MOS decides, or some style guide of your choosing, that is not correct, I believe. I mean, in no particular order, the apostrophe is not governed by grammar, I do not believe this is necessarily a national variation though that may have some influence, the MOS is not the law, and usage--for Genesis, for Wikipedia, for the editors--should be the guide and that's a matter for the talk page. What I see is a longstanding consensus which I believe reflects a preponderance of usage perhaps particularly among BE users (and Genesis being from there, this makes sense). Any changes to that need to be discussed. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*

Since you already commented once here, would you mind terribly stepping in again and perhaps resolving things? Thank you; I apologize for the inconvenience. DS (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, of course--I saw one or two responses but then I lost track. I think the whole thing is silly. We're formalizing the fun out of everything. But I don't know if I can "resolve" anything--there are some editors out there who can slap with paperwork and alphabets much harder than I can. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the Gemini article

Hey Drmies, I think the user who modified the article is using an IP as a sockpuppet account now. Please have a look again, and revert. Edit: I have tried my best to revert it. Please correct if there's still inconsistencies.

Will link it here for convenience.

Gemini (chatbot) Thank you. Paowee (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wamalotpark is undoing articles again.

It seems that (User talk:Wamalotpark is undoing article changes for MOS:GEOLINK on United Center and Charlie Sheen. I just wanted to give a heads up. I posted on his talk page again.

Thanks Brotherbenz (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started a conversation with you on your talk page, and made an edit request on those pages instead of undoing. I made sure to say I would start a talk if you disagreed after I explained my edit if you still disagreed. I have also made an effort to start talks for any other dispute I have. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accept my mistakes and I am trying to make efforts to be encyclopedic and form discussions instead of edit war. @Brotherbenz can you give me a reason as to why you think your MOS:GEOLINK edits are warranted? That's all I ask. If you don't want to, or if this is not the right spot, I'll let my edit requests on the respective pages play out, and I won't bother on the topic anymore. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wamalotpark, thanks for coming by--I don't have time for more than one quick remark, and I haven't looked at all your contributions, but I'm wondering--if this is indeed what happened--why you'd go and make like a TON of changes with a similar edit summary pretty much in the same area that got you in trouble before, without seeking advice on project pages or whatever. If you did and I missed that, I'm sorry--but I just think it's a dangerous thing to do. As with the "Genesis's" dispute which popped up here, this may not be a case where right or wrong is the deciding factor, but rather consensus and style. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm not sure if I understand your question, I made those changes after we had a discussion on the baseball Wikiproject. And for what it's worth, I changed them to "baseball" from "professional baseball", even though my initial stance was "professional baseball". Wamalotpark (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for the edits on United Center and Charlie Sheen, you're right I should have asked for advice on the article pages. I thought by being willing to start the discussion myself if there was another reversion was the better option first, but that was wrong. I don't know what you mean by "Genesis's" dispute. Wamalotpark (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article edits

I would just like it to be known that I accepted my temporary block and understand why it happened. Any articles from this point on I will have a discussion if there is pushback on my edits.

I started a discussion on the page I was blocked for at United States Board on Geographic Names.

I was part of a discussion on the baseball related articles at the Wikiproject for baseball, and actually changed my point of view to the opposing side and made corresponding edits to MLB teams about it.

An undo to an edit I made to United Center, I was sure to add that I was willing to start the discussion myself if there was still pushback on my edit, which there was, but I guess I should have just started a discussion in the first place. I have made an edit request on the talk page. As for Charlie Sheen, that one I take full responsibility for, I honestly did not know that I had made that same edit to that page that was contested.

Overall I hope you can see my intention is to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I just left you a note in the section up there. I gotta run, but thanks for writing and I'll get back to this if you need me to. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather from the conversation on WP:ANEW that you've been going about it the right way, I think, so that's all good then. Thanks. Genesis: look up, a section or two. It's really about a similar thing. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not looking to argue, or fight. Yes we had a small discussion, but you kept pushing that my edits were wrong on the talk pages (ie.Talk:United_Center#Edit_request and Talk:Charlie_Sheen#Edit_request, and your revisions are right. Just saw you reverted me on United Center, and going around on other articles doing MOS:GEOLINK edits. I am waiting until someone can visit the articles and make a call. I am not going to continue to revert and get banned over something so stupid as Wiki. Brotherbenz (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, I won't revert anything further as well. As for other MOS:GEOLINK edits, I am free to make those. I would appreciate if you answered my discussion with signed replies in the talk page for United Center as to why you think that link is necessary to add to the text. Also, we came to an understanding on the first part of the edit regarding the United States, so I wasn't sure why you were willing to talk with me about that and not the other part. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, a third-party editor updated the link in Charlie Sheen for us. New York City is such a large city that it doesn't have to be linked at all. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grandville, Michigan

Hi Drmies, just a note that I partially reverted your edit, since professional player is too ambiguous. Nobody (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know …

… that Wallace Putnam Reed was "sandy-haired, blue eyes, a six-footer, and married"?

We see you creating articles to prove a point, Doktoro. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

… that Wallace Putnam Reed spent most of his childhood in Montgomery, Alabama, published his first story at the age of 15, and married a Shaver?

Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • You got me--I had no idea. OK, now listen: how'd you find this? And I'm trying to find out what the "Fulton County Sketches" subdivision really mean--it's not clear to me/wait I see: it's biographical sketches, but why they'd organize that by county (and not put that in the ToC) is not clear to me. Ha the "Miscellaneous Biographies" section proves that. Weird--Joel Chandler Harris writes the first section, but I haven't discovered yet who's responsible for the biographical sketches--clearly whoever wrote up Reed was a friend or acquaintance, given the joking around that happens in it. Kind of disappointing that my Lanier boys aren't in here. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and, Alabama or Georgia? If Harris wrote it up I suppose he'd have known. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

… that a sketch of Joel Chandler Harris would be "entirely incomplete without an account of his inseparable friend and editorial associate, Wallace Putnam Reed", whom Harris reported to his son Julian in August 1890 had "been on a tremedous drunk, ending up in the caboose"?

Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your library lets you borrow books, Doktoro, Joel Chandler Harris: a reference guide at the HathiTrust Digital Library apparently has some very short blurbs on a couple of Reed's works — stuff that he wrote about or in conjunction with Harris, of course.

Also, see the book review at McCarley 1993.

Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

references
  1. ^ CL 1889, p. 468.
  2. ^ SHA 1895, p. 903, Wallace Putnam Reed.
  3. ^ SHA 1895, p. 904, Wallace Putnam Reed.
  4. ^ CL 1890, p. 11.
  5. ^ Harris 1993, pp. 11–12.
  • "General gossip of authors and writers". Current Literature. Vol. 2. Current Literature Publishing Company. June 1889.
  • "Fulton County Sketches". Memoirs of Georgia. Vol. 1. Atlanta: Southern Historical Association. 1895.
  • "General gossip of authors and writers". Current Literature. Vol. 5. Current Literature Publishing Company. July 1890.
  • Harris, Joel Chandler (1993). Keenan, Hugh T. (ed.). Dearest Chums and Partners: Joel Chandler Harris's Letters to His Children : a Domestic Biography. University of Georgia Press. ISBN 9780820314808.
  • McCarley, J. Britt (Fall 1993). Fisch Jr, Arnold G. (ed.). "Last Train from Atlanta by by Adolph A. Hoeling, Stackpole books" (PDF). Army History: The Professional Bulletin of Army History. No. 28. U. S. Army Center of Military History. pp. 42–44.
external links

Yeah, borrowing books, that's old school. I'm going through Harris's letters to his children and ran into a reference to Frank Lebby Stanton. As luck would have it I went through the microfilms yesterday of the Constitution for April 1905 and ran into a Stenton article published for the occasion of Confederate Memorial Day. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for resolving the Serbian IP sockpuppet mess on my talk. I will always be grateful. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) 20:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing--it's all in a day's work. Let me know if they come back. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Good intervention. I suspect Sitush may be away. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tim you know I have a habit of just interrupting people but in this case I thought it was warranted. Your interlocutor does not, however, understand the basics of proper sourcing, although there were sources done (how did they do that) in that draft. The thing with sources in that area is that 19th-c sources are often written by these colonial hobbyists, antiquarians in the Sir Walter Scott sense but of the subcontinent--followed by totally partial government publications aimed to sustain a political and racial status quo. Well, that page that I can't find now explains it better than I can. Hey, thanks for all your work and all your patience. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Septimus pov editor

FYI I am 99% sure Zayyanid56774849 is socking - I'm going to go through the Septimus talk page archive tomorrow when I'm at my computer to check a few things... including the username of the sockmaster. But, yeah, I've seen this before on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lozano

Hey there, how's it rolling?

Please have a look at this when you can, this crap is really winding me up! The "user" on the article edits SOLELY there at WP, and seems to have a problem with the fact Mr. Lozano dated/had a daughter with another woman previous to his current one (here's the ref they keep REMOVING, clearly mentions a WIFE and a DAUGHTER https://www.diez.hn/fotogalerias/alessa_games-esposa_hondureno_choco_lozano-barcelona_b-KYDZ1086783#image-1)!

I don't know (don't care?) about that kind of celebrity gossip and akin, and to be honest i don't know where the buck stops in terms of what is encyclopedical or not in that regard (but i do imagine we're not going to to list all the guys and girls this or that person dates/takes to lunch throughout their life!); all i do know is that this "user" seems up to no good, and i really have other things to do here than be worried about this (as we speak, maybe i have alredy been reverted again). "Interesting" to see that this relatively "big" player (several seasons in La Liga) does not seem to be on anyone's watchlist, or if it is they seem to think the actions of this "user" abide completely by WP's guidelines, when they do not!! If you think the whole content is unencyclopedical (i would say not, he fathered a daughter with the first woman, and married the second; more than this is irrelevant i would say), just remove the darn thing mate!

Attentively, and a belated happy 2025 (i just had to click on David Gilmour when i saw your edit there to see if he was still with us (30+ years of hearing his music, i still don't know if he's best at shredding or singing, such is his talent), the "vital coast" is clear for now, but the man is nearly 79...)! RevampedEditor (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT WAR just started, i'm beginning to lose interest (vandal/wife just learned how to use the "revert" button, to be even more of a nuisance)!! Gonna help out or not, so i stop bothering you and leave article how this person wants? --RevampedEditor (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to engage with such a person! Cannot prove it of course, but would not be surprised if it was the player's CURRENT wife or someone related doing this (see sources above, the other woman EXISTS and they were MARRIED, where does this vandal get this idea it's "false" - per their summaries - information?!)!! I'll wait to see what Mies has to say (while stopping the edit war, at least from my part you're safe), thanks for your input and continue the good work. --RevampedEditor (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I agree that the content of this edit is not encyclopedic--but you didn't warn or notify the other editor, and you called them a punk in an edit summary, so if this goes up on a board you're actually likely to get blocked. I think you know that. I warned them because that's not properly encyclopedic and all that, of course, but that's something you could have done too...neutrally, without getting personal, etc. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no worries! Should they remove the content again i'll leave it be, only making the necessary adjustments, it will be as if Mrs. Alessa Gámez had never existed! Not excusing my summaries one bit, but i cannot believe how's this not an open-and-shut-case (against them), that's what i conclude from people telling me to go and discuss this in the article talkpage.

Attentively --RevampedEditor (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Incidentally, is it "Dee Are" or "Doctor" ? DS (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question came up at my RfA, asked by the wonderful Atama, who is dearly missed. The idea was always "Dr. mies", but it quickly taught me things about speaking and writing, and how we talk (write) about talking (writing) on the internet. DS I'm almost scared to look at that DYK discussion since it's not good for my peace of mind, which I've been professionally nurturing this morning with the help of some serious self care. My friend has been kickstarting this morning with a more potent brew and I worry about him. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onions!

The Onion Belt, more formally known as the Chicago & Wabash Valley Railroad (C&WV), was a private railroad in Lake County and Jasper County owned and built by Benjamin J. Gifford for transporting crops, including the onions for which it is informally named, and livestock from his 34,000 acres (14,000 ha) farmholdings in north-western Indiana.

"The Swamp King" of the "Big Swamp Farm"

Yellow Globe Danvers onions as advertised in an 1897 seed catalogue from Huntingdon and Paige in Indianpolis

Gifford, who came from in Kankakee, Illinois, started purchasing what was originally marsh land in July 1891, dredging channels for drainage and then leasing it out to tenant farmers, and decided to build his own railroad, using only his own money, for the crops that were grown by them. In addition to his lands in Indiana, he also owned 3,000 acres (1,200 ha) around Kankakee.

In the first five years of dredging with a steam dredge he dug 75 miles (121 km) of main line ditches, ranging from 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 m) deep and 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6.1 m) wide, crossed by several hundred miles more of tile drains; and he had 250 tenants producing over 1,000,000 bushels of corn and 400,000 bushels of onions in 1898. In 1899 he was farming 500 acres (200 ha) of his own at Pinkamunk marsh and projecting 250,000 bushels of onions that year, planting Yellow Danvers at 4 pounds per acre (4.5 kg/ha) of seed. He had gained the nickname "The Swamp King".

Development of the railway

The C&WV began on 1898-08-10 and connected to the "Old Coal Road" (the Chicago, Attica and Southern Railroad) at Zadoc. By 1899-07-01 it already stretched 10 miles (16 km) south to Comer station (near Lewiston). This grew by 1900 to track going from Kersey, 3.5 miles (5.6 km) north of Zadoc, to Pleasant Grove, and then by 1901 further south to connect with the Monon Railroad at McCoysburg.

When a steel foundry developed at Gary, Gifford changed his ideas and decided upon Gary as the line's intended northernmost destination, as a way to transport coal north from the Old Coal Road to Gary. Dinwiddie, named after a local family in Lake County was reached by 1906, but the C&WV never quite reached Gary, being 11 miles (18 km) short of it when construction stopped in 1912.

Gifford died in 1913, and his railroad vanished with his death, the stocks and bonds being sold by his estate to the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway and the Monon Railroad taking charge of the railway on 1914-03-15. Monon finally abandonded the line in 1935.

Asphaltum and the Old Field Branch

Asphaltum, later renamed Crescent, was the terminus of the C&WV's only, and short lived, branch line, the Old Field Branch running from Gifford station (named after Benjamin Gifford, who founded a village there in 1899) to an oil field in Jasper County. Although it had 100 wells in 1900, the oil drilling had dried up by 1904; the refinery closing that September, a mere 1 year after the branch line had been completed. Asphaltum's post office lasted from 1901-08-23 to 1904-09-15.

Other stops

In addition to the aforementioned, stops on the line included Laura, which flourished as a small village from 1897 with a post office of that name from 1902-05-03 until 1913-09-15; ; Kersey, named after a local family and also having a post office from 1900-05-25 until 1955-02-28; Moody, named after Granville Moody in 1893 and served by the Pleasant Grove station's post office; and Randle.

Lewiston was platted on 1901-09-09 by Gifford himself. Pleasant Grove post office had been established on 1842-11-11, and was renamed to Moody on 1914-07-23, finally closing on 1923-07-14.

Footnotes

  1. ^ Farmer Oscar Dinwiddie was the son of J. W. Dinwiddie; and William Dinwiddie was a local physician.

References

  1. ^ Sulzer 1998, p. 34.
  2. ^ Cavinder 1985, pp. 164–165.
  3. ^ Mendenhall 1899, p. 11.
  4. ^ TDJ 1899, p. 68.
  5. ^ Hilton 1978, p. 119.
  6. ^ Baker 1995, p. 114, Dinwiddie.
  7. ^ Sulzer 1998, p. 37.
  8. ^ Baker 1995, p. 144, Gifford.
  9. ^ Baker 1995, p. 55, Asphaltum.
  10. ^ Baker 1995, p. 193, Laura.
  11. ^ Baker 1995, p. 184, Kersey.
  12. ^ Baker 1995, p. 226, Moody.
  13. ^ Baker 1995, p. 196, Lewiston.

Bibliography

  • "An Immense Swamp Farm". The Drainage Journal. 21 (3). Indianapolis, Indiana: J. J. W. Billingsley: 67 et seq. March 1899.
  • Sulzer, Elmer Griffith (1998). "The Old Coal Road". Ghost Railroads of Indiana. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253334831.
  • Baker, Ronald L. (October 1995). From Needmore to Prosperity: Hoosier Place Names in Folklore and History. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-32866-3. (From Needmore to Prosperity: Hoosier Place Names in Folklore and History at the Internet Archive)
  • Cavinder, Fred D. (1985). The Indiana Book of Records, Firsts, and Fascinating Facts. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253283207. ([1] at the Internet Archive)
  • Hilton, George Woodman (1978). Monon Route (2nd ed.). Howell-North Books. ISBN 9780831071158.
  • Mendenhall, E.G., ed. (June 1899). "A Big Onion Investment". Our Horticultural Visitor. Vol. 5, no. 6. Kimmundy and Benton Harbour. p. 11.

Further reading

  • "A Big Swamp Farm". The Drainage Journal. 22. Indianapolis, Indiana: J. J. W. Billingsley: 240 et seq. 1900.
  • Taylor, Robert M. (1989). "Monticello". Indiana: A New Historical Guide. American Civilization. Indiana Historical Society. pp. 516–517. ISBN 9780871950499.
  • Lewis, E. I. "An example for capitalists". Land Draininge Profit. Indianapolis: The Drainage Journal. pp. 9–13. (Land drainage profit at the HathiTrust Digital Library)
  • "Gifford, The Swamp King". Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican. Vol. 20, no. 24. Rensselaer. 1898-11-25.
  • Ball, Timothy Horton (1900). "Draining Marshes". Northwestern Indiana from 1800 to 1900, Or, a View of Our Region Through the Nineteenth Century. Higginson Book Company. pp. 439 et seq.
  • Johnson, Vic (2000-04-09). "Benjamin J. Gifford, capitalist, land baron and 'swamp king'". The Sunday Journal.
This submission here at Articles for Creation is dedicated to The Onion Lady and The Mango. You can help Doktoro by finding out more about railway onions.

From Laura, Indiana (AfD discussion) and Moody, Indiana (AfD discussion) and Lewiston, Indiana (AfD discussion).

This is what happens when one reads books from Indiana, Doktoro. Be warned!

Also, those Indiananians have no trouble letting their University Press publish trivia books, Doktoro.

Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • But those are shallots? I don't mind reading a book from Indiana. I can't remember his name now--former MfA professor at Alabama, lovely head of hair, he was from there and put out a book on it. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have found some Yellow Danvers just for you, Doktoro. But the sheer effrontery of the IUP! They've let a journalist write a book. Of fascinating facts. That one could ask people whether they knew. A journalist! Writing facts! When there are English professors begging on the streets, who would write a whole sonnet for US$10‽ That's just not right. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're thinking, Doktoro. In order to get the old English Professor Vacuum sucking as hard as it can, rather than write some dreary recitation-of-facts hook like I suggested at User talk:Mangoe#Onions! we should write it like an English professor would, in some really fancy literary form. I'll start you off: Did you know that …

A swamp farmer with lots of onions
sought to not get terrible bunions.
He dug lots of drains
and made private trains;
…
to escape from the quick running grunions. (by talk page watcher)
Geoff | 22:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mendenhall 1899, p. 11.
  2. ^ TDJ 1899, p. 68.
  3. ^ Cavinder 1985, pp. 164–165.

KITT

Uncle, I assume you'll be all over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitt, Indiana? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French doctors in the U.S.A.

I kept coming across de Colange's name whilst citing sources for our current peregrinations around Indiana being led by The Mango to places like Jay City, Indiana (AfD discussion) and by you to Kitt, Indiana (AfD discussion), but oddly xe seemed to have been published in the U.S.A. and in Europe. The London-published gazetteer of the U.S.A. seemed particularly odd. It turns out that there's an 1880 biography of Auguste Leo de Colange LL.D. that explains this.

Did you know that xe was a French lawyer who became a botanist after marrying into money, and only got into the encyclopaedia and gazetteer game after xe lost all of xyr money speculating in the stock market in xyr 40s? And that xe wrote one poem?

Uncle G (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duyckinck, Evert Augustus; Duyckinck, George Long (1880). "Auguste Leo de Colange". In Simons, Michael Laird (ed.). Cyclopædia of American Literature. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: William Rutter. pp. 866–867. (Cyclopædia of American Literature at the Internet Archive)

IP sock and new ID

HI, it is regarding the IP you blocked yesterday. They are back with another IP and a new ID. Similar style of edits [2] [3] [4] [5]. Have a look. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

readded
removed Euryalus

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed

Technical news

  • Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
  • A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A better message to send

You, Drmies, are the most RESPECTABLE and GREATEST specimen of humankind (if not even higher) that I have ever encountered at Wikipedia. And that is certainly saying something as there is an abundance of candidates for that accolade. How you can continue to strut about on this site so selflessly and obliviously unaware of your own humility is beyond me. It is truly astonishing that you've been getting away with this for so long with no one commending you. I sincerely hope you take the time to reflect on what you are, as you are certainly liked BY EVERYONE. Yours sincerely, ~~~~

(Enjoy the love letter. Still can't top Bgsu98's one though.)

The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 16:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • FUCK YEAH
When your fan writes you've been getting away with this for so long with noone bringing you to task, I wonder if the reference is to Peter Noone. That would be cool. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Profundity Barnstar
Verbosity is the enemy of clarity. [6] Words of wisdom. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clocks Ceiling fans and more

Hi Drmies, nope, not trying to sell you a clock or ceiling fan or more, rather requesting a block for Clocks Ceiling fans and more (shouldn't it be Clocks, Ceiling fans and more!). You reverted them about a week ago for adding problematic content to Ceiling fan. Since then they have continued to add unsourced trivial content and have received several warnings but have continued and the last thing that article needs is even more unsourced trivial content. S0091 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OMG - could this be the return of David Beals???-- Ponyo 22:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good god Ponyo, haha yes, maybe. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here far too long.-- Ponyo 22:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have. Please stay. OK, not him, I don't think--but look in my log to see what else is there. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1274786314"