User talk:Anachronist: Difference between revisions

Anachronist is busy on weekends and some weekdays due to real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your help with Skeeter Reece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for decision. While I don't think I have anything to add to the article currently, i was criticized for not having formatted the citation identically. I may or may not do it in the future. Not being aware of PCP rules would I still be able to edit the article or a select group of people like high ranked editors would be.

I do think the PCP is the right thing to do since it will stop a mentally unstable individual to post cruel stuff regarding a person who died tragically.

Since his father Bruce Lee also died young it attracts a lot of speculation. Furthermore, there are false reports about him being considered for roles in Mortal Kombat (1995) and The Matrix (1999). While the first is partly true the second is false. I wish I had archived the interviews by the directors of both films when they were online. While this is annoying I can live with it.

I'd love to have some advanced editor rechecking his death section one day, but otherwise the rest is documented to best of my ability.

Thank you Filmman3000 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmman3000: Pending-change protection still allows anyone to edit, but the edits of anonymous IP addresses and unconfirmed accounts are not published until a reviewer approves the edit or reverts the change. Everyone viewing the page sees the version prior to the edit that needed approval. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me well done. Thank you.Filmman3000 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist. Since you're already trying to help out Alicedimicele and since you're an admin, I thought you'd be a good person to ask about this. Do you think WP:REALNAME comes into play here. I've seen accounts soft-blocked in similar situations. Do you think it would be overkill at this point to suggest that Alicedimicele have their identity VRT verified if they're going to continue discussing things on the article talk page or at the AfD discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging UtherSRG as courtesy since they are also trying to help Alicedimicele and are also an admin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be prudent to have VRT involved. However, I would suggest someone who has significant understanding of WP:REALNAME and the VRT approach her for doing this. That would not be me, nor do I know who would. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it matters only if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Di Micele is closed as "keep". In my opinion it should be moved to draft for improvement. Based on that account's contributions and interaction with the community, I am assuming good faith that the account is who she represents herself to be. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REALNAME isn't about not assuming good faith, but is a protection both for both sides of the equation. I concur, though, that it would only be important if the article gets kept, and that it is hard to believe that she isn't who she says she is. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think it would be counterproductive to block the account as impersonation for "protection". I'm an occasional VRT agent. VRT doesn't always need to be involved, though. If she can be asked to put an identifying statement on her own web site, like "My Wikipedia account is Alicedimecele", then that would be enough for anyone to verify. In fact, a VRT agent often does just that, asking the person for a temporary change to an online page that they control, like including the ticket number on a Facebook page or personal web site. That is actually preferable to them sending a copy of their government identification, which includes way more personal information than a VRT agent wants to see. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That's cool! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I didn't post here to try and get Alicedimicele soft-blocked. I've got no reason not to believe that they aren't the subject of the article; at the same, time though, there's no way for anyone to verify they really are the subject of the article. Normally, when I come across something like this, I add a {{uw-username}} or {{uw-coi-username}} warning template to the user talk page and a follow up post just to let the person know about WP:REALNAME. Whether they verify their identity via VRT or in some other way is up to them and many probably do not. If Alicedimicele refrains from editing any content about themselves anywhere on Wikipedia, the user name and their identity will most likely not be an issue. If, on the other hand, they start making edit requests or even try to directly edit such content, it would be much better for them to at least WP:DECLARECOI on their user page with and added VRT verification being a good idea. If they don't even bother to declare their COI, they will be most likely reminded of their WP:APPARENTCOI each time they try to edit content about themselves, and could eventually end up being soft-blocked if their editing starts too frequent or too problematic. Anyway, thank you both for looking at this. I'm happy to leave things as is for now since there doesn't seem to be any problems so far. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: If it comes to that, it may interest you to know (and I just learned this a month ago) that administrators now have the ability to impose a "partial block", meaning that an editor is blocked from editing specific articles. If COI editing becomes a problem, this is a solution that allows the single-purpose account to work elsewhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope nobody ends up even being partially blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist and @UtherSRG: Would one of you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alice Di Micele? It looks like someone named Lisiunia tried to post a "keep" !vote there. I'm also going to be a honest in that Lisiuna contributions history has me someone suspicious that this might be a case of WP:DUCK or WP:MEAT. The account was created in February 2011, makes a series of edits to Body piercing, and then stops editing for more than seven years before making two edits in March 2018. The account stops editing again until it shows up a few days ago before starting to edit Alice Di Micele. It sure seems odd that this account would show up out of the blue like this as just a coincidence and maybe a SPI/CU would be a good idea here. Most of edits made by Lisiuna are unsourced and full of puffery, and have actually created more issues that need fixing. It's possible some of the sources pointed out in the AfD could lead to the article being kept, but I think the recent contributions by Lisiuna haven't been too helpful. I could just be taking too harsh of a view of things here, but the editing does seem suspicious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Sockpuppet of whom? If you have a suspicion, then file a case at WP:SPI. I doubt it's the subject; she has her own account, no reason to create another (and the account creations suggest they aren't the same anyway). Maybe a case of meatpuppetry. While I find the sudden interest suspicious too, the edits have been mostly OK. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed possible to me that Lisiunia and Alicedimicele might be connected and were created by the same person; perhaps created at different times for different reasons, but now they're crossing paths because of the AfD. It could just be a coincidence for sure, but it seems odd for an account that hasn't edited in a number of years to show up like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure what to do here. I do think some of the edits are questionable, such as changing Origin in the info box from Elizabeth to Ashland. Looks like you've fixed up some of it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, apologies for deleting the in-depth quotes associated with those two different references. I've gotten flack from other editors in the past, for adding lengthy quotes like that.

I wonder if significant quotes (especially the one from the CNN source) should be turned into notes, instead? Might help prevent future deletion, by someone doing what I just did, heh. I'm not sure what the proper usage is of notes, but seems appropriate maybe? Thoughts? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I know you were editing in good faith, which is why I didn't revert you all the way back. I like the idea of a "notes" section, if it can be made to work. Other lengthy articles do that for controversial topics, such as Intelligent Design. The notes include quotations as well as links to references. The references, oddly, also include quotations. I think it depends where the quotation provides the best context. In references a quotation is used to prove what is being stated in the article. A notes section would be used to provide added context. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing note "fails to verify what is claimed"[1] for the cited source C-Span really has me wondering what I don't know. Since when must references "verify what is claimed"? Your rm of that source caused the entire section to be deleted and it was a COI edit request by the subject of the article. Of course I am not going to use references from the subject's own webpage for that but now I'm really confused about this "failed to verify" thing? I reposted the section on the article talk page. Thank you TeeVeeed (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TeeVeeed: The statement "In 1985 Abraham was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize" was cited to that C-SPAN video, and I could not see anywhere in the video that being a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was mentioned. Therefore, it failed to serve the purpose of a citation; that is, to verify what is claimed in the article. Unless there are secondary sources, independent of David Abraham (that means, not an interview) can verify he's a co-recipient of the prize, then we cannot mention it in the article. We can mention it with attribution, something like "Abraham's web site lists the Nobel Peace Prize as an award that he received with other recipients". That way, we are not saying he received the prize in Wikipedia's voice, we would just be saying that he claims this.

The most I can verify is that an organization won the Peace Prize, and he is associated with that organaztion, but it is not clear that he is a co-founder (the org web site doesn't mention his name) or that he was even a member when the organization won the prize. The section was removed for that reason. The WP:BLP policy prohibits us from making statements about a person that cannot be verified by independent sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for help.Cwater1 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall what I did, but thank you. Let me know if there's anything you need. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you reply to a talk page that I was in.Cwater1 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I understand that this was not a point/counterpoint article. but I think there should be at least views from the other side with regards to criticism. If this is not possible, so since there is an article for criticisms, can an article be created for the argument of the muslims with regards to criticism in a purely non-assertive manner. Will Wikipedia allow me, an autoconfirmed user to do that???.

I just think this is really important and relevant for the readers of our time. Its just that many Jewish and Christians friends of mine all point to Wikipedia for these sort of information which leads to misconceptions, unintended heated arguments and well, hostility. I think we should really provide the respective views of all sides in a prudent way. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izan Mehdi.: We have criticism articles on a variety of subjects, including criticism of Jesus, criticism of Judaism, criticism of Donald Trump, and so forth. They are not platforms for describing debates between sides, they are articles about criticism.

You are welcome to try to create an article about counter-arguments, but I suggest you create it in draft space and submit it for review, titled something like Draft:Muslim responses to criticism (which can be responses to criticism about Islam and the Quran, not just about Muhammad) and submit it for review.

Be careful not to offer interpretations that don't come from recognized scholars. Because you cited mostly primary or anonymous/self-published sources and not secondary reliable sources, it is unlikely that an article would be accepted with the citations you used. You are welcome to try, and I am happy to look at it when the draft is ready. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. But do the counter-arguments of Islam, Quran or Muhammad have to be in a same article. I mean can they be different like the different pages of criticism of Islam or Muhammad. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be in the same article, but they can be. If there are enough reliable secondary sources about a topic, then the topic can have a standaline article. In the case of criticism, there is so much information about criticism of Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam, that a single article combining them would be too large and unwieldy. Sometimes a criticism may be levied by numerous notable people through the ages, and a response might be a single response that addresses them all. If responses to these criticisms are brief or overlap, then one article would be sufficient.

Again, I am not confident that such an article would pass review unless it was really well sourced. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your reply to my note on the Teahouse about handling the old version of Hedgepeth and Williams v. Board of Education as well as my revisions in my personal sandbox. Would it be possible to move my sandbox revisions over the existing title? (Sorry for the delay, I've been tied up with work recently!) –Galactic-Radiance (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Galactic-Radiance: Done! You mentioned that the previous version was a copyvio. Moving your draft deleted the previous version, and I did not restore those old revisions. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thanks for your thorough review.

I took on board all the suggestions and endeavoured to remove a multitude of headings. I grouped by year and I believe the text is more readable, now because yes it was clunky to read. I added headings for the most important tournaments.

All the tournaments listed are important. To the Maltese chess reader, any international tournament will have importance, and with the exception of 2 (Poland and Sicily) he was representing Malta as a result of being the junior champion in his category since 2017. There are many more tournaments that he played and I did not include, Jack has played in excess of 100 tournaments. The other tournaments are either part of the championship cycle: preliminaries, candidates and final stage, or European championships, or International such as the last 4. If I remove those, where he did not do well I may be accused that I used the tournaments where he did well only, but of course if you mention specific tournaments I should leave out, I will comply.

With regards to chess-results, that is the de facto website that stores chess results and even FIDE relies on it. Chess tournaments are organised using Swiss Manager and chess-results is the accompanying website. (Even the Chess Olympiads are published on chess results). The tournaments in Poland and Sicily were the exception since they had different systems. The whole idea why I added the references was that there is evidence to the results. The chess reader would normally be intrigued to read more and get to know about the opponents, and chess-results is normally the go-to place. ATM622 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recently Mizzi has been awarded the Blitz National Champion title and the Rapid National Champion title. Note that these were the Malta National Championships and not Junior Championships. ATM622 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ATM622: You should bring that up on WT:CHESS where Mizzi's notability is being discussed. Someone there already suggested he'd be notable for winning the Maltese Chess Championship. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Blitz_Championships was referenced and a mention at WT:CHESS was done. ATM622 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading information on wiki surprised to see on here which is wrong and they are not even Muslim please remove this misleading information from wiki thanks 81.79.189.84 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are referring to. If you have a problem with an article, take it up on that article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please respond to my comment here? Generalrelative has removed my reply to you from that article's talk page, based on the false premise that it is a topic ban violation [2] (the actual area of my topic ban is "race and intelligence broadly construed", which I don't think applies to any of the articles mentioned in my comment). But he tends to only remove others' comments from article talk pages and from noticeboards, not from other editors' user talk pages, so we presumably can still have this discussion here in your user talk. 2600:1004:B102:3157:19F1:799:70D7:C775 (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion at ANI, the IP user is well aware that their "broadly construed" topic ban extends to both "race" and "intelligence" and not just the conjunction of the two topics. The discussion at Talk:Stephen Jay Gould is quite obviously about intelligence testing, and about a figure (Arthur Jensen) closely associated with the race and intelligence topic area. If it weren't for the potential collateral, this user would have been site banned long ago. For that reason I would advise you to WP:DENY recognition. Generalrelative (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist: I'm disappointed by how this situation is escalating, but now that that seems to be the case, I also should direct you to the discussion here, along with the off-Wiki discussions that I linked to there. What I described in my comment there is the central issue.

Also, I want to be totally clear about something: although the banned user Deleet is ultimately responsible for this situation, I am not accusing Generalrelative of deliberately collaborating with that banned user. 2600:1004:B102:3157:19F1:799:70D7:C775 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back in a phrase based on the suggestions in prior discussion. If you are circumventing a topic ban, I suggest you withdraw from this. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist and Grabergs Graa Sang: Thank you for your help. I will messaage the photographer again and copy and paste those links you gave me, again. He did say he had a lot of trouble. He was trying to do it on his phone. I have also found that the phone does not work as well as the regular computer. We will give it another shot. Thank you for all your patience. I am learning. Mamadancer (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamadancer: I use my phone sometimes to read Wikipedia, but I would never try to do any sort of submission through it. You really need a laptop to be effective, not only editing Wikipedia, but submitting photo permissions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shh, Cullen might hear you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be the first time we have disagreed![3] ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist@Gråbergs Gråa Sång You gave me a ticket number and said there was only one photo there. That ticket number meant nothing to Owen. And he said he had copied and pasted the two photos in the email he sent. He is confused as to why you found only one.

Sorry this is such a mess to figure out. And thank you so much for doing it!! Mamadancer (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamadancer That ping worked! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I messaged Owen Carey again. He said he sent for link for both of the pictures at once. He copied and pasted it together and sent it in an email-about both B& W images. He said he got a form letter response. Mamadancer (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to him in the ticket asking for confirmation that he intended for the declaration of consent to include both images. As it stands now, it's good for only one of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow!! Great! Maybe this will work, then. Thank you again!! Mamadancer (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It worked. Both images are now restored. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have incorrectly removed my edit. Your note on my talk page is factually inaccurate, as you will discover if you read the source in question. JonQalg (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide any source that supported your assertion, and the cited sources did not. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you left a message on my page when I was having trouble about a paid article that was deleted. I just wanted to clarify that since I have now disclosed my employer, would it be okay if I repost the article, save it as a draft and then let other editors to review my work from publishing. I had to point this out through talk because the links that were sent to me, though I tried reading them started to confuse me a bit. Please help by clarifying. thank you!Madona Jace (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Madona Jace: Hi. It was deleted because your user page isn't the correct place to write an article. You can create draft articles in your sandbox, or as sub-pages in your user space, but the best place is to use draft space.

I have restored the deleted revision history of your user page. You can see the history by going to User:Madona Jace and clicking on the "View history" tab. If you select a revision in the list and click "Edit" you can copy the page source (don't save it back to your user page!) and then paste it into a draft. You can create the page (for example) Draft:Anthony Golez and paste it in there.

Looking over what you wrote, I have some further advice:

Note that WP:COMMONNAME requires us to title articles according to how the subject is commonly known. This is why we have an article titled Bill Clinton instead of his actual name "William Jefferson Clinton". If Mr Golez is most commonly referred to in reliable sources as "Tony Golez" then that's what the article would be called. His full name can be spelled out in the lead sentence.

Also, Wikipedia doesn't use title case in headings. See MOS:HEADINGS for guidance.

A Wikipedia article is an encyclopedia article, it isn't a CV. It seems there are many things you wrote that could be removed or summarized. All those bills he authored may not be necessary to list; just list the notable ones that generated significant press coverage. His awards could be trimmed down if the awards are not notable or are routine for his profession (hint: if Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the award or the awarding agency, it probably isn't a notable award).

Finally, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that any assertion about a living person must be cited to a reliable source. Your draft has a lot of assertions, but hardly any citations. Again I direct you to Wikipedia:Golden rule. Wikipedia doesn't care about what Mr Golez (or his associates) says about himself (again, this isn't a CV). Wikipedia cares only what reliable sources that are independent of Mr Golez have to say about him. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I will begin editing it as a draft and will post any other question or clarification on my talk page before I post it for review. Also, thank you for your further advice and will put them in mind while I edit the draft. Madona Jace (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak please be aware that I am going to follow the advise of @Anachronist and that I am currently trying to edit the article according to wikipedia policy. I also have already declared my employer on my userpage. If you see further faults in my upcoming article, please guide me instead. Thank you. Madona Jace (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anachronist: 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, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy holidays to you as well! ~Anachronist (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm here for a possible block request for user 2804:1054:401B:E400:4CFD:1F7D:489F:3D5E . As far as I know this user entered Wikipedia 1 week ago and ever since been going on few Wikipedia pages reverting the sources and citations that were already added by previous users and would replace them with unsourced ones. The user recently started making accusations against me on few Wikipedia pages (usually Thin Lizzy albums pages), their accusations against me are that while I was being blocked I used various IPs to edit articles. I've already tried to talk with admin RPM (ResolutionsPerMinute) but they carry on removing my message. Please do something as soon as possible. The reasons for block request: making fake accusations about me/ reverting citations and placing unsourced one instead. Progrock70s (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Progrock70s: That IP address has only one single edit. That is not evidence of disruptive activity. Also you may want to address the note below. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry I entered the wrong IP address, the correct one is 2804:1054:401B:E400:4CFD:1F7D:489F:3D5E .Check out Thin Lizzy (album) & Shades of a Blue Orphanage articles, most of their edits are there, they use this text for each edit summary "Previously blocked user, he was using various Iranian IPs to do genre warring edits on Thin Lizzy albums pages. Genres should be discussed first. Provide better sources" they use text as accusations against me. They also changed their IP address to 177.39.240.251 recently. Progrock70s (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Progrock70s: The correct venue for complaints about behavior is WP:AN/I. What you are doing, posting on multiple admin pages, is called WP:ADMINSHOPPING, which is frowned on. I will not act on an admin shopping request, sorry. @ResolutionsPerMinute: @Abecedare: @Materialscientist: FYI. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even an admin, so I don't even know why they asked me. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know what admin shopping was, I just followed what Wikipedia told me on how to report someone. I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. Progrock70s (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not misunderstand it, I understand quite clearly that you posted the same request on multiple user talk pages. That isn't how things work, and I'm sorry that you misunderstood that. WP:AN/I is the best place to get attention from multiple administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His account is only 30 days old. User Progrock70s has been blocked for 1 day by user Materialscientist. When blocked, he started to use multiple Iranian IPs to do genre warring edits on Thin Lizzy albums pages. He cannot accept that genres should be discussed on the talk page first to be added later. He usually provides unreliable or poor quality sources (Discogs, Allmusic genres in the sidebar) He was blocked by user Materialscientist on 25 December 2022, 7:52. The block lasted 31 hours. When blocked, he started using different Iranian IPs to do genre warring on Thin Lizzy albums pages. 177.39.240.251 (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a behavioral complaint, take it to WP:AN/I. Your comment looks quite similar to that posted on other user pages by other IP addresses, so I assume you're all the same person. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Anachronist. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You erroneously forgot to restore the AfD notice from Thomistic sacramental theology when reverting to the version prior to the edit-war. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudhhr: Woops. I didn't notice that it had an AFD notice. I just restored it. Thanks for catching that mistake! ~Anachronist (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the undeletion of Draft:Joshua Dufek. There's a slight issue though, as the current version you've restored dates back to early 2022. With my request, I was hoping if you could actually restore the content that was deleted yesterday? That one covers the driver's 2022 season in depth — I remember working on it a couple of months ago and I didn't want to lose that work. What I mean is basically to move the edit history of Joshua Dufek to Draft:Joshua Dufek so I can continue where I left off. MSport1005 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSport1005: OK, all the history is now in the draft, and the most recent version is the deleted version from article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you very much. MSport1005 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do this? Did you not see that they'd copied their question from the day before, complete with other people's posts? 97.126.96.89 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. No I didn't see that initially. I have corrected it. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I understand you felt the need to protect the page, but I was hoping your help would resolve the issue. The info is in a need for expanding and has to be updated. The user Androvie, all his edits are about cancelling anything that is helpful or provides more comprehensive info on this page alone. The "18 or 19" age is widely accepted among Shia Muslims and, increasingly, among scholars.The paragraph I have provided just barely mentions that; it does not show whose viewpoint is superior. StarkReport (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a party to your dispute. Please take it to the article talk page and gain consensus for your revision, or come to an agreement on an alternate revision. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist, hope you are well. In this discussion Talk:Isaac_Abarbanel#Reply_to_question_at_my_talkpage I learned that an editor was told by a VRT-person that if they wanted to know why a certain edit happened, they could try to ask the editor in question (me). Very reasonable advice, and I have no objection whatsoever. My minor issue is that I'd like to ping the VRT-person to the discussion, since their name came up, and they may be mildly interested in what was said. I've looked around, but couldn't find a user-name. Maybe that's how it should be, but if you can tell me, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: One would think there would be a way for one VRT agent to figure out the Wikipedia username of another VRT agent, but I cannot find it. There's VRT mailing list, to which I just sent out a message, hoping that the agent Benjamin will notice. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist, thanks again for the Asmongold protection. I also posted the following comment on the page protection request, but I am also putting it here just in case it gets lost:

"[...] could you please undo the last edit you made? It states "Zack Hoyt" for Asmongold, which comes from an unreliable news source that uses incorrect information (i.e. wrong birth date) and shouldn't be used to rely on the name, as there is no reliable source supporting it and Asmongold never confirmed his name, other than his first name, Zack. It would be great if it could be removed in order not to potentially dox him, as this may be private information that he wouldn't want to be shared, if it were his true name."

Thanks again! SturmFernmelder (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SturmFernmelder: I made no such edit. An anonymous IP did that just before I protected the article. I undid it, but left the source the IP put in. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's good now. Thanks again for the help! SturmFernmelder (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]