User talk:asilvering

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for you helpful explanations regarding my Teahouse request! Therguy10 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck with the article! By the way, how are you finding that Suggested Links task on your homepage? -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Oh thanks, even if it doesn't work out at least I'll get some extra practice editing! :) I'm not sure I quite understand your question...Are you referring to the 2017 Southern Thailand Floods article? I'm not sure how much this answers your question, but on my homepage I had an "easy" filter selected to see articles to edit, and then something about suggested links to confirm. It was one of my suggested edits I think.

[This article in particular, if I remember correctly, had me confirm some links that a bot thought was correct. (I normally try to avoid the copyedit tasks as I'm never sure if I copyedit right) Upon viewing the article, I found a bunch of errors that just drove me crazy lol. As you saw I went through the first half and fixed it up, and I hope to finish the second half soon.]

If that wasn't your question just please rephrase it for me. I just don't understand I'm sorry :/ Therguy10 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That was my question, and your answer was very helpful, thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For putting together a varied list of areas new Nigerian editors can focus on. CMD (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it helps... -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Drake Burroughs II (02:35, 11 December 2024)

A good editor can make an article sing! --Drake Burroughs II (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from XxJustAChillGuyxX (03:44, 12 December 2024)

Hello, I have been wondering how do you create a wiki page --XxJustAChillGuyxX (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @XxJustAChillGuyxX, welcome to wikipedia! You'll want to have a read of WP:FIRST. I'll go drop some more helpful links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

331dot (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Declining G11

Hello

regarding Binaytara Foundation Cancer Center

do you think the given references of this article are sufficient and in depth to quality for a organisation article. I request to clarify, if it doesn’t fit for speedy, can we go for Afd. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Up to you. The criteria you used was G11, but that doesn't apply if the content isn't irredeemably promotional. Declining that CSD rationale doesn't have anything to do with notability really. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

So glad to see prompt response. So happy. Thank you. 🙏 Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Les47griffy (03:01, 14 December 2024)

Hello !!!, how do I add to an existing .....Noteworthy people....? ... --Les47griffy (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Les47griffy, it sounds like you're having trouble getting started on making your first edits? You might want to read H:INTRO. There should also be a module right next to the one you used to ask me this question that can guide you through making your first edits. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The Queen Vic

Hi,

In October, you closed a requested deletion of the article "The Queen Victoria". I think the request was a mistake, by editors who aren't familiar with the subject, and the conversion of the article into a redirect has affected roughly 300 articles that link to "The Queen Victoria" and "The Queen Vic".

"The Queen Victoria" isn't actually a fork of "Queen Vic Fire Week", but one of the main settings of the popular British soap opera, "EastEnders". The proposed deletion wasn't publicised on pages relevant to "EastEnders", so the participants in the discussion didn't understand that point.

I think the page should be reinstated. Could you tell me how best to go about doing that?

Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle, to be a standalone article, the topic would need to meet WP:GNG independently. It looks like this one didn't have that, so we can't turn it back into an article, unless you have sources that would show a GNG pass? But what we could do is retarget the redirect to something else that would be more helpful - is there a List of EastEnders locations-type article anywhere? -- asilvering (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably the best current target is "EastEnders#Setting", or maybe "Walford". I'm not convinced that would be the best way to go, but as a stop-gap it would certainly be better than the current target.

There are plenty of published sources that could be incorporated into the article if that would help show notability. I'm probably not the best person to do that work: I haven't watched EastEnders since 1986! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so the thing to do now is to start a discussion at WP:RFD explaining that this should be retargeted to EastEnders#Setting. You could then make a talk page post on Talk:EastEnders trying to get someone interested in gathering enough sources to spin it back out. It's better not to actually do the spinout unless someone's interested in doing that work (the stuff that was there before is still in the page history behind the redirect for anyone who wants to use it as a starting point). We should certainly fix the redirect target now, though. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_EastEnders, so perhaps I'll open a discussion there with a view to working out how best to move forward. It should certainly be possible to condense the deleted page to make a subsection of "Walford#Albert_Square", for example. Regarding the redirects, would it be frowned upon to simply retarget them "boldly"? WP:RFD can be quite a slow process, in my experience. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely frowned upon - the AfD decided a target already, so you need to find a new consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the AfD decided a target, but it did so based on a false premise ("Non-notable fork of Queen Vic Fire Week") and an underpublicised discussion by a small group of editors who were clearly unfamiliar with the subject matter. Surely, fixing a mistake shouldn't be harder work than making one. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to voice my support for the closure decision by Asilvering and consensus at AFD. The decision was primarily based on the limited availability of secondary sources to support the Queen Vic article. Most of the relevant sources were already included in the Queen Vic Fire Week article, which is why the redirect pointed there. The consensus aligns with both the AFD discussion and the closing admin's comments, as well as Wikipedia’s guidelines on sourcing and verifiability. I saw the other discussion started by Jean-de-Nivelle and suggested some constructive ways forward that are consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Jontesta (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

But, to repeat myself, "The Queen Victoria" isn't a fork of "Queen Vic Fire Week", so it makes absolutely no sense to point the redirect to that page. If you were at all familiar with the subject matter, I wouldn't need to explain that to you. We now have 300+ links pointing to a nonsensical target. The page "The Queen Victoria" certainly had problems, but demonstrating notability would be a simple task. Deleting the page has caused more problems than it solved. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle, the page hasn't been deleted. It's still there, it's just a redirect. To solve the problem you've identified, all you need to do is open an RfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, but my time is limited at the moment, and I've been trying to interest other editors who have more involvement in the EastEnders pages, and who may be better-placed to argue for the best solution. I've also found that RfD can be a fruitless time-sink, so I'd like to go into the process with a clearer idea of an ideal outcome. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't often weigh in on closed AfDs and I've been sitting on my hands over this one as I'm no expert on soaps but this appears to me to have been an obvious mistake. The Queen Vic(toria) is a very well-known location in a very well-known soap that has been running since 1985, with the pub being part of the conception from the outset.[1] The article dates from 7 June 2005 and so it cannot possibly be a fork of Queen Vic Fire Week, which relates to episodes that were broadcast in September 2010. Just because two people suggest a solution in a poorly advertised AfD and no-one objects until afterwards doesn't make that solution correct. If Asilvering won't overturn their decision, then it needs to be re-debated elsewhere as the current situation is absurd. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and RfD is the place. Given @Jean-de-Nivelle's arguments I don't really have any doubt that it would end in any way other than a retarget to EastEnders#Setting, as they suggested. Jean, it takes about as long to set one up as it does to post to my talk page, if you use Twinkle, and after that you can probably ignore it. It really shouldn't be much of a time sink. -- asilvering (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you really object to my IARing it to redirect to EastEnders#Setting? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't, no. And if you can convince @Jontesta it's the right thing to do, it won't really be an IAR move, either, given that they were the nom at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Boldly done. If Jontesta cares to contest then I guess we will have to go to RfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

name change

i am trying to change my username Jungroup1 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• The template on your talk page explains how to do that, Jungroup1. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from GSLAWD (09:16, 16 December 2024)

I want to publish my sandbox article, could help me do that? I just created the account

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GSLAWD/sandbox --GSLAWD (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GSLAWD, welcome to wikipedia! I've moved it to draft for you, and when you're ready, you can press the blue "Submit" button to put it in the reviews queue. Before you do that, you'll want to find more sources that verify the content (see WP:V) and show that the subject meets our inclusion guidelines (see WP:NORG). If you have any questions about that, you can ask me, or at WP:TEA. If you have any relationship to this fraternity, you'll have to read WP:COI and disclose that you have a conflict of interest. -- asilvering (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ox1899 (14:50, 16 December 2024)

Hey there, it's me again. I've had a read of your response and I've started looking through the articles with lead issues. I was wondering if there is any way that I can create a page where I can work on my edits before I put them back in to the main article? --Ox1899 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You can create a userspace draft if you like, just by typing /whatevertitleyoulike after the end of your userpage URL. But you can also just work directly in the article - that's how most of us do it! -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hey! You may remember me from a little while ago when I had a Teahouse request. I have finally gotten around to writing a draft of the article. (Draft:Millennium Force's effects) It doesn't have any citations or sources or formatting or proper grammar but merely just information. You absolutely don't have to, and I don't expect you to, but you're more than welcome to take a look at the draft and let me know what you think.

This is information I considered adding to the main article, but there is simply too much of it. I'm not sure if this is notable enough or has enough information to become an article, so that's why I haven't done the "hard" work of adding sources yet.

Just reachin' out! Therguy10 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Therguy10, you've gone about it WP:BACKWARDS - start from the sources and go from there, and you'll find it much easier to write new articles or add to existing ones. We care a lot about clear sources because we want to make sure everything is verifiable, but they also help you with the exact question you have now: "is this worth adding to the article?" When a source talks about something extensively, or a lot of sources mention it in passing, that's a good indication that we ought to incorporate the information into our article.

By the way, did you know that https://themepark.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page exists? This is just the first thing I found by searching "amusement park wiki" on Google, so there may be others. Some fandom wikis are just as picky as Wikipedia about having sources, but most aren't, so you might find a home for some of what you've written there even if you don't end up fitting it into a Wikipedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that; that information is useful! I find myself stuck somewhere in the middle of both sides of this situation.

When I made the article I wrote almost everything based on sources I've found; I just never added them into the article. (Basically I didn't just write what I had in my mind, everything I stated has a source) I do however see my misstep in writing the sources later, as it will prove difficult to verify in the long-term. (I also probably added information that didn't need to be added)

And no, I've never actually attempted editing on a fandom wiki before so thank you! I've had mixed experiences with articles on there in the past but if this doesn't work out then I will definitely give it a look.

I'll work to right my wrong with the draft, as well as add sources, fix grammar and cohesion, and add more information. (If that proves difficult after a while I'll start a different draft) Thanks so very much! Therguy10 (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• by add more information I mean media/citations/sources, not just more unsourced info Therguy10 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good luck! You may also want to look at WP:TRIVIA, which deals with similar issues of weight and whether to include facts. Very simplified, if you can only find the info in a hyper-specific source, it probably doesn't belong in a broader article. -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Marginataen's recent edits

As I said on the admin notice board, I expect that Marginataen will be indef blocked sooner or later. I wanted to bring a couple of recent edits to your attention as the admin who unblocked him. This edit seems like a repeat of the recent date format changes that he was blocked for just recently. And the edit summary in this edit has been blanked so I can't see what it said but the log says "edit summary hidden (RD2: Serious BLP violations)". Ping Tamzin. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@HappyBeachDreams, more than 1/3 of all of your edits to this project thus far have been about Marginataen. You have no edits to any other project. At this point you're either WP:HOUNDING, an illegitimate WP:PROJSOCK, or both. Leave Marginataen alone. As you already acknowledge, admins are aware of the BLPvio - it's already redacted. If Primefac had thought that was block-worthy, Marginataen would be blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The redacted edit summary wasn't that egregious, so I never thought to look at the editor making it. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

While the redacted ES does use "he", it also has a non-sequitur reference to Denmark that makes me think it's just an autocomplete error. Haven't looked at the rest of this yet, just noting that for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Marginataen's next edit on that page refers to an error in the previous edit summary, so I'd assume your take is correct. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking further, yeah, these are valid date format changes. I concur that you should move on from focusing on Marginataen's edits, HBD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin No sure which changes you are referring to. I only gave a single example (the existing date format got changed for someone who lived and died in America because they were born in Copenhagen). Marginataen has been making a lot of date format edits for military personnel so I assume those are the ones you mean. Even with those, he is starting to draw concern. Should a nominee for a non-military post be considered military-related?

Look, to be completely honest, I think that the whole subject of date formats is a bit silly. MediaWiki should display the date however the user wants to see it, but I guess that's too obvious. Meanwhile, Marginataen will continue his robotic editing until he annoys enough people. Look at the discussions on article talk pages - he's already in conflict. I give him about two weeks until his next block. Cheers! HappyBeachDreams (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@HappyBeachDreams, if previous warnings were unclear: Please find something to edit about other than Marginataen, and/or disclose your past accounts. If you continue raising these kinds of baseless-to-marginal complaints without doing something to show that you are here to contribute in good faith, I will block your account as not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Peachpi on GoldenEye (17:05, 18 December 2024)

Hi, This question is basically about (A) Referencing inflation adjusted numbers that Ive calculated myself through a website & if the calculator needs to be cited (B) If i can include a calulation ive made based on those numbers

I wanted to edit this passage "The film accumulated a worldwide gross of over US$350 million, considerably better than the entire 1980s Bond films, without taking inflation into account."

Its factually incorrect, vague ("entire"=sum or each indiviual?), and pointless to compare numbers that arent inflation adjusted especially over a 14 year period that saw inflation rise by 67% over that period. When adjusted for inflation, the 1st movie in '81 made only 9% less than the '95 movie.

So (A) Once Ive made a change and referenced that the numbers are inflation adjusted, do i need to add a reference to the inflation calculator Ive used? And if so do i need to reference a more legit source even if they use the same US CPI data ie https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator Rather than what i usually use which is: www.usinflationcalculator.com

(B)And is it ok to say something like "averaging $100 million more than each of the last 5 movies in the 80s" ie is it ok to include a calculation that Ive done and also an average, which is by its nature imprecise. In terms of hundreds of millions more goldeneye had made above each of the last 5 movies were (136, 86, 140, 112, 69) for an average of 108m more. (And obviously potentially adding the movie the only did 20million less to that average misrepesents the data) --Peachpi (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Peachpi, welcome to wikipedia! Sorry I missed this message yesterday. I actually have no idea what the standard practice is for this sort of thing, but I assume we have one. It's not WP:OR to do basic math, but when it comes to using something like an inflation calculator, I'm not sure how we usually attribute that. I'm afraid I have to refer you to WP:TEA. Hopefully someone there knows the answer, or where it might be found. -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I sure didn't

To elaborate on my answer to your question here:[2] nope, I did not do what you said would be sufficient for you personally. Neither I nor anyone else is bound by that.

It has rapidly become clear to me that we have a serious problem in this area. I knew it was backlogged, and I assumed that the main issue was that appeals just weren't even being replied to. What I've found instead is that many appeals are replied to, but there's no actual action taken and they are just left to sit, sometimes for months even after prolonged discussion.

I do realize this is an area where we need more people working, but I don't think the approach I'm seeing here is even remotely correct. In fact it seems to be what is creating the backlog. Blocked users are basically held in limbo forever because, apparently,. it has been decided somehow, somewhere that it is a very big deal to give newer users that made dumb mistakes a second chance, and they need to be quizzed as to exactly what they plan to do if they are unblocked. If everyone in the discussion isn't absolutely blown away by their answers to such questions, they just stop talking and the appeal is not closed, either to accept or decline, it's just left there open. I don't believe this is a fair approach and I don't believe it is what the broader community expects when new users are blocked. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You know what's really unfair? Giving that second chance to someone without looking at their contribution history, so that they can just immediately be re-blocked. Especially, in this case, someone who was blocked for copyright problems and close paraphrasing - something that isn't going to be immediately obvious to most patrollers. This can create a huge cleanup burden on our already-overworked copyright folks, and I can hardly think of something more demoralizing than being unblocked, thinking you were clear, and then re-blocked for the same thing some hours or days later, because the unblocking admin didn't actually check to make sure you understood what was required. In the meantime, I asked some cci folks if they had a minute to look into that user's simple-wiki contributions, and @MrLinkinPark333 found some problems already. The community does actually expect that editors don't violate copyright.

No one in the unblocks queue has been left for "months". The current oldest timestamp for reply is November 11, which is one month and one week ago. Is this like the "several admins" in your AN thread header, where "several" meant "two", namely "331dot and Significa liberdade"? Weeks is bad enough. You don't need to add hyperbole.

I didn't expect to end up working in unblock requests when I became an admin three months ago, but I found the state of the queue alarming and joined in. First, I mostly watched what others were doing, so that I could get a sense for the norms rather than charging in like a bull in a china shop (and keeping WP:MUSHROOM in mind). Then, I started helping, mostly by asking the questions that would make it easier for more experienced unblocks admins to make the call, or by dealing with the most obvious cases. In the meantime, I've been talking to other admins about it, which has indicated that the "norms" of unblocks are set by a very small number of admins, since basically no on else wants to touch the place, and that if I wanted unblocks to be more lenient across the board, I could simply form a new norm by my own actions. I've been glad to hear that, since - I agree with you on this - unblocks have been unnecessarily harsh. Now that I'm more confident about it and have more experience, I've made an effort to be the change, so to speak, and I've also been encouraging others to get involved. With all that said, I hope you can take this in the context and spirit in which it is intended: I think your "move fast and break things" approach is good for the backlog's numbers but has the real potential to drive off editors who are already dispirited. Some will be lucky: it's true that all they needed was to be unblocked. Some will be re-blocked, having been convinced they had learned better and would be fine. Allowing an editor who genuinely thought they had understood the rules about copyright, disruptive editing, promotionalism, or whatever, to go forth and be immediately reblocked for their ignorance - this, I think, is the worst possible outcome of an unblock request. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a relic in this regard, but as the original author of ROPE I have a long-held belief that unblocking is, in many cases, preferable to talking it out for several days or weeks, and that unblocks are cheap, particularly with inexperienced editors. If someone is promising that they understand and will not repeat their mistake, the only way to really know if that's the truth is to unblock and see what happens. I don't see it, at all, as being the unblocking admins fault if their assertions turn out to be untrue. Some people lie, and, sadly, some people are unteachable for whatever reason, either from not listening or not understanding. And some actually do learn. Unblocking sifts these users as we see if they really did understand the issue and really can do better.

For the record, I did find a request that had been sitting for over two months yesterday, and I found another that had been commented on by seven admins without an up-or-down answer. The reason these are no longer in the backlog is that I closed them.

I am very glad to hear that we are in basic agreement that the unblock process in general is too harsh, and I'm glad you're looking to change that. As you've said, part of the issue is that a very small number of admins have been working this area, and as a result, how they do things is de facto standard procedure.

I am not trying to break things, or to pick on individual admins, but the amount of unblock discussions that are just being left to lie with no resolution is not acceptable. That being said, and meaning no offense, I have been an admin a lot longer than you and have filled other roles as well, and over time I have come to feel strongly that we leave far too many things to just sit and fester when a result is clear enough. This is by no means limited to unblock requests. In the last few days, I've also declined a few unblock requests because they were terrible, revoked talk pages access from a serial appealant who wasn't getting it, and reblocked a user who instantly went back to doing exactly what they repeatedly promised they would not do again. I'm not just looking to unblock willy-nilly, but I am trying to give these users a chance to sink or swim instead of being left in limbo. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Xanya Sofra Ph.D (10:29, 20 December 2024)

Hi. I have published a number of scientific articles and three books. I would like to be listed in the Wikipedia. Can I do that by submitting my articles to you? How can I do that? Please advise --Xanya Sofra Ph.D (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Xanya Sofra Ph.D, you need to get practice editing other articles first, it's clear at the moment you don't know what you are doing. Also read Your first article

(talk page watcher)To editor Xanya Sofra Ph.D: Welcome to Wikipedia. As you used the plural, I assume you mean the articles you have written. No, that would be awkward. Your work would be listed at Google Scholar. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose subjects must meet inclusion requirements like Wikipedia:Notability (academics). We do not list the works of scholars per se, though they would be included in an encyclopedia article about you, most likely. WP:ACADEME is an essay that might help you get you acclimated. Perhaps @Drmies: has more specific information. Hope this helps.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Deepfriedokra. @Xanya Sofra Ph.D, since you've published three books, I think you are likely to meet our inclusion guidelines. Since you obviously will have a conflict of interest about yourself, please see WP:COI. -- asilvering (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

this and this are self-published, and I don't have much faith in this either. I do not believe that the Journal of Aesthetic Nursing is a real, peer-reviewed, academic journal. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, alas. I do have the perhaps over-optimistic habit of assuming that when an academic says "books", they mean "academic books". -- asilvering (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If people add "PhD" they want something. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Xanya Sofra Ph.D: To create an article about yourself, it would be best to use the WP:ARTICLEWIZARD to create a draft via the WP:AFC process for review by experienced editors. However, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged as it is fraught with peril. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies everyone else tries to forget their trauma, it's true. -- asilvering (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

G11 question

Hey, I saw you processed the tag I placed on Isaiah matong abud and blanked in lieu of deletion. When I edited before this clean start, I remember that promotional pages like this were deleted even if in userspace: I would really love to hear the rationale for blanking as I might be behind the curve with any CSD changes here! Thanks a lot, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly deletion-worthy, not a bad instinct on your part. Normally I'd draftify userpages that were tagged as G11 when they look like drafts, but I couldn't stomach it in this case. I noticed that the editor was asking their mentor a question that I presume is about what they wrote in userspace [3], so I blanked instead of deleting in case they wanted to reuse any of that text as a starting point, erring on the side of grace. I'd rather not crush newbies right out the gate if I can avoid it. Your CSD notification will serve as a warning that it was dangerously promotional and they need to take a different approach if they try again. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's really helpful to hear. To me, I just saw what seemed like AI-based self-promotion and hit the button. Just to I'm clear for future reference, you recommend using a talk page warning (a la {{Uw-userpage}}) and blanking/moving in cases like these instead of going straight to CSD? Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I know there are others who disagree and go straight to "burn it with fire", but my inclination is to draftify anything that could, assuming the best possible faith but absolutely zero competence, be imagined to be a draft. This one really was too much of an ad ("Follow him on Instagram!") even for me, so I blanked instead. If they're an obviously non-notable person who is promotionally oversharing in userspace, a draft won't do them any good either, so I tend to blank and leave them a note saying it's fine to tell us about yourself, just not... that much. I do tend to get out the flamethrower for super obvious AI (chatGPT won't mind if I destroy its hard work), marketing professionals, and bios of obviously non-notable up-and-coming musicians, because I am only human and I have my limits. Where you fall on the "give them grace" vs "show them the door as soon as possible" spectrum is up to you, but in my opinion this would be a better place in general if we leaned more often towards grace. -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I certainly used to be one of the "burn it with fire" types, but I see the merits of this perspective. I'll think about that when tagging for G11 in userspace. Thanks for the good advice! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Asilvering, I noticed you answer on the AFC talk page, I had posted [4] there but haven't gotten a response, I appreciate any help, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any idea what you're talking about, but I've replied there anyway. Maybe someone else will join in. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Asilvering: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy holidays!

Happy holidays and a prosperous 2025!
Repassing it, if I am allowed to do that. Let's say it is allowed.

asilvering, I was thrilled to pass the WP:BATON to you. You have, in a very short time period, become quite adept at handling CAT:RFU – and even the WP:UTRS stuff (I still am too scared to do much at UTRS...). Working alongside you with helping users get unblocked and regularly contributing has been amazing. Your great teacher skills definitely come in handy, both in dealing with unblock requests and mentoring newbies via WP:GTF. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention your best accomplishment, which is coming up with WP:EFA, which is the superior shortcut to refer to, well, WP:EFA. Wishing you the best in 2025, and happy holidays! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Aww, thanks @HouseBlaster. Happy holidays and all the best in the new year. -- asilvering (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings:)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Asilvering, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Actoreans

Those anything like Wiki-midi-chlorians? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

widichlorians? -- asilvering (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

wooooowwwww -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Merry Christmas, Asilvering! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

And a Merry Welsh Christmas to you too. (In the spirit of the season, I forgive you for your seizure-inducing colour scheme.) -- asilvering (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Asilvering: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy holidays!

	Happy holidays!
	Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello Asilvering: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Asilvering, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Asilvering

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Asilvering, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Galaxybeing (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Christmas greetings

Wishing you a wonderful holiday season however you spend the remainder of your December, and a happy 2025! Perfect4th (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and same to you! -- asilvering (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Joyous Season

Hello Asilvering: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Garuda ^Talk! 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Garuda ^Talk! 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hi, I hope you had a great Christmas, and have a great 2025. (bit early I know but wanted to say it anyways). Crafterstar (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Same to you! -- asilvering (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

re: your email

Hi asilvering. I don't see any need for a private discussion on the matter. From a quick scan, I don't see any issues like those that I revoked for. I trust your judgement to grant as you see fit. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @JJMC89. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment deletion

Greetings Asilvering, it was recommended that I bring this case that caught my interest to an administrator, so here I am! I've noticed the edit history of this IP user is entirely deletions of comments on talk pages about contentious topics, always without edit summaries. I tried asking them about it on their talk page and received no reply, and I notice they've done it again since then. Do you have any intuition here? Big Thumpus (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, from a glance at their edits, it looks like their aim is to remove unconstructive comments about how Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Nothing really wrong with that, but I've left them a template warning about using edit summaries. -- asilvering (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2025

Women in Red | January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329 Online events: New: Music (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run A & B | Internet personalities Continuing: #1day1woman (year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2024 Announcements from other communities Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2025 Participate in #1Lib1Ref Jan 15 – Feb 5, 2025 Tip of the month: Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding {{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}} to your user page. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Vito.zafirovski (23:32, 29 December 2024)

Hi there! What can I do to make sure my edit is correct and won't be deleted afterwards? Thanks in advance --Vito.zafirovski (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vito.zafirovski, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm afraid there isn't really any way to guarantee that your edits won't be removed. It happens pretty often, and it's part of how we edit here (see WP:BRD). If your edit is reverted and you don't understand why, you can ask the editor who performed the revert. Probably the most common reason for edits being undone is that they didn't use a reliable source (see WP:RS), so the information couldn't easily be verified. Make sure you add a footnote that shows where you got the information from with every edit you make, and your edits are much less likely to be reverted. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Balaram Bhaskar (14:38, 31 December 2024)

Hello, I want to publish a article about an actor --Balaram Bhaskar (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Balaram Bhaskar, welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend reading WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS before getting started. I see you've had your draft declined, so please read the links in the decline rationale as well. If you have questions about any of that, feel free to ask here or at WP:TEA. -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing other's user pages

Hello.

I noticed you edited my user page without consensus.

While my user page is not de jure protected from editing, other's pages should not be edited without consensus, unless they are uncontroversial (like reverting vandalism or fixing errors). Not only did you remove said warning, you also violated the guideline. Please do not edit my or other's pages without consensus. I have reverted your edit and noted that the page is not technically protected. Also, user pages are technically semi protected by default Heyaaaaalol (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Heyaaaaalol: asilvering's edit was correct per WP:SMI: Userpages may not contain simulations of the MediaWiki interface, and any user may remove violations of this rule. Merely including the padlock symbol is borderline, but including the whole "Why is this page protected?" schpiel pretty clearly qualifies as simulating the interface. Please remedy this rather than lecturing the person who is correctly enforcing policy. You are welcome to still have some kind of banner asking people not to edit the page, but understand that such a banner does not supersede cases where policy says one may edit another user's page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not know this. Thank you. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Asilvering!

Happy New Year!

Asilvering,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Restoring article to userspace

Hey there, and happy New Year! I'd like to request the Internet Aesthetic article be moved to my userspace. Hope your year starts off well! Photos of Japan (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll find it at User:Photos of Japan/Internet aesthetic. 明けましておめでとう！ -- asilvering (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

明けましておめでとう！ ~ヾ(＾∇＾)

Thanks for the page move. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to accept your suggestion!

Well, despite my best efforts, my draft was indeed rejected. I was unaware of Original Research being a factor and unintentionally shot myself in the foot with that one lol. The lack of sources and information on the Internet honestly stuns me a little bit; I completely see why it was rejected. I am a little proud of my writing and how I put it together because I feel at least that was done alright. I've come to thank you for making me aware of those other Wikis; I might take a crack at those so there is something on the internet about the effects. :] Therguy10 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Alas. There's a limited amount of that kind of thing that's fine - most of your draft is basically facts, so as long as you can show the fact is verifiable, that's ok. But we do still need to be able to show that the topic is notable, which requires secondary sources. I'm sure there's a wiki out there that would be happy to have it, though. And all the practice with wikimarkup will only help you out for writing on Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 Update from Women in Green

Hello Asilvering:

2024 has wrapped up, and what a full year it was for WikiProject Women in Green! Over the past year, we hosted two edit-a-thons, one themed around women's history and another on women around the world. We also managed to achieve most of our 2024 annual goals, nominating 75 articles for GA, reviewing 64 GA nominations, nominating 8 articles for FAC, peer reviewing 3 articles and reviewing 10 FAC nominations. Excellent work, and thank you to everyone involved!

For 2025 we have a new set of goals for nominations and reviews. In particular, we would like to see more articles on our Hot 100 list being improved and nominated for GA this year. If you take a look at the list and see an article you are interested in contributing to, feel free to add it and yourself to our Hot 100 project discussion. You might even find someone interested in collaborating with you!

This year, as with every year, we hope you will join us in helping improve our coverage of women and women's works on this encyclopedia. Every contribution helps. We'll see you around!

Grnrchst (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Your Teahouse question

You did not get a response to this question. This looks like something they could answer on WP:VPT if you didn't already find the answer somewhere else.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Complaint Regarding Historical Revisionism and Bias on Articles Concerning Afghanistan

Dear @Asilvering:, I hope you are doing well. I need some help and want to ccomplaint against a user called @HistoryofIran who has been engaging in historical revisionism on articles related to Afghanistan. Despite multiple complaints, there has been no resolution. This user has been attempting to distort historical facts and present a biased narrative that seeks to "Iranize" Afghanistan's persian history, rejecting credible sources including those from Oxford University.

Furthermore, this user leverages their experience to reject any edits concerning Afghanistan and exhibits a particular interest in using historical names such as Persia or Greater Iran, while actively attempting to undermine the name "Afghanistan" in these articles. Their actions not only compromise the integrity of the information but also mislead readers and misrepresent the rich and diverse history of Afghanistan.

I kindly request that you see into this matter. I believe that some action of experienced users like you will help preserve the factual and neutral portrayal of Afghanistan's history on Wikipedia.

Here are some isuues regarding him:

• He is not accepting my source and does not want to add Afghanistan as the birthplace of Rumi:
  
  • Source 1
• He doesn't want me to add the Infobox because it would show the birthplace, etc., of the Persian poet Rabia Balkhi:
  
  • Source 2

Best Regards Af420 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say something, but those diffs are not making you look good (WP:OUCH). Just more WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA and WP:TENDENTIOUS, not being the first time [5], where they were warned to refrain from doing the former. Asilvering, if you have questions, feel free to ask away. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Af420, I'm really not convinced that #2 has anything to do with whether it shows the birthplace of Rabia Balkhi - if that is in fact the reason behind the edit, HoI has a great alibi, which you can see in their full and believable edit summary. I happen to like infoboxes, but I know that many editors don't, especially long-time editors. If you want to include an infobox on an article where another editor has disputed whether it's worth having, you can open a WP:RFC about it to get some wider opinions. If you do that, please remember that the question must be neutral. Please don't assume you know what other editors' motivations are. Regarding #1, HoI is correct that this doesn't look good on your part. If you want to start a discussion about that, you'll have to back up: start a new talk page thread, explain your reasoning for using the sources you've used, and clearly explain why the others are insufficient.

@HistoryofIran, I really think your editing experience would improve immensely if you extended more patience towards other editors. You'd be more likely to convince them they're wrong, for one thing. -- asilvering (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering,

This person is almost always on Wikipedia, wich is good, but nearly all of their edits are focused on Persian history. They seem to deny that countries like Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan have any connection to the Persian language, especially when it comes to Afghan Persian history. They often adjust the name of Iran or Persia while omitting the names of countries like Azerbaijan and Afghanistan. It feels like they love to portray figures like Rumi, who was born in Afghanistan, as purely Persian. Sometimes, it even seems like they're being paid to do so.

Why do they insist on denying the history of Iran's neighboring countries? Why do they make it seem like Persian history solely belongs to Iran, despite the fact that the first-ever female poet, Rabia Balkhi, was born in modern-day Afghanistan, and the most famous Persian poet, Rumi, was also born there? They've even added sections about Rumi's citizenship, despite the absence of such a concept back then, yet they listed the Khwarazmian Empire as his place of citizenship. They appear obsessed with the notion that everything was Iran before the 1700s. They're using their extensive language skills to erase Afghanistan's Persian-related history, making it look like even that history belongs solely to Iran. They seem intent on "Iranizing" everything, even if it pertains to Tajikistan.

I am not in a position to counter all his edits, but I would greatly appreciate it if someone could prevent him from undoing our contributions simply because he disagrees with them.

Best regards Af420 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to any of these rhetorical or implied questions. I do know that you have now spoken more to me about HoI's edits than you have ever spent in discussion with HoI themselves. You're going to have to start there to try to resolve your individual content disputes. Until you've really given that a try, realistically speaking, you aren't going to get very far with your content dispute or with showing that HoI is some kind of pov-pushing Persian nationalist. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, but I just feel like he has stronger argumentative skills in Wikipedia-related matters. I made 2-3 edits over a long time, but somehow they were always reverted by him.

Could you please check the infobox of Rabia Balkhi article and give me feedback on whether it should be there or if I should take it back?:))

Best regards Af420 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly true that an experienced editor will have an edge on an inexperienced one in an argument. That's why I wouldn't recommend trying to go to, say, WP:ANI, and try to convince anyone else that HoI is pov-pushing. If they aren't, you'll probably be blocked. If they are, well, you may find a way to shoot yourself in the foot while everyone is watching, and end up blocked anyway. First, try to get somewhere on the talk page. If you can't reach an agreement with another editor on the talk page of the article, it can be helpful to get a third opinion: WP:3O. Read through WP:DR for advice on how to proceed if that doesn't work out. Walk away from the unimportant fights. (How much do you care about this infobox?)

When you're a more experienced editor and you've done some more dispute resolution, you'll be on better footing to convince other editors you're in the right, and less likely to set yourself up for some kind of WP:BOOMERANG outcome. But it's also entirely possible that you'll end up conceding the point once you're better versed in guidelines like WP:RS, that you and HoI will manage to find consensus, or that you'll ultimately decide that HoI isn't pov-pushing after all. Stay out of edit wars, explain your reasoning calmly and clearly, and see where that gets you.

Regarding the infobox, I don't think you should have put it back - you should have started a discussion about it on the talk page instead. Now that you have put it back, though, I don't think you should self-revert. If it's challenged again, I hope it's on the talk page, and I hope you continue the discussion there rather than adding it a third time. -- asilvering (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I’m going to follow your advice and do exactly as you suggested.

Thank you for taking the time to address this matter. :))

Best regards Af420 (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I really think your editing experience would improve immensely if you extended more patience towards other editors. You'd be more likely to convince them they're wrong, for one thing

I try, but they unfortunately keep making it worse, as you saw with Anzor.akaev. Af420 is another good example. Warned to stop attacking by an admin, proceeds to continue it here, blatantly lying about those diffs in an attempt to make me look bad. I am unfortunately also often on my own, trying to patrol a wide variety of articles related to different countries, so I can't keep being patient forever, as this happens frequently. Also, unless you and Af420 have encountered each other before, I don't think it's a coincidence that Af420 wrote to you, since we haven't exactly met eye to eye, which sucks. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, you simply don't look bad in those diffs, so you don't really have anything to worry about there. Please don't say things like "blatantly lying about those diffs"; you're assuming what Af520's motivations are, which is exactly the same thing they're doing, and that is clearly contributing to why you're having trouble getting anywhere with them. Assuming good faith doesn't mean that you have to like other editors, or to assume that they're competent, or to believe that they're correct. It just means that you have to act as though you are both trying to improve the encyclopedia. I strongly advise that you do everything you can to abandon the I am unfortunately also often on my own, trying to patrol a wide variety of articles mindset; it never leads anywhere good. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, you simply don't look bad in those diffs, so you don't really have anything to worry about there.

Not so sound arrogant, but I know I don't look bad in those diffs. Diff 1 shows them ghosting a talk page discussion after they were asked to demonstrate how their citations were WP:RS ("He is not accepting my source and does not want to add Afghanistan as the birthplace of Rumi"). Diff 2 shows me reverting them for adding a infobox adding nothing of value, which also disregards WP:RS and the fact that Rabia Balkhi's place of origin is disputed, and thus its WP:GA status ("He doesn't want me to add the Infobox because it would show the birthplace, etc., of the Persian poet Rabia Balkhi"). Afghanistan didn't even exist during this period, so I don't know why I am apparently number 1 Afghanistan underminer.

Please don't say things like "blatantly lying about those diffs"; you're assuming what Af520's motivations are, which is exactly the same thing they're doing, and that is clearly contributing to why you're having trouble getting anywhere with them. It just means that you have to act as though you are both trying to improve the encyclopedia.

I'm not talking about their motivations, I'm simply saying that they accused me of various extreme stuff and linked those diffs as "evidence", yet they don't demonstrate anything - whatever we want to call it, it is blatantly false and sheer WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm sorry, but this is exactly like the ANI thread where we first encountered each other, you are putting me on par with another user who has clearly engaged in wrongdoing, which is not fair, and where another admin ended up stepping in. As you saw, Af420 had even been warned to stop attacking me, which you haven't addressed. Yet here they are, insulting me, and as mentioned in the ANI thread, I am not a punching bag. I don't like being constantly insulted, I'm sure you don't either. No one does. As for their motivations, unlike them, I have some diffs that are clear red flags, but I'm not really interested in delving into that right. I had completely forgot that I even encountered Af420 before they went to you.

I strongly advise that you do everything you can to abandon the "I am unfortunately also often on my own, trying to patrol a wide variety of articles" mindset; it never leads anywhere good.

I'm still doing my best. This does mean that I don't try - I certainly do. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, I think you'll get much further, and have a much more pleasant editing experience, if you extend other editors some more patience. You'll find you're turned into a punching bag less often when you actually assume good faith. Saying another editor's misunderstanding of your aims is blatantly false and sheer WP:ASPERSIONS is not an expression of good faith. Are there nationalist assholes trying to push their POV on Wikipedia? Absolutely. If you stay calm and helpful, you'll defang them - or they'll self-immolate. If you act like Wikipedia is a battleground, you'll get a war. If what you want is a collaborative project, you first have to treat other editors as potential collaborators. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Saying another editor's misunderstanding of your aims is blatantly false and sheer WP:ASPERSIONS is not an expression of good faith.

This is very concerning. Getting accused of historical revisionism, being a Persian nationalist, having a bias on articles concerning Afghanistan and so on without evidence is textbook WP:ASPERSIONS ("An editor must not accuse another of misconduct without evidence.").

You'll find you're turned into a punching bag less often when you actually assume good faith / Absolutely. If you stay calm and helpful, you'll defang them - or they'll self-immolate.

Which I do, but the self-immolate has been ongoing for some time, including in front of our very eyes. No matter what, nothing justifies attacking others for their background. Seriously, what do you call someone attacking x person for their background? Something to ponder about, you don't have to answer. Oh, and here's the very first comment Af420 towards me, I guess that was my mistake too [6]. I hope we meet more eye to eye one day, but unfortunately that doesn't seem likely atm. Best. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Newbies often think Wikipedia is full of all kinds of crazy biases. In many cases, that's why they want to start editing in the first place. They see something that's incorrect (or that they think is incorrect) and try to change it. It doesn't have anything to do with you as a person. Sure, your username doesn't help, but it hardly matters - there's an anarchist editor who periodically gets accused of being some kind of anarchist-hating authoritarian because his username is "czar". It's important to react calmly to this kind of person to avoid simply reinforcing that belief. I've been accused of some truly weird biases for declining AfC drafts on obviously non-notable subjects. I could try to get these people blocked for aspersions, but that's not productive; it's better to educate. Does it work all the time? Certainly not. But it fails rarely enough that I tend to remember the times where it did. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Hexnullx (17:16, 4 January 2025)

Hi --Hexnullx (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hexnullx, welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Jamshed ali rind 110 (17:27, 4 January 2025)

Hello Sir, How can I publish my Biography in Wikipedia? --Jamshed ali rind 110 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid we'd really rather you didn't. Please see WP:AUTOBIO for an explanation as to why. I see you've already received some warnings and advice on your talk page, and you should read those too. If you have any specific questions about all of that, feel free to ask me, or at WP:TEA. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your comments and help today, you rock! Cheers. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mamani1990. Good luck out there! -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Questions from a newbie

Warm hello again asilvering,

I wanted your take on something I've noticed recently in my "suggested articles to edit" on my homepage and how best to handle. I've seen a few examples of pages about subjects where the subject themself has shamelessly embellished their own wiki article: here and here. In my book, this would/should be a screaming red flag for deletion. The fact that the articles have remained up for years without this scrutiny, in my opinion, is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy of BS: the subject becomes more notable because they have a Wiki article up about themselves (but it probably should never have been there in the first place). Is my reasoning flawed? How would you recommend I deal with this type of evidence? Does it add any weight in AfD discussions? Thank you in advance for your precious feedback. Mamani1990 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations on stepping right into the Big Questions on day 2, haha. You'll find probably as many opinions on this as there are Wikipedia editors. I'm not personally so concerned about that self-fulfilling prophecy you describe (I'm more worried about another, similar one, WP:CITOGENESIS), since while I'm sure having a Wikipedia article helps people in various ways, I'm not really convinced that it helps them in ways that make them notable, at least not the way we define it, which depends on significant, secondary coverage. And if having a Wikipedia article made someone notable, my guess is they're a Streisand effect case - and they're probably unhappy with the current state of their biography!

When it comes to deletion discussions, the "party line", such as it is, is that COI has no effect whatsoever on whether a subject is notable (as in WP:N) or not. Since a lack of notability is typically the reason given for deletion, that means that deleting on WP:COI grounds is, "officially speaking", a nonstarter. In practice, however... yes, it makes a difference, often the deciding one, when argued with a bit of finesse. These can become some of the more contentious AfDs, so you'll want to get some more AfD experience under your belt before you try putting up for deletion someone who is plausibly notable but obviously COI-involved. You will, inevitably, be told that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. The question ends up being whether you can convince anyone else that the cleanup is not worth doing and we need to get out some WP:TNT.

Something to keep in mind is that we do, generally speaking, actually want to have articles on every subject that is notable, including the self-promotional jerks (here you will find a great divergence of Wikipedian opinions, but I'd say this is the "generally accepted consensus"). We just want those articles to actually meet WP:NPOV. We also don't want to set other editors' work on fire just because somebody decided to paper over it with an advertisement. So when you're looking at a really self-promotional article, have a look at the history to see if you can revert to a better version. If there isn't, but the subject is notable (or probably notable), you're welcome to just axe as much promo as you can. (If it's really, really egregious, that's what WP:G11 is for.) I should warn you here that this will mean you are a "new editor removing sourced content", which sets off various alarm bells. You are likely to be reverted at least sometimes; if this happens, start a (calm!) discussion on the article Talk page. A lot of new editors removing sourced content aren't really "new editors" - they're vandals. Our immune system is tuned up pretty high and people may assume you're one of them. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping so much knowledge, I'm going to study this closely. Lots to learn still. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You're asking all the right questions, so you're off to a great start. -- asilvering (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Arseayadfarhad4u (10:49, 5 January 2025)

how can I put image on the templet --Arseayadfarhad4u (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Arseayadfarhad4u (talk page watcher) This is not a useful question. If you mean "How may I add an image to an article?" the answer is first to be sure that you have the right to upload the image at all. If you have, upload it, and finally in the article you wish to add the image, add it.

However, so far any contribution you have made to articles has been reverted because it has not been appropriate. Please take great care that you inly make appropriate edits. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Vofa

Hello. Soon after you closed the report, there was another edit by Vofa [7], again removing sourced content and sources, with the edit summary simply saying "restored". Bogazicili (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This is also straight vandalism [8]. I'm coming here first since you've been looking into this issue, but I can also report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Which would you prefer? Bogazicili (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) I shouldn't be too hasty. Wikipedia:Competence is required may be relevant here. FYI, there is no such thing as a "Bulgharic language family", it's just a branch. Bogazicili (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to have a conversation with Vofa about it. Not a revert with a brief summary. A conversation. If that conversation is earnestly and thoroughly attempted, and problematic edits continue, you're welcome to come back. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Theofunny (6 January 2025)

Can I as a editor ask other editors somewhere on Wikipedia for help/collaboration for editing? Like I found a blocked IP and its socks which have made highly disruptive and sneaky edits on several articles which is too hard for me to revert(automatically or manually) alone? Theofunny (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theofunny, are you saying that the sockpuppeting is still continuing? Or has everyone involved been blocked and it's quiet now? If the former, you may want to report it at WP:ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

All its IPs have been blocked but its edits haven't been reverted except for the main IP. Theofunny (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you specify the IPs, please? -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User contributions for 2A02:810D:BC40:2D4:10F9:B91D:975:8806 - Wikipedia

User contributions for Dav2ry7 - Wikipedia

User contributions for 2A02:810D:BC40:2D4:142F:817F:AE42:F3FF - Wikipedia

User contributions for 2A02:810D:BC40:2D4:6C5E:7C7A:1C60:5F83 - Wikipedia Theofunny (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)