User talk:AntiDionysius

It is approximately 03:17 where this user lives.

Archives (Index)

2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/July 2024/August

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Thanks

Thank you for this. I can't believe we're still having that conversation. Joyous! Noise! 23:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. It was still on my watchlist from last time. This really is getting ridiculous. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Politeness

You probably should not be telling people how to enter talk comments that are 100% polite, sticking strictly to what is or is not in an article and what should and should not be in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:F181:9410:F550:EBE6:D51F:22EA (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@2601:204:F181:9410:F550:EBE6:D51F:22EA Being civil to others is required on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion about what is civil has little to do with the usual definition.

Any opinion that sticks to commenting on the article with no reference to individuals is civil.

If you disagree with what someone posts, you are free to post your disgreement.

But it's much better to wait until you find a flagrant violation instead of inserting yourself wherever you feel like butting in. 2601:204:F181:9410:F550:EBE6:D51F:22EA (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That was a flagrant violation. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Actress Image

Hello Dear, I see you have reverted my changes to the Article Jennifer Kotwal, the actress herself has shared the image with me to be updated on Wikipedia. Let me know if I'm missing anything or a better way to change her image.

Thank you, Looking forward to your positive response.

Mastermind.ind.in (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi - so, this is a complicated one. There are two issues at play.

First, if you know the actress personally, then you need to read the Wikipedia conflict of interest guideline, which tells you how you should approach articles whose subjects you have some kind of personal connection to.

Second, regarding the image itself: images on Wikipedia need to be copyright-free and available for anyone to use, not just here on Wikipedia but also to copy elsewhere. We also need to have actual confirmation of that status. This article explains how the copyright holder for that photo (I don't know if that's the actress, her management, the photographer, whoever) can confirm that they are releasing the image from copyright so it can be used on Wikipedia.

Let me know if I can help with anything else. AntiDionysius (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Dobhi Railway Junction

You are writing wrong details of Dobhi Railway Junction. This is a big Junction not station. If you are not correct this content. I will claim in court against you. Because you editing wrong details on Dobhi Railway Junction. So go and correct the the name and details of Dobhi Railway Junction. 12 super fast express trains have stopped on this Junction daily. Thanking you. Dharmyuddh Party (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Two things. First of all, all edits on Wikipedia need to be sourced. You can't just say "I know this because I live there" - that's not how it works. See this guide to getting started on Wikipedia for an introduction to editing.

Second, you're not allowed to make legal threats on Wikipedia, and people who violate that rule are blocked. You need to say you're retracting the one you have just made and not make any more. There's also no point to it, because you don't know my name and we don't live in the same country and I haven't done anything illegal in either of the countries in which we live. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

AIV

This was a bad report. I completely get what happened, and I actually wound up blocking the IP in error myself. But I figured I would let you know. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you flagging it. But what was wrong with the report, if I may ask? The user continued adding unsourced content after a fourth warning. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing quote marks around direct quote from source material for Robby Starbuck article

Hi. 'Noticed you reverted in whole my edit of adding quote marks for directly quoted source material in Robby Starbuck article. Changing the word order makes words lifted from source material no less a direct quote. All the same, omitted those "out of order" quoted words from the direct quote. 85.156.111.20 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

IP talk page

It's a longterm troll harassing one of our colleagues; at least no names were mentioned in the post you blanked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I figured it was something of that nature given the bizarre posting and the rangeblock. Thanks for letting me know! AntiDionysius (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding changes to doma in israel

I didnt site sources as i went off of the much more expansive hebrew page on the topic so citing the same sources would be redundant my explanation covered why they would not be jews and why they are more likely to speak hebrew than arabic also if you decide to include the changes i made change the hebrew name in the table from דומס בישראל to דומארים בישראל as this seems like a translation error 2A06:C701:9A25:C200:6193:3CDE:F7FE:7999 (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

More likely to speak Arabic than Hebrew* 2A06:C701:9A25:C200:6193:3CDE:F7FE:7999 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You have a fan

[1] Knitsey (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahaha thanks for letting me know. Do you know that dril tweet that goes like "and another thing. I'm not mad. Don't put it in the newspaper that i was mad"? AntiDionysius (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

lol no? Knitsey (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, can you proofread my article and also need your expert suggestion about this article. Thanks Bintyamin20248 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Need proofread

Hello, can you please proofread my sandbox article ? Thanks Bintyamin20248 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Changes removed, request to reinstate

Hi there, you removed all my changes because I cited a wiki page. I will remove that citation - but all the other edits need to go back up please. Can you please reinstate all the changes I made please? Blake029 (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my other message to you, the broader issue with your edits were that they contravened the neutral point of view policy; there was a lot of what we sometimes call "peacock" language - it subjectively praised the subject rather than sticking strictly to objective facts. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am SO SORRY - I realize now what you meant. I have removed the "peacocking" and stuck to the facts. Please let me know if I need to tweak it further. Thank you so much for your help, and understanding! Blake029 (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Don merge discussion

Regarding the recent edits to Tropical Storm Don (2011), here is the discussion about the merger, which was this summer, for what it's worth. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for flagging that. My b AntiDionysius (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I pressed edit without leaving an edit summary [2] Knitsey (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No prob! I saw the "mobile edit" tag on your edits and figured it might be easier if I added the warning with Twinkle. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why I left the welcome message instead as I didn't leave an edit summary (I usually do). Doh, I'm blaming a sticky finger and ice cream. Knitsey (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Mobile editing is hard at the best of times, never mind when you're trying to juggle ice cream. Now I want ice cream. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Do it, you know you want to. Knitsey (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You're so right. Thank you for this inspiration. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Bratonožići article

I believe you made a mistake in your article on stating that tribe of Bratonožići is of Albanian origin. The fact that Bratonožići was a tribe is a vague concept since there is no reliable information to confirm that, even if that assumption is true the vast majority of people and surnames originating from Bratonožići are either of Serbian or Montenegrin origins. The region of Bratonožići was a home of many enthnic entities and stating that this tribe is Albanian origin indicates that that was the only related ethnic group to it, this is unverified to say the least. If you have to say that this is a tribe of Albanian origin at least add lack of varification for it. 155.93.171.91 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't lack verification - it's cited in the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

And the surnames being of Serbian and Montenegrin origins is also explained in the article, with a citation: "were of Albanian origin and gradually became Slavic-speakers". Did you read the article? AntiDionysius (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a verified information for you? 155.93.171.91 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Because of the citations. More sources would of course always be good but the ones it has are solid, and changing "Albanian origin" to "Serbian origin" would not only be unsourced but actively contradicting several sources.

If you feel very strongly about this I suggest you start a discussion at Talk:Bratonožići, but be prepared to bring sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The concern here is that the origin is a quote referenced from a book (Poeta nascitur, historicus fit) This book also references it from another book (Revue des Études Islamiques). Should origin not point directly to the source of the statement 155.93.171.91 (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

No, in fact Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources over primary ones. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Really where is the origin cited? 155.93.171.91 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

...in the article, in the "origins" section. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the article.

If you're here just for your own personal agendas or reasons, then this platform is not for you. You are repeatedly vandalizing articles, even the ones with sources added. You're not fit for this platform, and you should be blocked forever 49.43.43.99 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@49.43.43.99 as I just explained on your talk page, you already have been blocked, on your original IP address and every one you have used since then. I have been reverting your edits since your original block in line with Wikipedia's policy on block evasion. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Who are you to revert my edits? You're not even an admin. I'm not blocked and please don't the change the topic. Why are you constantly vandalising the article just for personal reasons? 49.43.43.99 (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You were blocked. See Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2738:B09C:C9F8:F37E:C98F:3CC1 for a record of your block. Every other IP you have used to edit since then has also been blocked - this is because continuing to edit when you are blocked is block evasion. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

How can I use different IPs? What are you talking about? I'm not a hacker. Instead of blaming others just look at your actions first. 49.43.43.99 (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you were using multiple IPs deliberately or for malicious reasons; it can happen without a user realising it. A glance at the histories of any of the pages in question will show your edits attributed to at least four different IPs. The problem here isn't that you're using different IPs, it's that you were blocked and you are continuing to try to edit.

I have looked at my actions. My actions are the enforcement of the WP:BE policy, which states Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. So I feel pretty good about those actions, thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what are you talking about. I didn't violate any policy. I think you're just doing this for your own personal agendas. Please tell why are you here? Do you work for someone or you have been paid to do editing? 49.43.43.99 (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:DENY

Just deny recognition. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought initially some discussion may have been productive as I suspected there was a chance (and if they are to be believed, I was correct) that they simply did not know they were block evading, but clearly shining a light on that did not do anything and further discussion was stupid of me. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I have done the same before when I started fighting vandalism, regarding an IP violating BLP. It happens. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It does, and sometimes you need an external poke to prompt you to stop it. Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed Youngest summit

Hi, I know my article wasn’t the best quality however, I have my source and I am happy to send it over to you, please edit it if I have made any mistake and it would be amazing if you could let me know what mistake I made so I can work on and improve on it next time, thanks!! John makofe (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to send anything to me; you just need to include sources for any added content in the article when writing it. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

How am I able to do this? John makofe (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This link explains it. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

you reverted changes to page of Anuj Dhar without any explaination

Hello, could you mention reason for the revert? 171.76.84.178 (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I explained it on your talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

re: Welcome

Thank you for fixing my userpage. I'm a little rusty, and maybe still not fully awake today. SunnyTango (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Maybe it's time for coffee. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

=thank you so so much for the info... I saw that the edit was deleted ...in a really Quick time.. maybe someone who is able to unlock the key and then make the edit on the main page

2.6B views Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (Official Video)

as of September 2024.. GOD BLESS 190.10.199.23 (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC) if you go to the page.. this is what it reads... so nobody made an update since October 2015....as for the DATA ON YOUTUBE Views ---- this is what it reads on the page.... As of October 2015, "All About That Bass" was the only debut single by any artist to accumulate a billion views on YouTube. just trying to make it more modern 2.6B views Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (Official Video)

I got you a digital cookie

I got you a digital cookie,,. thank so much for telling me on the edit ... enjoy the digital cookie

• 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_Trainor

maybe someone can make an edit that can unlock the LOCK on the page listed

imagine that 2.6billion views... just trying to update the data

2.6B views Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (Official Video)

Oct. 2015 is the last time it was updated...

again.. thanks so so much.. and enjoy the Digital cookie AND A VIRTUAL lemonade

• 
  Drink dispenser containing lemonade.

GregLindquist article

Hi You said you removed inappropriate external links, can you please explain? It appears you deleted the entire section as well, which I assume is an error. Ratt675 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to basically never put external links into the body of an article.

I deleted the whole section because it was completely unreferenced and written like an advertisement. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about EL, but this section is key-- It is describing the artists' bodies of works, which is essentially their contribution to art. How can it be not "written like an advertisement"? Ratt675 (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

A few things for avoiding promotional writing:

1. Articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that come from reliable sources, and those sources should be referenced.
2. Anything that's not a fact but an opinion, evaluation or determination should be attributed; e.g. "The Dan River coal ash spill in 2014 has been the conceptual, visual, thematic, and political driver of his Smoke and Water project." should instead be "Lindquist has described the Dan River coal ash spill as the...driver". Though excessive inclusion of the person's description of their own work should be avoided anyway - independent critics are much preferred.
3. What Wikipedia calls "peacock words" should be avoided.

AntiDionysius (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Nutall

how was it not neutral when I quoted several sources? LuffyDe (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The use of language: "aggressive campaign", "threatened" etc. Also you can't just say something was "deemed antisemitic"; you need to say who described it that way. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Lasseter Family Winery

Hi there, and thanks for deleting what doesn't belong on wikipedia, as I take my first stab at Wikipedia edits and try to correct the Lasseter entry.

Four basic goals thus far:

1. Remove railroad map, which is part of a private residence.
2. Remove outdated case production number in the opening paragraph, as footnoted in footnote 1, from an article 13 years ago. Since we don't publish our case production anywhere, there is no replacement number, though it's ~4,000 pending each vintage's yields. Can this entire sentence just be removed?: "The winery, once inhabited by the Grand Cru Winery, produces approximately 1,200 cases of French red wine blends annually, with the capacity to produce up to 6,000."
3. Just requested today to replace the homepage quoted in footnote 2 at the bottom of the page, since we updated that verbiage on our home page, with our website redesign launch on 9/6/23. I want to replace it with verbiage from the new home page (or take it out completely). "We produce Bordeaux and Rhône inspired white, rosé, and red wines, as well as century-old Zinfandel in a field blend with rare heritage varieties."
4. I want to remove the outdated info from that article, which appears in the opening paragraph: "The winery grows Bordeaux and Rhône varietals on 27 acres. One of the Lasseters' winemaking mentors was Jess Jackson, of Kendall-Jackson."
5. Thanks for any help you can provide! I appreciate it.

Jeniferfreebairn (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My edits

Hey, why are you removing my edits when everything has been correctly cited. Please let me know what is needed to be added. Thank you. LuffyDe (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Can I add information to English Wikipedia articles using material I've read and researched? Thank you. Happy editing! 185.213.229.120 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can, if you cite it correctly. See this page. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. what is your name For example, how? Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't give out my real name on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Won't you block me if I enter wrong information? Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Make sure all of the information you add comes from a reliable source, and is cited, and you won't have any problems. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is my real name in my username? Just tell me, I won't tell anyone else, please. Thank you. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

What? AntiDionysius (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I like to keep secrets, like being interested in Wikipedia. Thank you. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and guidance. I start editing. Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft.

Hi Anti! Since you were so polite and gave me a warm welcome, I wanted to come to you for advice for my draft. Asdf;jldsafdl (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Royce white

please stop removing sourced content, you have been reported and hopefully you will be disciplined. either way you'll be asleep soon and your disruptive edits will cease. 104.129.191.26 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Check your talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You also didn't report me, you reported the edit filter. Which was working correctly. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

no I reported both just so you're aware, and not was not working correctly unless you're referring to your own disruptive edits. 104.129.191.26 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you think you reported me, your edit history shows no such report, and nothing has been posted at either WP:AIV or WP:EWN. But alright. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

let's use this one! 104.129.191.26 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to talk here, I just thought you should be aware of the fact that you received no less than four warnings from two different users for three kinds of policy infraction. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@104.129.191.26 There is a discussion about this issue on the article talk page which you are welcome to join. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Peggy Cyphers article edit

Hi, I edited the Peggy Cyphers article on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2024. It was removed due to not citing reliable sources, but all sources that I cited were from news articles that mentioned the artist in question. Please replace the edit. The article has also been flagged as being written like an advertisement and including promotional content. All information that was added was at the request of the artist, and based on factual information. Cialre (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Some of it was cited, but not all of it; and many of the sources were not news articles, they were the artist's own website, which is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. And yes, a lot of it was very much written like an advertisement - a problem which is probably related to the fact that it was written "at the request of the artist". If you are acting on the behalf of Peggy Cyphers, you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, and thus should not be editing the article directly. Please read the conflict of interest policy before proceeding. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Opinion.

Hi Anti! I wanted your brutal opinion on the draft I'm working to approve. Draft:Corisande de Gramont. Hectorvector27 04:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ceadach O'Neill

Hi there, the reference states 10 April 2008. I think the new user is correct in changing it? Knitsey (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay, I'll change it back. Thanks for flagging! AntiDionysius (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Knitsey (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You've been very active on fighting vandalism! You usually beat me in recent changes patrolling. Thank you :) نوحفث   Let's Chat! 15:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah thank you! I am, frankly, using it to procrastinate, but there are worse ways to pass the time. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

correct khmer-Javanese word etymology

That is the the correct word etymology of Loy Kanthong. reliable academic dictionary is the source. Loy krathong is the Thai pronoucation of the Khmer word Loy Kanthong. Loy kantong ritual is on the bas relief of Angkor Thom temple located in Cambodia. Its origin is Khmer-Javanese Hindu ritual. SEAlang is a collaborative effort between CRCL and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) https://sealang.net/khmer/search.pl?dict=khmer&hasFocus=orth&approx=&orth=+%E1%9E%9B%E1%9E%99%E1%9E%80%E1%9E%93%E1%9F%92%E1%9E%91%E1%9F%84%E1%9E%84&phone=&def=&anon=on&matchEntry=any&matchLength=word&matchPosition=any&source=&ety=&pos=&usage=&subject=&useTags=1 174.164.30.163 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

reference 18, 20, and 31 on Loy Krathong page also supports Khmer-Javanese word as correct etymology 174.164.30.163 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSD#U5 reminder

Hi, I saw that you tagged Draft:YearlyArtical for speedy deletion as U5 and G11. Just as a friendly reminder, U5 only applies to pages in user space and is not applicable to draft space. The page turned out to be copyvio, though, so I deleted it anyway. Cheers, ^Complex/_Rational 21:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I believe in this case the creating user moved it between the tag and the deletion, hense the misalignment of tags, but I appreciate you getting it anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I was about to revert then...

Come and ask you about Orange Pi. You have a good memory, I'm sure I've seen them before? Knitsey (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

They were certainly editing as 79.175.80.211 (talk · contribs) a little while ago, but I don't know that I know them from any previous occasion - not off the top of my head anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. Knitsey (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi. thank u for warning me about my bad behaviour im sorry. here kitten for show appreciation and i also want to thank u for using your free time to expand the access for free knowladge irish boy <3

VojvodinaLinuxUser (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

164.47.225.1 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry for the revert at AIV, thought you reverted me instead of the other IP user. Cheers. 62.74.24.237 (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

No prob, misclicks happen! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Danao, Cebu

Probably best to open a ticket on wp:EWN. I would, but need to sign off. Keep up the good work! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Already reported them at WP:AIV, but EWN may be more appropriate. Thanks, take care! AntiDionysius (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing "Jayant Udgaonkar"

Hi @AntiDionysius. Referring to your comment about vandalism on Jayant B. Udgaonkar, it is to clarify that the edits are essential information aimed at prospective students joining IISER Pune, the institute that the person in question is affiliated to. The edits in question are NOT defamatory or vandalist, as you have infered, and are approved by the ethics committee of the Institute. The information added now is deemed essential for future students planning to join Dr. Udgaonkar's lab and to prevent future harassment and sexual exploitation of students. Acetyl-CoA35 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Elaine Parent

Stop reverting my edit; I already replied to you on my page and the information I am using is in the documentary which is already cited on the page. 2607:FEA8:FE40:7E69:15D4:F7C6:C357:1138 (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation and Information

Hello, I am currently new to Wikipedia and is trying to help in weather-related topics. Could you please explain to me why my recent edit was not approved. I noticed your message and was confused; any information would be appreciated. Thank you! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that I didn't add a site, is that the problem? BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Partly the issue was the lack of a source, yes. The other issue was the use of the word "inevitably" - we try to avoid evaluative language like that on Wikipedia, generally speaking. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I have come across that problem before, would you be interested on referring my information to a site as I am not familiar with creating sites. If I were to redo my information without evaluative language, would it be accepted? Again, I just want to help. Thanks! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by creating sites? AntiDionysius (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Source, sorry, I misspelled. Anyways, would it still be accepted without the use of evaluative language such as the word,"inevitably"? BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My space bar won't work, (word, "inevitably"?). BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It probably would, yes. As for sourcing, there is a simple guide to referencing for beginners here. It's not too hard, and I suggest that you give it a try as it is a key skill for Wikipedia editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I am going to revert my edits but with some changes. Have a good rest of your day! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! AntiDionysius (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Update

So, Tropical Depression Fifteen is on the loose and I created a new article all about it! Feel free to edit it when this storm progresses. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Candidate instructions

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 15–21: SecurePoll setup phase
• October 22–24: Discussion phase
• October 25–31: SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–?: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2024 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Paul Desmond

Despite your assertion, the category is not supported by the article text. Paul Desmond's paternal heritage is merely speculative. Merely supplying a book title does not provide proof of heritage. 2601:547:CB00:3D40:C4AA:8517:9872:F0E1 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The article text says "Fred Barton, songwriter/arranger and Desmond's cousin, found extensive genealogical proof that both the Breitenfeld and Löwy families were Bohemian Jews." That text more than supports the category. If you think the problem is that the text is wrong, I would suggest getting a discussion going on the talk page and getting consensus for its alteration or removal, but while the the text is as it currently is, there is no reason to remove the category. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not that I think the text is wrong, however; I don't think it is right, either. The point is, the assertion is unproven and isn't proven simply because someone cites a book title that we're to take on faith backs the claim. Nonsense. Absent the type of genealogical proof typically required to establish family lineage, there is every reason to remove the text until a time when a more detailed description of proof can be added to the text. My personal research on this topic indicated that Barton's conclusions were purely speculative, an educated guess, hedging his bet. Additionally, conveniently left out of the article is the fact that there are many Breitenfelds and Lowys in the region who aren't Jewish. Are we to assume there was no possibility of musical knowledge in those lines? Even Desmond's immediate family wasn't sure about the topic, nor did they didn't observe the traditions. I realize that proves nothing either, however, it does raise important questions. Until the time that Barton's "proof" can be shown to be unassailable, there should at least be room for a dissenting opinion, without the category added.

A talk page can be useful, providing there is interest and a desire to determine facts. The chances of that happening in an article about a sideman from a defunct assemble that played a musical form of an increasingly low-level of interest are slim to none, wouldn't you agree? So the article will remain sub-par, as is, in this regard. 2601:547:CB00:3D40:C4AA:8517:9872:F0E1 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require "unassailable" proof. It just reflects what reliable sources say. Additionally, your own research on the topic cannot, by Wikipedia policy, weigh into the discussion. So yeah, a citation to a book is plenty. And as long as that citation is there, the category can be too.

There's plenty of room for dissenting opinion. That room is on the article talk page. You would be better off making your case there rather than on my user page. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Our Admin Election Test

Hello there. As we're preparing to move from one stage to the next, this is just a quick note from one member of the test group to another, wishing you well in the process of this new alternative to RfA. It seems that there are more of us in this group than some in the community anticipated, so i hope that doesn't make the experience any the worse for all of us. Whatever our individual results, i thank you, along with the rest, for stepping up and testing this process; happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it's much appreciated. Wishing you all the best in the coming days/weeks too! AntiDionysius (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Backyard Sports Talk Page

Hey, AntiDionysius! I'm sorry about deleting content without explanation. The "Characters" section was just a suggestion I typed a while back before I had a fuller understanding of Wikipedia's morals. The responses to that suggestion are also from me because I was so anxious to get a response that I pretended to be someone else to respond (IP editors' addresses change every day). Anyway, that suggestion doesn't really need to be deleted, and I promise that I won't try to do it again. :) 74.132.195.94 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, about "Humongous Sports", that was a section I created because I have noticed that when you start Backyard Baseball 2001 or Backyard Soccer: MLS Edition, along with Humongous Entertainment's logo, there is a logo of a website called "Humongous Sports", which was Backyard Sports' website during the time of Baseball 2001 and Soccer MLS's releases. I just wanted people to know this. 74.132.195.94 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your answer to my question

And excellent answer. I, too, have wondered more than once if we should propose "post-2016 United Kingdom politics and personalities" as a CTOP (Brexit brought out the crazy, as you no doubt perceived more acutely from where you were, in the front rows, while I watched from the upper decks).

I would also be supportive of "far-right politics", although it's mostly edit-warring about whether someone or some organization really is far-right. I mean, we can say we're just using the term because reliable sources do, and that lets us off the hook as far as our own policies go, but ... I have to ask: By what standards do those reliable sources distinguish someone as "far-right" from conservatives in general? It would seems to me that "far-right" is taken to mean anyone whose ideology includes strongly nationalist/populist/racialist components, even at the expense of the free market, as a primary ingredient.

But too many writers for our reliable sources seem to just throw it around for "any popular conservative person or organization I don't like" (In this respect I think some of the many IPs whose edit wars have forced pages into protection have a splinter of a point, just maybe not the one they think they have). This just raises so many issues for me:

• It seems lately we are describing so many people and groups as "far-right" that we might be better off distinguishing people as "near-right" (or the more common "center-right"), since that would appear to no longer be the norm.

• It's worth remembering that 60 years ago, Barry Goldwater was described as, effectively, "far-right" by the standards of his time for his extreme anti-New Deal libertarian politics. Yet by the 1980s he was more in the center of the Republican Party without really having changed his positions too much, and by the time he died it was increasingly obvious that he wasn't happy with the direction the party was taking post-Reagan (I can only imagine what he'd be saying if he were alive now). Are there any libertarian politicians, pundits or groups today we'd describe as "far-right" purely on the basis of their positions on that?

• Do we describe anyone as just far-left? That article delineates a general category of ideologies generally linked by a rejection of free-market capitalism as having any place in the economy. But in practice we generally describe people or organizations aligned with those ideologies by those specific terms (which makes sense in some ways, as the Popular Front era notwithstanding the three ideologies most exemplified there—anarchism, communism and socialism—are often in conflict with each other). Yet we treat the far right as if any distinctions among their positions were too unimportant to mention.

Oh well. Just some thoughts I keep having. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I broadly agree with you on all of this (especially on Brexit bringing out the crazies). There was a time when journalists seemed unwilling to use the term "far-right" even to describe people/parties to whom it patently did apply but now they seem to be overcorrecting and it's become imprecise. And it is true that "far-left" does not get used nearly as frequently, something I've seen brought up in discussions from time to time. As you say, we can (and should) fall back on the "what do the sources say" test in all these cases but as long as the sources themselves continue to be much-less-than-perfect in their approach I presume the arguments, and probably the edit warring, will continue - which is an argument for a CTOPS designation of some kind.

The argument against it is that, in my experience, disruptive editing on this topic tends to be concentrated among unregistered and very new SPAs; editors with more tenure and good faith newbies are usually able to talk about it productively enough. If we're talking primarily about drive-by disruption, a CTOPS designation is arguably unnecessary. But oh, I don't know. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete without feedback

Dear AntiDionysius, you asked me to write you here about a topic, but now apparently you asked for deletion of these comments. Honestly, a feedback about why you did would be appreciated as I just did what you asked me to do. Thanks AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm assuming you are referring to you're recent comments on this user talk page. AntiDionysius (probably) didn't request for these comments to be removed, they apear to have been removed due to involving the israel arab conflict, which requires you to be extended confirmed to make any edits related to it, other than edit requests. Courtisy ping @ScottishFinnishRadish: GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 16:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification. I am not yet an expert in Wikipedia. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you ended up in such a fraught area for your first edits. Much of the encyclopedia isn't mired in the additional rules and regulations. I suggest you spend some time editing on less controversial topics to get a feel for things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Echoing this sentiment @AyubuZimbale; though this kicked off with us having a slight disagreement over the content of the article, I didn't intend for it to turn into a big issue. I hope it's all cleared up for you now and that you'll stick around Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim AlHusseini

Hi AntiDionysius, why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a....good question. I'm not wholly sure. I think I must have been looking at the wrong set of revisions before I hit rollback, or something like that. Apologies. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing Pattern

AntiDionysius what!? So far as I'm aware I've made one revert on one page to do with Stuart Campbell. How can you suggest that's a pattern? Or do some of my other contributions have a connection I'm unaware of? 82.11.195.62 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)82.11.195.62 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The context made it appear, to me, to be a question worth asking. It's not a sanction or a warning or anything, just a question. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case I apologize, it reads as such. No, I'm not in contact with any other editor, and I don't use any other account. 82.11.195.62 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying! AntiDionysius (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Kopa Trophy

BTW some of the anon edits have been correct, though uncited. I am working on updating the article using this citation. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I did a brief look for sources (since I thought there was a good chance the anons were judt being over-eager) but couldn't find anything, for some reason. I'll stop bothering to revert, then; I presume you can just push your update over any edits that are made in the mean time. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Got it done, hopefully that will quell the tide of the well-intended (but understandably MOS-ignorant) stampede. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Kindly desist from edit warring on my entry. You are supposed to engage in discussion on the article Talk page and have repeatedly refused to do so. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Lewis Lynch

Hi, I saw that you'd reversed my edit on the article of Peter Lynch regarding his son Lewis. I'm not sure how I would provide evidence that Lewis is his son that would be considered sufficient other than what I explained in the edit summary. 82.39.59.222 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's something that's only traceable to social media posts, it probably just isn't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia - which is fine. Wikipedia isn't meant to contain all the knowledge in the world, just that which is contained in reliable sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Peace? Saarabout (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a shame

I thought you stood a good chance of being elected. It's hard to know what the reasons for the opposition were without the discussion part but I hope you're not disheartened. I would say give it a few months and then drop me a line if you're looking for a nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Harry. I don't imagine it means much, but I did support your nomination.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :+) AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, you already give me enough thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You just always seem to be on duty at AIV! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's very good of you to reach out, thank you. I'm not disheartened, it was evidently a tougher test than many people were expecting and I probably just need to wait a few months. The discussion did give me some ideas for things to improve on too, so it was productive in that way. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably doesn't mean much, but I voted for you and I was suprised you didn't get through. I hope you give it another go soon. Knitsey (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's meaningful, thank you. I'll give it a few months and then consider either an RfA or an election (if the latter continue to happen). AntiDionysius (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The election format adds to the unpredictability, which has pros and cons. The bottom third looked pretty much how I expected, there were a few (pleasant) surprises in the top third. It's hard to know if the opposition in the middle was to the candidates or the process or something else. I'd like to see the experiment repeated with a smaller field and a bit more discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, I concur on all points. For my own purposes I'm not against the idea of doing an RfA. I suppose we'll see. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

About the passing of David "Dave" Jackson

why did you revert that? Dave has been a friend of mine and a jammed with him frequently. I have just been told that his suffering ended. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blame_It_on_the_Boogie&oldid=1256003453 83.236.67.218 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss. I reverted it because it was not a discussion related to the editing of the article Blame it on the Boogie, and such discussion is the only thing allowed on that article's talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Concern Regarding Sourcing and Accuracy on Timothy Hollingsworth's Page

• • Subject: Concern Regarding Sourcing and Accuracy on Timothy Hollingsworth's Page**

Dear AntiDionysius

I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out regarding a recent edit made to the Wikipedia page for Timothy Hollingsworth. I noticed that some statements added to the page lack proper sourcing or rely on unreliable sources, which could potentially lead to misleading or defamatory information about the individual.

Given the sensitivity of editing pages for living people, I’d like to respectfully ask if the statements could be revisited, ensuring that all claims are backed by reliable, verifiable sources that meet Wikipedia’s content standards. Specifically, it would be helpful if you could provide more robust citations to support any contentious or potentially harmful claims.

If you'd like, I’m happy to assist in finding appropriate sources or discussing the changes further to ensure the page remains accurate and fair.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Best regards, Billygoats1234

--- Billygoats1234 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I and others have been trying to discuss this issue with you; there are messages on your talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

QLever

Dear AntiDionysius, I just read your message regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QLever . The current version (before my edit and after you reverted it), is a good start, but contains various errors and inaccuraries, which I tried to correct. I also tried to improve the readability and added various missing references. Since I am involved with QLever, you suggested that I "draft the revised article, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it." I would be happy to do that, but I don't understand what exactly I should do, especially since I already wrote a revision. Was there an option to "recommend it as a draft" instead of publishing it? And why was it not an option to revise what I wrote (in case you thought that something needs revision), instead of fully reverting it? Hannah Bast (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)