User talk:asilvering#I sure didn't

Hello asilvering!

Thanks for being part of the Electronic Literature project. We are meeting this Thursday, June 19 at 3 pm. UTC for our Third Thursday at 3 UTC monthly editathon. This month, we will be planning for the editathon at the ELO 2025 conference to develop a list of electronic literature works that have enough notability to warrant an article. Please join in on http:SLASH SLASH tinyurl DOT com SLASH 3Thurs3UTC password 1234!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ME(hu)lit (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of :Urutau (3D Printable Firearm). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Superlincoln (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, are you available? I have a favor to ask of you. Kartal1071 (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kartal1071, if it's still relevant, feel free to ask. Just go ahead and ask in any case, no need to ask to ask. -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hello @Asilvering, first of all I wish you a good evening. What code do I need to write to add the Asilvering draft afc template to the article. Also, I made some changes to the Alp Arslan page, can you take a look? If I made a mistake, I'll fix it. Kartal1071 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Asilvering also, would it be a problem if I translate the articles I wrote on the Turkish Wikipedia into English and add them to the English Wikipedia using the same sources? Here are the articles I wrote:

• https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rey_Muharebesi_(1059)

• https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCy%C3%BCk_Sel%C3%A7uklu_%C4%B0mparatorlu%C4%9Fu%27nun_Kafkasya_Seferi_(1064)

• https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A2ve_Muharebesi

• https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damgan_Muharebesi_(1063)

Kartal1071 (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Asilvering If I create my articles this way, I won't be violating the policies, right? Kartal1071 (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kartal1071, in principle, no problem with translating your articles onto English wikipedia. In practice, it's possible that some of them won't be considered notable topics by en-wiki standards. Given how short these are, I don't think they're likely to make sense as individual articles, and they also may not meet our notability guidelines. Typically we'd cover individual battles like these in an article on the overall campaign/war, or maybe just in the article about the rulers associated with them. On Alp Arslan, I'll have a look, but not right now - feel free to ping me if I forget.

:To add the AFC banner to your draft, add {{subst:AfC draft|Kartal1071}} to the top and save the page. Then you'll have to press the blue button to submit it. asilvering (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you @Asilvering. I wish you a good day and good work. Kartal1071 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Structure about 'John O' London's' weekly refers only to a literary reference in Angela's Ashes. However there are many references to this publication in. ' The Midnight Bell' a contemporaneous novel (1935) and the first part of The London Trilogy, Twenty Thousand Streets Under the Sky, by author and playwright, Patrick Hamilton. The protagonist of the novel, barman Bob, takes and reads this periodical regularly in order to educate himself and improve his chances of becoming a writer. --Malcolmpw (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tps}} Hello {{yo|Malcolmpw|p=,}} and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm a bit confused on what your question is, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::No I didn't have a q. I just was wanting to add a comment re the literary periodical, popular between the wars inp the 20th c., John O' London's' Weekly. 2A00:23EE:1308:5908:FFFF:2810:CE79:9CD (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently submitted an English Wikipedia article about the Israeli graphic designer Eli Gross, but unfortunately, it was declined. As I am still quite new to Wikipedia editing, I would sincerely appreciate your help in refining the article so it can meet the standards for publication.

You can find the original Hebrew article here:

👉 https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/אלי_גרוס

Eli Gross is mentioned in several notable publications, including:

TD 63–73: Total Design and Its Pioneering Role in Graphic Design

Ontwerp: Total Design. Design: Total Design (Utrecht, 1983)

The catalog of his retrospective exhibition Order Meets Chaos, held at the Ramat Gan Museum in 1994:

https://telavivmuseum-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=972MTL_INST_ALMA2119540490003901

I truly believe that Eli Gross's contributions to design, both in Israel and during his time with Total Design in the Netherlands, deserve representation on the English Wikipedia.

Again, I would be very grateful for any guidance or help you can offer.

Thank you so much!

Best regards, Liad shadmi (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Liad shadmi, it looks like Eli Gross is very likely to have enough significant coverage to have a standalone wikipedia article (see WP:42 for the basic guideline). The main issue with the draft is that it's not clear where most of this information is coming from. For example, who said {{tq|His work is marked by precision, formal restraint, and a deep commitment to communicative functionality}}? There's a list of projects he carried out, but how would a reader double-check that's true? At a minimum, you need to have a Bibliography section that lists the secondary sources that a reader could look at to verify everything in the article. If you can place footnotes to specific sources at the relevant places, that would be especially helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @asilvering, thank you for your thoughtful feedback.

::You're absolutely right—the draft is currently lacking inline citations, and I appreciate the reminder about the importance of verifiability. The primary published source on Eli Gross’s work is the exhibition catalog Order Meets Chaos, published by the Ramat Gan Museum of Art in 1994, which provides detailed biographical and professional information:

:: https://telavivmuseum-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=972MTL_INST_ALMA2119540490003901&vid=972MTL_INST_V1

::In addition, Gross is mentioned several times in articles on the National Library of Israel's website, including contemporary press coverage such as:

::Haaretz, July 20, 1994: https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/haretz/1994/07/20/01/article/131

::Davar, May 11, 1977: https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/dav/1977/05/11/01/article/52

::Davar, May 9, 1980: https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/dav/1980/05/09/01/article/224

::He's also discussed in TD 63–73: Total Design and Its Pioneering Role in Graphic Design (Unit Editions, 2015), which highlights his work at Total Design and its relevance in the broader context of European modernist graphic design.

::I'll work on incorporating these as footnotes and building out a proper bibliography section to improve verifiability and clarity.

::Thanks again!

:: —Liad Shadmi Liad shadmi (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Dear @Asilvering,

:: I’ve added some quotes from written sources—unfortunately, these articles are not available online. The problem is that since his passing, Eli Gross has been almost entirely forgotten, never analyzed in depth, and largely absent from design history discourse. This project is, in part, an effort to recover and preserve a significant body of work that was at risk of being lost. Gross was active until 1994—before the Internet era—and most of the material exists only in physical form. I’ve already conducted over 20 interviews with former students, colleagues, and family members, so what I’ve written is based on thorough research. Liad shadmi (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Liad shadmi, physical only is fine. Ordinarily I'd be skeptical of a draft that is mostly based on print-only sources, but given the language and the timing here, and the fact that you're evidently a subject-matter expert, I'd be happy to accept something with that kind of sourcing. If you can convert statements like {{tq|In the Tel Aviv local newspaper, curator Ran Shechori wrote the following on 29 July 1994}} to footnotes instead of a long, in-text citation, it will make it easier for reviewers to see that you've explicitly listed sources. A reviewer will always skim the article and glance at the footnotes before reading in-depth, and if they're working quickly they're unlikely to notice that you've improved the sourcing. -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Please check! :) Liad shadmi (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Dear @Asilvering

::::I found some english and dutch atricles that mention Eli - online most of all about his work in total design

::::All the best

::::Liad Liad shadmi (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You left this comment on my submitted article about architectural scholar Michelangelo Sabatino:

Comment: Hi, where did you copy this text from? asilvering (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the text myself. It's my first attempt at creating an article. Constructive feedback appreciated. Zorrell (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Zorrell, you may well have written the text yourself, but you've copied it from somewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not sure what you mean. Sure, I wrote it on my computer and pasted it into Wikipedia. Zorrell (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, @Zorrell, I'm happy to believe that and it's all all I needed to know. Apologies for the opaque question; I was trying to avoid feeding you any particular answer. Many new editors unintentionally violate copyright/licenses by copying text from somewhere online (including stuff they themselves wrote and haven't realized they no longer hold the rights to). -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::In case you were curious, Special:Diff/1294291114 in particular is what made it obvious. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey asilvering, I wanted to let you know that I closed your proposal for a new community general sanctions regime at WP:VPR as enacted. You can find the permalink here. Thank you. -qedk (t 愛 c) 19:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Awesome. I assume this means I now have a lot of paperwork to do somewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I think I handled most of it, feel free to update things if something is not done. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, how can i protect my articles and edit from others as there is one guy who is deliberately undoing my edits either manually or otherwise. what can i do in this situation. for e.g. i have created article List of former chief justices of the high courts of India that guy is removing my list and is adamant on creating new separate articles for list of former chief justices of every Indian high courts. He removes the list in this article and gives explanation that this article is messed up and incomplete and too long. I reverts this edits but he instead of talking and reaching consensus everytime reverts my edits. How do i protect my list.

Another example in article list of sitting judges of the supreme court of India in particular section of additional information about judges i made link of the article of list of former chief justices of high courts to show that sitting judge was the former chief justice of any particular high court and i made link of not the whole article but only of section for example if one sitting judge is former chief justice of tripura high court then i made link of that particular section List of former chief justices of the high courts of India#Tripura High Court but still that particular guy is removing links by giving explanation that aricles list of former chief justices of tripura high court do not exist.

I am literally helpless about his behaviour he is not listening to my explanations and just reverting my edits and if i do the same he reminds me of edit warring policy.

Kindly help me and guide me what can i do to stop this or if i am wrong in making this edits then tell me the right way please --Aruunn (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Aruunn, the short answer to {{tq|how can i protect my articles and edit from others}} is: you can't. Everything you write on this website can be edited by others, and with every single edit you make, you have agreed to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL.

:But that doesn't mean you need to give up entirely. Normally what happens is you go to the talk page to work things out. In the particular case of List of former chief justices of the high courts of India, I'm not really sure what the problem is, though. For example, here, you've reinstated a list, saying that you're doing so because there is no separate article for that, and the other editor reverts your edit, and points out that there is a separate article with that list already: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_former_chief_justices_of_the_high_courts_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=1290663698]. So, that seems solved, to me? -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::the problem is that the article I am talking about is consolidated list of all former chief justices of Indian high courts and other editors is talking about separate list of former chief justices of each high court but there are 25 high courts in India but list of former chief justices is of only 4 to 5 high courts so to create list of former chief justices instead of creating new 28 articles i have created a consolidated list just like List of sitting judges of the high courts of India which is consolidated list of all sitting high court judges. I have created consolidated list for all High courts but that guy is deleting the list of that high courts for which separate list exists but my point is if in consolidated list 4 to 5 high courts' list is not included then the list would be incomplete and couldn't be consolidated. That's why i am restoring that list but that guy is reverting it and told me to create 25 separate articles for all high courts by citing vague reasons such as this consolidated list is messed incomplete inaccurate and there is no record of former chief justices and so and so reason but i have created this list by adding references of list of former chief justices of each and every High court obtained from official website but still he is adamant on creating separate 25 articles and removing the lists of high courts from List of former chief justices of the high courts of India for which separate articles exist. What should I do in this? Aruunn (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Have you had a talk page discussion with this other editor? If so, can you provide a link to it? -- asilvering (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::yes but I don't know how to provide link of talk page but i can tell you that the said discussion is on the talk page of List of former chief justices of the high courts of India. Aruunn (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You just add "Talk:" in front of it, like so: Talk:List of former chief justices of the high courts of India.

:::::I don't think you've had much of a conversation with this other editor yet. They've explained their objections, so now you need to work with that - are they legitimate objections? Can you come to some kind of agreement that makes both of you happy? Try to understand their position first. If you can't agree, you can ask for a third opinion from an uninvolved editor at WP:3O. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::okay thanks for your guidance Aruunn (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Asilvering, I noticed that my username was removed from the list of participants for Articles for Creation. See this edit you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants&diff=prev&oldid=1288038085 here]. I'm just curious if this means I am out of AfC. Best, Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tps}} {{yo|Ktkvtsh}} Guessing by Asilverling's edit summary, the removal was because you became a new page reviewer. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#How to get involved, new page reviewers can review pages without being an AFC participant and do not require their names to be in the list to use the helper script. So yes, you can still review AFCs the same way you did before. Best regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Wonderful! Thank you. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yep, that's correct. You're "out" in the sense that you have a real perm now and don't need the pseudo-perm anymore. The list would be pretty frighteningly long if we left all the admins and NPPers on it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion of :Category:Properties confiscated from Jews under Nazi rule as a category. I've added a few properties, and will add more as I find them. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:A voice of reason may be needed about Talk:Ó Comáin. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I can only hope one will show up. I've certainly had no luck. When extremely normal solutions like "email copies of inaccessible sources to editors who question them" and "when you know your major changes are likely to be disputed and need to reach consensus, demonstrate them in a draft and not the article itself" are dismissed out of hand, there's not much that can be done from an advisory perspective. -- asilvering (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As I think you know, I meant that you had tried to provide a voice of reason at the MFD. What I am reading into your statement is that you are concluding that other editors are not listening to reason, and that you are not sure what can be done now. Neither am I. But if there has to be a dumpster fire, it might as well be at WP:ANI rather than in a content forum. Ick. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi Asilvering, this might be my last message here if Fram’s objective is fulfilled. I just wanted to say thank you—for your involvement, your efforts to de-escalate, and your willingness to engage in good faith throughout what has clearly been a stressful situation for everyone involved.

:::That said, I do think it’s important to note that if an ANI thread was going to happen, it really should have included Fram directly. He’s consistently treated me with hostility since the previous ANI he initiated against me was closed with no action. Since then, nearly every interaction has been marked by efforts to undermine, dismiss, or escalate—rather than offer constructive, collaborative feedback.

:::It has often felt as if Fram monitors all of my contributions, always waiting to challenge or discredit them. I believe he was the one who originally nominated the Ó Comáin surname origin article for deletion—and when it was kept after community discussion and consensus, the tone of interactions with me only grew more adversarial.

:::In the current ANI, Fram is making sweeping claims about copyright violations, POV content, and source misrepresentation—taken out of context and framed without regard to the image situation or edits I’ve made in good faith (or it being a Draft article which I asked for input).

:::His language at MfD—especially calling for me to be “booted off Wikipedia completely”—speaks for itself. Whatever content concerns exist, I don’t believe those kinds of comments have any place in a community-led editing project like this.

:::I’ve done my best to engage constructively, improve the quality of the article, cite reliable sources, and revise anything challenged. Without context, however, Fram is now attempting to paint a very one-sided picture.

:::Regardless of the outcome, I’m grateful for your efforts and neutrality throughout, and for your willingness to guide the process when very few others were willing to engage calmly.

:::It might be policy that this message belongs on the admin board—I honestly don’t know—but I’m posting here on your Talk page (I never privately message anyone) for transparency, so it’s open for anyone to read.

:::Thanks again, all my best Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In conclusion, you're right that Bastun has issue with me because you sided with me on the Killone issue, that he was obstructing. Fram has issue with me because his last report to admin, in which I was thoroughly dissected, resulted in no action. That lingering animosity from both seems to be what’s driving this now. Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"Fram has issue with me because his last report to admin, in which I was thoroughly dissected, resulted in no action." No, I have issues with you because the editing pattern which lead to the initial ANI section, and which were widely criticized there, have not changed despite your everpresent promises to do better (which basically lead to the previous ANI being closed without action then). That he-is-mean-because-he-lost-story doesn't explain why I was acting the same before I 'lost'. Perhaps my problem really is with your editing issues, and not with sour grapes? But feel free to claim that claims about e.g. copyright violations are "taken out of context" somehow, as if claiming someone else's photographs as your own work has a context that makes it acceptable. Fram (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Case in point — I didn't even tag him here, but all good you're here Fram. The image issue was a genuine misunderstanding, which I clarified with Asilvering and was corrected. I'd prefer not to be at cross purposes with you—truly. I'm not sure what it would take to get on the same page, but I'm open to that. Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You are aware of the concept of a watchlist surely? I don't need to check your contributions to see you posting here. Fram (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Then my assumption seems correct—you’re monitoring all my edits, perhaps using an automated third-party tool. It often feels like you’re just waiting to pounce the moment I contribute. This is unnecessary, and frankly, a bit stalkerish, Fram.

:::::::Looking at your own edits, you seem to be on Wikipedia 12 hours a day, every day, hundreds of edits each day, policing others. That’s not healthy, and it creates an environment for you, that’s more hostile than helpful. I’d much prefer if we got along—and, like Asilvering, you offered helpful constructive feedback instead. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't think anyone could call me best buddies with Fram, but please do not say things like that, Kellycrak88. I strongly advise you take a short wikibreak, forget about this article, and look at something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Noted. Fram, I’m frustrated—but genuinely, I’d rather not be in conflict. I extend an olive branch in the hope we can find some reconciliation. If we could move toward a constructive feedback approach, I think that would be very positive. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tpw}}. Hmm. I think this thread speaks for itself.🙃 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Kellycrak88, I don't understand how you could possibly come to this conclusion. You have a watchlist. I've got a watchlist. We've all got one. They're like bellybuttons. -- asilvering (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry, {{u|Kellycrak88}}, I may have genuinely missed it, but how/where were the copyright violations "corrected"? In fact, looking over the O'Comain talk page, I see I missed three further uploads from you where you are still awaiting permission to use the images. You knew that this is not how we do things, if not previously, then at least from the 18th of May. Do you want to seek their deletion, now, or shall I? The ones in question are [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gibson_-_Tulach_Commain_A_View_of_an_Irish_Chiefdom_-_page_355.png this], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gibson_-_Tulach_Commain_A_View_of_an_Irish_Chiefdom_-_page_370.png this], and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gibson_-_Tulach_Commain_A_View_of_an_Irish_Chiefdom_-_page_370.png this]. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've tagged them appropriately. -- asilvering (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the only evidence will be presented by neutral editors, and the ArbCom will have to wade through the history. Maybe. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:A list of hypotheses, some more plausible than others, for anyone who finds themselves in need:

:* there is in fact off-wiki collusion, and everyone is colluding to suppress evidence

:* there is in fact off-wiki collusion, and everyone is burying arbcom in half-relevant emails about it

:* too busy arguing about contemporary India-Pakistan issues to gather evidence for arbcom

:* too busy dragging each other to AE to gather evidence for arbcom

:* every individual party believes they have behaved badly enough to be tbanned and want to avoid being a juicier target by presenting evidence on anyone else

:* every individual party is in fact just a sockpuppet of one single master, who is able to stall the whole case just by not showing up

:* when named parties said they didn't think there was reason for a case, they really meant it, and have no idea what evidence to bring in the first place

:* when named parties said they didn't think there was reason for a case, they didn't meant it at all, and now are too embarrassed to bring evidence

:* everyone is hoping someone else goes to all the bother

:* everyone is hoping that if they ignore it, it will go away

:* this is the calm before the storm / everyone is just waiting for someone to shoot first / playing chicken with deadlines / etc

:asilvering (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::*Yes. Some combination of the above. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Moi, j’aime beaucoup la baguette; elle est la mieux et plus dégoûtante type de pain. Croissant202 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Je l’aime aussi. Croissant202 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

C’est une belle langue, non? Croissant202 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, are you able to REFUND or DRAFTIFY the page Dastan Satpayev, I found more references and am almost certain this passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:All yours, at User:Ortizesp/Dastan Satpayev. Re: commonname, I don't know about cyrillic for Kazakh specifically, but for Russian we have WP:RUROM, which we tend to use unless there's a really strong reason to prefer otherwise (eg, Tchaikovsky). -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, how do you make a box on the right hand side for notable personalities, e.g. like the one here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Keshav_Gokhale --Maliniranga (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tps}} Hello {{yo|Sonepat2025|p=,}} and welcome to Wikipedia! To answer your question, those are called infoboxes, and you can find more information about them here. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I always appreciate when you disagree with me. You take the time to clearly explain why and you always make me think. So, thanks! Keep it up! :) --Yamla (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks Yamla, that's always a nice thing to hear. And I'm glad I'm not driving you completely crazy. -- asilvering (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, asilvering. Ever since the Harry Bruce article I've gone on a bit of a foray into the literature side of the encyclopedia, creating bibliographies and articles about books and such, and I've been pondering something that I'd like your opinion on. In many articles about books, you see a lot of "Bob Smith of the Daily Newspaper said the book was "a really great book" ". I'm wondering to what extent this is encyclopedic. I fell into it myself in the articles Flags of Canada and Frank Sobey: The Man and the Empire, although to a much tamer degree than I've seen elsewhere. Do you think there's ever room for prose like this? My gut tells me it's always better to put things in your own words, but this may also leave out a bit of context for the reader. Thanks for your time, MediaKyle (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm glad you're asking me this on my talk page so I don't have to try to make this sound diplomatic: in most cases I find this deeply unencyclopedic and, as a general Wikipedian tendency, I hate it. I don't think it's all that useful for readers, either. I could grouse about this at length, but that would be a bit too self-indulgent even for my talk page. If there's a really fire quote in a review, though, you should quote it. A blandly neutral summary of a review is a shame if the reviewer hated something with the fire of a thousand suns and really made sure everyone knows it. -- asilvering (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot for your reply, I think you're right. This is sort of what I was leaning towards but I thought maybe I was missing some nuance. I guess those sort of quotes are something like bare URLs as references - you hate to see it, but it's better than nothing I guess. I'll have to think about how I can rewrite my "Reception" sections to avoid this. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I've seen some pretty wild misinterpretations of book reviews before too, and I suppose I would prefer a (verified) quote to an erroneous "summary". But in general, I think if an editor can do better, they should. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You moved a page from userspace to draftspace per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Masud_Rana_Sheikh&oldid=1293297458] that makes no sense as for your information Draft:Masud Rana Sheikh is nothing but copy (later they removed a part from full copy) of an existing article Shakib Khan. The user is just doing things that leads to think of them as WP:NOTHERE. You can go through their editing contribution. I think the draft should be deleted. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you want to make a case that the editor is WP:NOTHERE, by all means do so at ANI. But please don't tag anything that looks like an article draft with WP:U5, as drafts do not qualify for that CSD. -- asilvering (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see meta:Requests for comment/Systemic Reviewer Incompetence Threatens Wikipedia Reputation where the editor you have blocked recently is attempting to kick up a brouhaha. I suspect you may wish to monitor their enwiki talk page for potential issues. I have no idea whether you wish to contribute to their (probably AI generated) RFC.

We do meet unusual people here, do we not? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:I totally missed that you had commented there. It was lost in a miasma of bad faith. It has been closed, and they have been blocked on Meta. Since it was closed by an admin and a GS I wonder if the Global Locks threshold might have been passed, but I suspect not.

:I love your taking personal responsibility for the systematic failure 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:I do try. -- asilvering (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, your collapse of an opinion that you believed to be AI generated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinny (company) wasn't terminated, so it collapsed all subsequent AfD entries today so none of them were visible. For this reason, I undid it (manual). If you feel the opinion needs to be hidden, feel free to re-do it, but it will need terminating I think. Sorry if I did the wrong thing. Elemimele (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:That... is very strange. I did terminate it, and you even left the terminating bit of the wikicode in there, but apparently it needs to go on its own new line? Fixed. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Oh sorry I didn't even notice the termination. Straaange! Elemimele (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to thank you for your comments on my thread after user Coinhote attempted to pretend to be an administrator and threatened to ban me. I am writing as that same user keeps updating pages with false info and when i correct them they just remove it and report me. The user is one Uriel Bromberg/UrielBRG, a known con artist and scammer. He is not a verified artist, Virgin and Universal music have confirmed in witing that he has never worked with them however hes trying to keep up the lie that he does. What do i do when hes abusing the system and im being silenced? JamesArther84 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:@JamesArther84, I see this is already at WP:ANI, so I won't answer here, so as to not split discussion. But some advice in general, for surviving ANI: that editor will probably respond, but don't let yourself get drawn into a protracted argument. The longer a thread gets, the less likely anyone is to take any action. If you need to respond to something, an admin or other experienced editor will tell you. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::When I die, can someone blank my userpage and replace it with "I tried, man, I tried"? Thanks in advance. -- asilvering (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The user Aaaas216& has vandalised the indo-pak war of 1971 page and has made edits without talking through the page,requesting blocking of the user and reverting back the edits done by him. 120.61.226.13 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi IP, simple vandalism is usually handled pretty quickly if you report it to WP:AIV. -- asilvering (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your advice,the user Aaaas216& should be blocked and barred from making edits to the requested page. Rhi12345 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Asilvering could you define vandalism for me? because, I am unable to understand how the page has been vandalized when I have not done anything but modify the infobox a little without changing anything. Aaaas216& (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Aaaas216&, see WP:VANDAL. If you don't understand why you are being called a vandal, simply put, you are not a vandal. -- asilvering (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::As reported by the user Meghmollar2017, the user Aaaas216& is not engaging in the talkpage and editing the page to his own liking,even reverting it when the concerned user changes it back. 120.61.226.13 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Your tedious statement is irrelevant to begin with and I am unable to understand your tedious behaviour when nothing has been change to begin with. If anything need to be re-solve within the article, I would then use the talk page instead logged out edit and accusing anybody or just insecure about themselves to speak articulately. 😂 Aaaas216& (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Folks, arguing on an admin's talk page about whether or not someone is edit-warring is typically not a good strategic move. Please try to resolve your differences on the article's talk page. If you're having trouble with that, remember to assume good faith, and consider potential paths forward as outlined at WP:DR. Go to WP:3RR for serious edit-warring violations. Don't call each other "tedious" or "vandals". Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the permission. I could not find review option in my page. plz help. WikiMentor01 (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:@WikiMentor01, have you enabled the script at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets-gadget-section-editing]? Make sure "AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions (drafts)" is checked off. -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks. I got this. WikiMentor01 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi asilvering,

82.46.25.83 strikes again with IP hopping. All the IPs are close to Birmingham. Doing the same disruptive edits as 82.46.25.83.

• {{IPlinks|31.94.70.221}}
• {{IPlinks|31.94.70.220}}
• {{IPlinks|31.94.8.129}}
• {{IPlinks|31.94.8.128}}

You have blocked their sockpuppets just 2 weeks ago Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#Disruptive IP range across television articles. The original report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Long-term abuse (gaming the Article for Creation process) in which you blocked 82.46.25.83 for 6 months. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Daniel Quinlan, any chance we can catch this with an edit filter before I have to block half the Midlands? -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3APaul_DeCamp&oldid=prev&diff=1294143030 your revert], thanks! I have some questions - does this mean that, for biography drafts, non-BLP drafts, even if promotional, should generally not be tagged for CSD per G11, and also, if this was an autobio or COI BLP, would this have been deleted? Thanks in advance, trying to use this as a learning opportunity :). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:@GoldRomean, there's variation in how admins handle G11s and how strict some people are about it, so don't take any of this as gospel. But in general, for WP:BITE reasons, I think it's a good idea to keep in mind that there's a difference between "not neutrally worded" or "not encyclopedic" and "promotional". If you're looking at an article for someone who's dead, chances are pretty high in general that you're not looking at something that could be all that promotional in the first place. (Who's going to get the $$?) Hyper fans and experts also often write things that aren't very neutral but aren't promo either, and we don't want to scare off the hyper fans and experts if we don't have to. We just want them to learn about WP:NPOV.

:Me in particular, I don't like to G11 things that are in draftspace if there's anything salvageable in them at all. I will delete things in draftspace if I'm clearing out the G11 bin (I did delete most of the things that were in there when I went through it recently), but would I, myself, have tagged/deleted most of those things? No, I wouldn't have bothered. Remember that all drafts will expire by G13 in six months anyway, so if you don't think an admin needs to see it urgently for some reason, it can wait. And then you won't be biting anyone who just wrote a bad first draft.

:Things that are worth tagging, imo:

:* true promo junk, beyond all doubt - not "so-and-so is an amazing up-and-coming singer!!" but "call us at 1-800-SPAMMER for a quote"

:* something that's really very promotional, where the editor's username violates the username policy (if the deleting admin isn't asleep at the wheel, they'll also block these guys)

:* something that's really very promotional, and you're like 85% sure it's a sockpuppet but you don't know whose and you can't be bothered to try to find out (if the deleting admin has had enough coffee, they'll also block these guys)

:asilvering (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you so much for the thorough response! This truly & honestly helped me understand G11 so much better. Thank you again, and happy editing! GoldRomean (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Good evening, Sir/Madam. I hope you are doing well. I have a question I’d really appreciate your guidance on.” --Jameshinom (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Jameshinom, welcome to wikipedia! If this is about your deleted userpage, well, I'd have let it be, myself, but I can see why it was deleted. Have a look at mine, as a comparison. It's all about my wikipedia editing, not about me as a person. You're welcome to leave some facts about yourself if you like, but mostly, what we're about here is building an encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

File:Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)}}

File:DFO_self_01.jpg

Oder bist du ein Herr? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Entschuldigst du bitte, im Internet sind wir alles Hunde. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Deepfriedokra}} {{ping|asilvering}} I cannot freaking believe it... You two are speaking in German now!?! How many languages do you speak?

::By the way, nice teamwork on unblocking {{ping|Sinead RAU}} and Criticalthinkinghorse. Having already been blocked twice before, I know the feeling... Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{yo|asilvering}} that's ruff, man. {{yo|Luis7M}} asilvering is polylingual. I do it all with smoke and mirrors. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Luis7M, some people spend their time perfectly aligning their contributions history, some people spend their time perfectly declining their contributions in history... and some are too old to learn new tricks and simply become adept googlers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::I hope you dont mind giving me a small german lesson, but I've always used Entschuldigung and this is my first time seeing the {{tq|1=Entschuldigst du}} thing. How different is its use from the first one? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::"Entschuldigung" the noun = "Excuse me!" or pardon/sorry, as a kind of set phrase. You use it about yourself. Entschuldigen the verb is used if you want to say something more complicated. Like, in this case, "Excuse you, we're all dogs on the internet." -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::aha, so Entschuldigen is supposed to mean "to excuse" right? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, i would like to create a new page about my YouTube channel, SyncheYT, to be known a little more on the internet, is that a possibility? --SyncheYT (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:@SyncheYT, sorry, that would fall under WP:YESPROMO - basically, no matter how you try to do this, you're going to fall afoul of some guideline or another. I see from your channel that you're interested in videogames, though, so perhaps you want to join WP:VG, a group of editors who are working on games-related topics, and edit those articles instead? -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Lol it might sound funny, but the main reason I would want to make such a page, is to properly show up when people search my youtube name or real name, to sort of immortalize myself on the internet if you know what i mean. So im not really sure what the group you mentioned would help me. But thanks for the reply! SyncheYT (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No, they wouldn't help you with that. But if you had any interest in editing Wikipedia, that might be a good place to start. -- asilvering (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• The trajectory was clearly away from redirection; no non-keep !votes had been logged since May 14th, the day the discussion opened, when you closed it on June 7th. During that time, the article was substantially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halocene&diff=1290742168&oldid=1290313171 rewritten]
• The {{tq|We are not here to relitigate the previous AfD.}} comment from CNMall41, indicating that user wanted GNG met on only the sources past the last AfD is not a correct reading of policy.
• Even discounting IP input, the final was 3-3, with all of the non-redirects coming later, after the rewrite.

:Overall, this looks like a very odd stretch to redirect this. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::How so? The only non-dodgy vote since the relist was a weak keep, and we didn't have consensus when it was first relisted. That's still no consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

TPA needs revoking on this one. Pinging {{u|PhilKnight}} too just in case you are AFK. Patient Zero^talk 00:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well, that's one way to not get unblocked. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yup, tell me about it! Thanks for your help there. Patient Zero^talk 00:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Btw {{userlinks|DataNomad}} isn't marked as a sock on their userpage. Is this on purpose? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hm. My oversight. I didn't set the tags. Thanks for catching. -- asilvering (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

i have ADHD i dont know but just to have help --Annoying Anonymous III (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, @Annoying Anonymous III, I can't say I have a clue what you're asking. Welcome to the club, though - lots of editors with various forms of neurodivergence here. If you've got any specific questions, feel free to ask. In the meantime, I've left a welcome template on your talk page that I hope you'll find useful. -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but could you reword that for me? I am not entirely sure what you mean by "no indeed" but didn't want to clog up the thread asking. (Not an excuse as such, but I have conditions on the neurodivergent spectrum that make unclear language difficult to comprehend at times!). Best, -- Patient Zero^talk 23:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm agreeing with {{tq|may not be strictly true from a userright point of view}}: the userrights in question are equal and there's no hierarchy there, strictly speaking. I'm also agreeing with {{tq|a fear of overturning decisions}}. The point I wanted to highlight was {{tq|"how much blowback am I willing to tank"}} - ie, that publicly disagreeing with another admin about one of their admin actions always comes with a risk of blowback. Sometimes a very low one. Sometimes a predictable one. Sometimes it's predictable and the blowback is likely to be catastrophic. And that's multiplied if you're a new admin, and multiplied again if you're a new admin who just came through a particularly bruising RFA.

:In short: people tend to avoid doing things that get them yelled at. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::I thought that might've been what you meant, but wanted to make sure. Thank you very much for explaining! I completely agree with you in that case. My personal view on the matter is that whilst there is no actual hierarchy with regard to the userrights, some may perceive one, especially in cases where admins are seen as "owning" an action such as a block, and that's what causes the fear of overturning decisions and speaking up - indeed, in case they get yelled at or admonished. Once again, really appreciate you getting back to me on that. Patient Zero^talk 23:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

... your relisting comment here :). It's shocking to me that some editors seem to think their use of AI to write comments at AfD isn't obvious. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Once you've bought into the hype enough to believe it can help, I think you're way too far gone to realize everyone else can see what you're doing. -- asilvering (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm a WP:PRODPATROLLER and noticed a few prods connected to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1293804603#LesIie this discussion]. The result of the discussion was to block the editor but I don't see a finding that their contributions should be deleted. Can you convince me that these are uncontroversial deletions? We often get acceptable contributions from problematic editors and we don't summarily delete all contributions when an editor is blocked. ~Kvng (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Kvng we're confident that those are so unlikely to be acceptable contributions that it isn't worth the demand on editor time to investigate further. The editor was using fake sources, etc. See User talk:Abecedare#Cleaning up after LesIie for more discussion and the other efforts we took to double-check before applying PROD. -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::If you're so confident and so concerned about wasting editor time, why not just skip prod altogether and just delete them? Seems like the discussion was closed before the full scope of the issue was dealt with. ~Kvng (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no CSD for "articles found to be unacceptable by consensus of admins at AE". -- asilvering (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I guess there's a good reason for that CSD omission.

::::Based on the stated prod rationale and what I've read in associated discussions these don't strike me as uncontroversial deletions. We don't delete stuff because other stuff the same editor worked on was bad. Someone needs to look at the actual work and I don't see a clear indication that has happened for the prods I reviewed today. ~Kvng (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Tagging in @Abecedare, who did those checks. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{reply|Kvng}} Please see the discussions in the Cleaning up after LesIie and Military dictatorship in Pakistan sections on my talkpage about the general approach and some specific articles respectively. Your and any other editors' help in checking for source fabrication/misrepresentation will of course be appreciated. Cheers.Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I had already reviewed Cleaning up after LesIie. Some of the same points I brought up here are discussed at Military dictatorship in Pakistan. It looks like most of these articles have now been deprodded, not all by me. Prod does not appear to be the best channel for this sort of cleanup. ~Kvng (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:I see this pattern again based on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1189#h-Average_kurd_and_DataNomad,_again-20250607162300. Can we think of a better way to deal with this than prod? I think it is hard to argue these are uncontroversial deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm struggling with the conflict between realistically protecting Wikipedia from misinformation and the text of the policies. As I mentioned on my userpage when discussing this with you, I see a rebuttable presumption that the articles contain falsifications and distortions. One option we did not use was draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT allows non-unilateral redraftification, even over the objections of the original author, if consensus is developed at {{tq|article's talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue.}} AN/I would be a suitable venue for the DataNomad case.

::The other course of action (that could be combined with draftification) would be to delete any information not clearly supported by accessible references. WP:PAYWALL states {{tq|Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.}} On the other hand, these articles had, as a result of their author's behavior, WP:REDFLAGs, and that appears to be a reason to demand further verification of the information before it is allowed to be included. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I appreciate the conflict here and I don't have any productive suggestions. My concern is that this pattern doesn't sit well with prod policy. Prod is not well monitored and so can be abused to quietly mute unpopular ideas, for instance. Do we know how long or how many times this pattern has been practiced? If this happens frequently (I've seen it twice now in a week), perhaps we should seek ideas from other editors. ~Kvng (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Kvng, if any editor wants to contest these deletions, they can. As PRODs, they can also be undeleted on request. Any editor who wishes to adopt one, take responsibility for the content, verify them, etc, may do so. If no one steps up to do any of that, yes, I would say they are certainly uncontroversial deletions. I do not think it is reasonable to de-PROD them simply on the conviction that they might be controversial, or that these articles, which have already been found (by consensus!) to be likely to contain misinformation or falsehood, may, on the off-chance, actually contain truth. -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering

There is information about the Battle of Manzikert that I doubt. Romanos sent half of his 40,000 army to Ahlat and later this army did not return. So the number of soldiers in the main army decreased to 20,000. Later Doukas and the Turkish mercenaries also left the army. However, Wikipedia shows that there were 40,000 people who participated in the battle. Also, Romanos initially went to Armenia with 40,000 men, so there is a mistake here. Kartal1071 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Moreover, while other eastern historians, especially the TDV Islamic Encyclopedia [https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/malazgirt-muharebesi#:~:text=%C3%87e%C5%9Fitli%20kaynaklarda%20600.000%E2%80%99e%20varan%20rakamlar%20verilmekle%20birlikte%20200.000%20ki%C5%9Fi%20civar%C4%B1nda%20oldu%C4%9Fu%20tahmin%20edilen%20bu%20ordu%20Balkanlar%E2%80%99daki%20Pe%C3%A7enek%2C%20Uz%2C%20K%C4%B1p%C3%A7ak%20ve%20Hazar%20T%C3%BCrkleri%20ile%20%C4%B0slav%2C%20Alman%2C%20Bulgar%2C%20Frank%2C%20Ermeni%20ve%20G%C3%BCrc%C3%BCler%E2%80%99den%20olu%C5%9Fturulmu%C5%9F%20ve%20en%20g%C3%BC%C3%A7l%C3%BC%20sil%C3%A2hlarla%20donat%C4%B1lm%C4%B1%C5%9Ft%C4%B1], and some western historians say that the Byzantine army has a number between 150.000-300.000, modern estimates say that it is 60,000-70,000 [https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1189/battle-of-manzikert/], which is twice the number of the Seljuk army. Also, one year after the Battle of Manzikert, Alp Arslan went on an expedition against the Karakhanids with an army of 200,000. [https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/alparslan#:~:text=B%C3%BCt%C3%BCn%20cel%C3%A2det%20ve,M%C3%A2ver%C3%A2%C3%BCnnehir%E2%80%99e%20hareket%20etmi%C5%9Ftir] This also provides information about the military power of the Seljuks. I have doubts about this battle and I found it appropriate to ask for your help. Kartal1071 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::The encyclopedia sources are a good sign that our article is incorrect, but you'll have a very hard time convincing any wikipedia editors to take the word of a tertiary source over the word of an individual historian until you can find better evidence than the tertiary source alone. That is, you'll want to find many experts agreeing on a number more like 60-70k, and show that on the talk page. I haven't read the relevant page of Haldon 2001 (cited for the figure in the infobox) but unless that itself is an assessment of other historians' consensus on the issue, I don't think that's an appropriate citation, since we don't want to privilege one single historian's view over others if they differ unless we have very good reason.

::I'm not sure what Remsense is referring to on the Talk page about previous conversations so I can't be of any help interpreting those. But do you understand what they mean by {{tq|You are selectively reading what each cited source says, ignoring the outline of the battle described by each (i.e. the desertions!) to cherrypick which numbers you can use to imply as big a difference as possible between Byzantine and Seljuk manpower during the battle.}}? It sounds like you may be conflating the numbers. The number of people who were in the army at some point before the battle isn't the same as the number of people who actually took part in the battle. I presume that's what they're referring to there.

::As for {{tq|It is incomprehensible that a large empire like the Eastern Roman Empire would fall into decline with the defeat of an army of 40,000 (and it is said that half of them abandoned the battlefield).}}, well, I have to disagree! It doesn't take much to topple a government that's ready to topple. And a humiliating defeat is humiliating regardless of how many casualties you take. The encyclopedia source you're using for that 60-70k figure agrees: "Manzikert was not a terrible defeat in terms of casualties or immediate territorial loss, but as a psychological blow to Byzantine military prowess and the sacred person of the emperor, it would resound for centuries and be held up as the watershed after which the Byzantine Empire fell into a long, slow, and permanent decline." -- asilvering (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::First of all, thank you for your answer. There is a point that I agree with you. Because when I thoroughly examined the Turkish sources, especially the primary sources, I reached the following information; The 4,000-man cavalry unit under the command of Alp Arslan attacked the central army of Byzantium and the Seljuks retreated due to war tactics. Thereupon, Emperor Romanos launched a counter-attack with only the central army and mercenaries under his control to destroy the few Seljuks. When the Byzantine army arrived at the place where the Seljuks set a trap, the Byzantine army was surrounded and then the mercenaries betrayed Byzantium. In addition, only the central army participated in the war and the main army, seeing the state of the central army, retreated in pieces as a result of Dukas' betrayal. Moreover, it is stated in both eastern and western sources that the Byzantine army was larger than the Seljuks. In addition, I also acted wrongly on the discussion page and I am both aware of this and regret this situation. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The only ones fighting were Emperor Romanos and the central army under his control. The mercenaries betrayed. The main army also deserted as a result of the betrayal. In the article on the Battle of Manzikert, the number of soldiers from the central army participating in the battle for the Byzantine side and the number of soldiers in the main army before the battle (including the central army) should be stated. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Asilvering, do you have any advice on this topic? Also, where should I go to start a discussion on this topic? Kartal1071 (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::You mean in general? The folks at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ would probably have some interesting answers for you, if you can distill this into a relatively short question. But I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you @Asilvering Kartal1071 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hello @Asilvering after thinking for a while and examining a few battles, I think that the military force section of the Battle of Manzikert article should be like the Battle of Didgori article. I would like your permission to make changes to this subject. Kartal1071 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You don't need my permission, or anyone else's, to make edits to articles. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Asilvering, so do you think my thought makes sense? Kartal1071 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Do you mean to add many different estimates of army size, like in the Didgori article? Personally, no, I don't think that's a good idea. I think that's a lot of unnecessary clutter. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Asilvering I wish you a good evening. Thank you again for your answer. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance at :Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexPCreports. Would you mind taking a look at their last edit at :Hulleys of Baslow? I didn't revert again because I wanted to give someone else a chance to look at it, and I wanted to avoid inciting any further edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Just to update, the edit was just reverted by another user. If Lefthandedcauliflower comes back after tehir block and tries to do the same thing again, then their intent will be clear. Can I just ping you in such a case or should it go to :WP:AN3? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Just pinging me is fine, I'll conclude that there are no reasons to extend any more good faith and block them both. -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Another administrator has closed the SPI and indefinitely blocked the account from editing the article. Not sure anything else needs to be done unless they show up again using a different account. Thanks for helping with this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for closing that cursed discussion -- but I do have to take issue with your close and I'm afraid perhaps prolong the discussion. I think an N/C close is unnecessary and in this case leaves several problems (even acknowledged by the page creator), including unverified claims in a BLP, original research and user-generated sources. When I tot up the !votes, I get 7 keeps (4 of them with draftify as a preference and/or an alternative to deal with the problems), 3 deletes/redirects (2 of them offering draftify as an AtD), and 4 outright draftify !votes. That adds up to 10 out of 14 participants supporting draftification to one degree or another, which seems like a fairly robust consensus. Your thoughts? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:I waffled over this one. I think draftify would also have been a perfectly acceptable close of the AfD, but I don't think AfC review is likely to fix any of the problems, since AfC reviewers are looking for whether the topic is notable, and the answer is already "no idea". So that means it'll go right back to mainspace anyway, after having given at least one reviewer a headache they didn't need. Better is to remove the unverified claims, OR, etc. the usual way, and renominate if that makes it obvious there's nothing left to hang notability on. Maybe you can interest some folks from WP:BLPN in it so the creator doesn't think you're after them in particular. When I had a look at it earlier I did notice that there are some dead link tags that are erroneous (link worked fine), so hopefully it's not as bad as all that and you can find some stuff worth keeping hidden among all the dubious sources. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Since you commented here - that RfC has attracted even more functional-SPAs, including one that had been idle since 2011. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at it, since I'm very much involved? (If not, no worries). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Good grief. Honestly that sounds like even more evidence in favour of "canvassed from some niche forum somewhere"... I'll have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Only slightly hyperbolic conclusion: there is simply no way people are not being drawn to this discussion by some conversation off-site. Secondary conclusion: this RfC is a trainwreck and you have nothing to worry about. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for taking a look. I've bowed out after one participant decided comparing me to the current VP was a winning strategy! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Did I miss that or is that one new? -- asilvering (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Mighta been after you looked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Had another look. That falls into "too asinine to warn/block over" for me, but it sure isn't moving discussion forward in a helpful way, I'll say that. -- asilvering (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. How do I create an article about myself? --DLD JAX (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @DLD JAX, welcome to Wikipedia! We really prefer that you don't write an article about yourself, honestly. See WP:AUTOBIO for more info. If you're undeterred, I suggest you read WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS before you try it, but I really don't recommend it. Sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Asilvering}} Hello, there seems to be some confusion. This case is not about Suraj Yengde but about Sandesh Hiwale. Instead of searching for the website on Google, please check the link I provided above. The evidence clearly points to this individual. SachinSwami (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, to clarify, the website belongs to Sandesh Hiwale: [https://dhammabharat.com/about-us/ Sandesh Hiwale's website]. Callmehelper incorrectly added this link to Suraj Yengde’s page here: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suraj_Yengde&diff=prev&oldid=1266969850 Edit on Suraj Yengde’s page]. The evidence clearly points to Sandesh Hiwale, not Suraj Yengde. SachinSwami (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Previously, this same link was added by two IPs: 2402:8100:3009:C3A7:9DD5:208B:F28B:DB50 ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahar&diff=prev&oldid=1223444583]) and 2409:4042:2197:B165:D15A:2613:9DA0:E96C ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nilesh_Jalamkar&diff=prev&oldid=1214356424]). SachinSwami (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@SachinSwami, I'm not sure what you're confused by. I have read the case and understand what you have said. -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello, I noticed your response mentions "website by googling Suraj Yengde." To clarify, I have not referenced any website belonging to Suraj Yengde in this case. SachinSwami (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, but you mentioned a website with content about Suraj Yengde that had been written by Sandesh Hiwale. Since it is difficult to find via a google search, whereas many much more obviously reliable sources are very easy to find, that strengthens your suggestion that someone citing that website in particular is indeed Sandesh Hiwale. -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Asilvering}} The website belongs to Sandesh Hiwale, and the link was added by Callmehelper. The information in the link was also written by Sandesh Hiwale. Here is the link: [https://dhammabharat.com/suraj-yengde-biography/]. SachinSwami (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Again, I have read and understood your report. -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I took a break from Wikipedia I had a lot of things going in and it pushed it away but I'm back now(also why is almost every talk page having some sort of argument it doesn't make sense) Chezetat (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry @Chezetat, most talk pages don't have any action on them at all, so I'm not sure how to answer your question. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::oh this isn't a question it's a hello Chezetat (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

چگونه یک ویدئو بسازم --NORA222437 (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello... Plz Change my username from PS Zahid to PS1360335 as per my Talk Page. --PS Zahid (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{TPS}} @PS Zahid You'll need to request this at WP:CHUS 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, are you following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/73.158.120.223, where you responded on 11 June? I am not sure whether more evidence is needed or whether SPI is the best venue. 73.158.120.223 was blocked for 1 month on 12 June, does that the other 2 accounts discussed should be blocked as well if they are the same editor? TSventon (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:@TSventon I was not, apparently. Thanks for the reminder. I see it has, uh, metastasized since. I'll take a look at it in some more depth later, but if there are any pages that urgently need page protection to handle this, ping me about it or take it to WP:RFPP so that gets done more quickly. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for closing the SPI. If they do come back, my main concern is disruptive editing, because they focused on making minor changes to articles like University of Oxford and King's College London, which mostly didn't improve the articles. TSventon (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If you get more obviously disruptive editing, no need to open an SPI - you can report that at WP:AIV, with a link to the SPI if you want. If it's not so obvious you might want to go for ANI. But hopefully we can get them to take me up on my offer to go through the unblocks process. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Also, thank you for trying to help the editor. TSventon (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Candidly, my address had a block of 36 hours. I served the block and then you blocked me again for no reason. Unfair. 108.211.176.194 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Creatively can we come to a solution on unlocking my IP please? Something just between you and I. I was new I was foolish. But I did follow the original block protocol. There's no trickery here no trying to evade anything in particular. I travel and have like 6 computers for various access needs and RAM requirements. Could you just say "Hey, I'll give you one more chance because we strive for inclusiveness at Wikipedia. Please don't disparage editors and check in on Talk before you make any edits."? I was stalked online before so I don't really want my own account plus I'm still reading the MOS:Wikis to learn what's up, you know? Let's make a deal. One more chance for the sake of inclusivity and learning. It really is a narrow band of editors chasing me around Wikipedia. You can see it took a long long time for anyone but this narrow few to actually say all of a sudden even edits that were literally backwards were wrong or numbers that were actually out of place was wrong. So, yeah, I flipped out, I said mean things. Let me learn from my mistakes and try again. I served my block term. It's unfair. Let's make a deal. 73.220.149.27 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|"Hey, I'll give you one more chance because we strive for inclusiveness at Wikipedia. Please don't disparage editors and check in on Talk before you make any edits."}} This is exactly what I want to be able to do, and that's why I suggested you request an unblock and ping me to your talk page. If you keep jumping around on IPs, though, and evading your block, you're just going to keep getting reblocked. (Posting on my talk page, too, is block evasion.)

::Regarding the stalking: I strongly encourage you to get an account. You will be much safer against stalking if you do so. Otherwise, you're leaving your IP data all over the place for everyone to see. Not to mention that repeated block evasion trains other editors to become very familiar with your interaction style so they can catch new socks/IPs when you evade again. Give yourself a username you've never used anywhere else before and has no way to be traced back to you. Do a WP:CLEANSTART. But first, you need to be formally unblocked. Put in an unblock request through WP:UTRS, ask for me by name, and we can work it out from there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ican't Talk on that page right now. I'm travelling for a while. Another editor told me to get quality edits up. I don't want an account. It seems Wikipedia allows for such a possibility. Can we just try again? I'm listening to a lot of different advice from different editors on Wikipedia. There isn't consistency. But I am trying to make a deal with you. I will stick to quality edits and explain each one. If they are reverted I will try one explanatory revert and just leave it at that. An account would definitely open me up to stalking for sure. That's why I don't have one. My IPs are being stalked. A username would be stalked even more.

:::I'll try this WP:UTRS thing you're describing. 107.182.47.171 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello...

how an I create an artist page on Wikipedia --Karo Billi$ (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Karo Billi$, welcome to wikipedia! Please, don't create an article about yourself here. This is not a social media website. If you'd like to help write the encyclopedia instead, WP:PRIMER is a good start. -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've just been added as a party to the arbitration case request. I've never been involved in a case, so I wanted to ask before I comment: what is the scope of the discussion there? Is it just whether the case is accepted, what its terms will be, who the parties will be, the underlying issues? People seem to have commented on all of these things. I have issues with the way the case request was framed, but I don't know if that's irrelevant or not.

I'm asking you because you're an admin and you've been patient with me before, but no problem if you're not the right person. TIA Samuelshraga (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Samuelshraga, "the scope" is the scope of the discussion right now, and this one seems particularly muddied, so if you're feeling confused and uncertain, you're surely not alone. This part of arbitration is where the arbs decide whether to take up the case, whether any of them should recuse, what the scope of the case will be, and who ought to be listed as parties. If you object to being a party, think the scope needs to be narrowed, think the case ought to be tossed out altogether, etc, now is the time to say so. Read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Responding to requests (it's brief) first. I'd advise that you not respond to other editors unless you really, really have to - you're speaking to the arbs. Don't let yourself get drawn into an argument with someone on the opposing "side" of the dispute. If you've got a more specific question, I'm the wrong person to ask. I can promise you that @HouseBlaster will be patient and helpful, if you ask them. -- asilvering (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! That guide is very helpful. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help towards making the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-CTDi was just relisted for deletion. I have never nominated anything at AfD before (as far as I know); as the nominator am I supposed to do anything else or just sit back and see if anyone chimes in? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Mr.choppers, no need to do anything. We just need more editors in the discussion to really get anywhere. Avoid responding to them unless you really have to, to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING. In particular, don't let Andy Dingley draw you out any further. -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, I have stopped responding to those comments. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI for you and User:Godtres; WP:DUCK block evasion here User_talk:71.89.225.182. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well, I tried. Alas. -- asilvering (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Would you be willing to relist this or consider this a "contested soft deletion"? The nom has made a number of poor sports AFDs in the past, so I'm skeptical whether deletion was appropriate here. Specifically, it was part of a series of Australian football AFDs: John Allanson and Michael Aitken turned out to be notable, Tim Allen is likely headed towards a "keep", while I suspect Frank Abbott is notable as well. So I think there's a decent chance Newman is also notable if we have someone look into it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Undeleted. -- asilvering (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Also, the default action for all of these "used to meet the now deleted WP:NSPORTS but doesn't meet WP:GNG" athletes, whether footballers, cricketers or Olympians, should never be delete, but redirect. To a list of players, or an event or something. But not deletion. It's a pity this isn't written into the guidelines somewhere. The-Pope (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I disagree. It's true that sometimes these athletes are only associated with a single event, and so redirection is less problematic. But often they're associated with multiple events or teams, and so it's easier for readers to find all the information we have on them by using search, instead of redirection. -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

How do I create a citation? --Tsedayephriem (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tps}} Hello {{yo|Tsedayephriem|p=,}} and welcome to Wikipedia! To answer your question, here is a simple guide to referencing. Happy editing! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Misclicked. DrKay (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:No worries. One of these days I'm going to rollback a whole page of edits trying to hit the "thank" button. -- asilvering (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::When I try to hit "prev" on my phone to look at a diff in an article's page history, I've rollbacked edits several times. Big fat fingers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hope you're well - I hate dragging you into this - but just to make you aware Fram has filed another AfD he's really determined to have my kicked off Wikipedia (he has said this many times).

This morning, Fram deleted half the barons from the Baronage of Scotland page which was a contentious issue being discussed by multiple editors on the Talk page, despite knowing there is an RfC open on the sourcing of those entries. I strongly believe no major content changes such as removing half the barons from the page should occur before the RfC concludes.

Unverified barons are not fake, they're just sourced else in other directors on commercial sites like [https://www.armorialregister.com/ Amorialregister] which some editors deemed a pay-to-play commercial site and even Burke's, Debrett's and RSN have been attacked and criticised as commercial sites etc, hence where we are and polices have been discussed as length on Talk.

Fram’s AfD complaint appears to restate older disputes and ignores the ongoing RfC and Talk page discussions. The relevant exchanges from this morning are toward the bottom of the Baronage of Scotland Talk page. While I should have reported Fram’s deletions, he pre-emptively escalated the matter through ANI instead.

I’m working on a full reply for the ANI thread, which I hope will clarify things in a calm and structured way. I just wanted to ensure you were aware of this context in the meantime.

Hi Fram I know you're reading this, as both Asilvering edits and my edits are on you watchlist. I would be nice if we can we just reset this relationship or just leave me alone it's exhausting.

There is also a relentless and determined agenda from a high-level academic editor to delete baronage pages and baronial titles — an effort that hasn’t succeeded in gaining consensus on the Talk page. That editor has now joined Fram in launching AfDs. I’m working on a response. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Just a quick update — the high-level academic I mentioned earlier (Arcaist) has now reported me for sockpupetry. This follows his RS noticeboard post and ANI thread — he seems determined to silence my involvement in the baronage project.

:His ANI goes into forensic detail of my contributions trying to connect the dots into a conspiracy theory. Fram already flagged today’s revert on ANI, which I’ve replied to, clearly stating I had nothing to do with it. Given the scale of deletions of names-titles, it's not surprising others might be frustrated — but I’ve paused all editing, especially during ANI.

:I’d ask you to please look at the bottom of the ANI thread for my reply to Fram. I’m doing my best to cooperate and de-escalate — not sure what else I can do. If my account is blocked for sockpupetry, then I won't be able to continue dialogue at the ANI, which is the aim of this user. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Don't worry about the SPI - you're not going to be blocked over that. If I wasn't moderately involved I'd have tossed that report myself. Even if that was you, reporting someone for making a single logged-out edit is not a good use of SPI time. As for the rest - you have got to get better at consistently assuming good faith, this is really going to bite you. I agree that the SPI is out of line, but {{tq|a relentless and determined agenda from a high-level academic editor to delete baronage pages and baronial titles}} is downright conspiratorial thinking. If an editor observes a problem, it's not a conspiracy if they try to fix it. It's quite possible that they're wrong, and there's no problem that needs fixing after all, but that still doesn't make them someone who is out to get you. That just makes them someone who is wrong. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Let me please make a comment and a suggestion, since you're Kellycrak88's mentor, I think.

:::I'm not sure it's terribly helpful to downplay that it would be a very bad idea to edit a page from which they were just blocked, even if it was a "single logged-out edit". Just raising a suspicion to the blocking admin seemed out-of-process to me.

:::Secondly, as their mentor, maybe you can have a longer conversation (or point them in specific directions) about their editing practices. The thing that worries me especially is Kelly's engagement with sources, where even more than 2,500 edits in, they seem to have no real grasp of what makes a high-quality source, and what types of sources are needed for a BLP article. I teach this to my students all the time, so I know it shouldn't take a week-and-a-half and thousands of words on a Talk page, or multiple instances across different editors, for Kellycrak88 to understand this. What's confusing to me is that they do seem know how to interrogate sources sometimes: back in March, Kelly questioned a possible COI editor who was using a dodgy WP:SPS, for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Historywriter1540] (although the dreaded Roll also makes an appearance, but we'll ignore that). Getting back to that sort of engagement would be a lot more healthy than now retreating into some conspiracy fantasy about a "high-level academic" (thank you, I wish!) being out to get them.

:::It would be a shame to lose someone for Wikipedia who's clearly willing to invest this much time into an area—but that obviously means that they need to have a good grasp of the policies, otherwise their time investment just creates a lot of work for others to clean up after them. Maybe you can convey that to them in a way that others can't, since they do seem to respect your advice. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 09:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::(Haha, yes, I too appreciated the implied promotion!) Regarding the single edit - no, please do go to the blocking admin with stuff like that, since they're already familiar with the case and can easily make the decision to block the IP without having to do an investigation. Checkusers aren't going to do anything about individual IP addresses, and SPI clerks will be starting from zero. But I can also say that if it had been my block, and someone came to me about the single IP edit, I'd just roll my eyes and let it be. A single edit is easily reverted, even if it is by the editor in question (and not, as in this case, a joe job by some passing troll). Give me a pattern, and I'll get out the hammer.

::::As for problems with sourcing - well, like you say, Kellycrak does know how to do this. Once we hit a WP:1AM situation it seems to go out the window. @Kellycrak88, if you need a sanity check on something, I'm always here. And please do keep in mind that if a source is challenged, the WP:ONUS is on the person restoring disputed content. If WP:RSN or a talk page discussion ends in consensus in your favour, then you can re-add whatever was disputed, but not before. In the case of WP:BLP information in particular, this is really quite serious. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Arcaist certainly, no personal attack was intended — the “high-level academic” comment was purely observational, based on your userpage noting you teach political science at the University of Edinburgh, and your impressive ability to forensically analyse editing patterns and apply policy with precision over an extended period. Those are skills I simply don’t possess.

::::It’s clear we’ve strongly disagreed, and I respect that you and @Asilvering are both highly skilled contributors with deep understanding of Wikipedia’s sourcing and content standards. My goal has been to improve the WP baronage subject, and while I may not have approached it perfectly, I genuinely believed there was value in some of the content being wholesale removed and deleted in recent weeks.

::::I’m grateful to everyone who has taken the time to offer feedback, especially the patience of Asilvering, whose guidance I genuinely appreciate — even if I worry I’m just frustrating them at this point. I don’t have anything further to add, as I’ve already explained on ANI the chronology and reasoning behind how this dispute developed. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Kellycrak88, whether there's value in the content that's being removed is a bit beside the point if the issue is the sourcing. Generally, we expect editors to make a real effort to try to find a source for something before removing it solely because it's unsourced or unreliably sourced. But if an editor has done that and come up empty, or if there are complicating factors (eg, it's BLP-related), it's fair to remove - and then it doesn't get to come back unless accompanied by an acceptable source. In a case like that, if there's an ongoing discussion somewhere to decide whether a source is reliable or not, the information stays off the page until it's shown to be reliable, not the other way around. -- asilvering (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

How was this no consensus and not keep? Mind you, as the nom, neither was my desired outcome, but there seemed to me to be consensus. Was it just because of minimal participation on a 2nd AFD? - UtherSRG (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, that's a "no consensus for deletion and none likely to arise", but insufficient for me to call it as "consensus to keep". Sorry for the confusion. I normally write out "no consensus for deletion and none likely to arise" in full but I got lazy. -- asilvering (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of :Lorenzo Muscoso. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Dear Asilvering,

Following the recent deletion of the article “Lorenzo Muscoso”, I would like to draw your attention to new verifiable sources that may warrant a reconsideration.

On June 16, 2025, a national broadcast by RAI Cultura included a dedicated segment on the subject, within the program *Di là dal fiume e tra gli alberi*:

https://www.raiplay.it/video/2025/06/Di-la-dal-fiume-e-tra-gli-alberi-S7E14-Conversazioni-in-Sicilia-839fcb61-4cf2-4151-9662-6471ca042df9.html

This recent coverage reflects cultural relevance and notability. I believe a balanced reassessment would be appropriate, considering the tone of the original discussion and the availability of reliable sources.

Kind regards,

User:Marziabiblio Marziabiblio (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Marziabiblio, it doesn't look like you've actually opened a deletion review? In any case, I don't think a deletion review only a few days after the initial AfD is likely to go in your favour. It's also typically pretty hard to get wikipedia editors interested in non-text sources. But you may have some luck on Italian Wikipedia? -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::They might need help-- put it on the talk page. Don't know why the say the don't have permission to edit the log or whatever. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

In February, Mentorship was successfully rolled out to 100% of newcomers on English Wikipedia. Following this milestone, we collaborated with Spanish Wikipedia to expand Mentorship coverage to 70% of new accounts, with plans to reach 85% soon unless concerns are raised by mentors. (T394867)

Our efforts to improve and scale the “Add a Link” structured task continued across multiple fronts:

• Community Feedback & Model Improvements: We’ve responded to community concerns with targeted changes:
• Restricting access to newer accounts (T393688)
• Some links types were removed to align with recommendations written in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style (T390683)
• Allowing communities to limit “Add a Link” to newcomers (T393771)
• The model used to suggest the links was improved to ease its training (T388258)
• English Wikipedia rollout and A/B test: We increased the rollout to 20% of newcomers, with analysis underway. Preliminary data suggests this feature makes new account holders more likely to complete an unreverted edit. (T386029, T382603)
• Surfacing Structured Tasks: An experiment where we show “add a link” suggestions to newly registered users while they are reading an article is running on pilot wikis (French, Persian, Indonesian, Portuguese, Egyptian Arabic). Initial results are under analysis. (T386029)

• “Get Started” notification: Engineering is in progress for a new notification (Echo/email) to encourage editing among newcomers with zero edits. Early research shows this type of nudge is effective. (T392256)
• Confirmation email: We are exploring ways to simplify and improve the initial account confirmation email newly registered users receive. (T215665)

Communities can now manage which namespaces are eligible for Event Registration via Community Configuration. (T385341)

The Wikimedia Foundation’s 2025–2026 Annual Plan is taking shape. The Growth and Editing teams will focus on the Contributor Experiences (WE1) objective, with a focus on increasing constructive edits by editors with fewer than 100 cumulative contributions.

We value your insights and ideas! If you would like to participate in a discussion, share feedback, or pilot new features, please reach out on the relevant Phabricator tasks or at our talk page, in any language.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.