User talk:asilvering

Llewellyn Ellardus van Zyl Article

Thank you for reviewing my article submission for draft:Llewellyn Ellardus van Zyl. In your review you indicated that the article was declined due to it being generated by ChatGPT. I would like to indicate that this was not the case. The only place where it was used was to reformulate the criticisms and critiques of positive psychology section and his research interests to remove the implied promotional tone highlighted by the first review. If you run the content of the article through ZeroGPT or any other GPT detector, you will notice that all no content was AI genereated. You are welcome to refer to [@https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=HmUDuAQAAAAJ my other writting] to get an overview of my writting style, and tone. Thank you again for your willingness to review my article and for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyBrockVenom (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering

@Asilvering I wanted to ask you about something. Does English Wikipedia accept Turkish history books and TDV Islamic Encyclopedia as references? Kartal1071 (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep! -- asilvering (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Asilvering. If I send you the articles I will write for you to review, can you review them? Kartal1071 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I won't pre-review anything, but if you've submitted a draft to AfC and no one gets to it in the first week, I can have a look, sure. I can't promise I'll be quick about it, especially for long drafts with lots of sources, but I can have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Asilvering Kartal1071 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Administration request

Good day asilvering. I've come across an account which has been ferociously edit warring over some obscure television shows and books for quite some time, I was hoping you might be able to take a look and leave them a more sternly worded message. I'd prefer to avoid going to ANI if I can, but let me know if that would be more appropriate. The account in question is "KL3985U$" on the articles List of Theodore Tugboat episodes, List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes, and some others. It seems like there's also some badgering going on against the user TheMaxM1, I feel kind of bad for them. I really don't have the will to go through all the back and forth over Theodore Tugboat, as much as I loved to ride on Theodore Too back when he was still around. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow, this Theodore Tugboat one is very strange. At this point they've blown past WP:3RR so I can give them an immediate timeout for that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it definitely tops my list of whacky interactions so far. I have a number of these back alley Nova Scotia-adjacent articles on my watchlist, and at first you'd say "well obviously the one that says it's his first day in the harbour is the first episode", but apparently this is in fact not the case. I think it would be a stretch to call this vandalism, but it's something. Thanks. MediaKyle (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

ANI Post "Chetsford Lying"

Hello,

You recently closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chetsford Lying. Can you please tell me how the following are not lies?

Chetsford states that three sources were used in a deleted article, but only one was.

Chetsford states that an article mentions Christopher Mellon once but it actually mentions him three times.

Chetsford states that a book mentions Christopher Mellon in two sentences but it actually mentions him in three.

Chetsford states that Mellon is mentioned in one paragraph but is actually mentioned in five.

You have labeled this as a disagreement, and it is. Three does not equal one. One does not equal three. Two does not equal three. One does not equal five.

We should be able to agree on these mathematical facts.

Do you admit that Chetsford has told these lies or not? Ben.Gowar (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ben.Gowar, you are having a dispute about whether the sources you have found are enough for notability. If you want another opinion on notability, you have only to submit the draft to AfC again and you'll get it. Dragging someone to ANI for "lying" will not help your case and is a serious failure of WP:AGF. For something to be a lie, the person who speaks the lie needs to know they are wrong, and have intent to deceive. -- asilvering (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

On those grounds, any accusation of lying (which is a class of incivility) on Wikipedia has to be evidenced by an intent to deceive. So, I have shown that Chetsford is wrong, but how is it possible to evidence an intent to deceive without a confession? This seems unreasonable. Ben.Gowar (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, you'll find that wikipedia editing becomes dramatically more reasonable if you follow the fourth pillar. -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from BerryAce (07:56, 4 May 2025)

Hello --BerryAce (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @BerryAce, welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Harassment accusation

Hello, if the accuser of me harassing him/her goes to ArbCom and it is concluded that it was false/no evidence to support it, can I report them for falsly accusing me? Feels as there is a agenda to get me gone from WikiPedia. And if they do not go to ArbCom, can I still report them? Wlaak (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, report them to whom? You don't need to report someone to arbcom for falsely accusing you if they've falsely accused you to arbcom; arbcom will already be aware. So far, they haven't really done anything wrong as far as regular admins are concerned, since the only way to assess that either way would be to see the evidence. But now that I have told them they need to stop talking about it on-wiki and go to arbcom, if they keep bringing it up, do let me know and I'll give them a time-out for harassment. -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

true haha, either way they just got blocked for being a sock. thanks Wlaak (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, sorry to disturb. i came across an editor Edit-Warring (at least what i interpret it as). Turoyo language initially had no template regarding a people, up until a few weeks ago, a specific editor put a Assyrian people template on articles relating to villages, churches, and languages.[1]

I challenged these edits [2] and they were also reverted on Syriac Orthodox Church, one revert stating: "This article is not about Assyrians. They are a portion, sure. Refrain from pushing a POV." [3] I also had this feeling and opinion, hence I reverted and asked the editor to refer to the talk page, [4], it was still restored [5] and i reverted, it was then restored again [6], i reverted again stating to please wait with restoring until we have came to a conclusion about this controversial and challenged edit, [7], however this was ignored and it was still reverted again [8].

Talk:Turoyo language#Challenged template

At the talk page, the editor kept reverting before us coming to a conclusions, in which I told to not do. The user seems to have planned a escape from the three revert rule, having three reverts in 3 days, 1 two days ago and two today. I do not want to revert it because I will be breaking the three-revert rule in that case.

What should be done at this time? Wlaak (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, you won't be breaking 3RR if you revert; that's not three reverts ever, it's more than three in 24 hours. But this is still definitely edit-warring, and you should stop. In this case, it looks perfectly reasonable to me that this template is here, though. You can see that Template:Assyrians has Turoyo as one of its linked articles. That means it should be on that article, and the other editor was right to fix this problem. That doesn't mean you need to agree with it, but the place to discuss what ought to be on that template is Template talk:Assyrians. Please note, however, that that template has had Turoyo on it since 2007, with no apparent issues. Consensus can change, of course, but arguing to change something that's been uncontentious since 2007... well, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it's pov-pushing to take it off. -- asilvering (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in Santa Monica AFD

Hello, ran across this article at WP:RSL and saw it was already deleted after the AFD expired. Would like to see if it can be salvaged with the provided sources or possibly merged with Landlord harassment. Can you send a copy to me? Thank you. Rcfische2 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rcfische2, given the AfD outcome I don't think it can be salvaged, but you may find that some of these sources or examples are useful for that article. I'll userify it for you. -- asilvering (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, all yours at User:Rcfische2/Tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in Santa Monica. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I should warn you - don't merge any of this content directly, please, and be very careful to check the sources. This article was obviously written with the help of ChatGPT. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Saw it at the first sentence. Will be careful. Appreciated. Rcfische2 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Arb case

Inevitable at this point I think. What’s the best way to start one? I haven’t really got involved with ARBCOM cases in any meaningful way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Alas, @AirshipJungleman29, I've been hoping someone else will tell me. My current plan has been to sit around twiddling my thumbs until @Tamzin gets done with moving, and then to make puppydog eyes at xem. -- asilvering (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I am done with moving in the sense that I am not actively packing, traveling, or unpacking. Won't consider myself really done till I've got a lease somewhere, and I'm still not even at the point of knowing what country that'd be in, let alone what building. But, yes, around a bit more now!

So, the ARCA request is supposed to come from whatever admin closes the thread. There's certainly consensus for a referral, so any admin could do it, and I'm not opposed to doing it. But I actually think you would be better suited, asilvering. You've participated in far more of the previous threads than I, and have a better understanding of what's going on in the topic area. The way I would build the filing is like:

AE has in the past few months considered several threads regarding Indian military history, often with caste implications, featuring the same revolving cast of participants (proposed parties boldfaced):

Date	Filer	Subject	Other participants	Outcome
[pipe to thread]	Foo	Bar	Baz, Quux	Foo warned

Recurring issues have included [...]. Admins participating in [current thread] found consensus to refer this to ARCA with a scope of Indian military history and related caste issues. [Maybe some commentary on why existing IPA CTOP jurisdiction has been insufficient, and ideas of what more can be done.]

Let me know if you have other questions! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, thanks for taking this on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Phew. Thanks so much. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Lol button

This made me laugh. We really ought to have a Lol button next to the thanks link in History. Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I do frequently read them as "thanks (for the lol)". -- asilvering (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for content of deleted article

Hello, I noticed that the page Sylhet Cantonment Public School and College was deleted. I was the creator and unfortunately didn’t save the wiki code.

If possible, could you please paste the latest version’s wiki code on my talk page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, are you intending to use this in some other article, or do you just want it for your own records? If the former I can probably userify it for you. If the latter, I can email it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

No, i just want to save the information because some content is important, you don't have to userify it, its okay if you just send it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

you can put the wiki code here: Draft:Sylhet Cantonment Public School and College. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, I've emailed it to you now. Unfortunately talk page notifications all get marked as read the moment you look at your talk page, so it's easy to miss them if multiple people have commented. You can always ping me if you need to get my attention. -- asilvering (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

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

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Deadwall (21:05, 6 May 2025)

Hi, someone just undid my edit without providing reasons. What actions can I take? --Deadwall (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Deadwall: (talk page stalker) I would suggest that you discuss the matter with the other editor on that article's talk page. You shouldn't re-revert them, as this can easily escalate into an edit war, which is prohibited by policy. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Grumpylawnchair's good general advice, I'll add that he did provide a reason: WP:ELNO. It looks like that article has had its external links section tagged for attention for a while and no one's got around to fixing it. So you were probably right to remove the old one, but not to add your own new link. If you ask David (politely) he may be able to give you a more specific answer. -- asilvering (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

20-minute assessments

Hey there! Hope you're doing well. Was just wondering if you're still able to do some of the 20-minute assessments for the Women in Green event? I've been trying to keep up with them as they come, but have missed a couple as I'm dealing with an injury right now. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh shoot. That's me losing control of my watchlist and not noticing them come in. Will do. -- asilvering (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

7 May

@Asilvering can you tell me what was done wrong this time? engaging in talk page is subject to topic ban? Wlaak (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, you're causing a lot of disruption in the topic area and you have an obvious POV. That's going to result in sanctions eventually no matter how correct you are on the merits. That's why I've been suggesting that you avoid the topic completely until you're more experienced at navigating these kinds of disputes. You're having to learn about how to handle edit-warring and dispute resolution in a topic you care very deeply about, which is already hard, and made much, much harder by the fact that this is also an ongoing nationalist dispute in the world more broadly, not just some argument between a few hyperfocused nerds on the internet. I'm proposing a TBAN again because your behaviour keeps getting reported, and if that keeps happening, eventually an admin is going to give you an indefinite block. I don't want to indef you. I really believe that you are here to improve the encyclopedia in good faith, which is more than I can say for a lot of nationalist editors. If you don't learn how to act like someone who is here to work collaboratively, though, all the good faith in the world means nothing. Maybe you will never be able to edit without pov-pushing, in which case you will, eventually, be forced to leave the project. I'm proposing a tban in the hopes that we can avoid that outcome. -- asilvering (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I am lost for words, can I at least work on my Draft? I have put in so much effort in it. Wlaak (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Not if you're tbanned, no, that would be a violation of the ban. But that doesn't mean that all the work is lost. Even if the draft is deleted after six months because no one else has edited it (that's WP:G13), we can undelete it at the request of any interested editor. So if you're tbanned but then successfully appeal the ban in the future, you can go right back to it. And of course nothing is stopping you from working on it offline either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you not make exception for the Draft? It is my draft, I started it and I have written nearly everything in it. Or if the tban can go to 3 months at least... Draft is within the draft, it is not affecting other people Wlaak (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Since you like literature...

Check out Harry Bruce (writer), hot off the presses. It was a collaborative effort with the subject's grandson, there's a very long talk page discussion archived. He was quite well known in my corner of the world. Thought you might find it interesting - feedback is always welcome if you have any thoughts. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The child of Charles Tory Bruce and Agnes King. This has got to be the most Canadian guy of all time.

You've got a ref error in there on fn 18. User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js will help you spot it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I haven't yet resolved it but I see what to do.

By the way... You deleted the real talk archive, I assume you meant to delete the weird redirect I made when I mixed up namespaces. Can you please restore Talk:Harry Bruce (writer)/Archive 1? Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

ohhhh dear. Thanks for pointing it out. I deleted the one that wasn't in the talk namespace and twinkle automatically goes after the talk pages at the same time unless you specifically tell it not to. -- asilvering (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

8 May

How can you say it has been asserted a POV-fork of Assyrian people, what about it is a fork? It speaks of different things, it speaks of Aramean history, it speaks of their organizations, culture, traditions etc. What makes you say its a fork? It seems to be unfortunately, that since the start of your involvement in this dispute, you've constantly been against the Aramean side of things. Wlaak (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, "asserted to be" is a key phrase here. Regarding the draft, the two "sides" are the side that says it's a POV fork, and your side, which says it isn't. I haven't said "is a POV fork" because I'm not taking any position on the dispute itself. If I had to pick, my guess would be that it is not a POV fork, but as I've told you a handful of times now, I'm deliberately avoiding coming to a conclusion on the content so that I am still free to act as an administrator in the area. -- asilvering (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

ah okay. sorry for coming at you hot, i've realized that Wikipedia sentences do require a bit more of interpretation than standard sentences. sorry. Wlaak (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Haha! That's what WP:AGF is there for, after all. When in doubt, ask. -- asilvering (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for all the help. Sorry for any confusion I caused. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon, I don't think you've caused any confusion! (Though perhaps some horrors are waiting for me in my extremely backlogged notifications?) Actually, I've been really impressed by how you've handled the conflicts in this topic so far. It doesn't look like you were expecting this GAN to be a live bomb. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope there are no horrors; Halloween is still months away. I certainly was not expecting this, tt seemed like such a stale and peaceful article; I even had a co-author, Warriorglance. Oh well, straight into the fire called ANI for a GA. We may need a new Barnstar for EOD Techs like you. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

They just give us this crappy t-shirt and a mop. No gloves or anything! -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Haha! If I see you running, I better try to keep up. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 20:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from DollarStoreBaal44 (04:51, 9 May 2025)

Hello! I have some experience with wikitext as I am a regular editor on Explain xkcd, which is a small wiki dealing with everything xkcd. I know some, but not all commands. Here is a list of all the commands I currently fully understand.

• ref
• sup
• sub
• nowiki
• links
• files

I also know the basics of tables.

I learn by watching and trial + error. Sometimes I go to edit a page and view the wikitext to figure out what to do. May reach out periodically if I need assistance. Thanks! --DollarStoreBaal44 (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DollarStoreBaal44, welcome to wikipedia! Great name, by the way. -- asilvering (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Got it from xkcd --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 13:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

You deleted the page for "Tiempo Sin Verte" after the deletion nomination and discussion, despite it not failing WP:NSONG. The song is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. The article had references to over 20 of those, not including album reviews or self-promotion. The article was also longer than a stub, and describes the song in detail, all referenced. And that is all WP:NSONG requires, as it continues with "A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria." Please reconsider the deletion. Thank you. 1arch (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @1arch, I've relisted the discussion for you. Please note that passing WP:NSONG does not guarantee that a standalone article is warranted - it's just a suggestion that it probably is. If you feel strongly about keeping the article, I would recommend adding another comment (don't make a second bolded vote) clearly stating why you think it ought to be a separate article, why it doesn't make sense for readers to be directed to the album article, and/or why a merge would be a bad idea. All your vote says right now really is that it meets NSONG, and there's no firm rebuttal to Sirfurboy's comment about the song not being independently notable. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Report possible sockpuppet

Hi, it seems that User:Etcnoel1 and User:Jsanihsjsn are the same, first off, their user profiles are near identical. their edits suggest both are assyrian, their contributions are on the same topics (wars). they seem to be working very coordinated with no communication on wiki, see this edit in which User:Jsanihsjsn moved sandbox to mainspace at 17:18, 15 February 2025 [9], 3 minutes later, User:Etcnoel1 also edits the page [10], they both seem to have contributed and worked together on the sandox (not sus), but the coordination is a bit sus.

on this edit, User:Jsanihsjsn defends User:Etcnoel1 and admits they are friends [11], similiary on User:Etcnoel1's user page, he states he is working with a friend User talk:Etcnoel1#April 2025 on this page [12], coincidencly, the two editors were himself and User:Jsanihsjsn.

he was the one i reported to ArbCom, who worked on a now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack of Amadiye, i can foreward the email to you if you'd like. (suspecting to be User:Etcnoel1) i asked him about this on his talk page and he got very defensive saying i am hating and that this hate should not be on wiki.

i can also provide more instances of these very clear similiarites between the two users and why i think they are sockpuppets of each other with User:Etcnoel1 possibly being the meatpuppet.

this might be a very very wrong place to post about this, and i am sure it is, but it is place i know about there are so many different pages on wiki, sorry in advance! Wlaak (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, the place to get admin attention for this kind of thing is WP:SPI. These two editors have already been investigated and determined to be unrelated though - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Assyrian.crusader/Archive#21 February 2025. I'm going to redact part of your post - please see WP:OUTING and be very careful about this in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I've given them a clear warning about this at User talk:Jsanihsjsn#Editing with friends. If you see them doing something like both reverting the same edit (so that they avoid 3RR for example), you can let me know, or start an ANI thread if it's really disruptive. -- asilvering (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from IRADUKUNDA Providence (09:32, 10 May 2025)

hello. I'm PROVIDENCE, new on this platform. I would like to take my first step on editing. --IRADUKUNDA Providence (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @IRADUKUNDA Providence, welcome to wikipedia! Special:Homepage should have some automated suggestions for you, and I've left a welcome message on your talk page. I'm guessing from your name that you're from East Africa. Our coverage of the area in general is pretty poor, so you'll probably be able to find a lot of articles on local topics that are outdated or need expansion, if you're interested in writing new content about that. -- asilvering (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Notify involved Drafter

Hi, is it allowed to notify involved editors that participated in the Draft that was just now submitted for deletion by Shmayo? Wlaak (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. For anyone who was deeply involved with the draft, you can send them a (neutrally worded!) invite to the discussion like the one you received automatically. Actually, I'll do that right now, so that no one gives you grief for canvassing. -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, it turns out that was only two people, one of whom is blocked, since the other has already responded. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering there seems to be a person that keeps deleting the AfD template on Aramean people, I have tried to tell them to stop since it is still open but they haven't responded. I do not seem to be able to restore it without reverting his entire cleanup, could you help me please. Sorry thank you for notifying them! i managed to put the template back myself.Wlaak (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Er, that's very weird. Someone with advanced permissions repeatedly removing an AfD notice is not normal behaviour. But they do appear to have stopped for now. If they do it one more time, they'll end up past 3RR and that's an immediate block. Don't worry about editing to add it back in - you'll notice there's a bot in the article history that has already come by and re-added it once. That editor's not going to be able to win an edit-war against a bot, haha. -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

thank you! @Asilvering, i have another question, is it possible to check statistics for a article? is it possible to see how many views Aramean people have gotten? Wlaak (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Here: [13]. This won't do you any good in the current discussion, though, since the article was put up for AfD immediately. -- asilvering (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

thank you. i know, i was just curious because of the numbers of visitors. i also noticed that i was accused to be sockpuppet while looking through the User contributions of The Bushranger after he put a warning on the discussion Wlaak (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Navbanq (10:33, 11 May 2025)

greetings and hope you are well. thank you for mentoring. how would i modify my username font. i would like it to read “ ռǟʋɮǟռզ ”. it may not be possible’ such that it fits the coding block for everyone but it is my preference for my signature --Navbanq (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Navbanq, you're looking for Preferences --> User profile --> Signature. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Add translation

hello @Asilvering, i was wondering how i could connect the current Aramean people page and add translations? like switch between languages? there is a Dutch, German and Spanish page of the Aramean people from what I have found. sorry for blowing up your talk page, i managed it myself, have to take more initiative myself sorry Wlaak (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

[14][15], is this not vandalism? brand new account pushing POV and FRINGE on edit summaries. is it possible to lock the article to extended confirmed users? 500 edits and more? due to how easy it to fall for vandalism again? Wlaak (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

this is urgent @Asilvering, check this [16], [17],

"Shlama, They are tryin to push through this “Aramean people” article on Wikipedia again: Same agenda, tryin to mess with our history.

We can stop it, but we need more fellow Assyrians in the discussion. If enough of us join in, question the sources and highlight the bias, we can shut it down.

I can bring in a few people from the other groups too.

Let’s not stay quiet on this."

it is the same person that vandalized the Aramean people article, is this not a obvious block? note that it says "THE OTHER GROUPS", this lights the question whether if Shmayo and Surayeproject3 are already in a group? what OTHER group is he talking about if there is not already one?

Wlaak (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, I assume by "the other groups" what is meant is other groups of people under the "Assyrian umbrella". If they were already all part of some off-wiki group like a discord server or something there wouldn't be any reason to make that post on their talk pages. It's certainly a naked admission of intent to canvass the discussion, though, so I've left them a talk page warning about that. As for protecting the article, we tend to only do that in really quite bad cases of disruption and I don't think we're there yet. As for whether it's egregious pov-pushing vandalism that requires urgent action, well, I'd hardly stop any other admin from taking whatever action they think is reasonable, but my own block finger isn't quite that twitchy. Perhaps you can now understand, though, why other editors have reacted to your edits the way in which they have. -- asilvering (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

where is the appropriate place to report this? Wlaak (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

No need, already turfed out by EvergreenFir. -- asilvering (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Emmanuelzzz (19:50, 12 May 2025)

Hey mentor How do I edit and make citations --Malish (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Emmanuelzzz (19:50, 12 May 2025) (2)

Hey mentor How do I edit and make citations --Malish (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Emmanuelzzz, welcome to wikipedia! Editing is as simple as clicking the "edit" button, typing in your edit, and clicking "publish". You'll notice a "cite" button that will help you automatically insert citations, too. WP:PRIMER is a good info page to start with. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking for an opinion

Hi, asilvering. Seems I find my way to your talk page a lot, I hope you don't mind. I recently wrote the article Atlantic Insight, and subsequently decided to write about Draft:Atlantic Business Magazine which was originally a subsidiary of Atlantic Insight. The issue I've encountered is that there's actually no reliable source which indicates they are the same magazine as the one affiliated with Atlantic Insight, other than records in the Registry of Joint Stocks, which are not appropriate as a source. The magazine claims to be founded in 1989, but I'm quite sure it was actually founded in 1982, but due to the fact that this is very much OR at this point I can't include all that. This leaves me with what looks to me like a total puff piece, but this seems like a notable magazine and what I wrote is what's written about it in the sources. What do you think? Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, this is the worst kind of problem. Is your 1982/1989 problem related to the "originally a subsidiary" issue maybe? You might ask at WP:JOURN or WP:CANADA for help finding sources, or maybe try WP:RD/H with a specific question (those people are wizards). -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

GAN

Hi. I apologize that I only attempted to address your concern that you've brought at the previous GAN and didn't responded since it was closed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding - what I mean is the next reviewer needs to address it. A reviewer that doesn't even acknowledge a recently failed review is either not doing a full review or not showing evidence of having done a full review. -- asilvering (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry, for the misunderstanding as well. The new reviewer seems to passed that article recently, but I'm glad that article has attracted few editors now, and rollingstone has edited it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Basil winjim on Talk:Yamil/Tamaui Rural LLG (01:08, 13 May 2025)

Put Anyaulim village different fro ulupu --Basil winjim (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from F1NNO17 (12:15, 13 May 2025)

Hi, I'm F1NNO17 and I would like to know how to add a link to some text, thanks! --F1NNO17 (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Help:Link Destinyokhiria (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Village pump

@Asilvering i am confused as to what all this "village pump" proposal is about. its a WP:GS to my understanding, so that when disputes like this happen again, admins can step in and use more rights/tbans/tools etc? how will it affect the articles? like will this definitely oppose an Aramean article? or what is it im super confused Wlaak (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, the short and somewhat inaccurate answer is that GS designations allow individual admins to take unilateral actions that otherwise would require community consensus. So, for example, instead of endless arguments at ANI, an admin can apply a topic ban directly. What I've proposed is the "standard set" of CTOP restrictions, which you can see at WP:CTOP.

It won't definitely oppose an Aramean article. All GS does, really, is allow admins to shortcut some conduct-based consensus discussions. Consensus discussions about content are unaffected. However, it's very clear to me that this content dispute is too thorny for the involved editors to get anywhere with without driving each other completely crazy, so I'm working on some plans for how to help you guys get to some kind of more stable situation than what we have now, which is presently more or less two completely entrenched opposing points of view. User:Asilvering/List of ACAS parties is the very beginning stages towards trying to get a handle on this. Please do go ahead and add your name. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I should add - while I was thinking my way through what kind of approach would be best, a certain Chaotic Enby appeared, suggested some highly sensible tactics, and offered themselves as a mediator, so you'll be in good hands (if enough folks agree to participate, anyway). This dispute is much too big for the usual methods of dispute resolution and can't be solved by arbcom, so I certainly hope we can get everyone involved to play along. But it will be one step at a time, probably much slower than you'd like. We can't fix hundreds of years of nationalism in a week. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering why did you delete the article?? Wlaak (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

there is no reason to draft a article that was accepted on AfC, it is not up to you to delete it, there was no consensus and the AfD did not achieve anything! unfortunately i think youve grown to have a bias in this dispute, as this has been the feeling i have had since a very early time, if possible, can another admin take over? Wlaak (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article, Wlaak. I've moved it to draft, as I said in the AfD close. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

and why did you move it? where was the consensus for this? it was the AfD that was supposed to determine if the article should not be on Wikipedia or not. it passed AfD, why is wikipedia being opposing this? i really do not understand, do you not also agree that there is only benefits coming from having the article? this is what has been disputed for decades, it is constantly the editors being handled and not the issue it self. Wlaak (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's at Draft:Aramean people, the same place it was before. It did not "pass" AfD; the AfD did not result in consensus. I agree that it is constantly the editors being handled and not the issue it self; that is why I said what I said in my 19:37 comment above. We need to get to the point where an actual productive discussion is possible. I am happy to do everything I can to get the editors in this topic area to that point. It is going to take hard work and good faith on the part of everyone involved. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

yes, so it did not result in any consensus, yet you removed it from mainspace? i'd like to request another admin to take over this, where can i do this? sorry but i really feel like you've become biased unfortunately, it is constant "siding", constant comments against the "Aramean side", even on your ACAS page you had to mention that the Aramean side has no experience, moving the article to draft, only handling Aramean editors etc. almost as if the "Assyrian side" is flawless i feel, i do not mean to be disrespectful of course, just want to express my thoughts Wlaak (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, Wlaak, do you have experience outside of this debate? Or is my statement, it appears that most or all editors on one "side" are less experienced (Aramean not mentioned, but you're correct in your assumption), an accurate statement? -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

its besides the point if its true or not, its constant pressure solely on the "Aramean" side. there is a reason as to why one side may be more experienced, a specific party on the other side has for 17 years made sure any representation of the Aramean side is silenced and blocked. i do not want to throw names, allegations, attacks etc. but really it has gone too far now i feel Wlaak (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

No, Wlaak, it's not besides the point. If I have identified and stated a fact, and you believe that to be bias against your side of the debate, what should that tell you? What do you think it very obviously tells everyone else who might intervene?

Any experienced Wikipedian knows that there are articles and even whole topic areas where "consensus" has become effectively static, because the experienced editors working on the articles have agreed to hold to that consensus, and new editors seeking to change it are deflected. My bias, such as it is, is that I don't accept that this means the established consensus is necessarily "neutral", nor do I agree that new editors trying to edit against that consensus are necessarily "fringe" or "pov-pushing". That is to say, I am willing to accept that the "pro-Aramean" side has a point, and I am completely unwilling to dismiss all of you out of hand as fringe pov-pushers, even though it is obvious to anyone that you are indeed operating with an extremely clear pov. I want to help you and everyone else in the topic area come to some kind of consensus that you can accept, so that we can get our articles as close as possible to neutral. That, as I see it, is the mission of this encyclopedia. That's my bias: I believe in that mission.

I am given to understand that I have unusually high reserves of patience and good faith. You can try your luck with any other administrator if you like, but you may want to keep that in mind. You can also bring my specific actions for review. The place to complain about the close is WP:DRV. The place to complain about the page move and subsequent move protection is WP:XRV. Do not open concurrent discussions at both. Be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG; do not open a discussion on either of these fora until you've had a chance to calm down. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

where can i request a new admin to take over? Wlaak (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If you're not contesting any of my admin actions, there isn't really anything for another admin to "take over" at present. You would simply go to another admin with your questions, instead of asking me. You could also simply decline to take part in any discussions I have to do with in the future, and I could ignore your cases at ANI and decline to take any administrative action towards you. I do not think this will have the effect you desire, but I have no way to force you to participate in good faith, nor would I do so if I could. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

i am referring to this dispute entirely, like is it possible to request for another admin to "run" it. i of course am one of the main subjects in this grand dispute so inevitably i will have to participate in it, so when i say "take over" i mean be the one to be present at the disputes, for example the AfD, the actions of being related to the dispute generally Wlaak (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering you tban has went into affect and to be honst there is very much grey area i do not know what i can say or not say etc. i do not even know if i am allowed to ask things like this but what happens now to the whole dispute? when will the article go into question again? Wlaak (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Wlaak! Asking for clarification on the limits of your topic ban is allowed. In general, the topic ban is "broadly construed" (meaning articles tangentially related to modern Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac identities fall under it). The exact limits are a bit up to common sense, but, again, you can and should ask if you are unsure whether something falls under it.

Regarding the whole dispute, taking a few months away from it could help all sides get a bit more experience with Wikipedia processes, and figure out where we go from there. Given the AfD's closure, it is likely that there will be another discussion down the line about the topic, once everything gets sorted out. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

To add to what CE said, @Wlaak, I think there are parts of "the whole dispute" that can move forward, but specifically the part of the dispute that pertains to whether we should have a separate article for Arameans is probably at a standstill for now. I've started work on putting together a list of active editors in the topic area to try to confirm this, but it looks to me like we have no longtime editors on the "Aramean side", so there's no one with both the motivation and the skills to push that forward effectively. You clearly have the motivation, so now that you're tbanned it's time for you to develop those skills as quickly and effectively as you can. The dispute hasn't gone anywhere for 17 years; it'll still be here when you get the tban lifted. Because of your tban, you can't really say anything substantial about the dispute in response to this comment, but if you have further questions about how to get the tban lifted or what to do with yourself in the meantime, you're free to ask those.

For avoidance of doubt, unless you ask the administrator who set the tban first and get it approved, you can't do things like start SPIs, ANI threads, and so forth if they have any relevance to this topic area. But I'm well aware that there is off-wiki co-ordination of some form happening here, and your tban does not prevent you from privately sending relevant evidence to arbcom. There's no need to send them evidence that people are talking about the issues - that's expected. Meatpuppetry or other policy violations, though, is not ok and you can report that. As you know from somewhat absurdly having been accused of it yourself, meatpuppetry is more than just "multiple people having the same pov". -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no further things to say, just that, please can we go with your proposal you said earlier "You could also simply decline to take part in any discussions I have to do with in the future, and I could ignore your cases at ANI and decline to take any administrative action towards you."

And is it possible for you to leave this dispute as mediator etc. and leave it to the hands of CE perhaps, I feel as you've become biased in all of this and I am scared that it will affect the actions of this dispute. You already said that CE had "offered themselves as a mediator", this way it is maybe possible for you to step down from this dispute? Wlaak (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

With respect, that request is breaching your topic ban. I can assure you that it is my intent to leave the mediation of the content dispute to CE, and I can also easily commit to not directly involving myself in administrative action against you. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I've just added my account to the list. Let me know if I did it correctly, I'd like to say that the edit I linked is when I first started truly editing articles on Wikipedia. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3 I've fixed it. No need to link your first edit, just to say what portion of your edits have been relevant to the topic area. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed.Wlaak (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from FameboyDSA (00:27, 14 May 2025)

How do input my biography here so it can appear on Google search --FameboyDSA (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@FameboyDSA: You don't. Writing your autobiography here is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Football Data Warehouse

Hi asilverling, was it intentional to let the redirects to College Football Data Warehouse turn into Cross-namespace redirects? Nobody (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24 kinda-sorta yes - I didn't want to handle cleaning those up myself in case any of the redirects were something that ought to be targetted somewhere else rather than outright deleted. If you're sure there's nowhere better for them to target, they shouldn't stay as cross-namespace redirects, so you can tag them for CSD. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I should add, if any of those have significant page histories, RfD is the better choice over CSD. We might need to move some of them to projectspace for attribution reasons. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Panizzardi... and a confession

Hi Asilvering, and thanks for the message! I'll study up what needs to happen with the {{DreyfusAffair}} template. Also, a confession: aside from just previous general knowledge of this kind of historical event (Wall Street Crash, Sinking of the Titanic, and so on) pretty much all the details of the Dreyfus Affair I learned from reading An Officer and a Spy. Shh, this is just between you and me, OK? It never would do if the history buffs of Wikipedia knew that this (self-described) Eng. Lit. nerd started that article based in what they read in a novel. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Your secret is safe with me. After all, I ended up working on the topic because I am a professional Eng. Lit. nerd. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Welllll isn't that curious... take a look where WP:NERD redirects to. Off to the stocks for both of you!!!! On the other hand, neither of you is a run-of-the-mill nerd, but an ENGLISH LIT nerd! Oh the horror! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Pre AFC check-in

Hello! I'm following up on my request from about a month ago and your response. However, before I open a formal request, just wanted to check-in to see if your concern from earlier might be resolved by now! If it's the same amount of effort anyway, I am happy to put a request as well. Thanks! — WeWake (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-apply. -- asilvering (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!  Done— WeWake (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your input at Draft:Su30mki. I have used the WP:Article wizard/Redirects for it now.
Cheers 2405:201:4039:200B:89A4:FB4B:74EC:105F (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

By the way - I really recommend making an account, since you can make redirects yourself provided that you have an account that a) has at least 10 edits and b) has existed for at least four days. It's a pretty easy bar to clear, and it's worth it even if all you ever do is occasionally make redirects. -- asilvering (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Can't do block-evasion with an account XD - 2405:201:4039:200B:89A4:FB4B:74EC:105F (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Soapbottle (11:04, 16 May 2025)

Hello!

I'm wondering about the editing policy on small pages, and how to properly source things (if sourcing is even required)

I'm in the Canadian Coast Guard, and i enjoy reading the wikipedia page of the various vessels in the fleet. However I've noticed some of the information on certain vessels is wrong, or outdated.

I have no idea how to properly source that, there wouldn't be articles written about a system overhaul on a midsized vessel. The only evidence I have is what I've seen with my own eyes on these ships. I'd like to share my knowledge about the ships on wikipedia, but I want to do it in a way which is in accordance with the Wikipedia standards.

Thanks! -Soapbottle --Soapbottle (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Soapbottle, welcome to wikipedia! Can you give an example of a couple of the changes you'd like to make? It might be the sort of thing we can find primary sources for, but it might also be the kind of thing that we probably shouldn't have on the encyclopedia anyway, since it's not easy enough for someone to verify. -- asilvering (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Sumi Deguchi

Thank you so much for your reviewing my draft!

As pointed out, I revised the bibliography by adding its Roman Characters (while keeping the book titles in original Japanese Language), and translating the Japanese names of the writers, editors, publishers and the publishing dates into English.

I hope that this would decrease the inconvenience for reviweing.

Yukihiko Kamiyama (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's a big help already. By the way, you have your references in the wrong templates. This isn't really a problem for reviewing the draft, but you'll probably find it more convenient overall to use the right ones. The bibliography entries at the end are what should be in Template:cite book, and for your short footnotes, the template you're looking for is Template:sfn. -- asilvering (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your prompt reply.

About the wrong templates, I understand it and will check the correct ones and revise them accordingly. Yukihiko Kamiyama (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Re: Soft deletion of BLP Olympian stubs

Hi, I'm responding to this question you asked me here a few hours ago, to not bring the AfD off topic.

I think that generally, it's easier to improve an existing article than to convert a redirect or create a new one, especially for newer editors. So if there is a Honduran Wikipedian out there who has access to coverage about Castillo, that person would be much more likely to add sources to a stub than to create a new article.

But I agreed not to comment on most stub AfDs any more, so I'll honor that. --Habst (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it's easier, but I'm not sure it's actually more likely. I'm not sure we really have any meaningful data on that at all. What we do have is evidence that redlinks encourage article creation. And I can give you anecdata from my time as an AfC reviewer and WP:GTF mentor that many people really want to create new articles, even if there's an obvious article that already exists that they could edit instead. -- asilvering (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. In my mind the goal of growth team features should encourage article improvement over creation. If it's just the link being red that compels newcomers to create articles, can't we just change the color of redirects that have {{r with possibilities}} to pink and add a UI to prompt users to create them, starting with the template of the pre-AfD article? If the end result is that our system encourages newcomers to do more difficult things instead of easier things, that seems like a problem with the system.

Then there's also the problem that even just incorporating database results into articles can take hours, so there would be duplicated work if those need to be re-created just to add a few facts from new SIGCOV (which would be accompanied by the same database statistics anyways). --Habst (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I assure you that GTF encourage article improvement over creation. Basically everything newbie-facing tries to dissuade people from starting new articles - GTF, Teahouse hosts, the AfC process, various user essays - and it's of limited success. Many people join wikipedia in order to write new articles, and there's not a lot we can do about that, though we do very earnestly try. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

We agree on this, so to bring it back to the original question, I think that keeping article stubs of people that are known to be notable is valuable because it both encourages article improvement over creation (with much of the initial structure set up already), and because I think it's more likely to result in SIGCOV being added because of lower barrier to entry. I acknowledge that there's some subjectivity about what is the best approach, and of course we can't have a counter-factual to test. --Habst (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chérif Baba Aidara

Curious why you think the "delete" argument was strong enough the override the equal number of keep !votes, given that each argument was in-depth? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, in-depth doesn't mean "following guidelines and policies". No sigcov was found, and so much of the argument was turning on the assertion that it was effectively impossible for any AfD participants to find sigcov that it didn't even appear worth relisting to see if anyone could do so. Weighting the keep votes as equal to the delete votes in this case would be a local overrule of the rule that all sports bios must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources and present WP:BLP policy problems - I'd want a really compelling reason to do that, and didn't see one in the discussion. However, I do agree with you that it's highly likely that sigcov exists, which is why I specifically stated in the close that it was a no-prejudice delete.

More generally, I'd like to ask you the same question I asked Habst. I've been finding these discussions difficult to watch - a huge spend of volunteer time, goodwill, and sanity that we could be using to much more effective ends. I admit to some annoyance at WP:GNG crusading (irrespective of where people fall on the deletionist/inclusionist split). After all, WP:N is a guideline, and it's WP:V and WP:BLP that are policies. But what are we doing here, when we spend all this effort on meta-discussions of BLP stubs that are sourced only to databases, and for which we can't find evidence of sigcov? I understand the rationale behind the "delete side", for all I can't really understand why they're spending their energy on this task and not something with a better reward rate. But the "keep side", that I don't really understand at all. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The reason I argue keep is simple: before we delete all-time greats (and thus create a significant hindrance to ever having coverage of them on here again), we should look for where there's coverage, and when someone is known clearly as an all-time great (e.g. one of the only multi-time Olympians for Mauritania ever, as well as having their greatest finish in the history of the world championships) and the odds of not having coverage are incredibly close to zero, we should not delete the article without at least looking in some relevant places (like, actual sources from the athlete's country!). Its very very frustrating to see all-time greats that honestly, I am completely certain have coverage, deleted in mass quantities because a certain editor writes "fails GNG". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by and thus create a significant hindrance to ever having coverage of them on here again? -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Should've said having an article, though I note that because of the deletions some editors have fought my attempts to add any information about them in other places as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I understood you to mean "having an article", no confusion there. Though I'm concerned to hear about people fighting attempts to add information in other places because of an AfD result, since that has basically nothing to do with AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm also confused by why a deletion at AfD would make it hard to have an article again. It is much easier to make an article than to delete one. Even when a previous article is deleted, re-creation is as easy as the initial creation, and the page cannot be speedy deleted if it is substantially different from the previous article - which it would be, if it were written from newly found secondary sources. There is no block on re-creation of deleted articles in most cases, and it happens all the time.

I suppose there is a matter of Wikipedia philosophy here, mind. I have seen the argument made that the existence of stubs encourages editors to edit and expand the stub, whereas an absence of a page does not. So the argument is that stubs are beneficial in that way. Enticing as that argument is, I don't buy it for several reasons.

Firstly, if I'm reading a page and it has wikilinks on it, I generally ignore the links (most pages are badly overlinked). The links I would consider doing something with, however, are red links. There it is the absence of a page (and the absence of a redirect, mind) that alerts me that a subject that may be notable has no page. So at least in some cases, the absence of the page is better than a stub.

Secondly there is a certain gamification of Wikipedia. We reward page creators in small ways. We record the number of their creations, and we give them the right to set the language, date format and reference style of pages. These small incentives accrue to new page creators, but not to those who take stubs and expand them.

Thirdly the indiscriminate nature of machine created stubs sourced to databases overwhelms editor availability. In the early days of Wikipedia it was said "want to write a good essay for college? Write a bad one on Wikipedia and wait a week". Because back then if you created an article, people would leap in and expand it. But the editor resource on Wikipedia is finite, and the number of these stubs are so large that the effort to expand them is Sisyphean. Their indiscriminate nature also skews editor focus. All the effort goes on stubs that were chosen for no other reason than because the pages could be created from a database. Meanwhile who knows what other useful pages we could be writing if not concentrating on these.

Thus I certainly disagree that articles cannot be created again, and I also disagree with anyone who argues we are better starting from these stubs than just starting from scratch. I may be arguing against an orthodoxy here, but I have seen nothing that convinces me I'm wrong. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps this is pedantic of me, but my question wasn't asked out of confusion, but out of a desire for explanation and to avoid assumptions. There's far too much speculation and assumption about motive in these conversations. -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Stuff like this is exactly what I'm talking about. I add a few details about one of Ivory Coast's only Olympians to the Ivory Coast at the '72 Olympics article, and right afterwards get reverted because 'AFD result wasn't to add that content'... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

What AfD is that referring to, @BeanieFan11? I see that there's an AfD for Kouami N'Dri right now, but that one's still ongoing. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Deleted eight minutes after your comment. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. The AfD started, you saw it was trending delete, you copied the text from that article to Ivory Coast at the 1972 Summer Olympics as a footnote, you were reverted for "no consensus to merge", you reinstate the text with a query, the AfD closes, and the text you copied is removed again, this time with the edit summary "consensus was redirect, not merge"? I have all the events in the right order here? -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct. Am I wrong to try to preserve information on these Olympians like that? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, technically yes, since you didn't provide correct attribution in your initial edit summary. If you're going to do that, you should also probably add Template:merged to the relevant talk page, and if it's an article at AfD, you should argue in favour of a redirect/merge there. But you don't need consensus to edit an article unless there's some obvious barrier like a CTOP sanction or something on it. An article being deleted at AfD doesn't mean we're supposed to pretend the topic doesn't exist. It just means the topic isn't suitable for a standalone article at the time of the AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to pop in here and mention that a long while back BilledMammal looked in to whether sub-stub articles encouraged article-expansion and the outcome was basically there was no evidence that they did. Personally, red-links make it more likely that I’ll contribute because there’s the enjoyment of making the article yourself, but then I never had to contribute articles through the new article system that’s in place now. FOARP (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right that I forgot to add attribution, but do you think the content itself should / should not be included? There's two editors in particular trying to revert any attempt to add Olympian information to "[country] at the Olympics" on the basis that "the AFD outcome wasn't officially merge". BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As I noted at [[18]], much of the currently merged biographical material is sourced to Olympedia, which while it has not been discussed at the RS noticeboard (although perhaps it should be) has been shown to have numerous inaccuracies (such as at [[19]] just for starters). I don't think anyone is actually opposed to having a footnote of sorts here, the dispute is more regarding how much of the original article should be included in the target. Let'srun (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

In addition, this would have been a much better conversation to have at the AfD, but unfortunately neither editor made these arguments there. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Most of the content in the UAE and Ivory Coast articles is not from Olympedia. Even if it were, that Olympedia occasionally has a few minor errors (such as misspelling an "n" for an "m") hardly makes it completely unreliable – very reliable sports sites such as Pro Football Reference, Baseball Reference, etc., make the same mistakes at times. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that these sports-reference.com databases (and Olympedia was one of these) all appear to include errors in a non-negligible sample of names, let alone biographies (e.g., the Frank English case) is a good reason to not rely solely on them. FOARP (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Which isn't relevant when most of the content in question is being sourced to other references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11, WP:V is always relevant. So hopefully this conversation has established a couple of things:

• removing additions simply because they're about a subject that is being deleted at AfD would not be a constructive edit, but no one intended to do that
• since there are verifiability concerns about Olympedia, editors making additions should avoid using that source wherever possible, and consider not adding content at all if that's the only source they have
• everyone's getting frustrated, which leads to curt edit summaries, which leads to misunderstandings, which leads to more frustration, which leads to... etc etc. if everyone can keep this in mind and do their best to avoid eliding their reasoning, that can help slow down this cycle.

asilvering (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that its only pretty basic things are being sourced to Olympedia, like that the athlete finished in a particular position, something that numerous sources list, whereas the rest of the content is being sourced to other reliable sources. Thoughts? Though I can agree that both sides being more clear in reasoning would be helpful in these cases. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

In those cases it's easy enough to just get a different source, right? Since it's in numerous sources? Or is this more onerous than it appears? -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding Olympedia is the easiest, but adding e.g. an archived Sports Reference link or the World Athletics site for results usually wouldn't be that difficult either. Sometimes Olympedia gives brief biographies, and in those cases it'd be more difficult to find replacements for the text from the bio (though I can't recall ever finding an error in one of their biographies). At this point, I mainly care just that the content is included, although I'll say that the concerns about Olympedia are quite overblown, in my opinion. Though from the edit summaries in the reverts, the reverts didn't seem to be based on Olympedia concerns, e.g. the most recent was "AfD outcome was not merge". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

In addition, there are still WP:UNDUE concerns from including unrelated content about other things (such as, but not limited to, biographical details and results from other events) into a article about the Olympics. Any merge of content into these articles should not be including such information. Let'srun (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

There isn't a prohibition from having brief biographical details at lists, especially when otherwise, said lists would have almost no content and remain very stubby. Content such as that Beanie Smith was a gold medalist at such-and-such major international tournament is worth including somewhere on the site – where else would be better than at a list of Olympians in a small note? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Let'srun, I do think it's important to keep in mind here that in this particular case we're talking about Ivory Coast at the 1972 Summer Olympics. Would biographical details of athletes be WP:DUE on 1972 Summer Olympics? Certainly not. Would they be due at United States at the 1972 Summer Olympics? I wouldn't say so. On the Ivory Coast one - well, why not? What else would be due there? -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, and I don't disagree with including something here, simply my issues are based in the amount of detail that is both juxtaposed from sources such as Olympedia which have had numerous proven errors, and also unrelated to anything to do with the Olympics. I think content regarding how the athletes got to the Olympics would be much more DUE than what is currently seen from these merges (granted, we don't have that information, but that is what I would expect from these articles, personally, rather than unrelated details).

The question I have for Beanie is what is defined as a major international event? If someone won a gold metal (or had some other achievement outside of the Olympics) at a international tournament, wouldn't that be the better place to include the biographical info on said athlete, rather than an unrelated article in regards to their seemingly greatest achievement?

If that isn't the case, something like [[20]] could also note the other major events where the subject competed in that (or another) discipline, and the verifiability/UNDUE issues should, for the most part, be solved. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need it to be defined as a "major international event" – I just said details "such as" that are worth mentioning. E.g. in the Ivory Coast one, the subject was a medalist at the African Games. He's probably mentioned at some African Games list somewhere, but why don't we just make it easy for the readers and have a page where they can learn all of the (admittedly few) known accomplishments of the subject, rather than making them dig from page to page to find scraps of info on their wanted subject? What makes having accomplishments listed DUE for your mentioned Congo article but not for the Ivory Coast example? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Because, again, the accomplishments for the Congo example all took place in the Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Let'srun, if you're not actually opposed to having a footnote of sorts there, it seems to me like a lot of frustration might have been avoided if you'd said so in your edit summary. It certainly didn't come off that way to me. -- asilvering (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I was trying to note that on the talk pages for each but saying it in the edit summary would've been better. In addition, some of that merged content is non-Olympics related, which appears WP:UNDUE for those respective target articles. Let'srun (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I came across this issue independently after reverting an insertion of basically the entirety of the N'Dri article into a footnote at one page target, which has since been readded in slightly reduced form. I do not think it is appropriate at all for the Ivory Coast at the 1972 Summer Olympics page to host a giant footnote of N'Dri's database-sourced biographical facts and personal accomplishments in 4 other unrelated events when the AfD determined this collection of information was not encyclopedic and no merge was suggested there. This seems like an end-run-around to the delete result and results in pages being both coatracks and even more non-compliant with our policy against basing pages on primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The AFD did not find that the content was unencyclopedic. It found that at this moment, there has not been enough coverage located to warrant a stand-alone article on N'Dri. That does not prohibit mentioning him in other places. What else could possibly be at that stubby Ivory Coast article if we're not allowed to include any details on the only people related to it? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The non-1972 Olympics material has zero secondary sourcing indicating its relevance to the page (even the source on that Olympics is a primary database). This fails NPOV and PRIMARY. If you want to merge content you should gain consensus at AfD, not wait for it to be closed and then stealthily and unilaterally insert all of it into all possible targets as if this wouldn't be controversial. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

See my comment below: So tell me: what is DUE at that article? Or is it supposed to just be one of those dreaded permastubs we'll eventually have editors trying to delete? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, you can of course challenge any addition of content anywhere on the encyclopedia, including this one. But AfD is primarily concerned with the question of "should this article exist". Embargoing all mention of a topic is neither its purpose nor its function. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not mention of a topic, it's wholesale copy-pasting of a deleted article into a different article. This primary database-sourced footnote

Kouami N'Dri (born 6 April 1943), also a high jumper, competed in the 4 × 100 metres relay at the 1968 Summer Olympics and the 1972 Summer Olympics.[2] N'dri was seeded in the second 4 × 100 m heat at the 1968 Olympics. Running second leg, he contributed to the team's 39.68-second finish for 5th place, advancing to the semi-finals on time. In the first semi-final, N'dri ran second leg again and the team finished seventh in 39.69 seconds.[3] Four years later at the 1972 Olympic 4 × 100 m, N'Dri ran third leg for the Ivorian team in the second heat. They split 39.81 seconds for 5th place, failing to advance.[4] At another meeting in 1972, N'Dri set his 100 metres personal best of 10.54 seconds.[5] At the 1973 African Games, N'Dri ran as anchor leg on the Ivorian 4 × 100 m team. He won a bronze medal, recording a time of 40.23 seconds behind Nigeria and Ghana.[6] On 5 May 1979, N'Dri tied the Ivorian national record in the high jump. He jumped 2.08 metres at a meeting in Abidjan.[3]

is entirely UNDUE and clearly an attempt at getting around the deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

So tell me: what is DUE at that article? Or is it supposed to just be one of those dreaded permastubs we'll eventually have editors trying to delete? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Content about that Olympics and a brief note listing other pages the subject is mentioned on might be appropriate. I have no problem with footnotes like this. JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Which basically equates to saying this needs to be a permanent stub with almost zero content – one can add that "Ivory Coast finished nth in the relay", and that's it, because they didn't do anything else – and I'm sure we'll eventually have editors arguing for its deletion on that basis. Who is benefited by prohibiting brief details about the Olympians in an otherwise nearly empty article on a particular year's Ivory Coast Olympians? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes...they didn't do anything else that we have evidence was reported on in any secondary fashion, therefore it is undue to insert off-topic primary-database-sourced biographical material on these BLPs into these articles... If secondary independent coverage of that country's performance at that Olympics can't be found anywhere then it should be deleted or remain a navigational list-stub, and if such coverage does exist then we can wait until it is unearthed to see what actual reporters considered interesting and important rather than having the page host a synthesis of one competitor's random results from four different databases and events as if that represents a BALASP treatment of the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, you can of course challenge any addition of content anywhere on the encyclopedia, including this one. But AfD is primarily concerned with the question of "should this article exist". Embargoing all mention of a topic is neither its purpose nor its function. I would appreciate it if you took the content dispute here to the talk page of the article where it is relevant. I would also appreciate it if, in that content dispute, you focused on the question of "what would improve the encyclopedia" and abandoned the question of whether another editor's motives are or are not "an attempt at getting around the deletion". -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

My main focus has been on the fact that this primary-sourced database content bloc on material that is not about the article topic is UNDUE and fails our policy on PRIMARY. However, I do think it is relevant that this content was merged without attribution during and without notifying the AfD, by someone who didn't even participate in the AfD, which merging I believe has been considered inappropriate in itself, and then after @Vanamonde93's close it was readded multiple times over objections from multiple people rather than a merge proposal being opened. I think this behavior goes beyond "content dispute" and is relevant to bring up. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Copying the entire contents of a deleted article into a footnote is...odd. We don't put entire articles into footnotes as a matter of practice. If such a footnote is challenged the editor adding it is likely to be responsible for obtaining consensus for it, per WP:ONUS. That said, AfDs are about notability, not due weight, as Asilvering says. There is not a prohibition against rescuing content deleted at AfD, and unless a merger was explicitly discussed and decided against, an AfD cannot be read explicitly as consensus against a merger. As such I would indeed consider this a content dispute, and would not as an individual admin sanction someone for attempting the addition of such a footnote. If editors start being disruptive in resolving this, we have a place to handle that. I'd strongly recommend everyone give Asilvering's talk page a rest. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

What they have accomplished is shutting out neutral voices not involved in the dispute(s). I tried posting here five different times only to be shut out by them snipping at each other.

The four(?) of you are not going be able to resolve this between yourselves. There's too much animosity so dispute resolution is the only route but you need to give space for other editors to participate. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

"... is...odd." Agreed... I can't say I've ever come across it before, seems to border on WP:COATRACK but I guess could make sense in the right context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Nizarchik on User:Asilvering (18:42, 17 May 2025)

Tunisians page on Wikipedia, including Christian, Jewish and Ibadi minorities, and a protected page. I hope to edit it and add Ibadi minorities. This is evidence of the presence of Ibadis in Tunisia. https://journals.openedition.org/remmm/6253 --Nizarchik (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Nizarchik, in order to suggest an edit on Tunisians, you need to make an edit request on the talk page of that article. Please see WP:EDITREQ for detailed instructions. There is a simplified wizard to help with this process at WP:ERW. Let me know if you have any questions. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Jamuel28 on Uzbek Wikipedia (08:43, 18 May 2025)

I. Mother that for meeting and could should for mucking by Sheep level since ay believer and of the year is going on with my family is not Ming sower peels it's Just Deeping can many of had reveling are days of work that --Jamuel28 (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jamuel28, welcome to Wikipedia! If you intended to communicate anything with this message, you did not succeed in your aims. -- asilvering (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Wrong AE report deleted?

Hey, I think you might have deleted the wrong AE report. This one I opened was not formally closed before being archived. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&oldid=prev&diff=1291033590 ---Petextrodon (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, I didn't do that - that's the auto-archiving bot. But I'll revert it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Wait, no, I won't revert this. There is no one suggesting any sanctions at all. There's nothing more to do there. -- asilvering (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright. I thought it required formal closing.--Petextrodon (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Kaushala Prasad Mishra

Dear @Asilvering Thanks for your suggestions in improving the page Draft:Kaushala Prasad Mishra. I would appreciate your further help in improving errors in the page if any. Prabodha K Meher (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Prabodha K Meher, I think you're probably fine now, going by the content of the draft (I haven't checked the refs to confirm), this should be accepted. Please remove the birthdate unless it's widely known, though. If it is something that's widely known, you can leave it in, but please provide a source. For some other general cleanup you might want to do, imagine for a moment that this article is accepted to mainspace, you're immediately hit by a bus, and no one ever touches it again. With this kind of thing in mind you'll probably want to revise how you present "recent roles" and "editorial responsibilities". Personally, I would remove both sections and write something in prose in "career" instead. In order to make it look less like a CV and more like an encyclopedia article, you might want to remove "professional affiliations" and "awards and honours" as well, incorporating only the most important of them into the narrative in the "career" section. This will be easier if you can find independent or reasonably independent biographical sources. Since he's retired, there's probably a bio a colleague wrote about him for his retirement or for a festschrift. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello there.

How are you doing so far? 205.155.225.248 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Theironedit (21:38, 19 May 2025)

Hello! Would an article like 'self-portrait (patti smith)' need to be edited in its entirety to reflect neutrality instead of opinion or, are there cases where such fluffed reflection is allowed? --Theironedit (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Theironedit, that's an article on a work of art, so it's always going to reflect opinion. But I do think that's enough promotional-type language that someone will try to WP:G11 it, which I don't think would be ideal, so I've draftified it. You can find it at Draft:Self-portrait (Patti Smith). It looks like many of those sources aren't actually about her artwork, but are used to reinforce the essay in general, and those bits should be removed before it returns to mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Quick Question on Image Licensing – Appreciate Your Guidance

Hello @Asilvering sorry to disturb – I know you’re probably ultra busy with admin tasks at the moment, and this is likely more of a support question that I shouldn’t be bothering you with. However, based on our earlier chats, I thought you might be the best person to ask for some guidance on image licensing, as I really want to get this right. I’ve got a few specific points:

1. Photographs – For example, this image – I realise the licensing is off, and I’ll get that fixed. The photo is from a government websitewith credit to Ken Williams, he has incredible photos I’ve reached out to him for permission but haven’t heard back yet. What do I ask him to do exactly if he says yes, or is there a better approach?
2. Book Pages – I’ve also got an image from a book, and I’m not sure what the best approach is for licensing something like this. Is there a standard process I should follow, or should I be reaching out to the publisher directly for clearance?
3. Physical Book Pages for Citations – I felt the need to provide physical book pages with my highlights to provide better context for citations. If Bastun accepts these, I can delete them and just include the ISBN, but is there a way to get them properly licensed for long-term use? What exactly should I email to the Royal Irish Academy to secure permission for these?
4. Bio Photos – While we’re on this topic, what is the best way to add a photo to a bio page? Besides taking the photo yourself.

Thanks a million for all your help over the past few months – I really appreciate it! Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It's always fine to ask me questions, don't worry about it. In order:

1. if it's uploaded to Commons, that means that anyone can use the photo in the future for any purpose, including commercially, so most photographers aren't going to be very excited to say yes to this. c:COM:Licensing has all the detailed information. c:COM:VRT are the people that handle these requests - if the photographer IS willing to license it, to provide proof that they are indeed the copyright holder of the work, they should email [email protected].
2. same answer as above, but in this case I think it's so unlikely that you will get a positive response that I initially answered this one "we will not be able to license this image".
3. the better way to handle this is usually just to email the images to the editor who requests them. In this particular case, the publisher appears to be selling them: [21]. If they wanted to release the report under CC BY-SA, they could simply digitize it themselves and do so, so unless they have a huge digitization backlog on their hands (which is possible), the more likely answer is that they will not license this content.
4. you mean the best way to get a photo of a subject for a bio page? Send them WP:APoY.

asilvering (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Facism

I have a The American Heritage dictionary 3rd Edition that states Facism is 1. Fascism. a. 38.42.47.236 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Asilvering:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Indian military history case opened

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Kindietunnel on User:Kindietunnel (08:11, 22 May 2025)

Hello how can i add a picture --Kindietunnel (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Kindietunnel, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please see HELP:IMAGES for instructions on how to add pictures to Wikipedia pages. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Need to report a user for vandalism

Hi @Asilvering, happy friday! I was hoping you could advise on the best way to report a user who repeatedly edits their own name or vandalises an article. It appears to be a conflict of interest, as they're editing a page about themselves which is not allowed, and I've had to revert the changes multiple times now (over a dozen click here). Several editors have left edit war templates on their page which they ignore. Would appreciate your guidance on the correct process—thanks so much. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88 be very careful about characterizing edits as vandalism as none of it Wikpedia's definition of vandalism unless what they are adding is a provable intentional hoax. It does appear to be disruptive though and looking at their history it appears their focus is Baronage of Scotland. Are their recent edits under different IPs or only 178.255.168.165? S0091 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Understood, I think it's only that IP Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow this guy is really insistent. Recently, they've been by more often than once every two weeks, so I've given a two-week block to start in hopes they get the message. Experience suggests that they won't, however, so if they make that same edit again once their block expires and they still haven't managed to talk to anyone about it, let me know and I'll block for longer. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from KrubhaLEJ (01:51, 24 May 2025)

Hello, how do i create a Wikipedia page --KrubhaLEJ (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @KrubhaLEJ, welcome to wikipedia! You can use WP:WIZARD to create your first article. I don't really recommend doing that, though - it's much easier to write new Wikipedia articles once you've already got some more experience editing articles that already exist. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you KrubhaLEJ (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Malcolmpw (09:43, 24 May 2025)

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

(talk page stalker) Hello @Malcolmpw, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm a bit confused on what your question is, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Draft:Eli Gross

Hello,

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

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

Eli Gross is mentioned in several notable publications, including:

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I would be very grateful for any guidance or help you can offer. Thank you so much! Best regards, Liad shadmi (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Hi @asilvering, thank you for your thoughtful feedback.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again!

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

Replying to your comment

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

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

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

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

GS proposal closed

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

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

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

Question from Aruunn (05:08, 25 May 2025)

Hello, how can i protect my articles and edit from others as there is one guy who is deliberately undoing my edits either manually or otherwise. what can i do in this situation. for e.g. i have created article List of former chief justices of the high courts of India that guy is removing my list and is adamant on creating new separate articles for list of former chief justices of every Indian high courts. He removes the list in this article and gives explanation that this article is messed up and incomplete and too long. I reverts this edits but he instead of talking and reaching consensus everytime reverts my edits. How do i protect my list. Another example in article list of sitting judges of the supreme court of India in particular section of additional information about judges i made link of the article of list of former chief justices of high courts to show that sitting judge was the former chief justice of any particular high court and i made link of not the whole article but only of section for example if one sitting judge is former chief justice of tripura high court then i made link of that particular section List of former chief justices of the high courts of India#Tripura High Court but still that particular guy is removing links by giving explanation that aricles list of former chief justices of tripura high court do not exist. I am literally helpless about his behaviour he is not listening to my explanations and just reverting my edits and if i do the same he reminds me of edit warring policy. Kindly help me and guide me what can i do to stop this or if i am wrong in making this edits then tell me the right way please --Aruunn (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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

But that doesn't mean you need to give up entirely. Normally what happens is you go to the talk page to work things out. In the particular case of List of former chief justices of the high courts of India, I'm not really sure what the problem is, though. For example, here, you've reinstated a list, saying that you're doing so because there is no separate article for that, and the other editor reverts your edit, and points out that there is a separate article with that list already: [22]. So, that seems solved, to me? -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed from WP AfC Participants

Hello @Asilvering, I noticed that my username was removed from the list of participants for Articles for Creation. See this edit you made here. I'm just curious if this means I am out of AfC. Best, Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Properties confiscated from Jews under Nazi rule

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

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indian Military History

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

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

• there is in fact off-wiki collusion, and everyone is colluding to suppress evidence
• there is in fact off-wiki collusion, and everyone is burying arbcom in half-relevant emails about it
• too busy arguing about contemporary India-Pakistan issues to gather evidence for arbcom
• too busy dragging each other to AE to gather evidence for arbcom
• every individual party believes they have behaved badly enough to be tbanned and want to avoid being a juicier target by presenting evidence on anyone else
• every individual party is in fact just a sockpuppet of one single master, who is able to stall the whole case just by not showing up
• when named parties said they didn't think there was reason for a case, they really meant it, and have no idea what evidence to bring in the first place
• when named parties said they didn't think there was reason for a case, they didn't meant it at all, and now are too embarrassed to bring evidence
• everyone is hoping someone else goes to all the bother
• everyone is hoping that if they ignore it, it will go away
• this is the calm before the storm / everyone is just waiting for someone to shoot first / playing chicken with deadlines / etc

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

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

Women in Red June 2025

Women in Red | June 2025, Vol 11, Issue 6, Nos. 326, 327, 339, 340 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ | Alphabet run K & L Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea, but we're putting together our list of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red. We are creating the list to celebrate 10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania. We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider? Can you suggest a DYK style hook? If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on the talk page. The World Destubathon, 16 June - 13 July, 2025 Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,492 articles during this period! 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% (2,061,363 bios; 414,126 women) Tip of the month: Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regarding notability and reliable sources. Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements. 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

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

Aimez-vous bien la baguette ?

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

Et le croissant ?

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

Je vois que vous parlez français.

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

Dastan Satpayev

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

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

Question from Maliniranga (17:31, 30 May 2025)

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

(talk page stalker) Hello @Sonepat2025, and welcome to Wikipedia! To answer your question, those are called infoboxes, and you can find more information about them here. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagreement

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

Move review by you

You moved a page from userspace to draftspace per [23] that makes no sense as for your information Draft:Masud Rana Sheikh is nothing but copy (later they removed a part from full copy) of an existing article Shakib Khan. The user is just doing things that leads to think of them as WP:NOTHERE. You can go through their editing contribution. I think the draft should be deleted. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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