User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2022

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey

Hi can u check and review this draft as you do edits and have experience in entertainment industry. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Dhu al-Qarnayn

I've given the editor a 3RR warning. I'll be going to bed soon (shoulder pain will keep me up, broken rib make it agony to try to get out of bed) but it looks as though you won't, so report him if he reverts again please. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The account is blocked for 48 hours. The edits seem to be in good faith, just no justification is being given for those changes, particularly removing sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Mark Cheverton

Hello, Anachronist. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mark Cheverton, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

CERN member countries map

Hello,

Since editing of the CERN article is limited I want to inform you that Serbia is coloured green on the map as candidate or associate which is wrong information. Serbia is actually member country of the CERN since 2019 and should be coloured blue. Source: https://home.cern/about/who-we-are/our-governance/member-states — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolai011 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nikolai011: I have no context regarding why you are contacting me about this. Is there some action you expect me to take? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yeu aga maj/Archive

Hi. I know it's kind of bureaucratic, but please don't edit the SPI archives. The reason is explained at Wikipedia:Please don't edit the (SPI) archives. I'm going to undo your last edit. Feel free to open a new report, or drop a note on somebody's talk page, but please don't edit the archives. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I had the page open for editing when it was archived out from under me. I then got distracted for a bit, and when I tried to save the page, I got the edit conflict. Normally I would agree with you but under the circumstances I think you are misapplying the guideline. And there is no point opening a new report to provide an update comment on an old report. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Medical Battalion «Hospitaliers»

Hey, I came across that article "Medical Battalion «Hospitaliers»" was created by a bodiadub, a long-term violator of Wiki rules, which is disturbing me. The battalion itself is a very important part of Ukrainian forces defending Ukraine right now during the Russian war againt us. Do you mind me restoring the page and translating it? Thanks --Goo3 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Goo3: @Ата: the page Hospitallers Medical Battalion has already been created. I have merged the history of Medical Battalion «Hospitaliers» into that article, in case there is anything useful in it that can be incorporated into the new version. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Anachronist, I appreciate your attendance during these tough time, thank you --Goo3 (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Loge

Would it perhaps be safe to unprotect this page, protected in 2010? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. What do you want to change on it? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to make it clearer that both of the mythical characters inspired Wagner's version, not just one. "Probably" based on what? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on the fact that Nick Jonas still has fans. Granted, that's pretty weak after all this time, so I have unprotected the loge page for you to make the change. Protection will be re-applied if disruption resumes. Bear in mind that each entry on a disambiguation page should have only a single link, not multiple links. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hiding images with CSS

Hi. I saw you talked about the CSS code to remove images of Muhammed over at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 26. I was wondering if you knew how to do this CSS code. I'm a bahá'í and I'd love there to be a similar CSS for removing images of Bahá'u'lláh. Any chance you could help me with this project? --Steinninn 20:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Steinninn: See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ #3. You would surround the image with

<div class="depiction">[[File:Image|whatever]]</div>

(I have already done this in the two depictions in the article). Then follow the instructions in the FAQ, replacing "Muhammad" with "Baháʼu'lláh". That is, the line in the CSS file would be .page-Baháʼu'lláh .depiction {display: none;}. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: I'm testing this and running into errors. Not sure what's wrong yet. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Steinninn: OK, I got it now. This worked in my CSS. Just replace the quote character with an underscore:

.page-Baháʼu_lláh .depiction {display: none;}

If you put that in your common.css, the two depictions in Baháʼu'lláh are hidden. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added it to the talk page. I wonder if it would be possible to make it neater by saying page_Bahá_u_lláh. Another thought, do you know of a way to use Greasemonkey (or any other method) to block the image on all wiki pages? --Steinninn 01:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Steinninn: No, you have to use the class name generated by the Wikipedia server-side software. I had to examine the CSS of the source page to figure out that the name being used is .page-Baháʼu_lláh. All of the characters in the name are allowed except for the single quote mark, so it is converted to an underscore. The same is true for a space character (which doesn't happen to be part of this article title).

I am not familiar with Greasemonkey. One way to suppress the image on all pages would be to make up a new class name for all such depictions, and use that to surround the images in a div block on every page in which the image appears. Instead of

<div class="depiction"> ... </div> you could instead define the class "bahai-depiction" and use

<div class="bahai-depiction"> ... </div>

Then the CSS wouldn't need to specify the page. It would simply be ".bahai-depiction {display: none;} and then anything inside a div with class "bahai-depiction" would be suppressed for you everywhere on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That looks to be like a better solution, I wonder why they don't do that with images of Muhammed. Would that work in other languages and sister projects (like wikiquote), given that the div is added. --Steinninn 04:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought it actually worked that way at one time with images of Muhammad, but it's possible that there was a lengthy discussion to apply the feature only to the Muhammad page, probably because that's the page that gets the most vandalism, complaints, publicity, petitions, etc. Nobody has ever made a big public controversy about, for example splitting of the moon except occasionally on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. --Steinninn 03:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Copyright and fair use on Commons

Hello, can I add an image to this film article or it does violate copyright and Wikipedia polices even if I add credits? Should I add on Plot or Production? I found it on this site from Melissa, a designer. Thank you!! Melinahsz (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, because that image is not necessary for illustrating the article, and including it would violate the "minimal usage" requirement of the WP:FAIRUSE policy. Because it probably doesn't qualify as fair use, you would have to get the copyright holder of the image to send a consent of willingness for the Wikimedia Foundation to publish it under an acceptable free license, as described in WP:CONSENT. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

New page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicoli_Francini please let me know what do you think. Melinahsz (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Melinahsz: It got moved to Draft:Nicoli Francini because it was not ready for main article space. Only one source seems acceptable, the English needs improving, and it isn't clear how the subject meets any of the criteria described in WP:MUSICBIO. You have time to make improvements in draft space without worrying about it being quickly deleted, as would have happened if it had not been moved to draft. See also Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what an article needs before it can be accepted for publication in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Change to Semi Protect - CarryMinati

Article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarryMinati

I see, you have added Extended-confirmed-protected to the article forever. I believe it irreverent. I request you to change it back to Semi-protected or add a expiry time to extended protected, so peoples can freely contribute because this article does not have unmanageable vandalism --Religiousmyth (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article has not experienced vandalism, but rather has experienced extensive promotional editing from representatives of CarryMinati and other undisclosed paid editors. Semi-protection has been proven ineffective. The talk page is monitored by extended-confirmed editors who can evaluate edit requests. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have left a reply to your comment here : Talk:CarryMinati#PROD - CarryMinati

And

I still believe extended protection is not required for this article and if you see repeated promotional editing, you can add extended protection with a duration instead of indefinite Religiousmyth (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Past experience has shown that extended protection is warranted, given the frequent requests from paid editors on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines and Jerry Lohr Drafts

Hello Anachronist It's been a while since we connected about the winery. I've completed extensive research about Jerry Lohr and the Winery, then developed two drafts based on the secondary sources. I agree with your last point; Wikipedia article changes are an incremental process, but I want you to see all references, content, and photos. On the winery article, I've integrated all of the existing content.

• Jerry Lohr
• J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines

Also, we can move this conversation to the sandbox talk pages if that's better for you and the visibility of others.

Best--Chefmikesf (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Any conversation should take place on the talk pages of the articles you want to change. Start a proposal on each page, and include the {{request edit}} tag at the beginning of your proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I would have opposed this if I had seen the discussion before it closed. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi Anachronist, I created this article a few days ago. I was unaware of a declined draft version, until I tried to save the article in main-space. There is now a merge request [1]. FYI, I commented here. Question: can the edit history of the draft version be merged into the edit history of the main-space article? If yes, then that will resolve the merge request, because the draft content will be preserved in the edit history, and anyone can reintroduce old content. And attribution to the old content will be preserved. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bammesk: Yes, the histories can be merged, but if I do that, the creator of the draft would be considered the creator of the article. Is that OK? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's Ok. Thank you and cheers. Bammesk (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bammesk: Done! Please include any relevant material from the old revisions into the current version. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Nattarintns

Just a note that you may want to extend this users block and ECP the page given this and the several week long edit war between IPs, this account and editors in good standing trying to clean up that hot mess. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I replied on User talk:Deepfriedokra. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Review Draft:Javed Chaudhry

Hi Anachronist, you salted the page creation of Javed Chaudhry, due to repeated recreation. And I guess you also draftified a page (Javed Chaudhry (Journalist)) related to him, which was basically an evade from creation protection. Since then, me and many other editors have worked this draft into a good shape, and now this draft assert Notability about him, and deserve to be in mainspace. I don't think there's anyone better than you to review this draft, that's why I came to request you to review this draft. Thanks Radioactive (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Abdulhaseebatd: I'm not sure I'm the best person. Many other editors worked on it? Primarily you, but that's fine.

@Nomadicghumakkad: you made an AFC comment about reception, and there's some in there near the end. And @Akevsharma: you declined it previously. What do you think now? It looks better to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

2000 Mules Vandalism

A troll just undid an edit I suggested. He is suggesting that multiple sources do not claim that there is no evidence for D'Souza's outrageous false claims. This is simply bogus. ALL the sources listed make it a point to say that D'Souza did not provide ANY evidence for the crimes he alleges. Can you please revert him? This is getting old2601:282:8100:D3E0:9905:817E:2083:9A40 (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and continue discussing on the talk page. We're all trying to improve the article and there will be disagreements, but that doesn't mean anyone you disagree with is a troll. We have policies and guidelines that we must adhere to, and we cannot engage in WP:Synthesis. For example, only the WP article cited supports the assertion about nonprofits, the others do not. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And I proposed a reasonable tweak, and nothing. And, no, I don’t have to assume good faith with someone who has a history of edit warring and WP:FRINGE violations (i.e. the other editor who is likely a shill or plant for D’Souza). On certain issues we don’t come half way like flat earthers. It is absurd and beyond ridiculous to suggest in any way shape or form that the 2020 election was stolen because it is proven forensic fact that the election was legit. Yet WP:OR and WP:UNDUE violations are being allowed to stand simply because the flat earthers in this case are being backed a powerful and dangerous fascist American cult. You are being WP:POINTY on an matter for which is a nobrainer. The sentiment of the sources clearly are saying in unison that there is no empirical evidence that vote mules stuffed ballot boxes to rig the 2020 election. Be obtuse all you want about it, it doesn’t change the fact that you are for watering down the article. What’s next? Editors forming a consensus that a flat earth maybe exists? Or that Elvis is still alive? And then having the article reflect that?!?? The vote mule garbage is no less absurd. Have fun with that.2601:280:CB02:48B2:A9A1:1181:929A:6868 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the behavior of another editor, take it up on WP:ANI, not on my talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem I have is with you enabling said editor with what amounts to meat-puppetry. This doesn't warrant an API...yet. But to give you perspective, this is no different than holocaust denial, also backed by fascistic anti-social conspiracy theory. With holocaust deniers, what they are basically REALLY saying with their 'theory' (i.e. that the holocaust didn't exist) is that the feelings of holocaust victims and survivors simply don't matter because they don't count as humans in the first place in their warped world view.

The BIG LIE and conspiracy theorists like D'Souza are actively trying to undermine democracy with insurrectionist plots and weaponized propaganda which is their way of saying that votes of blacks and those who don't normally vote in elections (which is why Biden squeaked out a victory) simply don't matter. This is about basic math, and vote counts are NOT partisan, and the sources have no problem calling out D'Souza since it's not just that he's wrong about his theories but that he's dishonest as a matter of reported fact and NOT opinion. Whether it is holocaust deniers or anti-democratic fascist insurrectionists, we don't need to water down articles to appease them. Food for thought...or an WP:ANI if articles like this begin to promote misinformation with your help. Think it over.2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you think it over, and perhaps study WP:V while you are doing so. We cannot misrepresent what sources say, and we cannot engage in WP:Synthesis. I supported the change you proposed (simply removing the attribution to Philip Bump), I made the edit, but the change was reverted, and the reason for reverting it was that only one source supported the proposed change. I am following the accepted practice described in WP:BRD: I made a bold edit, it got reverted, now we're discussing it.

I fully agree with your views about the Big Lie.

In the case of this specific change, only the Washington Post source supported the word "nonprofits". We could change that to "people" and it would probably be OK. There is no denial going on, just compliance with guidelines. The editor you have a problem with hasn't disagreed with your points. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer trial runs

Generally, I feel like I give trial runs to editors whose editing history doesn't provide enough information to really assess knowledge of notability guidelines despite ability to generally be a productive editor. Recent AfDs as scathing as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AP Human Anatomy and Physiology Principles (and the others were just as bad) are a crystal-clear demonstration of a lack of relevant knowledge. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I agree. I was trying to be generous in my suggestion for a trial run, while admitting my unfamiliarity with the established process on that request page. 14:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on "Click Bait"

Your trying to help is appreciated.

However when you resized the image the text (within the image) became unreadable.

What is needed is someone who knows Adobe Photoshop. They can use it to "cut" the 3 photos apart and stack them vertically. Then they can be resized larger (allowing the text-within-the photos) to be readable-- without crowding the page (on the left-to-right level, as they have been doing).

Right now as a thumb they are very hard to read (the part of the text that is part of the photos-- not the caption).

I used to know some Photoshop (but it was years ago) so I don't know if I can still do it. Maybe if I have time at some point, I'll try.

Thanks again, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 06:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chesapeake77: I made it a bit larger again. I disagree that a tall column of images would be an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Anacronist I think you are right-- you found the right balance. I made it about 12% larger.

I agree that it now works horizontally.

Thanks for your help!

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Polarity therapy

Hi Anachronist. I thank you for reverting speedy deletion notification of this article. From day one I have been working to make Wikipediate a reliable informational source for general public. However, I observe some instances where some global editors unable to understand the policies are working in a way which delays Wikipedia growing to its true potential. The nomination of deletion of articles or redirects to page which only has few similarities with the original article are some such cases. Recently I wrote an article on Gynaecologist,which is relevant for students and it is redirected to Gynaecology which is relevant as subject. Additionally, India being a group of states, some common topics of interest with different places of administration need their presence in Wikipedia, which others are unable to understand. Like please have review on this article. Can you please guide me how in future I can avoid these instances. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist. Hope you are keeping well. I observe that the article Polarity theraphy again getting redirected. Can you please help me taking it to main space and in helping me to avoid these incidents. I see these are happening regularly wasting my time and disturbing me. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to take it up with User:Alexbrn, the editor who redirected it. As you can see from the revision history, he worked on cleaning up the article for a while, removing material about medical information that wasn't cited to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, but he ended up with an article that wasn't much different from the article on Randolph Stone where the pertinent facts are already dealt with, so there was no need for a stand-alone article on the topic per WP:NOPAGE. In looking at the sequence of edits he made, I must say I agree. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gameknight999 has been accepted

Gameknight999, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Wow, that was quick. Only today I revised and re-submitted it (after a year of the draft languishing). Thanks! ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hi, I Anachronist. I saw your participation in blacklisting discussion of qadrishattari.xyz. I was trying to improve Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri#Disciples and needed qadrishattari.xyz to improve it. It is becoming much difficult for me to find another sources to improve that long term unreferenced section. I believe qadrishattari.xyz will be helpful for that section. Dove's talk (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Defer to Whitelist to request using specific pages on the site. The discussion was pretty clear that blacklisting is necessary and that the site is unreliable. I suggest you start a discussion on WP:RSN before making a whitelist request. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Dietary acid load

Hello, I appreciate your efforts to improve NPOV with the alkaline diet. A new article Dietary acid load has been created. Please improve it. Maffty (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Said new article is a POV fork, and synthesis. 'Improvement' only requires deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hi. Could you undelete Draft talk:Blade (2023 film)? That page should not have been deleted along with Draft talk:Blade (upcoming film). Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting REVDEL for Ahom kingdom

Could you please fulfil the REVDEL request for Ahom kingdom? This is related to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=134307808. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Someone already did it.

It's curious, however, that I can still see the diffs using popups, even though the diffs don't appear if I try to load one into a page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Sdrqaz did it. And thanks for checking. I do not use popups so did not notice. Could this be corrected? Chaipau (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: No need to correct it; apparently it's intentional. I just tried it from my alternate non-administrator account and popups wouldn't show it. It must be a feature available to administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Magnesium torch

Hi Anachronist, when you recently created the article stub Magnesium torch you did not include any references. Please fix. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: As you may have noticed in my edit summary of the first edit of that article, this topic pre-dates the world wide web by about 40 years and online sources have proven difficult to find beyond the mentions in the external links I included. The situation is further harmed by the British habit of using the word "torch" to refer to a flashlight, so any searches for "magnesium torch" these days turn up information about flashlights with magnesium alloy cases. I do recall a Jacques Cousteau episode in which these torches were prominantly featured and described in a deep-sea dive but I have not been able to find it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not read your edit summary until after leaving you the message, as I assumed you would have done some WP:BEFORE research and had forgotten to add the refs. I managed to find enough on the internet to expand the article a bit with some references. I am confident that the topic is sufficiently notable, mainly because of the other uses, but may not be able to prove it beyond doubt to some of our more zealous deletionists. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy Twelfth Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Anachronist a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your help with Skeeter Reece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Brandon Lee

Thank you for decision. While I don't think I have anything to add to the article currently, i was criticized for not having formatted the citation identically. I may or may not do it in the future. Not being aware of PCP rules would I still be able to edit the article or a select group of people like high ranked editors would be.

I do think the PCP is the right thing to do since it will stop a mentally unstable individual to post cruel stuff regarding a person who died tragically.

Since his father Bruce Lee also died young it attracts a lot of speculation. Furthermore, there are false reports about him being considered for roles in Mortal Kombat (1995) and The Matrix (1999). While the first is partly true the second is false. I wish I had archived the interviews by the directors of both films when they were online. While this is annoying I can live with it.

I'd love to have some advanced editor rechecking his death section one day, but otherwise the rest is documented to best of my ability.

Thank you Filmman3000 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Filmman3000: Pending-change protection still allows anyone to edit, but the edits of anonymous IP addresses and unconfirmed accounts are not published until a reviewer approves the edit or reverts the change. Everyone viewing the page sees the version prior to the edit that needed approval. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me well done. Thank you.Filmman3000 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ref quotes at FBI search of Mar-a-Lago

Hey, apologies for deleting the in-depth quotes associated with those two different references. I've gotten flack from other editors in the past, for adding lengthy quotes like that.

I wonder if significant quotes (especially the one from the CNN source) should be turned into notes, instead? Might help prevent future deletion, by someone doing what I just did, heh. I'm not sure what the proper usage is of notes, but seems appropriate maybe? Thoughts? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I know you were editing in good faith, which is why I didn't revert you all the way back. I like the idea of a "notes" section, if it can be made to work. Other lengthy articles do that for controversial topics, such as Intelligent Design. The notes include quotations as well as links to references. The references, oddly, also include quotations. I think it depends where the quotation provides the best context. In references a quotation is used to prove what is being stated in the article. A notes section would be used to provide added context. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Alicedimicele

Hi Anachronist. Since you're already trying to help out Alicedimicele and since you're an admin, I thought you'd be a good person to ask about this. Do you think WP:REALNAME comes into play here. I've seen accounts soft-blocked in similar situations. Do you think it would be overkill at this point to suggest that Alicedimicele have their identity VRT verified if they're going to continue discussing things on the article talk page or at the AfD discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging UtherSRG as courtesy since they are also trying to help Alicedimicele and are also an admin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to have VRT involved. However, I would suggest someone who has significant understanding of WP:REALNAME and the VRT approach her for doing this. That would not be me, nor do I know who would. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it matters only if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Di Micele is closed as "keep". In my opinion it should be moved to draft for improvement. Based on that account's contributions and interaction with the community, I am assuming good faith that the account is who she represents herself to be. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:REALNAME isn't about not assuming good faith, but is a protection both for both sides of the equation. I concur, though, that it would only be important if the article gets kept, and that it is hard to believe that she isn't who she says she is. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point I think it would be counterproductive to block the account as impersonation for "protection". I'm an occasional VRT agent. VRT doesn't always need to be involved, though. If she can be asked to put an identifying statement on her own web site, like "My Wikipedia account is Alicedimecele", then that would be enough for anyone to verify. In fact, a VRT agent often does just that, asking the person for a temporary change to an online page that they control, like including the ticket number on a Facebook page or personal web site. That is actually preferable to them sending a copy of their government identification, which includes way more personal information than a VRT agent wants to see. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh! That's cool! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't post here to try and get Alicedimicele soft-blocked. I've got no reason not to believe that they aren't the subject of the article; at the same, time though, there's no way for anyone to verify they really are the subject of the article. Normally, when I come across something like this, I add a {{uw-username}} or {{uw-coi-username}} warning template to the user talk page and a follow up post just to let the person know about WP:REALNAME. Whether they verify their identity via VRT or in some other way is up to them and many probably do not. If Alicedimicele refrains from editing any content about themselves anywhere on Wikipedia, the user name and their identity will most likely not be an issue. If, on the other hand, they start making edit requests or even try to directly edit such content, it would be much better for them to at least WP:DECLARECOI on their user page with and added VRT verification being a good idea. If they don't even bother to declare their COI, they will be most likely reminded of their WP:APPARENTCOI each time they try to edit content about themselves, and could eventually end up being soft-blocked if their editing starts too frequent or too problematic. Anyway, thank you both for looking at this. I'm happy to leave things as is for now since there doesn't seem to be any problems so far. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: If it comes to that, it may interest you to know (and I just learned this a month ago) that administrators now have the ability to impose a "partial block", meaning that an editor is blocked from editing specific articles. If COI editing becomes a problem, this is a solution that allows the single-purpose account to work elsewhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's hope nobody ends up even being partially blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist and @UtherSRG: Would one of you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alice Di Micele? It looks like someone named Lisiunia tried to post a "keep" !vote there. I'm also going to be a honest in that Lisiuna contributions history has me someone suspicious that this might be a case of WP:DUCK or WP:MEAT. The account was created in February 2011, makes a series of edits to Body piercing, and then stops editing for more than seven years before making two edits in March 2018. The account stops editing again until it shows up a few days ago before starting to edit Alice Di Micele. It sure seems odd that this account would show up out of the blue like this as just a coincidence and maybe a SPI/CU would be a good idea here. Most of edits made by Lisiuna are unsourced and full of puffery, and have actually created more issues that need fixing. It's possible some of the sources pointed out in the AfD could lead to the article being kept, but I think the recent contributions by Lisiuna haven't been too helpful. I could just be taking too harsh of a view of things here, but the editing does seem suspicious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Sockpuppet of whom? If you have a suspicion, then file a case at WP:SPI. I doubt it's the subject; she has her own account, no reason to create another (and the account creations suggest they aren't the same anyway). Maybe a case of meatpuppetry. While I find the sudden interest suspicious too, the edits have been mostly OK. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It seemed possible to me that Lisiunia and Alicedimicele might be connected and were created by the same person; perhaps created at different times for different reasons, but now they're crossing paths because of the AfD. It could just be a coincidence for sure, but it seems odd for an account that hasn't edited in a number of years to show up like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what to do here. I do think some of the edits are questionable, such as changing Origin in the info box from Elizabeth to Ashland. Looks like you've fixed up some of it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Henry David Abraham

Your editing note "fails to verify what is claimed"[2] for the cited source C-Span really has me wondering what I don't know. Since when must references "verify what is claimed"? Your rm of that source caused the entire section to be deleted and it was a COI edit request by the subject of the article. Of course I am not going to use references from the subject's own webpage for that but now I'm really confused about this "failed to verify" thing? I reposted the section on the article talk page. Thank you TeeVeeed (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@TeeVeeed: The statement "In 1985 Abraham was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize" was cited to that C-SPAN video, and I could not see anywhere in the video that being a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was mentioned. Therefore, it failed to serve the purpose of a citation; that is, to verify what is claimed in the article. Unless there are secondary sources, independent of David Abraham (that means, not an interview) can verify he's a co-recipient of the prize, then we cannot mention it in the article. We can mention it with attribution, something like "Abraham's web site lists the Nobel Peace Prize as an award that he received with other recipients". That way, we are not saying he received the prize in Wikipedia's voice, we would just be saying that he claims this.

The most I can verify is that an organization won the Peace Prize, and he is associated with that organaztion, but it is not clear that he is a co-founder (the org web site doesn't mention his name) or that he was even a member when the organization won the prize. The section was removed for that reason. The WP:BLP policy prohibits us from making statements about a person that cannot be verified by independent sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you for help.Cwater1 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall what I did, but thank you. Let me know if there's anything you need. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you reply to a talk page that I was in.Cwater1 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Revert on criticism of Muhammad.

Sir, I understand that this was not a point/counterpoint article. but I think there should be at least views from the other side with regards to criticism. If this is not possible, so since there is an article for criticisms, can an article be created for the argument of the muslims with regards to criticism in a purely non-assertive manner. Will Wikipedia allow me, an autoconfirmed user to do that???.

I just think this is really important and relevant for the readers of our time. Its just that many Jewish and Christians friends of mine all point to Wikipedia for these sort of information which leads to misconceptions, unintended heated arguments and well, hostility. I think we should really provide the respective views of all sides in a prudent way. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Izan Mehdi.: We have criticism articles on a variety of subjects, including criticism of Jesus, criticism of Judaism, criticism of Donald Trump, and so forth. They are not platforms for describing debates between sides, they are articles about criticism.

You are welcome to try to create an article about counter-arguments, but I suggest you create it in draft space and submit it for review, titled something like Draft:Muslim responses to criticism (which can be responses to criticism about Islam and the Quran, not just about Muhammad) and submit it for review.

Be careful not to offer interpretations that don't come from recognized scholars. Because you cited mostly primary or anonymous/self-published sources and not secondary reliable sources, it is unlikely that an article would be accepted with the citations you used. You are welcome to try, and I am happy to look at it when the draft is ready. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sir. But do the counter-arguments of Islam, Quran or Muhammad have to be in a same article. I mean can they be different like the different pages of criticism of Islam or Muhammad. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

They don't have to be in the same article, but they can be. If there are enough reliable secondary sources about a topic, then the topic can have a standaline article. In the case of criticism, there is so much information about criticism of Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam, that a single article combining them would be too large and unwieldy. Sometimes a criticism may be levied by numerous notable people through the ages, and a response might be a single response that addresses them all. If responses to these criticisms are brief or overlap, then one article would be sufficient.

Again, I am not confident that such an article would pass review unless it was really well sourced. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hedgepeth-Williams article (Teahouse discussion)

Hi, I saw your reply to my note on the Teahouse about handling the old version of Hedgepeth and Williams v. Board of Education as well as my revisions in my personal sandbox. Would it be possible to move my sandbox revisions over the existing title? (Sorry for the delay, I've been tied up with work recently!) –Galactic-Radiance (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Galactic-Radiance: Done! You mentioned that the previous version was a copyvio. Moving your draft deleted the previous version, and I did not restore those old revisions. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong information

This is a misleading information on wiki surprised to see on here which is wrong and they are not even Muslim please remove this misleading information from wiki thanks 81.79.189.84 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. If you have a problem with an article, take it up on that article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative

Could you please respond to my comment here? Generalrelative has removed my reply to you from that article's talk page, based on the false premise that it is a topic ban violation [3] (the actual area of my topic ban is "race and intelligence broadly construed", which I don't think applies to any of the articles mentioned in my comment). But he tends to only remove others' comments from article talk pages and from noticeboards, not from other editors' user talk pages, so we presumably can still have this discussion here in your user talk. 2600:1004:B102:3157:19F1:799:70D7:C775 (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Per this discussion at ANI, the IP user is well aware that their "broadly construed" topic ban extends to both "race" and "intelligence" and not just the conjunction of the two topics. The discussion at Talk:Stephen Jay Gould is quite obviously about intelligence testing, and about a figure (Arthur Jensen) closely associated with the race and intelligence topic area. If it weren't for the potential collateral, this user would have been site banned long ago. For that reason I would advise you to WP:DENY recognition. Generalrelative (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Anachronist: I'm disappointed by how this situation is escalating, but now that that seems to be the case, I also should direct you to the discussion here, along with the off-Wiki discussions that I linked to there. What I described in my comment there is the central issue.

Also, I want to be totally clear about something: although the banned user Deleet is ultimately responsible for this situation, I am not accusing Generalrelative of deliberately collaborating with that banned user. 2600:1004:B102:3157:19F1:799:70D7:C775 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added back in a phrase based on the suggestions in prior discussion. If you are circumventing a topic ban, I suggest you withdraw from this. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Lagarde Criminal Conviction

You have incorrectly removed my edit. Your note on my talk page is factually inaccurate, as you will discover if you read the source in question. JonQalg (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You did not provide any source that supported your assertion, and the cited sources did not. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Skeeter Reece Photos

@Anachronist and Grabergs Graa Sang: Thank you for your help. I will messaage the photographer again and copy and paste those links you gave me, again. He did say he had a lot of trouble. He was trying to do it on his phone. I have also found that the phone does not work as well as the regular computer. We will give it another shot. Thank you for all your patience. I am learning. Mamadancer (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mamadancer: I use my phone sometimes to read Wikipedia, but I would never try to do any sort of submission through it. You really need a laptop to be effective, not only editing Wikipedia, but submitting photo permissions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Shh, Cullen might hear you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time we have disagreed![4] ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist@Gråbergs Gråa Sång You gave me a ticket number and said there was only one photo there. That ticket number meant nothing to Owen. And he said he had copied and pasted the two photos in the email he sent. He is confused as to why you found only one.

Sorry this is such a mess to figure out. And thank you so much for doing it!! Mamadancer (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mamadancer That ping worked! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I messaged Owen Carey again. He said he sent for link for both of the pictures at once. He copied and pasted it together and sent it in an email-about both B& W images. He said he got a form letter response. Mamadancer (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I replied to him in the ticket asking for confirmation that he intended for the declaration of consent to include both images. As it stands now, it's good for only one of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow!! Great! Maybe this will work, then. Thank you again!! Mamadancer (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It worked. Both images are now restored. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jack_Mizzi

First of all thanks for your thorough review.

I took on board all the suggestions and endeavoured to remove a multitude of headings. I grouped by year and I believe the text is more readable, now because yes it was clunky to read. I added headings for the most important tournaments.

All the tournaments listed are important. To the Maltese chess reader, any international tournament will have importance, and with the exception of 2 (Poland and Sicily) he was representing Malta as a result of being the junior champion in his category since 2017. There are many more tournaments that he played and I did not include, Jack has played in excess of 100 tournaments. The other tournaments are either part of the championship cycle: preliminaries, candidates and final stage, or European championships, or International such as the last 4. If I remove those, where he did not do well I may be accused that I used the tournaments where he did well only, but of course if you mention specific tournaments I should leave out, I will comply.

With regards to chess-results, that is the de facto website that stores chess results and even FIDE relies on it. Chess tournaments are organised using Swiss Manager and chess-results is the accompanying website. (Even the Chess Olympiads are published on chess results). The tournaments in Poland and Sicily were the exception since they had different systems. The whole idea why I added the references was that there is evidence to the results. The chess reader would normally be intrigued to read more and get to know about the opponents, and chess-results is normally the go-to place. ATM622 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Recently Mizzi has been awarded the Blitz National Champion title and the Rapid National Champion title. Note that these were the Malta National Championships and not Junior Championships. ATM622 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@ATM622: You should bring that up on WT:CHESS where Mizzi's notability is being discussed. Someone there already suggested he'd be notable for winning the Maltese Chess Championship. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Blitz_Championships was referenced and a mention at WT:CHESS was done. ATM622 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Hello, you left a message on my page when I was having trouble about a paid article that was deleted. I just wanted to clarify that since I have now disclosed my employer, would it be okay if I repost the article, save it as a draft and then let other editors to review my work from publishing. I had to point this out through talk because the links that were sent to me, though I tried reading them started to confuse me a bit. Please help by clarifying. thank you!Madona Jace (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Madona Jace: Hi. It was deleted because your user page isn't the correct place to write an article. You can create draft articles in your sandbox, or as sub-pages in your user space, but the best place is to use draft space.

I have restored the deleted revision history of your user page. You can see the history by going to User:Madona Jace and clicking on the "View history" tab. If you select a revision in the list and click "Edit" you can copy the page source (don't save it back to your user page!) and then paste it into a draft. You can create the page (for example) Draft:Anthony Golez and paste it in there.

Looking over what you wrote, I have some further advice:

Note that WP:COMMONNAME requires us to title articles according to how the subject is commonly known. This is why we have an article titled Bill Clinton instead of his actual name "William Jefferson Clinton". If Mr Golez is most commonly referred to in reliable sources as "Tony Golez" then that's what the article would be called. His full name can be spelled out in the lead sentence.

Also, Wikipedia doesn't use title case in headings. See MOS:HEADINGS for guidance.

A Wikipedia article is an encyclopedia article, it isn't a CV. It seems there are many things you wrote that could be removed or summarized. All those bills he authored may not be necessary to list; just list the notable ones that generated significant press coverage. His awards could be trimmed down if the awards are not notable or are routine for his profession (hint: if Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the award or the awarding agency, it probably isn't a notable award).

Finally, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that any assertion about a living person must be cited to a reliable source. Your draft has a lot of assertions, but hardly any citations. Again I direct you to Wikipedia:Golden rule. Wikipedia doesn't care about what Mr Golez (or his associates) says about himself (again, this isn't a CV). Wikipedia cares only what reliable sources that are independent of Mr Golez have to say about him. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will begin editing it as a draft and will post any other question or clarification on my talk page before I post it for review. Also, thank you for your further advice and will put them in mind while I edit the draft. Madona Jace (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak please be aware that I am going to follow the advise of @Anachronist and that I am currently trying to edit the article according to wikipedia policy. I also have already declared my employer on my userpage. If you see further faults in my upcoming article, please guide me instead. Thank you. Madona Jace (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

God Jul!

Hello Anachronist: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy holidays to you as well! ~Anachronist (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

User Progrock70s

His account is only 30 days old. User Progrock70s has been blocked for 1 day by user Materialscientist. When blocked, he started to use multiple Iranian IPs to do genre warring edits on Thin Lizzy albums pages. He cannot accept that genres should be discussed on the talk page first to be added later. He usually provides unreliable or poor quality sources (Discogs, Allmusic genres in the sidebar) He was blocked by user Materialscientist on 25 December 2022, 7:52. The block lasted 31 hours. When blocked, he started using different Iranian IPs to do genre warring on Thin Lizzy albums pages. 177.39.240.251 (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have a behavioral complaint, take it to WP:AN/I. Your comment looks quite similar to that posted on other user pages by other IP addresses, so I assume you're all the same person. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Block request

Hi, I'm here for a possible block request for user 2804:1054:401B:E400:4CFD:1F7D:489F:3D5E . As far as I know this user entered Wikipedia 1 week ago and ever since been going on few Wikipedia pages reverting the sources and citations that were already added by previous users and would replace them with unsourced ones. The user recently started making accusations against me on few Wikipedia pages (usually Thin Lizzy albums pages), their accusations against me are that while I was being blocked I used various IPs to edit articles. I've already tried to talk with admin RPM (ResolutionsPerMinute) but they carry on removing my message. Please do something as soon as possible. The reasons for block request: making fake accusations about me/ reverting citations and placing unsourced one instead. Progrock70s (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Progrock70s: That IP address has only one single edit. That is not evidence of disruptive activity. Also you may want to address the note below. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry I entered the wrong IP address, the correct one is 2804:1054:401B:E400:4CFD:1F7D:489F:3D5E .Check out Thin Lizzy (album) & Shades of a Blue Orphanage articles, most of their edits are there, they use this text for each edit summary "Previously blocked user, he was using various Iranian IPs to do genre warring edits on Thin Lizzy albums pages. Genres should be discussed first. Provide better sources" they use text as accusations against me. They also changed their IP address to 177.39.240.251 recently. Progrock70s (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Progrock70s: The correct venue for complaints about behavior is WP:AN/I. What you are doing, posting on multiple admin pages, is called WP:ADMINSHOPPING, which is frowned on. I will not act on an admin shopping request, sorry. @ResolutionsPerMinute: @Abecedare: @Materialscientist: FYI. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even an admin, so I don't even know why they asked me. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even know what admin shopping was, I just followed what Wikipedia told me on how to report someone. I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. Progrock70s (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand it, I understand quite clearly that you posted the same request on multiple user talk pages. That isn't how things work, and I'm sorry that you misunderstood that. WP:AN/I is the best place to get attention from multiple administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)