User talk:Anachronist

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

Raoul mishima

[edit]

In light of the recent AN/I discussion I think the question of whether Raoul mishima has a COI regarding Sokka Gakkai is something that needs to be revisited. There's an (albeit somewhat weak as not backed up by diffs) allegation there that Raoul mishima has made a habit of POV editing across a wide swath of related articles. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Vivanco

[edit]

Hi there - Mario here - Studio Manager at Mariano Vivanco. I noticed you were in the history tab for the article on Mariano Vivanco. Would you please be so kind as to help with adding more? I've added some source materials in the talk tab but it has yet to be added. I can't seem to do it because I get flagged for being part of Mariano's organization (COI). Many thanks, Mario Marioatphotomv (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Carrera

[edit]

It has been indef protected since 2023. Can you perhaps try to remove the protection and test the water so that IPs can edit? Page views significantly already dropped and the article is in bad shape. Thx 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there weren't any constructive edits from IP address before protection, and I have no reason to think that would change if protection were removed. However, I have downgraded it to PCP. Anons can edit but each edit must be approved by a reviewer. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

[edit]

Hi Anachronist. I noticed that you blocked the account Kiera Flipper as a sock, but it is older than the account Kiera Fliper, which you left unblocked. Isn't it customary to block the newer account as a sock? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, she wrote a draft article about herself, spelled "Fliper" throughout. Assuming that is the correct spelling of her name, and that she created the newer account in an attempt to correct it, I blocked what seemed to be the mispelled name that is unlikely to be used in the future.
It seemed less like a case of socking than simply creating a new account with intention to abandon the old one. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, template isn't mandatory

[edit]

Re:Teahouse post. It's a common misconception that it is, and while I'd probably like userpage disclosure to be required under either local policy or the TOU, it's just one of 'bout three options paid editors have for disclosing. As per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. So yeah. Template isn't mandatory, and while I certainly don't mind telling paid editors to use it, it's not a requirement, legal or otherwise. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I meant to convey that disclosure is mandatory, and indicated the preferred way. Disclosure on the Teahouse page doesn't qualify. It needs to be visible in a permanent place that is easily found by other editors. I disagree that it's sufficient to do it in an edit summary only. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just clarified my comment on the Teahouse. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry to be a nuisance. Teahouse disclosure is insufficient, I agree, though I suppose I'm grateful that they're trying to dothings by the book and not just forging ahead in mainspace. I'm also with you that edit summary disclosure aren't that good - if I were queen for a day, I think I'd like to make all three forms of disclosure (notification on talkpage, giant sign on userpage, mentioning financial COI in edit summary) mandatory for all paid editors editing about people, products, or organizations, but alas. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. If you hadn't brought it up, I wouldn't have known to clarify my sloppily-worded answer to a newbie who would benefit from clearer communication. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Gate

[edit]

Hi Anachronist, it's been nearly eight years since you placed the Golden Gate article under semi-protection. This article was never supposed to have been protected indefinitely. Finding the request leading to the protection, you intended for the protection to expire in only ten days, but looking at the protection log, it was just never set to expire. Now that nearly eight years have passed, and the article not seeing very much frequent editing, do you think you can unprotect it to see how it goes? BriDash9000 (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the protection. However, I observe that throughout the article's entire history, the vast majority of unconstructive or reverted edits were made by anonymous IP addresses, suggesting a negative net benefit to the Wikipedia project if it is left unprotected. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JETRON article

[edit]

Hello Anachronist, thank you very much for your review of the JETRON article. I have removed wording-adjectives that could be perceived as promotional. Would that be sufficient for you, or is there anything else you need me to do? Many thanks for your help. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still promotional. Start by removing every phrase in the history section that doesn't cite a source. Then use only reliable sources to expand the section. A Wikipedia article cannot report what you know or what the company has told you, an article can report only what is published in reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Anachronist, thank you very much for your second review and for your guidance. I’ve added three new references in the History section, from which I cited, and removed the sentence that didn’t include a source. May I kindly ask you to review the updated draft? Many thanks again for your help. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cyril_Voyant

[edit]

Hi Anachronist, Thank you for your feedback. I have revised the draft to address your concerns, replacing or removing sources and incorporating the comments made by Paleothid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Cyril_Voyant). While I understand that a personal website is not considered an independent source, my intention in maintaining it (and in creating this draft) is not self-promotion. My research outputs are in open access, my softwares are open-source/freeware, and I am already fully satisfied with my academic position. My aim is simply to improve access to knowledge in medical physics and solar resource forecasting, and to help make such content more visible and verifiable for others. If you have time, I would appreciate any further review or even direct edits to the draft; I am not very experienced with Wikipedia processes, and value your expertise. Best regards, Cyril Cyril voyant (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your aim is really "to improve access to knowledge in medical physics and solar resource forecasting", then you should be writing Wikipedia articles about those subjects rather than writing about yourself. Therein lies the problem: there isn't any reason for anyone to write about themselves other than publicity, and Wikipedia is the wrong venue for that.
The subject areas in which you work are likely notable subjects that deserve stand-alone articles on their own, without being tied to an autobiography. Why not write about solar resource forecasting instead? Wikipedia readers would benefit more from an informative article about that topic written for a lay audience than an autobiography about someone who works in the field.
I have been in your position indirectly. I once tried to write an article about an author whose novels my son liked. I did my best, and submitted it as a draft for review in spite of me being experienced enough to write articles acceptable for publication here. The reviewer suggested that it would be better to recast the article to be about the books than about the author, and he was correct; that was the better approach. Note that the WP:AFC review process isn't always just for newbies. It's useful also for experienced editors to get peer-review feedback before publishing something in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message and your comments. It is usefull! I will maybe propose some articles :)
have a good day !
cyril Cyril voyant (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In complement, I ureally nderstand your point, and I fully agree that topics such as medical physics and solar resource forecasting deserve clear, accessible articles for a wide audience. I have in fact contributed to such work in other contexts, and I see the value in doing so here as well.
That said, my aim in this draft was not publicity but to document what I believe is a rather unusual career path — two doctorates in different but related fields, pursued while holding a demanding full-time clinical position, leading a unit, publishing research, developing software, and teaching part-time. Research was never my formal job, yet I reached the top 5 in a specialised forecasting niche and the top 2 % worldwide in energy systems.
I accept that this may still not meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards, but I wished to share the context for why I thought it might be of encyclopedic interest. I appreciate your advice, and I will reflect on whether contributing on the broader topics might be the most constructive path forward. Cyril voyant (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, a person must be notable to merit an article. A person isn't notable due to being unique or unusual in some way. A person is notable only if multiple reliable sources that are independent of the person have reported in depth that an individual is unusual or unique in some way.
Wikipedia doesn't engage in original research; that is, we cannot synthesize a conclusion that you are notable based on your career history (see WP:Synthesis for the policy); multiple sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy must have made that conclusion and given it coverage. There are exceptions for certain careers; for example notability criteria for academics has some additional considerations beyond general notability and may apply to you. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because your work overlaps the medical field, I want to caution you against writing what you know, and instead encourage you to write about what has been published. Even then, it might be difficult to cite your work. Wikipedia's strictest guidelines about reliable sources relate to medical sources. These guidelines have their own document here; the shortcut is WP:MEDRS, and I recommend reading it. The preferred kind of medical source isn't a journal article documenting the results of a trial. Instead we want secondary sources, such as literature reviews or systematic reviews, which summarize the conclusions from multiple other peer-reviewed sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a new version is available taking into account your comments, let me know what you thank about it! have a good day,
cyril Cyril voyant (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't take my comments into account. It's still an autobiography that is heavily weighed down with citations to your own work, and comes across as existing for no other purpose than publicity. In case I wasn't clear before: I recommend abandoning your autobiography and instead write draft articles on the topics you work on. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

[edit]

Hi Anachronist. You blocked Genius784 on July 14th. This recent edit on their talk page shows they have no intention of stopping their spamming - I think they should have their talk page access revoked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]