![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
Hey, Anachronist. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the
Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
You erroneously forgot to restore the AfD notice from Thomistic sacramental theology when reverting to the version prior to the edit-war. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the undeletion of Draft:Joshua Dufek. There's a slight issue though, as the current version you've restored dates back to early 2022. With my request, I was hoping if you could actually restore the content that was deleted yesterday? That one covers the driver's 2022 season in depth — I remember working on it a couple of months ago and I didn't want to lose that work. What I mean is basically to move the edit history of Joshua Dufek to Draft:Joshua Dufek so I can continue where I left off. MSport1005 ( talk) 19:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Why did you do this? Did you not see that they'd copied their question from the day before, complete with other people's posts? 97.126.96.89 ( talk) 03:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello sir, I understand you felt the need to protect the page, but I was hoping your help would resolve the issue. The info is in a need for expanding and has to be updated. The user Androvie, all his edits are about cancelling anything that is helpful or provides more comprehensive info on this page alone. The "18 or 19" age is widely accepted among Shia Muslims and, increasingly, among scholars.The paragraph I have provided just barely mentions that; it does not show whose viewpoint is superior. StarkReport ( talk) 10:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist, hope you are well. In this discussion Talk:Isaac_Abarbanel#Reply_to_question_at_my_talkpage I learned that an editor was told by a VRT-person that if they wanted to know why a certain edit happened, they could try to ask the editor in question (me). Very reasonable advice, and I have no objection whatsoever. My minor issue is that I'd like to ping the VRT-person to the discussion, since their name came up, and they may be mildly interested in what was said. I've looked around, but couldn't find a user-name. Maybe that's how it should be, but if you can tell me, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist, thanks again for the Asmongold protection. I also posted the following comment on the page protection request, but I am also putting it here just in case it gets lost:
"[...] could you please undo the last edit you made? It states "Zack Hoyt" for Asmongold, which comes from an unreliable news source that uses incorrect information (i.e. wrong birth date) and shouldn't be used to rely on the name, as there is no reliable source supporting it and Asmongold never confirmed his name, other than his first name, Zack. It would be great if it could be removed in order not to potentially dox him, as this may be private information that he wouldn't want to be shared, if it were his true name."
Thanks again! SturmFernmelder ( talk) 04:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you protected Judika (singer) from creation because it was repeatedly recreated. The subject was recently accepted at AfC and is now located at Judika. Would you please create a redirect from Judika (singer) to Judika as the subject is notable? Thanks. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, a page, Cambodia, is protected by you in 2018, can you unprotect as it is somewhat unneeded for the disruption is years ago. Mnnie053 ( talk) 14:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
You have to look up really in this topic, numidia doesn’t represent all old north african, and there’s no proofs thats thr couscous is algerian, KingTebboun ( talk) 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Anachronist, on the persona of Grigori Grabovoi, why is Wikipedia spreading slander and some editors won't let us do edits. There are people that have the true story, with sources; we have tried and if I'm writing you it is because I have tried to follow protocol in my poor understanding, but I only get warnings, anything I try to edit gets undone automatically. I wrote emails, I tried to start discussion with LardAlmighty and that user just added the 'twinkle' to my user Sayitright22 ( talk) 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! You were the last admin to edit EMDR so I'm coming to you about this.
Recently I started an RFC on EMDR because I object to a series of edits by Bon_courage. When I started the RFC I also reverted to the last version before those edits, because my understanding is that when an RFC is happening, the page should remain in its status quo state and not the state with controversial edits that are relevant to the RFC.
Bon_courage and now MrOllie have now reverted the page back to their preferred version twice: [1] [2]. I don't want this to become an edit war and I know if I keep on reverting it will become one quickly, so could you please take a look at the dispute and clarify which version is the last good version? Loki ( talk) 22:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for the semi-protection for Societat Civil Catalana. I wanted to check with you if it is OK for me to remove a sentence that to me, clearly violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV and that does not belong in that section. an SPA IP has been edit warring to add it back and using personal attacks against me (accused me of vandalism and of editing for pay for some organization I don't even know) here you can see my arguments at Talk:Societat Civil Catalana#Vandalism of Crystallized Carbon ( see diff). It would be nice if the IP could remove the personal attacks by at least changing the talk section title of Vandalism of Crystallized Carbon. I wanted to check with you before doing the edit just to make sure. Regards Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 17:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It feels disrespectful for you to imply that either myself or Courcelles would allow disruption to occur, for any reason. So maybe follow your own case-by-case advise for this particular instance. El_C 19:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Quick Response and deep knowledge Lakshmijourno ( talk) 20:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC) |
Hello, the semi protection on the page of Grigori Grabovoi was expired on last March 26, can you please remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.1.5 ( talk) 19:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
You enabled semi protection on the page about Polarr due to alleged rampant COI updates.
The edits that you considered COI, edits by berrycoolfratstar and Jonathan Mark Jimenez, were done by company representatives on behalf of the company. The edits contained updated information about the company and its product offerings.
We once again need to update our company's page with recent new product offerings and company updates. We've requested that the lock be removed through Wikipedia, but have heard no updates.
Are you able to assist in removing the lock that you requested? Polarrinc ( talk) 23:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist. You fully protected Aisha in February, and that protection has just expired. Would you like to reapply the indefinite semi-protection that had been on the page since your action in 2014? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
You protected this article 8 years ago. Should we maybe try experimental unprotection? I get there were a lot of COI violations/vandalism 8 years ago, but it may be worth checking to see if the disruption of the past is gone. 47.227.95.73 ( talk) 01:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if you are still interested in this, but I've added a lot of sources and suggestions today. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Anachronist. Recently you applied some full protection to this article to stop an edit war. But almost simultaneously another admin has indefinitely p-blocked the chief edit warrior, User:A E Francis. See this ANI. So in my opinion your protection may no longer be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you undo the edits you made. You are correct there has been an edit war going on the Sufism page. However my involvement was to bring back the page to how it was BEFORE the edit war started occurring with other users. As you can see in the edit history, I was the one who first asked to have the page locked also. They have not even put the correct name down in the intro 'hasan al basri' instead of 'hasan al babri' and are changing the content of the actual sources. This is how you know biased edits have been.
The page I bought it back to was how it accurately was. Unfortunately in your good faith, the edits you have made have are actually the non factual claims the edit war users have been making.
Once you have done this can you lock the page to prevent it from happening again? Thanks! 86.5.202.27 ( talk) 17:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arkenstrone: baseless accusations regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I was recenltly asked by admin Ad Orientem to notice those mentioned even if I consider them not to have been involved. This is why this notification is so late. Veverve ( talk) 00:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Just in case you aren’t watching, they’re asking if they had paraphrased it. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Amongst has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14 § Amongst until a consensus is reached.
Ollieisanerd (
talk •
contribs)
20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mr Anachronist,
Hope you are well. As someone who is an experienced wiki editor, I was hoping you could teach me how to request/ protect pages from edit wars?
All the best!
Galaxy21ultra (
talk)
21:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you kindly left some feedback on a recent article of mine ( Draft:Oxford Metrics) in Wikipedia:Teahouse. Thank you for suggesting those changes and offering me guidance. I have since taken your thoughts on board and edited the draft accordingly. I would greatly appreciate any further guidance you could offer around the draft before re-submitting for review. Thank you for your help so far and do please let me know your thoughts. EWix76 EWix76 ( talk) 14:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
So I created a page and I just discovered it actually redirects to something. You can see it here. Warrior9994 ( talk) 21:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi--You were top of list at Recently Active Admins, so, I'm here to ask if you might keep an eye on 70.31.26.72 ( talk · contribs), who's been making some pretty defamatory remarks at Talk:David Johnston (some of which were deleted). Or, if you'd prefer not to be involved, could you point me in the direction of an admin who could perhaps assist? Cheers. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Miesianiacal, let's air all these accusations out in public. You think I might use sock puppets and I think you might be a staffer working out of Rideau Hall. I'm in favour of an admin investigation into both, what do you say? ScienceMan123 ( talk) 23:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi--I apologize for bothering you with this again; the anon is continuing using a different IP now: 65.93.214.95 ( talk · contribs). -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment at the WP:Tea house linking the essay WP:BACKWARD, which I wasn't aware of. It contains some poor advice, including an approach that would likely be a policy violation if anyone followed it, and I've commented on the Talk page about it. The only reason I'm not more exercised about it, is that if it took me 15 years to find that essay, probably others won't find it, either. Thanks for your good advice at the WP:Tea house. (By the way, as long as we're talking about the Teahouse, could you have a look at my UTP comment here, about a user's Teahouse replies and tell me if you think it was appropriate? I tried to temper the critique with some praise, but I think it needed to be said.) Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Can I get an explanation from you for deleting my feedback? Here. I'm just discussing with User:Marjuly. I'm a patroller on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. I'm just discussing. DANGGIAO No risk, no life. No malice, no fear 15:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Why did you make this change? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shepherd_Book&diff=next&oldid=1165932591 I was removing a red link to an article that had been deleted back in 2019. 159.196.100.171 ( talk) 18:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you have written this as a reply for the draft -
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of person.
Question: How to add published media links as source? Also specify if anything else is required to be added to the draft.
Filmymusafir ( talk) 13:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Because the unprotection was during the time when the topic is highly searched, so there is a lot of disruption during that particular period. The experiment is way too thin to say anything. 14.191.33.160 ( talk) 16:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Anachronist,
It looks like you restored this article but didn't remove the PROD tag. It's already been deleted by PROD once so a second PROD is invalid. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for lowering my requests. Three pages were missed. Indubitably Archives 16, 19, and 35. All others are good. Thank you for your assistance! Zinnober9 ( talk) 20:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
PCSO-524 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 28 § PCSO-524 until a consensus is reached.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
23:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
You semi-protected centre-left politics on the 26th per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Edit warring to reinstate OR at centre-left politics. The IP editor has now created an account to continue restoring the same edits. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 15:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
"Draft was moved to article space by creator after it was declined - moving it back to draft" [3]. User:Kailash29792 was not the creator of the draft, I was.
I think you meant "editor" and not "creator", right? If that is the case, then I guess there is no mistake on your part. DareshMohan ( talk) 02:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! You reverted all my {{ clarify}} tags for clarification of the ambiguous units of measurement of " ppm" and "%" for the concentrations of CO2 in the air, because "If the sources don't specify or clarify what it means, then neither would Wikipedia. Doing so would violate WP:OR.", as you said. Because almost all {{ clarify}} tags accross Wikipedia are such as you said, according to you, almost all {{ clarify}} tags across Wikipedia violate WP:OR, therefore, almost all {{ clarify}} tags across Wikipedia should be deleted?! I strongly disagree with you, so, I will revert all your {{ clarify}} tag deletions, and possibly search for a consensus from Wikipedia editors about your deletions. Sorry if you are offended about my decision. And I am really confused after you deleted all my {{ clarify}} tags (I know, "Read the WP:OR!" you could yell at me, I already did). I am a Wikipedia inclusionist, not a Wikipedia deletionist. So, please, don't delete almost all {{ clarify}} tags across Wikipedia. Bernardirfan ( talk) 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
You have misunderstood my comments on this AfD. I never agreed that the article should be kept.
I had debunked all of the sources and nobody has disputed my points that: 1) there is no biographical coverage about this subject from reliable sources, 2) minimal coverage only concerns debunking the idea of his unmanned airplane, 3) the sources talk about the unauthentic subject in the wake of the movie Hawaizaada as clearly specified by them.
Most editors opposed stand-alone article thus you should modify your closure. It was not "keep" at all. Editorkamran ( talk) 16:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I've opened a DRV case myself. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 1. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello i noticed that a lot of my sources have been removed from Draft:Burning Men while i cited them. Can you fixe them to be put back, they are probably on history Veganpurplefox ( talk) 20:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I have given a full explanation in my revert comment.
Best regards IP says: Works better yes. 213.237.91.184 ( talk) 19:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
All changes were reverted on the page of IASRI (Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute) even though credible references were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickypusa4 ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
It’s not clear how reverting an edit introduced an infobox error, which I wasn’t aware of (maybe some kind of database corruption). But aside from that, the ‘average’ and ‘peak’ figures are both from the same date. The cited source provides both the peak and average figures. As has been explained, the ‘peak’ figure includes duplicate reports, and this is why the average figures are a better indicator.— Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Undid revision 1175273662 by Wsetlevel3 ( talk) - blatant plagiarism and copyright violation - try again
For my understanding...I am not sure why you responded the way you did when I specifically credited the source. Is it your opinion that I rewrite the information, but credit the source for the concept? In no way did I attempt to claim credit for the text? Wsetlevel3 ( talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I request you to now unprotect the History of concubinage in the Muslim world article so that anyone can edit it and impose sanctions on Barbardo if he removes sourced content again - he seems to have misunderstood what consensus means (he does not have any veto about what text should be in the article).- 2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 ( talk) 06:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Anachronist. I strongly agree with your comment on the Teahouse about the bar for autoconfirmed status being set too low. I would like to see a regime where nobody can create an article in mainspace or move a draft to mainspace until they've had, say, two articles accepted through AFC (with some arrangement for grandfathering in old-timers).
I'm less sure about the other abilities that come with autoconfirmed. Whenever I see a question about "Why haven't I got autoconfirmed status" I think "Whatever it is that they're desperate to do they probably shouldn't", but I may be wrong. ColinFine ( talk) 20:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist. You removed my edit and mentioned the following reason ((too much reliance on primary source)). But i mentioned that the source is the one who says these additions. There are other sources. But I wanted readers to know that what Friedman mentioned is not the only information. In other words. I did not write the information in such a way as to make it appear as self-evident. Rather, I wrote the phrase so that the reader understands that this is what the author is conveying in the source. I wanted the reader to see other information from another source. In general, if there is a specific problem in writing, tell me how it can be solved. How can the rewrite be done better, in your opinion? With respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.33.207 ( talk) 09:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for editing and being cool!! Keep going, your doing well!! :)
Babysharkboss2 was here!! 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
FYI I wrote a new version of Stephen Strang based on 4 RS. Looking forward to your review. Nowa ( talk) 05:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Anachronist:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
Hi Anachronist.
Sorry if I'm doing something wrong.
There are some notable changes on page which is i restored,
please can I do changes? Hanna213 ( talk) 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I have just realised that you are an administrator. As such, can you please provide an explanation as to how your revert
[8] at the above article was not made in violation of the active arbitration remedy clearly stated at the top of the talk page: Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
? The contested passage (which had been in the article for some time) was removed by CapnJackSp. I challenged the removal, by reversion. I explained my rationale on the article talk page. No 'affirmative consensus' for anything can possibly have been found at that point. Not when you reinstated the change. And not by your subsequent talk page post. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the removal (on which I have made my points concerning Wikipedia policy on the use of academic sources entirely clear on the talk page), it seems to me to be entirely improper for an admin, of all people, to be disregarding a clear and unambiguous instruction as to how disputes concerning a highly-contentious article under arbitration remedies should be handled. I await your explanation, and note that should one not be forthcoming I may decide to pursue this further.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
23:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
On the " criticism of muhammad", you made a complaint after reverting my revision. The revision already included about heresy and demonic influence. Furthermore last line already contained "criticized Muhammad's handling of doctrinal matters and his promises of carnal pleasure in the afterlife" which is synonymous with 'perverted' and 'deplorable man' both of which also seem synonymous. It seemed bit repetitively biased. Now I understand that this is a criticism article but its written is such a way that it does not has any objective lens and there must be least some kind of WP:Balance. Note that I am not in anyway disagreeing about the lenghty details of those critisism in the rest of the article, the lede section in which we write the outline, shouldn't it be written in neutrality. The current content also may not uphold WP:Label. Please correct it or let me correct it. Even historical villains like Hitler and Stalin do not have this level of subjective judgements on their respective article. 182.183.41.97 ( talk) 06:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Anachronist! Da du ja auch auf der dewiki aktiv bist, trau ich mich deutsch zu schreiben. Manche Sachen kann ich nicht so gut auf Englisch ausdrücken.
Seit ein paar Tagen fällt mir im Teahouse ein neuer User mit Namen "Fotzendurchfall" auf, muß ich mehr sagen? Ich habe mir die Policy zu den ungeeigneten Usernamen angeschaut, die in solchen Fällen eher zu "ansprechen" raten. Ehrlich gesagt, ICH als Deutsche möchte den User nicht ansprechen...
Hast du eine Lösung, abseits des großen Dramas?
Liebe Grüße -- Maresa63 Talk 06:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
See [ [16]] Doug Weller talk 07:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Please undelete
Sethubandhanam. It was created in 2014, which is clearly not recent (A10 only applies to recently created article[s]
, and the fact that
User:NmWTfs85lXusaybq chose to create a redirect means that the requirement that where the title is not a plausible redirect
isn't satisfied either.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
04:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that it's an alternative name of Adam's Bridge: Ram Setu means both the (mythical) bridge from the Ramayana and the extant real-life geographical feature, which are separate things. Many people claim that the former is based on the latter, but even that isn't a sure thing. I would favour undeletion and expansion of the Sethubandhanam article, too. Dāsānudāsa ( talk) 11:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
ThatOneWolf has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Nice seeing you from the Minecraft Wiki! To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
ThatOneWolf ( talk| contribs) 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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)
00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The LTA responsible for the page protections of Hagger, Grawp, and other pages is gone now. Would you consider unprotection as its hopefully no longer necessary? funplussmart ( talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Anachronist, hope you're doing well. I was wondering why you reverted my edits on the article Speech synthesis. Mooonswimmer 17:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Anachronist. I noticed that you enjoy familiarizing yourself with talk page discussions and offering neutral third opinions when needed. I have been working on updating Dahua Technology and am wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing an ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding specific terminology used in the article. I would appreciate your thoughts and assistance with implementing the edits as you see fit. Thank you, Caitlyn23 ( talk) 18:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey, looks like I started responding to the edit request before you did. Feel free to erase my response if you want to respond instead Andre 🚐 06:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
Hey, Anachronist. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the
Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
You erroneously forgot to restore the AfD notice from Thomistic sacramental theology when reverting to the version prior to the edit-war. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the undeletion of Draft:Joshua Dufek. There's a slight issue though, as the current version you've restored dates back to early 2022. With my request, I was hoping if you could actually restore the content that was deleted yesterday? That one covers the driver's 2022 season in depth — I remember working on it a couple of months ago and I didn't want to lose that work. What I mean is basically to move the edit history of Joshua Dufek to Draft:Joshua Dufek so I can continue where I left off. MSport1005 ( talk) 19:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Why did you do this? Did you not see that they'd copied their question from the day before, complete with other people's posts? 97.126.96.89 ( talk) 03:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello sir, I understand you felt the need to protect the page, but I was hoping your help would resolve the issue. The info is in a need for expanding and has to be updated. The user Androvie, all his edits are about cancelling anything that is helpful or provides more comprehensive info on this page alone. The "18 or 19" age is widely accepted among Shia Muslims and, increasingly, among scholars.The paragraph I have provided just barely mentions that; it does not show whose viewpoint is superior. StarkReport ( talk) 10:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist, hope you are well. In this discussion Talk:Isaac_Abarbanel#Reply_to_question_at_my_talkpage I learned that an editor was told by a VRT-person that if they wanted to know why a certain edit happened, they could try to ask the editor in question (me). Very reasonable advice, and I have no objection whatsoever. My minor issue is that I'd like to ping the VRT-person to the discussion, since their name came up, and they may be mildly interested in what was said. I've looked around, but couldn't find a user-name. Maybe that's how it should be, but if you can tell me, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist, thanks again for the Asmongold protection. I also posted the following comment on the page protection request, but I am also putting it here just in case it gets lost:
"[...] could you please undo the last edit you made? It states "Zack Hoyt" for Asmongold, which comes from an unreliable news source that uses incorrect information (i.e. wrong birth date) and shouldn't be used to rely on the name, as there is no reliable source supporting it and Asmongold never confirmed his name, other than his first name, Zack. It would be great if it could be removed in order not to potentially dox him, as this may be private information that he wouldn't want to be shared, if it were his true name."
Thanks again! SturmFernmelder ( talk) 04:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you protected Judika (singer) from creation because it was repeatedly recreated. The subject was recently accepted at AfC and is now located at Judika. Would you please create a redirect from Judika (singer) to Judika as the subject is notable? Thanks. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, a page, Cambodia, is protected by you in 2018, can you unprotect as it is somewhat unneeded for the disruption is years ago. Mnnie053 ( talk) 14:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
You have to look up really in this topic, numidia doesn’t represent all old north african, and there’s no proofs thats thr couscous is algerian, KingTebboun ( talk) 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Anachronist, on the persona of Grigori Grabovoi, why is Wikipedia spreading slander and some editors won't let us do edits. There are people that have the true story, with sources; we have tried and if I'm writing you it is because I have tried to follow protocol in my poor understanding, but I only get warnings, anything I try to edit gets undone automatically. I wrote emails, I tried to start discussion with LardAlmighty and that user just added the 'twinkle' to my user Sayitright22 ( talk) 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! You were the last admin to edit EMDR so I'm coming to you about this.
Recently I started an RFC on EMDR because I object to a series of edits by Bon_courage. When I started the RFC I also reverted to the last version before those edits, because my understanding is that when an RFC is happening, the page should remain in its status quo state and not the state with controversial edits that are relevant to the RFC.
Bon_courage and now MrOllie have now reverted the page back to their preferred version twice: [1] [2]. I don't want this to become an edit war and I know if I keep on reverting it will become one quickly, so could you please take a look at the dispute and clarify which version is the last good version? Loki ( talk) 22:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for the semi-protection for Societat Civil Catalana. I wanted to check with you if it is OK for me to remove a sentence that to me, clearly violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV and that does not belong in that section. an SPA IP has been edit warring to add it back and using personal attacks against me (accused me of vandalism and of editing for pay for some organization I don't even know) here you can see my arguments at Talk:Societat Civil Catalana#Vandalism of Crystallized Carbon ( see diff). It would be nice if the IP could remove the personal attacks by at least changing the talk section title of Vandalism of Crystallized Carbon. I wanted to check with you before doing the edit just to make sure. Regards Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 17:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It feels disrespectful for you to imply that either myself or Courcelles would allow disruption to occur, for any reason. So maybe follow your own case-by-case advise for this particular instance. El_C 19:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Quick Response and deep knowledge Lakshmijourno ( talk) 20:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC) |
Hello, the semi protection on the page of Grigori Grabovoi was expired on last March 26, can you please remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.1.5 ( talk) 19:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
You enabled semi protection on the page about Polarr due to alleged rampant COI updates.
The edits that you considered COI, edits by berrycoolfratstar and Jonathan Mark Jimenez, were done by company representatives on behalf of the company. The edits contained updated information about the company and its product offerings.
We once again need to update our company's page with recent new product offerings and company updates. We've requested that the lock be removed through Wikipedia, but have heard no updates.
Are you able to assist in removing the lock that you requested? Polarrinc ( talk) 23:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist. You fully protected Aisha in February, and that protection has just expired. Would you like to reapply the indefinite semi-protection that had been on the page since your action in 2014? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
You protected this article 8 years ago. Should we maybe try experimental unprotection? I get there were a lot of COI violations/vandalism 8 years ago, but it may be worth checking to see if the disruption of the past is gone. 47.227.95.73 ( talk) 01:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if you are still interested in this, but I've added a lot of sources and suggestions today. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Anachronist. Recently you applied some full protection to this article to stop an edit war. But almost simultaneously another admin has indefinitely p-blocked the chief edit warrior, User:A E Francis. See this ANI. So in my opinion your protection may no longer be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you undo the edits you made. You are correct there has been an edit war going on the Sufism page. However my involvement was to bring back the page to how it was BEFORE the edit war started occurring with other users. As you can see in the edit history, I was the one who first asked to have the page locked also. They have not even put the correct name down in the intro 'hasan al basri' instead of 'hasan al babri' and are changing the content of the actual sources. This is how you know biased edits have been.
The page I bought it back to was how it accurately was. Unfortunately in your good faith, the edits you have made have are actually the non factual claims the edit war users have been making.
Once you have done this can you lock the page to prevent it from happening again? Thanks! 86.5.202.27 ( talk) 17:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arkenstrone: baseless accusations regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I was recenltly asked by admin Ad Orientem to notice those mentioned even if I consider them not to have been involved. This is why this notification is so late. Veverve ( talk) 00:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Just in case you aren’t watching, they’re asking if they had paraphrased it. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Amongst has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14 § Amongst until a consensus is reached.
Ollieisanerd (
talk •
contribs)
20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mr Anachronist,
Hope you are well. As someone who is an experienced wiki editor, I was hoping you could teach me how to request/ protect pages from edit wars?
All the best!
Galaxy21ultra (
talk)
21:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you kindly left some feedback on a recent article of mine ( Draft:Oxford Metrics) in Wikipedia:Teahouse. Thank you for suggesting those changes and offering me guidance. I have since taken your thoughts on board and edited the draft accordingly. I would greatly appreciate any further guidance you could offer around the draft before re-submitting for review. Thank you for your help so far and do please let me know your thoughts. EWix76 EWix76 ( talk) 14:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
So I created a page and I just discovered it actually redirects to something. You can see it here. Warrior9994 ( talk) 21:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi--You were top of list at Recently Active Admins, so, I'm here to ask if you might keep an eye on 70.31.26.72 ( talk · contribs), who's been making some pretty defamatory remarks at Talk:David Johnston (some of which were deleted). Or, if you'd prefer not to be involved, could you point me in the direction of an admin who could perhaps assist? Cheers. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Miesianiacal, let's air all these accusations out in public. You think I might use sock puppets and I think you might be a staffer working out of Rideau Hall. I'm in favour of an admin investigation into both, what do you say? ScienceMan123 ( talk) 23:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi--I apologize for bothering you with this again; the anon is continuing using a different IP now: 65.93.214.95 ( talk · contribs). -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment at the WP:Tea house linking the essay WP:BACKWARD, which I wasn't aware of. It contains some poor advice, including an approach that would likely be a policy violation if anyone followed it, and I've commented on the Talk page about it. The only reason I'm not more exercised about it, is that if it took me 15 years to find that essay, probably others won't find it, either. Thanks for your good advice at the WP:Tea house. (By the way, as long as we're talking about the Teahouse, could you have a look at my UTP comment here, about a user's Teahouse replies and tell me if you think it was appropriate? I tried to temper the critique with some praise, but I think it needed to be said.) Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Can I get an explanation from you for deleting my feedback? Here. I'm just discussing with User:Marjuly. I'm a patroller on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. I'm just discussing. DANGGIAO No risk, no life. No malice, no fear 15:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Why did you make this change? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shepherd_Book&diff=next&oldid=1165932591 I was removing a red link to an article that had been deleted back in 2019. 159.196.100.171 ( talk) 18:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you have written this as a reply for the draft -
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of person.
Question: How to add published media links as source? Also specify if anything else is required to be added to the draft.
Filmymusafir ( talk) 13:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Because the unprotection was during the time when the topic is highly searched, so there is a lot of disruption during that particular period. The experiment is way too thin to say anything. 14.191.33.160 ( talk) 16:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Anachronist,
It looks like you restored this article but didn't remove the PROD tag. It's already been deleted by PROD once so a second PROD is invalid. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for lowering my requests. Three pages were missed. Indubitably Archives 16, 19, and 35. All others are good. Thank you for your assistance! Zinnober9 ( talk) 20:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
PCSO-524 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 28 § PCSO-524 until a consensus is reached.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
23:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
You semi-protected centre-left politics on the 26th per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Edit warring to reinstate OR at centre-left politics. The IP editor has now created an account to continue restoring the same edits. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 15:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
"Draft was moved to article space by creator after it was declined - moving it back to draft" [3]. User:Kailash29792 was not the creator of the draft, I was.
I think you meant "editor" and not "creator", right? If that is the case, then I guess there is no mistake on your part. DareshMohan ( talk) 02:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! You reverted all my {{ clarify}} tags for clarification of the ambiguous units of measurement of " ppm" and "%" for the concentrations of CO2 in the air, because "If the sources don't specify or clarify what it means, then neither would Wikipedia. Doing so would violate WP:OR.", as you said. Because almost all {{ clarify}} tags accross Wikipedia are such as you said, according to you, almost all {{ clarify}} tags across Wikipedia violate WP:OR, therefore, almost all {{ clarify}} tags across Wikipedia should be deleted?! I strongly disagree with you, so, I will revert all your {{ clarify}} tag deletions, and possibly search for a consensus from Wikipedia editors about your deletions. Sorry if you are offended about my decision. And I am really confused after you deleted all my {{ clarify}} tags (I know, "Read the WP:OR!" you could yell at me, I already did). I am a Wikipedia inclusionist, not a Wikipedia deletionist. So, please, don't delete almost all {{ clarify}} tags across Wikipedia. Bernardirfan ( talk) 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
You have misunderstood my comments on this AfD. I never agreed that the article should be kept.
I had debunked all of the sources and nobody has disputed my points that: 1) there is no biographical coverage about this subject from reliable sources, 2) minimal coverage only concerns debunking the idea of his unmanned airplane, 3) the sources talk about the unauthentic subject in the wake of the movie Hawaizaada as clearly specified by them.
Most editors opposed stand-alone article thus you should modify your closure. It was not "keep" at all. Editorkamran ( talk) 16:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I've opened a DRV case myself. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 1. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello i noticed that a lot of my sources have been removed from Draft:Burning Men while i cited them. Can you fixe them to be put back, they are probably on history Veganpurplefox ( talk) 20:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I have given a full explanation in my revert comment.
Best regards IP says: Works better yes. 213.237.91.184 ( talk) 19:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
All changes were reverted on the page of IASRI (Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute) even though credible references were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickypusa4 ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
It’s not clear how reverting an edit introduced an infobox error, which I wasn’t aware of (maybe some kind of database corruption). But aside from that, the ‘average’ and ‘peak’ figures are both from the same date. The cited source provides both the peak and average figures. As has been explained, the ‘peak’ figure includes duplicate reports, and this is why the average figures are a better indicator.— Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Undid revision 1175273662 by Wsetlevel3 ( talk) - blatant plagiarism and copyright violation - try again
For my understanding...I am not sure why you responded the way you did when I specifically credited the source. Is it your opinion that I rewrite the information, but credit the source for the concept? In no way did I attempt to claim credit for the text? Wsetlevel3 ( talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I request you to now unprotect the History of concubinage in the Muslim world article so that anyone can edit it and impose sanctions on Barbardo if he removes sourced content again - he seems to have misunderstood what consensus means (he does not have any veto about what text should be in the article).- 2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 ( talk) 06:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Anachronist. I strongly agree with your comment on the Teahouse about the bar for autoconfirmed status being set too low. I would like to see a regime where nobody can create an article in mainspace or move a draft to mainspace until they've had, say, two articles accepted through AFC (with some arrangement for grandfathering in old-timers).
I'm less sure about the other abilities that come with autoconfirmed. Whenever I see a question about "Why haven't I got autoconfirmed status" I think "Whatever it is that they're desperate to do they probably shouldn't", but I may be wrong. ColinFine ( talk) 20:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist. You removed my edit and mentioned the following reason ((too much reliance on primary source)). But i mentioned that the source is the one who says these additions. There are other sources. But I wanted readers to know that what Friedman mentioned is not the only information. In other words. I did not write the information in such a way as to make it appear as self-evident. Rather, I wrote the phrase so that the reader understands that this is what the author is conveying in the source. I wanted the reader to see other information from another source. In general, if there is a specific problem in writing, tell me how it can be solved. How can the rewrite be done better, in your opinion? With respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.33.207 ( talk) 09:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for editing and being cool!! Keep going, your doing well!! :)
Babysharkboss2 was here!! 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
FYI I wrote a new version of Stephen Strang based on 4 RS. Looking forward to your review. Nowa ( talk) 05:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Anachronist:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
Hi Anachronist.
Sorry if I'm doing something wrong.
There are some notable changes on page which is i restored,
please can I do changes? Hanna213 ( talk) 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I have just realised that you are an administrator. As such, can you please provide an explanation as to how your revert
[8] at the above article was not made in violation of the active arbitration remedy clearly stated at the top of the talk page: Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
? The contested passage (which had been in the article for some time) was removed by CapnJackSp. I challenged the removal, by reversion. I explained my rationale on the article talk page. No 'affirmative consensus' for anything can possibly have been found at that point. Not when you reinstated the change. And not by your subsequent talk page post. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the removal (on which I have made my points concerning Wikipedia policy on the use of academic sources entirely clear on the talk page), it seems to me to be entirely improper for an admin, of all people, to be disregarding a clear and unambiguous instruction as to how disputes concerning a highly-contentious article under arbitration remedies should be handled. I await your explanation, and note that should one not be forthcoming I may decide to pursue this further.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
23:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
On the " criticism of muhammad", you made a complaint after reverting my revision. The revision already included about heresy and demonic influence. Furthermore last line already contained "criticized Muhammad's handling of doctrinal matters and his promises of carnal pleasure in the afterlife" which is synonymous with 'perverted' and 'deplorable man' both of which also seem synonymous. It seemed bit repetitively biased. Now I understand that this is a criticism article but its written is such a way that it does not has any objective lens and there must be least some kind of WP:Balance. Note that I am not in anyway disagreeing about the lenghty details of those critisism in the rest of the article, the lede section in which we write the outline, shouldn't it be written in neutrality. The current content also may not uphold WP:Label. Please correct it or let me correct it. Even historical villains like Hitler and Stalin do not have this level of subjective judgements on their respective article. 182.183.41.97 ( talk) 06:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Anachronist! Da du ja auch auf der dewiki aktiv bist, trau ich mich deutsch zu schreiben. Manche Sachen kann ich nicht so gut auf Englisch ausdrücken.
Seit ein paar Tagen fällt mir im Teahouse ein neuer User mit Namen "Fotzendurchfall" auf, muß ich mehr sagen? Ich habe mir die Policy zu den ungeeigneten Usernamen angeschaut, die in solchen Fällen eher zu "ansprechen" raten. Ehrlich gesagt, ICH als Deutsche möchte den User nicht ansprechen...
Hast du eine Lösung, abseits des großen Dramas?
Liebe Grüße -- Maresa63 Talk 06:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
See [ [16]] Doug Weller talk 07:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Please undelete
Sethubandhanam. It was created in 2014, which is clearly not recent (A10 only applies to recently created article[s]
, and the fact that
User:NmWTfs85lXusaybq chose to create a redirect means that the requirement that where the title is not a plausible redirect
isn't satisfied either.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
04:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that it's an alternative name of Adam's Bridge: Ram Setu means both the (mythical) bridge from the Ramayana and the extant real-life geographical feature, which are separate things. Many people claim that the former is based on the latter, but even that isn't a sure thing. I would favour undeletion and expansion of the Sethubandhanam article, too. Dāsānudāsa ( talk) 11:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
ThatOneWolf has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Nice seeing you from the Minecraft Wiki! To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
ThatOneWolf ( talk| contribs) 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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)
00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The LTA responsible for the page protections of Hagger, Grawp, and other pages is gone now. Would you consider unprotection as its hopefully no longer necessary? funplussmart ( talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Anachronist, hope you're doing well. I was wondering why you reverted my edits on the article Speech synthesis. Mooonswimmer 17:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Anachronist. I noticed that you enjoy familiarizing yourself with talk page discussions and offering neutral third opinions when needed. I have been working on updating Dahua Technology and am wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing an ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding specific terminology used in the article. I would appreciate your thoughts and assistance with implementing the edits as you see fit. Thank you, Caitlyn23 ( talk) 18:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey, looks like I started responding to the edit request before you did. Feel free to erase my response if you want to respond instead Andre 🚐 06:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)