New editor respectfully requesting your advice regarding addressing issues raised in templates for article. As noted in Dave Carley talk page Thanks in advance.

Hi @AntiDionysius! Hey I found out that Talking Hank likes making T.S.B's. And am I a good friendly guy because I am. -FBIGUY81

Thanks a lot again for helping me earlier with the Mahfuz Alam Wiki page edits ^-^

Msadmansakib (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of my entry about the Spanish bibliometry research unit at Barcelona University is in the final analysis simply totalitarian - you remove an important information simply because the information simply because the information doesn’t fit your world view Frete unicolore (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was a personal attack. Those aren't permitted on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I heeded your advice. In objective terms, the problem remains that the serious scholarly evidence provided by the team of Spanish bibliometry researchers cannot be overlooked here. The MIAR team published widely ob the subject, and a Wikipedia editor cannot brush away years of research with a word … Apart from that: did you look at all these interesting articles in TELOS? Frete unicolore (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

by the way: Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J. M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall's list. El profesional de la información, 25(5). Frete unicolore (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thx for leaving me a message. The content that's been added/removed/readded/etc on Suzanne Blier's page was a personal attack consisting of material taken out of context from local website. This appears to be a violation of Wikipedia's personal attacks policy. This odd attack is likely being done a member of a group opposing some of her local personal work. It's my understanding that as a well-known/respected Harvard professor, author, and authority on art history, an article about her should be about her professional work, and not delve into he said-she said personal attacks (unless the controversy is about one of her articles/books).

When I removed the text, the link "personal attack" appeared. I thought I had noted that and cited wiki's policies, but I'm still a wikipedia newbie - and your help/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Cdrp221 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdrp221: The material not vandalism (as defined by Wikipedia policy), it's not being pushed by anyone with an agenda, and it isn't a personal attack (as defined by Wikipedia policy). It's possible it ultimately doesn't belong on the page, but it isn't any of those things.

The way forward is to go to the article's talk page, Talk:Suzanne Blier, and explain very specifically what you believe is wrong and why (what has been taken out of context? What is the context? How does having that context change how the information is viewed? etc). When doing so, it would be best not to assume that anyone involved is behaving maliciously, because they almost certainly aren't - even if they happen to see things differently to you - and because everyone on Wikipedia is asked as a matter of policy to assume good faith of each other. Plus, an argument based on the content itself, rather than your perception that whoever added it must have been acting in bad faith, is much more likely to convince other editors of the need to remove the content.

You have a conflict of interest (as defined by Wikipedia policy) because of your prior personal connection to the subject matter. You should familiarise yourself with the basics of the conflict of interest policy and disclose your conflict when you start the discussion on the talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - Thanks and I'll follow your suggestions. I'll re-read the policy pages as well.

I disagree 100% about your initial statement (it's not being pushed by anyone with an agenda). Ms Blier has been under constant attack by a local pro-development group known as "A Better Cambridge." These attacks have appeared continually in local media - and most of the attacks are anonymous. I can't link the author of the last section to any group/individual, as he is using an alias.

In any case, I'll do what I can here after studying the noted sections. Cdrp221 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analyst | Scientist | Journalist - not a conspiracy theorist, that's what Maram Susli is. Why would yourself put your own views as the one and only truth by calling someone a conspiracy theorist?

Should somebody judge somebody else's point of view as a conspiracy theory each time their views do not kiss?

Not fair at all, by an anti-fascist self proclaimed dude 151.36.213.254 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer when people's views kiss.

The "conspiracy theorist" part is very well sourced. If you think it should be removed anyway, start a discussion at Talk:Maram Susli. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go through the process of making an account? 2600:6C46:4400:C3F:A469:D84B:B0C3:D36B (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On desktop, you click the "create account" button in the top right corner. On mobile, you open the menu (by clicking the icon to the left of the word "Wikipedia" at the top of the page), click "log in", and then on the next screen click "Join Wikipedia" at the bottom of the page. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. By the way, I noticed that you are a fan of the Houston Astros, I am too. Too bad they didn't get too far this year, though. 2600:6C46:4400:C3F:A469:D84B:B0C3:D36B (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.

Yeah, the postseason was a bit heartbreaking after a pretty good regular season, but what can you do. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't it the truth? 2600:6C46:4400:C3F:A469:D84B:B0C3:D36B (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my addition to the Smart pages of the 2017 Brabus?

This was all accurate and is not covered anywhere else.

Would have been better to contact me if you had an issue so we could make it better. SmartieUSA (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmartieUSA: As I said in the message I left on your talk page, the edit was reverted because it was unsourced. It is not enough for information to be accurate, everything on Wikipedia must be directly supported by a citation to a reliable source. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m so sorry I didn’t mean to vandalize ok I would like to let you know that I’m still learning what is acceptable and what isn’t so please forgive me for this and reply soon thank you Alexander Hamilton13579 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. it's clear you don't understand enough about Bigo Live and have not done your research.

Bigo is now Defunct as I keep mentioning and it's not my personal experience it is what happened. MadHatter800 (User talk:MadHatter800) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MadHatter800 - you need to provide a source. Making an edit without a source and then saying "I know this is true because I was there" - that is an example of making an edit based on your personal experience, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. --AntiDionysius (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiDionysiu I have not said "its true because I was there" I said I was there I saw it happen which is not a source, this edit is not based on my personal experience it seems to me you need to do your research. As you've seen a new account and presumed I am making false edits which I am not MadHatter800 (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing exactly the thing I just said. Your edit summary said we know this as we were members of Bigo Live and were on when it got permanently got shut down - this is a textbook example of using your personal experience instead of a source and is very much against the rules of Wikipedia.

I'm not presuming you're making "false edits". I have no assumption about whether what you're saying is true or not. I just know that you're not providing a source, which you need to. Something being true is not good enough. It also needs to be sourced. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you are doing is bullying new users on the site because you have no clear knowledge of anything #TheWhiteKnight. When did I once say that was a source? I'm writing facts and you're reverting them, I thought Wikipedia's whole policy was not to mislead readers? You're the reason Wikipedia Readers are misled. How you're some top guy for vandalism I'll never know, as looking at your page you're the vandal MadHatter800 (User talk:MadHatter800) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have clear knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, which say that everything requires a source, as I've told you several times now. Otherwise, we have no way of telling if what you said is indeed a fact. If you provide a source, your edits won't be reverted. Let me know if I can assist with anything else. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the user space speedy, and moved it to sandbox myself. But tagging is how I know to do stuff, so thanks for your work in this area. It's all explained at User talk:Lincoln School Project. They are not a paid editor, but the school is in their neighborhood so they have an interest (but seem to also have sources). BusterD (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough, I appreciate the explanation! AntiDionysius (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I saw you ran for the admin elections and you got pretty close, which is awesome--I'm sure you'll get it next time. I'm also sure tons of people have given you advice so I'll abstain from that. Some valid points were brought up at that "Debrief", and I can offer some more tips, a bit different from what you saw there perhaps. But here's a question: when does that need to be blocked, and for what? Or have we reached that point already? I suppose these are the kinds of things that might come up when you run in the "regular" process, and because the answer is not necessarily obvious you might want to ponder what you'd do, and when, and how, if you did have the bit. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! There's been advice, but more is always welcome, and I'd be really grateful for any tips

Regarding Smoho; I don't think we reached the point of needing a block quite yet, and they appear to have knocked it off anyway so it's a moot point now, but we came very close. Exactly when it's evident that someone is WP:NOTHERE is ultimately a judgement call, but persisting in vandalism after three warnings (over the course of a few hours) with zero remotely encyclopaedic contributions (not to mention trollish responses to those warnings) would I think clearly meet that definition.

On the other hand, spamming nonsense on their own user page is a pretty low-level harm (except that it clogs the recent changes feed), so as long as they were only doing that and didn't go back to vandalising mainspace I'd be more willing to err on the side of caution. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. OK my two tips are 1. article creation and development (there's not a lot of that in your history) and 2. visibility on noticeboards (particularly ANI) where you can gain experience in discussing disruption (more than just reporting it) and growing/showing off your judgment in cases like the above. Adminship is a bit of a popularity contest, and ANI participants are often also RfA voters. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful, actionable stuff. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I already engaged with the previous editor on this exact same issue. They are ok with restoring the original edit. Please see the latest post on their talk page. Many heartfelt thanks. @Gaismagorm 2601:41:4300:9370:1CAA:9137:1299:3919 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For marking randomly greated misinformation pages into speedy deletion! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're too kind, thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GENOESE is correct, not "Genovese" - STOP GASLIGHTING. 49.180.200.150 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few things.

1. I don't think you know what gaslighting means.
2. The source says "Genovese", and we go by what the sources say.
3. It's not surprising the source says Genovese, because Pandolce is an Italian word and it makes sense that the accompanying adjective would also be in Italian, not in English.

AntiDionysius (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You really deserve it. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two in one day? This is really lovely, and a sign I'll do anything to avoid working on my dissertation. Thank you <3 AntiDionysius (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I already engaged with a previous editor on this exact same issue. They are ok with restoring the original edit. Can you please undo your undo? Please see the latest post on their talk page. Many heartfelt thanks. @Gaismagorm 2601:41:4300:9370:B074:7BD3:27F6:75E9 (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reverting of it was largely predicated on the fact that you removed content without explaining your reasoning. If you'd like to re-do the edit with reasoning in the edit summary, I would have no objection. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(this is directed towards the unregistered user) I already discussed how I made a mistake, and how I wasn't actually okay with it but it more that I wasn't sure, and as such wanted to back down. I stated that I regretted not being as clear on the matter, and that I should have simply used my words. But even so, I have already discussed this and I would prefer it if you didn't drag me into this discussion again, as I have stated before that I am not supporting the edit, I merely am unsure. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this appears to be the third time. While the first time you mentioned me, I can assume that it was in good faith (and really was mainly my fault), it does frustrate me that you keep on keeping in the ping whenever you copy and paste this message. As such, next time you copy and paste the message, please remove the ping. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that's a bit of a mouthful Gaismagorm (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies @Gaismagorm!! Many thanks to all @AntiDionysius. In the spirit of the holidays, I ask your forgiveness :) 2601:41:4300:9370:E887:6D46:A2:336F (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, honestly I kind of was a bit too harsh there Gaismagorm (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Giving you another barnstar for your hard work at combatting vandalism yet again with some other people at Bakhtrioni Uprising, well deserved! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Apologies, I am a first-time editor! I wasn't sure if my edits were being made - didn't realise it was being revert-edited, and thought I was doing something wrong!

Understand the process now - thank you. NoviceUser123 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoviceUser123 No problem, mistakes happen. I appreciate you dropping a message here. I've left a note on your own talk page with some helpful introductory info for Wikipedia; hope you decide to stick around! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your constant efforts to fight against vandalism! Your efforts have helped me, and possibly numerous others. Thank you so much, and enjoy this barnstar! AJRossetto9953, Editing with SSStyle! (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, it means a lot! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

=] AJRossetto9953, Editing with SSStyle! (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AntiDionysius, an angry IP editor is demanding an apology from you at ANI. Cullen328 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 ah, I believe I know which one. Thanks for letting me know. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I had juuust finished typing out a reply when @Drmies closed the thread. That's what I get for making a cup of tea first. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Kurt Vonnegut was fond of saying, "so it goes". Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I love Vonnegut. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe tomorrow I will look to see what the underlying issue was, but it probably doesn't matter. They also filed a request at DRN, which was closed as a conduct dispute, and have now been blocked. They are now ranting from a different IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It boils down basically to the two sources that accompany the label "socially conservative" in the Alba Party infobox. The IP was not entirely incorrect to say that the sourcing could be better. But after that it was just a huge amount of OR; they wanted not only to delete it, but to change it to "socially liberal" on the basis of absolutely nothing but their own feelings. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i contacted you cause i reverted one of your recent edits cause it is considerd vandalisation Omarisonfire (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was me reverting someone who removed content from a page without explaining why. It was an appropriate edit and not vandalism; I have reverted your reversion of it. AntiDionysius (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you for making it clear and am sorry Omarisonfire (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AntiDionysius.

The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page including by yourself.

I asked for an intervention in WP:AN/I, but to no avail, and for a temporary block in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which was rejected as insufficient to warrant a block.

Do you have any additional advice?

Kindest regards, Moroike (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AntiDionysius, I have been meaning to ask you about this use of rollback since October 2024, when it crossed my watchlist. My apologies for the late response, as real life issues have made it difficult for me to keep up on Wikipedia. Also, I am not an admin, so it's possible I have missed something, but my understanding of WP:ROLLBACKUSE is that, except for issues with widespread implications like rolling back banned or blocked editors or misguided bots, it is to be used for "obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". I have always understood that we are ultra careful in rollback use so as not to chase off or bite the newbies.

I can't decipher any reason for considering the talk page comment at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt as vandalism (in fact, the IP posted about a view held by reliable sources and also pointed out garbled prose), nor can I see any other "reason for reverting" that "is absolutely clear".

Browsing your talk page, I see other inquires about your use of Rollback have been raised:

1. At Martin Kulldorff in November 2024, I can understand your thinking in removing the content rather than tagging it with citation needed, per BLP, but it doesn't appear as obvious vandalism.
2. At Barbershop in Germany in November 2024, doesn't seem to be obvious vandalism.
3. Ibrahim AlHusseini questioned in October 2024 by ToBeFree
4. Talk page comment in November 2024; how is that vandalism?
5. As explained on talk, this Sept 2024 rollback doesn't look like vandalism

With those as examples, I looked at more recent edits:

1. December 2024, appears justified by content in the body of the article, not vandalism
2. December 2024, uncited, but not a BLP, and not obviously vandalism, so why not just add a CN tag?
3. November 2024, ???

I noticed that the highly experienced HJ Mitchell conferred rollback rights about a year ago, so I've pinged him for a look, as I trust his judgment and wisdom. I saw also in your talk archives that Hurricanehink noted a small problem in August 2024. And I see the good Drmies engaged here, recently. With additional feedback here from Ponyo and ScottishFinnishRadish, along with this December 2024 note from BusterD, you are very well advised by experienced editors, so perhaps I am misinterpreting the correct use of Rollback. If I'm wrong, please excuse my intrusion; if I'm right, I hope the good admins on board will guide your future edits. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SandyGeorgia, gotta be brief: there are dogs to walk. I certainly think that Talk:Blame It on the Boogie didn't warrant rollback, though I might have rolled back on Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, since it has too much of a rant-flavor to me. My note to the editor was not in any way in response to anything other than the RfA thing--I have come to know AntiDionysius as a valuable editor who helps me do the things admins need to do. Oh, yes, just looked at the Biryani edit--that's not a good use of rollback. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Go walk those dogs, and Merry Christmas (I was more concerned that something about Rollback had changed while real life has been beating the crap outta me, and there are plenty of experienced admins to look in here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AntiDionysius, SandyGeorgia and Drmies, thanks for the ping and the detailed list of rollback issues. I think the advice at User:ToBeFree/rollbackgiven may be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I never bothered getting rollback. Too easy to make a misstep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scared to death of it; I installed some gadget so I wouldn't keep mis-hitting it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I got the admin bit flipped all of a sudden there were rollback links on my watchlist and I immediately did the same thing. Let me go ahead and hide those links before I end up at Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL !!! I think everyone knows "that shit happens" :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I reported myself for missuse after catching the rollback button whilst scrolling on my mobile. Knitsey (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L mans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.140.215.230 (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]