User talk:Anachronist

Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

Socks

Hi Anachronist. I noticed that you blocked the account Kiera Flipper as a sock, but it is older than the account Kiera Fliper, which you left unblocked. Isn't it customary to block the newer account as a sock? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

In this case, she wrote a draft article about herself, spelled "Fliper" throughout. Assuming that is the correct spelling of her name, and that she created the newer account in an attempt to correct it, I blocked what seemed to be the mispelled name that is unlikely to be used in the future.

It seemed less like a case of socking than simply creating a new account with intention to abandon the old one. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI, template isn't mandatory

Re:Teahouse post. It's a common misconception that it is, and while I'd probably like userpage disclosure to be required under either local policy or the TOU, it's just one of 'bout three options paid editors have for disclosing. As per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. So yeah. Template isn't mandatory, and while I certainly don't mind telling paid editors to use it, it's not a requirement, legal or otherwise. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I meant to convey that disclosure is mandatory, and indicated the preferred way. Disclosure on the Teahouse page doesn't qualify. It needs to be visible in a permanent place that is easily found by other editors. I disagree that it's sufficient to do it in an edit summary only. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I just clarified my comment on the Teahouse. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry to be a nuisance. Teahouse disclosure is insufficient, I agree, though I suppose I'm grateful that they're trying to dothings by the book and not just forging ahead in mainspace. I'm also with you that edit summary disclosure aren't that good - if I were queen for a day, I think I'd like to make all three forms of disclosure (notification on talkpage, giant sign on userpage, mentioning financial COI in edit summary) mandatory for all paid editors editing about people, products, or organizations, but alas. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No need to apologize. If you hadn't brought it up, I wouldn't have known to clarify my sloppily-worded answer to a newbie who would benefit from clearer communication. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Golden Gate

Hi Anachronist, it's been nearly eight years since you placed the Golden Gate article under semi-protection. This article was never supposed to have been protected indefinitely. Finding the request leading to the protection, you intended for the protection to expire in only ten days, but looking at the protection log, it was just never set to expire. Now that nearly eight years have passed, and the article not seeing very much frequent editing, do you think you can unprotect it to see how it goes? BriDash9000 (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the protection. However, I observe that throughout the article's entire history, the vast majority of unconstructive or reverted edits were made by anonymous IP addresses, suggesting a negative net benefit to the Wikipedia project if it is left unprotected. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

JETRON article

Hello Anachronist, thank you very much for your review of the JETRON article. I have removed wording-adjectives that could be perceived as promotional. Would that be sufficient for you, or is there anything else you need me to do? Many thanks for your help. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It's still promotional. Start by removing every phrase in the history section that doesn't cite a source. Then use only reliable sources to expand the section. A Wikipedia article cannot report what you know or what the company has told you, an article can report only what is published in reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Anachronist, thank you very much for your second review and for your guidance. I’ve added three new references in the History section, from which I cited, and removed the sentence that didn’t include a source. May I kindly ask you to review the updated draft? Many thanks again for your help. Tomas Cafourek (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cyril_Voyant

Hi Anachronist, Thank you for your feedback. I have revised the draft to address your concerns, replacing or removing sources and incorporating the comments made by Paleothid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Cyril_Voyant). While I understand that a personal website is not considered an independent source, my intention in maintaining it (and in creating this draft) is not self-promotion. My research outputs are in open access, my softwares are open-source/freeware, and I am already fully satisfied with my academic position. My aim is simply to improve access to knowledge in medical physics and solar resource forecasting, and to help make such content more visible and verifiable for others. If you have time, I would appreciate any further review or even direct edits to the draft; I am not very experienced with Wikipedia processes, and value your expertise. Best regards, Cyril Cyril voyant (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

If your aim is really "to improve access to knowledge in medical physics and solar resource forecasting", then you should be writing Wikipedia articles about those subjects rather than writing about yourself. Therein lies the problem: there isn't any reason for anyone to write about themselves other than publicity, and Wikipedia is the wrong venue for that.

The subject areas in which you work are likely notable subjects that deserve stand-alone articles on their own, without being tied to an autobiography. Why not write about solar resource forecasting instead? Wikipedia readers would benefit more from an informative article about that topic written for a lay audience than an autobiography about someone who works in the field.

I have been in your position indirectly. I once tried to write an article about an author whose novels my son liked. I did my best, and submitted it as a draft for review in spite of me being experienced enough to write articles acceptable for publication here. The reviewer suggested that it would be better to recast the article to be about the books than about the author, and he was correct; that was the better approach. Note that the WP:AFC review process isn't always just for newbies. It's useful also for experienced editors to get peer-review feedback before publishing something in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and your comments. It is usefull! I will maybe propose some articles :)

have a good day !

cyril Cyril voyant (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

In complement, I ureally nderstand your point, and I fully agree that topics such as medical physics and solar resource forecasting deserve clear, accessible articles for a wide audience. I have in fact contributed to such work in other contexts, and I see the value in doing so here as well.

That said, my aim in this draft was not publicity but to document what I believe is a rather unusual career path — two doctorates in different but related fields, pursued while holding a demanding full-time clinical position, leading a unit, publishing research, developing software, and teaching part-time. Research was never my formal job, yet I reached the top 5 in a specialised forecasting niche and the top 2 % worldwide in energy systems.

I accept that this may still not meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards, but I wished to share the context for why I thought it might be of encyclopedic interest. I appreciate your advice, and I will reflect on whether contributing on the broader topics might be the most constructive path forward. Cyril voyant (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, a person must be notable to merit an article. A person isn't notable due to being unique or unusual in some way. A person is notable only if multiple reliable sources that are independent of the person have reported in depth that an individual is unusual or unique in some way.

Wikipedia doesn't engage in original research; that is, we cannot synthesize a conclusion that you are notable based on your career history (see WP:Synthesis for the policy); multiple sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy must have made that conclusion and given it coverage. There are exceptions for certain careers; for example notability criteria for academics has some additional considerations beyond general notability and may apply to you. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Because your work overlaps the medical field, I want to caution you against writing what you know, and instead encourage you to write about what has been published. Even then, it might be difficult to cite your work. Wikipedia's strictest guidelines about reliable sources relate to medical sources. These guidelines have their own document here; the shortcut is WP:MEDRS, and I recommend reading it. The preferred kind of medical source isn't a journal article documenting the results of a trial. Instead we want secondary sources, such as literature reviews or systematic reviews, which summarize the conclusions from multiple other peer-reviewed sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

a new version is available taking into account your comments, let me know what you thank about it! have a good day,

cyril Cyril voyant (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you didn't take my comments into account. It's still an autobiography that is heavily weighed down with citations to your own work, and comes across as existing for no other purpose than publicity. In case I wasn't clear before: I recommend abandoning your autobiography and instead write draft articles on the topics you work on. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

TPA

Hi Anachronist. You blocked Genius784 on July 14th. This recent edit on their talk page shows they have no intention of stopping their spamming - I think they should have their talk page access revoked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDREDIRECT

Just FYI: With this edit you removed the bold formatting from the target of a redirect against the guidance described at MOS:BOLDREDIRECT (After following a redirect: Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic ...)). As Shane Devon Tamura, Shane Tamura, Didarul Islam, and Wesley LePatner redirects to this article, it is customary to bold the name so our readers understand that they've arrived at the correct article. See also WP:R#ASTONISH. Please keep this guidance in mind in the future. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 06:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. These names are not subtopics treated in their own sections (they're scattered through the article) or alternative names for the main topic. They need not be bolded. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Regardless, there is existing consensus on talk for terms such as this to be bolded. Kindly revert. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Anachronist, LockeCole reverted your edit. Efficacity (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I disagree with it, I believe that BOLDREDIRECT is being badly misapplied in this case and cannot apply to that article based on the distribution of names in it, and it's jarring to see all those boldfaced names when one comes to the article directly without being redirected there. I don't have time to waste with wikilawyering, and this isn't a worthwhile hill to die on, so I have moved on. If someone wants to start an RFC about it, I'll gladly participate. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, but where would MOS:BOLDREDIRECT apply? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll happily start the RFC. Efficacity (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Exactly where the guideline says it should apply. Guidelines should be followed according to what they say. To the extent that guidelines are vague and open to interpretation, those gaps should be closed by changing the guideline, not by referring to some archived talk page discussion.

So I'll break it down using the words in the guideline.

Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when

• they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section,
  • Not relevant to the article in question, but to answer your question, that is one instance where BOLDREDIRECT would apply.
• or at the beginning of another section; for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic
  • And that is the other instance where BOLDREDIRECT would apply. In this article, the perpetrator does have his own dedicated section, so I agree it would be appropriate to boldface his name.
  • However, none of the other names are subtopics treated in their own sections. Not only are these names lumped under the "Victims" section, but they appear scattered through the rest of the article. One victim is mentioned in four other places outside the section, including before the "Victims" section. Another is mentioned twice but not bolded. Not only do the boldface names violate WP:PLA when reading the article without redirecting to it, but the inconsistency in boldfacing also violates WP:PLA.

I'd be OK with un-bolding the victim names and leaving the perpetrator name bolded. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you understand why they chose boldface? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

"They"? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting MOS:BOLDREDIRECT sprang into existence on its own? Let's try this a different way. Do you know why the talk link in your signature on this page is bolded and unlinked? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that BOLDREDIRECT sprang into existence based on a community consensus, not a slavish desire to establish a strict conformance even if it violates WP:PLA by introducing inconsistent formatting within an article.

About my signature: Your point is...? That's a non-sequitur, unrelated to boldfacing topics, which has more to do with MOS:BOLDTITLE or more specifically MOS:BOLDSYN. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T122292

PLA is likely why your talk page link in your sig is bolded instead of in normal text and linked. Because you're already here. It's why if you go to Cher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and add [[Cher]] you get Cher instead of Cher. This functionality doesn't exist for redirects, however, so if we used [[Didarul Islam]] at 2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we end up with Didarul Islam which redirects us back to the article we came from. This is confusing for our readers, so we bold it so they know they're already at the correct article for this topic. We also bold it for the benefit of readers who arrive at the page via Special:Search.

As you yourself noted, these names don't appear early on in some of the sections within which they appear (they do appear in the first paragraph as MOS:BOLDREDIRECT considers). For many readers who skim articles trying to find what they're looking for, this makes it easier to find it and understand they've arrived at the correct location. This is pure WP:PLA and conforms with the way Mediawiki processes self-links within a page/article. There's even a ticket open that hopes to address the issue with redirects to the linking page.

If this still doesn't make sense to you, I'll start a discussion at WP:VPI (and advertise it at WT:MOSTEXT and WT:MOS) to see if we can determine how best to resolve this. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Anachronist, not to pile on, etc., but I have been having quite a tussle or ordeal with both ButlerBlog and LockeCole. Not saying that they have to solve something but there's some giant fuss over minor types of things like http:// and https:// plus www. Now I have finally put together that the www in external links I was changing or fixing is not of importance. I just thought it looked better. That's not the case with infoboxes, it's useful to not see the www appear in there. I may have arrived, hit upon a solution which would be to modify or edit it only in source editing. Efficacity (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Efficacity: I haven't been following your discussions about URL formats in infoboxes, so I can't comment. Locke Cole has been on Wikipedia about as long as me, both of us nearing 20 years, so based on his knowledge and experience I trust his judgment, and recommend you do the same because you're still fairly new here. In this case, we have a disagreement about interpreting one small guideline. Such disagreements happen occasionally because our guidelines are never perfect.

@Locke Cole: I do not stand corrected. You're conflating two things. There is a good technical reason for a self-circular link to not be a link and be rendered some other way. Are you seriously arguing that this is related to why we should boldface terms in articles that are redirect targets, because if they were self-circular links in the article, they would also be boldface? By that logic, we would follow standard practice and boldface the first occurrence in an article, which in this case isn't in the target section of the redirect. I think you might agree that makes no sense. And neither does bolding a term in the middle of the article when it isn't even the first occurrence of the term; that's just confusing to readers, as it was confusing to me when I saw it. I stand by my original analysis of BOLDREDIRECT and maintain that the victim names should not be bolded.

I thought I had washed my hands of this issue when I said above that I have moved on, and didn't expect to get drawn into a discussion, but when someone asks me a question, I feel obligated to answer out of courtesy. If you want to start a discussion somewhere, let me know if you'd like me to weigh in. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, didn't intend to turn this into something longer. I will hit you up if I get something started. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I began a RFC. If we're talking seniority, I could have five times the real world experience of the two of them together. It doesn't matter though. I believe you follow your convictions and principles, that's the only way to do things. Efficacity (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I responded to your RFC. You may want to withdraw it and try again. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Gave my reply. Efficacity (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Look, I get your whole trying to be equanimous. I don't have to let that user infer that I don't know the MOS things they're referencing. Further, I don't care how long you have been here or the other couple users, if they want to ruin this site and unintentionally give recognition to perpetrators, I don't have to go along with it. You, anachronist, may wish to live in another era. This one is way too far gone. I don't have to let Wikipedia slide into dysfunction. I am not saying anything other than facts. You don't even reply to half of the things you're asked. You did say and I suppose you do try to answer all questions that you are asked. I think you're too deferential not because you don't want consequences but for either your own reasons or whatever else. Regardless, you're going to not let me tell that user they are assuming something about me? Doesn't compute. Efficacity (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I was giving those two users who yes, I don't care for how they are affecting the site (my prerogerative), but I was allowing them to use redirects because in my opinion they're somewhat innocuous just not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I didn't even get to thank you for restating the RFC. You're perplexing. Efficacity (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Picture problems

Hi, it's me from yesterday, sorry to bother you again. I have some questions about the picture formatting, it's a bit hard to explain, so I don't know if the picture formatting will be the same in different devices, when I search up people who use horizontal photos from my iPad, it looks completely normal and beautiful, but it's at the top (like a banner kind of stuff), and looks fine from computer, but when i search up people who use vertical photos, it looks good from the computer but bad from the phone and iPad. Idk if you would understand this. My question is, is it possible if we use one horizontal picture for the banner and one vertical picture ( like the Socrates example). Thankyouuu so much, you helped me a lot!!!

Assawongkvin (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to add more, I'm not sure if it was you who added some advices and examples on how to correctly format, because my page was added with an example of Socrates and Charles Darwin. And today double grazing (idk who that is) removed that thing and said please don't tamper with the templates or smt so now I can't see what it is now. I'm very sorry if it wasn't you who wrote it. Assawongkvin (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You tampered with the {{autobiography}} template, changing it to {{biography}}. Because you wrote the draft, it's an autobiography. That template can be removed by a reviewer who approves the draft.

As for the picture, the template handles how it displays on different devices. That picture however, should be a head shot, not a full-body shot like you have. If you crop it so it's just your head and shoulders, that would be preferable.

Your draft mentions "World Music International Competition" but the only source I can find on the internet that mentions it is the website of the Royal Thai Consulate. I cannot find any competition that exists by that name in my searches. The consulate website says it's hosted by the International Youth Music Competitions, which does have a website at https://www.internationalyouthmusiccompetitions.org/ and if you can find yourself mentioned there, that would be good. Unfortunately, the competitions you have participated in don't seem to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok understood, I will put a head shot photo, but should it be horizontal or vertical from your experience Assawongkvin (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I submitted it again

Hi I submitted my draft again, this time uploading a picture and tried to use words only from news articles ( which I transalated it). Feel free to adjust or criticize, I will try my best. In this week more articles will write about me, so I gave them details for my birthday and city of birth. So I left them blank and will add them afterwards. Thankyou so much for helping me out. As a Thai person, I am very grateful, Thankyouuu once again. Forgive me for my bad English. Assawongkvin (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Anne Sofie Madsen

Hello! In this edit you removed the source https://www.alt.dk/artikler/anne-sofie-madsen-dansk-couture-med-et-strejf-af-mcqueen from the article as "retracted by the publisher." I similarly removed that same source again in this edit however that was the restored by another editor with this edit. Since my change was reverted, I have reopened the latest edit request on the talk page about this, and thought you may be interested since you were previously similarly involved. Asparagusstar (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I explained the retraction on the talk page before (see the section "Two sources removed"), and I just explained it again. Hopefully the source stays removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist@Asparagusstar A retraction is a public announcement. The subject informing you should have provided a link or verification of that retraction, which is the basis of the source removal according to the talk page.

There are many reasons that a media site would no longer host a page, including bandwidth/costs. It's also why I informed you on your talk page with a brief explanation of my revert, considering you reverted my later response on that topic on your talk page, I'm assuming you processed what I had stated and decided instead to revert my response and then went to an admin.

I'm dropping the issue because defending what I would consider a tabloid source is not a hill worth perishing on.

RCSCott91 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

RCSCott91, there is a talk page for discussing this article. Stop wasting my time with pointless messages. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asparagusstar

You are absolutely correct. RCSCott91 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

As a VRTS agent I cannot reveal details of my communication with the subject. The fact remains, which I have verified to my satisfaction, that the publisher removed the page on the basis of serious erroneous reporting about the subject. No "announcement" is required on their part. This is a case where you must assume good faith that what has been stated about the removal, now multiple times on the talk page, is the truth. You are correct, it isn't a hill worth dying on, especially considering that further restoration of a known erroneous source will result in article protections and blocks, which I am willing to perform if needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. RCSCott91 (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I have a question, when u told me that my draft had potential do you rlly mean it, and are all the sources not reliable, are there sources that maybe reliable enough to pass, what do I have to do Sigma elephant (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I meant it when I said your draft had potential. You rewrote it quite well, but sourcing is still a problem. There should be multiple sources that meet three criteria: reliable, independent, and significant coverage. Your sources may be reliable, but they need to be both independent of you and provide significant coverage rather than mentions.

Another way a musician can be notable is by meeting any of the criteria in WP:MUSIBIO. The first criterion is just the usual general notability requirement about significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The other criteria are more specific. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

So do you mean non of the sources are independent? So what should I do, a wikipedian suggested me to give up for now and delete this draft and wait. Sigma elephant (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say none of the sources are independent. I said that I didn't see more than one source that met all three criteria, but I cannot judge the video sources because I don't know Thai. I can only translate text.

You don't have to delete anything. You can simply wait. In six months, an inactive draft would be deleted anyway, but such deletions are easily restored with a simple request at WP:REFUND if you want to continue working on the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

You got mail

Ygm. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Replied in email. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Helpful comments at Teahouse

I have seen your helpful comments at the WP:Teahouse, for which I thank you. Otoh, this response was WP:BITEy and unhelpful. (Hey, we are all human; don't sweat it too much.) The editor to whom you were responding has a grand total of ten career edits, and did not deserve to be scolded with a 'what's your hurry' comment, linked to WP:NODEADLINE. Yes, he wanted to speed things up, and came to the Teahouse to ask about that. That is a legit question for a brand new editor, and we should respond with kindness, understanding, and encouragement, not dismissiveness and smackdowns. Please hold off on this kind of comment in the future. There must be something encouraging you could say to someone like that, while still explaining the realities of the process in a neutral way. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate your notice in the spirit in which you gave it, in this case it is misplaced.

I asked the question because I honestly wanted to know what was the hurry.

It could be a class assignment with a due date, in which case I might be inclined to take my time to give it a review.

Or it might be a hurry related to public relations or a public appearance date, in which case I'd be more inclined to tell the editor to piss off.

I deliberately composed my reply to be midway between those two extremes. In the interest of education, I pointed the editor to WP:NODEADLINE because I see far too many cases of editors who are unaware of that fact. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I just had a look at that editor's draft and translated it to English. It was a hit piece, serving no other purpose than to insult or harass, being full of unsourced negative allegations about a living person. It's been speedy-deleted in accordance with WP:G10. In hindsight, my reply was far too polite. We don't need crap like that wasting the community's time. I'd block that editor with a more bite-y comment if I see him do that again. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Future reference: Special:Contributions/Pinki_iz_caribrod - created an attack page three times, no activity since receiving warnings. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, then it looks like I misread your original tone if that's how you meant it. Regarding the hit piece, I had not looked into it that far, so thanks for the deeper dive. Had I discovered someone at Teahouse with a translated hit piece, I would have explained the reasons we cannot have material like that, linking BLP, as they may have assumed they were doing the right thing if it exists already on another Wikipedia. But if they are warned about it three times and recreate it anyway, that is a different story whether they have malicious intent or not and they probably deserve a block at that point. ::: I would still not be BITEy even in those circumstances, though. I have seen editors ask at Teahouse why their article "disappeared" or "didn't get saved", and didn't realize they had Talk page messages explaining that it was deleted, so the recreations were just their attempt to remedy what looked to them like a page save that kept failing. So I guess what I am saying is, we still have to assume good faith until we know the contrary.

Speedying the hit piece three times was the right thing to do, and blocking them will be as well, if it happens again. (They may only have stopped due to a sleep cycle.) Sometimes a block is the only way to get them to wake up and force them to realize something is wrong, and then they come to Teahouse or somewhere to ask why they can't edit, and only when someone responds do they see their Talk page messages for the first time. I have seen this a lot more often with IPs than registered editors, as they should be getting notifications about their TP messages, but maybe they accidentally turned it off. Anyway, the path is clear, either they have stopped for good, or they will get blocked with the next recreation, and whether they realize they did anything wrong or not won't matter. Problem solved either way, I think. Will be interesting to see if he comes back. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I've done my share of trying to rehabilitate editors who did stupid blockable things without knowing better, even unblocking them and continuing to mentor them. I remember one or two turned out to be fine, productive editors because I gave them a chance. Others did OK for a while but then recidivism took over. This particular editor doesn't deserve such consideration, but there's always a chance of him turning things around. We shall see if he returns.

For the record, I didn't delete the drafts or warn the editor. I just today decided to have a closer look and found that messes had already been cleaned up three times. I had to look at a deleted revision and run it through Google Translate to verify it was clearly an attack page that cited no sources, the worst kind of BLP violation. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is the worst. Thanks for the additional background. I get it, and I don't envy you. I think one must get exposed to a lot of the worst behavior, and I wonder if it wouldn't make one hardened, or at least cynical; it's one of the reasons I don't want Rfa, as I think I might be subject to that, and I don't want to go there. How do you avoid that, do you store the hat in the closet for short, intermittent intervals and just go around improving some articles for a while as a breather and to refresh your belief in the project and humanity, or are you able to compartmentalize and slog through the mud without it sticking to you? Not sure I would be able to do that. Anyway, thanks for the investigation, the responses, and helping to keep this place clean and operating smoothly, no doubt in lots of ways the rest of us benefit from, but never see or appreciate. So a little window like this does help. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I volunteered to go through RfA after a Signpost article sent out a call for more candidates, not really knowing what I'd get into. I had, at the time, about 4 years on Wikipedia with a lot of participation in dispute resolution through Wikipedia:Third opinion.

Yeah, I like doing normal-editor stuff. Since I became an administrator in 2010, I've even managed to write entire articles; they're listed in chronological order on my user page. My last one was fart walk, which I wrote partly because I ran across that term and found many sources about it, and partly to tease my son who's been acting as kind of a prude lately.

Occasionally acting like a normal editor has confused people who know I'm an administrator and don't realize that once I get WP:INVOLVED with article content that interests me, or participate in a content dispute or AFD discussion, I am not allowed to use administrator tools in those areas except when involvement wouldn't cause controversy.

There are so many things to mop up around here. That's why the admin role is often referred to as "janitor" because that's basically what one does the most. The Teahouse is a place where I don't have to be an administrator. If you ever want to throw your hat into the ring, you'll find there is no end of stuff to do, but just don't let the new responsibility to maintain stability of the Wikipedia project cause you to lose sight of improving Wikipedia by contributing good content. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

A typo after all?

Hi, Anachronist. The version of Genesis flood narrative that you restored here is incoherent; it says "the collapse of glacial dams of glacial lakes in the region". Maybe the edit you reverted was a (kind of) typo fix? It was an improvement, anyway. Bishonen | tålk 16:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC).

The edit I reverted, which was neither a typo fix nor an improvement, made the word "dams" ambiguous. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Joe Calhoun

Ok, so I didn't know how to address the reason why this needed submitted. I thought if I did it would go through, but it didn't and now I may need help about how to address notability without being too wordy. R2025kt (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The reason is clearly stated in every single decline message. Please read it, as well as the documents linked in the message.

I'll summarize:

• The sources you have are inadequate to demonstrate that the subject is notable.
• There are assertions that need citations to sources.

It's that simple.

The problem is that you apparently wrote the article WP:BACKWARD. You start with sources that meet WP:Golden rule criteria (read it, it's short) before you write a single word, and then write only what is supported by those sources. Then you can flesh it out with other sources. You have many sources from WGAL, which is not independent of Calhoun, and therefore fail the WP:Golden rule criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed the citations that didn't establish notability R2025kt (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe User:R2025kt is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They should be blocked and their AfD submissions deleted. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Why? If you can make a case for that allegation, make it at WP:AN/I. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

What is happening? Why am I being referred for an incident? I did nothing wrong. R2025kt (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on, and I don't see anything you're doing wrong except consuming the time of reviewers, which I don't think rises to the level of requiring discussion in ANI. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Kirk page

Hi Anachronist. Special:Diff/1311047026. I don't know if you'll get any feedback (already rumblings on the talk page, maybe ANI too), but thought I should explicitly make you aware. Twice would not be a great look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen feedback. I was clearing out the requests at WP:RFED, and I responded to a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit#Charlie Kirk source to update an old CBS source with a new CBS source. It looked reasonable, so I made the change. Otherwise I am not involved with that article. If the edit wasn't acceptable, I see it's already been reverted and hidden. I have no objection. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. I'm not faulting you, just letting you know. Thanks for helping out with the edit requests! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Please note that this is not my filing, but you were not notified of this filing despite a reference to a "massive violation" you supposedly made. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I won't be commenting on ANI. I had already started the discussion where it belongs, yesterday. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As per your comment in Tryfon Tzanetis article edit request

Once more, I was not posing any questions. I'm unsure why you continue to add content and say that I am asking questions or that I did not understand. I comprehended everything from the initial response, but I made a comment regarding the final sentence of Favorian. (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2025 (EET)

List of people with absolute pitch

I undid your edit to that page, as the filter was specifically targeting such edits. We've had a longstanding issue of fans of Chen adding his name to that page; I think there may have been a video where Chen mentioned the Wikipedia page, and there has definitely been off-wiki coordination to try to add it. After reverting I took a closer look at the source that had been provided; on one hand, "theviolinchannel" may meet WP:RS as it does have an editorial staff. On the other hand, the particular article used is simply attributed to "The Violin Channel" rather than a specific article, and is just a series of responses to a question posed to musicians who identify as having perfect pitch. I raised the question at the RSN noticeboard to get more input as to whether that citation is sufficient for adding Chen to that page OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. The filter that was triggered seemed to be about the IP address rather than the content, and I saw nothing wrong with the content, but admittedly I didn't look closely at the source.

I'm not even convinced the article should exist, however. That list is presented as if absolute pitch is some sort of supernatural ability, and it isn't. Any musician, particularly a singer, with some background in music theory and a decade of experience would have this ability. My son has been in a professional boys' choir since age 7. As I have learned from his experience, perfect pitch can be trained in anyone, and it is expected of each boy who reaches the advanced level in that choir. I asked him how it works and he said "with enough practice, you just learn what each note feels like to sing." ~Anachronist (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. The article's name feels really strange to me - it is not something very few people in the world have (at least, we probably wouldn't be able to list them all in a 100KB text file).

I think the subject is best discussed in a subsection of Absolute Pitch, maybe like "Notable individuals with Absolute Pitch" (assuming that the topic is notable enough to include in Wikipedia)? 海盐沙冰 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thirded. Removing "notable people" from Absolute pitch was suggested Talk:Absolute_pitch/Archive_2#Remove_the_"Notable_cases"_section here back in 2022, but instead it was moved to the standalone list article, (a target that had been previously AFD'd back in 2006). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, so... it didn't survive as a standalone list in 2006, it didn't survive as a section in the absolute pitch article in 2022, and now it's back to a standalone article? Time for another AFD?

WP:NLIST says that a reason a list would be "considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Looking at the sources there, it doesn't seem that they discuss a population of special people who have this ability. They discuss the ability itself. The sources, however, are pretty good for the most part, so I'm skeptical that another AFD would succeed.

It might be better to have a list of people documented as having innate absolute pitch since birth, rather than having learned it as a consequence of being a musician with plenty of training. That would be a shorter list than what we have now.

(It occurs to me that if my tinnitus was pitched lower, I could use it as a reference note for determining pitches without any practice at all. Unfortunately it sounds like the squeal of an old CRT television set.) ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The didn't survive part seems to make a strong case for AfDing for me, I agree with you.

The tinnitus-reference part is legitimately the most supernatural / superhuman stuff I've heard this month (joking). 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 20:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Venom

Regarding this, I requested it per WP:PROTECT, "Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues." Wikipedia could be edited by anyone, barring unusual circumstances like whatever was happening in 2021, the film being newly released and much more attention on the article then compared to now. Not all IP editors will have the experience to suggest edits. This article should have expired after a specified time and not be ongoing forever. Neither Venom (2018 film) or Venom: The Last Dance have this protection. I ask you to reconsider. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I asked there, what's the hurry? Leave a note on the protecting admin's talk page and wait. If he agrees to unprotect, then it will happen. Being away for a couple of weeks is not unusual.

My view is, the number of reverted edits from IP addresses in those other two articles this year alone suggest that they could use protection too, not the other way round. Yes, anyone can edit. In the case of protection, that's what edit requests are for, and we have WP:Edit Request Wizard to make things easier. An IP address who cannot propose a change on the talk page would likely not be constructive in an article that still gets 1500 hits per day. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you were literally saying "What's the hurry?" in response to the indefinite protection. Fine, I'll leave the responsible admin a note. Furthermore, we do not protect by default. Any article with a reasonable amount of traffic will have some unconstructive IP editing. Maybe these are forever useless, maybe these are baby steps toward figuring out how to edit. We don't know and should not wall up if we don't truly have to. Hence the policy of having "as many pages open for public editing as possible". Erik (talk | contrib) 16:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

That's correct, protection isn't the default. However, once protected, I need a solid reason to unprotect other than "time has passed". I look at declined edit requests, the edit filter log, page traffic, disruption in similar articles, and if all of those things look clear to me, it's fair to unprotect. This article, however, seems borderline, so I'd prefer to leave it as is and wait for the protecting administrator to decide. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Sheila Mannes-Abbott

Hey--I removed the speedy template and some of the egregious stuff in there, fully expecting to be able to find something on this artist--but I came up with nothing at all. I'm content to let it sit; maybe the editor will come back to it, and if not, Liz will take care of it in six months. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's why I tagged it with G11. Remove the promotional stuff and inappropriate sources, and there's really nothing left. The entire point of it was promotion. I didn't bother trying to repair it as you did, I felt it was better simply to delete it because the topic is rejectable anyway. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah--I wish I could prove you wrong. Drmies (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Ali Arouzi

I have added some new citations and new words to provide what he reports on. See what you think, I didn't submit it yet. R2025kt (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You made the prose more neutral, which is good. You added a source that doesn't even mention Arouzi, and it seems you didn't remove any of the valueless sources.

Read WP:Golden rule. I mean it, do it now, it's short. You haven't added any sources that meet the three criteria in it. If no such sources exist, the draft can never be approved, in which case I suggest you stop working on the draft and move on to something else. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Which sources should I remove? R2025kt (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I read the WP:Golden rule. R2025kt (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Your sources at the present time:

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4029095 - not independent of the subject, useless for establishing notability, but can be used to support assertions in the article
2. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39326427 - not coverage, not independent, not useful
3. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4029095 - trivial mention, useless
4. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/926935602/ - trivial mention, useless
5. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/987414945/ - trivial mention quoting the subject, useless for establishing notability, but can be kept for verification of assertion
6. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/629559105/ - trivial mention, useless
7. https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/negotiators-in-final-stretch-of-agreeing-on-new-iran-nuclear-deal-133862981572 - basically an interview, not independent
8. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/03/10/talks-between-top-russian-and-ukrainian-officials-fail-to-make-progress.html?msockid=1ae07cbc6cd2669821ce6acb6ded673d - Arouzi speaking, not independent of the topic
9. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russias-bombs-bullets-not-only-things-killing-ukrainians-stress-rcna20601 - created by the subject, not independent
10. https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/iran-commends-but-denies-involvement-in-hamas-strikes-on-israel-194865733610 - Arouzi speaking, not independent

Every one of them fails WP:Golden rule, because they are either not independent, not coverage of Arouzi, or both. The trivial mentions can be removed, and so can the ones where Arouzi is speaking about some event. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I added just one more in the draft after taking the ones out that you mention. This one from NBCU Academy about how Arouzi answered questions about how war journalists cover Gaza responsibly. What do you think? R2025kt (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's more citing what Arouzi says, not what independent sources say about him.

I see you blanked the draft. If you want it deleted, let me know and I can delete it, or you can put the tag {{db-g7}} at the top to request deletion. This sort of author-requested deletion, as well as normal 6-month inactive draft expirations, can be restored at any time by making a request to WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Advice on archived edit filter request - RFD comment

Hello, @Anachronist! I unfortunately couldn't reply to your comment on my EFFP request of my comment on an RFD before it got archived (I was just a couple hours too late!).

I do not mean to contest it or debate it - you're an administrator and a VRT member, you know what you're doing and you certainly know this better than I do. That is precisely why I'm writing this - I'm an inexperienced, novice editor; and this was my first time handling RFDs, and I'd like to do a better job at it going forward.

I was wondering, could you let me know what I can do in the future to improve my edits so I can build an encyclopedia better and prevent triggering edit filters? In particular when it comes to RFDs!

Any help would be appreciated, but if you don't feel comfortable discussing this or are unable to comment on private filters, then don't sweat it; feel free to remove this topic if you like. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on reading edit filter code, but it looks to me like if you hadn't written the "bad" words in uppercase, the filter might not have been triggered. Your edit looked to the filter like shouting swear words rather than just quoting someone else's words. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

But... I don't understand. That's how it's written in Kris (Deltarune). I quoted the article directly, and I wrote it out fully as a suggestion for moving the redirect article.

Was I wrong to make the RFD comment? Retargeting #2 is current consensus and I thought changing the formatting of the article name to be in line with the redirected article's text it links to would be better for the encyclopedia. What have I done wrong that lead to my EFFP request being denied? It looks to me as if it was, in fact, a false positive. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I just found the other reason: the filter triggers from anonymous IP addresses and unconfirmed accounts swearing in uppercase. Normally after 4 days and 10 edits, a new account is autoconfirmed. You are, but your account is not "confirmed" and I'm not sure of the distinction. I just manually confirmed you.

You did no wrong. If you try that edit again, it should work. I'll post a note on the filter talk page with a suggestion to modify it so that it triggers off non-autoconfirmed instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much! The reason why it registered me as not-autoconfirmed is that I was editing from a Tor IP, since I have WP:IPBE. I'm Russian, so I require some form of VPN to edit from a desktop, and you need 100 edits to be autoconfirmed while using Tor, which is what I use. Anyway, that explains everything. Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry if I bothered you! Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Let me know if it works. I figured out how to edit the filter to avoid triggering if the user is IP block exempt. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup! Edit went through. Wonderful!! Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Great. The filter was working fine after all. The problem was that your account wasn't confirmed, causing it to trigger. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Ali Arouzi (2)

Ok, so it may not be perfect but at least it should go through. R2025kt (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

No, it won't go through, it will be rejected, because just like before, not one single cited source is independent of Arouzi. They're either by Arouzi or feature Arouzi speaking. None of it is coverage of him. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)