User talk:asilvering
Archives (Index) |
User:Marginataen's recent edits
[edit]As I said on the admin notice board, I expect that Marginataen will be indef blocked sooner or later. I wanted to bring a couple of recent edits to your attention as the admin who unblocked him. This edit seems like a repeat of the recent date format changes that he was blocked for just recently. And the edit summary in this edit has been blanked so I can't see what it said but the log says "edit summary hidden (RD2: Serious BLP violations)". Ping Tamzin. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @HappyBeachDreams, more than 1/3 of all of your edits to this project thus far have been about Marginataen. You have no edits to any other project. At this point you're either WP:HOUNDING, an illegitimate WP:PROJSOCK, or both. Leave Marginataen alone. As you already acknowledge, admins are aware of the BLPvio - it's already redacted. If Primefac had thought that was block-worthy, Marginataen would be blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The redacted edit summary wasn't that egregious, so I never thought to look at the editor making it. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- While the redacted ES does use "he", it also has a non-sequitur reference to Denmark that makes me think it's just an autocomplete error. Haven't looked at the rest of this yet, just noting that for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Marginataen's next edit on that page refers to an error in the previous edit summary, so I'd assume your take is correct. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking further, yeah, these are valid date format changes. I concur that you should move on from focusing on Marginataen's edits, HBD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tamzin No sure which changes you are referring to. I only gave a single example (the existing date format got changed for someone who lived and died in America because they were born in Copenhagen). Marginataen has been making a lot of date format edits for military personnel so I assume those are the ones you mean. Even with those, he is starting to draw concern. Should a nominee for a non-military post be considered military-related?
- Look, to be completely honest, I think that the whole subject of date formats is a bit silly. MediaWiki should display the date however the user wants to see it, but I guess that's too obvious. Meanwhile, Marginataen will continue his robotic editing until he annoys enough people. Look at the discussions on article talk pages - he's already in conflict. I give him about two weeks until his next block. Cheers! HappyBeachDreams (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @HappyBeachDreams, if previous warnings were unclear: Please find something to edit about other than Marginataen, and/or disclose your past accounts. If you continue raising these kinds of baseless-to-marginal complaints without doing something to show that you are here to contribute in good faith, I will block your account as not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tamzin Looks like I was off by a bit. Oh well. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HappyBeachDreams, if previous warnings were unclear: Please find something to edit about other than Marginataen, and/or disclose your past accounts. If you continue raising these kinds of baseless-to-marginal complaints without doing something to show that you are here to contribute in good faith, I will block your account as not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking further, yeah, these are valid date format changes. I concur that you should move on from focusing on Marginataen's edits, HBD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Marginataen's next edit on that page refers to an error in the previous edit summary, so I'd assume your take is correct. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- While the redacted ES does use "he", it also has a non-sequitur reference to Denmark that makes me think it's just an autocomplete error. Haven't looked at the rest of this yet, just noting that for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The redacted edit summary wasn't that egregious, so I never thought to look at the editor making it. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
[edit]Hi, I hope you had a great Christmas, and have a great 2025. (bit early I know but wanted to say it anyways). Crafterstar (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Same to you! -- asilvering (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Question from Balaram Bhaskar (14:38, 31 December 2024)
[edit]Hello, I want to publish a article about an actor --Balaram Bhaskar (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Balaram Bhaskar, welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend reading WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS before getting started. I see you've had your draft declined, so please read the links in the decline rationale as well. If you have questions about any of that, feel free to ask here or at WP:TEA. -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Editing other's user pages
[edit]Hello.
I noticed you edited my user page without consensus.
While my user page is not de jure protected from editing, other's pages should not be edited without consensus, unless they are uncontroversial (like reverting vandalism or fixing errors). Not only did you remove said warning, you also violated the guideline. Please do not edit my or other's pages without consensus. I have reverted your edit and noted that the page is not technically protected. Also, user pages are technically semi protected by default Heyaaaaalol (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Heyaaaaalol: asilvering's edit was correct per WP:SMI: Userpages may not contain simulations of the MediaWiki interface, and any user may remove violations of this rule. Merely including the padlock symbol is borderline, but including the whole "Why is this page protected?" schpiel pretty clearly qualifies as simulating the interface. Please remedy this rather than lecturing the person who is correctly enforcing policy. You are welcome to still have some kind of banner asking people not to edit the page, but understand that such a banner does not supersede cases where policy says one may edit another user's page. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not know this. Thank you. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Asilvering!
[edit]Asilvering,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Restoring article to userspace
[edit]Hey there, and happy New Year! I'd like to request the Internet Aesthetic article be moved to my userspace. Hope your year starts off well! Photos of Japan (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- You'll find it at User:Photos of Japan/Internet aesthetic. 明けましておめでとう! -- asilvering (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- 明けましておめでとう! ~ヾ(^∇^)
- Thanks for the page move. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like I'm going to accept your suggestion!
[edit]Well, despite my best efforts, my draft was indeed rejected. I was unaware of Original Research being a factor and unintentionally shot myself in the foot with that one lol. The lack of sources and information on the Internet honestly stuns me a little bit; I completely see why it was rejected. I am a little proud of my writing and how I put it together because I feel at least that was done alright. I've come to thank you for making me aware of those other Wikis; I might take a crack at those so there is something on the internet about the effects. :] Therguy10 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alas. There's a limited amount of that kind of thing that's fine - most of your draft is basically facts, so as long as you can show the fact is verifiable, that's ok. But we do still need to be able to show that the topic is notable, which requires secondary sources. I'm sure there's a wiki out there that would be happy to have it, though. And all the practice with wikimarkup will only help you out for writing on Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
2025 Update from Women in Green
[edit]Hello Asilvering:
2024 has wrapped up, and what a full year it was for WikiProject Women in Green! Over the past year, we hosted two edit-a-thons, one themed around women's history and another on women around the world. We also managed to achieve most of our 2024 annual goals, nominating 75 articles for GA, reviewing 64 GA nominations, nominating 8 articles for FAC, peer reviewing 3 articles and reviewing 10 FAC nominations. Excellent work, and thank you to everyone involved!
For 2025 we have a new set of goals for nominations and reviews. In particular, we would like to see more articles on our Hot 100 list being improved and nominated for GA this year. If you take a look at the list and see an article you are interested in contributing to, feel free to add it and yourself to our Hot 100 project discussion. You might even find someone interested in collaborating with you!
This year, as with every year, we hope you will join us in helping improve our coverage of women and women's works on this encyclopedia. Every contribution helps. We'll see you around!
You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Your Teahouse question
[edit]You did not get a response to this question. This looks like something they could answer on WP:VPT if you didn't already find the answer somewhere else.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Complaint Regarding Historical Revisionism and Bias on Articles Concerning Afghanistan
[edit]Dear @Asilvering:, I hope you are doing well. I need some help and want to ccomplaint against a user called @HistoryofIran who has been engaging in historical revisionism on articles related to Afghanistan. Despite multiple complaints, there has been no resolution. This user has been attempting to distort historical facts and present a biased narrative that seeks to "Iranize" Afghanistan's persian history, rejecting credible sources including those from Oxford University.
Furthermore, this user leverages their experience to reject any edits concerning Afghanistan and exhibits a particular interest in using historical names such as Persia or Greater Iran, while actively attempting to undermine the name "Afghanistan" in these articles. Their actions not only compromise the integrity of the information but also mislead readers and misrepresent the rich and diverse history of Afghanistan.
I kindly request that you see into this matter. I believe that some action of experienced users like you will help preserve the factual and neutral portrayal of Afghanistan's history on Wikipedia.
Here are some isuues regarding him:
- He is not accepting my source and does not want to add Afghanistan as the birthplace of Rumi:
- He doesn't want me to add the Infobox because it would show the birthplace, etc., of the Persian poet Rabia Balkhi:
Best Regards Af420 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say something, but those diffs are not making you look good (WP:OUCH). Just more WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA and WP:TENDENTIOUS, not being the first time [1], where they were warned to refrain from doing the former. Asilvering, if you have questions, feel free to ask away. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Af420, I'm really not convinced that #2 has anything to do with whether it shows the birthplace of Rabia Balkhi - if that is in fact the reason behind the edit, HoI has a great alibi, which you can see in their full and believable edit summary. I happen to like infoboxes, but I know that many editors don't, especially long-time editors. If you want to include an infobox on an article where another editor has disputed whether it's worth having, you can open a WP:RFC about it to get some wider opinions. If you do that, please remember that the question must be neutral. Please don't assume you know what other editors' motivations are. Regarding #1, HoI is correct that this doesn't look good on your part. If you want to start a discussion about that, you'll have to back up: start a new talk page thread, explain your reasoning for using the sources you've used, and clearly explain why the others are insufficient.
- @HistoryofIran, I really think your editing experience would improve immensely if you extended more patience towards other editors. You'd be more likely to convince them they're wrong, for one thing. -- asilvering (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering,
- This person is almost always on Wikipedia, wich is good, but nearly all of their edits are focused on Persian history. They seem to deny that countries like Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan have any connection to the Persian language, especially when it comes to Afghan Persian history. They often adjust the name of Iran or Persia while omitting the names of countries like Azerbaijan and Afghanistan. It feels like they love to portray figures like Rumi, who was born in Afghanistan, as purely Persian. Sometimes, it even seems like they're being paid to do so.
- Why do they insist on denying the history of Iran's neighboring countries? Why do they make it seem like Persian history solely belongs to Iran, despite the fact that the first-ever female poet, Rabia Balkhi, was born in modern-day Afghanistan, and the most famous Persian poet, Rumi, was also born there? They've even added sections about Rumi's citizenship, despite the absence of such a concept back then, yet they listed the Khwarazmian Empire as his place of citizenship. They appear obsessed with the notion that everything was Iran before the 1700s. They're using their extensive language skills to erase Afghanistan's Persian-related history, making it look like even that history belongs solely to Iran. They seem intent on "Iranizing" everything, even if it pertains to Tajikistan.
- I am not in a position to counter all his edits, but I would greatly appreciate it if someone could prevent him from undoing our contributions simply because he disagrees with them.
- Best regards Af420 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer to any of these rhetorical or implied questions. I do know that you have now spoken more to me about HoI's edits than you have ever spent in discussion with HoI themselves. You're going to have to start there to try to resolve your individual content disputes. Until you've really given that a try, realistically speaking, you aren't going to get very far with your content dispute or with showing that HoI is some kind of pov-pushing Persian nationalist. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right, but I just feel like he has stronger argumentative skills in Wikipedia-related matters. I made 2-3 edits over a long time, but somehow they were always reverted by him.
- Could you please check the infobox of Rabia Balkhi article and give me feedback on whether it should be there or if I should take it back?:))
- Best regards Af420 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's certainly true that an experienced editor will have an edge on an inexperienced one in an argument. That's why I wouldn't recommend trying to go to, say, WP:ANI, and try to convince anyone else that HoI is pov-pushing. If they aren't, you'll probably be blocked. If they are, well, you may find a way to shoot yourself in the foot while everyone is watching, and end up blocked anyway. First, try to get somewhere on the talk page. If you can't reach an agreement with another editor on the talk page of the article, it can be helpful to get a third opinion: WP:3O. Read through WP:DR for advice on how to proceed if that doesn't work out. Walk away from the unimportant fights. (How much do you care about this infobox?)
- When you're a more experienced editor and you've done some more dispute resolution, you'll be on better footing to convince other editors you're in the right, and less likely to set yourself up for some kind of WP:BOOMERANG outcome. But it's also entirely possible that you'll end up conceding the point once you're better versed in guidelines like WP:RS, that you and HoI will manage to find consensus, or that you'll ultimately decide that HoI isn't pov-pushing after all. Stay out of edit wars, explain your reasoning calmly and clearly, and see where that gets you.
- Regarding the infobox, I don't think you should have put it back - you should have started a discussion about it on the talk page instead. Now that you have put it back, though, I don't think you should self-revert. If it's challenged again, I hope it's on the talk page, and I hope you continue the discussion there rather than adding it a third time. -- asilvering (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, I’m going to follow your advice and do exactly as you suggested.
- Thank you for taking the time to address this matter. :))
- Best regards Af420 (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I really think your editing experience would improve immensely if you extended more patience towards other editors. You'd be more likely to convince them they're wrong, for one thing
- I try, but they unfortunately keep making it worse, as you saw with Anzor.akaev. Af420 is another good example. Warned to stop attacking by an admin, proceeds to continue it here, blatantly lying about those diffs in an attempt to make me look bad. I am unfortunately also often on my own, trying to patrol a wide variety of articles related to different countries, so I can't keep being patient forever, as this happens frequently. Also, unless you and Af420 have encountered each other before, I don't think it's a coincidence that Af420 wrote to you, since we haven't exactly met eye to eye, which sucks. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, you simply don't look bad in those diffs, so you don't really have anything to worry about there. Please don't say things like "blatantly lying about those diffs"; you're assuming what Af520's motivations are, which is exactly the same thing they're doing, and that is clearly contributing to why you're having trouble getting anywhere with them. Assuming good faith doesn't mean that you have to like other editors, or to assume that they're competent, or to believe that they're correct. It just means that you have to act as though you are both trying to improve the encyclopedia. I strongly advise that you do everything you can to abandon the
I am unfortunately also often on my own, trying to patrol a wide variety of articles
mindset; it never leads anywhere good. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Well, you simply don't look bad in those diffs, so you don't really have anything to worry about there.
- Not so sound arrogant, but I know I don't look bad in those diffs. Diff 1 shows them ghosting a talk page discussion after they were asked to demonstrate how their citations were WP:RS ("He is not accepting my source and does not want to add Afghanistan as the birthplace of Rumi"). Diff 2 shows me reverting them for adding a infobox adding nothing of value, which also disregards WP:RS and the fact that Rabia Balkhi's place of origin is disputed, and thus its WP:GA status ("He doesn't want me to add the Infobox because it would show the birthplace, etc., of the Persian poet Rabia Balkhi"). Afghanistan didn't even exist during this period, so I don't know why I am apparently number 1 Afghanistan underminer.
Please don't say things like "blatantly lying about those diffs"; you're assuming what Af520's motivations are, which is exactly the same thing they're doing, and that is clearly contributing to why you're having trouble getting anywhere with them. It just means that you have to act as though you are both trying to improve the encyclopedia.
- I'm not talking about their motivations, I'm simply saying that they accused me of various extreme stuff and linked those diffs as "evidence", yet they don't demonstrate anything - whatever we want to call it, it is blatantly false and sheer WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm sorry, but this is exactly like the ANI thread where we first encountered each other, you are putting me on par with another user who has clearly engaged in wrongdoing, which is not fair, and where another admin ended up stepping in. As you saw, Af420 had even been warned to stop attacking me, which you haven't addressed. Yet here they are, insulting me, and as mentioned in the ANI thread, I am not a punching bag. I don't like being constantly insulted, I'm sure you don't either. No one does. As for their motivations, unlike them, I have some diffs that are clear red flags, but I'm not really interested in delving into that right. I had completely forgot that I even encountered Af420 before they went to you.
I strongly advise that you do everything you can to abandon the "I am unfortunately also often on my own, trying to patrol a wide variety of articles" mindset; it never leads anywhere good.
- I'm still doing my best. This does mean that I don't try - I certainly do. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I think you'll get much further, and have a much more pleasant editing experience, if you extend other editors some more patience. You'll find you're turned into a punching bag less often when you actually assume good faith. Saying another editor's misunderstanding of your aims is
blatantly false and sheer WP:ASPERSIONS
is not an expression of good faith. Are there nationalist assholes trying to push their POV on Wikipedia? Absolutely. If you stay calm and helpful, you'll defang them - or they'll self-immolate. If you act like Wikipedia is a battleground, you'll get a war. If what you want is a collaborative project, you first have to treat other editors as potential collaborators. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Saying another editor's misunderstanding of your aims is blatantly false and sheer WP:ASPERSIONS is not an expression of good faith.
- This is very concerning. Getting accused of historical revisionism, being a Persian nationalist, having a bias on articles concerning Afghanistan and so on without evidence is textbook WP:ASPERSIONS ("An editor must not accuse another of misconduct without evidence.").
You'll find you're turned into a punching bag less often when you actually assume good faith / Absolutely. If you stay calm and helpful, you'll defang them - or they'll self-immolate.
- Which I do, but the self-immolate has been ongoing for some time, including in front of our very eyes. No matter what, nothing justifies attacking others for their background. Seriously, what do you call someone attacking x person for their background? Something to ponder about, you don't have to answer. Oh, and here's the very first comment Af420 towards me, I guess that was my mistake too [2]. I hope we meet more eye to eye one day, but unfortunately that doesn't seem likely atm. Best. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Newbies often think Wikipedia is full of all kinds of crazy biases. In many cases, that's why they want to start editing in the first place. They see something that's incorrect (or that they think is incorrect) and try to change it. It doesn't have anything to do with you as a person. Sure, your username doesn't help, but it hardly matters - there's an anarchist editor who periodically gets accused of being some kind of anarchist-hating authoritarian because his username is "czar". It's important to react calmly to this kind of person to avoid simply reinforcing that belief. I've been accused of some truly weird biases for declining AfC drafts on obviously non-notable subjects. I could try to get these people blocked for aspersions, but that's not productive; it's better to educate. Does it work all the time? Certainly not. But it fails rarely enough that I tend to remember the times where it did. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I think you'll get much further, and have a much more pleasant editing experience, if you extend other editors some more patience. You'll find you're turned into a punching bag less often when you actually assume good faith. Saying another editor's misunderstanding of your aims is
- Well, you simply don't look bad in those diffs, so you don't really have anything to worry about there. Please don't say things like "blatantly lying about those diffs"; you're assuming what Af520's motivations are, which is exactly the same thing they're doing, and that is clearly contributing to why you're having trouble getting anywhere with them. Assuming good faith doesn't mean that you have to like other editors, or to assume that they're competent, or to believe that they're correct. It just means that you have to act as though you are both trying to improve the encyclopedia. I strongly advise that you do everything you can to abandon the
- I don't know the answer to any of these rhetorical or implied questions. I do know that you have now spoken more to me about HoI's edits than you have ever spent in discussion with HoI themselves. You're going to have to start there to try to resolve your individual content disputes. Until you've really given that a try, realistically speaking, you aren't going to get very far with your content dispute or with showing that HoI is some kind of pov-pushing Persian nationalist. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi --Hexnullx (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Hexnullx, welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Question from Jamshed ali rind 110 (17:27, 4 January 2025)
[edit]Hello Sir, How can I publish my Biography in Wikipedia? --Jamshed ali rind 110 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I'm afraid we'd really rather you didn't. Please see WP:AUTOBIO for an explanation as to why. I see you've already received some warnings and advice on your talk page, and you should read those too. If you have any specific questions about all of that, feel free to ask me, or at WP:TEA. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thanks for your comments and help today, you rock! Cheers. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
- Thanks, @Mamani1990. Good luck out there! -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Questions from a newbie
[edit]Warm hello again asilvering,
I wanted your take on something I've noticed recently in my "suggested articles to edit" on my homepage and how best to handle. I've seen a few examples of pages about subjects where the subject themself has shamelessly embellished their own wiki article: here and here. In my book, this would/should be a screaming red flag for deletion. The fact that the articles have remained up for years without this scrutiny, in my opinion, is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy of BS: the subject becomes more notable because they have a Wiki article up about themselves (but it probably should never have been there in the first place). Is my reasoning flawed? How would you recommend I deal with this type of evidence? Does it add any weight in AfD discussions? Thank you in advance for your precious feedback. Mamani1990 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Congratulations on stepping right into the Big Questions on day 2, haha. You'll find probably as many opinions on this as there are Wikipedia editors. I'm not personally so concerned about that self-fulfilling prophecy you describe (I'm more worried about another, similar one, WP:CITOGENESIS), since while I'm sure having a Wikipedia article helps people in various ways, I'm not really convinced that it helps them in ways that make them notable, at least not the way we define it, which depends on significant, secondary coverage. And if having a Wikipedia article made someone notable, my guess is they're a Streisand effect case - and they're probably unhappy with the current state of their biography!
- When it comes to deletion discussions, the "party line", such as it is, is that COI has no effect whatsoever on whether a subject is notable (as in WP:N) or not. Since a lack of notability is typically the reason given for deletion, that means that deleting on WP:COI grounds is, "officially speaking", a nonstarter. In practice, however... yes, it makes a difference, often the deciding one, when argued with a bit of finesse. These can become some of the more contentious AfDs, so you'll want to get some more AfD experience under your belt before you try putting up for deletion someone who is plausibly notable but obviously COI-involved. You will, inevitably, be told that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. The question ends up being whether you can convince anyone else that the cleanup is not worth doing and we need to get out some WP:TNT.
- Something to keep in mind is that we do, generally speaking, actually want to have articles on every subject that is notable, including the self-promotional jerks (here you will find a great divergence of Wikipedian opinions, but I'd say this is the "generally accepted consensus"). We just want those articles to actually meet WP:NPOV. We also don't want to set other editors' work on fire just because somebody decided to paper over it with an advertisement. So when you're looking at a really self-promotional article, have a look at the history to see if you can revert to a better version. If there isn't, but the subject is notable (or probably notable), you're welcome to just axe as much promo as you can. (If it's really, really egregious, that's what WP:G11 is for.) I should warn you here that this will mean you are a "new editor removing sourced content", which sets off various alarm bells. You are likely to be reverted at least sometimes; if this happens, start a (calm!) discussion on the article Talk page. A lot of new editors removing sourced content aren't really "new editors" - they're vandals. Our immune system is tuned up pretty high and people may assume you're one of them. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for dropping so much knowledge, I'm going to study this closely. Lots to learn still. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're asking all the right questions, so you're off to a great start. -- asilvering (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for dropping so much knowledge, I'm going to study this closely. Lots to learn still. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Question from Arseayadfarhad4u (10:49, 5 January 2025)
[edit]how can I put image on the templet --Arseayadfarhad4u (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Arseayadfarhad4u (talk page watcher) This is not a useful question. If you mean "How may I add an image to an article?" the answer is first to be sure that you have the right to upload the image at all. If you have, upload it, and finally in the article you wish to add the image, add it.
- However, so far any contribution you have made to articles has been reverted because it has not been appropriate. Please take great care that you inly make appropriate edits. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
- Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Vofa
[edit]Hello. Soon after you closed the report, there was another edit by Vofa [3], again removing sourced content and sources, with the edit summary simply saying "restored". Bogazicili (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This is also straight vandalism [4]. I'm coming here first since you've been looking into this issue, but I can also report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Which would you prefer? Bogazicili (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)I shouldn't be too hasty. Wikipedia:Competence is required may be relevant here. FYI, there is no such thing as a "Bulgharic language family", it's just a branch. Bogazicili (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- You need to have a conversation with Vofa about it. Not a revert with a brief summary. A conversation. If that conversation is earnestly and thoroughly attempted, and problematic edits continue, you're welcome to come back. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Question from Theofunny (6 January 2025)
[edit]Can I as a editor ask other editors somewhere on Wikipedia for help/collaboration for editing? Like I found a blocked IP and its socks which have made highly disruptive and sneaky edits on several articles which is too hard for me to revert(automatically or manually) alone? Theofunny (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theofunny, are you saying that the sockpuppeting is still continuing? Or has everyone involved been blocked and it's quiet now? If the former, you may want to report it at WP:ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- All its IPs have been blocked but its edits haven't been reverted except for the main IP. Theofunny (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you specify the IPs, please? -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- User contributions for 2A02:810D:BC40:2D4:10F9:B91D:975:8806 - Wikipedia
- User contributions for Dav2ry7 - Wikipedia
- User contributions for 2A02:810D:BC40:2D4:142F:817F:AE42:F3FF - Wikipedia
- User contributions for 2A02:810D:BC40:2D4:6C5E:7C7A:1C60:5F83 - Wikipedia Theofunny (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you specify the IPs, please? -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- All its IPs have been blocked but its edits haven't been reverted except for the main IP. Theofunny (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
IP Ban Request
[edit]Requesting ban for IP: 50.86.120.66. Most of their contributions have been reverted as vandalism; they've also been banned before. They edit so sporadically too, with their latest edit being on Rocket League in late December. I can't help but wonder if these are multiple people or just one individual. Therguy10 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the block. I have no idea where I came up with "late December", but I thought for some reason they made that edit on the 28th. Oh well. Therguy10 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem. In general, you can report vandalism to WP:AIV. They're typically looking for ongoing, urgent issues, but I'm fairly sure you can report IPs like this one, which has been repeatedly blocked and has been vandalising for a long period of time, so long as you're clear that's what you're doing. (Perhaps a talk-page stalker who is also an AIV stalker could jump in and verify that.) -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Question from Gambut Pratama (08:08, 9 January 2025)
[edit]Hi there! I have a question about editing a page. Once my edit gets published does it needs to be verified or something? My end goal is to publish a page on wikipedia. Thank you. --Gambut Pratama (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Gambut Pratama, welcome to wikipedia! With very few exceptions, edits go live as soon as you hit "publish" and are viewable by anyone. So your edits to articles are already out there! If you mean the article you've composed in your sandbox, just hit the blue "submit your draft for review!" button, and it will be put into the queue for a reviewer to have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response! Gambut Pratama (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi again! I have followed your instruction and already submitted my draft (from my sandbox) for review. Could you kindly elaborate on the steps that I need to take after the draft has been reviewed? I heard that review process can take up to 2 months, thus I want to make sure I understand what to do next from now if possible.
- P.S, I got a warning that said that I should move my draft article to the Draft Namespace. Do I need to to this, and if yes, will the draft be removed from my sandbox? Thank you very much in advance! Gambut Pratama (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- No need to move it - it's already been moved for you. You don't need to take any further steps. If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will move it to mainspace for you. If the draft is declined, you will receive a message explaining why. You can then try to address the reviewer's concerns and resubmit it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi there. I have been accused of manipulating Wikipedia by @Beshogur My edit has also been reverted by a different user, @Turkiishh, their reason for a revert was “rv” I am asking about how I should handle the situation, and, how can I include an estimate, since the common consensus has been ineffective for me. Hope you’re having a good day. --Vofa (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Vofa, I think Beshogur's comment on your talk page is very rude, but I don't understand why you made that edit either. The cited source says "Transcaspian steppe". If a change was made from "western Central Asia" (which I agree is not great wording), it should have been to that, not to "Donbas". -- asilvering (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Got t. Vofa (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: it's not his first edit. See other users' comments on his profile (also other diffs I provided). He's changing (ie. manipulating) text as if no one will notice. Beshogur (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Beshogur, you have got to stop assuming bad faith. Vofa shouldn't have to come here to be told why his edits weren't helpful. You should be telling him - politely, clearly, and with the assumption of good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I've very much jumped in at the deep end of wikipedia editing by making an article which gave me something to do over the festive period. I've also just updated https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Indiana_Jones:_The_Pinball_Adventure My last update removed the notability tag as I think I've added enough for it to pass that now. When I removed it I didn't get the option of putting a reason in for why I removed it - is it OK to do it like that? --Wilbers (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Wilbers, welcome to Wikipedia! It's fine to remove notability tags when you think they're satisfied. In this case, I'm not sure it is, actually, since it looks like the sources you added are database entries (these don't count for assessing notability), but I also don't think it's a terribly huge deal, so I wouldn't worry about it. As far as
I didn't get the option of putting a reason in for why I removed it
goes, I see you didn't use the edit summary field - that's usually where editors will explain their reasoning for anything they've done (including why they've removed or added tags). You should have had the opportunity to fill it out, so probably what happened is you just clicked through too fast and didn't notice you'd missed it. No big deal there, either. It's always better to leave an edit summary, but no one will be confused about this either. Other editors will simply presume that you removed the tag because you didn't think it was relevant anymore. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
You've got mail!
[edit]Message added 21:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. at any time by removing the
LR.127 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello again!
[edit]An article that I wrote that you reviewed is now ready to reviewed again. I added a LOT more news articles. However, Ms. Taifa is an attorney so there are still some references to books, legal documents, and scholarly journals. Thank you! NTDC1954 (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great! I avoid reviewing drafts I've previously declined, so I'll leave this for someone else, but I wish you luck! I did have a peek, and saw that you have a lot of external hyperlinks in the body of the article. This tends to drive reviewers crazy so I would remove those if I were you. Depending on what you're going for, you might just want to convert them instead to a footnote, but you can also move them to an "External links" section at the end if you think that's best. -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Promotional username block
[edit]Hi, Asilvering! Thanks for deleting this promo rubbish. However, I noticed that you also blocked the user as {{uw-spamublock}}, promotional username, promotional edits, and I don't believe that was appropriate, as the username appears to be within policy as a "Mark at WidgetFactory"-type name, containing both a personal name (Mayur) and the company name (gemgem). I'd considered blocking as a spam/promotion only account, but didn't feel that was justified after only two (albeit awful) edits. Over to you, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hm, fair enough. I'll leave them a message. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Seeking help for AFC Script Help
[edit]Hello, I’m seeking guidance on how to access the Articles for Creation (AFC) drafts list specifically for Nepal-related articles and how to set up notifications for them. Additionally, I’d like to know how to get a real-time list or notifications for new articles related to Nepal as they are created.
I am reaching out to you because I have noticed your supportive approach toward fellow Wikipedians. I have recently received AFC review permissions on a probationary basis and would greatly appreciate your advice on how to proceed effectively. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Rahmatula786, thanks for volunteering to be an AfC reviewer! I don't think there's any way to get notifications for this, or to get all Nepal-related AfC drafts on your watchlist. However, if editors tag their articles with the WP:NEPAL wikiproject (which they're encouraged to do), they'll show up on that wikiproject's article alerts feed, and you can watchlist that. That's one way I use to I keep an eye on books-related AfC drafts. You can get a real-time list, though, through Special:NewPagesFeed - make sure you have "Articles for Creation" selected, not "New Page Patrol". You can then use the keyword search for whatever you like. This turns up 2 drafts that mention Nepal for me right now. As far as I know it only works for exact word matches (so "Nepal" won't catch "Nepalese"), but I expect every or nearly every draft about a Nepalese topic will use the word Nepal, so it should catch them pretty well for you. -- asilvering (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much 🙏. Grateful ☺️. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Good day Mentor, I want to make a new Edit how do I go about that --Emmaife95 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Emmaife95, welcome to wikipedia! Actually, you've already made your first edit, by asking this question! To edit articles, all you need to do is click the edit button and get to it. WP:HI has all kinds of helpful links to get you started. -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Question from KahlerManifold (21:12, 19 January 2025)
[edit]Hi,
I have created a Wikipedia account only now, but I have already made one change recently (anonymously). Can I somehow associate this change to my newly created account? The change in question is the last edit in the "Denjoy-Wolff theorem" article. --KahlerManifold (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @KahlerManifold, welcome to wikipedia! As far as I know, there's no way to do this technically. Nothing stops you from saying "I wrote this edit before creating my account" if you want to, though. But I'm not really sure why you'd want to do that. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi,
- It's not really to claim the edit for ownership's sake, but more so to receive notifications if someone leaves a helpful comment on this edit, without having to check the page manually. KahlerManifold (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's unlikely anyone would, since it looks like a straightforward fix to me? (note: not a mathematician.) So I wouldn't worry about it myself, but you can of course add the page to your watchlist so you will see if someone else edits it or leaves a comment on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Will add it to the watchlist just in case. KahlerManifold (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's unlikely anyone would, since it looks like a straightforward fix to me? (note: not a mathematician.) So I wouldn't worry about it myself, but you can of course add the page to your watchlist so you will see if someone else edits it or leaves a comment on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Nazi looting
[edit]Hi. My particular interest in the Hagen family is mostly due to an interest in the Nazi looting of houses and properties. There's a lot of information on Wiki about the Nazi looting of art and businesses, less so about land and property. I wasn't sure how to categorize properties the Nazis confiscated or forced owners to sell. I tagged Villa Carlshagen with Category:Nazi looting. Other Hagen properties include Schloss Birlinghoven and Villa Louis Hagen, which was located on Bertinistraße (which doesn't have an English article either). There's a whole host of interesting Potsdam and Berlin articles that don't exist on English Wiki. I figured if I can find enough articles about Nazi-looted houses/properties, there could be a category along the lines of Category:Nazi-looted art and Category:Companies acquired from Jews under Nazi rule. Thanks for your input. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. I think the most common word to describe the acquisition of property in these cases is usually "confiscation", with the exception of art, so perhaps Category:Properties confiscated from Jews under Nazi rule? -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete close
[edit]Hello, this RfD was closed as 'deleted', but the page was not deleted. Tule-hog (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Huh. Thanks for pointing that out. Done now. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
GvK RfD
[edit]Hello, in the close you said happy to revert.
. Can you revert and relist? Jay 💬 08:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done! -- asilvering (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2025
[edit]Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331
Announcements from other communities:
Tip of the month:
Suggestion:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Deletion of Tabish Khan (art critic)
[edit]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)
- The source table analysis was very conclusive, so this is a pretty firm delete. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Don't worry about it too much. Your reaction is pretty typical. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Londoneditor284: Nominator here. It wasn't
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Alp Arslan
[edit]The Second Caucasian Expedition of the Seljuk Empire Could you please review it? Kartal1071 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
I have a question
[edit]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)
- @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)
- 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)
Question from Itsn4kul10 (13:39, 28 January 2025)
[edit]How do you find reliable sources for your references and citations? --Itsn4kul10 (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
I have a question
[edit]Would it be a problem if I added news and newspapers as sources? Kartal1071 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battle_of_Rey_(1059)# Kartal1071 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Question from RobLawrencium (21:30, 28 January 2025)
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Question about citation identification
[edit]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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
Bladerunner09 block
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)