User talk:AntiDionysius/Archives/2023/December

wp:burden

You violated wp:burden here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_University_of_Gaza&diff=prev&oldid=1187176301

You also - without reason - deleted material that was properly cited.

Please address. Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:3DF0:DC40:66BF:2F5A (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's sort of hard to violate WP:BURDEN without adding or restoring any material, which I did not do.

I rejected the pending edit because it was adding citation needed tags to material which was already cited, as I said in the edit summary. I'm aware this edit also included the addition of cited material, but it is not possible to partially accept an edit. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's possible to not reject an edit. And then - if appropriate - remove tags. Though that would not be proper here. But you failed to do that. You instead rejected perfectly appropriate material. And didn't even address that in your edit summary.

I'll make it easier. I'll delete the uncited material. And ask that - in the spirit of wp:burden - you not reject the edit, unless you add refs in accord wp:burden's obvious intent. If you don't agree, I suggest we involve some admins.

And I'll add the material you failed to add in a separate edit. It's sort of simple. You could have done that. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:395D:7DD1:3672:3AD (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits

Ayy. Mind answering something for me? What is what you call "blank vandalism"? You removed a message I sent to another person. Some dude named material scientist. I was told something similar for correcting the date of Captain Robert Deal's death were reverted. My question to this other user was related to this and why my edits were being reverted. Now you removed my question to him for vandalism. What you call vandalism I call clarifying questions in the form of a post, that got no response to and was then removed by a random. Therealjdeals (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I've seen you about lately and I think you're sensible enough that you'd make good use of this. Keep up the good work. It's a little early in your career but you could make a solid admin one day if that's something you were interested in. As for rollback, I'll drop you the standard template because it contains some useful links:

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I dropped a note on your talk page before I got the notification for this. Thanks a lot! I'll keep working and try to make good use of it. Wayyy back when, years ago, I was rollback on some fan wikia, so it'll be just like old times. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Un petit chat pour vous !

Figth transphobia and fascism is quite difficult, thanks for being there. Enjoy this cat picture !

Marnie Barbara (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much, and thank you for your efforts too! AntiDionysius (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Novoheorhiivka

Can you post not only ISW but another source because when I opened site it says no connection to the site. Also ISW isn't valid source if it doesn't say about some geolocated footage or video about settlement captured or recaptured but say that some Russian mibloger say that some settlement is captured or recaptured without sending geolocated footage or video. Hyfdghg (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge of the existence of any other source, or a position on the verifiability or truth of the info; I was just following WP:DEADREF procedure. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Explain yourself

The article was tagged as needing more citations and checks, I checked the sources, added page numbered and quoted citations, totalling an addition of over 20,000 bytes of more content, almost all in citations, and you revert it because you think the old version with less citations was better all because you wanted to keep up the citations needed tag? What is the point of a citations and checks needed tag if you don't want more citations? This is nonsense and trolling!--72.49.53.74 (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. But why do you restore the tag? All the problems have been addressed! I added lots of citations, I checked everything, the article got the attention that the tag wanted. What possibly more can you want, what part of the article do you think is problematic? Why are you demanding such a higher level of citationing for Crimea articles? There are so many articles much less well-citated. there is not one paragraph without citations. I even added lots of quotes and page numbers so that other people can personally check the sources if they don't beleive me.--72.49.53.74 (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't restore the tag about more citations needed, if you re-look. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I re-added the other tags. First because there are some minor issues with the precise placement style; it's better than it was, but there are places where there are long blocks of text with a few citations grouped at the end, rather than closely assigned on a sentence-by-sentence basis.

Second, because it remains true that the article relies a lot on Russian-language sources. You are right to note this is by no means banned on English Wikipedia, but the barriers it presents to verifiability are acknowledged. Thus it would be good to have more pairs of (comprehending) eyes on it.

Like I said on the talk page already, these tags don't indicate the article is "problematic" or constitute a negative value judgement on it, they are just flagging things that could be done to make it better. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I gave quotes from the Russian sources so that everything can be checked! There is nothing more it needs. It is silly to copy citations over and over again for each sentence for the exact same information. You would complain even if every citation was a harvnb citation with quote in Russian and English version. If you can't read whats in the Russian quote then stop crying about not being about to verify it and just paste it into google translate, it's not climbing mount everest, a cat could copy-paste quotes into google translate.--72.49.53.74 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I really don't know why you think I have some kind of agenda here. Please stop doing that. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

ANA Special Operations Command

Sorry, why was my edit regarding that page removed again? You claim I didn't cite evidence (fair), but tbh Afghanistan's pages have been a cesspit of unchecked propaganda, which only accelerated after August 2021.

Either way, regarding the evidence, take a look here (ignore the OP, who's very pro-TB, but instead look at the pictures):

https://twitter.com/MJalal0093/status/1730473863178518977 https://twitter.com/MJalal0093/status/1730474680879063155

Notice the red flag and its logo? That's a slightly redesigned version of the ANA Commando Corps logo. They're also using the same uniforms. That would suggest that although the command and rank and file has obviously changed, the institution itself is still there and was absorbed into the new government. This would follow what befell other ANA corps (they remained, but their names changed and underwent restructuring).

So honestly, if that evidence isn't enough to change it, then I think the "effectively dispersed" part should be removed too since there is conflicting evidence, even if it's not 'enough' for some moderators. 2A01:9700:13E4:9D00:7C05:1C2D:3DA7:967C (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Since there's no answer, I'm going to edit the page again but use something more neutral, because the dispersing claim is verifiably incorrect. 2A01:9700:1A00:E300:90EC:3CA1:BEF2:EA39 (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ladislav Hagara

Hi, AntiDionysius, many thanks for your message regarding the Ladislav Hagara article. I added more sources demonstrating that his books are, indeed, published and sold in multiple countries around Central Europe. He has been active in the field for over 30 years and is quite a big name in the field of mycology this part of the continent (mostly Slovakia and Czechia, but also beyond). I'll be happy to make more improvements, and will be grateful for any particular suggestions. Many thanks. PeterRet (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for getting in touch. At this point, the Articles for Creation process will be your best outlet for feedback on when it's ready for publication; the AfC volunteers are more experienced in that regard than me, so they're the people to listen to. I see you've already started putting the draft through rounds of submission, so I hope it goes well! AntiDionysius (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Congratulations on being among the top three most active pending changes reviewers during the last 30 days. Fantastic job! – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! AntiDionysius (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Vilhelm Magnus

died in 1929, so I doubt this is self promotion. Likely creator is named for the historic figure or chose the user name as homage. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct, I should've read more closely. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Brooklyn Nine-Nine (season 8)

Edit is not vandalism and George Floyd is not a hero. Leave it alone! 136.57.150.89 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding an unsourced personal opinion to a page is not constructive. The fact that the opinion is an inflammatory one, and that you are clearly POV pushing (based on the fact that you have brought up on two separate talk pages, completely unprompted, that "George Floyd is not a hero") pushes it over the line into vandalism. Please desist. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Lies, it's not vandalism, and what I'm doing is not opinion, it's truth telling. Don't sit there and say otherwise! 136.57.150.89 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's definitionally an opinion. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No it's not! 136.57.150.89 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here and try to explain to you the definition of an opinion to you. Please review the Wikipedia policies on Verifiability, Reliable Sources, Neutral Point of View and Contentious Topics.

Please do not add unsourced personal analysis to articles again; please especially do not attempt to re-add this particular material. Even if it didn't plainly violate the policies on sourcing and neutrality, something you seem either unwilling or unable to understand, it now would constitute a violation of the policy on Consensus and Edit Warring, since your edits have been removed by multiple other users. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Timothy Weah

My information is sourced with Georgia court records.Since you are looking at unsourced or poorly sourced info, why are you letting stand that Kyle is his cousin? It is not sourced in the link. I am re-editing because court records are legitimate sources. 13:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you need to actually reference those records rather than merely insisting that they exist but providing no citation or link.

And the line about Kyle Duncan is sourced. There's a citation right at the end of the sentence. --AntiDionysius (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Jean-Louis Boissier

Hi I saw you moved the page Draft:Jean-Louis Boissier to the draft section, while I was still editing it... I've been an admin on the french wikipedia, so I understand the attention on quality and sources, but I don't know what to do now. I don't have lots of sources in english, even though the person is a well known veteran of digital arts. English is not my first language, so if the writing is clumsy, I'm not sure how to correct it. Would you be so kind to check the page ? Jean-no (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)