Archives

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 170 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ok, so I didn't know how to address the reason why this needed submitted. I thought if I did it would go through, but it didn't and now I may need help about how to address notability without being too wordy. R2025kt (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is clearly stated in every single decline message. Please read it, as well as the documents linked in the message.

I'll summarize:

• The sources you have are inadequate to demonstrate that the subject is notable.
• There are assertions that need citations to sources.

It's that simple.

The problem is that you apparently wrote the article WP:BACKWARD. You start with sources that meet WP:Golden rule criteria (read it, it's short) before you write a single word, and then write only what is supported by those sources. Then you can flesh it out with other sources. You have many sources from WGAL, which is not independent of Calhoun, and therefore fail the WP:Golden rule criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citations that didn't establish notability R2025kt (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:R2025kt is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They should be blocked and their AfD submissions deleted. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If you can make a case for that allegation, make it at WP:AN/I. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening? Why am I being referred for an incident? I did nothing wrong. R2025kt (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what's going on, and I don't see anything you're doing wrong except consuming the time of reviewers, which I don't think rises to the level of requiring discussion in ANI. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist. Special:Diff/1311047026. I don't know if you'll get any feedback (already rumblings on the talk page, maybe ANI too), but thought I should explicitly make you aware. Twice would not be a great look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen feedback. I was clearing out the requests at WP:RFED, and I responded to a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit#Charlie Kirk source to update an old CBS source with a new CBS source. It looked reasonable, so I made the change. Otherwise I am not involved with that article. If the edit wasn't acceptable, I see it's already been reverted and hidden. I have no objection. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response. I'm not faulting you, just letting you know. Thanks for helping out with the edit requests! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Please note that this is not my filing, but you were not notified of this filing despite a reference to a "massive violation" you supposedly made. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be commenting on ANI. I had already started the discussion where it belongs, yesterday. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, I was not posing any questions. I'm unsure why you continue to add content and say that I am asking questions or that I did not understand. I comprehended everything from the initial response, but I made a comment regarding the final sentence of Favorian. (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2025 (EET)

I undid your edit to that page, as the filter was specifically targeting such edits. We've had a longstanding issue of fans of Chen adding his name to that page; I think there may have been a video where Chen mentioned the Wikipedia page, and there has definitely been off-wiki coordination to try to add it. After reverting I took a closer look at the source that had been provided; on one hand, "theviolinchannel" may meet WP:RS as it does have an editorial staff. On the other hand, the particular article used is simply attributed to "The Violin Channel" rather than a specific article, and is just a series of responses to a question posed to musicians who identify as having perfect pitch. I raised the question at the RSN noticeboard to get more input as to whether that citation is sufficient for adding Chen to that page OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The filter that was triggered seemed to be about the IP address rather than the content, and I saw nothing wrong with the content, but admittedly I didn't look closely at the source.

I'm not even convinced the article should exist, however. That list is presented as if absolute pitch is some sort of supernatural ability, and it isn't. Any musician, particularly a singer, with some background in music theory and a decade of experience would have this ability. My son has been in a professional boys' choir since age 7. As I have learned from his experience, perfect pitch can be trained in anyone, and it is expected of each boy who reaches the advanced level in that choir. I asked him how it works and he said "with enough practice, you just learn what each note feels like to sing." ~Anachronist (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The article's name feels really strange to me - it is not something very few people in the world have (at least, we probably wouldn't be able to list them all in a 100KB text file).

I think the subject is best discussed in a subsection of Absolute Pitch, maybe like "Notable individuals with Absolute Pitch" (assuming that the topic is notable enough to include in Wikipedia)? 海盐沙冰 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Removing "notable people" from Absolute pitch was suggested Talk:Absolute_pitch/Archive_2#Remove_the_"Notable_cases"_section here back in 2022, but instead it was moved to the standalone list article, (a target that had been previously AFD'd back in 2006). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so... it didn't survive as a standalone list in 2006, it didn't survive as a section in the absolute pitch article in 2022, and now it's back to a standalone article? Time for another AFD?

WP:NLIST says that a reason a list would be "considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Looking at the sources there, it doesn't seem that they discuss a population of special people who have this ability. They discuss the ability itself. The sources, however, are pretty good for the most part, so I'm skeptical that another AFD would succeed.

It might be better to have a list of people documented as having innate absolute pitch since birth, rather than having learned it as a consequence of being a musician with plenty of training. That would be a shorter list than what we have now.

(It occurs to me that if my tinnitus was pitched lower, I could use it as a reference note for determining pitches without any practice at all. Unfortunately it sounds like the squeal of an old CRT television set.) ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The didn't survive part seems to make a strong case for AfDing for me, I agree with you.

The tinnitus-reference part is legitimately the most supernatural / superhuman stuff I've heard this month (joking). 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 20:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I requested it per WP:PROTECT, "Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues." Wikipedia could be edited by anyone, barring unusual circumstances like whatever was happening in 2021, the film being newly released and much more attention on the article then compared to now. Not all IP editors will have the experience to suggest edits. This article should have expired after a specified time and not be ongoing forever. Neither Venom (2018 film) or Venom: The Last Dance have this protection. I ask you to reconsider. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked there, what's the hurry? Leave a note on the protecting admin's talk page and wait. If he agrees to unprotect, then it will happen. Being away for a couple of weeks is not unusual.

My view is, the number of reverted edits from IP addresses in those other two articles this year alone suggest that they could use protection too, not the other way round. Yes, anyone can edit. In the case of protection, that's what edit requests are for, and we have WP:Edit Request Wizard to make things easier. An IP address who cannot propose a change on the talk page would likely not be constructive in an article that still gets 1500 hits per day. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought you were literally saying "What's the hurry?" in response to the indefinite protection. Fine, I'll leave the responsible admin a note. Furthermore, we do not protect by default. Any article with a reasonable amount of traffic will have some unconstructive IP editing. Maybe these are forever useless, maybe these are baby steps toward figuring out how to edit. We don't know and should not wall up if we don't truly have to. Hence the policy of having "as many pages open for public editing as possible". Erik (talk | contrib) 16:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, protection isn't the default. However, once protected, I need a solid reason to unprotect other than "time has passed". I look at declined edit requests, the edit filter log, page traffic, disruption in similar articles, and if all of those things look clear to me, it's fair to unprotect. This article, however, seems borderline, so I'd prefer to leave it as is and wait for the protecting administrator to decide. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey--I removed the speedy template and some of the egregious stuff in there, fully expecting to be able to find something on this artist--but I came up with nothing at all. I'm content to let it sit; maybe the editor will come back to it, and if not, Liz will take care of it in six months. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I tagged it with G11. Remove the promotional stuff and inappropriate sources, and there's really nothing left. The entire point of it was promotion. I didn't bother trying to repair it as you did, I felt it was better simply to delete it because the topic is rejectable anyway. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah--I wish I could prove you wrong. Drmies (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new citations and new words to provide what he reports on. See what you think, I didn't submit it yet. R2025kt (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made the prose more neutral, which is good. You added a source that doesn't even mention Arouzi, and it seems you didn't remove any of the valueless sources.

Read WP:Golden rule. I mean it, do it now, it's short. You haven't added any sources that meet the three criteria in it. If no such sources exist, the draft can never be approved, in which case I suggest you stop working on the draft and move on to something else. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources should I remove? R2025kt (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read the WP:Golden rule. R2025kt (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources at the present time:

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4029095 - not independent of the subject, useless for establishing notability, but can be used to support assertions in the article
2. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39326427 - not coverage, not independent, not useful
3. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4029095 - trivial mention, useless
4. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/926935602/ - trivial mention, useless
5. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/987414945/ - trivial mention quoting the subject, useless for establishing notability, but can be kept for verification of assertion
6. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/629559105/ - trivial mention, useless
7. https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/negotiators-in-final-stretch-of-agreeing-on-new-iran-nuclear-deal-133862981572 - basically an interview, not independent
8. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/03/10/talks-between-top-russian-and-ukrainian-officials-fail-to-make-progress.html?msockid=1ae07cbc6cd2669821ce6acb6ded673d - Arouzi speaking, not independent of the topic
9. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russias-bombs-bullets-not-only-things-killing-ukrainians-stress-rcna20601 - created by the subject, not independent
10. https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/iran-commends-but-denies-involvement-in-hamas-strikes-on-israel-194865733610 - Arouzi speaking, not independent

Every one of them fails WP:Golden rule, because they are either not independent, not coverage of Arouzi, or both. The trivial mentions can be removed, and so can the ones where Arouzi is speaking about some event. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added just one more in the draft after taking the ones out that you mention. This one from NBCU Academy about how Arouzi answered questions about how war journalists cover Gaza responsibly. What do you think? R2025kt (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's more citing what Arouzi says, not what independent sources say about him.

I see you blanked the draft. If you want it deleted, let me know and I can delete it, or you can put the tag {{db-g7}} at the top to request deletion. This sort of author-requested deletion, as well as normal 6-month inactive draft expirations, can be restored at any time by making a request to WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Anachronist! I unfortunately couldn't reply to your comment on my EFFP request of my comment on an RFD before it got archived (I was just a couple hours too late!).

I do not mean to contest it or debate it - you're an administrator and a VRT member, you know what you're doing and you certainly know this better than I do. That is precisely why I'm writing this - I'm an inexperienced, novice editor; and this was my first time handling RFDs, and I'd like to do a better job at it going forward.

I was wondering, could you let me know what I can do in the future to improve my edits so I can build an encyclopedia better and prevent triggering edit filters? In particular when it comes to RFDs!

Any help would be appreciated, but if you don't feel comfortable discussing this or are unable to comment on private filters, then don't sweat it; feel free to remove this topic if you like. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to be an expert on reading edit filter code, but it looks to me like if you hadn't written the "bad" words in uppercase, the filter might not have been triggered. Your edit looked to the filter like shouting swear words rather than just quoting someone else's words. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But... I don't understand. That's how it's written in Kris (Deltarune). I quoted the article directly, and I wrote it out fully as a suggestion for moving the redirect article.

Was I wrong to make the RFD comment? Retargeting #2 is current consensus and I thought changing the formatting of the article name to be in line with the redirected article's text it links to would be better for the encyclopedia. What have I done wrong that lead to my EFFP request being denied? It looks to me as if it was, in fact, a false positive. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the other reason: the filter triggers from anonymous IP addresses and unconfirmed accounts swearing in uppercase. Normally after 4 days and 10 edits, a new account is autoconfirmed. You are, but your account is not "confirmed" and I'm not sure of the distinction. I just manually confirmed you.

You did no wrong. If you try that edit again, it should work. I'll post a note on the filter talk page with a suggestion to modify it so that it triggers off non-autoconfirmed instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you very much! The reason why it registered me as not-autoconfirmed is that I was editing from a Tor IP, since I have WP:IPBE. I'm Russian, so I require some form of VPN to edit from a desktop, and you need 100 edits to be autoconfirmed while using Tor, which is what I use. Anyway, that explains everything. Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry if I bothered you! Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if it works. I figured out how to edit the filter to avoid triggering if the user is IP block exempt. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Edit went through. Wonderful!! Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The filter was working fine after all. The problem was that your account wasn't confirmed, causing it to trigger. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it may not be perfect but at least it should go through. R2025kt (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't go through, it will be rejected, because just like before, not one single cited source is independent of Arouzi. They're either by Arouzi or feature Arouzi speaking. None of it is coverage of him. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist, I noticed that you removed/downgraded the protections for several film articles that were previously semi-protected by the late user Ronhjones. However, this article is particular is still semi-protected, despite your agreement to downgrade it to pending changes protection here. BriDash9000 (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I did set pending changes on it, but forgot to remove semiprotection. Those two protections can exist at the same time, and semiprotection overrides pending changes. I just removed the semiprotection. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPTzero shows an 87% probability of being AI-generated. That isn't acceptable. Use an AI to help you find sources. I think something has gone wrong in either that first sentence or my brain. (And, undoubtedly well-intentioned though it surely is, the advice in the third sentence has me feeling queasy. Are you sure that it's a good idea?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence: I used gptzero.me to analyze the draft text, and it said there's an 87% chance of being AI generated. Third sentence: If prompted properly about context, I have found that an AI can be a great help in finding sources that I couldn't otherwise find myself. But AI is terrible at writing Wikipedia articles, being clueless about the Manual of Style, reliability, and what "neutral" really means. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I'm sleepy. I somehow managed to confuse "GPTzero" with "ChatGPT", which is how I managed to misdeduce that you were saying that one toy LLM was most probably generated by some LLM. As for the third sentence, you are conscientious and I'm sure you'd use a LLM in an intelligent way; but I wonder if the advice won't be misconstrued as "Once you've created the body text for your draft (e.g. by reproducing what's stated in PR Newswire and the Daily Mail, and asking your roommate what he remembers from the TV program he saw some weeks earlier), you'll need 'references' for this. An LLM can find [psst: concoct] sources to which your draft can refer." -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, no. Definitely not what I meant, and if it came across that way I need to be more careful in how I reply to people. You can use an LLM to find your sources first. But then you write the article in your own words. You can pass the text you wrote to the LLM to ask for suggestions to clean up anything unclear, vague, weasel-worded, etc.

If you use the LLM as a collaborator, but not the lead author, you end up with a better result than if either you or the LLM did all the work, and then there's no issue about submitting LLM output to Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early this morning, lying in bed insomniacally, I suddenly realized why my little misunderstanding was disturbing me so. This was the second or perhaps even third time that I'd mistaken "GPTzero" for ChatGPT. The latter is the only LLM I've ever tried; and though I should try the former I've never got around to doing so. This lopsided pattern seems to have resulted in the subconscious conviction "Any string of letters including 'GPT' is the name of an LLM". Incidentally, I soon tired of the novelty of ChatGPT (which I presume has since been updated and improved); but what I asked it to tell me, I liked to ask it to tell me in iambic pentameters. The speed with which it spewed sub-Shakespearean doggerel was most impressive. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://gptzero.me isn't an LLM, it's a tool that identifies the probability of LLM generation from text you paste into it.

I've used Google Gemini a few times, and ChatGPT somewhat more times, but probably no more than one session during a typical month. I've found ChatGPT is really good at helping you design a cloud-free privacy-respecting home security system using well-established tools and a dashboard that can be accessed remotely. It's pretty good at writing code in Python and Javascript, not so good at more obscure languages like OpenSCAD but getting better (probably partly due to me training it). Last week I spent hours searching for a solution for a laptop in our house that inexplicably started asking for nonexistent authorization credentials to access our shared network hard drive, nothing was working, and then I decided to ask ChatGPT and it solved my problem right away after only a couple of prompts, giving me information unlike anything I found on my own.

People are using it now instead of web search because it looks for context rather than just keywords. It's good at suggesting improvements to text I've already written (and as you observed, it can even translate what I write into Shakespearean English). I had a fascinating conversation with it about the Gettysburg Address translated into Shakespearean English, and learned that Lincoln's style of writing already bore similarities in structure, emphasis, and rhythm to Shakespeare's.

I now consider it a tool in my toolbox. Like any tool, you have to learn to use it, and be sure it's the right tool for the job. For years I had this stub article perineum sunning, which I created in response to a discussion at WP:FTN before LLMs existed. Earlier this year I asked ChatGPT to find additional reliable sources I could use to expand it, and it showed me that there was a lot of coverage of a resurgence in interest for this dubious and dangerous alternative health practice. I asked it to identify the major themes in the sources, which led me to expand the stub into two additional sections, one about popularity, and another about medical response. After I wrote it up, I asked the LLM to critique what I wrote. I ignored some of its suggestions and implemented others. Without ChatGPT to help me, that article would likely still be a stub, and it's something I can be proud of instead of feeling guilty about letting an AI write it for me. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, rather than "I should try the former" I should have said "I should try the former (which, yes, I now realize is not an LLM)", or similar. For several hours now, I've fully realized, in every stratum of my elderly brain, that GPTzero is neither ChatGPT or an alternative to it, honest. ¶ No shared network hard drive or even network here: sneakernet works fine (as do email attachments). (I presume that amoral multinationals and authoritarian states are scanning the attachments, but anything in them is anodyne.) ¶ Gemini is one of those names that Android tosses at me when my fingertips haven't functioned precisely as I'd intended; I've never even glanced at it. Simply, I view my phone and tablet with deep suspicion: when I want to experiment (for example with a LLM), I'll do it via computer. ¶ I'd never heard of "perineum sunning" before. Now that I've read your article (and momentarily misread one string within it as "using aloe and bum creams"), I'm mildly surprised to see no mention of any recommendation by someone high up in the Trump administration. Anyway, congratulations on achieving a straight-faced, encyclopedic account of this silliness. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I keep reading it it as "bum creams" too. The design of the default font makes "burn" and "bum" look similar.

My only other AI-assisted article, in which an AI was more of an equal collaborator, is fart walk, which I wrote partly to tease my teenage son who has become sort of a prude lately. I ran across the term on Reddit, didn't know what it was, and initially I thought was a fringe concept but as I got deeper into it, it turned out to have validity as a wellness practice.

You refer to yourself as "elderly". I think that may be true for most of us who have been here 20 years. I'm in year 19, retired from the workforce two years ago, but I don't think of myself as elderly probably because I have a child in the house, becoming a parent at a fairly late age. Some editors I encountered in my early days are still around, like you. I've had the pleasure of meeting one or two in person; the term "graybeard" would apply to some of us now.

I, too, prefer to do things on a computer. I get impatient and frustrated trying to do similar things on touch-screen devices that have no notion of "hover". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fart walk is, it seems, a valuable concept. And certainly it's well named. A good (and well titled) article, and one that has educated me: congrats to you and your artificially intelligent sidekick. ¶ Graybeards? My name "Hoary" predates the very existence of Wikipedia; I don't remember why I chose it but I do remember thinking that although it didn't describe me, I'd grow into it. And so indeed I have. ¶ Using a phone ... for one thing, I can no longer touch-type. Especially considering how cheap my own phone is, its photo quality is surprisingly good; but for me at least it represents the ergonomic nadir of the camera, so I carry around a "camera" camera (a "dedicated camera"?) in another pocket. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Place names considered unusual, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baie des Ha! Ha!.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that was intentional. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anachronist. I see you have reviewed my CSD tag on User:NSCar/Sandboooooooxes. Could I ask you to delete the rest of his subpages that qualify for U5? And perhaps a WP:NOTHERE block if you think that's necessary. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 02:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is a cross-wiki spammer with multiple accounts and spamlink pages here and on Commons. Leave this alone unless you want to be at AN/U. Geoffroi 20:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• But you'll delete User:Blakk Boii? The guy is trying to spam his name around with multiple images and links. He's not a contributor. Stop protecting obvious spammers and self-promoters please. Geoffroi 21:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? The user page was deleted because it was a misuse of a user page. You got a problem with that? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted me when I tagged it. Then I reverted your revert and another admin deleted it. Um, what? Geoffroi 21:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to block the user as WP:NOTHERE, but all he did was what I saw here on en-wiki, pasting the same short autobiography on three pages in his own user space. If there's evidence cross-wiki, I can still block it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other admin did the right thing. Don't worry about it. Geoffroi 21:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't tag these here anymore. Sorry for the trouble. Geoffroi 22:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to keep tagging them, but give some context in the edit summary or in the tag itself, so the admin has information needed to do the right thing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Could I ask you, why have you deleted a wiki page about legal scholar Ronald J. Mann, a person, which is a respectable personality in my area of interest - Intellectual Property and Patents analysis. Could not you first discuss mistakes using "Add Topic" button ? What is your expertise in economics or legal studies or legal analysis ? Can you prove your expertise, which gave you a right to delete a hard built page without any warning ? are you not scammer at all ? Kind Regards Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So many things wrong with your comments.

• Ronald Mann being a "respectable personality" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. He seems to meet WP:NPROF notability requirements, however.
• While editor expertise is useful on Wikipedia, it is irrelevant because a Wikipedia article doesn't reflect editor expertise, it reports what reliable sources say, so expertise isn't required.
• You were informed on your talk page by another editor that the article was promotional and qualified for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. I agree, the article is promotional, including multiple instances of unsubstantiated puffery or phrasing to inflate importance. It qualified for speedy deletion on that basis.
• However, the article wasn't deleted, it was moved. While it didn't belong in mainspace, I felt it could be improved, so rather than deleting it, I moved it to Draft:Ronald Mann.
• You can be blocked for violating the WP:Civility policy if you continue your name-calling.

The draft, as it stands, would not be acceptable for publication in its current form. It's promotional, the sourcing is poor, and it fails the WP:BLP policy because it includes unsourced assertions.

I have to ask, what is your association with this person? The article has the hallmarks of being written by someone with a conflict of interest. You are required to declare that on your user page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anachronist,

You are not expert in social sciences.

There was a lack of critical analysis in the field of Information Technology, because the field was developing and US businesses were afraid to lose its dominance.

Second reason for the lack of scientific analysis in the field of law and economics about Information Technology and technology generally was a lack of technical knowledge of legal and economics scholar.

There were few of such scholars who broke the barrier - Hal Varian and Ronald Mann.

so there were no "reliable sources" because of lack of knowledge and US business tactic.

How you would reply to such arguments ?

Regards

Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded to such arguments with my bullet-point list above. You clearly ignored the second bullet point, and you have zero clue about my areas of expertise.

Bottom line: A badly sourced promotional article does not belong in mainspace. A reviewer agrees, since it's been declined. Draft space is where such an article must be developed, and submitted for approval. Nothing more needs to be said. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anachronist,

Look this side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella_Toone

Is it not promotional ? there is marketing of YOuTube channel and marketing of personality own brand ET7 ? Do you fight against such handling of Wikipedia ?

Why did you choose myself, when I wanted to promote latest knowledge of scholar who is ignored by social scientist due their lack of technology knowledge and you ignore like PR business is taking WIkipedia to the PR sport and pop-culture field and use it to finance your activity at Wiki.

I know your activity is voluntary, but without inflow of sport and pop-culture visitors , your job would be much harder.

So do you use same policy to all pages ?

Regards

Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say I wanted to promote latest knowledge of scholar who is ignored - oh, really? Wikipedia is not to be used for publicity or promotion, ever. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is a poor argument when you point to another article for comparison; each is evaluated on its own independent of anything else. And that article you pointed out is well sourced. It's surprising you can't tell the difference. Nevertheless, in my opinion, Wikipedia would be improved if most sports articles, pop-culture articles, and vanity biographies completely disappeared. Wikipedia does not receive financing related to these, ether. Where did you get that idea? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant WP:ANI thread:[1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrator, I'm writing this to you to inform my side in blocking my account for 21 hours. By just a single accusation of an editor you have blocked my account without hearing any defence from my side nor having a discussion about the topic with others at all. I know Wikipedia Administration work is hard and difficult, and I do respect that. But blocking an editor by simply accusation of another even before he has chance to explain and defend himself/herself is not a sound judgement in my opinion. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block based on an accusation, I ignore accusations. Instead I do my own investigation when I see evidence of instability in an article. I blocked based on my own investigation of contribution history. The fact remains that you repeatedly reverted other editors (not just one), including accusing another experienced editor of vandalism. The multiple reverts and WP:AGF failure on your part suggested that you needed an enforced break from the article. I didn't block you site-wide, you are basically topic banned from that single article for 31 hours. If you want to appeal it, the instructions are in your block message. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the edit war between the IP and the two accounts on All In: Texas is the work of a sockpuppet. Both User:Jakeburtonz and User:Willyjackiestar are the same person, whom used two accounts to get an upperhand in the edit war per the revision page. If there's anything you can do, it'll be much appreciated. Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please open a case at WP:SPI to start a sockpuppet investigation. This would need an admin with the checkuser right, and I don't have that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have only editted the page twice, i did not engage in this war because it was getting out of hand. your bio says "assume good faith" when ur alleging im sockpuppeteering off the bat is completely opposite of what youre saying. All i needed was peace which is why i reported the page because you and other accounts were reverting non-stop Willyjackiestar (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i couldnt care less about the actual number. i just wanted some sort of order because yall were going crazy. Willyjackiestar (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why are people allowed to just accuse. you were asked to come to a consensus why arent you doing htat? Willyjackiestar (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? Why are you people extremely disingenuous when it comes to these disputes. Sure there could be disagreements, but you just literally can't accuse someone of using two accounts all casually like that. It makes me not want to even come to a resolution if this is what I'm being met. Do better. you know better, you've been warned several times in the past for edit warring and other offences. Jakeburtonz (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at their page they LITERALLY edited the page twice. What the fuck are you talking about? Jakeburtonz (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're the same person. I'm filing a report and it will hopefully be opened. Your first account stopped editing the exact same topic, and then the account you're currently using, the second account, is editing the exact same topic and you just so convienientally login to the first account to reply. Per WP:DUCK it's an obvious sock. I'm also reporting you for personal attacks too, "Why are you people extremely disingenuous when it comes to these disputes" and "What the fuck are you talking about?" not exactly WP:CIVIL. I don't know who you are trying to fool, it's not me. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, try. If I did have a second account then wouldn't there be more reverts had it been me? That's what you're implying, that this other account is me trying to intensify this war (when they've only edited twice mind you) So first, it's me trying to get the upperhand, and when I told you they only edited twice which anyone would deduce that they're not trying to participate, you're painting a whole story just to grasp at straws, this is pathetic. You're literally accusing me of something I did not do instead of trying to reach a conclusion, of course I have the right to defend myself. And as I've told you, the other user only edited this article TWICE, as opposed to my countless times. I have been extremely civilized, yet you on the other hand have thrown accusations towards my way at the very start. Not exactly Wikipedia:CIVIL on your end, is it? Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done nothing wrong. For the past week, you've edit warred, had horrific attitude, blamed, insulted, and not been anywhere near establishing a proper consensus. I've opened one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakeburtonz. Also worth noting I have not violated WP:CIVIL as I haven't said anything uncivil, merely calling out what needs to and adhered to WP:DUCK. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My man. The administrator acknowledged me trying to reach a conclusion, and when I was warned I literally stopped warring when the other user was STILL warring in the midst of our discussions. Okay, now I have an attitude, AND insulted other users? Why say all that now and not in your initial sentence, hm? I beg you, please point any of this misbehaviour to me. Your uncivil behaviour was to accuse me of something completely outrageous as opposed to trying to come to a conclusion. Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You literally instigated this conflict by alleging I'm sockpuppeting, and when I try to defend myself then it's somehow me throwing personal attacks at you? You cannot be serious. You're literally being disingenuous, I'm calling it how it is. The administrator asks us to reach a conclusion, and yet you completely stray away from that and try to de-escalate. That's textbook disingenuousness, and the fact you're labelling as me not being civil when you've done that is extremely puzzling and contradicting. Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing with you is pointless. I'm not going to subject myself to it any further nor respond to you beyond this. The administrators will decide. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you've started it? I'm merely defending myself and you're simply not listening. You VERY MUCH are being uncivil by lying and coming up with fabrications when you were instructed by the admin to keep it civil and come to a conclusion. I will be doing so as well, and will be filing a Wikipedia:CIVIL report, which you most certainly have violated. I was trying to be civil since the v very start, and you chose to deescalate. Stop being a hypocrite. Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take this off my talk page please. If one of you has a behavioral concerns, start a discussion at WP:ANI. If one of you has a sockpuppetry concern, open a case at WP:SPI. This bickering doesn't belong on my talk page.

With the removal you reverted here, ZDRX was referring to the provision in WP:CT/SA that applies the extended-confirmed restriction to Indian military history. That scope is still being worked out within the community, but the involvement of the Indian paramilitary forces suggests to me it's within scope. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we need to be consistent. The correct way to enforce the restriction isn't by reverting one editor while leaving edits from IP addresses in place, it's by protecting the article so that anyone less than extended confirmed must propose edits on the talk page. The editor who was reverted felt unfairly singled out based on the contribution history in that article, and rightly so.

For those reasons, I reverted ZDRX's removal. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly from WP:HIGHRISK template protection is reserved for templates with more than 5,000 transclusions, extended protection 2,500-5,000, and semi protection for 250-2,500.

If the reason the module will stay protected is because it is used in a lot of chess articles I can understand.

On another note I am trying to fix a weird problem that I am having with the chessboard template with regards to alignment (specifically when viewing on Timeless on a mobile device the rank/file legends are misaligned), and I think it is a fundamental issue with how the module is displaying the template that requires significant work to fix. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 00:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A template is one thing, but a module is something else entirely, and much easier to mess up. The numbers you mention are not the rules, not even the guidelines for human administrative decisions, but are automatic trigger levels for a bot and guidelines for permanent protection levels. I am not about to override the decision of another administrator (JJMC89) who protected that module. He hasn't been around for a week, but he isn't inactive. Have you asked him?

It sounds like you're saying you're going to experiment with a live module that affects over a thousand pages. Please instead follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:High-risk templates#The correct way to edit high-risk templates. Only after you are confident it's working properly in a sandbox, then we can patch in your changes in a single edit with minimal disruption. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a terrible idea to (even with modules not used on a lot of pages) mess up a module without properly testing it. I was going to continue testing and experimenting until I am familiar with how the module operates and when it is appropriate merge the tested changes. Production is different from staging and I agree it should be kept that way. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 01:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to merge the changes once you're satisfied with them, but I'd rather leave it up to the protecting administrator to decide whether to reduce the protection. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist, ZDRX reverted my edits from the Direct Action Day article because I didn't have ECP edit rights. Then, when I asked at WP:ANI, I was told that I can use the ECP edit request template and request someone with those rights to add text with reliable sources but now, ZDRX has reverted my edits from the Talk page of Direct Action Day. I think he needs a warning.-Baangla (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an edit request is declined, then move on. Repeatedly pushing back on declined edit requests is starting to become disruptive, which will lead either to the talk page being protected, or you being blocked. You're already walking on thin ice by participating in these contentious topics in the first place. Take care. I have left a note on ZDRX's talk page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged these user sandboxes (User:Julien2121/sandbox, User:Julien2121/sandbox1, User:Julien2121/sandbox2) for speedy deletion because they were all completely fictitious - they're not viable drafts - and because the user had no constructive content edits. (There's no such company as "Kidcloud", and they certainly did not write an operating system in 1952 or manufacture "hot disks".) Omphalographer (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. A G3 nomination would have been more appropriate then. I have deleted them as hoaxes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come Home to Me (album) has been a JaheimHines-favorite for a while, they've gone so far as to revisit and edit the bot-transferred copy on EverybodyWiki (can't link, EverybodyWiki is globally blacklisted). But as noted at AFD by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, QuietHere, and Doomsdayer520 the album is an unverifiable hoax and should not exist as a redirect to Akiva Schaffer.

Looking for an ATD, I do not readily find an article with an album titled Come Home to Me. There is the odd UPC 894232662828 (Amazon entry), listed as a one-track "album" with Jean Carn/Jean Carne released by Essential Media Mod (Essential Media Mod discography at Discogs), and "manufactured on demand CD-R". But whatever that "release" is, I think it will be hard to justify a retargeting of the redirect, which I propose be deleted.

The hoax-supporting {{Akiva Schaffer albums}} is up for deletion. Best, Sam Sailor 08:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Deleted and salted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I came here to complain that you had declined my G5... Then I actually read WP:G5 and realized that it only applies when the creation was done in violation of their ban or block... So... Now I'm here to apologize and thank you for helping me learn. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. I've made the same mistake myself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently undid my revision of assigning a speedy deletion template to the wiki page for Jilted Lovers & Broken Hearts, which was blocking the way of my submission for my draft of the same name. When you explained that my draft hasn’t been submitted yet, I am confused as to what you mean, as my article has been submitted to AfC for over two weeks now. Is the submission not available on your screen?

Thanks, SassafrassAlabass (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the mistake. I meant that the draft hasn't been reviewed yet. Yes, you did submit it for review. Once it is approved, the way can be cleared to move it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through this before on this article. This particular edit was made by the latest SPA user:ScottyBallsackBowman (this one an attack name aimed at the founder of the school, Scott Bowman) The full source of the clip included in the reference cited, https://www.newspapers.com/article/niagara-falls-review-teacher-given-absol/167315375/ , makes it clear that the legs supposedly broken in the bed-tipping incident were actually injuries from at least two months prior to the bed-tipping. It is not accurate to claim that the student suffered two broken legs in the bed tipping. Meters (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the reference cited. I read the entire source https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/robert-land-academy/ - which is a better and far more detailed source, even reporting on that source you linked above. Based on your revert summary "Overstates the source", it was clear to me that you didn't read it. Here's the relevant passage to the edit you reverted:

“One of the instructors flipped me out of bed,” Niznick said. “I landed on my legs and another instructor kicked me in the other leg and said, ‘Well, if your legs weren’t broken before, they are now.’”

...

Niznick says he wasn’t taken to the hospital right away.

Instead, staff propped him up on crutches and forced him to carry a 25-pound pack “as punishment,” Niznick said.

That addition you reverted was "overstated" you say? No. If anything, that edit understated the source, which is an investigative piece that goes into excruciating painful-to-read in-depth reporting about that and other incidents.

The edit I restored was an accurate overview of that passage, regardless of the badly-chosen username of the editor who put it there. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that was the reference used in the edit. The clip I refer to is included in that reference as an image, and as I pointed out in my summary for my undo of your restore, includes the lines "This would never have been in front of the courts if the police had read their own medical reports" and "no injuries were attributed to the incident" in the investigative report. The investigative piece seems to be pretty shoddy as it completely ignores the contradictory findings that it actually includes in a clip of the court findings at the time. The URL I gave is the full text of that clip, and also includes the lines "the injuries the boy claimed happened at the school were at least two months old by the time he reported to Robert Land Academy Nov. 2, 1999", "It was never part of the Crown's case in sentencing that Mr. Giovannini [the staff member accused of breaking the student's legs] caused any injury to the victim. Noah is quite a troublesome boy who has a history of inflicting injuries on himself." and "The reports indicate he [Noah Niznick] would have done anything to get out of the school."

So, now that you've accused me of not having read the source, do you want to explain how you managed to miss that in the original ref, and in the full clip I linked to above? One could almost think you didn't bother to read it. And, can you explain how it's not a BLP and violation for Wikipedia to flatly state that the staff member broke both of the student's legs, and not a POV violation to make no mention of the court's completely different take on what happened?

This edit is part of a series of edits by throwaway SPA accounts that paint the school in the worst possible light, and the CBC piece seems to blindly report what former students have claimed as the truth.

And no, I have no COI here. I didn't attend or work at the school, and I know no-one with any connection to the school, students or staff. The school clearly had problems and has rightfully shut down, but Wikipedia should not present such a one-sided version of the events in this one particular incident. Meters (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned a COI except you. Why even bring that up?

This was my thought process:

1. I saw your revert of a sourced addition, with the edit summary "overstates the source". The username who made the edit was a violation of WP:Username policy, and I would have reverted it too, except for the fact that the edit cited a source.
2. Curious about this, I read the source he cited. I discovered that the source went into far more gruesome detail than what was stated in the edit; in fact, the edit summarized only a small section of a much larger article.
3. The obvious conclusion was that you didn't read that cited source, because the edit summary clearly mischaracterized the edit as "overstating" a source that was rather in-depth.
4. On that basis, I reverted you due to your erroneous edit summary. I suspected that you may have had another source in mind and that you didn't notice the cited source was different.

Subsequently, in your first notice to me above, you confirmed that you were referring to a different source, not the one that was cited in the edit you reverted.

My own error was in failing to notice that the edit was taking quotations from the source and restating them as facts in Wikipedia's voice without proper attribution. Therefore, when you reverted me, I decided to accept that and move on. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share to me the differences, for me to judge myself if another WP:AFD is warranted? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Wayback Machine to the rescue: https://web.archive.org/web/20250609010511/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_(singer) ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timing context: The last edit on the article occurred June 8. That archive version I linked is from June 9, just before it got deleted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought there was something only available to sysops, but didn't realize that you can use the Web Archive for this purpose. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it either until a few days ago when I saw someone mention it at one of the help desks. Then you came along and asked, which triggered the memory. So I checked, and sure enough, there it was! I don't know if this would work so well always, but in this case the timing of the snapshot was perfect.

What's available to sysops is all the revision history, but it isn't convenient to view, showing only wikisource with a "preview" button. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sysops can't view the actual article before it was deleted?

It seems that the editors of the old article didn't save the old article, then created the new one entirely from scratch. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can view the actual article before it was deleted, but it's a few extra steps. I go to the article history, and at the top of the history appears an option to show deleted edits. When I click on that, it shows me another history view similar to the normal view, but if I click on any edit or diff, it just shows me wikisource. I have to click the Preview button at the bottom to see how it would look rendered as a page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, after the discussion at Talk:Kipeá language, User:Kepler-1229b – uninvolved in the dispute – proceeded with my edit request. A few hours later though, Fdom5997 re-added a column not supported by the sources (a partial manual revert so) and only afterward appeared on the Talk page claiming they thought that column should be there (again trying to win by exhaustion...). Isn't that a violation of the condition you set at Edit warring, stating that any new warring would be met with a block? [2] Yacàwotçã (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the column labeled Close, Mid, and Open, I'm struggling to understand what harm it does. He asked a legitimate question on the talk page and his edit summary, which has not been answered. Another editor in another section has expressed a leaning toward Fdom5997's point of view.

My impression of the prior dispute is that it was a mixture of content and formatting. That content dispute appears to be resolved, particularly since Fdom5997's edit summary acknowledged and accepted the content he kept reverting. The formatting hasn't really been discussed. If the column being there does no harm, then I suggest leaving it in while the discussion takes place.

If I may offer my own impression: The meaning of a table with unlabeled rows may be obvious to someone with knowledge of the field, but to an uninvolved layperson (which is, after all, Wikipedia's audience), it isn't obvious at all. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't open this thread because of the content itself, but because of the editor's uncompromising attitude, as can be seen in the discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard [3] (with at least four users expressing dissatisfaction with the behavior). The fact that they only left a comment on the Talk page after making the edit explains a lot, and I am even hesitant to edit the article. If the comment had come without an edit to the page, we might have reached some friendly consensus (and I agree with User:Oklopfer's comment) – but I simply cannot see that's their goal. The article Dzubukuá language has contained incorrect information for days, would it have hurt to wait just one more day for me or someone else to reply on the Talk page? Yacàwotçã (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He explicitly makes a compromise in his edit summary, and he agrees with some of your points on the talk page. That's hardly an "uncompromising attitude". It's also a common practice to make an edit and then describe or explain it on the talk page. I note that you have so far replied to me, but have not addressed his point about labeling the rows of the table. It isn't clear to him (or me for that matter) why you are objecting. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anachronist. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Sugar bowl (disambig) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 31 § Sugar bowl (disambig) until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist — many thanks for your patient guidance on handling this with COI. An uninvolved editor has added a concise, neutral mention of the Crisis liquidity ratio (CLR) with academic sources in Liquidity ratio. I’ll continue to propose any future refinements on the talk page and leave implementation to uninvolved editors. Appreciate your help in keeping the process policy-compliant. Петър П. Петров (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That editor was me. I also rearranged the liquidity ratio page so that it is now a short article, rather than a disambiguation page that simply links out to related articles.

If you have a COI with a topic, you may still edit the article, but you may make only minor corrections to spelling, grammar, formatting, numbers, names, an so on. You may revert obvious vandalism. And you may add citations to reliable sources that are independent of you. More substantive changes, however, should be proposed on the talk page, as you did.

If you have any questions or need any help, please leave me a note here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are still having this debacle at the Dzubukua language page. Somehow he is still pretty obsessed with the format of the phonemic charts, despite that only being a cosmetic edit. To the point where now he is begging that I get “indefinitely blocked”. I am sorry, but I find it incredibly hard for me (or anyone else) to deal with users like this, who want to enforce their beliefs, and then are so quick to defame other users and insist that they are “wrong” when meanwhile, the edit-controversy here only has to do with cosmetic edits and not anything actually productive. Please, I would like for you to step in here if you can, because this truly is getting insane. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amazing how the current layout is exactly the one you added years ago and has lasted on the page for years. Anyway, if it's just a cosmetic edit, why start edit wars over it? Why call me a "purely borderline-obsessive sociopath" [4]? Why tell me to "shut up" not once, but twice [5] [6]? Why say I "need to seek help" also twice [7] [8]? Why don't you reply in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Please, don't try to twist the situation. I'm following the sources, period. I've already asked you for the page in the Manual of Style, if it even exists, that confirms the format you keep insisting is correct actually is correct. But you ignore it, say nothing on the talk page for a week, and now you come trying to impose your personal view at all costs. Give me a break. Yacàwotçã (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oklopfer: already noted: "[Fdom5997's] belligerence to those who dispute their additions to articles is quite frustrating, and the pattern of assuming ownership is fairly evident. It felt clear to me that the user was more interested in maintaining their "correct version" and simply arguing than actually looking at the sources being presented before them, and it took a tremendous amount of whittling down to get them to work towards an actual consensus." Note "their correct version" has changed over the years, but not their pattern of assuming ownership. How can he be trusted? Yacàwotçã (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How it was years ago, and how it can be corrected with better information, is not the point here. I am happy whenever someone corrects my info when it is not proven to be 100% correct, or whenever the source I had use is proven to not be a trusted source with validated info. I just have a bit of difficulty accepting that one user doesn’t prefer the appearance of the charts. To me, that seems pretty silly as opposed to submitting additional information or correcting it where it needs improvement. That is my true take here. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist, confused by this edit. DiamondCat22 started the review by creating the subpage Talk:The Adventures of Juku the Dog/GA1. They had nominated the article for GA in this edit. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm confused. The reason for deletion was "GA nominator has started a review of their own article." It isn't their own article, the creator was someone else, and the article has been around since before DiamondCat22 existed. I declined the speedy deletion nomination on the basis that the reasoning was invalid. Is there a problem with any editor nominating the article for GA review? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem with any editor nominating the article for GA review, the issue is with starting a review when you are the article's nominator. See WP:GAN/I#R2. Sorry if I'm still being unclear, I believe G6 is the normal course of action for these cases. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 10:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. I didn't see anything wrong with creating a review template, but I didn't notice that he "reviewed" the article already with a 1-line comment. I have deleted the page. I'll leave it to you to clean up the talk page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yosishi/sandbox

This is my first page here and I'm wondering if I could launch it. There's already a main article but still feel the movie could warrant a separate page. I translated some stuff from the Japanese article by the way. What do you think overall? Yosishi (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's heavy on details but light on sources. The Reception section is completely unsourced. As it is now, it wouldn't pass review. I find it strange that the article on the TV series Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water mentions the film in only three short sentences, also unsourced.

It would be even stranger if this film is not notable. You'll need to hunt for sources. This is one situation where using an AI might help, if you give it the right prompt to look for sources about the feature film and not the series. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've sited sources using ChatGPT. How does it look? Yosishi (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not good. You need to check everything an AI gives you, because it often gives you slop. In this case:

• Most of the sources you added don't meet all three criteria in WP:Golden rule. You need to check every source.
• We cannot cite IMDB on Wikipedia, even though ChatGPT may love to do this. IMDB is user-generated content and therefore fails the reliability test.
• In the novelization section, "buy it here" links to Amazon aren't allowed.

Those things basically cause an automatic fail during review.

The citations to Rotten Tomatoes you added in the reception section are OK, however.

The draft needs to be trimmed down to the minimum required to pass review. There's a lot in there that doesn't matter, such as the entire staff and music sections. They can disappear. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the album and staff sections. Could you point out some specific sources that aren't good? Yosishi (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. IMDB, for example.

Please read WP:Golden Rule carefully. It's a very short document. It explains clearly what criteria must be met by multiple sources.

It would be good if you had at least three. Each of them must meet all criteria. It's OK to have some sources that don't meet all criteria, but the reviewer doesn't use those to assess notability. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to get rid of the links to AllCinema? How does it look now? Yosishi (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep the Allcinema links although it looks like a Japanese version of IMDB. You're still citing IMDB, too.

The problem is that none of your sources meet all three criteria described in WP:Golden Rule. The sources basically say that the movie exists, but significant coverage (like actual professional reviews, not IMDB reviews) are needed to prove the film is notable. Even the Rotten Tomatoes citation is for audience reviews, not professional reviews. Wikipedia cannot cite user-generated content.

If better sources cannot be found, it would be best to give up on a standalone article, and instead improve the article on the TV series to expand the section about the movie. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you move the draft back to my sandbox? I can probably integrate some stuff into the original TV series page. Yosishi (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? If it's in draft space, it can be worked on by anyone else interested. If it has no activity in six months, it would be deleted, but you can restore it simply by posting a request at WP:REFUND. (If it's in your sandbox with the reviewer banners on it, it would still be deleted after six months of inactivity, and you could still recover it the same way.)

Given that information, do you still want it moved back to your sandbox? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. If that's the case I'll leave the draft as is an integrate it into the main article. Yosishi (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia:_The_Secret_of_Blue_Water

I merged it into the main article. Yosishi (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do your pronouns work? Like instead of "he got his hair done", it's "who got my hair done". Oh my... that's just crazy. Simanelix (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how long it would take before someone noticed. You're the first. It's been exactly one month.

It's meant to be a parody of those who feel the need to make a fuss about pronouns.

This has been simmering in my head since 2021 when an editor I respected (Guy Macon) referred to an editor by the username instead of the pronoun, and got blocked for "mocking" a gender. I and others viewed it as a wrongful block. The ensuing debate was heated enough that Guy retired from Wikipedia. A great loss, in my opinion.

I don't care if people refer to me as he or she, I am not offended either way. I detest the singular "they", I avoid using it myself, and didn't like it when someone referred to me that way but I always let it slide without comment.

Anyway, one day I decided to address the problem by establishing nonsense pronouns. That way, "tell him on his talk page" becomes "tell me on my talk page", or "he reverted the edit" becomes "who reverted the edit" (inspired by the classic "Who's on First?" comedy sketch). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am back! The admin who blocked my voluntarily became a non-admin. The reason I retired is not because I though it was a bad block -- although I do think that -- but because the block was with done zero warning even though at the time my user page clearly stated that if any admin asks me to stop any behavior I will stop even if I think I am right. The block was punitive, not preventative, and the admin should have been sanctioned for not warning me that he had invented a new rule (Guy Macon and only Guy Macon is forbidden to call someone by their username) and immediately blocking me for violating the newly created rule that I had no idea existed. I can't participate in an Encyclopedia that allows admins who do that. I would never know what new rule might be invented behind my back and used to block me.

Anyway, thank who for who's support (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're still here. And pretty active at that, looking at your contribution history.

I've always been grateful to your recommendation in 2018 to try Huel in my palate-resetting experiment (see your talk page archives at User talk:Guy_Macon/Archive_4#Started on Huel). The results were amazing and I also lost weight, which was unintentional but welcome. Since then I've been consuming Huel now and then as a convenient meal replacement.

I've been meaning experiment with Huel again in a different way after reading Valter Longo's book The Longevity Diet, which my doctor recommended to me to learn about the "fasting mimicking diet" after I complained about my deep-down stubborn visceral belly fat. He said that unlike fad diets, this one is backed up by solid research, but it looks difficult to do even for the recommended 5 days. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered another alternative, but I have no idea where who could buy some or whether a standard form of it even exists: Nutriloaf. Who might have to pick a recipe that who think will be bland enough, calculate the fat/protein/fat/vitamin content, and make it whoself. Meself? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well, the article says "There are many recipes that include a range of food, from vegetables, fruit, meat, and bread or other grains." That sounds sort of like a good meatloaf, which would include meat, vegetables, bread, and other grains, maybe even a bit of fruit for flavoring. I once made a cheese-less seafood lasagna like that, which turned out well.

Oh, I wouldn't need the bland Huel for the new experiment. I still use the bland one for some recipes (like a scoop in pancake batter), or if I want to have my own flavorings added. Otherwise my favorite is the berry. Berry and chocolate mixed together is a good combination, but I don't buy the chocolate Huel anymore due to its higher oxalate content. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anachronist. I'm not sure if you've had a chance to review my response on the Teahouse page, but am in need of your help on the talk pages I described therein. The other editor has refused to comply with consensus guidelines to the point of belligerency. My 'third opinion' that you recommended I provide was already given by the time you responded, but it was not listened to. At this point inaction risks turning the other editor in conflict away from the website entirely, which I'd like to avoid if it's at all possible. My thanks in advance, and all the best - CSGinger14 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads-up that the response templates at UAA shouldn't be subst'ed: otherwise they end up looking like this. (Not a big deal, of course—it just always surprises me when it pops up on my watchlist!) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I keep getting confused. They get subst'd at RFPP and other places. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've unsubsted them. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia admin, I request a Courtesy Vanishing action be taken against my account "Klingri"; I want my Wikipedia account to be courtesy vanished as I don't intend to be on Wikipedia anymore. Thank you. Klingri (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Klingri: I am neither a steward nor do I have global renaming rights, so I am not the right person to ask. See WP:VANISHREQ for instructions on requesting courtesy vanishing.

Your edits have been constructive, so I encourage you to consider staying. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are active at the Teahouse, so I put you in as a featured host (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/7). Feel free to customize the picture to your liking. Interstellarity (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I changed the image, although I don't see any host pictured in the Teahouse banner. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why such negative/condescending responses? [9] [10] Toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 05:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree they were condescending. They were honest reactions. Yes, they were negative, deliberately, given that the editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your honest reaction looks very condescending to me. There's no need to type out "OMG" and "give us a break" just because someone misunderstood Wikipedia's purpose (which happens a lot). If I was an unassuming newbie seeing an admin and VRT member responding like that, I don't think I'd feel comfortable using the Teahouse again. Toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 16:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an honest reaction looks like to you isn't something I can control.

When I read the draft, by brain reacted strongly with these words: "Oh my gosh, is this garage-band wannabe seriously expecting reviewers to waste their time on this steaming pile of promotional shit? And he has the audacity to lodge a complaint with his very first public comment?" I actually dialed it back when I replied, in which I pointed out the relevant guideline and essay.

This wasn't an unassuming newbie, this was an assuming newbie who is now blocked, who didn't come here to improve the Wikipedia project, but assumed not only that his band would merit an article alongside, say, Led Zeppelin or The Beatles, but also that Wikipedia can be used as a publicity platform, in spite of Wikipedia being around long enough for the world to know better. To his credit, however, he did provide reasonable replies to challenges before being blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Those comments don't read as condescending to me. I don't even see a lot of negativity in them, beyond the general point that this draft won't be moved to mainspace.

I would suggest, if you see invicivility in them, that you reflect upon what exactly about them seems uncivil, and if you cannot nail down a few specifics, consider that they might not have been intended that way. See User:MjolnirPants/clarify, a page I (usually forget to) use when it seems apparent to me that something I'm typing might come across as angry or condescending and I don't want it to. In fact, I would say it's a good idea to take the advice on my little subpage every time you find any comment to be of questionable civility. Remember that this is a hobby for all of us, and for most people, hobbies are fun.

Finally, I would note that a little condescension is often called for. Most new editors will reach a Dunning-Kruger point in their editing fairly quickly, and a blow to the ego can be a good thing for them when they do. I myself find that an extremely negative altercation I had very early in my wiki-career with a very arrogant (and now-indeffed) editor actually resulted in quite the improvement in the way I approached editing, specifically disputes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like your page. I'll have to remember it. And my comment "you can't be up-and-coming, you must have already arrived" was written with a smile, although not with the beer. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The funny part is, the only time I ever drink beer is when I'm socializing. So if I'm ever handing you a beer, know that the whole point is because I'm having a good time with ya. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Jacknjellify has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 11 § Jacknjellify until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice! Thebest8382 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this needed extended confirmed protection in the first place. Very, very, unnecessary. - ExcitedA. It may be a good idea to look at this. 14:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from looking at the deleted contribution history of the Jacknjellify redirect, in 2022 there was a rash of autoconfirmed sockpuppets and other accounts repeatedly trying to create a page for a topic that wasn't notable then according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacknjellify. ECP was necessary to stop the disruption. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was three years ago. Give it another chance, and if socks try to create the page again, we can put back the extended confirmed protection. - ExcitedA. It may be a good idea to look at this. 19:20, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a draft ready to publish? Has anything happened in the last 3 years to suggest the topic is notable enough to merit a standalone article? As far as I could tell, the answer was "no", which is why I preserved the protection when I created the redirect. It's only at ECP, so pretty much any reviewer can replace the redirect with an article by approving a WP:AFC draft. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🥭 Mango ^{[ talk | edits ]} 16:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 06:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I don't know if it has any significance, but there has also been a noticeable increase - just in the last 2 days, 3 at most - of temporary accounts also asking odd/idle/aimless questions on the Teahouse. (The questions haven't been a particular problem, just wondered about the coincidence factor.) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They get blocked as a sockpuppet, they log out, likely obtain another IP address automatically from their provider, and then ask for help. The message never gets across that the person behind the account is the one who is blocked, not the account itself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

🥭 Mango ^{[ talk | edits ]} 10:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

""Regrettably"? I would have said "Fortunately"! etc etc

The reason I said "regrettably" is that it is more polite and friendly. "I'm sorry, we can't use your information unless you can source it to a publication". I'm sure that the individual in question has the best of intentions (and may actually have access to a published source); I would also point out that they may genuinely have access to useful information (which, regrettably, is not the same as usable information).

I politely request that you remove that particular comment from the Teahouse, as it could be perceived as hostile. DS (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended to be humorous. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert me, if you also remove the insincere apology "regrettably". Your sentence would be fine without it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be polite to new users who have no idea what they're doing. You can just not say anything.

Telling other people to not be polite, however, is not acceptable. DS (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I never told anyone not to be polite. I have told people not to be insincere. Prefacing a neutral, factual statement with an insincere apology like "regrettably" or "unfortunately" is impolite, and not acceptable for my own communication. Your own sense of integrity is your business, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You told me not to be polite to the new user. I will accept that you did not understand that this was what you were doing, because the only other option is that you did understand that this was what you were doing.

I will also accept that you did not understand that it is an insult to tell someone that their politeness and friendliness are insincere. Because, again, the only other option is that you did understand that you were being insulting.

Wikipedia is a project for grownups. Being able to work with others is a prerequisite.

Is it likely that the user in question will have access to a usable source of information about his great-grandfather — honestly, no. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. And telling someone "it's a good thing we can't use your information" is cruel, in a way that "I'm sorry, but we can't use your information" is not.

If you don't think it's a good idea to be polite and friendly to new users who clearly don't know what they're doing, I strongly recommend that you stop interacting with new users. In particular, don't answer questions on the Teahouse. DS (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I tell you not to be polite? That never happened. Or did you think my suggestion to remove "regrettably" makes your statement impolite? No, it just makes it factual. As for insincerity, do you truly regret that someone cannot write whatever they believe is true in a Wikipedia article, without citing sources? You and I have been around for a very long time, add I think we both know that Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and neither of us regret that it doesn't work that way. You may think you were being polite, but it looked to me like you were being insincere. As I said, you communicate how you want within the constraints of your sense of integrity, and I will do the same. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Anachronist, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is used as an indicator, nor more, no less, that a file on Commons has been photographed by the uploader. Having EXIF data does not guarantee that it has been. Lacking it does not guarantee that it has not. Thus it is useful, but not diagnostic in and of itself. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a thing I would make a mistake about, thiugh I did appear to have made a typo. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Articles_for_creation%2FHelp_desk&oldid=prev&diff=1334650654 this diff] shows there was no typo.

First, I have a gadget which shows global locks, second I look at the relevant Global Accounts page. here, though obviously it only shows the current status. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused because I'm the one who blocked the guy, and I have no option to lock an account globally. No, you didn't make a mistake, you just pointed out that somebody else did something globally that I wasn't aware of.

In User:Anachronist/vector.js I've got a couple of things that show me user states and permissions, but it looks like they don't show global locks. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the gadget "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" locally here or it might be "MarkBlocked: Strike out links to blocked users" at Meta.

I ticked something ages ago and can't recall which. It's exceptionally useful, despite my having no 'power' on any WMF site.

I'm sure you know that the only way to have a global lock implemented is at Steward Request at Meta. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you unsalt the page because I want to make it into a redirect to Multiracial Americans#Eurasian-American identity where it’s mentioned and the article notes that it’s seen an uptick in usage in the 2020s. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created the redirect. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was the one that made a number of edits on the Kalshi page and have since logged in. I sincerely believe that the revisions I made are significantly more representative of the topic and should not constitute promotional content. I also do not have any conflicts of interest, I simply use the platform and I work in the financial services industry.

I did not remove the controversies, nor did I exclude any of the lawsuits in the new lede. Additionally, the page in its current state does not respect the consensus in the talk page. For example "prediction betting" rather than a "prediction market".

The current version of the page that's up is significantly more biased and demonstrates nothing to the reader than the controversies. There are indeed many, but it misconstrues the company as merely another sportsbook, similar to DraftKings, but there are fundamental differences that should be outlined.

I think a reasonable compromise could be to go back to versions from early 2025 and update the information. Those revisions are significantly more balanced, nuanced, and provide a fair representation of the company. SpaceEnthusiast23 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Edit Request Wizard and propose changes on the talk page. Since the version to which I reverted, there have been many promotional edits added, along with removal of valid sources. The reversion and protection was to preserve stability, as is the job of an administrator to enforce. I am otherwise not involved with the content of that article, and I have no familiarity with the subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for the help SpaceEnthusiast23 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anachronist,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 23:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC) (Divya Khosla Kumar)

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion log 07:40  Anachronist talk contribs deleted page Draft:Winston Weinberg (G6: Technical deletion (uncontroversial maintenance): Deleted rejected draft created by editor who created several sockpuppets and is still being edited. Deleted to remove exposure of possibly misleading information about a living person.)

This is a blatant misuse of WP:G6. The last sentence is wildly ambitious as a justification, the individual is very public, the information is well sourced. The problem is merely notability, with probable UPE. The sockpuppety is predictable. Misuse of deletion is not the answer to sockpuppety. Please undelete and send to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet requested deletion here at 4:51 on 5 February, and I deleted it later the same day at 7:40. I admit I did mess up with the rationale, should have been G7 (assuming sockpuppetry). In any case, I see no basis for restoration. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

G7 is also not applicable. A variety of reasons.

By deleting, you are hiding very interesting history of an extraordinary case of interviews being used to argue Wikipedia-notability. There’s also the AI, UPE and then sockpuppety following. It is no great surprise that the person behind it wants to hide the history. I want the page to inform the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#An active test case of this essay, a new editor, and a challenged new article.

Your deletion was out of process. Please reverse it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this a deletion in accordance with WP:G7. Assuming it's a sockpuppet, that was the only person making substantive contributions to the draft, and the creator has a right to request deletion regardless of the underlying reason. Are you requesting restoration in a WP:REFUND sense, or because of your own convenience because you don't want to look for another example? Note that as a draft, it would be deleted in six months anyway if it isn't moved somewhere permanent. Draft space isn't intended to be permanent. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist @SmokeyJoe @Timtrent I don 't think this is G6 or a G7. I don't think Mark is from the same sock farm as WH and friends but haven't filed at SPI. So technically we go to MfD. That said, restoring a rejected draft that a lawyer is going to argue over is a waste of community time and effort. Star Mississippi 21:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is the option to restore it and ignore the blandishments of the current interested party. I am half serious, half tongue un cheek. This is a marketing person this new editor, and they will likely find that the rope concept allows them to choose to leave.

You never know, they might pull their horns in. I feel they are under job pressure, so am somewhat sympathetic. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to use this specific case with a view to updating WP:Interviews, and possibly making a proposal that interviews alone cannot be used to establish Wikipedia-Notability. It is an extreme case of a public person where all coverage comes from interviews. It also has a fascinating irony, being about an AI company founder where every proponent posts with a strong smell of AI (not the vanilla ChatGPT, but an assertive argumentative style, and that I think has been trained using the Wikipedia back room namespaces).

It’s also a blatant misuse of deletion. It is astounding that restoring is resisted. Is it that old admins don’t care any more? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is likely to be created anew, in a different form. I deleted it because (a) it was requested, an (b) it successfully defused a time-suck of an argument between a paid editor who should learn the ropes, and regulars whose time is valuable. Therefore, I am hesitant to restore it. Why is that so "astounding"? If I truly didn't care anymore, I'd ignore your comment.

Your proposal that interviews alone cannot be used to establish notability seems redundant. That is already covered in multiple places, especially the often-linked WP:42. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted contrary to policy. We can continue at DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Substantially similar content already exists in mainspace[11]. You can link to that. I already explained my reasoning immediately above. Restoring the redundant draft would have zero benefit to the Wikipedia project. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want the reviewers comments, which were in the draft. I also want Draft talk:Winston Weinberg. Just like we have User talk:WestwoodHights573 and its history/archives. This is a study, not a reference.

It’s also important that you acknowledge that your deletion was out of process, and your log entry statements incorrect (there was no misleading BLP content). SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already said my log entry was incorrect, above. I disagree that the draft should be restored, for reasons I have already stated. I also disagree that your personal convenience for a study offsets the negative benefit of restoring the draft, which has wasted enough community time already. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continue at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February 9. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in the DRV, the draft is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20260116135555/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winston_Weinberg with all the reviewer comments. There is no need to restore it here, where it would be deleted after 6 months of inactivity anyway. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was not vandalism. It was glitched text, which is cool for a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ~2026-82730-4 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Nobody deleted your talkpage. An edit filter caught your edit (and several others of your nonsenses). Compare the block on your page, and note that Wikipedia is not a playground. And yes, your edits are vandalism. Bishonen | tålk 16:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Thank so much for all the changes you made on this page. Dr. Edwards asked for my help to make some corrections, and I was trying to figure it out and made many mistakes. If I send you proper links and information, would you be willing to make the changes? Brendaskent (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how it works. Anything concerning that article must take place in public, on the talk page: Talk:George C. Edwards III.

Use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to propose changes in the form "change X to Y", citing reliable sources, preferably sources that are independent of Edwards. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've spent a while on this, could you let me know what you think since you've spent a while talking to them & might have some insight I'm missing? I had to do it on mobile so it took over an hour... [12]

I'm worried it's too long, but since they can't CU TA's I felt I had to explain literally everything. I hope it makes sense? Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah and I didn't see you're an admin - sorry, it's 6am and I haven't slept yet 😅

I was just looking for someone else's view if that's ok, you don't need to do anything with it - I think this is the second SPI I've ever started & wanted a second opinion.

I know admins are super busy so feel free to just delete this if you are, that's totally fine! Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That looked like a lot of work. In your timing details, the middle one has no link, and the second one has a link that doesn't match your description. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You also have "They've denied this was them here" but the link goes to a nonexistent place; it's better to link an actual diff. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agh mobile editing strikes again! I'll fix that, thanks so much for checking! Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please revoke talk page access for a user recently blocked - Tumi1967. He’s just using it to lash out incoherently and make personal attacks against me. I asked the blocking admin, Robertsky, but it appears he’s offline now. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to reply here. I did this a couple of days ago. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to me that such an old article (to where it isn't in the log) was G11-able. Was there no good version of the page to revert to? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at sample version back in the page history (only 133 edits since 2003), and the content was largely the same, basically just a description of the book's contents without secondary sourcing. The latest version cited just three sources, and two of them were junk. I also was surprised that an article obviously existing for publicity purposes survived that long. I thought about declining the G11 nomination, but then figured, it's been in a G11 state for so many years without improvement, it had ample opportunity, and we have stricter guidelines now, so I pulled the trigger. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that in spite of my G11 deletion, I have no objection to restoring it to draft space for improvement. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do so? I've found a couple sources that might be useful from some searching. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, it's at Draft:The Fifth Discipline. Have at it. A lot of the content currently there shouldn't be there. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you unblocked me, you said, "You may want to explain the relationship between the two accounts on your user page." I've done that, but I'm not sure that i did it the right way. Can you check and make sure I did it right? Zuglicnzg (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You did fine. Please let me know if you need help or advice on anything else. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]