Hello, in the close you said happy to revert.. Can you revert and relist? Jay 💬 08:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -- asilvering (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331 Online events: New: Black women | Alphabet run C & D Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements from other communities: Wiki Loves Ramadan begins on 25 February - a great opportunity to focus on women from Islamic history Tip of the month: Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed ones on Creative Commons search Suggestion: Consider helping to promote women under In the news and On this day on Wikipedia's main page 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 | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi Asilvering,

I'm wondering why the page for Tabish Khan (art critic) was recently deleted. As far as I could tell, there was an ongoing discussion with only four votes cast (two for DELETE and two for KEEP) - surely this means the page should have been kept until a consensus was reached? Is it possible for you to reinstate the page so we can continue the discussion? Likeabutterfly (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source table analysis was very conclusive, so this is a pretty firm delete. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source table only included a few of the sources from the article (cherry picked) and was compiled by one user. No one had the chance to dispute the table or assess the other sources not included in the table. 80.45.218.212 (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. The source table was created on Jan 17, and was never disputed; it contains some 20ish sources. On January 25, another editor reviewed it and agreed with the assessment. After that, I deleted the article. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was also involved in that debate and thought there would be more time to challenge the cause for deletion. Those that advocated for deletion also didn't answer the question that was asked by both the creator of the page and I around what constitutes SIG:COV when dealing with a critic / journalist. I.e. outside of primary sources all other sources are likely to be brief quotes or interviews and if these don't count towards notability, as suggested by those advocating for deletion, then it would be difficult to see how any critic or journalist would qualify for a Wikipedia entry. Thanks. Londoneditor284 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions run for 7 days, unless relisted, which this one was; it then ran for more than 7 full days after the relist. Brief quotes and interviews do not count towards notability. It's actually pretty easy for journalists and critics to qualify for an article, since we tend to assess them with the same basic rule of thumb as we do for any kind of writer: someone who has written multiple books that meet WP:NBOOK is notable. In this case, that did not apply.

Both of you (assuming, with the best possible faith, that you are not the same person), need to immediately read WP:SOCK, especially the sections at WP:MEAT and WP:LOUTSOCK, and need to disclose your conflict of interest according to the guidelines at WP:COI. Please confirm that you have read these guidelines and intend to comply with them henceforth. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying about 7 days and books, and I can see that it may be worth revisiting this profile if they gain significant publications / television coverage.

I can confirm we're not the same person. I only became involved as I've used the site a lot but not edited and saw this page was up for deletion. I've seen many pages stating the need for improvement as they are often poorly written and lacking references, so I was surprised this one that appeared well written and with references was sent straight to being proposed for deletion. I've since learned that other pages existence is not precedence for keeping a page, though I'm still not sure why this one specifically was targeted for deletion over other more eligible pages.

I also note this is a rare critic of colour in a predominantly white middle class art world, a world I know well, so thought it was worth retaining, though appreciate that's probably also not a solid case for retention. Anyhow, it's all a learning process for me and I appreciate the feedback. Londoneditor284 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Londoneditor284: Nominator here. It wasn't targeted for deletion and I'd appreciate it if you'd withdraw that statement, particularly in light of the racial angle you introduced. We have a process here called WP:NPP, and the main tool for that is a feed of new pages. Volunteer patrollers generally work through the list in order, and that's what I did. I came to this page next in my feed and evaluated it according to our process, reviewing the sources, conducting a WP:BEFORE search, and evaluating whether Khan met WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or any other applicable notability guideline. New page patrollers don't compare a subject to similar pages, which is a WP:WHATABOUTX analysis that doesn't hold up in deletion discussions. We can't control what other editors or patrollers have done with other pages; we simply evaluate the page in front of us against fairly objective guidelines. I hope this will make clear that patrollers are generally not going around "targeting" pages for deletion. We are simply reviewing what comes up next in our feed and taking the articles as they come. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, by targeted I didn't mean it in a perjorative sense I meant in the sense of why it came up when others that, in my opinion were more worthy of deletion, didn't - just trying to understand how that process works. Nor am I implying in any way that the suggestion of deletion was racially motivated, simply meaning to make an observation about representation. Apologies again for any offence caused and if you still think it reads as offensive let me know and I can go back and change the wording as necessary 2A01:4B00:C115:B500:A78:373D:C5E:2EC9 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is simply that articles created today are under more scrutiny than articles created a decade or two ago, so a new article will be sent for a deletion discussion when an older article in worse shape is still around simply because no one has noticed it in a while. Or maybe someone did notice it, and they just couldn't be bothered to do anything about it at the time (we're all volunteers). If you're interested in learning more about how the process works, lurk at WP:AFD for a while (or just start participating right away and do your best). It's fun to be able to save articles that looked like they were going to be deleted. :) -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for explaining the process to a newbie. Looking back at my earlier comment I should have used the word chosen or selected, instead or targeted. Once again, apologies for any offence caused. Londoneditor284 (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it too much. Your reaction is pretty typical. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Caucasian Expedition of the Seljuk Empire Could you please review it? Kartal1071 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article belonging to you at the top of the page. Could you please review the article and edit it accordingly? Kartal1071 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kartal1071, I don't understand your second question, about the article belonging to me. For the first, I really don't think you should be moving these to mainspace without waiting for AfC review. I think it's quite likely they will be subject to deletion discussions, if not speedy deletion, and I'm not sure you've understood how to use sources to write articles yet. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use translation and mobile space. Also, when I clicked on the send for review option, it asked for a desktop view and when I did that, a very complicated view appeared. I had difficulty adjusting the settings. Also, I rewrote the articles in my own words according to historical information. Kartal1071 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources is easy, but the real question is how to put it in the article in the most accurate way. I lack information on this subject. My house is full of history books. Kartal1071 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about Wikipedia. How can I make articles correct and appropriate? Can you help me? Kartal1071 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kartal1071, I would strongly recommend that you stop trying to create new articles, and instead work on improving the articles that we already have. You'll be able to learn how to use sources correctly this way, without running the risk (currently high, in my estimation) of your articles being deleted or you being blocked from editing. I'd really prefer to see you succeed, which is why I declined the deletions and draftified those articles to get them out of the way of New Page Patrol, but if you move them right back without learning the general expectations first, that's not going to lead anywhere good. -- asilvering (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll let you know when I finish the drafts. If you review them, I'll fix the missing parts accordingly. I apologize for any inconvenience yesterday. I should have let you know when I finished the drafts yesterday. Kartal1071 (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find reliable sources for your references and citations? --Itsn4kul10 (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Itsn4kul10, welcome to wikipedia! The answer to that depends on what access you have to sources (do you have a local library? a university library? etc) and what you're editing about. Once you've been here for a while you'll have access to WP:TWL, which is really helpful. H:FIND has some basic source-finding tips. Some wikiprojects compile lists of sources for their topic areas, also - what topics are you interested in editing about? -- asilvering (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a problem if I added news and newspapers as sources? Kartal1071 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battle_of_Rey_(1059)# Kartal1071 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and newspapers are good sources for current events, but not for history, which is what you've been editing about. For articles on history topics, the best sources are books and journal articles written by academic historians. -- asilvering (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find something to edit? Do I just start searching up random articles and checking for spelling errors? --RYMCY (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RYMCY, welcome to wikipedia! Really, the answer to that one is all up to you. I think a good way to find tasks is to join a wikiproject, since they'll have a backlog of maintenance and article improvement tasks that can keep you busy for effectively forever. If you tell me what topics you're interested in editing about, I can help you find a related wikiproject. I've also got a few other suggestions on my user page. It won't take you too long to end up with a to-do list longer than you can ever possibly finish. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mentor! I'm new to Wikipedia and started creating a page in my sandbox titled, "Paligenosis." But now my sandbox appears completely empty, like what I had there was somehow deleted. That may have been the case, but if there is a history or something I can check whereby it may be recovered, please let me know. Thanks! --RobLawrencium (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Asilvering, but it doesn't look as if you successfully saved your edit to your sandbox, RobLawrencium? I'm not seeing anything that was deleted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard luck, @RobLawrencium. It sounds like you didn't save your work. You have to hit the "publish" button to do so. There's no way for anyone to recover it for you, and unlike comments you make using Discussion Tools (ie, the editor that opens when you hit "reply" on a talk page comment), I don't think browsers cache unfinished article/sandbox edits. But just in case, if you're the sort of person who opens way too many browser tabs, make sure you haven't got it open in a forgotten tab somewhere before giving up and starting again. -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this seems like the case. Should I wait to hit "publish" until my draft is complete, or is it ok to do that periodically as I continue building the page? RobLawrencium (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. I tend to hit "publish" every paragraph or so while I'm drafting, out of paranoia. -- asilvering (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey asilvering, I was wondering if you could help me with something. I’m trying to check if any of the original sources cited in the four biography articles I published contain personal identifiers, like usernames in the URL—especially in PDFs. Since some PDFs can display either the uploader’s name or the name of the person who opens them, do you have any suggestions on how to spot this easily? I just want to make sure that no identifying information was accidentally included in the citations. Logger67 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Logger67, I see that you've asked a few people the same question - if you're going to do this, it's best to ask somewhere like WP:TEA, so you don't have several people duplicating each other's work. I think Hoary already answered your question? I just looked at Elisabeth Gasteiger and don't see any pdfs, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. It looks to me like you've used the DOIs to generate automatic citations? Those will be fine, no identifying info at all, provided you use the doi and not your proxy link. So typing in "10.31039487347/articlename" or whatever is fine, but "https://doi-org-10.31039487347/articlename.proxy.institution.org" will reveal your institution (and nothing else). -- asilvering (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, Sorry about that—I’m still new and learning how to navigate everything. I didn’t realize it would be better to ask in one place like WP:TEA, but I’ll keep that in mind for the future.

I did use PDFs in ‘’Judith Warren for sure and I believe in one other article as well. It’s not really the DOI links I’m concerned about, but rather the PDFs themselves. I’m concerned that I may have used a link that includes my personal username from when I accessed it.

Thanks for checking Elisabeth Gasteiger! I appreciate the clarification about DOIs—I’ll make sure to avoid using any institutional proxy links. Logger67 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the URLs of the two pdfs on Warren - the second one looks fine to me, no session id or query string or anything. For the first, I'm not totally sure - it's possible that the gibberish after /m/ is related to your user ID, though if this is the case I think it would only mean anything to someone who already had knowledge of the data architecture involved. In general, if the pdf is available at a URL that you can link to and someone else can access later, like these ones, I wouldn't expect them to expose any information. If you download a pdf that you can only access via login (eg through your library account), that pdf might be stamped with some information you'd rather not share, like the timestamp and your institution name. But in that case you're not uploading the pdf back to Wikipedia. Please note that I am not a security professional (any talk page watchers who happen to be so are welcome to comment). -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to be continuously in a disagreement with you, and I doubt either of us is keen on another blowup at AN, but I feel like it has to be said that If you (or anyone else) are able to source-check their next several major edits, by all means unblock comes off like you are setting conditions for unblock that you believe are binding on reviewing admins. I don't believe that you, I, or any other admin has that authority.

An admin reviewing an unblock requests is just another volunteer. They are under no more obligation to "take on an assignment" than anyone else.

I am not in any way disputing the justification for the block. It seems entirely solid. However, one of the issues, lack of communication, is clearly no longer an issue, they have been engaging in discussion with six admins while blocked for thirty-nine days.

The other issue, unsourced/copyrighted material has been the subject of those discussions. You have read a sample edit they submitted and cleared it. They have contacted VRT and not gotten anything but an autoresponse. You submitted some off-wiki material to others nearly a month ago and that has also seemingly not been responded to.

On top of all that, I, unaware that VRT is apparently badly backlogged, declined their last unblock request.

Putting another obstacle in their way by requiring an admin willing to promise to monitor their contributions as an unblock condition seems pretty unfair after all that. Copyright is important, but so is basic fairness. This user has done everything they have been asked to do during this discussion, an unblock is the right thing to do. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Vanderwaalforces stepped forward to do the followup, I agree that the block is no longer necessary, and I have unblocked.

As for the statement of mine that you've quoted, I stand by it, and would happily have stood by it at AN if you'd taken it there. The condition stated is the condition under which I would agree that an unblock is the right course of action. Admins are expected to request input from the blocking admin before unblocking an editor; no admin dealing with the request could reasonably have been accused of acting without my input after that comment. You are not obligated to agree with that input, or even to receive it - simply to ask for it.

Certainly, that statement you quoted is also implicitly a statement of what I think would be a poor course of action: I do not think it is a good idea to unblock someone who has been blocked for copyright violation without following up on that editor's future contributions or personally ensuring that someone else does. I do not believe you will find any copyright admins who would be willing to do so. I presume you recall User talk:GoldenBootWizard276#Unblock request 3, where MER-C declined any involvement as "risky". In that case, I promised to make sure that follow-up was being done, and have been doing so.

I agree that it is unfair that this editor was waiting for so long. But it is, as you say, a volunteer project, and no one had volunteered. I am not willing to take an action that I believe to be foolish in order to end a situation I believe to be unfair. The choice that you make in that kind of situation is, of course, up to you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all's well that ends well I guess.

Just to be clear: I see how the mention of AN could have come off as a threat to escalate, which I did not intend. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

Hlo mentor --Mahito khan (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

This award is given in recognition to Asilvering for accumulating at least 10 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liked what you did with that one question that Barkeep49 couldn't really close on the admin election RFC. Nice work. Risker (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) -- asilvering (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konko Maji has asked for a deletion review of Debangshu Bhattacharya. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 23:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cryptic and apologies @Asilvering, I intended to leave a note when I fixed their nomination but got distracted. Star Mississippi 01:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nothing really to say as the closer anyway, but I've left a comment on the sources. -- asilvering (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering I hope you're doing well.

I've created this article in draft space: Draft:Michael Commane

Would love your feedback on whether the subject meets notability for main space and any improvements that might be needed.

Appreciate your time—many thanks! Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not - there's nothing here that's useful for WP:GNG, because none of this sourcing is independent. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean the sources need to be written about him like this one? https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20193550.html Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be about him, but not like that one - that's more an article about a particular clerical abuse scandal than it is about Fr Commane (so it's not really about the subject of your draft), and it's basically reporting of a thing that he said (so it's not all that independent either). The deck calls him an "outspoken cleric", which does imply to me that he's notable (in the non-wikipedian sense) in that he is known as an outspoken cleric, but for it to survive a deletion discussion you'd need sources that fulfil WP:42. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, he's quite a well known journalist / priest commentator in Ireland so I thought he'd tick the notability boxes -- there are links like this https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/21963614/ (RTE is the equivalent of the BBC in ireland) -- but he might be a non-starter if I can't find enough independent sources. Thanks for taking a look Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's really tough to write AfD-proof articles on journalists, unless they've published a book, and then it becomes very easy, because a book by a journalist is going to get reviews, and those give you the coverage you need. WP:JOURNALISM looks pretty sleepy but you might be able to ask for tips there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how about this one she's an author, book reviews are on Amazon but I don't know if linking to Amazon is acceptable? Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need WP:RS reviews. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you how you got to your conclusion? The delete !votes which came in after the sources were found/discussed were mistaken, especially the one after the second relist, which just ignored all of the sources that were already presented. None of the delete !voters actually said why any of the presented sources weren't any good. This should be at least a no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 04:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 5 keep !votes are particularly strong - ie, none of them are a slam-dunk of significant coverage that makes it impossible to take the delete votes seriously. Three of them specifically say they are weak or note that there is little in the way of significant coverage. The point about lasting impacts on the design of the airframe, which you and Cashew mentioned, wasn't persuasive to later participants. You can call them "mistaken" if you like, but I don't think that's charitable. Meanwhile, there are 13 deletes/redirects, plus the nom (and even a previous AfD). I admit I did half-expect this close to be challenged - but I expected the challenge to come from the delete side. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did my absolute damndest to refute the delete !votes and I don't think my vote was weak in the slightest. Are you sure you are not willing to reconsider before I take this to DRV? SportingFlyer T·C 19:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly argued, certainly. But I would not characterize it as a slam-dunk of significant coverage that makes it impossible to take the delete votes seriously, and I would be surprised if you would characterize it as such. You tried hard to save the article, but didn't manage to turn consensus to your favour; it happens. My way of acknowledging that was a close that explicitly leaves space for those interested in keeping the article to work on it and try again. If you would prefer DRV, you can of course take it there. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 February 9. —Cryptic 08:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I wanted to create a bio for myself am I able to do this on here ? --"kephartestates" (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @"kephartestates", welcome to Wikipedia! You can write a bio for yourself, but we'd really prefer that you didn't. See WP:AUTOBIO and WP:FIRST. -- asilvering (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We simultaneously have this and this as mutually contradictory decisions. If the logo is copyrightable, then the decision to declare its use on a license plate cannot be PD. The only conclusion I can see here is that this should be PD based on the discussions in toto. Buffs (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're mutually contradictory - neither was deleted. I do think you should update the tag on the PD-usgov one though, since it's correct that it's not a work of the US government. -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the logo is copyrightable, then the license plate featuring it should be deleted unless the subject of commentary. A FUR allows for the logo to be used in the article, but a license plate repeating said logo would fail FUR.

At a bare minimum, perhaps it would be better to relist these together for consideration. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --Marcobertolotti (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marcobertolotti, welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm currently working on my very first Wikipedia article. I've been able to work around most of the issues, but I'm feeling stuck on two issues: 1. How do I edit the article title? 2. How do I create sub-headings?

Thanks a lot for the assistance. --SV The Great (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SV The Great, welcome to wikipedia! You can't edit an article title, not exactly. But what you can do is move the article to a new title entirely. Instructions at H:MOVE. Regarding sub-headings, that's easier to demonstrate than describe. I'll add some to Draft:Olalekan Sunday Ajisafe for you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey asilvering, just wanted to ask if you could review my request at WT:AFC/Participants whenever you get the time to. I saw that you're quite active there, which is why I asked TNM101 (chat) 08:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac tends to get to these on Sundays. I mostly just weed out the "does not meet minimum criteria" ones. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK no problem. Thanks for your reply! TNM101 (chat) 03:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain whether to agree with your statement about "bludgeoning" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Collins (2nd nomination). Actually, I dunno why else there've been less or no "delete" or "redirect" votes (or no votes), especially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol (2nd nomination) (which ended in "redirect") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Moss (2nd nomination) (which ended in "no consensus"). George Ho (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea what you're actually asking me. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, The bludgeoning appears to have scared everyone off. Do you still stand by this statement? I've not bludgeoned at two other AFD discussions I've mentioned to you AFAICS. George Ho (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the bludgeoning scared everyone off. You'd think a delete !vote like SportingFlyer's would have gotten at least someone to second it, but no such luck. -- asilvering (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that some of the bludgeoning in these discussions - albeit not @George Ho's is at ANI right now should you feel the need to/interest in weigh in. Star Mississippi 02:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I've already found that one... through the unblocks queue. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In the page for the "Grey-bellied Wren Babbler", there is an image that does not match the species in the page. However, I cannot find any public-domain photos for this particular species.

What should I do? --Mitul and Vijul (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mitul and Vijul, welcome to wikipedia! What I would do in this situation is remove the image from the page and write an edit summary that explains why. In this case, it seems pretty easy - the image is labelled "grey-chin babbler", not "grey-bellied wren babbler", so I don't think anyone is likely to object. If someone does revert your change, you'll want to go to the article talk page to explain why the photo is incorrect and should be removed.

An unrelated issue: I think you're going to have to change your username, or both of you get new, separate accounts. Mitul and Vijul are your first names, right? Please see WP:ISU. Wikipedia accounts should be used by only a single person. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello asilvering,

How do you change your account name? Mitul and Vijul (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Mitul and Vijul: You can make a request here: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for closing WP:Articles for deletion/Bassam Kawas.

You mentioned wanting to redirect, but there was no proposed target. I propose a redirect to Lebanon at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Athletics, because it's the only Wikipedia section solely dedicated to the subject and it pertains to his highest-profile competition.

Would you consider changing your closure to a redirect to that page / section? Thank you, --Habst (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst, my worry about that (I did notice it when I went looking for plausible redirects) is that he's mentioned on a few pages and if we have a redirect to one of them, it makes the other pages harder for people to find. If the article doesn't exist even as a redirect, then those pages all show up for someone who searches his name. Without a redirect, the page you're suggesting is still the first search result: [1]. It seems to me this is the better result for a reader who would really have hoped to find a full article about Bassam Kawas - do you agree? -- asilvering (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, Thanks for your explanation. I agree from a reader's perspective, but unfortunately for technical reasons the only way to preserve public page history on Wikipedia is by keeping a redirect. In the long run, I think this creates perverse incentives to keep redirects around for the benefit of editors at the expense of readers.

Could you undelete the article then in my userspace at User:Habst/Bassam Kawas? That way at least there's a trail for determined editors to follow if a native Arabic speaker ever finds the AfD and wants to add sourcing. The issue with draft space is it's temporary. --Habst (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! It's both hard to believe it's been three years, and hard to believe it's only been three years. -- asilvering (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	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]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Koshuri ^(グ) 14:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 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]

There's no doubt in my mind that there's gaming on both sides of this subject. I wonder, why? You might have noticed I quietly removed the ec permissions from the nominator. At least two of the keep votes also belong to users who've apparently gamed their EC, based on my initial reading. I was going to ask a friend to help me break it all down. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that friend is a checkuser. Might help sort things out more quickly. As far as the "why", well, I assume it's the usual crypto rivalries at work. -- asilvering (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong with this comment. An IP editor is not allowed to use account only for maintaining his vendetta against other editors, let alone doing that on a noticeboard on ANI. We have seen such socking cases before. You will benefit from reading about them such as this one. Capitals00 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not wrong with that comment. We encourage IP editors to make accounts, especially for the reason that editor described (ie, that an account better protects your privacy). What is not allowed is WP:PROJSOCK. Demanding that someone reveal their IP is a violation of their privacy, and an obvious failure of WP:AGF. If you have serious concerns about a particular editor block evading, please contact a checkuser. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that the admins who supported blocking this editor were all wrong and you are right? We encourage people to switch from their IP to account for article space. We don't do it to encourage them to maintain vendetta against other editors on WP:ANI. Asking another person to reveal their past "accounts or IPs" or otherwise stop joining the ANI discussion is not wrong. This is a normal practice. If the editor's past role is limited with an IP which they don't want to reveal, then they must avoid any feuds related with that IP. Checkusers are not going to bother over a single edit. Capitals00 (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that. I even linked WP:PROJSOCK. You will notice in the comment you link as normal practice that the admin there offered the possibility of emailing checkusers about the IP. It is not appropriate to demand that a user disclose their IP publicly, and it is not appropriate to threaten someone with admin action for not disclosing their IP. The next thing you link is WP:NOTFISHING. If you believe that a CU would call this fishing, then you cannot possibly believe that this is an obvious project sock of a particular IP. -- asilvering (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering. I saw your username on the list of "Good article mentors". I recently finished the article for Freak Lunchbox, a popular Canadian candy store. Despite the shorter length of the article, I did spend quite a bit of time on it, and after reviewing the good article criteria a few times I think it would qualify. Before I go through all that, I was wondering if you might just take a quick glance at it and tell me if you see any glaring issues that would immediately disqualify it from receiving GA status.

I was also thinking about nominating the article for DYK, with the fact "Did you know that Freak Lunchbox spent $12,000 on a mural only for it to get covered up by a new nine story building?" or something like that. I imagine you'd typically choose one or the other though, right? I wouldn't want to take up too much of peoples' time. Any advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Kylemahar902 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People don't usually pick DYK or GAN - they do both! If you want to make a DYK nomination for it, I suggest you do that soon, so you don't miss the window. Regarding the GA criteria, I think you've got an obvious problem you'll need to address before you start: there's nothing on the article about the store itself or what they sell. What I learn about it is a) where some of the locations are, and b) that there was a big controversy about the mural on the side of the building. Are there really no sources about the store itself? What makes it different from other candy stores? Why's it called "Freak Lunchbox"? etc. Other than that, at a glance it looks good to go: lots of sources, none obviously unreliable, images appropriately licensed, nothing wonky about the prose. -- asilvering (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. I guess I got so caught up in explaining the history of Freak Lunchbox that I didn't consider that readers would require more context about what the store actually is. I'll see what I can do. Kylemahar902 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again asilvering. Thanks to your help I was able to expand my article accordingly and have submitted it for review. I figure the logical next step is to begin reviewing the work of others, however given that I'm new to the process I'm getting a bit lost in the nomination list, and I'm not sure where to start. I was wondering if maybe there's any nominations in specific that you think would be suitable for me start with. A lot of these are very long and in-depth, and I'm more than happy to tackle those at some point, but I'm not sure that I'm well-informed enough just yet. Your WikiWisdom is appreciated. Kylemahar902 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asilvering,

Great closure with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:PA by Cerium4B. I seem to be seeing more editors (in general) coming to ANI with a determination to get another editor blocked or topic banned or some other sanction imposed when there doesn't seem to be a compelling case to do so. And when one argument doesn't work, they try another. I'm not saying any editor is perfect but ten years ago, ANI used to be a bloody mess, with cases determined by mob justice (a lot of "off with his head!" comments) and I don't want to see those days return.

I'm finding it depressing and I have to spend less time reviewing complaints because it can seem like a case of "Last editor standing". I'm surprised when editors stick around after having to go through experiences like this recent case. Thanks for finally bringing this one to a halt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 22 February 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 | Twitter/X

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