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]

MOS:BOLDREDIRECT

Just FYI: With this edit you removed the bold formatting from the target of a redirect against the guidance described at MOS:BOLDREDIRECT (After following a redirect: Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic ...)). As Shane Devon Tamura, Shane Tamura, Didarul Islam, and Wesley LePatner redirects to this article, it is customary to bold the name so our readers understand that they've arrived at the correct article. See also WP:R#ASTONISH. Please keep this guidance in mind in the future. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 06:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. These names are not subtopics treated in their own sections (they're scattered through the article) or alternative names for the main topic. They need not be bolded. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Regardless, there is existing consensus on talk for terms such as this to be bolded. Kindly revert. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist, LockeCole reverted your edit. Efficacity (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. I disagree with it, I believe that BOLDREDIRECT is being badly misapplied in this case and cannot apply to that article based on the distribution of names in it, and it's jarring to see all those boldfaced names when one comes to the article directly without being redirected there. I don't have time to waste with wikilawyering, and this isn't a worthwhile hill to die on, so I have moved on. If someone wants to start an RFC about it, I'll gladly participate. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, but where would MOS:BOLDREDIRECT apply? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily start the RFC. Efficacity (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly where the guideline says it should apply. Guidelines should be followed according to what they say. To the extent that guidelines are vague and open to interpretation, those gaps should be closed by changing the guideline, not by referring to some archived talk page discussion.
So I'll break it down using the words in the guideline.
Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when
  • they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section,
    • Not relevant to the article in question, but to answer your question, that is one instance where BOLDREDIRECT would apply.
  • or at the beginning of another section; for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic
    • And that is the other instance where BOLDREDIRECT would apply. In this article, the perpetrator does have his own dedicated section, so I agree it would be appropriate to boldface his name.
    • However, none of the other names are subtopics treated in their own sections. Not only are these names lumped under the "Victims" section, but they appear scattered through the rest of the article. One victim is mentioned in four other places outside the section, including before the "Victims" section. Another is mentioned twice but not bolded. Not only do the boldface names violate WP:PLA when reading the article without redirecting to it, but the inconsistency in boldfacing also violates WP:PLA.
I'd be OK with un-bolding the victim names and leaving the perpetrator name bolded. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand why they chose boldface? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"They"? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're not suggesting MOS:BOLDREDIRECT sprang into existence on its own? Let's try this a different way. Do you know why the talk link in your signature on this page is bolded and unlinked? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that BOLDREDIRECT sprang into existence based on a community consensus, not a slavish desire to establish a strict conformance even if it violates WP:PLA by introducing inconsistent formatting within an article.
About my signature: Your point is...? That's a non-sequitur, unrelated to boldfacing topics, which has more to do with MOS:BOLDTITLE or more specifically MOS:BOLDSYN. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T122292
PLA is likely why your talk page link in your sig is bolded instead of in normal text and linked. Because you're already here. It's why if you go to Cher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and add [[Cher]] you get Cher instead of Cher. This functionality doesn't exist for redirects, however, so if we used [[Didarul Islam]] at 2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we end up with Didarul Islam which redirects us back to the article we came from. This is confusing for our readers, so we bold it so they know they're already at the correct article for this topic. We also bold it for the benefit of readers who arrive at the page via Special:Search.
As you yourself noted, these names don't appear early on in some of the sections within which they appear (they do appear in the first paragraph as MOS:BOLDREDIRECT considers). For many readers who skim articles trying to find what they're looking for, this makes it easier to find it and understand they've arrived at the correct location. This is pure WP:PLA and conforms with the way Mediawiki processes self-links within a page/article. There's even a ticket open that hopes to address the issue with redirects to the linking page.
If this still doesn't make sense to you, I'll start a discussion at WP:VPI (and advertise it at WT:MOSTEXT and WT:MOS) to see if we can determine how best to resolve this. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist, not to pile on, etc., but I have been having quite a tussle or ordeal with both ButlerBlog and LockeCole. Not saying that they have to solve something but there's some giant fuss over minor types of things like http:// and https:// plus www. Now I have finally put together that the www in external links I was changing or fixing is not of importance. I just thought it looked better. That's not the case with infoboxes, it's useful to not see the www appear in there. I may have arrived, hit upon a solution which would be to modify or edit it only in source editing. Efficacity (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Efficacity: I haven't been following your discussions about URL formats in infoboxes, so I can't comment. Locke Cole has been on Wikipedia about as long as me, both of us nearing 20 years, so based on his knowledge and experience I trust his judgment, and recommend you do the same because you're still fairly new here. In this case, we have a disagreement about interpreting one small guideline. Such disagreements happen occasionally because our guidelines are never perfect.
@Locke Cole: I do not stand corrected. You're conflating two things. There is a good technical reason for a self-circular link to not be a link and be rendered some other way. Are you seriously arguing that this is related to why we should boldface terms in articles that are redirect targets, because if they were self-circular links in the article, they would also be boldface? By that logic, we would follow standard practice and boldface the first occurrence in an article, which in this case isn't in the target section of the redirect. I think you might agree that makes no sense. And neither does bolding a term in the middle of the article when it isn't even the first occurrence of the term; that's just confusing to readers, as it was confusing to me when I saw it. I stand by my original analysis of BOLDREDIRECT and maintain that the victim names should not be bolded.
I thought I had washed my hands of this issue when I said above that I have moved on, and didn't expect to get drawn into a discussion, but when someone asks me a question, I feel obligated to answer out of courtesy. If you want to start a discussion somewhere, let me know if you'd like me to weigh in. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, didn't intend to turn this into something longer. I will hit you up if I get something started. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I began a RFC. If we're talking seniority, I could have five times the real world experience of the two of them together. It doesn't matter though. I believe you follow your convictions and principles, that's the only way to do things. Efficacity (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your RFC. You may want to withdraw it and try again. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gave my reply. Efficacity (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get your whole trying to be equanimous. I don't have to let that user infer that I don't know the MOS things they're referencing. Further, I don't care how long you have been here or the other couple users, if they want to ruin this site and unintentionally give recognition to perpetrators, I don't have to go along with it. You, anachronist, may wish to live in another era. This one is way too far gone. I don't have to let Wikipedia slide into dysfunction. I am not saying anything other than facts. You don't even reply to half of the things you're asked. You did say and I suppose you do try to answer all questions that you are asked. I think you're too deferential not because you don't want consequences but for either your own reasons or whatever else. Regardless, you're going to not let me tell that user they are assuming something about me? Doesn't compute. Efficacity (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving those two users who yes, I don't care for how they are affecting the site (my prerogerative), but I was allowing them to use redirects because in my opinion they're somewhat innocuous just not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I didn't even get to thank you for restating the RFC. You're perplexing. Efficacity (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture problems

[edit]

Hi, it's me from yesterday, sorry to bother you again. I have some questions about the picture formatting, it's a bit hard to explain, so I don't know if the picture formatting will be the same in different devices, when I search up people who use horizontal photos from my iPad, it looks completely normal and beautiful, but it's at the top (like a banner kind of stuff), and looks fine from computer, but when i search up people who use vertical photos, it looks good from the computer but bad from the phone and iPad. Idk if you would understand this. My question is, is it possible if we use one horizontal picture for the banner and one vertical picture ( like the Socrates example). Thankyouuu so much, you helped me a lot!!! 

Assawongkvin (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to add more, I'm not sure if it was you who added some advices and examples on how to correctly format, because my page was added with an example of Socrates and Charles Darwin. And today double grazing (idk who that is) removed that thing and said please don't tamper with the templates or smt so now I can't see what it is now. I'm very sorry if it wasn't you who wrote it. Assawongkvin (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You tampered with the {{autobiography}} template, changing it to {{biography}}. Because you wrote the draft, it's an autobiography. That template can be removed by a reviewer who approves the draft.
As for the picture, the template handles how it displays on different devices. That picture however, should be a head shot, not a full-body shot like you have. If you crop it so it's just your head and shoulders, that would be preferable.
Your draft mentions "World Music International Competition" but the only source I can find on the internet that mentions it is the website of the Royal Thai Consulate. I cannot find any competition that exists by that name in my searches. The consulate website says it's hosted by the International Youth Music Competitions, which does have a website at https://www.internationalyouthmusiccompetitions.org/ and if you can find yourself mentioned there, that would be good. Unfortunately, the competitions you have participated in don't seem to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok understood, I will put a head shot photo, but should it be horizontal or vertical from your experience Assawongkvin (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted it again

[edit]

Hi I submitted my draft again, this time uploading a picture and tried to use words only from news articles ( which I transalated it). Feel free to adjust or criticize, I will try my best. In this week more articles will write about me, so I gave them details for my birthday and city of birth. So I left them blank and will add them afterwards. Thankyou so much for helping me out. As a Thai person, I am very grateful, Thankyouuu once again. Forgive me for my bad English. Assawongkvin (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Sofie Madsen

[edit]

Hello! In this edit you removed the source https://www.alt.dk/artikler/anne-sofie-madsen-dansk-couture-med-et-strejf-af-mcqueen from the article as "retracted by the publisher." I similarly removed that same source again in this edit however that was the restored by another editor with this edit. Since my change was reverted, I have reopened the latest edit request on the talk page about this, and thought you may be interested since you were previously similarly involved. Asparagusstar (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the retraction on the talk page before (see the section "Two sources removed"), and I just explained it again. Hopefully the source stays removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist@Asparagusstar A retraction is a public announcement. The subject informing you should have provided a link or verification of that retraction, which is the basis of the source removal according to the talk page.
There are many reasons that a media site would no longer host a page, including bandwidth/costs. It's also why I informed you on your talk page with a brief explanation of my revert, considering you reverted my later response on that topic on your talk page, I'm assuming you processed what I had stated and decided instead to revert my response and then went to an admin.
I'm dropping the issue because defending what I would consider a tabloid source is not a hill worth perishing on.
RCSCott91 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RCSCott91, there is a talk page for discussing this article. Stop wasting my time with pointless messages. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asparagusstar
You are absolutely correct. RCSCott91 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a VRTS agent I cannot reveal details of my communication with the subject. The fact remains, which I have verified to my satisfaction, that the publisher removed the page on the basis of serious erroneous reporting about the subject. No "announcement" is required on their part. This is a case where you must assume good faith that what has been stated about the removal, now multiple times on the talk page, is the truth. You are correct, it isn't a hill worth dying on, especially considering that further restoration of a known erroneous source will result in article protections and blocks, which I am willing to perform if needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. RCSCott91 (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]