The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help and for understanding the small things with love. I truly appreciate your patience in understanding my mistakes. You are my first favourite admin! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 17:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry about laundry day. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, i understand better now and i appreciateit sir 197.211.59.98 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please revert your close and relist it? There are no reliable sources that discuss Athmeeya Yathra, so keeping the article makes no sense. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't close it as keep. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say it was closed as keep, but I meant that it doesn't make sense to keep the article. Can you please relist it for the second time or is it eligible for renomination? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misunderstand, no, I was just trying to be delicate about it. At the risk of saying the quiet part out loud, I think you'll have a better chance of getting it deleted in a fresh discussion. I wouldn't re-nominate it right away, but come back to it in a little bit and write a solid rationale and I think that'll get somewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the point of renominating it later when the entire article is sourced only from the subject’s own websites, so there won’t be any new sources in the meantime. The existing nomination rationale is good enough to start an XfD, even if it wasn’t a good faith nomination. Given that the only keep vote is from the author, this should have been an easy relist rather than a no consensus close. Would it be okay if I take this to DRV for a second opinion? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you can take it to DRV whether I'm okay with it or not. But from the perspective of achieving your goal, which is the deletion of the article, I don't think DRV would reliably get you there, so I wouldn't advise doing that. It's no skin off my nose to relist it if you're really insistent, so if you confirm that's really what you want, I can do that. If I personally wanted the article to be deleted, though, that is not the option I would choose. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My goal isn't exactly deletion, as you can see from my vote in the XfD. Either way I was planning to BLAR and if contested, I was going to renominate it but another editor has already started a merge discussion, so that's that. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | March 2025, Vol 11, Issue 3, Nos. 326, 327, 332, 333, 334 Online events: New: Alphabet run E & F | Artists+Activists | Women of the Arab World Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements from other communities: March editathons around the world Celebrate Women 2025 office hour series Tip of the month: You can access the Wikipedia Library if you have made 500+ edits, and 6+ months editing, and 10+ edits in the last 30 days, and No active blocks Moving the needle:[1] 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) 23 Dec 2024: 20.009% (2,041,741 bios, 408,531 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | [[ File:Twitter icon.png|frameless|15px]] Twitter/X ^ "Humaniki".

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

@Asilvering:Hi im AbchyZa22, why you transferred this logo to the Wikimedia, this logo is not simple (below too) ,is the same logo deleted in Deletion Request (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rutaca.png) User:Taivo (Administrator of the Wikimedia Commons) says:complex logo. The curves are not arcs of ellipses or ovals (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, @AbchyZa22. I'll restore it here and tag the Commons version for deletion. -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every answer I get from wiki people is so cryptic I don't understand I it's like military grade encryption to me I just got to all the things all the edits and thought I was in good shape because I got to the page that gave me a banner that said now I needed to wait I thought that was a good sign because I got all the other errors fairly quickly over multiple days but I can't get back to that banner that tells me to wait for 2 months. I did once but I can no longer get back to that banner I don't know what I'm doing and this is just crazy. ButtonWarren (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ButtonWarren, I've restored the template for you at Draft:Raphael Warren. That's what you were talking about, right? Press the blue "submit" button to submit the draft for review. -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's the blue "resubmit" button. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the draft:

That was not the corrected version. The links were not working

This is the one that was moved then waiting to be reviewed:

Raphael Warren – Executive Cybersecurity Strategist

Raphael Warren is a cybersecurity strategist, former military officer, and retired federal agent specializing in high-level cybersecurity consulting. He is the founder of Spartan Cyber Security, an executive advisory firm providing discreet cybersecurity solutions for corporate executives, law firms, and healthcare organizations. Warren is also a board advisor for TAC Security, an international cybersecurity firm. [1]

With over 30 years of leadership experience in military, law enforcement, and cybersecurity sectors, Warren has advised Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, and healthcare institutions on cybersecurity risk management and regulatory compliance.

Industry Expertise

Healthcare Cybersecurity & Compliance – Helping organizations navigate HIPAA, ISO 27001, and NIST standards.

Cyber Risk Management – Conducting executive-level cybersecurity risk assessments and strategic planning.

Incident Response & Business Continuity – Ensuring resilience against cyber threats and compliance violations.

Government & Corporate Advisory – Providing cybersecurity insights to public and private sector leaders.

Career Highlights

Presidential Nomination & Senate Confirmation (2012) – Recognized for contributions to national cybersecurity policy. [2]

Public Speaker & Media Analyst – Featured on KOAT Action 7 News, KRQE News 13, and Sandia National Laboratories, providing expert insights on cybersecurity threats. [3][4][5]

Author of Cybersecurity Lingua Franca (2025) – A guide for executives on cybersecurity best practices. [6]

Cybersecurity Leadership Award (2024) – Recipient of the National Cybersecurity Awards for leadership in cybersecurity. [7]

Public Speaking & Media

Warren is a sought-after speaker on cybersecurity, risk management, and executive leadership. He has appeared on national television networks, including KOAT Action 7 News and KRQE News 13, analyzing cybersecurity threats and IT outages. [3][4] He has also presented at Sandia National Laboratories and been featured on cybersecurity podcasts. [5]

Government Appointment

In 2012, Warren was nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a cybersecurity leadership position in [Agency]. His federal appointment recognized his contributions to national cybersecurity policy and defense strategy. [2]

Warren’s expertise positions him as a trusted advisor for organizations looking to enhance their cybersecurity posture while ensuring regulatory compliance in critical industries.

References

"Dangers of Artificial Intelligence in New Mexico Amid Elections". KOAT Action 7 News. August 6, 2024. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"Social Security Numbers at Risk After Recent Hack". KOAT Action 7 News. August 21, 2024. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"New Mexico Airports, Borders, and Hospitals Impacted by IT Outage". KOAT Action 7 News. July 19, 2024. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"Ransomware Attack Forces Bernalillo County Buildings to Temporarily Close". KOAT Action 7 News. January 6, 2022. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"Lovelace Employee Says Network Outage Has Been Chaotic". KOAT Action 7 News. November 27, 2023. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

"Here's How Russia's Attack on Ukraine is Affecting New Mexico". KOAT Action 7 News. February 24, 2022. Retrieved February 14, 2025.

[How New Mexico entities are dealing with cyber attacks "Cyber Attacks Take Down Major New Mexico Hospital, Government Offices"]. December 2023. Retrieved February 14, 2025. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)

[Raphael Warren "Raphael Warren – Member Board of Advisors"]. Retrieved February 14, 2025. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Text "TAC Security" ignored (help)

[FY22 Q3 Small Business Forum: Cybersecurity Posture - Apr. 2022 "FY22 Q3 Small Business Forum: Cybersecurity Posture - Apr. 2022"]. April 2022. Retrieved February 14, 2025. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

In 2012, Warren was nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate PN1548 - 3 nominees for Army, 112th Congress (2011-2012) ButtonWarren (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the history of the draft (link: [1]) and you will see a list of all the previous versions. (Click on the date to see any individual one.) Find the one that is the version you want to submit, and come back here and give me the URL of that version. I'll be able to add the correct template to that one and explain how I did it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Starship flight test 9. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Redacted II (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

---

18:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

What makes this a "redirect"? There was one delete, two keep, and two redirect (I'm not counting the two sockpuppet "deletes"). The one valid delete did not see any of the sources presented later on in the discussion, while one of the two redirects offered no explanation (aside from "valid ATD"). I'm curious how you determined the "redirect" argument strong enough to overtake the "keep" argument, given the close numbers and not many substantial arguments either way? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for leaving you hanging here for a bit. Ok: there are two deletes (counting the nom but not either IP), two redirects, and two keeps, so just on the numbers that's 2:1 for "no article". Given the possibility of further sources that the keeps pointed out and absent any argument for why deletion ought to be preferred over redirection, I land firmly on "take the ATD". Additionally, one of the keeps (yours) was specified as weak, and Joelle's point about the sources not having much coverage wasn't contested (the objection was instead that it adds up to enough, not that the description of the coverage as only a few sentences was inaccurate). So I didn't see any good reason to weight the keeps so much more heavily that they'd overcome the 2:1 on the numbers. That said, I personally think you're very likely to be correct about there being additional sources, which is why I explicitly mentioned spinning it back out in the close comment. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You made an interesting comment here. It's a suggestion I made a couple of years ago when 2019 through 2022 I and a few others were doing a concentrated spurt to address many accumulated requests for Curation features. It's in WP:PCSI somewhere. If I recall correctly I even designed the Curation tool UI for it. I can't remember if the idea gained traction or not, we were ploughing through so many accumulated requests for features and creating Phab tickets for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what would be really helpful: a checklist. I don't think we could make it exhaustive, since there's the outstanding question of "what even ARE we looking for", but being able to check off stuff like "earwig checks out" would probably save some duplicated effort. -- asilvering (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist? What you want a checklist for? I'm not sure I understand. What ARE you looking for? Did you read WP:PCSI? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently closed Cerego as No Consensus. It was notable (to me) that none of the Keep !voters based their reasoning on the appropriate GNG/NCORP policy/guideline rationale - instead throwing sources/references out there and much of the time with reasoning which actually contradicts our guidelines on the type of sourcing that may be used to establish notability. In fairness, I see that one of the editors, while not demonstrating a familiarity with the appropriate guidelines, at least seemed to be trying to find sourcing that meets GNG/WP:NCORP. My own !vote was a couple of days ago and I pointed out why (according to sections in NCORP guidelines) the references fail. I accept the AfD has been open for 23 days, is there anything to be said for reopening for a further and final extension to wait for a response or to see if consensus is coalescing in one direction or another? HighKing⁺⁺ 08:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'll relist it. I can't recall what was going through my head at the time (possibly it was "well, HighKing, you sure tried") but my guess is I just miscounted the number of relists. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello i am creating this list of former chief justices of Indian High courts just as list of former chief justices of India and list of former judges of supreme court But my partially created draft was rejected and i am working on it very hard to complete this list of former chief justices of Indian high courts but i am not sure whether this list would be published as aricle on wikipedia or not if otherwise, then i may better leave to complete it Kindly provide your sugges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Former_Chief_Justices_of_High_Courts --Aruunn (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the AFC submission template to your draft, so whenever you're ready, just hit the blue submit button and it will end up in the pile of drafts awaiting review. I'm not familiar enough with that topic area to know offhand if it's a reasonable list topic or not (seems fine to me), but whoever reviews the draft will check for you. -- asilvering (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was always on the Wikipedia page for Cooper’s company in Coburn School as I was very famous. As my daughter is just attended I looked again and for some reason the last couple of months my name was taken off. I’ve tried to put it back on but someone keeps taking it off which is really annoying. I am on Wikipedia on the Big brother three section of the Wikipedia page. --Alexandersibley (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexandersibley, your name is being removed from that list because there is no reference given that states you went to that school. Are you able to provide a reference that says so? -- asilvering (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can. I have all my gcse certificates. I’ve been on the wiki page there for years. No idea why it was taken off. Google me and my school name comes up. Why on earth with someone wants to pretend to go to a school is beyond me I just want to be back up on there especially if Richard medley. Tell me where I’ve got to send you proof. Alexandersibley (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By reference, I mean a reliable, published source. So if there is a newspaper article about you that mentions that you went to that school, that will work. We don't want to see your GCSEs. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not online, but there’s a news article about when a man ran into the side of my car and died from his injuries. It said in that that I went to Coopers company in Coburn School would that be enough? Alexandersibley (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandersibley, I'm sorry, I missed this reply earlier and I'm just seeing it now. I'm not sure that article will be useful - can you post a link to it here? I'll have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have a reliable source from the Romford recorder Friday, the 10th of March 2006 on www.romfordrecorder.co.uk you were it mentions that I went to Coopers school and also I don’t particularly care whether or not you see what grades I’ve got, but my GCSE certificates which my dad kept clearly state what school I went to so if you’d like to see them the certificates and the newspaper article about where I went to school, please tell me where I send them to 86.153.202.179 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the URL to this story, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering, I noticed the Luna Snow AfD was closed as a merge, but there was significant "Keep" support citing sources like Polygon, Kotaku, TechRadar, and IGN. Given her multimedia presence (games, animation, music, comics), could you clarify how consensus was determined, especially given how many "keeps" were listed? I was also in the process of cleaning up the sources for that page and using more reliable references, and since the most recent post was a "Keep" just 1 day earlier, I assumed it wouldn't be closed so abruptly. Thanks for your time! -- Pokedigi (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the close timing, AfDs stay open for a week, and after that they can be closed at any time, though usually they are allowed to run for another 7 days after each relist. It looks like I closed this on the 8th day after the relist. So as far as AfDs go, this was actually closed a bit later than normal.

Regarding the close outcome, the keep votes were pretty clearly refuted by the merge/redirect. The main point from those participants, It's a lot of sources verifying she exists, but nothing offering commentary., meanwhile, wasn't refuted or even really addressed by the keep side.

I understand that's a bummer given your own position in the discussion, but I hope to see you back at AfD in the future. We always need more participants, but we especially need more participants who are interested in trying to fix up the article while it's there. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean the only way to get the page reinstated is to present better sources of notability in a deletion review? Sorry for my ignorance on this, I haven't ever had to deal with a page being deleted before. -- Pokedigi (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokedigi, I'm so sorry, I missed this reply ages ago and I'm just seeing it now. You don't need to go to deletion review to get an article reinstated, necessarily - especially not in the case of one like this, where the content was merged into another article. In this case, you can easily go to the page history of the original article ([2]), where everything that used to exist there is still visible, because it wasn't actually deleted. The article itself can easily be restored, even by a non-admin, by removing the redirect.

Of course, if you do that without any previous discussion, someone will get annoyed at you and revert your edit, because we already had a consensus discussion at AfD. What I would suggest in this particular case is simply to develop the new target, List of Marvel Comics characters: L#Luna Snow, however it pleases you. From a reader's perspective, that's not all that much different than if there were an article at Luna Snow. If eventually it gets too long and detailed for the list article, you can then post on the list article's talk page suggesting that you spin it back out again. Before you do that, you'd want to be confident that you had new sources, not considered in that AfD, that address the problem observed in that discussion: ie, you'd need sources that offer commentary - critical/academic discussion about her, not just explaining that she exists and what she does in-universe. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note formally I don't avoid block, just was some way frustrated with your, though quite a practical, approach about "edit like normal, " is possible only after registration (however only if I'll change my behaviour and edits thematic and be as silent and still as the midnight fornoone 'd see any similarity, but that's not funny and have lack of any interest for me if we talk about wiki is together created pedia and not 'the articles of one' space). But what if I don't mean to be registered? Editing as normal is not for me? That's not some trap, but exclusively applies for my deeper understanding what's really going on here and not what said as have to be. Don't hurry with the answer. And thanks in advance. 83.142.111.64 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be silent, it's just that creating an account will allow you to leave your past behind, provided that you do it once your block expires and don't go back to the same topics you did before. What I was suggesting was that you try a WP:CLEANSTART. You can't really clean-start from an IP. We can all see who you are.

Sorry in advance about the rangeblock I assume you're about to get for block evasion. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have some contradiction here.

Doesn't "don't go back to the same topics you did before" mean "need to be silent" exactly I'm not willing to and you tell me I don't need to ("edit like normal, "")? )

Does WP:PROXY block evasion ever possible? ))))

We both know they will block me with same fake reason again as they did it already twice (hardly believable as accidental).

But I got your idea. It looks like it's: "There's no place for IP editing." (as normal, correct me if i got it wrong).

So sad.

Thank you for clarification. Will go to take some range block and dissappear from your sight. 83.142.111.124 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, asilvering. While I agree with you that "The idea that Talk:Battle_of_Algiers_(1956–1957)#Teitgen's_claims shows MzTourist deliberately violating OR and NPOV is astonishing", it seems to me that a month-long block of M.Bitton is excessive. At first I assumed the length was because they had a really damning block log, but I see that's hardly the case. Please consider shortening the block. BTW, I was a little surprised to see you, by contrast, merely gently upbraiding Orocairon, who was behaving pretty badly in the thread. Perhaps they're too new to need a block for it, but they didn't even get a note on their page. And, as The Bushranger points out, their history is pretty suspicious. CU needed?

Another thing; whether or not you decide to make any change to your block, I urge you to add a line in the log to provide a permanent link to the ANI thread. The current link is non-permanent and will "rot" as soon as the thread is archived, and then there will forevermore be no information in the log (nor on M.Bitton's page, which also has a non-permanent link) about what the block was for. Well, except only the name of the thread, which is information of a kind, but hardly of a fair kind. You can use the "Permanent link" feature on the ANI page, in the "tools" section on the left (in the skin I use, but it won't be hard to find in any skin) and then use "change block" to add a note with the better link. Bishonen | tålk 10:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

PS, please note that "M.Bitton8", an account which has posted here, is a joe job. See User talk:M.Bitton8. Bishonen | tålk 11:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Did you see the comment by User:The Bushranger who wrote "I find it very interesting that the moment Mztourist commented on M.Bitton's history, Orocairion - somebody who has never edited Wikipedia: space before, who has never edited articles on Korea and Vietnam, who has as the closest thing to "war crimes" previously only made two edits to Talk:Augusto Pinochet, and who had not edited since 25 February - suddenly appeared to personally attack them and declare they should be banned for whitewashing and denying war crimes, particularly around topics surrounding Korea and Vietnam." Like Bishonen, I feel that your block was to long, escalating from a block of a week to a month doesn't seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve changed my mind. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both,

Yes, I saw Bushranger's comment. No, I am not terribly concerned about Orocairon. They've been called out for their behaviour pretty obviously in that thread, and haven't edited since. No further action required. (If a 30-edit account wants to try to make a case that an entire 15-year, 70,000-edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes, well, they're welcome to try, but I don't think they'll enjoy the result.) Unless you or someone else have evidence they're a particular editor's sock, it would be inappropriate fishing to CU them, as far as I understand the rules about accessing that data.

I used that form of link on purpose, so that if the ANI thread continues (as I said, I'm not sure that's quite the end of it), editors of the future will be able to read the rest of it easily, rather than being directed to an outdated permalink. The link won't rot - when you follow an archived link like that, the software automatically searches for that heading in the archive pages and generates a link to the discussion.

Regarding the block length, I made that decision based on a combination of factors, including the block log. Perhaps we have differing ideas of what constitutes a damning block log, but what I took into consideration as aggravating factors were the logged AE warning for incivility, the week-long block for edit warring barely two months ago, and the fact that the unacceptable behaviour continued in the ANI thread itself, which clearly demonstrates that more mild actions were unlikely to have any effect. My own examination of the linked threads and a general survey of M.Bitton's edit history did not give me any reason to think otherwise. At the time, I hesitated between two weeks and a month, and ultimately decided on a month. Having duly considered it again in response to your comments, I'm surprised I hesitated at all; I believe a month was the right choice. -- asilvering (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilverling. Would you be willing to be my good article mentor? I'm a somewhat experienced editor (about 8000 edits and two years editing), who wants to reduce the backlog at GAN but is a bit nervous about where to begin. My areas of interest are Eastern European history (broadly construed), biographies of women, and crime-related articles. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I see you've already found your way to WP:WIG, which is good. I went through their GAN list and found Augustina Gabel, who fulfils all three categories at once, if you're not scared off by the Ukrainian sources. It looks like the most-cited one is online, at least, so we can muddle through it with machine translation. If that one's not appealing, you can find that list of women-related GANs here: [3]. I tried picking through it but the likely-looking ones are all pretty long, and I expect you'd prefer a shorter one for a first try? -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was thinking more Virginia Christian (sorry, I forgot to mention that). Do you think that would be too difficult for a first-time reviewer? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not worried, I'm not worried. Shoot me a ping from the review page once you start if you have any particular questions that make sense to answer there. Or go ahead and ask anything you like here, if it's something more general. Or, if you'd prefer to just get to it and just want another set of eyes when you're done, feel free to tag me in for that. If you haven't installed it already, User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool.js makes the last part (closing the review) really easy, and I recommend using it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this settles my doubts. I will try my best. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm almost done with Talk:Virginia Christian/GA1. Can you please take a look at it if it is not too much trouble? Thank you, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've concluded the review with a result of pass after improvements by the nominator. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! I'm impressed haha, these take me ages. Though, now that I've had a closer read through it than my earlier skim, I can see why. It was in great shape already. A couple suggestions, which are mostly my own preferences and in no way invalidate the review:

1. I just make those little picky grammar/link fixes myself, since it's more bother for both reviewer and nominator to write them out and have them do it. ymmv. Some noms don't like you touching the article at all, others will get irritated if you don't. When it comes to anything that's not strictly "mechanical" (like adding a space, etc) but requires some thinking and rephrasing, that kind of thing I do leave for the nom. If you do any changes yourself, imo it's a good idea to say so and explicitly invite them to revert any they hate.
2. I'd have gotten pickier about the sourcing on the political cartoon. But I was able to find it with this information, so it's technically sufficient.
3. I'm not thrilled that more than half of the citations are to a PhD dissertation. Typically we'd want to avoid citing them at all if possible. It may well be the best source for all of this information, and all that information may well be WP:DUE in the article (none of it felt "off" as I was reading without looking at the citations), but I'd want some evidence of legwork showing that (mine, the nom's, or both) before I passed the review.

Again, this is all in the spirit of general feedback for the future - it's a good article! And your review was also good. By the way, if you're interested, Derryn Moten, the historian who wrote that dissertation, doesn't have an article here. But I'm pretty sure he's notable (a quick google brings up stuff like [4]), and without any extra effort we can already link him to three articles ([5]). -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! I'll keep this in mind. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering, I've another quick question. This time, it's about an article I'm thinking of nominating for GA status (Elena Gorolová). Is there any size requirement for GAs? The article is about 800 words, but is extensively sourced (if I do say so myself) and covers her career in as much depth as possible. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no size requirement. If it's short, you might find reviewers are more picky about whether you meet the "breadth" requirement, but in a case like this one where you are confident you've covered her career as much as possible, that would be fine. I'd add another sentence or two of article summary to the lead, but the overall length is no biggie. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		Appreciate your help with my WIR articles and learning process. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks. And gosh - 44 articles! Glad to see you caught the bug. -- asilvering (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've a bunch of disagreements with this, but rather than rehash your close of the discussion, I'm going to limit my challenge to List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered as it had clearly usable RS'es that were above and beyond the other bundled nominations (such as the Washington Post referencing the topic in a dead tree book on Murray's career) and not challenged by any of the other participants except for Rewas92--in fact, DonIago explicitly disclaimed ever looking at the linked news articles. Please restore it.

I'd further ask that each of the deleted articles be restored as redirects (protected, if you prefer) to the respective filmographies as was proposed by BD2412. Only two participants objected to his proposal and then only to the merge. Redirection allows any sufficiently RS'ed content to be appropriately integrated into actor or filmography articles without need for further administrator involvement. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think you have to accept that you're against consensus on this one. I've had another look at the AfD, and while I'm normally very happy to take redirect as an ATD, in this case I think that would be a supervote. Regarding restoring this specific article, the dead-tree book you're referring to is not cited in the deleted article, so the sources here aren't going to do anyone any good (you've already identified a better source), and the text won't either (participants objected to the merge). -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ryuya Fukushima. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, quick question, if I am to make a edit, what is the proper format for writing what I changed? Do I generally need to get approval from other editors before I make a change? Thanks! --SuperSillyGuy (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SuperSillyGuy, welcome to Wikipedia! If you're asking about edit summaries, no, there's no "proper format" for writing those. If you're asking about the text of the article itself, all of that information is at WP:MOS - but don't worry about it. Look at the rest of the article you're editing for a model, but don't worry about screwing something up or not doing it "right". Probably, what you write will be fine. If it's not, another editor will fix it or undo it, and they'll either tell you why they did that or you can ask them yourself. I'll come by your talk page to drop some helpful links to get you started. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering, thank you very much for having a look at User talk:Dietricht, but as I am the originally blocking administrator, an unblock request should probably not be closed procedurally based on any of my actions. I left the request open so that someone can have an independent look whether revoking talk page access was justified or the user should be allowed to use their talk page or even edit freely again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, they've already found their way to UTRS (a few times...) and I procedurally closed those ones and not the one at UTRS since the editor has no way to reply to any questions on their talk page. For your convenience, that's UTRS appeal #101283 for the most recent one. (In the meantime, DFO got to it.) Incidentally, I don't think you should have revoked TPA in this case, because you were the originally blocking admin and have been called out "by name" (ish...) in the most recent unblock request. That's not the same as thinking TPA should be restored, however. You'll notice I left that as-is. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I shouldn't have done that at very least in response to an appeal that directly addressed me, sorry. I wasn't aware of the UTRS appeals, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! how are you? I've finally joined, like I should have done at least 15 years ago. If you want to show me the ropes, I thank you.

If it matters to you or anyone, wanting an error fixed was the spark of realization that I should join, but I have a general passion for education, as well as agreement and truth. I felt I had no authority to edit decades ago; yet I never knew you could edit without logging in.

... In case someone wants to edit that survey I took. 🙂 Thanks! ✝️☮️🇺🇲 --J --JeyRuff (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia, @JeyRuff! I've left some helpful links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that some or many of the drugs listed in Wikipedia are written/edited by sock puppets for pharmaceutical companies and I'd like to know of any work done to suss that out. I've looked at the history pages of some drugs and tried to track a few editors but i can't figure much out. Would the Wikipedia Check group be willing to examine that? --Medmewiki123 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Medmewiki123, welcome to wikipedia! I'm not aware of any efforts to track down medical-related sockpuppets in particular. If by "Wikipedia Check" you mean WP:CHECKUSER, they can only look at private details if there is good reason to believe an account is a sock of another, specific account. I'd guess that it's probably more likely that editors doing something nefarious (ie, WP:UPE) on drug articles are individuals rather than socks. Either way, my advice would be that you hold off on trying to investigate that kind of thing yourself until you're a more experienced editor. You'll be better at it then, for one thing, because you'll have a better sense of what normal editing looks like. But also, wrongly accusing someone of undisclosed paid editing would be a real bad way to start your own editing career. -- asilvering (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reporting on drug companies for more than two decades and you might be unaware of just how brutal their promotions are (including punishing attacks on doctors who dare to challenge their claims). I've covered medical whistleblowers and I'm aware of how drug makers spread their money around to every entity that has anything to do with healthcare- and that includes so-called "patient" groups, professional organizations and "non-profit entities" that spread false/biased information about their drugs. I'd be shocked if they aren't managing wikipedia entries and I'm only privately hoping that someone with more computer savvy than I will look into this. I can go to various drug pages on Wikipedia and show just how much the entries hew to corporate claims while avoiding any and all mentions in the scientific and medical literature that counter some of those claims. Is this a project the CheckUser group might be willing to undertake? I'm not saying that the companies are directly running the wikipedia pages, it's much more likely that they have one degree of separation by using a paid "patient advocate" or "professional liason" who is not an employee of the company but is instead a "consultant" or some other title. I can give more details about how serious the problem is, but I'm wondering - this would be a hugely valuable project for the public if the CheckUser group would be willing to undertake it. Medmewiki123 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not unaware, and I don't think your suspicions are unfounded. I just think it's more likely to be a case of WP:UPE than WP:SOCK. Maybe you're operating with a different definition of "sockpuppet" than Wikipedia does? Here, we mean someone who has been blocked or banned on one account, creating a new one to avoid that block/ban. Or someone making multiple accounts to create the appearance of multiple people agreeing with a particular statement in a discussion. Have a read through those two links and see what you think. You may also want to watchlist WP:COIN to get a sense for how these kinds of discussions unfold. It's very important that you first read WP:OUTING. We take this policy very, very seriously.

One of the issues with using scientific and medical literature to counter these kinds of claims is that many of those articles will be primary sources, and we have some pretty strict guidelines about how to use those. See WP:MEDRS. You may want to join and lurk at WP:MEDICINE as well.

You're asking whether CUs will do this work, but since you have two decades of related reporting experience, it's probably you who is best-placed to do this kind of investigation. So when I say "you should hold off on that kind of thing until you're a more experienced editor", please don't take that as an attempt to discourage you from doing the investigations, so much as an attempt to encourage you to put in the editing time yourself. Getting involved in this kind of thing right from the jump is a recipe for disaster. I assure you that the Wikipedia community does not want that kind of person writing our articles on medical topics. Become part of the community, develop a nose for them, and then have at it - you'll have plenty of allies. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much for you helpful comments. Yes indeed, i used the term sockpuppet differently from what i now know is how wikipedia defines the term. i can see that it would take an enormous amount of work to decipher who is entering what on drug pages and whether they are linked to pharma in some capacity (one trick i know they've used is to have spouses with different last names make certain public claims without any hint of financial conflict of interest). So, I'll drop my query for now. Too many scandals to chase as it is, which is what I've been reporting for forever! As my writing partner and i always say, "So many scandals, so little time." But again, thanks for your comments and time. Medmewiki123 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't I know it. And as a Wikipedian, you soon end up with "so many articles, so little time." Happy editing, and happy scandal-chasing. -- asilvering (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your action. I may fall short in my communication sometimes but the amount of aspersions which were being thrown my way was getting extremely tiring. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it. I really do suggest working with those editors next time, to come up with an actually neutral RFC question you can use to settle the issue for another good while. Even if it just reaffirms the result of the RFCs from four years ago (and I don't yet see any reason why it wouldn't), you'll still have the benefit of a more recent consensus to point to in these situations. -- asilvering (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously I don't think they'd know a neutrally worded RFC if they tripped over it. I was hoping that @Novem Linguae would take you up on your suggestion but I can understand if they were hesitant to stay away from that mess. I'll try and think of a question to resolve the mess, but given the number of RFCs since then I don't know. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me for this, but I will probably take a pass on this one. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Seriously I don't think they'd know a neutrally worded RFC if they tripped over it." civility is required @TarnishedPath:. Please don't trash editors behind their back. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read this as "trashing editors behind their back" any more than, say, essays like WP:YESBIAS are. ie, I don't think this is a statement about any particular editors so much as a genre of editors. That said, @TarnishedPath, I think it's a strong sign that you should step back from the topic area. I appreciate that it is really, really tiring to keep explaining the same thing to people all the time. But the editors who pop up trying to change things on these articles because they've recently read about some other evidence, they haven't had that same argument dozens of times before. To them, it's new. And you can't treat them like they're all a single person who hasn't been getting it for years and years. There was recently an AE thread about something very similar, which ended in sanctions. Please, take a vacation from the topic area before someone forces you to take one. You do so many other things on the encyclopedia. Don't let this one part drive you insane. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am spending too much time on this topic area at present. As you correctly point out I edit accross a broad range of areas and this has been a distraction from some of the BLPs that I have in draft and other articles that I'm wanting to improve to GA status. I'll leave the current discussions in the article's talk to others. TarnishedPath^talk 01:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and sorry if this bothers you, but I'm curious on how I can easily find articles which aren't heavily restricted on editing. --Originality Is Key, Like Seriously. It's Called Copyr!ght (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none of our nearly 7,000,000 articles are restricted. If you don't care about the topic, Special:Random will take you to one of them. -- asilvering (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey asilvering, I have a quick question about GAN. Can super recent articles be nominated? I'm thinking of nominating Kočani nightclub fire, which took place on 16 March of this year, and I wrote about 40% of the article? Since it would be a few months until someone gets to reviewing it, do you think this would be a good idea? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are people who go from nothing to GAN on a single day - nothing stopping you! -- asilvering (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think it's comprehensive enough as it stands, since most of the initial investigation reports are out. I'll wait a week, nominate it, and update it if more stuff comes out. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am very passionate about art, and I noticed my local theater doesn't have a Wikipedia page and decided to make one. Do you have any tips to make this smoothly, so more people can know about their beautiful history? :) --LagioiaP (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LagioiaP, welcome to wikipedia! I've left you some general help links on your talk page. Probably the most important ones to read before getting started are WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. For your specific article, what's the theatre? It might be better to write a little bit about it on the article for the town it's in. -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure someone's refusal to get it is a good reason to unblock because the whole situation has become stupid. Why do you think the fact the situation has become stupid means the community should just tell the editor, "fine, this has gotten stupid, just try not to be ornery"? This person was absolutely refusing to get it. We just basically told that editor -- and anyone watching -- that if they refuse to get it for long enough, someone will come along and unblock because "it's gotten stupid". I'm a little bemused. Valereee (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I'd prefer to let this kind of person waste as little of everyone's time as possible. If they go back to being uncommunicative and irritating, and I don't have much doubt that they will, next time we can just indef, yank tpa, and move on with our lives. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And when two admins warn them before blocking, and another five refuse to unblock them, and an eighth comes in and unblocks because "this is stupid"? You didn't consult, you didn't offer a condition for unblocking. You just unilaterally decided "this is stupid". Valereee (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically set that block as one that could be reversed by any admin once the blocked editor had begun communicating, and they had. So that editor was left trying to argue their way out of a block they'd already fulfilled the conditions for, after AE had also declined to take action on their edits. Cue a whole lot of frustration and wasted effort all around. We shouldn't be trapping people (or ourselves) in these scenarios. If you'd reblocked them as a full indef for being a jerk incompatible with a collaborative editing project, I don't know that any of those eight admins would have batted an eye, so if you want to do that now, and you're only holding back because you think it would be wheel-warring, let me be clear that I lifted the block because it had served its stated purpose, not because I think they're actually a really nice and helpful guy and everyone else has got it all wrong. Would I do that, personally? No, I'd prefer to wait and see if they go back to driving other editors crazy, and, if so, come down on them like a ton of bricks. But you (or anyone else) should do as you see fit. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, because I figured it was a minor problem: once they realized it was important to communicate, they'd go, "Oh. Sorry, didn't realize that was important." But once they were forced to communicate, it became obvious that they didn't think communicating was necessary. Literally all they had to do was tell any admin, "Oh, okay. I didn't realize this was important. I'll answer concerns from now on." But instead they doubled and tripled and quadrupled and quintupled down on "why should I communicate if I don't think there's anything wrong with my edits?"

I'm not going to reblock. That would be jerking that editor around, and no one wants that. What I want is for you to consider consulting next time you're in this situation, or consider offering a conditional unblock. Preferably both. Responding to unblock requests doesn't mean you have to close every one of them in some way. Some are no-brainers. Some aren't. This one wasn't: we had a basically well-intentioned editor who is just behaving as if they don't get the problem, and tiptoeing around it in a way that showed they did, too, get it. They just didn't agree it was kosher for that to be a problem. I was hoping someone besides me would suggest a conditional: "RP, to get unblocked, can you agree to respond when someone expresses a concern, here on your talk or at a noticeboard?" And if RP had agreed, and I'd been pinged, I'd have agreed, too. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But we're functionally in the same place, with or without the conditional unblock. We all know what they've been doing wrong, including them. They plainly know what the expectations are and are capable of following them. Presently, if they choose not to engage when someone expresses a concern, they'll be indeffed for it. In the hypothetical, if they had agreed to communicate when someone expresses a concern, and then chose not to do so, they'd be indeffed for it.

There were three possible outcomes: indef now, indef later after they demonstrate they still don't care to communicate about their edits, or, miracle of miracles, no indefs necessary because they learned their lesson. I was not prepared to take option #1, and none of the seven other admins did either. That's the only choice any of us admins really had - the difference between option #2 and option #3 is entirely up to the editor in question.

My apologies for not tagging you in and waiting for a response. Truthfully, I have no idea why you'd want to spend even another second dealing with that editor. But I'll avoid making that assumption in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope this doesn't feel like me harping on and on, I sincerely am not trying to do that, truly sincerely just trying to understand one another.) I agree they know what they did wrong. I was expecting to see them acknowledge it and agree to do their best to fix it. I came in because I was surprised, and I wanted to express that in case it would help prevent future surprises. :) And next time I tag a block as 'no objection to any other admin', once that's no longer true I'll strike it. :D Valereee (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My sense of the situation is that, to them, that would be letting us "win", and so no matter how hard you expect it from them, they're not going to do it. Since the outcome we actually want (well, I'm assuming again, but bear with me) is that they go back to editing, just now with actual communication, I'm happy to be the one who "loses". They'll find out soon enough that they've misunderstood the ROE. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's hoping you're correct! Valereee (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that when people are requesting unblock, but do not seem to be blocked, it works well to ask, "What message are you getting?" and "If you don't want to reveal your IP, send your request to UTRS". Often these are victims of collateral damage. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Could you rescue that one with CU goggles? -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the blocking admin. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the rangeblock is now lifted. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're bantering back and forth over the TBAN. Any EE edits do you think, or just EE politics? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wants to edit about sports. Which, as we all know, are never contentious. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the sigh i just sighed... -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh. Deer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video games, not sports -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know, a perfectly uncontentious topic. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Asilvering, I wanted follow up on the AfD discussion for Mymensinghi language. Consensus was reached on 21st March, but the discussion hasn't been closed yet. Could you please assist with closing this discussion? Thank you.Snusho (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted it actually - I think there's a clear consensus against keeping the article, but that's not quite the same as having a consensus about what to do with it. I'd like to see if there's any other support for a merge before we delete it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I am very much interested in Indian stock market and finance but I am not getting the right mentor who can guide me in writing data related to Indian stock market and also add me to India Wikipedia events so that I can work better under their mentorship. --Subhashyadav120 (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Subhashyadav120, welcome to wikipedia! You might be interested in joining WP:INDIA. I can't really help with anything about the Indian stock market in particular, but I notice that you've been adding hyperlinks to a lot of articles, which looks like spam. I'm sure your intent is to add links to helpful information, not to spam, so please have a look at WP:ELNO so you can see what we try to avoid. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will not add any link to Wikipedia team from now on. If I am adding any official link of any website, then all the links will seem spam or promotional to you. Yesterday I added the official link of SEBI's broad member site, you found it promotional but you did not check the data of the post properly. That post had very old data. I had collected the data by giving my 2 hours of time, still you thought that I am promoting that website. Sorry, if we do not promote small sites, then big media houses will do as they please. I have checked myself too. Many such media houses have been given links from Wikipedia which do not provide any value to the user, still their links seem correct to you. It is like Wikipedia is a person without eyes and big media houses take his stick, wherever he reaches, consider it home. Now that is home or railway track. Sorry, but this is the truth. Being a Wikipedia member, I am very sorry and sad about this. We need a lot of improvement in our way of working. I think now maybe I cannot give much time to Wikipedia, now I should give my time to Reddit and Quora, my writing work will get value from these platforms and I will be able to make a good name for myself in my field of writing,,, thanks Wikipedia family for support... Subhashyadav120 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Subhashyadav120, can you link me to the specific article? I can try to explain why that link was removed but I'm not sure what article you're talking about. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Securities_Markets Subhashyadav120 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well... yes, that was spam. We're not trying to direct traffic away from wikipedia to websites that make money off of that traffic. We might do so in limited circumstances, such as putting an author's official website on their wikipedia page, or linking to their publisher's page for one of their books. But we don't tend to link to things like guides and explainers unless they're reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:RSP) that are particularly useful, or they're "official" in some way that makes them relevant. Updating old articles is a really important thing for wikipedia editors to do, so I hope you'll keep doing it. Just make sure to use reliable, published, secondary sources to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how I can become a content writer on Wikipedia? --Subhashyadav120 (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are already! Just edit, that's all there is to it. If you'd like some tips for starting out, WP:PRIMER is a good place to start. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to this, I don't think your characterization of j's comment as lacking an assumption of good faith is fair, given the background. Especially this is relevant but also things like this -- RE has spent more than a little time making comments that are separated from serious personal attacks only by a thin veneer of vagueness. (I'm not asking you to do anything, I just think that anyone who's involved with them should be aware that they put up a very civil face but there's more to their behavior than that.) --JBL (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I hit publish and cannot find where it was submitted. Please advise. Thank you. --Milofetches (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Milofetches, welcome to wikipedia! Your edits are in your sandbox, User:Milofetches/sandbox. -- asilvering (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How'd you come to the delete conclusion? All of the rationales were flawed, GNG doesn't apply, I've never seen the "circular reasoning" one used before, especially because Google uses a different Anglicization. We just need to be able to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are four people arguing for delete, and your weak keep, in which you acknowledge that we have no verifiable information on the place at all. More than two weeks after your !vote, no one has seconded it or given any additional information. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We really needed someone to check the census, but this source shows a politician was born there. What else do you think I'd need to show to get it restored? SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what would really convince me is if you could get Uncle G to agree you had a case... but failing that, we've at least got to have some verifiable information about the place. WP:GEOLAND requires a place to be "legally recognized", and, specifically, that it not simply be an Abadi, so we need some more information beyond just "appears to exist". -- asilvering (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I received a warning when I added an unlisted book to Schapiro's publications. Do you know what that would be about? --TheophilusDonoghue (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheophilusDonoghue, thanks for asking. Yes, you have a conflict of interest because you represent the estate of the person you're editing about. You can read WP:COI for more information - I would suggest that you make your edits as edit requests on the article talk page. Regarding your very first edit, that one was removed as a copyright violation - you (typically) can't copy material from anywhere else and put it on Wikipedia, because all text on wikipedia is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, which is to say that it can be used for any purpose, even commercially. But as for why you received a warning when you added that unlisted book - you didn't! The warning on your talk page is from last year. It's just that you've only noticed it now.

Please let me know if you have any further questions. We don't want the article on Schapiro to be inaccurate, but it's important that you go about making edits the right way so that you don't get blocked from editing. -- asilvering (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. That's good to know. TheophilusDonoghue (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I want to add updated data about ITC company but when I click on edit, I am getting the option of editing the source plus guide. I want to add this data.

ITC is one of India's foremost private sector companies and a diversified conglomerate with businesses spanning Fast Moving Consumer Goods, Paperboards and Packaging, Agri Business and Information Technology.

25+ FMCG Mother Brands 200+ manufacturing units

100+ Export Countries --Subhashyadav120 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Subhashyadav120, you need a source to be able to add this information. Where did it come from? -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I joined wikipedia just to make one page. How do I start? --TheKroise35 (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheKroise35, welcome to wikipedia! I've dropped some helpful links on your talk page, and specifically before writing an article you'll want to read WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. But, judging by your comment on Pizza Tower, it looks like you might be more interested in working on a wiki specific to that game? It looks like the "official" one is this one: [6]. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I regularly use the Pizza Tower wiki. I just wanted to make a new page as a list of characters in the game. Thanks! TheKroise35 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)TheKroise35[reply]

We probably don't want a list of the characters - we only want that sort of thing if the topic is notable. Basically, the characters need to be discussed in depth by secondary sources (see WP:42). I doubt there's enough on the characters to do that, so we'd normally just discuss them on the main Pizza Tower page. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKroise35 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Asilvering, quick question about a recently declined G4, not trying to fight you on it or anything, I just didn't really understand your reasoning and I know the nature of the edit summary makes it difficult to fully explain. What did you mean by not a full look? Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a big upgrade from the previous version. So I had a look at the AfD, to see if these sources had already come up and been dismissed, but it looks like participants were either judging the article based on the sources in the article at the time, or weren't able to find sources at all (even though, as the current version shows, at least some definitely exist). So I think we need a new deletion discussion for this one, even though the last AfD was not long ago and there aren't any new notability claims in the article that post-date it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I know it's difficult to do without being able to see the version that was deleted—I was trying to intuit the same information. I know that's been the focus of some previous discussion at WT:NPP/R and the limitation of G4, but I figure if it's plausibly close, flag it for someone with the bit to investigate. I appreciate your response! All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for all the help you've given me this month. Thanks to you, I was able to bring Elena Gorolová to GA status, being my first GA. I'm also now a regular GAN reviewer, since you gave me the confidence to continue. I am deeply appreciative of your work and hope to continue to see you around! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your first GA! Hopefully the first of many. And I'm glad to see you've caught the reviewing bug. By the way, you may be interested in the Women in Green editathon that's happening in May - see the message directly above this thread. -- asilvering (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll keep tabs on that. I'm planning on trying to get as many of the 100 Women (BBC) to GA status as I can. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through the articles of ImperialAficionado as we faced a minor issue on the article Battle of Kaliabor. Saw you made this comment here [7], and the current discussion at talk:Battle of Kaliabor goes around the similar case. Could you leave a comment on that? The discussion started from Mir Jumla's invasion of Assam. There's a discussion on its talk page. Mind having a look if you're free. Cheers. Borax || (talk to Borax) 00:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @JunkBorax, you'll have to be more specific - what are you asking me to comment on? You can ping me from the discussion if that's easiest. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336 Online events: New: Alphabet run G & H | Business Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements (Events facilitated by others): The European Destubathon – a stub improvement contest/editathon from 1–30 April 2025 Tip of the month: When creating biographies, don't forget to use Template:DEFAULTSORT. Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited, it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name. Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool) 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women) 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi Asilvering! I was looking through old discussions I participated in, as I occasionally do, and I came upon Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 20 § Category:Transsexuals. No objection to your close there with respect to Category:Transsexuals, but I think you may have misread my comment with respect to Category:Homosexuals, based on your finding of "no opposition". I'd argue it's either a keep or a no-consensus on that one, depending how much weight you give to the nonstandard proposals to rename the redirect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, seems like I did. But then, what's the "both" in your "delete both"? -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's what we in the trade call "Getting to the end of your comment, realizing you haven't fully considered both questions, going back, adding a different answer for the first question, and then completely forgetting to remove the word 'both' at the end of the post." Happy to call this my mistake more than yours, then. But probably should be restored? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll happily take the credit/blame. I've restored it and removed the CfD tag. -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Aaronsw Z''L. Huh. There's a slice of Wikipedia history right there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for unblocking me. Another thing, there is the 'this user is a sockpuppet' template on my user page. Should I remove it or should I let an admin remove it? Also, if I may, can I ask what subject you teach? Rihaan M (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the template for you - sorry about that, simply forgot to. I teach many things, all broadly in the humanities. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is, by my computer's clock, past 00:00 AEDT on 2025-04-01. So it would be appreciated if you (and any of your lurkers) could today add a little happiness to Drmies's day with some Support of your choosing.

Of course, as we all know, a good rationale is a key thing in these sorts of discussions.

It does not have to involve furniture, despite the obvious Round Table that Drmies just built entirely unprompted, or even dead people (in the Lincoln Cemetery or otherwise). You could address anything, from taking an axe to axe, through belting out AFC approval on The Onion Belt and finally (after 12 years!) letting us know that we had been speaking an African Urban Youth Language all along, to the plenisocculence of the tumble-dryer of life.

Only 100 Supports to go! ☺

Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this, I hadn't yet had enough coffee to be able to reply. Now I have, and I feel very sorry for the poor doctor - who in our line of work hasn't accidentally genäht a pair of corpses together across national and centennial borders - but also for myself, since now the conversation has gone quite past me and I'm out of coffee again. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thank you for your comment about closing the ARE report filed against Dympies, I agree that it should be closed. There are no diffs that are actionable in the original report (filed by Malik Al Hind) and even the diffs provided by Dympies's opponents in various content disputes don't appear to be. Additionally the user who filed it has said that they have withdrawn it (don't know if it counts anymore).[8]

I would say you should close it as no action with a suggestion that others interested in questioning conduct of Dympies can file a report if they want. That would be more suitable as I think the pile up (as generally happens in this area) over there is not really coherent at this moment. Thanks NXcrypto Message 13:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to close it, since I don't really take Valereee's "should we just close this" as a suggestion so much as a question. That means I'm the one who proposed closing it, and I'd rather another admin second me on that than do it kinda-sorta unilaterally myself, especially now that the discussion has continued. -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My photo to add --Tahar Farah (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tahar Farah, welcome to wikipedia! Does WP:PHOTO answer your question? -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if there's something I know is true from firsthand experience, but I don't have a source for it? --TheKroise35 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

99.9% of the time you must simply enter a state of amnesia and proceed as though you do not have this firsthand experience. What information are you trying to add? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Today I was trying Wikipedia's Content Translation Feature (I translated the page Grey-crowned goldfinch from English to Hindi), but it made some errors and translated the page incompletely. Now the page is tagged for speedy deletion. What do I do? Mitsingh (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering, Thanks for being my mentor.

I am a new editor. I have created my account specifically to add an article about an organisation to which I belong - Australian National Museum of Education (ANME). I am a volunteer for ANME. It has no paid staff. I note the many warnings about creating articles on topics with which I have a conflict of interest. I have declared my COI as per instructions. I am working with text that has been approved by the Director of ANME but I am concerned that there is a degree of self-promotion within it eg. 'nationally significant'. I would prefer not to preemptively redact approved content.

Do I risk a kind of reputational damage by asking for the draft to be reviewed as is or should I try to clean it up first?

I will have other questions I'm sure, but I hope this is a good one to start with.

Cheers, Peter --WikiPetiaF (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to improve this page --Iindmusician (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #101912 and UTRS appeal #101914 might require your thoughtful, nuanced approach. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Report image --Tahar Farah (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very new here, how do I replace the "Venom Energy" logo with the most current .svg version? --THEkAISERrOLL (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]