This 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.

The IP range 2600:1700:5AED:1000:0:0:0:0/64 otherwise known as Dfrenzel has been continuously trying to convince us that Fandom is reliable which is actually not. FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 08:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi FilmandTVFan28. I blocked that range back in August for six months. Dfrenzel has only edited once, and that was back in 2014. I haven't found a user named Cupertino. Is there something I am missing here? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Just that they're the same person that has been editing while logged out. When he foolishly blabbed about doing the same on the ever unreliable Fandom, I noticed that his contributions there are under the same name. He even copy pasted his preferred versions of Wikipedia pages that were reverted here onto Fandom including Ultimate Pop Culture Wiki. Plagiarism always upsets me. Fandom isn't our jurisdiction anyway. FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 15:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@ FilmandTVFan28 What is the username they are using currently? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarify please because I am confused here. What are they currently doing on Wikipedia? Where are they doing it? And what username or IP are they using? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This IP address 2600:1700:5AED:1000:C9BE:9E2E:2738:4F28 was using his talk page as a blog instead of properly appealing to be unblocked. FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 17:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@ FilmandTVFan28 Ok. I've extended their block until May and revoked their talk page access. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

On 2 December 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sandra Day O'Connor, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi AO. Hope you're doing well. The editor Artmanha doesn't seem to understand how BRD works. They made an edit to Fruitcake (Sabrina Carpenter EP) to add a trivial note to the lead of to say the title is "stylized as ..." (this has become a ridiculous trend on pop music articles and editors think it's important to add everywhere). I manually reverted it without knowing who added it [1]. I left a message on their talk page, but they have since re-added it and claimed I need to get consensus "before removing" it and invoked 3RR(?) [2]. I'm aware either editor can start a discussion on the talk page, but this editor has displayed a willingness to continue slow-motion edit warring over a trivial stylization note and I think an admin needs to warn them off doing so before it escalates. Would you mind having a word to them? Thanks. Btw, I started a discussion regarding the note on the article talk page. Ss 112 18:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Ss112 I dropped a note on their talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

I would like to request your help reverting recent edits to the article on George Adamski. Several years ago I helped to edit the article and eliminate from the article most of the fringe, credulous claims made about Adamski by his admirers and to place the article in a more skeptical and Wikipedia-appropriate format with credible sources. Over the years I have monitored the article and tried to keep the fringe, dubious claims about Adamski's life and career from returning to the article. As I am not an experienced Wiki editor, an experienced editor called Moriori was a great help in cleaning up the article whenever I contacted them and asked for their help. Unfortunately Moriori passed away last year and so I am asking for your assistance.

A couple of days ago an editor named Ruezart made extensive edits to the article, all of which are clearly pro-fringe and cited to some dubious sources. They have basically rewritten the opening section with blatantly pro-Adamski lines such as “Debunkers” still attack him as a "fraud" and call his photos “models” and “chicken brooders.” “Unknown” aerial crafts of similar shapes he and others photographed have been seen worldwide. Despite condemnation and ongoing demeaning, his photos have been validated as real by photographic experts including Hollywood model experts, a Kodak optical scientist and modern day digital analysis" - Ruezart's "source" for this passage is the George Adamski Foundation, not exactly the most objective or credible of sources. Another part of the opening section now reads "There were other similar reports from around the world but Adamski was most tenacious and did not back down dispute [sic] relentless attacks."

Would you mind checking the article and see if you think Ruezart's edits and additions and rewrites need reverting? In my opinion nearly all of their changes are blatantly pro-fringe and the article should be reverted to what it was before his edits a few days ago. However, I do not know how to revert edits and I believe a more experienced editor should look at Ruezart's edits and see what they think. Thank you very much for your time and for considering this! 2603:6080:C402:2A45:3C97:71D6:D791:C1EE ( talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that another editor has already reverted Ruezart's fringe additions to the article. I apologize for taking up your time. 2603:6080:C402:2A45:3C97:71D6:D791:C1EE ( talk) 01:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all. In the future if you have problems with pro-fringe editing you can request help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboad. Feel free to drop a line here anytime. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

2001:2D8:F1A3:9798:0:0:0:0/64 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) can you block for 6 months like the other addresses. Many thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 BLOCKED x 6 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking 76.93.58.213 for repeated disruptive editing after several warnings by me. If you didn't block them, I would have to use more of my time. Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions) 02:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Faster than Thunder Thank you for your kind words. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Acroterion#Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy. You endorsed it. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Timeshifter You may appeal the close at WP:AN. Courtesy ping Acroterion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Timeshifter If you choose to appeal the close, please be sure to notify all involved parties. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this IP. Just checking in case you missed it at AIV, but they were also posting under this IP. The last time they were blocked, they were given a range block, but I'm guessing that's not feasible because of how much the current IP range varies. If we get more of what was happening in the edit summaries or like this talk page section, is semi-protection probably the next best step? Thanks. KoA ( talk) 17:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The range on the two IPs is /18 which is pretty high. The level of collateral damage would be significant so there would have to be pervasive disruption within the range in order to justify it. I took a look at the page history of Dicamba. Unfortunately,the level of editing would make protection difficult to justify unless it was limited to pending changes. Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Cremastra ( talk) 22:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Cremastra (
talk) 22:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi-- you were the blocking admin of this account: as it seems to appear to me, User:Jaxondick13 == Special:Contributions/2601:98D:C200:42E0::/64 (blocked) == User:Jaxoncat13 (also blocked); might be worth a SPI, but that's up to you. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs) 03:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Darling Already blocked by Bbb23. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Darling I don't have the CU tools. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

See 2001:2D8:F120:2FBB:0:0:0:0/64 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Already blocked for 72 hrs by SFR. Many thanks for the previous blocks though. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

As of today, we have the review of article timeline edits of 2023 in Philippine television. Here's the suspected username that moving the article typos and illegally posted notes on English Wikipedia under "How do you improve the article?" section:

User:Supercrumblesph

As pending on the timeline of 2023 in Philippine television article. This user will be permanently blocked and their user account due to vandalized article movements on English Wikipedia article.

Hopefully to resolve the issue. Jon2guevarra ( talk) 01:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Jon2guevarra No edits since your warning was issued. This does not appear to be actionable. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! You correctly closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralphie Hutchins as delete based on the discussion, but I found one source and believe I can find more; would you be willing to move this one to draft or user space for me so I can work on it? Thanks! BOZ ( talk) 07:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@ BOZ  Done See Draft:Ralphie Hutchins. Please do not move the draft back into article space until notability and other issues have been resolved. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

OK thank you kindly! BOZ ( talk) 16:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"Bad state" isn't at all mentioned in the article, so I hope that in lieu of that you don't think that its talk page is fine to contain homophobia... 78.151.138.235 ( talk) 01:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

They are paraphrasing the beliefs of many Catholics in a discussion that is germane to the topic of the article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It's still bigotry, and the fact remains that it's not a point of contention on what to include in the article (the previous difference between individuals/union is), so as it is it's not very different from any random insult on any random article... 78.151.138.235 ( talk) 01:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but explaining a commonly held religious belief among Catholics on the subject of homosexuality, in a talk page discussion regarding an article whose topic is a controversial church document on the same subject, is not out of bounds. The comment was four days old, and the article has evolved a great deal in that time. You are certainly entitled to regard the beliefs of the Catholic Church to be bigoted. But we don't censor discussions on sensitive subjects. I've seen homophobic commentary before and issued no warning blocks for it when justified. This is not in that category. It was a fairly bland paraphrasing of the Roman Catholic doctrine of mortal sin. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

But it was also expressed in a condescending way... if they wanted to specifically link it to such liturgical jargon they would have mentioned it, specifically... so, it still seems to be bigotry, even if not the worst kind, and the point still is that it wasn't the point that was being discussed for inclusion in the article, so what's the point of saying it, even if tangentially related? This is why it seems to be an excuse to use the talk page for something that wouldn't survive in the article... also, what do you think of what Pbritti did? Surely if that can be said it can also be replied to? (Others replied to the individuals/union bit, but not the latter, which further highlights how irrelevant to the thread it was, really, just dropped at the end...) 78.151.138.235 ( talk) 02:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what Pbritti did as I am not glued to the article or talk page. It's on my watchlist along with 10,936 other pages. Honestly, if that rather bland comment is bothering you to this extent, maybe you should avoid the article. There are subjects about which I have strongly held views and avoid related articles if I know that I am just going to get aggravated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I replied and they thought my reply was 'not forum', but what I was replying to was not 'not forum', apparently (and I did say why I thought it was irrelevant to the thread). So, a bad image in my opinion, at the very least, if bigotry, even if "bland", could be written but not replied to... surely, you reckon, I should be able to reply to the bit the other replies didn't address? 78.151.138.235 ( talk) 02:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Regards Pbritti I suggest taking it up with them on their talk page. As for your repeated assertion of bigotry, I'm sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not seeing it. And frankly, I do think you are over-reacting. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

So, you think a loving relationship is a "bad state"? Because, if there weren't any other negative implications (which there are, therefore what I said above) it would be hilarious, as in my experience a bad state is being lonely and depressed; but, really, the question that would reveal their intentions is: would they say the same thing about a male and a female relationship? Somehow I assume that, for some, even if there was domestic violence involved, it could never be a "bad state" for them... 78.151.138.235 ( talk) 03:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe they were referring to being in a state of mortal sin. My personal opinions about the subject are neither here nor there. Cleary you are deeply offended by what you perceive as this user's religious beliefs and have strong views on this topic. I am becoming concerned about your ability to edit the article or discuss the subject objectively. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly not mere religious views that would be inherently offensive (and it's not like what was said was "take care of certain people", like the one presumably revered in said religion did actually say, although is somehow ignored nowadays), and I never edited the article. Only thing I attempted to do is address the actual non-neutrality in the latter part of the comment (I assume talk pages aren't held to the same neutrality standards as articles, but as 'objectivity' was mentioned...) Well, whatever, anyway, I merely opined here. 78.151.138.235 ( talk) 03:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your discussing this with me and wish a blessed feast to you and yours. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You too (although I have no 'yours', which is how I know what an actual 'bad state' is... piles of rubbish due to the aforementioned depressive state... O.o) 78.151.138.235 ( talk) 04:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Ad Orientem! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Onel5969 Thank you. A blessed feast to you and yours. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello there! Shearonink ( talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and
- especially -
that the New Year will be an improvement on the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 16:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)) Shearonink ( talk) 16:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Shearonink Thank you. Blessings to you and yours for the feast. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Jennifer 2024 ( talk · contribs). Thanks and Happy Holidays! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 16:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed and page protected for a few days. Merry Christmas. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/50.49.131.166. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller Almost certainly. I blocked them x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I’m not really familiar with this editor. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Precious

Seven years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template. Sako Moskovskiy ( talk) 01:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Ealdgyth Thank you. Happy new year to you and yours. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Special:Contributions/202.134.9.144 is most likely sock of this globally blocked user. On Hindu–Islamic relations, this IP added same text as 103.67.159.98 [3] [4]. I think they are using proxy IP or something. If possible, please semi-protect the article. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 11:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@ আফতাবুজ্জামান Page protected x 2 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. If possible, please semi-protect Legend of Cheraman Perumals, Template:Depictions of Muhammad, List of converts to Islam from Hinduism also. They edit these articles often (see articles history). আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 15:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@ আফতাবুজ্জামান The template has been semi-protected indefinitely. The other two pages have been pending changes protected indefinitely. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.— Staraction ( talk) 21:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Staraction  Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; have a great rest of your day! Staraction ( talk) 21:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

first of all: A happy new year!

I have been blocked by you and I tried to request an unblocking. Being new to this I have the feeling I did something wrong as I got no answer or even any sign or receipt.

Could you please let me know if you have received my unblocking request? I tried to follow the given guidelines but found them a bit obscure.

Thanks a lot and have a good start into 2024! Schmidt Herbert ( talk) 12:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Schmidt Herbert. Thank you for your note and contributions to the project. I have responded to this note and the unblock request on your talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Schmidt Herbert ( talk) 15:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Mvcg66b3r  Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I just made one of your rangeblocks anon-only since you marked it as an anonblock. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Jpgordon No big deal. But it's a fairly common practice to put an anonblock notice at the top of IP talk pages that have been repeatedly blocked, especially if imposing a fairly long one. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean you put the anonblock on the page; rather, you marked it as {{ anonblock}} as the block reason. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Jpgordon Hmm... That's strange. It was probably a mis-click. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That's what I figured. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my inquiry, but you only sent a list of various reading material. I have read Wikipedia instructional material for hours already and am no further ahead. Are you willing to read my article and comment on why it is judged to be unreliable sources? I am using publications like LA Times and Track and Field News, YouTube interview videos, major college Athletic Dept websites and other independent articles from the Internet OLYMPICHAMMER ( talk) 02:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello OLYMPICHAMMER. I was not responding to anything specific. I saw you had dropped a note on another editor's page and that you were a new user. That's a standard welcome message. However, if you have a draft that has been declined, please send me a link and I will take a look when I have a few minutes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Any specific comments on what is wrong with my sources would be much appreciated:

/info/en/?search=Draft:Art_Venegas OLYMPICHAMMER ( talk) 03:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@ OLYMPICHAMMER Ok, I see a few issues here. Happily I don't think any of them are fatal, so once corrected we might be able to proceed. First we use inline citations in articles to allow people to fact verify all claims of fact that are not obviously uncontroversial. See WP:CITE. You may find using WP:PROVEIT helpful. I find it a lot easier to fill in references with that. There are detailed directions at the link on how to activate it for purposes of editing. Secondly, you will need to make sure that there is sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS) to ensure that the subject of your article meets our guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. See WP:N and WP:ANYBIO. Third, we strive to maintain an appropriately neutral tone when discussing subjects. That is to say we don't try to either promote or denigrate the topics or people we are writing about. To this end, promotional words and phrases are to be avoided unless used explicitly by the aforementioned reliable sources. See WP:NPOV. All we do is repeat what they are saying, while avoiding copyright infringement. Lastly, don't rush. You don't need to worry about your pay being docked if you take a couple days to figure this all out. All these links and guidelines and policies can be intimidating to new users. Once you've got your first article done you will find it a lot easier. There is a learning curve, but it's not terribly steep. I am an experienced editor here and also an administrator, which means I am here to help. And for what it's worth, I can remember stumbling around the forest of crazy rules and guidelines when I started writing my first article as well. If you have any more questions just drop me a line, but if i don't answer right away please understand that I am not on here 24/7. Happy editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, but your standardized-wording response doesnt help me at all. I am looking for specific examples of my sources deemed unreliable. They all meet the criteria outlined in the links you provided.

Everybody keeps sending me tutorials and guides, nobody is reading the article and commenting specifically on it OLYMPICHAMMER ( talk) 03:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@ OLYMPICHAMMER Some specific concerns,,. YouTube is not a reliable source. And at the risk of surprising, Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. This is because both sources can be edited by anyone. There is no editorial oversight on YouTube and while we do our best here, it is possible to insert factual errors into articles either by accident or, sadly, deliberately. UCLABruins is a website affiliated with the school. As such it may not be independent of the subject, and we don't know how carefully it is monitored and what editorial oversight it receives. At best it is a primary source, which might be ok for verifying some uncontroversial facts like a date of birth etc. But it would not count for establishing encyclopedic notability. The LA Times is an excellent source and certainly passed WP:RS. www.cyrushostetler.com probably does not pass our standards for an RS. The Daily Bruin might pass RS. It looks like a college newspaper and some of them are pretty well run with excellent editorial oversight. But I can't state a firm opinion as I am not that familiar with the paper. GoAztecs.com is a school website and unlikely to pass RS, though it might be acceptable for uncontroversial claims of fact. MCThrows is extremely unlikely to pass RS as it is just a general website. BFS appears to be a commercial website. Those are rarely acceptable as sources. HammerThrow.org is a personal website. Those are almost never acceptable as s source. Track and Field News might be. I am not sufficiently familiar with it, but if it is a mainstream news site with editorial oversight and strict fact checking it probably would pass our guidelines. www.ustfccca.org is probably acceptable as a source for some claims of fact, but it is not a mainstream news outlet or published book or journal. So I am uncertain if it would pass for establishing encyclopedic notability. Because I am unfamiliar with a few of these you might want to ask for some input at WP:RSN. That's a noticeboard where sources and potential sources are discussed by the community to get an idea if they comply with our guidelines. I hope this helps. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey there,

my name is Matteo Cinti and I am a music producr/songwriter that co-wrote the song 'Messy in Heaven'. I recently went on Wikipedia to check what was written about this song and I noticed some things that were incorrect about how the song was created. I proceeded to change these in the source, however I was later blocked for my edits and it stated you were the user that blocked me. Could I ask why this was done from you?

Thanks,

Matteo TeoCinti ( talk) 18:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@ TeoCinti I just checked your block log and it says you have never been blocked. That said, please do not edit articles where you may have a connection to the subject as this creates a conflict of interest. You may suggest edits on the article talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and my bad, I wasn't aware of the COI situation. I was merely trying to fix some misinformation and incorrect descriptions, which slightly discredited the work I did towards the song in question. Hope you understand! TeoCinti ( talk) 20:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Was that a loaded question? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Deepfriedokra Not trying to be snarky there. Just wanted to clarify how long it's been since they have evaded their block either as an IP or with a sock account, and to be sure that there are no undisclosed accounts floating around. As of right now, I am leaning towards supporting the unblock request per SO and ROPE. But that would be conditional on their not having done any recent block evasion and their passing a check user. Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

We should request a CU. I'll email or back channel -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 18:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Deepfriedokra This seems to have completely fallen off everybody's radar. I have posted at WP:CR asking for the discussion to be closed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Ad Orientem. Thanks for adding a QAnon summary to List of conspiracy theories! Very much needed. A small detail, though: there seems to be a problem with footnote 257, which comes up with a big red alert. Apparently the name "far-right conspiracy theory" hasn't been defined. Bishonen | tålk 23:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC).

@ Bishonen I will have a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Back again at 2001:2D8:F1B8:B1:0:0:9642:2060 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's obvious that blocking the /64 is just a pointless game of whack a mole at this point, but since all the recent addresses are on the same /32 range 2001:2D8:F1B8:B1:0:0:9642:2060/32 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocking that would likely resolve the problem long-term at least for a while. Long term blocking of the /32 for this IP has been done before. I've analysed the /32 range and the dinosaur IP makes up a large proportion of the total number of edits, and the other edits on the range don't look particularly constructive, so I don't think there will be much collateral damage. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Hemiauchenia 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 blocked x 6 months. The disruption in that range has been quite high and goes well beyond dinosaurs. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. I am the owner/operator of PalmStar Media. You and @ Graywalls: both responded to my post at BLPN regarding issues on the page a few months ago. Graywalls added a "Notability" tag saying my business may not qualify for a page. This caused me to learn more about Wikipedia's "Notability" criteria.

While my business has been featured in trade press, quoted, etc. I think Graywalls' assessment is correct. My business is not the subject of in-depth profiles in national media and therefore does not meet the criteria. I'm not allowed to edit the page directly, due to my conflict of interest. I was hoping one of you might nominate it for AfD to get a decision one way or another? Let me know if that's appropriate. Ksf207 ( talk) 02:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Ksf207. I will have a look tomorrow and see what I can come up with. That said, this is a subject area I rarely get involved in, so I'm quit e happy to defer to Graywalls on this if they have an opinion or want to send the page to AfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury ( deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. ( T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{ Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hello, just saying you forgot to revdel this revision. —Matrix(!) ( a good person!) _{Citation not needed at all; thank you very much} 17:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@ Matrix  Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

There's an unblock request at UTRS appeal #84471 from the editor 린눈라단. The block appears to be a range block which you imposed on 2001:2d8::/32. As far as I can see this is a constructive editor, caught in collateral damage. It's a very large range to totally block; do you think that reducing it to anon-only would be acceptable? JBW ( talk) 19:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@ JBW Yes, I think that's fine. I probably should have made it anon only from the start. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. JBW ( talk) 19:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking those socks & semi-protecting Al-Khasibi. Incredibly persistent vandal. Have a wonderful weekend!

Schrödinger's jellyfish  ✉ 04:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For responding swiftly to an AIV request Mseingth2133444 ( Did I mess up? Let me know here) 03:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Anytime. Since you have barnstars on your user page, you mind if I move it there? Mseingth2133444 ( Did I mess up? Let me know here) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@ Mseingth2133444  Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of your edit notice above, I'm asking you to strike your comment on WP:AN about a mob with pitchforks. It's rude and unhelpful, besides being inaccurate. I'm not familiar with many mobs seeking a non-binding admonishment. I also have a question about your assertion here: It is inconceivable that they would engage in similar behavior going forward, especially given the response here. Which response do you mean? The mob with the pitchforks, or the people who wanted the discussion shut down without an outcome? Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes Sdkb The Night Watch East718 Isabelle Belato Mzajac Staecker Stan Shebs Sugarfish Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. ( T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi AO. Would you be able to block 71.234.178.78? I ask because several admins have blocked them for being the user User:Lizzostan block evading, but the admins seem to set the block for 3 months or 1 year and inevitably the user returns. Ponyo's block expired last month [5], and the user is already back causing all sorts of the mayhem that got them blocked on Lizzostan: namely "this is a single, that isn't a single" nonsense. (If you block them, maybe you might want to revert most of their edits, I'm not sure.) From what I can tell though, this sort of edit summary is very characteristic of the sort of attitude Lizzostan would have on their account before they were blocked. Ss 112 11:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@ Ss112 Blocked x 3 years, I'm not going to revert all of their edits. But if you feel so inclined, go ahead. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted most of them not long after messaging, as I found they were citing a different magazine than the one they were claiming. The lack of oversight and block evasion was good enough reason to, I thought. Ss 112 18:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What exactly did I do that was unconstructive? I made correct edits based on the official results. And my changes haven't been reverted. They are accurate. Bauthier24 ( talk) 03:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@ Bauthier24 This looks like alt right code typically used for linking the subject with Jews. Perhaps I am misreading this. What was it that you were doing there? It tripped the edit filter and showed up at the AIV/TB2 noticeboard. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. it must have been added through an extension I had enabled. Will be sure to disable that if I'm making edits on here. I only meant to change the seat amounts and vote percentages. Bauthier24 ( talk) 03:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@ Bauthier24 Ok. I will AGF here. You may disregard the caution on your page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate you working this out with me. Bauthier24 ( talk) 03:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@ Bauthier24 Happy editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I can't really navigate the wide report system of Wikipedia so I thought I just contact you directly. You blocked this IP in December, for adding a number of unverified city flags to pages. This user has made numerous edits like this on different language versions that haven't been reverted. Af, simple, ru and more. I have no idea how to fix that but I hope you can clear that up with the appropriate channels. -- 84.30.199.253 ( talk) 21:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi 84.30.199.253. If you believe that the IP linked above is engaged in cross-wiki vandalism or disruption, you will need to contact a Steward for assistance as my authority only applies on the English Wikipedia. Stewards have global authority and can block users and IPs across the project. Please see their notice board here. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Did that, was declined. Ah well, I tried. Guess those versions just continue to be wrong. -- 84.30.199.253 ( talk) 19:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I only have authority on the English Wikipedia, and I do not edit the wikis from other countries. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)