User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2020

Happy First Edit Day!

I didn't realize I've been hanging around for 14 years. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Quote in ' God in Islam ' page

A quote in 'God in Islam' page always had quote from Surah Al-Ikhlas of Quran. But tomorrow I saw someone removed it. Then I quoted again the Surah. But now it again removed. Please, re-instate that quote because that quote existed every visited the page. Thanks! HistoryRasel (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction: That quote existed every time I visited the page for more than a year. Please, re-instate the quote. Thanks! HistoryRasel (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No. See WP:LEAD. It is irrelevant to the lead section. If you disagree, put your reasoning on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

cha, cha,cha - dancing with wolves

You should see his twitter feed.-- Deepfriedokra 11:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I will, maybe not. I haven't bothered to look at Twitter or Facebook in a number of years. I find it liberating. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Monotrophic diet

Thanks for creating this article, I am in the process of expanding it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: When I wrote that stub, I felt it was a notable subject, I found several sources that basically all said the same thing, so I just couldn't figure out what else to say about it that was more than a couple of sentences. Thanks for expanding it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the carnivore diet article talk-page and several users agreed not to link the Inuit cuisine or indigenous diets to the modern carnivore fad diet craze because that is a separate topic, those people are doing their diet for survival purposes not any modern fad which pretends to be scientific. Feel free to revert me if you think it makes sense, but the article is about mono fad diets. Adding indigenous diets will likely confuse people. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Apparently I missed that discussion. Personally I find it confusing to omit it; it's pretty relevant information, particularly in the context of one of the sources that discusses the paradox of the Inuit diet and their overall good health. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with you, it is relevant somewhere but other users took issue because they did not want to confuse it with the modern day fad diet. There was talk about adding some kind of hatnote. If you want to restore it, go ahead. The article still needs a lot of work. It's a shame about all the sock-puppets causing un-needed drama the other day. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Thanks. I started a discussion on Talk:Monotrophic diet. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

useless reversiins

Anachroniat please expkain your reversion of women in Islam here citing guidelines i am new and your talk page. Welcome. Truth is this (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Truth is this: See the guidelines WP:BRD and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. These are primary sources that are getting undue weight in the article. We favor secondary sources here. Also, including quotations that are not discussed in the cited secondary sources is an example of original research, specifically WP:SYNTHESIS, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear! I made my account after long time, wikipedia changes its guidelines like air, can you please tell me the forum where we can discuss to improve these guidekines. Truth is this (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Truth is this: The guidelines I have referenced have been there for more than 10 years. Each guideline has its own talk page if you want to discuss the guidelines. The article Women in Islam also has a talk page, Talk:Women in Islam, where you can discuss improvements to the article. That is where you can try to form a consensus for including those quotations from the Quran.

I'll point out another guideline: WP:BURDEN. The burden is on the person who wants to include content to justify its inclusion. You have not met that burden for the quotations you restored. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC but it takes too long and is time consuming to maake consensus and is virtually impossible as at every point at least one person contradict, so this will cause wikipedia empty bro.

Truth is this (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Betelgeuse

I do not understand why Drbogdan reverted me, and then complained as if I were a vandal. I believed my edits to be constructive and essentially uncontroversial, so that at most they'd deserve small corrections, not wholesale reverting, and so much so that I don't really know what there is to discuss. I don't think it matters that I made them as many separate edits rather than one, nor that I am using an IP address. Indeed, except for obvious vandalism and disruption, I don't think IPs are less likely to have useful edits than logged-in editors. Drbogdan's user page seems to indicate that he is a 'weirdo' and almost surely knows less about astronomy than I do.

This is one thing I hate: that every scientific article of large interest seems to draw those 'know nothings' that seem there only to ensure the page remains cluttered with redundancy, inconsistency, and other misleading stuff. I do not at all like dealing with this, and that is why I usually do not edit Wikipedia articles even when I see clear errors.

At this point it seems just at matter of my thought-out edits against his unthought-out complete revert, and it seems by any reasonable standard the weight should be on my side, and at least suffice to throw on him the burden of justifying that complete revert. You didn't sign your message at my talk page, but I will: 64.188.172.95 (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting to sign my warning. I have since done so.

Instead of posting complaints on user talk pages, you should support your changes on the article talk page. There are multiple editors reverting you, not just Drbogdan. That suggests the burden is on you to support the changes you want to make, with reasoned arguments on the article's talk page. The burden isn't on others to keep the status quo. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert

In normal circumstances, I utterly agree with your comment in that revert. Unfortunately, the content which I removed is not normal circumstances. Please self-revert; or, if you think I drew the scalpel too wide, excise just the offending material. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist, this needs to be revdeled. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ryk72: @Kautilya3: I didn't realize that another editor was being referred to there. No problem, I'll revdel. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ryk72: @Kautilya3: I have also blocked the editor who did that, as it happened again right after my revdel. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. I thank you (and Kautilya3 too). - Ryk72 ^talk 07:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Hornberger

Since last September, Hornberger has become somewhat of the front-runner in the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries.^[1][2] It might be a good time to reconsider that previous close? Please ping response –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced yet. One of those sources constitutes local coverage, and the other is a Libertarian party publication, as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to ping me, so I didn't see the reply. Reason is not affiliated with the Libertarian Party in any way.
Do you mind if I take this to Deletion Review? Some folks want to publish Draft:Jacob Hornberger, but I think a Deletion Review would be a more suitable venue at this point. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: You're correct, Reason isn't affiliated with the Libertarian Party, but it is published by a libertarian think tank, so I am not convinced it is a source of independent journalism about a Libertarian political candidate. It has a conflict of interest there, so it's somewhere between a primary and secondary source. Yes, deletion review would be the logical next step. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hormel

Hi Anachronist,

I can see in the history of the Hormel Talk page that you have written: "please stop making separate references sections on talk pages" and "please format reference lists on the talk page like this" in response to two edit requests.

However I do not see this information on the actual talk page.

Regarding making separate reference sections, I was doing that practice based on past practices on the Hormel talk page. If I need to do things differently, I appreciate the help in learning the best practices. If you can please advise and thank you.

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hello-Mary-H: References in talk pages should be listed using the tag

{{reflist-talk}}

rather than

{{reflist}}

as used om article pages because a talk page can have multiple reference blocks, and the reflist-talk tag displays only those citations since the previous occurrence of the same tag. The reflist-talk tag also includes its own heading, which means you don't need to put in a separate references heading, making navigating the page easier, as well as replying in the section that contains the actual edit request.

I hope that helps. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist:Thank you, I will reformat accordingly. I appreciate the information. Best, Hello-Mary-H (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your ongoing hard work and help. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Morgan Chu

At the bottom of https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6811201/Labrador-v-Biofire.pdf It mentions Morgan Chu as being part of the Counsel. https://www.law360.com/articles/1254102/fortress-offers-ip-rights-to-fight-covid-19-after-backlash Again mentions Morgan Chu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11cookeaw1 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@11cookeaw1: The fact that they are the counsel is not in dispute. The assertion that the lawsuit is due to Covid-19 testing is false. The timing was horrible, to be sure, but the timeline of events does not justify WP:OR to link the lawsuit with the virus tests. The Law360 article you linked above even says that. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Dinesh D’Souza

Hello,

I noticed you were active in the Dinesh D’Souza talk page I started and chose to ask you what I should do in this situation. I’ve been holding up 5 reliable sources that back my reasoning for an edit, and the users opposing consensus have either used original research, or single sources that are locked behind paywalls and/or use vague terminology that they argue runs counter to my sources. I’m not sure how to proceed when one has consensus among sources but not among editors, do you know how one is to proceed in this scenario? Thanks. Nigel Abe (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Name Change Reply

Hi Anachronist,

Regarding my request for a name change. No there are not multiple users of this account. I didn't realise that changing my name to AdvantageGo, a company username was prohibited, and so now wish to change it to my name (CEdmonds), to be more in line with Wikipedia's terms and conditions. ReallyB2B (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@ReallyB2B: That doesn't really answer my question. You had stated "User of account switched over" as the original reason for the name change. That suggests there was a previous user. If that is the case, it's best that you simply create a new account and abandon the old one, because an account that has been handed off from one person to another is considered compromised. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Anachronist/Archives, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with IC3PEAK

Hello, Anachronist! May I ask you to verify "paid contributions" tag for IC3PEAK music band? One of the editors put "paid contributions" tags for the notable Russian band, oppositional to the Russian government known very well in Russia and internationally). The band doesn't need any contributors and was edited by tens of volunteers, yet someone put a tag without any substantial proof. I'd like to ask Wikipedia community of volunteers to double check the page and find if it actually needs any "clean-up". No advertorial information was found by me. i believe there is a case of biased or groundless accusations here and possible abuse of power. Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC3PEAK 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A8BE:F9AB:6F2B:A569 (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the principles we have here is to assume good faith, which you are not doing. If a long-standing trusted contributor has off-wiki evidence that there have been paid contributions to the article, there is no reason to doubt the claim. Bands are notorious on Wikipedia for editing their own entries or having someone else do it. If it isn't paid, it's still a conflict of interest. An administrator with the checkuser right may be able to do some additional investigation if provided the evidence, but I don't have that right. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Karol Miernik/hamond3

Hi!

I was not aware, that my sandbox could be banned and removed - I would like to get it recovered. On top of that, you stated that it is advertising. Considering how published article about other cryptocurrency exchange looks like - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OKEx I am not sure what here is treated as advert. I have used only clean facts regarding history of the exchange. Any ideas or feedback would be appreciated Hamond3 (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamond3: You really need to read the message that the unblocking administrator made on your talk page.

As an employee of CoinDeal, you have mandatory legally-binding disclosure requirements, to which you agreed when you created an account here. You won't get any traction with any administrator until you comply.

Articles by authors with a conflict of interest should not be published by those authors. It is good that you created it in a sandbox instead of main article space. You would need to submit your draft for review first. WP:AFC describes the process.

The OKEx demonstrates notabilty of the company by virtue of the coverage. The same cannot be said for CoinDeal based on what was in the sandbox. We don't accept new articles just because other similar topics exist. Every article must stand on its own merits regardless of what else might exist on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding descriptive statements of fact directly from court documents

As per wp: primary (apologies for missing hyperlink)

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"

then using the federal government source such as dccourts.gov and making a "descriptive statement of fact" such as

"on (date) judge (name) ordered that (plantiff's/defendant's) motion is (granted/denied/withdrawn) "

should be allowed as the statement contains no opinion and is only repeating the "headline" of the court documents, without analyzing it.

I am deeply confused as to how the above could be construed as an unreliable source, or a unverified statement of interpretation? Please explain and thank you for your coaching. LearnCivics (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@LearnCivics: You haven't provided any context from your comment here on my talk page.

I'll just say this. From our policy WP:BLP: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

It's really that simple. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried posting detailed context elsewhere and was immediately flagged for "too long, didn't read" so I'll be as brief as possible.

100% agree that "trial transcripts say Z bad things about X, therefore X is a bad person" is an WP:ASSERTION not to be inserted into a BLP.

Key word is assertion, specifically NOT making an assertion, instead making a direct statement of fact, which is allowed per WP: PRIMARY for example "on 2/1/00 judge X ordered that plantiff's motion for Y is granted. Source=courtname.GOV/docketnumber." That's clearly a "statement of fact", not an ASSERTION, and therefore allowed, right?

For the answer to be no, that means the identical sentence cannot be added until newspaper N reports the same outcome? That makes no logical sense for a statement of fact that "judge X ruled in favor of Y."

Yes an ASSERTION "trial transcripts indicate X acted badly" should only be referenced when newspaper N comments as such. But not for thee above primarily reported fact.

BTW it was a previous editor that told me to put questions in the format of 'change X because of Y' so that's what I've done here. Thanks for helping. LearnCivics (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Miss Supranational

Hi Anachronist. Is there any way we could "undelete" Miss Supranational article? It's been 6 years since its deletion, and with good sources it'll be a good article. --Marcetw (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Marcetw: Well, since December 2019 there has been Draft:Miss Supranational, which is substantially the same as the deleted article, including lacking any citations to reliable sources that demonstrate notability of the topic. I recommend improving that draft to the point where it's acceptable. Then I'll be convinced. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, will do that. Thanks! --Marcetw (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally I believe This Website and Miss Grand International should be allowed to be part of Wikipedia. As a Missosologist beauty pageants are an important part of our lives and not being able to have a Wikipedia article is really disappointing for my community. I really hope you could let us publish this Page already its been 10 Years since this contest happens annually and still we are not able to publish an article is disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarbleWorldCup (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarbleWorldCup: Wikipedia's inclusion criteria have nothing to do with personal opinions, special-interest sentiment, or perceived social importance. If you can bring the draft article up to the WP:CORP notability standard (that there must be multiple instances of significant coverage by reliable mainstream sources), then it can be published. Otherwise, no.

It has been 10 years, and still nobody has written a draft suitable for publication on Wikipedia. That says something, doesn't it? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist, regarding the topic, I have updated the Draft article of Miss Supranational and have added sources to help out with the lack of sources problem with the article. I don't know if they are enough to pass WP:GNG, if you could give could let me know if they're enough to pass GNG I would greatly appreciate it, thank you. - IZ041 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:K. Y. Arad

Dear Anachronist,

Please consider this request to have Kobi's draft approved. Kobi Arad is currently blacklisted, and this blacklisting was removed by User:Anthony Appleyard last year, as requested by User:ComplexRational. The page stood online without any issues for nearly one year, until another editor removed it claiming that undisclosed paid editing was involved. This time we would like to get it right and avoid all paid editors.

As a friend and long-time fan of Kobi Arad, I would like to clearly and unequivocably disclose my conflict of interest. I am a fellow jazz musician who is in no way paid to edit Wikipedia for him. Kobi had previously tried to hire paid editors to publish his Wikipedia page, but this was rejected by the community.

Kobi is already on the German Wikipedia and many other language versions of Wikipedia, and he clearly meets notability standards. German Wikipedia's notability requirements are actually stricter than the English Wikipedia's notability requirements, so there is no reason Kobi Arad should be blacklisted from the English version.

All we are doing this time is to translate the currently existing Wikipedia pages in German and other languages and adding a few minor updates to the discography in an effort to bring non-English Wikipedia content to the English Wikipedia content.

You can request to run CheckUser checks on me to confirm that I am not related to any of the other previous paid editors.

We would also like you to look at the amount of news and notability and collaborations with many other related artists of similar notability and not decline due to COI, since we are clearly disclosing the COI. Kobi has numerous music awards and is clearly meets encyclopedic notability criteria.

Thanks and blessings from your fellow jazz musicians.

MosheKabbalisticSefer (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Replying on User talk:Anthony Appleyard. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Mantis shrimp

Hello there. Hey I realized how I should have worded it shortly after I made that edit. And I thought I had fixed it. Apparently, when one makes the exact same change as someone else who makes the change while the edit window is open, it just saves it with no notice or edit conflict. Learn something everyday. --DB1729 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It happens to me all the time. I can't even count the number of times I hit "submit" only to see unwanted leftovers from multiple ways I had revised a sentence, resulting in accidentlly saving what I didn't mean to write. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I made my first edit too quick. Then I was tinkering around with the sentence, trying to make it sound better and realized my mistake. So I put it right. And it saved like normal. It all took several minutes, and in the meantime, you made the exact same change, before I saved it. So my second edit never logged. Idk, I guess it just seems I should get some kind of notification when that happens. I've been editing off and on as an unregistered IP for 12 years or more, and I've never seen that. Oh well. --DB1729 (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi riots - Wikipedia

Hi Axl, how are you. I see that you have locked this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Delhi_riots. Iam sure you saw a lot of disruptive content and intent decided to lock it....:-). Quite understandable. Iam fan of Wikipedia and a contributor. Every time I see something not right I try and fix it. This page for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Delhi_riots is a classic example of a very one sided view of someone who without any sensitivity to a multi religious country like India has blatantly blamed religions directly without knowing or understanding the full facts. Given the clout Wikipedia has on Google, such pages should be given due review and local sentiments considered and facts ascertained. Now that it is locked, it just shows false news when users read it. I request you to open it for editing so that I can update relevant and just content. BTW looks like you are a senior editor here. Great job....:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinod.suku (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It is open for editing, by experienced editors. If you want to make a change, then suggest it on the talk page, and get consensus for your change. You will need to bring in reliable sources to support what you want to change, and explain why the reliable sources already used are inadequate. Nothing changes in that article without community consensus. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Anachronist a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Anachronist a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir, please contact me!

Dear sir, I have few questions regarding wiki and hope such people as you can help me

Please, contact me on [redacted]

I conduct Wikipedia business on Wikipedia, not in email. Please ask your questions here and I'll answer. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What rules

Hi, I don't understand why I will be blocked even if I don't violate any wikipedia rules. Where is freedom of speech. I am going to edit that page again then tell which point you think I violate rules. If someone don't agree then what I can do. I also don't agree. I am also writing research from history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by It is Theory (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no "freedom of speech" here. See your own talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nichiren history

I see you are a scientists and would like to point out i tried editing a page in Nichiren .you reverted it back..all i want is the truth to be told here. the idea of Nichiren being the primordial Buddha is solely a Nichiren ShoShu creation well after his death. The Soka Gakki once the layman's organization of Shoshu used to say the same thing...It's purely political in nature as it is not the original Nichiren teachings.

please check on this before re editing the page..it is vital that bogus claims produced by fanatica not be part of wiki. Any actual help in this matter is more than appreciated for prosperity.

My first anonymous edit was not exactly lucid . so this time i created an account due to it's importance and I just deleted a few lines of the false dogma.

cheers, and thank you for your concern. As a scientist I implore you to check what i just told you. OfTheEarth — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfTheEarth (talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin

Please see my talk page. Also, I found an interesting article on "lead" vs. "lede" at Poynter. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Crypto related articles on Wikipedia

Hi, I just have a quick question. Is Wikipedia blocking everyone who writes about blockchain/crypto? I'm new to this but I just found this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies Would appreciate your help! Thank youMargo ka123 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Margo ka123: Users who persist in mentioning or linking companies for publicity purposes can be blocked. That has been a problem with cryptocurrency articles.

If you want to write an article on such a company, your best approach is to see WP:AFC and follow the instructions to create the article in draft space and submit it for review. No link can be added to List of Bitcoin companies unless an article already exists on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply! Just to double check, if I'm a confirmed user (have more than 500 edits and my account has been active for longer than 30 days) then I still wouldn't be able to create a cryptocurrency related article myself without being blocked?Margo ka123 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Margo ka123: You can create a cryptocurrency article right now, in draft space, as I explained. You would not be blocked for doing so, because creating a draft and submitting it for review is not considered disruptive. You cannot edit the List of Bitcoin companies article unless you have more experience.

I will add that if you are employed by a cryptocurrency company, you must disclose this, as you agreed to a legally-enforcable obligation to disclose this when you created an account here; it's required by the Terms of Use. If you have any association at all, the only venue for you to write an article is via WP:AFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey

I noticed the User:The good man 232 is keeping blanking template warning form his talk page ([3]), ([4]). He refuse to respond. Thank you and have a nice day. Eliko007 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eliko007: I saw the warnings in the talk page history. The user is now temporarily blocked for edit warring and copyvio. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank, I think he should be warned also that he cannot blacking template warning, if he doesn't like he can archive it. Eliko007 (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eliko007: Please be aware that WP:BLANKING no longer prohibits users from removing warnings from their talk page while blocked. It used to, but now it prohibits removal of declined unblock requests and speedy deletion templates. Please don't restore the warning. Also there isn't any requirement to archive your talk page; some well established users simply don't bother doing that. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I will stop restoring the warning, I thought it's that WP:BLANKING prohibits users from removing warnings from their talk page while blocked. Eliko007 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It used to prohibit that, but doesn't anymore. I disagree with that change, but I can live with it. After all, the history of any page is visible to everyone. If there's a block message on the talk page, then that implies there were warnings even if they've been blanked. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

External links

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:External links#RFC revisit on how to format external links ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Growth of religion

what should I write in place of what I wrote earlier? I mean, how can I write that religious conversion will reduce the growth of Christians without misrepresentation or violating copyright? ~ The good man 232 (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@The good man 232: First, congratulations on being unblocked. That's probably the quickest resolution I've seen for a block that got escalated to indefinite. As to your question:

The original text says "Meanwhile, religious switching – which is expected to hinder the growth of Christians by an estimated 72 million between 2015 and 2060 – is not expected to have a negative net impact on Muslim population growth."

You can paraphrase it to something like this: "People switching their religions will likely not affect the growth of the Muslim population, but may negatively affect the growth of Christians by 72 million between 2015 and 2060." I'm not saying that's the best wording, but it isn't a copyright violation.

However, this statement doesn't belong in the lead paragraph of growth of religion where you originally put it unless it's discussed in more detail in the body of the article. The lead paragraph of an article should provide an overview of the rest of the article without introducing material that isn't covered further on. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your answer. So can I add this now? ~ The good man 232 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find an appropriate place for it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that user:The good man 232 is still misrepresenting the source, please check here ([5]) and my comment ([6]); I'm having a feeling that the user is a POV pusher, and he tries to push information that "the religion that most gain through conversion is Islam" by misrepresentation the source, by making POV comparisons, and making his own conclusions when the source says something totally different. Eliko007 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a conversation with him on the article talk page. I see you also corrected the edit. He isn't edit warring or plagiarizing, but he's trying to make good-faith contributions and I don't see him pushing a POV. Lack of reading comprehension isn't something an administrator can do anything about. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

He actually he does ([7]) ([8]), He keeps editing the article and blanking my edits ([9]) instead of starting a conversation, anyway I wrote to him asking him to join the conversation on the talk page. Thanks and have a nice day. Eliko007 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eliko007: Well, I could full-protect the article to force all parties to work out the content dispute on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes please, it's the best solution. Eliko007 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist: 1- I don't understand why you insist on repeating, the Chinese scenario was mentioned before, I do not understand the goal of repeating it again, is the goal is to create Illusory truth effect?

2- Source doesn't say that the reason for the growth of Christians on china is conversion, rather, it said the opposite, stating: "It is expected that there will be a net loss of Christianity due to religious switching."

3- Even that this study is based on unconfirmed and unreliable data, it is originally not worth repeating.

4- the current study did not mention that it excluded China, but rather said that there is a lack of reliable data for all religious groups there, because China does not conduct national statistics for all followers of religions in it, not only for Christians.

5- The source mentioned two scenarios, the main scenario said that there would be a slight decrease in the number of Christians in China to 2.4%, but Eliko007 did not write it. As for the second scenario said that if all atheists (who make up 57% in china) convert to Christianity before 2050, "extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated" But before mentioning this scenario, source said, "This scenario is unlikely,"but Eliko007 distorted it and wrote its place "the study cited that scholars, reports and expert assessments generally suggest". ~ The good man 232 (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is ([10]) inappropriate accusation, this not your first time, I'm not even a Christian, I'm Jewish. Please discuss your points on the talk page, not here. Eliko007 (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't carry on a content dispute on my talk page. That is what the article talk page is for. And The good man 232, don't speculate on the motivations of other editors. See WP:AGF. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, I am trying to discuss Eliko about the latest edit on the growth of religion page but he is ignoring me, what should I do? I think that he has no response. The good man 232 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The good man 232 this is ([11]) ([12]) inappropriate comments. Don't worry I'm not ignoring you, I will respond as soon as possible, I'm just busy on weekends due to real life. Eliko007 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Many of us (me included) don't check in every day. I don't know where you live, but in my country this is a holiday weekend. I plan to spend more time with family than on the computer. And during weekdays I work and also am often not online. Some Wikipedians are students or retirees with plenty of time on their hands, and some have families and careers that take precedence. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok 👍. The good man 232 (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, Why am I being charged for misrepresentation but not Eliko007? The source said about the Chinese scenario before mention it that it "may be unlikely", and it motioned that is study is "assumes that all atheists in China (who make up 57% there) have converted to Christianity before 2050" and this is a difficult possibility. but Eliko007 distorted it and he wrote,"the study cited that scholars, reports and expert assessments generally suggest that". This is a clear distortion of what the source says. According to another study mentioned by the source, the main study, the number of Christians in China is expected to decrease to 2.4% by 2050. But Eliko did not mention it because it conflicts with his missionary interests. ~ The good man 232 (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

1. You clearly misrepresenting the citation. 2. I replayed on the talk page, so please stop carry on a content dispute here. 3. Stop accusing me having "missionary interest" because of Wikipedia:I just don't like it, this inappropriate. Eliko007 (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, Say this to you. The good man 232 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, So will you respond or will you evade the response? The good man 232 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist,You can now remove the protection on the Growth of religion page, we have reached an agreement. The good man 232 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Declined. I don't see any text proposed, or any consensus reached. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, go to growth of religion talk page. The good man 232 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I did. There is no proposed text (just a promise that it would be forthcoming) and no agreement about the yet-to-exist proposed text. Neither you nor Eliko007 nor desmay have proposed anything yet. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me tips on this wiki

I already know you as Amatulic on the Minecraft Wiki but can you give me tips on this wiki? TheGreatSpring (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @TheGreatSpring: Welcome. Unlike the Minecraft Wiki, the English Wikipedia has a bewildering array of policies (the rules) and guidelines (the best practices). With thousands of editors active on any given day, and given the age of the English Wikipedia (started in 2001) the proliferation of policies and guidelines was inevitable.

A good overview is Wikipedia:Five pillars and the linked articles within it.

The things that trip up new editors here (think of it as the "Things not to do" tutorial on the Minecraft Wiki):

• edit-warring (repeatedly reverting other people's edits) - if you are reverted, it's best to discuss your proposed improvement on the article talk page
• putting personal commentary in articles
• writing a statement in an article that is not attributed to a reliable source
• citing an unreliable source (blog, forum, press release)
• adding promotional-sounding text
• using Wikipedia as a publicity platform
• writing in a non-neutral fashion (this one is tricky with political topics, because neutral journalism that we cite as sources is often perceived as biased by the ideological fringes, leading to claims of Wikipedia being biased; it isn't, we just report what reliable sources say)
• editing with a conflict of interest (for example, avoid writing about yourself, your employer, your work, your relatives, etc. except to correct spelling, grammar, names, or to revert obvious vandalism)
• inserting external links to your own work
• copying text from somewhere else (copyright violation)
• editing for pay without disclosing it
• creating articles in main space that are clearly not ready for publication (use your sandbox or draft space instead)
• creating articles about non-notable topics
• changing regional spelling (US vs UK), American topics should use American spelling, UK topics should use UK spelling, and other topics should use the spelling established early on in the article

The list above isn't complete, but those are errors I tend to see from new users. You won't be blocked for most of those (unless you persistently re-add a spam link, for example), but new users are often frustrated that their contributions are reverted or deleted.

The best way to start is to find a topic of interest and try to improve the article. Correct spelling and grammar errors, find a more concise or compelling way to word something, find reliable sources to cite (I can help you with citation templates).

Once you have 10 edits and 5 days here, you have the ability to edit semi-protected articles, and create your own articles. I recommend doing that in your sandbox or draft space, and submit it for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

Sorry for the lengthy reply. I hope it helps. Feel free to ask me any other questions. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry for the inconvenience, instead of discussion, User:The good man 232 is throwing accusations ([13]), and making racist comments ([14]), according to him most Jews hate Islam. He pushed this statement "As for Christianity, according to the pew research center, the religious conversion may negatively affect the growth of Christians by 72 million between 2015 and 2060" on the introduction, which according to the study this factor has a modest impact on the Christian population in the future, I explain to him lead should give a brief summary of the article and to provide an overview of the rest of the article without introducing material that isn't covered further on. To Find a compromise I suggested a paragraph about the Christian population growth, which includes two views (including the statement that he want to add) and covers the material further on, instead of discussing, he is throwing accusations, claiming that I proposed this text to "cover up the growth of Islam", it's very clear that he only interested is to highlight the switching out of Christianity in the introduction. He thinking that this article is a competition between Christianity and Islam. He accused me of being anti-Islam, it's ridiculous I did not make any negative comments about Islam, he is misrepresenting the citation, and I try in polite language what the source state. Eliko007 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Eliko007 rejects any information that may be against Christianity, and takes only what supports Christianity, he also often citation of a missionary sites, and any information against Islam he repeats it more than a hundred times in the article, he thinks this article is a competition between Islam and Christianity. He is very biased in editing at Wikipedia. If you do not warn him, Wikipedia will soon become a missionary site. The good man 232 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Any one can see on the talk page that I did not provide a "citation of missionary sites", comment like that ([15]), ([16]), ([17]) speaks for itself. And please, switching out or in a religious doesn't mean the statement is against or support that religion. Eliko007 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@The good man 232: If you have a dispute about behavior, WP:ANI is the place to state your case, not my talk page. If you disagree with the reliability of a source, the correct venue is WP:RSN. Your exaggerations aren't helping you here.

@Eliko007: Same for you, WP:ANI is the place to take behavioral disputes. It's a cesspool of drama that I try to avoid myself, but it often helps to get a wider audience of administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, put the template POV in growth of religion page until we come to an agreement. The good man 232 (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the page is protected makes that unnecessary, but I noticed I put the wrong protection tag in there, so the wrong message was being displayed. I have fixed that. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)