User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2021

Criticism of Muhammad

Given comments you made at Talk:Criticism of Muhammad you may be interested in participating at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Suitable_name_for_"Criticism_of_Muhammad".Bless (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hiya Anachronist, thank you for your input. Can I ask a little favour in that you maybe allow me to debold your comment? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I needed to edit that a bit anyway, so I debolded it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

YSN Fab Restoration

It would be amazing if you could create that draft, I will let an expiernced editor read it when completed. Thanks, UpcomingPurse (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. All the article history is moved also. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

CoolBoy789

Thanks for slowing CoolBoy789 down a little! A few of us have spent quite a bit of time undoing some of the messes he made.

From the subjects and tone of his work (especially his proclivity for Weston Woods Studios and State Farm), I suspect he once edited anonymously as IP address 74.74.128.248. That IP earned several blocks, and the CoolBoy789 account was created about the same time. I've asked him about it, but he hasn't responded.

If he persists in this behavior, though, he may turn out to be a case of WP:NOTHERE, which is sad. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You're number three

You're a person who uses something meant to be used in a different era of civilization. No need to confirm or deny it, I use the same thing. Don't ever stop! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Um, what? I don't know what you're referring to. Rotary dial telephones? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Your username and Wiktionary userpage, in general. But that certain "something" isn't a phone. A communication device, though, you could say. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Pencil and paper? Chalkboard? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Getting warmer, think ink and vellum (but less concretely). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have used fountain pens in my childhood, as well as feather quills for the novelty. Carbon paper and Ditto paper too (remember those?). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, e unum pluribus. Wrote two invoices at once less than a generation ago. In the international language of business, though, no lingua mortua, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(It was "Latin".) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Believe it or not, I took Latin for one semester in 8th grade (1970s), surprisingly offered by a public school. I have never seen such a thing in a school since then. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

My school had a Latin teacher in the '70s, too, but I only ever heard of him during the '90s. He was allegedly "the coolest guy", and his picture in the hall seemed to substantiate such rumours. But yeah, I mainly just dabble with root words today, sometimes improperly, no formal education. Good to tell animals and plants apart, but not stylish like it used to be. Probably for the best, it had a good run. Nice meeting you! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2021 UTC)

why you have removed my edited content ?

Anachronist , The content I have edited in Oneness of God page was written in principal religious book Quran , I also put link in references then why you removed it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awais.ali0538 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

For God in Islam, a number of reasons:

• The Quran is a primary source, and we avoid citing primary sources. Instead, we prefer to cite secondary scholarly sources. If you look at other citations in that article, you will see very few citations to the Quran, and when it is cited, it's a quotation that is cited.
• You wrote your own interpretation of the Quran and cited the Quran. Interpretations must be made by scholarly sources, and those sources are cited.
• You added the (PBUH) honorific to Muhammad's name, which is against the manual of style concerning honorifics.
• You expressed a religious viewpoint in Wikipedia's narrative voice.

In ihsan you presented religious viewpoint as fact, without attribution, and you invented an example that isn't mentioned in the source you cited. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

3 month semi on Talk:List of countries without armed forces

Hey, it's been archived, but I did want to let you know I'd responded to your query about the length of the semi-protection. Feel free to adjust, but the same bunch of IP meatpuppets have been disrupting at Talk:List of lighthouses in China for over six weeks now, which is why I went for three months. It appears to be a group of Hongkongers who believe registering an account will make them more vulnerable to surveillance by the Chinese government, and who believe there is a pro-Chinese bias in WP. They seem to think they're upvoting. —valereee (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thanks for the explanation. I won't change the protection.

A pro-Chinese bias does creep into Wikipedia, apparently. See the alert I posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 81#Subtle pro-China tampering. The Chinese government is well aware of the power of Wikipedia as a public-relations tool, even though such usage is prohibited by WP:NOTPR. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were editors pushing a pro-Chinese POV as part of their jobs! I doubt a list of lighthouses or of countries without armed forces is where they'd be concentrating their efforts. I'm not sure why this bunch of HK IPs decided those were the battles they wanted to fight. —valereee (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I added the articles at that alert to my watch. —valereee (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Coherent, Inc updates

Hi Anachronist. I noticed that you were a scientist. I was hoping you might be willing to take a look at the draft I proposed at Talk:Coherent,_Inc. to make sure it is non-promotional and aligned with Wikipedia’s mission under WP:COI. This is a page about a company that produces advanced lasers. Jesse Ratner (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Overall your draft is well written but it relies far too much on a single source. The history could be trimmed a bit. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! I’ve shortened the history section and cut the number of citations to the International Directory of Company Histories in half. I think the draft should be a big improvement over the current, mostly unsourced, page. Let me know what you think and if you have any other feedback! Jesse Ratner (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for 100% renewable energy

An article that you have been involved in editing—100% renewable energy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Apology

Hello Anachronist,

This is Drhunterhamilton21's father and I saw what he did in January and I'm very dissapointed at him for vandalizing Wikipedia. I'm sorry for letting my son vandalise several pages. He's shown remorse for his actions and he told me to ask you if he should get another chance, because he wants to apologize to the user he vandalized but he said he's blocked from leaving messages on user pages.

Once again, I'm sorry about my son's behavior on wikipedia and he's wanting to be unblocked since he says he'll start putting good into wikipedia so if you don't accept his apology that's 100% okay. If he ever misbehaves on wikipedia again please let me know.

Have a good day!

TheDiamondTemple (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheDiamondTemple: An unblocking decision isn't up to me because I am the blocking administrator, especially now that a checkuser has determined that multiple accounts were being operated by the same person. Any discussion on this matter must take place on User talk:Drhunterhamilton21. There is already an appeal open on that page. Unfortunately the appeal doesn't address the issue of multiple accounts.

He also stated that he will stay away for 6 months. At that point, he should apply for unblocking per Wikipedia:Standard offer. It is unlikely that an unblock will be considered before then. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked TheDiamondTemple as a self-confessed troll (see user page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Anachronist, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing, UpcomingPurseTalkToMe 06:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Creation of Souhardya De

Dear sir, I have noted that the article creation for Souhardya De has been protected as under “only extended confirmed users can create it”. Since I’m considerably new to the Wikipedia team, I do not know what being extended confirmed means or how privileged it is. However, there is a draft at Draft:Souhardya_De that is notable in my opinion with lots of notable and verifiable Indian media houses that have been used as closed citations. When I wanted to create the article for it seems notable but hasn’t been reviewed for about 20 days, I saw that I do not have the necessary rights to create it, and that is not an issue. If you could make some time out of your really busy schedule and look at it and let me know, I would be grateful sir! Thank you, Rohan9082 (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Rohan9082

Extended confirmed protection basically means that only an experienced reviewer who can evaluate the draft in the context of Wikipedia's content policies can create the article. I suggest you ask the reviewer to give it a second look, and ask specifically which sources were found unreliable. I see already that IMDB is cited first; IMDB cannot be used as a source. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Anachronist, thank you for your response. I have asked the reviewer politely, to give it a re-review. Will let you know sir, if I face any more issues. thank you for sharing what "extended confirmed user" means, with me. Regards, Rohan9082 (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Rohan9082

Your suggestions regarding Draft:Souhardya_De have been implemented

Dear sir, This is to let you know that as per your instructions, I have removed the unnecessary citations that were present in the article Draft:Souhardya_De. However, I have kept only two sources where the subject has been talked about in brief (one from the ministry where the names of the awardees are listed for proof and second from India TV from where a bit of the article is referenced. Now, there are 12 notable and verifiable citations that talk about the subject independently. Could you please take the pains of having another look at it and letting me know if the draft looks good now or if I need to edit it more and if yes, where. With regards, Rohan9082 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Rohan9082

Thank you

Thank you for the protection you added to the Mick Foley article while we wait for the block evasion issue to be addressed. Would you mind taking a look at the Shane McMahon article, which is going through the same problem with the same editor, as well? Thanks again! NJZombie (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@NJZombie: I want to wait for a checkuser to respond to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aristocratic 536 first. I wasn't aware of that report when I protected Mick Foley. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. NJZombie (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll second the thanks - this editor can be really aggressive about getting their way on articles. I filed the SPI under Aristocratic 536, but the master is really Showbiz826 (need to work on an ironclad case to get them merged, but it's the same person). They've got a couple of ranges that have been blocked already - this and here being their most common. Their repeated use of good faith but never, ever showing it is entertaining. Ravensfire (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The user is now blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The registered one is but the IP user account is still able to edit. NJZombie (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

When I block a user, it also blocks the IP address the account is logged in from. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sir, I am getting tried.

Sir I have given him every detail about the gross of Spirited Away in its lifetime run on all the talk pages of his editing. I don't know what to do now. He is dependant on a out-dated site "The Number" and "Box Office Mojo" who haven updated the gross for the film "Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train". What to do now? He is not understanding the situation of his frequent edits. He is editing even when discussion is open. As per Wikipedia Policy, he can't edit unless the discussion is closed. Anyone attempting a edit is blocked.So, I just put thing back to its origin. Please help me in this regard.Ichika Kasuga (talk) 5:47 Wednesday, 24 February 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has taken administrative action on the article (I protected it) I cannot get involved in the content dispute. There is no policy saying an editor cannot edit until discussion is closed. That is simply good practice, but some choose not to follow it. The only things that prevent anyone from editing an article are blocking, banning, or protection. The IP address has presented some points on the talk page. I see you are answering them now. That's good. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I am feeling like crying now. Please ensure protection to other pages too. If today you didn't have ensure protection, I would have committed suicide. Thank you for saving me.[[User:Ichika Kasuga|Ichika Kasuga]] (talk) (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Ichika Kasuga (talk) 6:27 Wednesday, 24 February 2021

This is just an online community. The world does not end because someone objects to your version of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent Protection

I noticed that you have recently protected Spirited Away. You may want to protect Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train as the war continues on that article. Augu❤Maugu 💕 06:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's now protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train

Can you judge if my statements are correct or wrong for further consensus? I would like to know you opinion regarding my statement against the IP address user. I would be thankful if you help me or correct me if I did anything wrong.

Another important thing is that As per your the Heading "Proposal for the change in conversion of revenues into US$ for Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong by using weekly data" please updated the box office collection of the film Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train So, that reader find the article convenient. Ichika Kasuga (talk) 17:03 Wednesday, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

While an article is protected, edit requests must be made on the article's talk page. I posted instructions there. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Confederate Monuments

Hello. I noticed on User:Skingo12's talk page that you never saw a reply directed towards you in this article's. This strikes me as odd, because I did leave an exceptionally long reply directed at you, where I explained my rationale for removing each of the five opinions. The only response I received was from User:Washuotaku repeating their initial point that consensus is needed. I left a response to your latest post as well, but what am I supposed to do if you didn't even see the original? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@46.97.170.19: Hi. There are thousands of pages on my watchlist, so I may not notice when a talk page is updated with a message to me. The best way to notify me (or anyone for that matter) that you are addressing me in a comment on an article talk page, is to use the {{ping}} or {{reply}} template. So if you start your comment with the template {{reply|Anachronist}} (make sure the name is spelled correctly), the wiki software will give me an alert that I have a reply. You did that, and I saw the alert just now when I logged in today (I am not on Wikipedia all the time) and I wrote a short reply on the talk page. Likewise, I just pinged you in this comment, but I am not sure if it works for notifying anonymous IP addresses. When logged in, there is a little bell icon that appears at the top of any Wikipedia page and it lights up when I have an alert. I am not sure what happens when not logged in.

About the material you removed, I would be satisfied if the part I mentioned about the notable historian's views was restored. I cannot judge the rest. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources Dispute

Sir, How are you? I hoped you are fine by the grace of God. Actually, I came here requesting for help in the sources of some fellow articles in English Wikipedia. I have seen a user named Betty Logan, who revert my edits frequently saying that articles of wikipedia cannot be used as source. However, I have noticed that Experienced user like Mastero2016, Exuchera and so on ( Sorry for the spelling mistakes ) used articles as sources due to following reasons:-

• There are many citations for different territories which cannot be added to article because it messed up the flow of reading.
• Articles have more details regarding how exchange of money is calculated.( Never to mind but conversion of money varies from site to site.

• Thirdly, more detailed revenue from each territories are recorded and how gross are added are shown.

I don't understand why Betty Logan has problem with my edits. The above mentioned user has a edits of more than 50,000. Sometimes, I think that he revert my edits because I am a new user who have edits less than 1000. However, I doubt that why does this.

If you check the articles, you will be in dilema. Check this articles now.

• In the article of List of highest-grossing animated films, on the traditional anime film section, you will find that he has use the citation from the ANN to show that the gross of the film Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train is $399 million.
• But the contrary is that if you check the article List of highest-grossing R-rated films he again used the source from the Box Office Mojo to show that the gross of the film is only $370 million.
• If you see both of the above articles, then you can conclude that his own edits are conflicting with each other.

Therefore, I request you interfere in this matter. I am afraid that he might be a bot. I do not have personal obsession against him but I am frequently irritated by his behavior.

• He never reply in his talk page whenever I asked him anything regarding the sources.
• He only finds mistakes in my edits.

I do know that articles of wikipedia can be used as sources, but that doesn't means to say that editors who edits the page are wrong. Further, you too know how irritating it is when someone reverts your hour-long edit in just one click. I believe that you would help me solve this problem as soon as possible. I quite hopefully for your advice. Thank you. Have a nice day. いちか かすが (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Disputed content

Worldwide box office performance Territory Box office gross revenue Admissions (ticket sales) As of Ref Japan ¥38,446,447,150 (US$368,487,897) 27,879,659 March 7, 2021 (vide infra) Taiwan NT$631,590,465 (US$22,199,321) 2,592,100 February 28, 2021 South Korea ₩10,296,815,110 (US$9,048,168) 1,065,742 March 8, 2021 Thailand ฿126,000,000 (US$4,214,005) n.a. January 31, 2021 Hong Kong HK$31,078,241 (US$4,008,595) n.a. February 28, 2021 Singapore S$2,420,000 (US$1,831,041) n.a. December 31, 2020 Vietnam VND 16,160,738,000 (US$701,199) 198,372 February 25, 2021 Malaysia RM 1,500,000 (US$368,192) n.a. March 7, 2021 Asia US$410,858,418+ 31,735,873+ Australia A$2,830,408 (US$2,170,858) n.a. March 7, 2021 New Zealand NZ$440,630 (US$314,288) n.a. March 7, 2021 Oceania US$2,485,146+ n.a. Worldwide US$413,343,564+ 31,735,873+ References

I have multiple responses to this:

• Don't cite Wikipedia articles, ever. That is a policy (see WP:CIRCULAR), not subject to debate. If you see Wikipedia being cited, that is not a reason for you to do so, that is a reason to fix the problem by removing the citations to Wikipedia, or convert them to Wikilinks if possible.
• Betty Logan is an experienced editor who has been contributing to Wikipedia for more than 12 years. She has engaged on the talk page. She is not a bot. If she has a problem with your edits, it would be best to continue engaging in discussion without disturbing the article further. If you perceive inconsistencies in her edits, don't complain to me, ask her to explain.
• Administrators do not get involved in content disputes. Behavioral concerns can induce an administrator to act, but I see nothing actionable here, except for the fact that you are edit-warring, and you may be blocked again for that. She has been civil. The WP:BURDEN is on you to gain consensus for your changes on the talk page, and you do not gain consensus by engaging in revert wars.
• See WP:BRD and follow that advice. If you work hard on an edit and someone reverts you, explaining why, go to the talk page and discuss. Don't keep adding back your material.

Finally, try keeping discussion about article content to article talk pages, not user talk pages. It is best not to split a discussion among multiple pages, as you have attempted to do with my talk page here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not edit-warring. You can see that how difficult it is to add grosses of various territories, as per concern, I have already informed you. I do not know why I am misjudged. I came here just for help. But I see that you only know me by edit-warring. I guess I should gave up editing these pages of dispute. Atleast, someday, someone experienced will noticed the flaw and change it. If you can't see the problem as mention above then I should leave discussion. Further more, I should apologized for disturbing you. I would never gonna asked you for help. いちか かすが (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

When someone reverts your addition, and it is done in good faith, and then you restore the material, you are edit warring. You did that in List of highest-grossing R-rated films just today, in fact. And you say you are being misjudged? What do you expect any observer to think?

Furthermore, you did not ask me for help in an administrative capacity, you asked me to intervene in a content dispute, and that is something administrators will not do. I gave you advice, and linked to appropriate articles to provide further guidance. You might want to also look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to find a path that is suitable. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I am trying my level best to add all the sources to the article to support my statement. But I am failing constantly with errors. You can check that I haven't reverted any of the user's edits. Further from the word " intervene ", I meant to say key-solutions in other words negotiations. So, don't take my words wrong. I know that I am poor in translation but some experienced user always help me in my edits. いちか かすが (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There aren't any negotiations I need to be involved in. I can monitor discussion. If you are having a dispute with one other editor, I have found Wikipedia:Third opinion useful for getting a third view. I know you are trying your best. What errors are you experiencing? If you are having technical difficulties adding sources, you can try asking for help on Wikipedia:Help desk. If a source you are adding is on the blacklist, then you won't be able to add it. Is that what is happening? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I having problem of adding reference of money exchange and gross inside a reference. So that I can show that the sum of all these grosses is equal to its box office collection. If you had twitter, then I could show you the screenshot of error. Further the most important thing is that only the reference can support my statement. About the question above, the fact is none of the reference is blacklisted. As you can see that the references, I am trying to add is on the table mentioned above. いちか かすが (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Does the MOS:MONEY guideline help? In particular see the "Conversions" subsection. Keep in mind that conversions may not be needed if the context is a single country with a well known currency. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sir, I have successfully managed to add the reference to gross of various territories. Actually, the problem was I was not using a template "Efn" for which it was failing to accept the source. Please check the article List of highest-grossing R-rated films to rectify my edits. Can I now update the film grosses in List of highest-grossing animated films? いちか かすが (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything technically wrong with your recent changes. Go ahead and update the other article and see if it's accepted. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. All of the edits are done. You check this article "List of highest-grossing animated films" too. いちか かすが (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Protection from Vandalization from multiple number of IP Users.

Sir, I am sorry to disturb you again. But what to do. You need to help me by protecting the page of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train from a number of IP Users, who are frequently removing articles from the info of the page. Which in turn has damage the page. Please help me as sooon as possible. More over they are badmouthing the edits restored. Please take immediate measure. いちか かすが (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's one IP address, and that address is already blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Your block of User talk:IHateWalter666

Might want to add talk page access to this old block. Meters (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: Why? I didn't revoke the talk page access. That was Mz7, based on abuse of the talk page after I blocked the user. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Cross communication. You blocked in 2018, user showed up to abuse talk page today (after two and one half years), I suggested talk page access be removed, and Mz7 did so a few minutes later. Meters (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice the time stamps of the recent activity; I just assumed it happened shortly after I blocked the account. So years later, when I see your suggestion to "add talk page access" I thought you were suggesting that I restore talk page access.

All clear now. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice how confusingly I worded that. Meters (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Can you review some edits by some Anonymous user on Ion Media, because I reviewed one edit, But I'm a bit lazy to review the rest, Because I fought the edit I reviewed to be Unconstructive. LooneyTraceYT (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh never mind, I reverted One edit because I reviewed 2 edits and they were just weird rollbacks or whatever. LooneyTraceYT (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Can American Broadcasting Company be protected due to Little to no Anonymous edits going around? LooneyTraceYT (Where it never goes out of style • contribs) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place to request protection, but I have semi-protected it for 3 months. There has been an occasional constructive edit from an anonymous IP address but most of it has been disruptive. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigation on me

Can you view my talk page and click on Sockpuppetry investigation to confirm me as A Main Account? LooneyTraceYT (Where it never goes out of style • contribs) 12:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators don't have the ability to make such confirmations. I did comment on the SPI case however. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ichika Kasuga

Sir, a user has placed me on a Sockpuppetry investigation. Could you please rectify him in this matter? I do not know why I am facing so much problem in the online community Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ichika_Kasuga いちか かすが (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you telling me? You can answer that yourself. It looks simply like someone is calling you out for editing while not logged in. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Page protection on O'Melveny & Myers

Hi

It appears you indefinitely protected the above page to extended confirmed protection level due to COI editing problems. I was going to make a couple of changes to it, but am unable to due to the protection level.

Do you think it is still necessary?

If you decide not to change it, would you mind fixing the typo in the last section, first word ('n an episode' -> 'in an episode'), it's bothering me.

Thank you

Local Variable (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Local Variable: Yes, it is still necessary. I have fixed the typo. You can also request changes on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Hey, I just started a Sockpuppetry investigation on Chickenwingy, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evimeader. May need to come over and give your thoughts. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 23:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

They do look related, although I don't know why you contacted me about them. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

My account is not a Sockpuppet one. My account is fine. Thank you!! Chickenwingy (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

We'll let a checkuser determine that. The common areas of interest, the creation of a new account shortly after the previous one was blocked, are suspicious. If you want to defend yourself, do it on the SPI page linked above, not here on my talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

They can easily find the case at WP:SPI#Cases currently listed at SPI. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 00:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Self-balancing scooter

Hello Anachronist, just to let you know I've removed a link in one of your posts to Talk:Self-balancing scooter because it's now been added to the spam blacklist, which meant that it couldn't be archived by the bot :-) Pahunkat (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: That's fine. If you remove a blacklisted link, however, please remember to retain the link text to preserve context. I restored the link text. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Tina Dabi

Hi @Anachronist:, Can you remove protection from Tina Dabi that you have protected 4 years ago. There is an AFC draft that I need to accept and I'm of the opinion that this now merits a mainspace article. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 07:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi: I have reduced the protection to EC. I also left a comment in the draft with suggestions for improvement before moving it to main space.

@TheAafi: Also, if you move the article, it is likely to be deleted again. The draft doesn't apppear to addresses the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi other than to omit the fact that she topped an exam. The deleting administrator should be involved.

@Sarahj2107: please have a look at Draft:Tina Dabi and the AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist, I guess despite the prior AfD the article would warrant a new AfD. We are taught at the AfC to approve articles that we think to be "likely notable" even after they get deleted through AfDs later on. Lemme try if I can helpful in adding few extra things on my own. I've updated a lot on it and changed its whole shape. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 13:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, a lot of coverage has increased from the last four years and without going here and there, she meets the WP:1E condition imo provided that "the event is notable, and she has received extensive coverage for it". I'd do other checks before I try to approve it. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 13:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi: A new AFD may not be required in this case. Be mindful of the fact that we have speedy-deletion reason WP:G4, which allows speedy deletion of an article (even if revised so that it isn't identical to the deleted one) if the original reasons for deletion in AFD have not been addressed. That's why I would like the deleting administrator to weigh in. There is no hurry to move it to main space yet, especially if there is still a risk of speedy deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist, I'm well aware of this but as for the G4 rationale, This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion 1: This is not an identical copy (I've not seen the old copy as I myself joined two years ago but I've improved the AfC draft a lot on my own, and it is not even identical to what the creating-editor had submitted), and 2: the AfD isn't even recent (5 years is quite a long gap). If the AfD would have even around a year, there was a risk of G4 but I don't see "5 years old AfD as most recent" (provided that a lot has been added outside being the topper) & this makes me believe that a new AfD might be required because "a lot has changed since then". Anyways, I'm waiting for the update from the administrator who had closed the AfD five years ago. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think it's different enough that G4 doesn't apply, however there are definitely other admins that are looser in their interpretations of 'significantly identical' than me. There's a good chance it could be deleted via AfD again. I agree that the main concerns of the AfD have not been addressed. I'm not sure how significant the President of India's Gold Medal Award is but it doesn't appear to have it's own article, so she is still only known for one event and I don't think there is enough evidence of extensive coverage. However, if other people think it would survive AfD now or after some more improvement, I have no objection to it being moved to main space. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah.

Aafi, I agree with Sarah that you may be interpreting WP:G4 in a way that others may disagree with. It doesn't say "recent" AFD, it's most recent; meaning the last AFD, and there is no expiration. The draft doesn't have to be verbatim-identical, but if it covers the same points as the deleted version, it can be considered substantively the same in the context of the prior AFD. Looking at the deleted version, the primary differences I see are (a) emphasis on being a topper, and (b) no information of her marriage and divorce (which happened after the article was deleted). If the only additional coverage in the past 5 years has been her marriage and divorce, is that really enough to address the notability concerns in the AFD? It may be OK, although it's borderline enough for someone to put it through AFD again. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist, Yes this is why I thought a new AfD is warranted imo. Anyways, based on my "two minds" - I've declined the draft after significantly approving it. Thanks for your nice inputs. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to suggest to go ahead and approve it, but you do have a point about the coverage being routine. As I said, it's borderline and may be kept if moved, but if it can be improved further, so much the better. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI Discussion re grave insults by user Gandharraj

@Anachronist: I have launched a complaint against user Gandharraj after the repeated grave insults ("racist" "sexist", etc) directed at the editors involved on the Hanna Jaff talk page. This is it: Administrators's Noticeboard discussion. The insults have been corroborated, but after seeing I reported them the user has now directed the insults to me making it impossible to proceed with that article's editing. I would appreciate if you could have a look, so that we can proceed with the editing at hand in peace. A.Val.sol (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Demon Slayer Mugen Train

Sir, I am requesting you for help/supervise in the Talk:Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train#Theboxofficesection where an editor named TompaDompa raised an issue as stated The box office section needs a major rewrite. First off, it is extremely long. Look at the Wikipedia:Good articles Avatar (2009 film) and Avengers: Endgame, which are even more notable for their box office performances than this is. Those articles have way shorter box office sections, and it is completely unreasonable for this article to have one that's this long. If it were nominated for good article status, I expect that this is one of the first things that would need to be fixed (something similar happened to Black Panther (film)). Secondly, the writing quality is really low. It is very poorly organized, the grammar is bad, the tone is unencyclopaedic, there is a dearth of paragraph breaks, and so on. The relevant information is obscured by all these problems. and again solved the argument on his own by stating that I attempted to resolve these problems earlier, but I was reverted by 106.203.145.225 and Catropst Benzt and asked to discuss it on the talk page, which is why I added this section to the talk page. Since their reversions however, the IP has been blocked for making WP:Legal threats and the logged-in user has been WP:CheckUser blocked where one of the issues was WP:Undisclosed paid editing. I think it's fair to say that they may not have been acting entirely in good faith with Wikipedia's best interests in mind, so I'm reinstating my changes for now. He is not listening to what Orichalcum frequently tried to explain:

Although I also felt that the box office details for each country are becoming too excessive, I do not agree to delete two tables for worldwide and Japanese box office performance, because MOJO or The Numbers lacks data for Taiwan (3rd most earned) and Thailand, and the box office performance in Japan is the historical one.

The Discussion seems to be hacked as subsequent comments were made as by TropicAces, TompaDompa and Link20XX are backing each other without caring about what Orichalcum said.

TropicAces placed the same agrument even on the talk page as place on the edit summary that It is just too big and overly-detailed for the article. If readers want a day-by-day and country-by-country breakdown they can go to Box Office Mojo or The Numbers. I get certain users (mostly IPs) want to hype the film up, but this isn’t the place for that. It’s a visual headache, and this is coming from a box office nut.' Although, Orichalcum already mentioned that MOJO or The Numbers lacks data for Taiwan (3rd most earned) and Thailand, which is frequently ignored.

I fall to your feet and beg you to save the article from further destruction. It is very sick to look that the article is westernized. Phano Mie (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear what action you want me to take. I'm not going to get involved in a content dispute, but if there is disruptive activity, you need to point out example. If there is sockpuppetry, you should file a report at WP:SPI. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Àlainn

Hi there. I am aware that back in 2014 you deleted an article relating to Sarah Àlainn due to it being in contest of Criteria A7 of speedy deletion. I wish to write a Wikipedia Article in relation to her now as I believe she is of relevant notability within Japan. I write to you since I am informed that "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page ... please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below." I request your permission that I am allowed to write this article. Thank you for your time. Yours truly, Imperator Britannia (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Imperator Britannia: I didn't actually delete Sarah Àlainn; I moved it to draft space for further improvement. Nobody improved it, so it expired. I have just restored Draft:Sarah Àlainn, improve it so that it meets at least one of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO and submit it for review. I have placed a submission template at the top of the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Gillette products

Hello again, Anachronist! You were kind enough to offer feedback at Talk:Gillette/Archive 1#List_of_products. Actually, you were the only editor to respond. I agree with your reasoning and I've proposed a shortened list of product lines as replacement text. Might you be able to take a look and update the article on my behalf?

Thanks! EA.Ketchum (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Anachronist, I've not received any additional feedback on my request to update the products section. I've shared specific text based on your feedback, so I'm hoping you can revisit the discussion. If you're not interested, I can try adding Template:Request edit but I fear some of the context in the wider discussion may be lost. Thanks again, EA.Ketchum (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The suggestions looked good to me. I made the changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! I've responded to you here, if you have a moment to revisit real quick. Thanks again! EA.Ketchum (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see

Hi, @Anachronist: Please See User talk:2A02:C7F:A0D6:3D00:5D7:BFBD:A865:9836 . Best Regards ❣MXX8❣^@Talk 15:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted page and blocked the address. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Anachronist: Thanks For this great work.Best Regards ❣MXX8❣^@Talk 03:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Lost/orphan talkpage archives

A few years ago, you moved Usenet celebrity to Usenet personality, and Talk:Usenet celebrity likewise. However, there were some talkpage archives that did not get moved. Talk:Usenet celebrity/Archive 1 (and 2 and 3) are now orphans and the "Archive" links at the actual talkpage are red. I assume the best solution to move the archives to the new name. But I don't know if redirects should be kept. There are a lot of page-moves within the archives, and several in the article-history other than yours. DMacks (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Normally an option to move sub-pages appears when moving a page with sub-pages. Maybe that option didn't exist then, or I just missed it at the time. Anyway, I moved those pages. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! DMacks (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Renu Raj

Hello, I've once removed the COI tag from Renu Raj which was placed by GermanKity, see. Someone else also removed the COI tag before me, look. But German kitty is doing the same process (tagging undisclosed payment tag) again and again. This is vandalism, right? 27.59.238.4 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

27.59.238.4 is shopping around to Administrators and at Teahouse to get the UPE/COI tag permanently removed from Renu Raj by accusing GermanKity of vandalism. At Teahouse, Germankity has raised the possibility that 27.59.238.4 is an IP for User:Idhachu, the editor who created the article originally, subsequently blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Mick Foley

Hi, there is an edit war going on in Mick Foley that I'm involved in. There is an image (the one I keep reverting back to) that a couple of users and I reached consensus on being the infobox image for this article. One particular unregistered user (I think it's either this user who just never bothered to log in, or this blocked user, who has a history of edit-warring and sock puppeting) keeps changing it back to an image that is also on the bottom of the article, which of course means it's featured twice on the same page. I took it to the talk, and he won't even negotiate his changes on the talk page and continues to engage in this edit war. He clearly doesn't seem to have much regard for the three revert rule (which I admittedly just found out about) as he has reverted it 4 times.

I don't want to be involved in this edit war any further, so could you protect the page (What this person is doing I think amounts to vandalism)? Thank you.--Hmdwgf (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It's multiple IP addresses engaging in edit warring so I semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. A consensus between 2 or 3 users isn't really a community consensus. Please continue trying to resolve the dispute on the talk page as you have been doing. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. It's multiple IP addresses used by the same person. Is there anything that can be done about that? Also, how many people would be needed to reach a community consensus?--Hmdwgf (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection takes care of the multiple addresses. If it's the same person, then the person cannot edit the article and must discuss on the talk page. If you can come to an agreement then there's no problem. If you cannot, and the dispute is just between two people, then WP:Third opinion is a good first choice to bring someone else in to resolve a dispute. Otherwise WP:RFC may be an option to attract more views to the discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Cheverton (July 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Cheverton and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mark Cheverton, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Anachronist/Archives:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Thanks for your question at my RfA

Your very sound and well-grounded question was totally appreciated but when the next two questions were also hypotheticals, I chose silence. There's always a context. I know a long-time editor who might revert a well-sourced IP contribution; we might have been thinking about the same fellow. In any event, I did not see any reason for an admin candidate to declare himself willing to use tools to settle a content issue. I can make contributions as a wikipedian however, and that's the direction I would have taken the situation even if I was INVOLVED. I appreciate your help in showing something about myself to the community. BusterD (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@BusterD: the way I worded the question, it should have been clear that you aren't an WP:INVOLVED administrator in that scenario, so you didn't really address the scenario I presented. That's OK, so far no candidate has provided a direct answer to that question. There is no right or wrong answer, it's just a way to see your thought process at work.

Congratulations on your adminship! I'm sure you'll make a fine administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Javed Chaudhry

Can you move page from Javed Chaudhry (journalist) to Javed Chaudhry. He is better known as Javed Chaudhry. I was trying to move but it says that you had protected it on admin level back in 2014. Thanks. Hasan (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ulubatli Hasan: actually, no. That article isn't ready for main space, and the notability of the subject is questionable, because none of the cited sources provide coverage of any depth. I moved the article to draft space at Draft:Javed Chaudhry for improvement before it gets moved back. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You were helping...

Either "xmaspud" or "xmasupd" at the Help desk. One of us has entered the name wrong, but I can't find the user. (I'm not sure that he took the photo in question.) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's xmaspud (I got it wrong in my reply), and her husband apparently took that photo of his own sculpture. If she can provide proof of identity to OTRS, we can straighten things out. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Can you delete the draft:Afizzionados. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Do you object? You're the only other editor who did anything substantive in that draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: I don't object, but wonder why. GoingBatty (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I imagine it's because the draft is a pared-down translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article, with the same sources, and those sources were deemed inadequate here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	keep up.. CocoGT (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Assembly theory

On 30 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Assembly theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that assembly theory provides an experimentally verifiable way of detecting extraterrestrial life without needing to define what life is? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Assembly theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Assembly theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

TPA

Hi Anachronist. You blocked Sudish World Technology, but they've since spammed on their talk page: [1]. Could you please revoke talk page access? Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I will do so if they do that again. Thanks for reverting them. Maybe they'll notice the instructions in the block message this time. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Improving the J. Lohr Vineyards and Wines Wikipedia article

Hi @Anachronist: I noticed you contributed to the J. Lohr Vineyards and Wines article a while back. Would you be interested in working on the article again? If so, I'm currently working on an improved sandbox with qualified secondary sources. I do have a COI with the company, so I will not directly edit the article.

• First, would you be open to review my sandbox when it's prepared?
• Second, the title of the article is incorrect; it's J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines, not J. Lohr Vineyards and Wines. Would you be open to help correct the title of the article?

Appreciate any input or feedback!--Best--Chefmikesf (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chefmikesf: I'm willing to work with you on it. Be aware, though, that a total rewrite would likely not be accepted by the community. Incremental changes are typically more desirable. I'm happy to look at your sandbox version (I could not find it) when you're ready.

An article about a company is titled according to common usage in sources that refer to it; we have had companies complain to no avail that Wikipedia doesn't title their articles according to their trademark names. Happily, I verified to my satisfaction that the winery's preferred article title is also the most commonly used form of the name, so I have renamed the article to J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks, I appreciate the opportunity to collaborate. I will ping you with the sandbox and post the request on the J.Lohr Vineyards & Wines article when it is ready. To clarify my request, I won't propose any major changes to the article. I will only suggest adding well-sourced content that complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, such as an Infobox and additional historical content. Also, I will structure the content in an edit request format to make it easy to read.--Best--Chefmikesf (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge

Why is it named Adams's Bridge instead of Ram Setu. It's better if you would change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:e280:3d90:36:813:f086:763:4f57 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you should try reading the article and you'll figure it out. Note that this is the English Wikipedia, so article are titled according to how the topics are commonly known in English. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

About user:The Village world

I thought discussing more about this user on admin noticeboard would be inappropriate, So I thought I should put some more facts here. The very first edit w:mr:Special:Diff/1937638 here they added the same information about the so called notable author their achievement. w:mr:Special:Permalink/1937641 here they created a page for the same author by adding the same text. w:mr:Special:Diff/1937651 They re-inserted it again on the Sindkhed raja page. And to remind you this is something they did on three projects, on hiwiki w:hi:Special:Diff/5282091 and here on enwiki too. And importantly to remind you the content has zero claims of notability. They have written only one book which got one non-existent award in one non-existent event probably organized by themselves in their dreams. There are no references and no mentions of their name in no online sources. Its a total hoax. Interestingly, 1) Without even knowing Marathi, on the basis of what machine translations has provided you. 2) You came to this conclusion that they are making credible attempt here Special:Diff/1038441093. I am surprised, really surprised. thanks QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 17:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. You gave no actionable reason to block at WP:AIV. Creating hoax articles would be a different matter. If the user shows any similar activity, let me know and I will block based on the additional background you have given. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to your collection

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thanks for bringing level-headed reason to Wikipedia disputes. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: Thank you! Added. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Not looking for trouble

Thank you for understanding I was only seeking to find a channel to address a concern and tried to be careful about outing. Than k you for your suggestion to use WP ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Toddmeagher (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Toddmeagher: Well, there doesn't appear to be any obvious disruption in the Todd Meagher article, so it's doubtful that ANI would help (and I confess that I'm still unclear what you perceive to be a problem). If you want to make any substantive changes to the article, you need to propose your changes on Talk:Todd Meagher rather than edit the article yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Anachronist I'm not changing ANYTHING until I learn more about the rules and tags LOL.Toddmeagher (talk)

Appropriate Reference or not

Hello Anachronist I have a topic to create on Wikipedia and have quite number of news references. Is The Times Bulletin a trusted news source to add reference from this website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:292:d88e:90d7:9b02:6017:c732 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The Times Bulletin

Thankyou so much for your answer Boti2481 (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Drop me a note if you need help in the future. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Rishton Ka Manjha

Thankyou so such Anachronist for improving our page Rishton Ka Manjha I can't express how happy I am🙏🏻 I am really thankful to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:292:d88e:388e:f0b3:d590:4333 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It is at Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha and needs to be improved there before it can be published on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

How can I improve article? We have reference for the article The lead Krushal Ahuja, Ayan Nayak and Aanchal Goswami What more you need?

Now you wait for a reviewer. You can continue improving it while waiting for review. I will not be reviewing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi as I'm an Indian I know this is an Indian Soap opera which starts Krushal Ahuja, Ayan Nayak and Aanchal Goswami in the lead roles and directy by Sushanta Das which will be casted on Zee Tv.So why there is still no Wikipedia page? Can I make one for it as per information available to me? Boti2481 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boti2481: The main space article Rishton Ka Manjha is create-protected. The only way it can exist in main article space is for a draft to be approved by a reviewer. The draft at Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha was deleted because it was created by a banned user violating his ban, and we do not keep material produced by such users as a matter of policy. You can re-create the draft space article after you become autoconfirmed. You have enough edits, but not enough time; your account needs to age another day or so. Or, I can restore the draft for you if you intend to work on it, but if you don't make any substantive changes to the draft, it would get deleted again. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please restore the draft as I'm new here so I don't know what others did with the article. I request you to restore the article Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha once I check I can work better as per requirements of Wikipedia and as I saw you are an Administrator as per my knowledge you can move it to the mainspace. So after you restore I can check and submit and you verify and move it to the mainspace. Boti2481 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boti2481: That isn't how it works. I have restored the draft and re-tagged it to tie its submission to your account. However, if you do not change it and simply review it, it will be deleted again because we do not keep articles written by banned editors. Also, I stated above that I will not review it. Another editor must do that after you submit it for review. And the article in its current state would likely be rejected. Once it is accepted, the reviewer can move it to main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello I edit something very minor and saw the history one guy named Falzu raheman placed his name on the page's cast section for no reason. I checked all the information and I think it's all true just having little doubt with a guy named Ayan Nayak yes I confirmed and checked that He is in the soap opera as an cast but not fully sure that he is as a lead or not. As you said ***And the article in its current state would likely be rejected*** how to fix this? Boti2481 (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boti2481: Well, the entire body of the article is just one sentence. There is no context around anything in that draft. There honestly isn't anything else that can be said about it? No explanation why anyone should care about the topic? No indication of why this is significant enough to merit a Wikipedia article beyond a list of sources that cover the series? Aren't there any substantive expansions you could make? What is the series about? Who are the characters? How is it received by critics? We have many decent articles about drama series; see Twin Peaks for example. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much yes yes I am doing this. Actually it's not released completely thankyou so much I am making this edit Boti2481 (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Anachronist I have added as much as I can to the body. Is it alright to place it for submission? Boti2481 (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boti2481: I see you have already submitted it. I went through it and added a few words, and reorganized it into sections, attaching the citations to the things that they verify. This leaves the overview that you wrote with no citations. None of the citations already in the article verified what you wrote. Did you refer to something when you wrote it? If you referred to something, you should cite it. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As you said it needs one more Citations and I saw your comment on the draft page. I will send you the reference of the serial. I request to add it on the article on the suitable place. Samita1212 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I added some reference please check that. Samita1212 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I deleted on of your edits which you placed by mistake in the Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha in the cast section Krushal Nayak which you edited by mistake Samita1212 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please recheck and say if there is any problem? Samita1212 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You are evading your block. This conversation has ended. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw you removed ok I will fix the issue soon Raviana48 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi please help us. How to solve the problem? Raviana48 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

See my previous comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

how to write articles on English?

Hello!--Станислав Савченко (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Станислав Савченко: Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions to write an article in draft space and submit it for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!--Станислав Савченко (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is something we don't see every day...

The text in the source that various socks of AnonymousIndiaz copypasted into Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha has actually been changed – I have a tab open with the version of [www.yolodaily.com/rishton-ka-manjha-zee-tv-story/ this page] that was current as of half an hour ago or so, and it is not the same text that's there now. I was thinking how ridiculous and funny it was that AnonymousIndiaz kept changing a few words in the text to not-actually-synonyms, with the result that the text is now something that's almost but not quite unlike English... but this is even more ridiculous. They are editing as an IP now, and I've reported them to AIV which may or may not be effective. Today is not going to get any stranger, so I'm off to bed now. --bonadea contributions talk 22:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: That certainly is a weird way to circumvent copyright violations. More effective than AIV is to simply semi-protect that draft, which I have done. The user is banned, the sockpuppets are banned, and they have no business editing it until they get their account unblocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

good book, bad url

For background, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#answering-islam.org. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Oops, I reverted you before I saw this note on my talk page. I'll undo it while I review. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I was a bit heavy handed in that one, I've been a bit more surgical in other cases. I was just about to replace the answering-islam URL with https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.215983 , which I have just found and is the actual book, not some travesty. I'm not familiar with the subject details, so will leave it to you as you may want to cite a specific page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: No, go right ahead. I'm just as unfamiliar with the subject details. If it's a matter of simply replacing one URL with another, that should be fine. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Anachronist a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for assistance. YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament

Hi User:Anachronist

I'm the person who is working on YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament. Thank you for restoring that to draft space the other day.

I was hoping you could maybe look it over and suggest any changes to improve it? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tomorrow and tomorrow: I wrote a lengthy response on Draft talk:YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hala Al Turk

Could you please take a look at the above article and the user I've been reverting? I reckon their behavior is not quite egregious enough for me to get around WP:INVOLVED. They've removed many of the warnings I've left on their Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: OK, I have done so and decided that a short block was in order. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. We'll see what happens when the block expires. Meanwhile, unless someone else notices, the fan website and the unsourced personal life section will remain in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I was gonna get to that but I was using my work computer and could not access the website through my company network. Now that I've seen it, I have removed it per WP:FANSITE and the unsourced personal life section per WP:BLP.

If there is no good alternative for the fansite, it is likely to keep re-appearing, so it may be best to list it with XLinkBot. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I've never done that...and don't know how. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide an draft

I saw you deleted an draft on G5 due to sock puppet. Can you provide me the draft deleted by you Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha so I can reupload it. I would be easy if I get the draft. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Get one of your other accounts unblocked first. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You are making mistake I'm not the sockpuppet that's why I'm here asking to get the draft from you otherwise I need to start from scratch and also not too create any misunderstanding further. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe I am making a mistake. Start from scratch in your sandbox. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी: Also, the draft is only semi-protected. Once you are autoconfirmed you can re-create the draft yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok but please don't edit my sandbox because I need to collect information from sources can make edits maybe there will be mistake. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What should I do I know the draft is semi protected but I was asking u to get the draft means the article so it would be easy for me to create please say what sould I do draft or sand box? २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Once you are autoconfirmed (2 more days) you may move your sandbox to the draft. You can also create the draft and copy+paste your sandbox source into it, but it is preferred to move the sandbox to draft because that preserves the editing history. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You also need to disclose your connection to the topic, and to the sockpuppet accounts if you were asked to do this by them, or if you are being compensated in any way for editing here. It is OK to be an editor with a conflict of interest or if you are paid, but this must be disclosed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a paid editor but I'm a team off Zee 5 television show edit just joined Wikipedia yesterday. Yes I get salary for it.२ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी: Then you are a paid editor because you are an employee of the company broadcasting the show, and you are being paid, indirectly, to edit this article. See WP:PAID. You would put a tag on your user page. If you want I can do this for you, as you have disclosed it to me above. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes please do this and I'm sharing personal information to you that our team got instructions to work on Rishton Ka Manjha and Meet. But at rishton ka manjha many users did edits which was deleted by you. So I got instruction from my team to solve this. That's why I was asking to to give the Article so that I can re create it. Thank you and please let me know what should I do now. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - I would recommend you and your team just back away from this push and let the experienced users create the article if they find evidence it is notable. They will be less likely to violate copyright laws, avoid promotional tone and source to reliable sources that establish the show and it's actors are notable. The persistence of your team here has only made it more difficult for an article to be created. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That's right. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. What your team is doing now is called "meatpuppetry" rather than sockpuppetry, which is also blockable. However, if you can demonstrate that you can be a good editor and comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (unlike anyone else from your team so far), you may continue editing here. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone what they did it's not our team members I can say as per I know. And Sir/Ma'am I think the article has quite good references. I want to demonstrate that I can be a good editor. Can I get a chance to continue rishton ka manjha without copyright violation and maintain your policies. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sir/Ma'am please allow me make the article ready. I promise I will not do any copyright violation and anything. I will rework as per your and Wikipedia guidelines. Can I get permission २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand that your team created a trust problem on Wikipedia? Once you have lost the community's trust, it is difficult to restore. That is a burden you must bear for now. Members of your team created multiple accounts to evade blocks, created substandard content in main space, posted identical information into newly-created versions of the draft article, evaded protections by moving the draft around to different names, violated copyright (multiple times, by multiple accounts), and generally created unnecessary work for others.

By all means, prove that you are a good editor. Start the draft in your sandbox if you must start it now. Or be constructive in other areas for a couple more days until your account is autoconfirmed, and re-create Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha. But understand that your activity will be closely scrutinized due to the past history of problems emanating from your team, and the slightest indication that you have been dishonest will result in another block and likely a permanent create-protection of any article about Rishton Ka Manjha unless it is created by a trusted, high-volume contributor rather than yet another new account. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok I'm starting the draft on my sandbox please check it and say If I'm doing any mistake. Thankyou again २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you Robertjamal12 (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

U1

Hi Axl (not Axel?) I hope you are doing well.
The only thread in User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 9 is sort of useless, and kind of disrespectful. It is in Marathi language, my mother-tongue, translating (in rude-ish) way: "yo chic, create an article for ~something gibberish~ <something that cant be translated intended fo a girl>." And according to my userpage, I am a guy lol. I wanted that to be deleted as well, I should have been clear in my custom db rationale. Would you kindly delete the page? Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran:  Done. I wasn't sure if you wanted to keep that. Anyway, the page is gone now. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

thanks :) —usernamekiran (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ready for Review : Rudra Thandavam (2021 film)

I had created an article Rudra Thandavam (2021 film) which was moved to draft (Draft:Rudra Thandavam (2021 film)) by you due to the reason as "not ready for main space. Submit for review.". I have updated the article and added all the necessary details to be ready for main article. Can you please take a review and approve it for main article? Thanks. Kannan.529 (talk)

New talk page comments go at the bottom. I have moved it here.

I would decline it. Still WP:TOOSOON. I left a comment for another reviewer. The draft doesn't need a large number of citations, but it does need to cite multiple quality sources, which are currently lacking. While waiting, you can still make further improvements, but it would probably be best to wait until the film is released and then cite the resulting reviews from critics. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

confused

You're not the only one.😀 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Given what the user has said on User talk:MISSION 33 I am inclined to unblock but would like someone else to review it. Would you give it a look? I'm trying to figure out what unblock conditions I should impose, if any. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked. Anything to not look at that page again.😉. User needs to never format anything like that again. The only thing missing was "blink". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

=Thanks! ~Anachronist (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Three Draft articles Ready for Review

Dear Anachronist, I have enhanced the below three draft articles (which were moved from main to draft by you earlier) with the proper reliable and quality sources and it is now ready for your review and approve as main article.

Draft:MGR Magan
Draft:Idiot (2021 film)
Draft:Rudra Thandavam (2021 film)

Thank you. ~Kannan.529 (talk)

See my reply above. And you have not improved Rudra Thandavam since I last commented. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate Your Advice

Dear Anachronist,

Thank you very much for your advice that my article on Yeo Kiat Seng (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yeo_Kiat_Seng) isn't written in a promotional tone and changes to be made in the lead section of the article. I would like to propose changing the lead section to below. Is it fine? More details as well as reliable, independent and published sources can be found in the sections “Academic work” and “Research work” of the article.

“Yeo Kiat Seng (Chinese: 杨杰圣; pinyin: Yáng Jiéshèng), is a Singaporean academic and IEEE Fellow for his contributions to low-power Integrated Circuit (IC) design. For Yeo’s work in low-power IC design, he has introduced new knowledge and novel circuit techniques to design low-power RF/mm-wave integrated circuits and systems. His research work has significantly improved and enabled wireless devices to operate at 60-GHz band with low latency and more than one Giga-bits-per-second (Gbps) data rates.”

Many thanks.

--Happy100 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd say just the first sentence is sufficient, but change "for" to "known for". The second sentence seems to repeat what the first one already says, and the content of the third sentence does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the body text. The lead section of an article should provide a brief overview of the body text, not introduce new material. The first sentence is already a decent summary. The details can be left in the body. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist, Many thanks for your advice on my article on Yeo Kiat Seng (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yeo_Kiat_Seng). I have made changes to the lead section of the article and added details to the first paragraph of the "Research work" section, i.e. the third sentence (“His research work has significantly improved and enabled wireless devices to operate at 60-GHz band with low latency and more than one Giga-bits-per-second (Gbps) data rates.”).

I have resubmitted my article for review and look forward to the article being published in Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

--Happy100 (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It's very late here now. I cannot promise I will review it but I will look at it later this week. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist,

Thank you very much for your time to review my article on Yeo Kiat Seng (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yeo_Kiat_Seng). Deeply and greatly appreciated :)

--Happy100 (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access of 38.141.5.62

Hello; please consider revoking talk page access from 38.141.5.62 due to talk page abuse. Thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The user seems to have restored the talk page to its original content. I'm reluctant to protect the talk page because there is no way to do so for a shorter duration, and during the next 5 months of the block, a legitimate user may need to request unblocking from that IP address. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 14:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-created

Rudra Thandavam (2021 film) is created again. There is Draft:Rudra Thandavam (2021 film) 2409:4072:493:85C0:8642:31B9:CC0E:DC63 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Major sock and troll

The other day I reported BeingAlwaysHappy (talk · contribs) to AIV, but it was closed as stale. I've come across multiple more accounts that they have used (or are currently using). There is

• 2402:3A80:996:D09C:4063:A764:CE02:1B6 (talk · contribs), 2402:3A80:9B5:449F:45B9:C50C:B86D:8CE8 (talk · contribs), 2402:3A80:997:C9DA:F036:66E1:C008:DC49 (talk · contribs) and multiple others from this 2402:3a80 range
• 42.111.22.139 (talk · contribs)
• Seriamair (talk · contribs)

All of them are involved in adding the same name "Divyanshu Tejwani" in credits to different songs. They have targeted Kabir Singh, Bhuj: The Pride of India, O Saathi, Bekhayali and Sachet-Parampara and are actively edit-warring to reinsert the text. On Kabir Singh itself, they added it four times despite being repeatedly reverted. On Bekhayali's revision history, three of the above accounts can be seen adding the same text one after the other in a span of weeks. BeingAlwaysHappy has gone as far as requesting for page-protection to prevent removal of their text. Note that the 2402:3A80 range is active currently. 2405:201:4013:8037:3C1D:6511:1193:29CE (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Also I just found Divyanshu Tejwani (talk · contribs), who created an article on himself and then "begged" for it to be kept. Another IP from the 2402:3a80 range -- 2402:3A80:9B3:3872:3104:96DD:B372:F8E4 (talk · contribs) also created a draft on the same person. What a mess... 2405:201:4013:8037:3C1D:6511:1193:29CE (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Also per their request to 'Google' them, I just find self-written articles by a [www.issuewire.com/divyanshu-tejwani-indias-youngest-muiscal-artist-to-enter-in-music-industry-1703373075386060 14-year-old] pulling out all the stops to be successful. 2405:201:4013:8037:3C1D:6511:1193:29CE (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you are contacting me. I am not a checkuser. You'd have to report this to WP:SPI. However, I have blocked two IP address ranges containing the addresses you mentioned above, for 1 week.

Page protection is a good idea; I have semi-protected Kabir Singh for 3 months. If you want another article protected, you may want to state your case at WP:RFPP. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I contacted you since you had previously warned Seriamair here, and were possibly aware of the situation. 2405:201:4013:8037:D485:BB16:8042:650F (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My involvement with Sriamair was only in the context of a draft article. I had not noticed the earlier attempt to insert Divyanshu Tejwani into an article. If you suspect sockpuppetry, you can open a case at WP:SPI. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

edits

The edit I removed does not say the prime minister gave into the attackers which is why I removed it please read and see for yourself. 82.132.233.253 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The source quotes the prime minister saying "We have accepted all of their demands." Read it for yourself. And state your case on the article talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You Breached WP:1RR Warning

Plz be informed that WP:1RR active arbitration remedies warning is applicable to 2020 Delhi riots. However your these two [[2]] & [[3]] edits breached that warning which is done within 24 hours. DavidWood11 (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Woops, I wasn't aware of that. However, I have reverted only once. The earlier edit was not a revert but a partial removal. I also restored your edit and improved upon it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@DavidWood11: And now you have breached 1RR by restoring the irrelevant name "Mohd Ibrahim". And you were even aware that 1RR was in effect, when I wasn't. Do you understand the meaning of hypocrisy? Pot calling the kettle black, I'd say. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not reverted instead I have added details in the section. Plz see the edit summary. And also, name calling is indecent Thanks. DavidWood11 (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You basically reverted the removal of the irrelevant name, breaching 1RR after you reverted me. That isn't name calling, that's WP:SPADE. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Plz read your second comment from top . You are contradicting yourself here. And also, I have not reverted . Instead, The earlier edit was not a revert but a partial addition. DavidWood11 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Camilo Sesto

You can find a link showing the Camilo Sesto sales controversy: here. The debate has already taken place on many pages on Spanish wiikipedia. Porhacer has caused a lot of annoyance on various items. He has removed various information sourced from Spanish wikipedia. Sometimes by adding false information. He did not even agree with the official certifications he received or not received from official bodies with any supporting sources. Regards --Elenora.C (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Dont't remove properly sourced content

Plz dont remove properly sourced content as you did on 2020 Delhi riots. your edit summary mention "removed phrase about a person mentioned nowhere in this article". However, plz be informed that names of various indiviuals like Kapil Sharma and Tahir Hussain has been named in the article. DavidWood11 (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@DavidWood11: Please don't add content that has no context. The name you added was not mentioned anywhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Plz be informed that the context of my edit is Delhi riots for which Mohd. Ibrahim has been arrested and his bail has been application declined by the high court. DavidWood11 (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@DavidWood11: This is my talk page; you don't have to ping me on it, I will be informed of any additions. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a rationale for your addition and you have not done so. There is no mention of that person in the article and therefore no context for bringing up the name in that section. Also your edit plagiarized the source, which is not acceptable. I tried to paraphrase it a bit but it could still be improved. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

As you mentioned in your edit summary "it was sourced but irrelevant as the name "Mohd. Ibrahim" is mentioned nowhere in this article and has no context" for the sake of your understanding, consider this case [[4]]. Hathras riot accused Siddique Kappan was name once only in this article. And that article is a stable one. The same goes for this article too. I hope that makes you understand DavidWood11 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to the problems with your edits; that is, nowhere is "Mohd. Ibrahim" mentioned in the context of the Delhi riots article, and plagiarism. Each article should stand on its own, regardless of what other articles exist. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The name may be irrelevant to you. But, as a matter of fact that name is WP:VERIFIABLE in mentioned in many WP:RS. Your repeated use of word "irrelevent" and "context" indicates you are pushing your point of you. ANd, WP:POVPUSH is not acceptable in wikipedia. And also to be noted, you failed to understand the example of Siddique Kappan accused in HAthras riots that i have given to you to make you understand, in may last comment in this thread. DavidWood11 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a point of view other than reading the article from the point of view of someone who is reading it for the first time. You throw a name out with no context whatsoever, and the reader has no idea why. I'm not the one pushing a POV here. I understand quite well the context, but a normal reader would not. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's required to be included. You are not making a case for including it; rather everything you have said is an even stronger reason to remove it, or explain it. The way it is now is unacceptable.

Now, stop debating on this talk page and use the article talk page instead. I am happy to respond there. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes at Banu Qurayza

Mind fixing whatever it is you've managed to do over there? There's PC on top of full protection; you'll need to accept your revision to take it out of the PC queue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I put the PC there to preserve stability after the full protection expires. I have no idea why my own edit would be considered "pending". I've accepted it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Help

Someone put Jovan (actor) for speedy deletion, please check I think it's useless right now. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी: We cannot have articles about topics that have been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. In 2018 an article about that actor was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhan Ahmed Jovan. Therefore it is eligible for speedy deletion according to WP:CSD#G4.

However, because it has been some years since then, and the new article is likely changed, the deleting administrator restored it to draft space. It would need approval by a reviewer before moving it into article space again. Do not do this yourself, especially if you have any sort of conflict of interest, as you do with other articles about entertainment topics in India.

Ping @TheSandDoctor: @CAPTAIN RAJU: @Jovanmilic97: You were involved in the deletion discussion. Have a look at Draft:Jovan (actor). It was in main space for a while, and one editor besides the creator made extensive changes to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Julie Gurner

As the deleting administrator, would you restore the article Julie Gurner to the draft space so I can make edits to it and add sourcing? 67guilfoil (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Contributer1234 again

Hi, Anachronist. I noticed you too are getting unblock requests from Contributer1234 on your Commons page, like me. I don't know what you prefer to do about it; me, I've replied, telling them to wait for somebody to respond to their (second) unblock request on Wikipedia. I wanted to remove my Commons page from the "Requests for unblock" category, to avoid wasting the time of the Commons admins, but I couldn't see how to do it. Maybe you know? If you do, could you please remove it from both our Commons pages? Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I noticed Contributer1234 added an unblock request to my Commons talk page and removed it again.

I don't see either of us listed on the Request for unblock category page on Commons. I know that the same page on the English Wikipedia doesn't respond quickly to changes (like I might decline an unblock request and it takes an hour or so for the unblock request to stop being listed on the category page). Maybe the same thing is true on Commons. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Good work

You sound like someone to have a cool chat over coffee 99.83.60.157 (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't drink coffee, but I enjoy a hot cocoa. Or a beer. Or wine. Nothing stronger. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Need Suggestion

Hey Anachronist I hope you are doing good,as the article Rishton Ka Manjha (TV series) has placed on the main page. My job is done I'm no more working on ZEE5 I'm editing articles where I'm interested am I still a paid editor or I can be a normal contributer. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the article was created by another sockpuppet with the disambiguator "TV Series" on the title to get around the existing create protection, and the sources cited are largely the same, pre-dating the release of the series. It should have been deleted when the sockpuppet account was blocked. That wasn't acceptable when it was in draft.

I suggest adding better sources that were published after the release of the series.

@Bonadea: FYI. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I don't have any connections deeply with the article or any other thing. I am not a paid editor anymore as you added paid disclaimer on my user page, if you think that should be according to wiki policy removed please remove it २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Deg777

I see they've never used a talk page including their own. As one of their first two edits used the archaeologist Eric Clines, who is very respectable, my guess is they haven't a clue about who is fringe and who isn't. They won't see edit summaries either I'm assuming. Temporary block? Doug Weller talk 11:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I am not sure a temporary (like a day or two) block would even be noticed. That editor seems to go on an editing binge for a day, then disappears for months at a time. I see one 6-day editing streak in October 2019, but other than that it's a day here, a day there, with months in between. There's some old disruptive activity from 2019 in which the editor clearly didn't understand copyright.

An indef block would surely be noticed, but I'm not comfortable doing that to a good faith editor with manageable disruption.

As for the recent addition of the exploding asteroid story, the edit was done in good faith, albeit with ignorance of talk page discussion.

About the discussion on Talk:Tall el-Hammam: I find it curious that there seems to be some unwritten law that religionists cannot be permitted to add to the scientific body of knowledge. I also find it curious that all the criticism of the exploding asteroid article focuses on questionable author credentials and affiliations rather than the arguments actually put forth in that paper. Collins, for example, is a creationist, but the couple of his papers I looked at about Tall el-Hammam archaeology seemed solid and well grounded, sticking to facts, and lacking any religious or faith-based overtones. Throughout history, deeply devout faithful became interested in science (particularly astronomy) as a means to better appreciate the deity they worshipped. And they made significant contributions to science. That is apparently much harder to do in modern times. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

As I was suggesting, they are editing in good faith. As for "religionist", that usually implies zealot, which I guess might be appropriate for anyone whose faith forbids them from making certain interpretations of the evidence, as well as meaning they view the world through blinkers. A devout Christian who is not a Creationist could do good work in the field of evolution, a Creationist could not. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PopcornTimeTree

Template:PopcornTimeTree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I cometh with peace, and milkshakes!

	Milkshake
	Hi! This is just a token of appreciation. Hope you're doing well. Pass this on, everyone deserves it GFO (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

An Update on that Website

We discussed boyfriendhusband.men a couple of months ago. The domain now redirects to an article on giuseppemacario.men. This closes the loop. It's a single person with a long history of pushing personal agendas with personal websites. He's been blocked numerous times for a variety of reasons. Thus, I just wanted to make you aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimoneBilesStan (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how a domain that hasn't been spammed on Wikipedia has any relevance to Wikipedia. Certainly its redirect status has no relevance. If you have evidence of abuse, present it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how much evidence you want, so I'll provide a few examples.

* Boyfriendhusband.men redirects to an article on giuseppemacario.men which was previously used as a source. 1

* Promoted some of his records in the ACM ICPC. 1, 2 (Check the timestamps.)

* Promoted himself in connection to Second Life. 1, 2, 3, 4

* Attempted to add articles about himself. 1, 2

* Been blocked multiple times. 1, 2

* Promoted his professorship at University of the People. 1

* Promoted his own NGO/political campaign, Free Flights to Italy. 1, 2, 3, 4

* Promoted his anti-plagiarism service. 1

* Attempted to integrate his site into the Ripoff Report article. 1 (Check the 151.* IPs on that article.)

* Uses his websites to disparage University of the People. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

* Edits articles on/attacks outlets and reporters who have reported negatively about him. 1, 2, 3, 4

Some of his websites showing connections:

* Presto.news now redirects to uopeople.review.

* Evidence-based.review redirects to uopeople.review, but it used to share a Google Analytics tracking id with giuseppemacario.men.

* Uopeople.review has already been added on several occasions.

* GiuseppeMacario.men gets used more than a quick search returns.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Very little of that is "evidence" sufficient for administrative action. Stuff that happens on non-English Wikipedias is not under our jurisdiction. You also seem to be connecting anonymous IP addresses with a specific person, without evidence. And some of the diffs above are associated with accounts that are blocked, as well as different accounts with no obvious relation.

Some of the diffs above are associated with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lerdall and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bianbum, two separate sockmasters. Have you added any additional information (other accounts) to either case? Do you have evidence that both sockmasters are the same person?

What is it that you want an administrator to do? I suggest creating an entry at WP:ANI and detail the relevant evidence that is clearly evidence. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience. And keep in mind I am being extremely brief. There are thousands of edits, across multiple wikis, spanning 10+ years, 20+ accounts, and 100+ IP editors. These edits revolve around a single individual and/or his interests and agendas. The edits are sometimes about him and sometimes about subjects connected to him. It is difficult to find a way to present sufficient evidence in a condensed format. There is simply too much, and that doesn't include off-wiki content.

The two sockmasters can be connected together. One example of a "quick and dirty case" (not a super strong case): The Italian Wikipedia ACM-ICPC article was created by an IP editor, and it included the name from the domain above. Gmacar, an account name similar to that name, uploaded the logo for the contest and made several redirects to the article. The IP editor added the logo to the article. This all happened within a matter of hours. Two months later, Bianbum edited the same article. The editing histories of Gmacar and Bianbum share many cross-wiki similarities. Lerdall later appealed to the ACM-ICPC information about the person in an attempt to keep the English Wikipedia article on the person. This contest is a point of pride for the person, if you check out any of his online profiles or his self-promotional articles.

Based on my reading of the Wikipedia policies, this seems to fit a long-term abuse case. I don't know though. I will defer to your expertise. Maybe I'm just chasing ghosts in my head! SimoneBilesStan (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The question remains, what is it that you expect administrators to do? Accounts have been blocked, articles have been deleted. What else?

If you can make a case for blacklisting some domains that have been abused, then MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is the place to discuss that, although that blacklist affects only the English Wikipedia. If the problem spans multiple wikis, then the global blacklist meta:Talk:Spam blacklist is the place to make your case. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about a one-man OrangeMoody. His efforts are conducted mostly for personal reasons but sometimes for profits. And some of those efforts are actively causing harm to others. What can administrators do in this case? What should I do to help them? SimoneBilesStan (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators can block accounts, impose topic bans, protect articles, delete and restore articles, add domains to the blacklist, and create edit filters. Basically that's it. Administrators with the checkuser right (I am not one) can find IP addresses connected to accounts and geolocate edits, provided they aren't too old (like 30 days I think). Administrators generally don't police activity; that's the job of the community. The job of an admin is to preserve the stability of the Wikipedia project and stop disruption using those tools I mentioned. What you can do is report any abuse that can be addressed by those tools when you see the abuse happening. If it's happening across other wikis, your case should be made on Meta, not en-wiki. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This is helpful. Thank you! SimoneBilesStan (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

SimoneBilesStan, Anachronist: For what it's worth, I was tipped to this by someone else. I think that behavior clearly links Modulato to Bianbum (and think it's fairly likely Lerdall is Bianbum) and blocked them. I'm having a fight with COIBot about domains, but there's definitely some aggressive IP spamming here; I'm just not sure whether it's still going on. If any of them are still being spammed (either on enwiki or crosswiki) let me know and I can look at maybe blacklisting. I won't blacklist anything that hasn't actually been spammed, though. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Source looking for an Article

The news report "Facebook's blacklist": https://theintercept.com/2021/10/12/facebook-secret-blacklist-dangerous/ seems important enough to be cited, do you know an article that can be improved with the reports inclusion? Greatder (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: Hard to say. I'd look at criticism of Facebook or Facebook content oversight board as candidates for including that. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Kobi Arad

Dear Anachronist, I have created an article in my Sandbox about an Israeli jazz pianist. I couldn' move the article to Kobi Arad, due to being deleted several times, the tittle was blocked. As I looked at the history of the page the deletions was first in 2010 and others before 2018. The subject has won two notable award in 2021 and 2019. Please kindly guide me what should I do to move the article. Regards. MerliSter (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@MerliSter: I am curious what error message you are seeing. The article is create-protected so that only extended-confirmed users can create it. I protected the title that way explicitly so that extended-confirmed editors can move a good draft to that title. You have the extended-confirmed permission, so you should have no problem moving the article in your sandbox to main space. If you are unable to do so, then that seems like a bug in how protection is working. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried many times and there is an error that says you have not admins permission to move the article to this title. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MerliSter (talk • contribs) 06:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I can perform the move for you, but I would like to see a response from this query I placed: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Extended-confirmed user cannot move over ECP-create-protected title. This seems like a software bug. You should be able to perform this move with the permissions you have. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the query, It may takes time to be fixed, for this one could you kindly move my sandbox to the mentioned title? Regards. MerliSter (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it turns out that it isn't a bug, but the title is blacklisted. That is what prevents you from creating the article.

I have looked more closely at your draft and declined it, providing my reasoning. An article on a subject like this, which has been deleted multiple times and even blacklisted, needs to be in better shape. I identified the things that need improving. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, I will work on it more to be improved. Could you please take a look to my first created article Leonid Ptashka? Sincerely yours. MerliSter (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That one has similar problems. I don't see evidence of notability. The American Biographical Institute is a vanity publication, being listed in it is definitely not any kind of claim of notability. The first citation looks like user-generated content so it should not be used. The second one is trivial. The third one is good coverage of a performance. The fourth one is a blank page. And the last one is an interview, which is all right for verifying things the subject says about himself, but not necessarily to repeat those claims in Wikipedia's voice.

Unless Leonid Ptashka can demonstrably meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO, that article is a ripe candidate for deletion. It could even be speedy-deleted without community review because there is no credible claim of notability present in that article. I would move it back to draft space for improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Need a advice and guidance

Hey @Anachronist I'm creating a Draft which is admin blocked page for creation also it's not very easy to create. I saw these two deletion discussions [5] [6] where it was told promotion and Press releases no reliable sources present. My question is how to differentiate Reliable Sources and Press releases and add it to the draft. I want your guidance on it. Also WP:CSD#G4 is applied as the article already deleted via deletion discussions 19:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

For your draft to be accepted, it needs to address the concerns raised in both deletion discussions. Currently, the draft does not do this. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes keeping in mind that will not face any problem but how to differentiate Reliable Sources and Press releases? २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Any source written by the subject, or a representative of the subject, or paid by the subject to be written or published, is a press release. They are usually promotional in tone. In my observation, Indian newspapers often seem to publish press releases under their own bylines, however, so it can be difficult to tell. If it isn't neutral-sounding, or exclusively quotes one person or a public-relations representative and nobody else, it may be a press release. If the purpose is simply to announce something, it may be a press release, and announcements don't count as "coverage" for the purpose of establishing notability anyway. If it ends with a quotation and/or a call to action (for example, directing the reader to a social media page, or other place for contacting or purchasing), it's almost guaranteed to be a press release. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Zathura: A Space Adventure

A while back I asked you to unprotect the article Zathura: A Space Adventure and I made a few small improvements.

There is a very persistent anon editor who keeps making unexplained changes to the article, without edit summaries and without any talk page discussion. It essentially comes down to two minor issues: genre changes and cast lists changes. I have briefly outlined the matter on the article talk page.

So I ask if you could please again protect the page. Thanks. -- 109.76.203.156 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. -- 109.76.203.156 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do that for a while, because I noticed the proportion of unconstructive edits had risen. If you want to make further edits to the article, propose your changes on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Anachronist/Archives! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)