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.

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]

Hi

[edit]

Hi, I have a question, when u told me that my draft had potential do you rlly mean it, and are all the sources not reliable, are there sources that maybe reliable enough to pass, what do I have to do Sigma elephant (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant it when I said your draft had potential. You rewrote it quite well, but sourcing is still a problem. There should be multiple sources that meet three criteria: reliable, independent, and significant coverage. Your sources may be reliable, but they need to be both independent of you and provide significant coverage rather than mentions.
Another way a musician can be notable is by meeting any of the criteria in WP:MUSIBIO. The first criterion is just the usual general notability requirement about significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The other criteria are more specific. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you mean non of the sources are independent? So what should I do, a wikipedian suggested me to give up for now and delete this draft and wait. Sigma elephant (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say none of the sources are independent. I said that I didn't see more than one source that met all three criteria, but I cannot judge the video sources because I don't know Thai. I can only translate text.
You don't have to delete anything. You can simply wait. In six months, an inactive draft would be deleted anyway, but such deletions are easily restored with a simple request at WP:REFUND if you want to continue working on the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail

[edit]

Ygm. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in email. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful comments at Teahouse

[edit]

I have seen your helpful comments at the WP:Teahouse, for which I thank you. Otoh, this response was WP:BITEy and unhelpful. (Hey, we are all human; don't sweat it too much.) The editor to whom you were responding has a grand total of ten career edits, and did not deserve to be scolded with a 'what's your hurry' comment, linked to WP:NODEADLINE. Yes, he wanted to speed things up, and came to the Teahouse to ask about that. That is a legit question for a brand new editor, and we should respond with kindness, understanding, and encouragement, not dismissiveness and smackdowns. Please hold off on this kind of comment in the future. There must be something encouraging you could say to someone like that, while still explaining the realities of the process in a neutral way. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your notice in the spirit in which you gave it, in this case it is misplaced.
I asked the question because I honestly wanted to know what was the hurry.
It could be a class assignment with a due date, in which case I might be inclined to take my time to give it a review.
Or it might be a hurry related to public relations or a public appearance date, in which case I'd be more inclined to tell the editor to piss off.
I deliberately composed my reply to be midway between those two extremes. In the interest of education, I pointed the editor to WP:NODEADLINE because I see far too many cases of editors who are unaware of that fact. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look at that editor's draft and translated it to English. It was a hit piece, serving no other purpose than to insult or harass, being full of unsourced negative allegations about a living person. It's been speedy-deleted in accordance with WP:G10. In hindsight, my reply was far too polite. We don't need crap like that wasting the community's time. I'd block that editor with a more bite-y comment if I see him do that again. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Future reference: Special:Contributions/Pinki_iz_caribrod - created an attack page three times, no activity since receiving warnings. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then it looks like I misread your original tone if that's how you meant it. Regarding the hit piece, I had not looked into it that far, so thanks for the deeper dive. Had I discovered someone at Teahouse with a translated hit piece, I would have explained the reasons we cannot have material like that, linking BLP, as they may have assumed they were doing the right thing if it exists already on another Wikipedia. But if they are warned about it three times and recreate it anyway, that is a different story whether they have malicious intent or not and they probably deserve a block at that point. ::: I would still not be BITEy even in those circumstances, though. I have seen editors ask at Teahouse why their article "disappeared" or "didn't get saved", and didn't realize they had Talk page messages explaining that it was deleted, so the recreations were just their attempt to remedy what looked to them like a page save that kept failing. So I guess what I am saying is, we still have to assume good faith until we know the contrary.
Speedying the hit piece three times was the right thing to do, and blocking them will be as well, if it happens again. (They may only have stopped due to a sleep cycle.) Sometimes a block is the only way to get them to wake up and force them to realize something is wrong, and then they come to Teahouse or somewhere to ask why they can't edit, and only when someone responds do they see their Talk page messages for the first time. I have seen this a lot more often with IPs than registered editors, as they should be getting notifications about their TP messages, but maybe they accidentally turned it off. Anyway, the path is clear, either they have stopped for good, or they will get blocked with the next recreation, and whether they realize they did anything wrong or not won't matter. Problem solved either way, I think. Will be interesting to see if he comes back. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my share of trying to rehabilitate editors who did stupid blockable things without knowing better, even unblocking them and continuing to mentor them. I remember one or two turned out to be fine, productive editors because I gave them a chance. Others did OK for a while but then recidivism took over. This particular editor doesn't deserve such consideration, but there's always a chance of him turning things around. We shall see if he returns.
For the record, I didn't delete the drafts or warn the editor. I just today decided to have a closer look and found that messes had already been cleaned up three times. I had to look at a deleted revision and run it through Google Translate to verify it was clearly an attack page that cited no sources, the worst kind of BLP violation. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the worst. Thanks for the additional background. I get it, and I don't envy you. I think one must get exposed to a lot of the worst behavior, and I wonder if it wouldn't make one hardened, or at least cynical; it's one of the reasons I don't want Rfa, as I think I might be subject to that, and I don't want to go there. How do you avoid that, do you store the hat in the closet for short, intermittent intervals and just go around improving some articles for a while as a breather and to refresh your belief in the project and humanity, or are you able to compartmentalize and slog through the mud without it sticking to you? Not sure I would be able to do that. Anyway, thanks for the investigation, the responses, and helping to keep this place clean and operating smoothly, no doubt in lots of ways the rest of us benefit from, but never see or appreciate. So a little window like this does help. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteered to go through RfA after a Signpost article sent out a call for more candidates, not really knowing what I'd get into. I had, at the time, about 4 years on Wikipedia with a lot of participation in dispute resolution through Wikipedia:Third opinion.
Yeah, I like doing normal-editor stuff. Since I became an administrator in 2010, I've even managed to write entire articles; they're listed in chronological order on my user page. My last one was fart walk, which I wrote partly because I ran across that term and found many sources about it, and partly to tease my son who's been acting as kind of a prude lately.
Occasionally acting like a normal editor has confused people who know I'm an administrator and don't realize that once I get WP:INVOLVED with article content that interests me, or participate in a content dispute or AFD discussion, I am not allowed to use administrator tools in those areas except when involvement wouldn't cause controversy.
There are so many things to mop up around here. That's why the admin role is often referred to as "janitor" because that's basically what one does the most. The Teahouse is a place where I don't have to be an administrator. If you ever want to throw your hat into the ring, you'll find there is no end of stuff to do, but just don't let the new responsibility to maintain stability of the Wikipedia project cause you to lose sight of improving Wikipedia by contributing good content. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A typo after all?

[edit]

Hi, Anachronist. The version of Genesis flood narrative that you restored here is incoherent; it says "the collapse of glacial dams of glacial lakes in the region". Maybe the edit you reverted was a (kind of) typo fix? It was an improvement, anyway. Bishonen | tålk 16:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

The edit I reverted, which was neither a typo fix nor an improvement, made the word "dams" ambiguous. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Joe Calhoun

[edit]

Ok, so I didn't know how to address the reason why this needed submitted. I thought if I did it would go through, but it didn't and now I may need help about how to address notability without being too wordy. R2025kt (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is clearly stated in every single decline message. Please read it, as well as the documents linked in the message.
I'll summarize:
  • The sources you have are inadequate to demonstrate that the subject is notable.
  • There are assertions that need citations to sources.
It's that simple.
The problem is that you apparently wrote the article WP:BACKWARD. You start with sources that meet WP:Golden rule criteria (read it, it's short) before you write a single word, and then write only what is supported by those sources. Then you can flesh it out with other sources. You have many sources from WGAL, which is not independent of Calhoun, and therefore fail the WP:Golden rule criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the citations that didn't establish notability R2025kt (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe User:R2025kt is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They should be blocked and their AfD submissions deleted. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If you can make a case for that allegation, make it at WP:AN/I. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is happening? Why am I being referred for an incident? I did nothing wrong. R2025kt (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what's going on, and I don't see anything you're doing wrong except consuming the time of reviewers, which I don't think rises to the level of requiring discussion in ANI. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk page

[edit]

Hi Anachronist. Special:Diff/1311047026. I don't know if you'll get any feedback (already rumblings on the talk page, maybe ANI too), but thought I should explicitly make you aware. Twice would not be a great look. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen feedback. I was clearing out the requests at WP:RFED, and I responded to a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit#Charlie Kirk source to update an old CBS source with a new CBS source. It looked reasonable, so I made the change. Otherwise I am not involved with that article. If the edit wasn't acceptable, I see it's already been reverted and hidden. I have no objection. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response. I'm not faulting you, just letting you know. Thanks for helping out with the edit requests! -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Please note that this is not my filing, but you were not notified of this filing despite a reference to a "massive violation" you supposedly made. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be commenting on ANI. I had already started the discussion where it belongs, yesterday. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per your comment in Tryfon Tzanetis article edit request

[edit]

Once more, I was not posing any questions. I'm unsure why you continue to add content and say that I am asking questions or that I did not understand. I comprehended everything from the initial response, but I made a comment regarding the final sentence of Favorian. (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2025 (EET)

List of people with absolute pitch

[edit]

I undid your edit to that page, as the filter was specifically targeting such edits. We've had a longstanding issue of fans of Chen adding his name to that page; I think there may have been a video where Chen mentioned the Wikipedia page, and there has definitely been off-wiki coordination to try to add it. After reverting I took a closer look at the source that had been provided; on one hand, "theviolinchannel" may meet WP:RS as it does have an editorial staff. On the other hand, the particular article used is simply attributed to "The Violin Channel" rather than a specific article, and is just a series of responses to a question posed to musicians who identify as having perfect pitch. I raised the question at the RSN noticeboard to get more input as to whether that citation is sufficient for adding Chen to that page OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The filter that was triggered seemed to be about the IP address rather than the content, and I saw nothing wrong with the content, but admittedly I didn't look closely at the source.
I'm not even convinced the article should exist, however. That list is presented as if absolute pitch is some sort of supernatural ability, and it isn't. Any musician, particularly a singer, with some background in music theory and a decade of experience would have this ability. My son has been in a professional boys' choir since age 7. As I have learned from his experience, perfect pitch can be trained in anyone, and it is expected of each boy who reaches the advanced level in that choir. I asked him how it works and he said "with enough practice, you just learn what each note feels like to sing." ~Anachronist (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The article's name feels really strange to me - it is not something very few people in the world have (at least, we probably wouldn't be able to list them all in a 100KB text file).
I think the subject is best discussed in a subsection of Absolute Pitch, maybe like "Notable individuals with Absolute Pitch" (assuming that the topic is notable enough to include in Wikipedia)? 海盐沙冰 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. Removing "notable people" from Absolute pitch was suggested Talk:Absolute_pitch/Archive_2#Remove_the_"Notable_cases"_section here back in 2022, but instead it was moved to the standalone list article, (a target that had been previously AFD'd back in 2006). OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so... it didn't survive as a standalone list in 2006, it didn't survive as a section in the absolute pitch article in 2022, and now it's back to a standalone article? Time for another AFD?
WP:NLIST says that a reason a list would be "considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Looking at the sources there, it doesn't seem that they discuss a population of special people who have this ability. They discuss the ability itself. The sources, however, are pretty good for the most part, so I'm skeptical that another AFD would succeed.
It might be better to have a list of people documented as having innate absolute pitch since birth, rather than having learned it as a consequence of being a musician with plenty of training. That would be a shorter list than what we have now.
(It occurs to me that if my tinnitus was pitched lower, I could use it as a reference note for determining pitches without any practice at all. Unfortunately it sounds like the squeal of an old CRT television set.) ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The didn't survive part seems to make a strong case for AfDing for me, I agree with you.
The tinnitus-reference part is legitimately the most supernatural / superhuman stuff I've heard this month (joking). 海盐沙冰 / irisChronomia / Talk 20:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venom

[edit]

Regarding this, I requested it per WP:PROTECT, "Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues." Wikipedia could be edited by anyone, barring unusual circumstances like whatever was happening in 2021, the film being newly released and much more attention on the article then compared to now. Not all IP editors will have the experience to suggest edits. This article should have expired after a specified time and not be ongoing forever. Neither Venom (2018 film) or Venom: The Last Dance have this protection. I ask you to reconsider. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked there, what's the hurry? Leave a note on the protecting admin's talk page and wait. If he agrees to unprotect, then it will happen. Being away for a couple of weeks is not unusual.
My view is, the number of reverted edits from IP addresses in those other two articles this year alone suggest that they could use protection too, not the other way round. Yes, anyone can edit. In the case of protection, that's what edit requests are for, and we have WP:Edit Request Wizard to make things easier. An IP address who cannot propose a change on the talk page would likely not be constructive in an article that still gets 1500 hits per day. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought you were literally saying "What's the hurry?" in response to the indefinite protection. Fine, I'll leave the responsible admin a note. Furthermore, we do not protect by default. Any article with a reasonable amount of traffic will have some unconstructive IP editing. Maybe these are forever useless, maybe these are baby steps toward figuring out how to edit. We don't know and should not wall up if we don't truly have to. Hence the policy of having "as many pages open for public editing as possible". Erik (talk | contrib) 16:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, protection isn't the default. However, once protected, I need a solid reason to unprotect other than "time has passed". I look at declined edit requests, the edit filter log, page traffic, disruption in similar articles, and if all of those things look clear to me, it's fair to unprotect. This article, however, seems borderline, so I'd prefer to leave it as is and wait for the protecting administrator to decide. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sheila Mannes-Abbott

[edit]

Hey--I removed the speedy template and some of the egregious stuff in there, fully expecting to be able to find something on this artist--but I came up with nothing at all. I'm content to let it sit; maybe the editor will come back to it, and if not, Liz will take care of it in six months. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I tagged it with G11. Remove the promotional stuff and inappropriate sources, and there's really nothing left. The entire point of it was promotion. I didn't bother trying to repair it as you did, I felt it was better simply to delete it because the topic is rejectable anyway. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah--I wish I could prove you wrong. Drmies (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ali Arouzi

[edit]

I have added some new citations and new words to provide what he reports on. See what you think, I didn't submit it yet. R2025kt (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made the prose more neutral, which is good. You added a source that doesn't even mention Arouzi, and it seems you didn't remove any of the valueless sources.
Read WP:Golden rule. I mean it, do it now, it's short. You haven't added any sources that meet the three criteria in it. If no such sources exist, the draft can never be approved, in which case I suggest you stop working on the draft and move on to something else. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources should I remove? R2025kt (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the WP:Golden rule. R2025kt (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources at the present time:
  1. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4029095 - not independent of the subject, useless for establishing notability, but can be used to support assertions in the article
  2. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39326427 - not coverage, not independent, not useful
  3. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4029095 - trivial mention, useless
  4. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/926935602/ - trivial mention, useless
  5. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/987414945/ - trivial mention quoting the subject, useless for establishing notability, but can be kept for verification of assertion
  6. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/629559105/ - trivial mention, useless
  7. https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/negotiators-in-final-stretch-of-agreeing-on-new-iran-nuclear-deal-133862981572 - basically an interview, not independent
  8. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/03/10/talks-between-top-russian-and-ukrainian-officials-fail-to-make-progress.html?msockid=1ae07cbc6cd2669821ce6acb6ded673d - Arouzi speaking, not independent of the topic
  9. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russias-bombs-bullets-not-only-things-killing-ukrainians-stress-rcna20601 - created by the subject, not independent
  10. https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/iran-commends-but-denies-involvement-in-hamas-strikes-on-israel-194865733610 - Arouzi speaking, not independent
Every one of them fails WP:Golden rule, because they are either not independent, not coverage of Arouzi, or both. The trivial mentions can be removed, and so can the ones where Arouzi is speaking about some event. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added just one more in the draft after taking the ones out that you mention. This one from NBCU Academy about how Arouzi answered questions about how war journalists cover Gaza responsibly. What do you think? R2025kt (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's more citing what Arouzi says, not what independent sources say about him.
I see you blanked the draft. If you want it deleted, let me know and I can delete it, or you can put the tag {{db-g7}} at the top to request deletion. This sort of author-requested deletion, as well as normal 6-month inactive draft expirations, can be restored at any time by making a request to WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on archived edit filter request - RFD comment

[edit]

Hello, @Anachronist! I unfortunately couldn't reply to your comment on my EFFP request of my comment on an RFD before it got archived (I was just a couple hours too late!).

I do not mean to contest it or debate it - you're an administrator and a VRT member, you know what you're doing and you certainly know this better than I do. That is precisely why I'm writing this - I'm an inexperienced, novice editor; and this was my first time handling RFDs, and I'd like to do a better job at it going forward.

I was wondering, could you let me know what I can do in the future to improve my edits so I can build an encyclopedia better and prevent triggering edit filters? In particular when it comes to RFDs!

Any help would be appreciated, but if you don't feel comfortable discussing this or are unable to comment on private filters, then don't sweat it; feel free to remove this topic if you like. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to be an expert on reading edit filter code, but it looks to me like if you hadn't written the "bad" words in uppercase, the filter might not have been triggered. Your edit looked to the filter like shouting swear words rather than just quoting someone else's words. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But... I don't understand. That's how it's written in Kris (Deltarune). I quoted the article directly, and I wrote it out fully as a suggestion for moving the redirect article.
Was I wrong to make the RFD comment? Retargeting #2 is current consensus and I thought changing the formatting of the article name to be in line with the redirected article's text it links to would be better for the encyclopedia. What have I done wrong that lead to my EFFP request being denied? It looks to me as if it was, in fact, a false positive. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the other reason: the filter triggers from anonymous IP addresses and unconfirmed accounts swearing in uppercase. Normally after 4 days and 10 edits, a new account is autoconfirmed. You are, but your account is not "confirmed" and I'm not sure of the distinction. I just manually confirmed you.
You did no wrong. If you try that edit again, it should work. I'll post a note on the filter talk page with a suggestion to modify it so that it triggers off non-autoconfirmed instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you very much! The reason why it registered me as not-autoconfirmed is that I was editing from a Tor IP, since I have WP:IPBE. I'm Russian, so I require some form of VPN to edit from a desktop, and you need 100 edits to be autoconfirmed while using Tor, which is what I use. Anyway, that explains everything. Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry if I bothered you! Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if it works. I figured out how to edit the filter to avoid triggering if the user is IP block exempt. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! Edit went through. Wonderful!! Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great. The filter was working fine after all. The problem was that your account wasn't confirmed, causing it to trigger. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Ali Arouzi (2)

[edit]

Ok, so it may not be perfect but at least it should go through. R2025kt (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't go through, it will be rejected, because just like before, not one single cited source is independent of Arouzi. They're either by Arouzi or feature Arouzi speaking. None of it is coverage of him. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Magnificent Butcher

[edit]

Hi Anachronist, I noticed that you removed/downgraded the protections for several film articles that were previously semi-protected by the late user Ronhjones. However, this article is particular is still semi-protected, despite your agreement to downgrade it to pending changes protection here. BriDash9000 (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I did set pending changes on it, but forgot to remove semiprotection. Those two protections can exist at the same time, and semiprotection overrides pending changes. I just removed the semiprotection. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

87% probability

[edit]

GPTzero shows an 87% probability of being AI-generated. That isn't acceptable. Use an AI to help you find sources. I think something has gone wrong in either that first sentence or my brain. (And, undoubtedly well-intentioned though it surely is, the advice in the third sentence has me feeling queasy. Are you sure that it's a good idea?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence: I used gptzero.me to analyze the draft text, and it said there's an 87% chance of being AI generated. Third sentence: If prompted properly about context, I have found that an AI can be a great help in finding sources that I couldn't otherwise find myself. But AI is terrible at writing Wikipedia articles, being clueless about the Manual of Style, reliability, and what "neutral" really means. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I'm sleepy. I somehow managed to confuse "GPTzero" with "ChatGPT", which is how I managed to misdeduce that you were saying that one toy LLM was most probably generated by some LLM. As for the third sentence, you are conscientious and I'm sure you'd use a LLM in an intelligent way; but I wonder if the advice won't be misconstrued as "Once you've created the body text for your draft (e.g. by reproducing what's stated in PR Newswire and the Daily Mail, and asking your roommate what he remembers from the TV program he saw some weeks earlier), you'll need 'references' for this. An LLM can find [psst: concoct] sources to which your draft can refer." -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, no. Definitely not what I meant, and if it came across that way I need to be more careful in how I reply to people. You can use an LLM to find your sources first. But then you write the article in your own words. You can pass the text you wrote to the LLM to ask for suggestions to clean up anything unclear, vague, weasel-worded, etc.
If you use the LLM as a collaborator, but not the lead author, you end up with a better result than if either you or the LLM did all the work, and then there's no issue about submitting LLM output to Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early this morning, lying in bed insomniacally, I suddenly realized why my little misunderstanding was disturbing me so. This was the second or perhaps even third time that I'd mistaken "GPTzero" for ChatGPT. The latter is the only LLM I've ever tried; and though I should try the former I've never got around to doing so. This lopsided pattern seems to have resulted in the subconscious conviction "Any string of letters including 'GPT' is the name of an LLM". Incidentally, I soon tired of the novelty of ChatGPT (which I presume has since been updated and improved); but what I asked it to tell me, I liked to ask it to tell me in iambic pentameters. The speed with which it spewed sub-Shakespearean doggerel was most impressive. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://gptzero.me isn't an LLM, it's a tool that identifies the probability of LLM generation from text you paste into it.
I've used Google Gemini a few times, and ChatGPT somewhat more times, but probably no more than one session during a typical month. I've found ChatGPT is really good at helping you design a cloud-free privacy-respecting home security system using well-established tools and a dashboard that can be accessed remotely. It's pretty good at writing code in Python and Javascript, not so good at more obscure languages like OpenSCAD but getting better (probably partly due to me training it). Last week I spent hours searching for a solution for a laptop in our house that inexplicably started asking for nonexistent authorization credentials to access our shared network hard drive, nothing was working, and then I decided to ask ChatGPT and it solved my problem right away after only a couple of prompts, giving me information unlike anything I found on my own.
People are using it now instead of web search because it looks for context rather than just keywords. It's good at suggesting improvements to text I've already written (and as you observed, it can even translate what I write into Shakespearean English). I had a fascinating conversation with it about the Gettysburg Address translated into Shakespearean English, and learned that Lincoln's style of writing already bore similarities in structure, emphasis, and rhythm to Shakespeare's.
I now consider it a tool in my toolbox. Like any tool, you have to learn to use it, and be sure it's the right tool for the job. For years I had this stub article perineum sunning, which I created in response to a discussion at WP:FTN before LLMs existed. Earlier this year I asked ChatGPT to find additional reliable sources I could use to expand it, and it showed me that there was a lot of coverage of a resurgence in interest for this dubious and dangerous alternative health practice. I asked it to identify the major themes in the sources, which led me to expand the stub into two additional sections, one about popularity, and another about medical response. After I wrote it up, I asked the LLM to critique what I wrote. I ignored some of its suggestions and implemented others. Without ChatGPT to help me, that article would likely still be a stub, and it's something I can be proud of instead of feeling guilty about letting an AI write it for me. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, rather than "I should try the former" I should have said "I should try the former (which, yes, I now realize is not an LLM)", or similar. For several hours now, I've fully realized, in every stratum of my elderly brain, that GPTzero is neither ChatGPT or an alternative to it, honest. ¶ No shared network hard drive or even network here: sneakernet works fine (as do email attachments). (I presume that amoral multinationals and authoritarian states are scanning the attachments, but anything in them is anodyne.) ¶ Gemini is one of those names that Android tosses at me when my fingertips haven't functioned precisely as I'd intended; I've never even glanced at it. Simply, I view my phone and tablet with deep suspicion: when I want to experiment (for example with a LLM), I'll do it via computer. ¶ I'd never heard of "perineum sunning" before. Now that I've read your article (and momentarily misread one string within it as "using aloe and bum creams"), I'm mildly surprised to see no mention of any recommendation by someone high up in the Trump administration. Anyway, congratulations on achieving a straight-faced, encyclopedic account of this silliness. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I keep reading it it as "bum creams" too. The design of the default font makes "burn" and "bum" look similar.
My only other AI-assisted article, in which an AI was more of an equal collaborator, is fart walk, which I wrote partly to tease my teenage son who has become sort of a prude lately. I ran across the term on Reddit, didn't know what it was, and initially I thought was a fringe concept but as I got deeper into it, it turned out to have validity as a wellness practice.
You refer to yourself as "elderly". I think that may be true for most of us who have been here 20 years. I'm in year 19, retired from the workforce two years ago, but I don't think of myself as elderly probably because I have a child in the house, becoming a parent at a fairly late age. Some editors I encountered in my early days are still around, like you. I've had the pleasure of meeting one or two in person; the term "graybeard" would apply to some of us now.
I, too, prefer to do things on a computer. I get impatient and frustrated trying to do similar things on touch-screen devices that have no notion of "hover". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fart walk is, it seems, a valuable concept. And certainly it's well named. A good (and well titled) article, and one that has educated me: congrats to you and your artificially intelligent sidekick. ¶ Graybeards? My name "Hoary" predates the very existence of Wikipedia; I don't remember why I chose it but I do remember thinking that although it didn't describe me, I'd grow into it. And so indeed I have. ¶ Using a phone ... for one thing, I can no longer touch-type. Especially considering how cheap my own phone is, its photo quality is surprisingly good; but for me at least it represents the ergonomic nadir of the camera, so I carry around a "camera" camera (a "dedicated camera"?) in another pocket. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Place names considered unusual, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baie des Ha! Ha!.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that was intentional. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:NSCar

[edit]

Hi @Anachronist. I see you have reviewed my CSD tag on User:NSCar/Sandboooooooxes. Could I ask you to delete the rest of his subpages that qualify for U5? And perhaps a WP:NOTHERE block if you think that's necessary. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 02:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert reverted

[edit]

This guy is a cross-wiki spammer with multiple accounts and spamlink pages here and on Commons. Leave this alone unless you want to be at AN/U. Geoffroi 20:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? The user page was deleted because it was a misuse of a user page. You got a problem with that? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted me when I tagged it. Then I reverted your revert and another admin deleted it. Um, what? Geoffroi 21:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was tempted to block the user as WP:NOTHERE, but all he did was what I saw here on en-wiki, pasting the same short autobiography on three pages in his own user space. If there's evidence cross-wiki, I can still block it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other admin did the right thing. Don't worry about it. Geoffroi 21:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spam pages

[edit]

I won't tag these here anymore. Sorry for the trouble. Geoffroi 22:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to keep tagging them, but give some context in the edit summary or in the tag itself, so the admin has information needed to do the right thing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ronald Mann page

[edit]

Hello, Could I ask you, why have you deleted a wiki page about legal scholar Ronald J. Mann, a person, which is a respectable personality in my area of interest - Intellectual Property and Patents analysis. Could not you first discuss mistakes using "Add Topic" button ? What is your expertise in economics or legal studies or legal analysis ? Can you prove your expertise, which gave you a right to delete a hard built page without any warning ? are you not scammer at all ? Kind Regards Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So many things wrong with your comments.
  • Ronald Mann being a "respectable personality" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. He seems to meet WP:NPROF notability requirements, however.
  • While editor expertise is useful on Wikipedia, it is irrelevant because a Wikipedia article doesn't reflect editor expertise, it reports what reliable sources say, so expertise isn't required.
  • You were informed on your talk page by another editor that the article was promotional and qualified for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. I agree, the article is promotional, including multiple instances of unsubstantiated puffery or phrasing to inflate importance. It qualified for speedy deletion on that basis.
  • However, the article wasn't deleted, it was moved. While it didn't belong in mainspace, I felt it could be improved, so rather than deleting it, I moved it to Draft:Ronald Mann.
  • You can be blocked for violating the WP:Civility policy if you continue your name-calling.
The draft, as it stands, would not be acceptable for publication in its current form. It's promotional, the sourcing is poor, and it fails the WP:BLP policy because it includes unsourced assertions.
I have to ask, what is your association with this person? The article has the hallmarks of being written by someone with a conflict of interest. You are required to declare that on your user page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anachronist,
You are not expert in social sciences.
There was a lack of critical analysis in the field of Information Technology, because the field was developing and US businesses were afraid to lose its dominance.
Second reason for the lack of scientific analysis in the field of law and economics about Information Technology and technology generally was a lack of technical knowledge of legal and economics scholar.
There were few of such scholars who broke the barrier - Hal Varian and Ronald Mann.
so there were no "reliable sources" because of lack of knowledge and US business tactic.
How you would reply to such arguments ?
Regards
Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already responded to such arguments with my bullet-point list above. You clearly ignored the second bullet point, and you have zero clue about my areas of expertise.
Bottom line: A badly sourced promotional article does not belong in mainspace. A reviewer agrees, since it's been declined. Draft space is where such an article must be developed, and submitted for approval. Nothing more needs to be said. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anachronist,
Look this side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella_Toone
Is it not promotional ? there is marketing of YOuTube channel and marketing of personality own brand ET7 ? Do you fight against such handling of Wikipedia ?
Why did you choose myself, when I wanted to promote latest knowledge of scholar who is ignored by social scientist due their lack of technology knowledge and you ignore like PR business is taking WIkipedia to the PR sport and pop-culture field and use it to finance your activity at Wiki.
I know your activity is voluntary, but without inflow of sport and pop-culture visitors , your job would be much harder.
So do you use same policy to all pages ?
Regards
Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say I wanted to promote latest knowledge of scholar who is ignored - oh, really? Wikipedia is not to be used for publicity or promotion, ever. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is a poor argument when you point to another article for comparison; each is evaluated on its own independent of anything else. And that article you pointed out is well sourced. It's surprising you can't tell the difference. Nevertheless, in my opinion, Wikipedia would be improved if most sports articles, pop-culture articles, and vanity biographies completely disappeared. Wikipedia does not receive financing related to these, ether. Where did you get that idea? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant WP:ANI thread:[1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible Administrator

[edit]

Dear Administrator, I'm writing this to you to inform my side in blocking my account for 21 hours. By just a single accusation of an editor you have blocked my account without hearing any defence from my side nor having a discussion about the topic with others at all. I know Wikipedia Administration work is hard and difficult, and I do respect that. But blocking an editor by simply accusation of another even before he has chance to explain and defend himself/herself is not a sound judgement in my opinion. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block based on an accusation, I ignore accusations. Instead I do my own investigation when I see evidence of instability in an article. I blocked based on my own investigation of contribution history. The fact remains that you repeatedly reverted other editors (not just one), including accusing another experienced editor of vandalism. The multiple reverts and WP:AGF failure on your part suggested that you needed an enforced break from the article. I didn't block you site-wide, you are basically topic banned from that single article for 31 hours. If you want to appeal it, the instructions are in your block message. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

[edit]

By the way, the edit war between the IP and the two accounts on All In: Texas is the work of a sockpuppet. Both User:Jakeburtonz and User:Willyjackiestar are the same person, whom used two accounts to get an upperhand in the edit war per the revision page. If there's anything you can do, it'll be much appreciated. Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please open a case at WP:SPI to start a sockpuppet investigation. This would need an admin with the checkuser right, and I don't have that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i have only editted the page twice, i did not engage in this war because it was getting out of hand. your bio says "assume good faith" when ur alleging im sockpuppeteering off the bat is completely opposite of what youre saying. All i needed was peace which is why i reported the page because you and other accounts were reverting non-stop Willyjackiestar (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i couldnt care less about the actual number. i just wanted some sort of order because yall were going crazy. Willyjackiestar (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
why are people allowed to just accuse. you were asked to come to a consensus why arent you doing htat? Willyjackiestar (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? Why are you people extremely disingenuous when it comes to these disputes. Sure there could be disagreements, but you just literally can't accuse someone of using two accounts all casually like that. It makes me not want to even come to a resolution if this is what I'm being met. Do better. you know better, you've been warned several times in the past for edit warring and other offences. Jakeburtonz (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at their page they LITERALLY edited the page twice. What the fuck are you talking about? Jakeburtonz (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the same person. I'm filing a report and it will hopefully be opened. Your first account stopped editing the exact same topic, and then the account you're currently using, the second account, is editing the exact same topic and you just so convienientally login to the first account to reply. Per WP:DUCK it's an obvious sock. I'm also reporting you for personal attacks too, "Why are you people extremely disingenuous when it comes to these disputes" and "What the fuck are you talking about?" not exactly WP:CIVIL. I don't know who you are trying to fool, it's not me. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, try. If I did have a second account then wouldn't there be more reverts had it been me? That's what you're implying, that this other account is me trying to intensify this war (when they've only edited twice mind you) So first, it's me trying to get the upperhand, and when I told you they only edited twice which anyone would deduce that they're not trying to participate, you're painting a whole story just to grasp at straws, this is pathetic. You're literally accusing me of something I did not do instead of trying to reach a conclusion, of course I have the right to defend myself. And as I've told you, the other user only edited this article TWICE, as opposed to my countless times. I have been extremely civilized, yet you on the other hand have thrown accusations towards my way at the very start. Not exactly Wikipedia:CIVIL on your end, is it? Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done nothing wrong. For the past week, you've edit warred, had horrific attitude, blamed, insulted, and not been anywhere near establishing a proper consensus. I've opened one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakeburtonz. Also worth noting I have not violated WP:CIVIL as I haven't said anything uncivil, merely calling out what needs to and adhered to WP:DUCK. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My man. The administrator acknowledged me trying to reach a conclusion, and when I was warned I literally stopped warring when the other user was STILL warring in the midst of our discussions. Okay, now I have an attitude, AND insulted other users? Why say all that now and not in your initial sentence, hm? I beg you, please point any of this misbehaviour to me. Your uncivil behaviour was to accuse me of something completely outrageous as opposed to trying to come to a conclusion. Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You literally instigated this conflict by alleging I'm sockpuppeting, and when I try to defend myself then it's somehow me throwing personal attacks at you? You cannot be serious. You're literally being disingenuous, I'm calling it how it is. The administrator asks us to reach a conclusion, and yet you completely stray away from that and try to de-escalate. That's textbook disingenuousness, and the fact you're labelling as me not being civil when you've done that is extremely puzzling and contradicting. Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing with you is pointless. I'm not going to subject myself to it any further nor respond to you beyond this. The administrators will decide. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you've started it? I'm merely defending myself and you're simply not listening. You VERY MUCH are being uncivil by lying and coming up with fabrications when you were instructed by the admin to keep it civil and come to a conclusion. I will be doing so as well, and will be filing a Wikipedia:CIVIL report, which you most certainly have violated. I was trying to be civil since the v very start, and you chose to deescalate. Stop being a hypocrite. Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take this off my talk page please. If one of you has a behavioral concerns, start a discussion at WP:ANI. If one of you has a sockpuppetry concern, open a case at WP:SPI. This bickering doesn't belong on my talk page.

ECR vs ECP

[edit]

With the removal you reverted here, ZDRX was referring to the provision in WP:CT/SA that applies the extended-confirmed restriction to Indian military history. That scope is still being worked out within the community, but the involvement of the Indian paramilitary forces suggests to me it's within scope. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we need to be consistent. The correct way to enforce the restriction isn't by reverting one editor while leaving edits from IP addresses in place, it's by protecting the article so that anyone less than extended confirmed must propose edits on the talk page. The editor who was reverted felt unfairly singled out based on the contribution history in that article, and rightly so.
For those reasons, I reverted ZDRX's removal. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk more about the chessboard template and module...

[edit]

If I recall correctly from WP:HIGHRISK template protection is reserved for templates with more than 5,000 transclusions, extended protection 2,500-5,000, and semi protection for 250-2,500.

If the reason the module will stay protected is because it is used in a lot of chess articles I can understand.

On another note I am trying to fix a weird problem that I am having with the chessboard template with regards to alignment (specifically when viewing on Timeless on a mobile device the rank/file legends are misaligned), and I think it is a fundamental issue with how the module is displaying the template that requires significant work to fix. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 00:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A template is one thing, but a module is something else entirely, and much easier to mess up. The numbers you mention are not the rules, not even the guidelines for human administrative decisions, but are automatic trigger levels for a bot and guidelines for permanent protection levels. I am not about to override the decision of another administrator (JJMC89) who protected that module. He hasn't been around for a week, but he isn't inactive. Have you asked him?
It sounds like you're saying you're going to experiment with a live module that affects over a thousand pages. Please instead follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:High-risk templates#The correct way to edit high-risk templates. Only after you are confident it's working properly in a sandbox, then we can patch in your changes in a single edit with minimal disruption. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a terrible idea to (even with modules not used on a lot of pages) mess up a module without properly testing it. I was going to continue testing and experimenting until I am familiar with how the module operates and when it is appropriate merge the tested changes. Production is different from staging and I agree it should be kept that way. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 01:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to merge the changes once you're satisfied with them, but I'd rather leave it up to the protecting administrator to decide whether to reduce the protection. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZDRX

[edit]

Anachronist, ZDRX reverted my edits from the Direct Action Day article because I didn't have ECP edit rights. Then, when I asked at WP:ANI, I was told that I can use the ECP edit request template and request someone with those rights to add text with reliable sources but now, ZDRX has reverted my edits from the Talk page of Direct Action Day. I think he needs a warning.-Baangla (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an edit request is declined, then move on. Repeatedly pushing back on declined edit requests is starting to become disruptive, which will lead either to the talk page being protected, or you being blocked. You're already walking on thin ice by participating in these contentious topics in the first place. Take care. I have left a note on ZDRX's talk page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Julien2121's drafts

[edit]

I tagged these user sandboxes (User:Julien2121/sandbox, User:Julien2121/sandbox1, User:Julien2121/sandbox2) for speedy deletion because they were all completely fictitious - they're not viable drafts - and because the user had no constructive content edits. (There's no such company as "Kidcloud", and they certainly did not write an operating system in 1952 or manufacture "hot disks".) Omphalographer (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. A G3 nomination would have been more appropriate then. I have deleted them as hoaxes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come Home to Me (album) redirect

[edit]

Come Home to Me (album) has been a JaheimHines-favorite for a while, they've gone so far as to revisit and edit the bot-transferred copy on EverybodyWiki (can't link, EverybodyWiki is globally blacklisted). But as noted at AFD by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, QuietHere, and Doomsdayer520 the album is an unverifiable hoax and should not exist as a redirect to Akiva Schaffer.

Looking for an ATD, I do not readily find an article with an album titled Come Home to Me. There is the odd UPC 894232662828 (Amazon entry), listed as a one-track "album" with Jean Carn/Jean Carne released by Essential Media Mod (Essential Media Mod discography at Discogs), and "manufactured on demand CD-R". But whatever that "release" is, I think it will be hard to justify a retargeting of the redirect, which I propose be deleted.

The hoax-supporting {{Akiva Schaffer albums}} is up for deletion. Best, Sam Sailor 08:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Deleted and salted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

template:VectorCopyviolationreport

[edit]

So I came here to complain that you had declined my G5... Then I actually read WP:G5 and realized that it only applies when the creation was done in violation of their ban or block... So... Now I'm here to apologize and thank you for helping me learn. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. I've made the same mistake myself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revision on Jilted Lovers & Broken Hearts

[edit]

I noticed that you recently undid my revision of assigning a speedy deletion template to the wiki page for Jilted Lovers & Broken Hearts, which was blocking the way of my submission for my draft of the same name. When you explained that my draft hasn’t been submitted yet, I am confused as to what you mean, as my article has been submitted to AfC for over two weeks now. Is the submission not available on your screen?

Thanks, SassafrassAlabass (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the mistake. I meant that the draft hasn't been reviewed yet. Yes, you did submit it for review. Once it is approved, the way can be cleared to move it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Land Academy

[edit]

I've been through this before on this article. This particular edit was made by the latest SPA user:ScottyBallsackBowman (this one an attack name aimed at the founder of the school, Scott Bowman) The full source of the clip included in the reference cited, https://www.newspapers.com/article/niagara-falls-review-teacher-given-absol/167315375/ , makes it clear that the legs supposedly broken in the bed-tipping incident were actually injuries from at least two months prior to the bed-tipping. It is not accurate to claim that the student suffered two broken legs in the bed tipping. Meters (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the reference cited. I read the entire source https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/robert-land-academy/ - which is a better and far more detailed source, even reporting on that source you linked above. Based on your revert summary "Overstates the source", it was clear to me that you didn't read it. Here's the relevant passage to the edit you reverted:
“One of the instructors flipped me out of bed,” Niznick said. “I landed on my legs and another instructor kicked me in the other leg and said, ‘Well, if your legs weren’t broken before, they are now.’”
...
Niznick says he wasn’t taken to the hospital right away.
Instead, staff propped him up on crutches and forced him to carry a 25-pound pack “as punishment,” Niznick said.
That addition you reverted was "overstated" you say? No. If anything, that edit understated the source, which is an investigative piece that goes into excruciating painful-to-read in-depth reporting about that and other incidents.
The edit I restored was an accurate overview of that passage, regardless of the badly-chosen username of the editor who put it there. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that was the reference used in the edit. The clip I refer to is included in that reference as an image, and as I pointed out in my summary for my undo of your restore, includes the lines "This would never have been in front of the courts if the police had read their own medical reports" and "no injuries were attributed to the incident" in the investigative report. The investigative piece seems to be pretty shoddy as it completely ignores the contradictory findings that it actually includes in a clip of the court findings at the time. The URL I gave is the full text of that clip, and also includes the lines "the injuries the boy claimed happened at the school were at least two months old by the time he reported to Robert Land Academy Nov. 2, 1999", "It was never part of the Crown's case in sentencing that Mr. Giovannini [the staff member accused of breaking the student's legs] caused any injury to the victim. Noah is quite a troublesome boy who has a history of inflicting injuries on himself." and "The reports indicate he [Noah Niznick] would have done anything to get out of the school."
So, now that you've accused me of not having read the source, do you want to explain how you managed to miss that in the original ref, and in the full clip I linked to above? One could almost think you didn't bother to read it. And, can you explain how it's not a BLP and violation for Wikipedia to flatly state that the staff member broke both of the student's legs, and not a POV violation to make no mention of the court's completely different take on what happened?
This edit is part of a series of edits by throwaway SPA accounts that paint the school in the worst possible light, and the CBC piece seems to blindly report what former students have claimed as the truth.
And no, I have no COI here. I didn't attend or work at the school, and I know no-one with any connection to the school, students or staff. The school clearly had problems and has rightfully shut down, but Wikipedia should not present such a one-sided version of the events in this one particular incident. Meters (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has mentioned a COI except you. Why even bring that up?
This was my thought process:
  1. I saw your revert of a sourced addition, with the edit summary "overstates the source". The username who made the edit was a violation of WP:Username policy, and I would have reverted it too, except for the fact that the edit cited a source.
  2. Curious about this, I read the source he cited. I discovered that the source went into far more gruesome detail than what was stated in the edit; in fact, the edit summarized only a small section of a much larger article.
  3. The obvious conclusion was that you didn't read that cited source, because the edit summary clearly mischaracterized the edit as "overstating" a source that was rather in-depth.
  4. On that basis, I reverted you due to your erroneous edit summary. I suspected that you may have had another source in mind and that you didn't notice the cited source was different.
Subsequently, in your first notice to me above, you confirmed that you were referring to a different source, not the one that was cited in the edit you reverted.
My own error was in failing to notice that the edit was taking quotations from the source and restating them as facts in Wikipedia's voice without proper attribution. Therefore, when you reverted me, I decided to accept that and move on. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen (Filipino singer)

[edit]

Can you share to me the differences, for me to judge myself if another WP:AFD is warranted? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Wayback Machine to the rescue: https://web.archive.org/web/20250609010511/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_(singer) ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Timing context: The last edit on the article occurred June 8. That archive version I linked is from June 9, just before it got deleted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought there was something only available to sysops, but didn't realize that you can use the Web Archive for this purpose. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it either until a few days ago when I saw someone mention it at one of the help desks. Then you came along and asked, which triggered the memory. So I checked, and sure enough, there it was! I don't know if this would work so well always, but in this case the timing of the snapshot was perfect.
What's available to sysops is all the revision history, but it isn't convenient to view, showing only wikisource with a "preview" button. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sysops can't view the actual article before it was deleted?
It seems that the editors of the old article didn't save the old article, then created the new one entirely from scratch. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can view the actual article before it was deleted, but it's a few extra steps. I go to the article history, and at the top of the history appears an option to show deleted edits. When I click on that, it shows me another history view similar to the normal view, but if I click on any edit or diff, it just shows me wikisource. I have to click the Preview button at the bottom to see how it would look rendered as a page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fdom5997, again

[edit]

Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, after the discussion at Talk:Kipeá language, User:Kepler-1229b – uninvolved in the dispute – proceeded with my edit request. A few hours later though, Fdom5997 re-added a column not supported by the sources (a partial manual revert so) and only afterward appeared on the Talk page claiming they thought that column should be there (again trying to win by exhaustion...). Isn't that a violation of the condition you set at Edit warring, stating that any new warring would be met with a block? [2] Yacàwotçã (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the column labeled Close, Mid, and Open, I'm struggling to understand what harm it does. He asked a legitimate question on the talk page and his edit summary, which has not been answered. Another editor in another section has expressed a leaning toward Fdom5997's point of view.
My impression of the prior dispute is that it was a mixture of content and formatting. That content dispute appears to be resolved, particularly since Fdom5997's edit summary acknowledged and accepted the content he kept reverting. The formatting hasn't really been discussed. If the column being there does no harm, then I suggest leaving it in while the discussion takes place.
If I may offer my own impression: The meaning of a table with unlabeled rows may be obvious to someone with knowledge of the field, but to an uninvolved layperson (which is, after all, Wikipedia's audience), it isn't obvious at all. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't open this thread because of the content itself, but because of the editor's uncompromising attitude, as can be seen in the discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard [3] (with at least four users expressing dissatisfaction with the behavior). The fact that they only left a comment on the Talk page after making the edit explains a lot, and I am even hesitant to edit the article. If the comment had come without an edit to the page, we might have reached some friendly consensus (and I agree with User:Oklopfer's comment) – but I simply cannot see that's their goal. The article Dzubukuá language has contained incorrect information for days, would it have hurt to wait just one more day for me or someone else to reply on the Talk page? Yacàwotçã (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He explicitly makes a compromise in his edit summary, and he agrees with some of your points on the talk page. That's hardly an "uncompromising attitude". It's also a common practice to make an edit and then describe or explain it on the talk page. I note that you have so far replied to me, but have not addressed his point about labeling the rows of the table. It isn't clear to him (or me for that matter) why you are objecting. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, Anachronist. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sugar bowl (disambig)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Sugar bowl (disambig) 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/2025 October 31 § Sugar bowl (disambig) until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the COI guidance

[edit]

Hi Anachronist — many thanks for your patient guidance on handling this with COI. An uninvolved editor has added a concise, neutral mention of the Crisis liquidity ratio (CLR) with academic sources in Liquidity ratio. I’ll continue to propose any future refinements on the talk page and leave implementation to uninvolved editors. Appreciate your help in keeping the process policy-compliant. Петър П. Петров (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That editor was me. I also rearranged the liquidity ratio page so that it is now a short article, rather than a disambiguation page that simply links out to related articles.
If you have a COI with a topic, you may still edit the article, but you may make only minor corrections to spelling, grammar, formatting, numbers, names, an so on. You may revert obvious vandalism. And you may add citations to reliable sources that are independent of you. More substantive changes, however, should be proposed on the talk page, as you did.
If you have any questions or need any help, please leave me a note here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with User:Yacàwotçã

[edit]

We are still having this debacle at the Dzubukua language page. Somehow he is still pretty obsessed with the format of the phonemic charts, despite that only being a cosmetic edit. To the point where now he is begging that I get “indefinitely blocked”. I am sorry, but I find it incredibly hard for me (or anyone else) to deal with users like this, who want to enforce their beliefs, and then are so quick to defame other users and insist that they are “wrong” when meanwhile, the edit-controversy here only has to do with cosmetic edits and not anything actually productive. Please, I would like for you to step in here if you can, because this truly is getting insane. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amazing how the current layout is exactly the one you added years ago and has lasted on the page for years. Anyway, if it's just a cosmetic edit, why start edit wars over it? Why call me a "purely borderline-obsessive sociopath" [4]? Why tell me to "shut up" not once, but twice [5] [6]? Why say I "need to seek help" also twice [7] [8]? Why don't you reply in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Please, don't try to twist the situation. I'm following the sources, period. I've already asked you for the page in the Manual of Style, if it even exists, that confirms the format you keep insisting is correct actually is correct. But you ignore it, say nothing on the talk page for a week, and now you come trying to impose your personal view at all costs. Give me a break. Yacàwotçã (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oklopfer: already noted: "[Fdom5997's] belligerence to those who dispute their additions to articles is quite frustrating, and the pattern of assuming ownership is fairly evident. It felt clear to me that the user was more interested in maintaining their "correct version" and simply arguing than actually looking at the sources being presented before them, and it took a tremendous amount of whittling down to get them to work towards an actual consensus." Note "their correct version" has changed over the years, but not their pattern of assuming ownership. How can he be trusted? Yacàwotçã (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How it was years ago, and how it can be corrected with better information, is not the point here. I am happy whenever someone corrects my info when it is not proven to be 100% correct, or whenever the source I had use is proven to not be a trusted source with validated info. I just have a bit of difficulty accepting that one user doesn’t prefer the appearance of the charts. To me, that seems pretty silly as opposed to submitting additional information or correcting it where it needs improvement. That is my true take here. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA CSD

[edit]

Hi Anachronist, confused by this edit. DiamondCat22 started the review by creating the subpage Talk:The Adventures of Juku the Dog/GA1. They had nominated the article for GA in this edit. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm confused. The reason for deletion was "GA nominator has started a review of their own article." It isn't their own article, the creator was someone else, and the article has been around since before DiamondCat22 existed. I declined the speedy deletion nomination on the basis that the reasoning was invalid. Is there a problem with any editor nominating the article for GA review? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem with any editor nominating the article for GA review, the issue is with starting a review when you are the article's nominator. See WP:GAN/I#R2. Sorry if I'm still being unclear, I believe G6 is the normal course of action for these cases. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 10:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. I didn't see anything wrong with creating a review template, but I didn't notice that he "reviewed" the article already with a 1-line comment. I have deleted the page. I'll leave it to you to clean up the talk page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First page here

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yosishi/sandbox

This is my first page here and I'm wondering if I could launch it. There's already a main article but still feel the movie could warrant a separate page. I translated some stuff from the Japanese article by the way. What do you think overall? Yosishi (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's heavy on details but light on sources. The Reception section is completely unsourced. As it is now, it wouldn't pass review. I find it strange that the article on the TV series Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water mentions the film in only three short sentences, also unsourced.
It would be even stranger if this film is not notable. You'll need to hunt for sources. This is one situation where using an AI might help, if you give it the right prompt to look for sources about the feature film and not the series. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've sited sources using ChatGPT. How does it look? Yosishi (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not good. You need to check everything an AI gives you, because it often gives you slop. In this case:
  • Most of the sources you added don't meet all three criteria in WP:Golden rule. You need to check every source.
  • We cannot cite IMDB on Wikipedia, even though ChatGPT may love to do this. IMDB is user-generated content and therefore fails the reliability test.
  • In the novelization section, "buy it here" links to Amazon aren't allowed.
Those things basically cause an automatic fail during review.
The citations to Rotten Tomatoes you added in the reception section are OK, however.
The draft needs to be trimmed down to the minimum required to pass review. There's a lot in there that doesn't matter, such as the entire staff and music sections. They can disappear. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of the album and staff sections. Could you point out some specific sources that aren't good? Yosishi (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. IMDB, for example.
Please read WP:Golden Rule carefully. It's a very short document. It explains clearly what criteria must be met by multiple sources.
It would be good if you had at least three. Each of them must meet all criteria. It's OK to have some sources that don't meet all criteria, but the reviewer doesn't use those to assess notability. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to get rid of the links to AllCinema? How does it look now? Yosishi (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep the Allcinema links although it looks like a Japanese version of IMDB. You're still citing IMDB, too.
The problem is that none of your sources meet all three criteria described in WP:Golden Rule. The sources basically say that the movie exists, but significant coverage (like actual professional reviews, not IMDB reviews) are needed to prove the film is notable. Even the Rotten Tomatoes citation is for audience reviews, not professional reviews. Wikipedia cannot cite user-generated content.
If better sources cannot be found, it would be best to give up on a standalone article, and instead improve the article on the TV series to expand the section about the movie. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you move the draft back to my sandbox? I can probably integrate some stuff into the original TV series page. Yosishi (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? If it's in draft space, it can be worked on by anyone else interested. If it has no activity in six months, it would be deleted, but you can restore it simply by posting a request at WP:REFUND. (If it's in your sandbox with the reviewer banners on it, it would still be deleted after six months of inactivity, and you could still recover it the same way.)
Given that information, do you still want it moved back to your sandbox? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. If that's the case I'll leave the draft as is an integrate it into the main article. Yosishi (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia:_The_Secret_of_Blue_Water
I merged it into the main article. Yosishi (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your pronouns

[edit]

How exactly do your pronouns work? Like instead of "he got his hair done", it's "who got my hair done". Oh my... that's just crazy. Simanelix (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how long it would take before someone noticed. You're the first. It's been exactly one month.
It's meant to be a parody of those who feel the need to make a fuss about pronouns.
This has been simmering in my head since 2021 when an editor I respected (Guy Macon) referred to an editor by the username instead of the pronoun, and got blocked for "mocking" a gender. I and others viewed it as a wrongful block. The ensuing debate was heated enough that Guy retired from Wikipedia. A great loss, in my opinion.
I don't care if people refer to me as he or she, I am not offended either way. I detest the singular "they", I avoid using it myself, and didn't like it when someone referred to me that way but I always let it slide without comment.
Anyway, one day I decided to address the problem by establishing nonsense pronouns. That way, "tell him on his talk page" becomes "tell me on my talk page", or "he reverted the edit" becomes "who reverted the edit" (inspired by the classic "Who's on First?" comedy sketch). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am back! The admin who blocked my voluntarily became a non-admin. The reason I retired is not because I though it was a bad block -- although I do think that -- but because the block was with done zero warning even though at the time my user page clearly stated that if any admin asks me to stop any behavior I will stop even if I think I am right. The block was punitive, not preventative, and the admin should have been sanctioned for not warning me that he had invented a new rule (Guy Macon and only Guy Macon is forbidden to call someone by their username) and immediately blocking me for violating the newly created rule that I had no idea existed. I can't participate in an Encyclopedia that allows admins who do that. I would never know what new rule might be invented behind my back and used to block me.
Anyway, thank who for who's support (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're still here. And pretty active at that, looking at your contribution history.
I've always been grateful to your recommendation in 2018 to try Huel in my palate-resetting experiment (see your talk page archives at User talk:Guy_Macon/Archive_4#Started on Huel). The results were amazing and I also lost weight, which was unintentional but welcome. Since then I've been consuming Huel now and then as a convenient meal replacement.
I've been meaning experiment with Huel again in a different way after reading Valter Longo's book The Longevity Diet, which my doctor recommended to me to learn about the "fasting mimicking diet" after I complained about my deep-down stubborn visceral belly fat. He said that unlike fad diets, this one is backed up by solid research, but it looks difficult to do even for the recommended 5 days. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered another alternative, but I have no idea where who could buy some or whether a standard form of it even exists: Nutriloaf. Who might have to pick a recipe that who think will be bland enough, calculate the fat/protein/fat/vitamin content, and make it whoself. Meself? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well, the article says "There are many recipes that include a range of food, from vegetables, fruit, meat, and bread or other grains." That sounds sort of like a good meatloaf, which would include meat, vegetables, bread, and other grains, maybe even a bit of fruit for flavoring. I once made a cheese-less seafood lasagna like that, which turned out well.
Oh, I wouldn't need the bland Huel for the new experiment. I still use the bland one for some recipes (like a scoop in pancake batter), or if I want to have my own flavorings added. Otherwise my favorite is the berry. Berry and chocolate mixed together is a good combination, but I don't buy the chocolate Huel anymore due to its higher oxalate content. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance

[edit]

Hi @Anachronist. I'm not sure if you've had a chance to review my response on the Teahouse page, but am in need of your help on the talk pages I described therein. The other editor has refused to comply with consensus guidelines to the point of belligerency. My 'third opinion' that you recommended I provide was already given by the time you responded, but it was not listened to. At this point inaction risks turning the other editor in conflict away from the website entirely, which I'd like to avoid if it's at all possible. My thanks in advance, and all the best - CSGinger14 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UAA templates

[edit]

Just a quick heads-up that the response templates at UAA shouldn't be subst'ed: otherwise they end up looking like this. (Not a big deal, of course—it just always surprises me when it pops up on my watchlist!) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I keep getting confused. They get subst'd at RFPP and other places. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've unsubsted them. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Vanishing Request

[edit]

Hello Wikipedia admin, I request a Courtesy Vanishing action be taken against my account "Klingri"; I want my Wikipedia account to be courtesy vanished as I don't intend to be on Wikipedia anymore. Thank you. Klingri (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]