User talk:Asilvering#Arb case

This is Asilvering's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Hello asilvering! Thanks for being part of the Electronic Literature project. We are meeting this Thursday, June 19 at 3 pm. UTC for our Third Thursday at 3 UTC monthly editathon. This month, we will be planning for the editathon at the ELO 2025 conference to develop a list of electronic literature works that have enough notability to warrant an article. Please join in on http:SLASH SLASH tinyurl DOT com SLASH 3Thurs3UTC password 1234! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ME(hu)lit (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Deepfriedokra: @Asilvering: I cannot freaking believe it... You two are speaking in German now!?! How many languages do you speak?

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

@Asilvering: that's ruff, man. @Luis7M: asilvering is polylingual. I do it all with smoke and mirrors. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Whoops, missed this, just caught it scrolling past. Yeah, "entschuldigen" (lowercase e) means "to excuse", and "entschuldigen sich" (ie, a reflexive verb) is "to apologize". Also entschuldige ich mich für die späte Antwort. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, danke und alles gut :) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will change my user name to "adept googler". -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Really? Curse those editors, truely, all of the respectable editors that've been purging Wikipedia of error BY HAND FOR ALMOST A DECADE NOW have to deal with this AI bull-crap? VegetableReverend (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a WP:PRODPATROLLER and noticed a few prods connected to this discussion. The result of the discussion was to block the editor but I don't see a finding that their contributions should be deleted. Can you convince me that these are uncontroversial deletions? We often get acceptable contributions from problematic editors and we don't summarily delete all contributions when an editor is blocked. ~Kvng (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What people don't seem to understand about AI is the 'training' aspect of it, in which it inhales a bunch of garbage from the internet like a bottomfeeder, and turns it into a reasonable amalgam of trash coated in frosting, sprinkles, and candles served to you like a cake. VegetableReverend (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moreover, while other eastern historians, especially the TDV Islamic Encyclopedia [1], and some western historians say that the Byzantine army has a number between 150.000-300.000, modern estimates say that it is 60,000-70,000 [2], which is twice the number of the Seljuk army. Also, one year after the Battle of Manzikert, Alp Arslan went on an expedition against the Karakhanids with an army of 200,000. [3] This also provides information about the military power of the Seljuks. I have doubts about this battle and I found it appropriate to ask for your help. Kartal1071 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, to clarify, the website belongs to Sandesh Hiwale: Sandesh Hiwale's website. Callmehelper incorrectly added this link to Suraj Yengde’s page here: Edit on Suraj Yengde’s page. The evidence clearly points to Sandesh Hiwale, not Suraj Yengde. SachinSwami (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, this same link was added by two IPs: 2402:8100:3009:C3A7:9DD5:208B:F28B:DB50 ([4]) and 2409:4042:2197:B165:D15A:2613:9DA0:E96C ([5]). SachinSwami (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Asilvering: The website belongs to Sandesh Hiwale, and the link was added by Callmehelper. The information in the link was also written by Sandesh Hiwale. Here is the link: [6]. SachinSwami (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(talk page stalker) @PS Zahid You'll need to request this at WP:CHUS 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I've just been added as a party to the arbitration case request. I've never been involved in a case, so I wanted to ask before I comment: what is the scope of the discussion there? Is it just whether the case is accepted, what its terms will be, who the parties will be, the underlying issues? People seem to have commented on all of these things. I have issues with the way the case request was framed, but I don't know if that's irrelevant or not. I'm asking you because you're an admin and you've been patient with me before, but no problem if you're not the right person. TIA Samuelshraga (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(talk page stalker) Hello @Tsedayephriem, and welcome to Wikipedia! To answer your question, here is a simple guide to referencing. Happy editing! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, as their mentor, maybe you can have a longer conversation (or point them in specific directions) about their editing practices. The thing that worries me especially is Kelly's engagement with sources, where even more than 2,500 edits in, they seem to have no real grasp of what makes a high-quality source, and what types of sources are needed for a BLP article. I teach this to my students all the time, so I know it shouldn't take a week-and-a-half and thousands of words on a Talk page, or multiple instances across different editors, for Kellycrak88 to understand this. What's confusing to me is that they do seem know how to interrogate sources sometimes: back in March, Kelly questioned a possible COI editor who was using a dodgy WP:SPS, for example: [7] (although the dreaded Roll also makes an appearance, but we'll ignore that). Getting back to that sort of engagement would be a lot more healthy than now retreating into some conspiracy fantasy about a "high-level academic" (thank you, I wish!) being out to get them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Asilvering,

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

On June 16, 2025, a national broadcast by RAI Cultura included a dedicated segment on the subject, within the program *Di là dal fiume e tra gli alberi*: https://www.raiplay.it/video/2025/06/Di-la-dal-fiume-e-tra-gli-alberi-S7E14-Conversazioni-in-Sicilia-839fcb61-4cf2-4151-9662-6471ca042df9.html

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

Kind regards, User:Marziabiblio Marziabiblio (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

18:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Will I need to credit a source to put any information on the page if I wanted to edit something that I found to be outdated or wrong? --Nikocado (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikocado, yes, you will need to credit a source for the updated information. -- asilvering (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to SPI and it looks like something went wrong here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/85.76.0.0/16, would you be able to help by any chance? Stockhausenfan (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stockhausenfan, looks like Izno already fixed it for you. What went wrong is that you used an IP range as the "sockmaster", which means there's a / character in their "name". This breaks things, since / is used to distinguish parts of URLs as well. If you're going to make a report based on a lot of IP addresses in the future, pick a single IP rather than a range (eg, "85.76.128.46" instead of "85.76.0.0/16") as the master and put ranges into the template instead. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mate! --LucyJohnbosco (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LucyJohnbosco, welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LucyJohnbosco (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir pls check User:jaspreetsingh678 check my request Yamla take my talk page access to save Philknight who is again and again confirm unrelated account from different country as my sockpuppet you can even confirm sir when I try to explain this to save him Yamla take my talk page access please sir you are my only hope take action against them this is totally wrong due to Philknight harassment I can't even take Stanford off offer peacefully 2402:8100:2B43:8034:0:0:8B1A:7C8 (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaspreet, I'm sorry but I can't help you there - I'm not a checkuser, so I can't investigate the data that PhilKnight has been looking at. I'll see if I can get someone else to take a look at it for you. Please don't accuse PhilKnight of harassing you, though. It's possible that he's wrong, but there's no reason to believe he's trying to harass you. -- asilvering (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again - I've asked another CU to look into it, they agree with the findings. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering - Sync! voted on my AFD of Lazaros Efthymiou - could you strike their vote from the AFD please? I would do it myself but not entirely sure how! RossEvans19 (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RossEvans19, you can use <s>text here</s> to strike comments. But when it's a little one like that, I wouldn't bother. The closer will notice whether you strike that one or not. It's more helpful when they're long comments or someone's trying to argue with them or so on. -- asilvering (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok! Thanks for the advice :)) RossEvans19 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- that's what a couple days away does to me..... :) 331dot (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it was a restful couple days, because uh, this unblocks backlog... -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was, thanks. I might do another one before I rest up for tomorrow..... 331dot (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do i put my images on wikipedia? --Tumuhirwe Julius (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but whatever it is, WP:IMAGE probably has a link to a document that explains it. If you're just looking for, literally, the buttons to press to upload an image, go to WP:FUW and follow the prompts there. Cheers! -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you are writing a draft for a community, do you need a source for the distance between other communities Sunny's Highway 27 14:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunhighway27, I haven't received any email from you, so you'll have to send it again. As for your question, that seems to me the kind of thing that doesn't need an in-text citation, since it's easy for anyone to verify. But I don't write articles on that kind of topic so I might not be familiar with the usual standards there. -- asilvering (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for helping Sunny's Highway 27 19:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thank you all for your guidance! This seems like a really neat thing to do.

2. How do I go about adding a citation? Thank you!! --PageDevelopment (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well next to the link symbol that looks like chains, the citation button is a quotation mark PageDevelopment (talk)96.47.198.7 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PageDevelopment, if the IP comment above didn't answer your question, WP:REFB or WP:REFVISUAL should. If you're still having trouble, let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, who can I contact to settle a debate whether something is violation of WP:SYNTH or not? --Omnissaiah (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnissaiah, is it a disagreement between you and only one other person? In that case, WP:3O is probably your best bet. If it's a bigger dispute than just two people, it's a little harder to answer the question without seeing the specific dispute. WP:DR has information on the various methods of dispute resolution, so hopefully that helps? If you're still unsure, you can link me to the discussion you're concerned about and I can give you a more specific answer. -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

The problem is: Talk:Kathleen Kennedy#Deriving conlusions. Disagreement whether wording violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV or not.

Since there are multiple editors, I don't know for which solution it qualifies. Also, I tried to edit the article by putting impartial wording but it got reverted by the editor who participated in the discussion on the talk page with the reason: "Discussed in TALK. No violation." However, I don't think any consensus has been reached regarding whether it is or it is not a violation. Omnissaiah (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnissaiah, affirmative consensus that the wording there is appropriate may not have been reached, but that talk page discussion is from two months ago and the wording was left to stand in the article; I'd say that's consensus to leave it as it was. If you disagree, you can always restart that talk page conversation, but I don't think the revert was out of line. For what it's worth, that's certainly not a WP:SYNTH violation, as it has nothing to do with the sources. Whether it's sufficiently neutral or not is another question. -- asilvering (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. Omnissaiah (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! New user and grateful for guidance. Last week, I made an overhaul of revisions and am still awaiting further review. At first, the comments were immediate. I understood the issues and welcome any feedback. --SWMNYC2025 (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @SWMNYC2025 You'll need to resubmit your draft for review by pressing the blue "Resubmit" button so that someone can take a look at it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello asilvering! I hope that you're doing well. I noticed that MotorolaBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), claimed to be the user behind the ip range that you've blocked a few days ago (Special:Contributions/2601:280:CE82:7070:0:0:0:0/64). I've also noticed that they went back into editing using that account just one day after the range block (see their contributions). That should count as sockpuppetry, right? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's fine. What they need to do is edit from their account, so if they're doing that, I'm happy. It's sockpuppetry if they're trying to pretend they're more than one person for some kind of nefarious reason (eg, WP:LOUTSOCK). If they remember to stay logged in, there's no violation. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welp idek why I said That should count as sockpuppetry when I wanted to say "that should count as block evasion," but ig that ip range was blocked because they were editing while logged out 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I set it as an anon-only block so they'd be reminded to log in when they tried to edit. So, no evasion. (yet?) -- asilvering (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why Abo yemen is following me from page to page reverting my edits, wrote on my talk page multiple times and is now attempting to have me blocked? This has been going on since I started using this account.

I'm new to this but I'm pretty sure I wasn't blocked for edit warring or acting uncivil, which are reasons I know people get blocked. I was simply logged out editing because my cookies clear constantly and I forget I'm not on my account.

Abo yemen can you please stop harassing me? I don't know the rules but if this goes on it should be grounds for YOU getting banned from editing. MotorolaBoy (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MotorolaBoy, the edit summaries of your first two edits on this account are clear personal attacks on Abo Yemen, so if he holds some animosity towards you, I'd hardly be surprised. As for why he's following you, if he is, that might be harassment, but since the two of you edit in the same topic area, it's far more likely that you are both editing the same articles out of shared interest - please keep WP:AGF in mind. As for why he's reverting you, that's what the talk page messages are supposed to explain. If you need help understanding any of them, feel free to ask here or at WP:TEA. -- asilvering (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He very clearly has personal motivations. His name literally translates to "father of Yemen" and his main goal is using outdated and unreliable sources in order to shift perception of ancient Ethiopian history for his Yemeni nationalist benefit. The claim that D'mt and Axum for example were South Arabian colonies, founded by Arabian migrants, or developed under anything more than Sabean cultural influence is a century old myth thats part of the larger "hamitic theory" promoted by late 19th and early 20th century colonial-era thinkers who today would be best described as racists. The "Sabean colonization of the Horn" article was made by a Somali-nationalist for example who was later banned but not without creating multiple pages which have since not bene deleted.

I know you probably aren't knowledgeable on this subject, and don't care very much so you can desist from replying but from the couple weeks I've spent on this site I first decided I wouldn't contribute to any pages they frequent and when they started looking through my contributions to to revert me on pages they've NEVER edited it's made me decide to no longer edit all together. That is what happened, their edits are for the most part restricted to these topics on Ethiopian-Yemeni historical interactions. You need to look into not only him but the other person I accused of having ulterior motives who without a matter of a doubt does the same thing as a Somali-nationalist. They have both reverted my edits on multiple pages they previously hadn't edited. The reason this is a contentious topic is due to various groups in and around the horn of africa who, looking through the edit history of pages, have seemingly been trying to use wikipedia to influence off-site political and historical discourse. This is of course due to the turbulent and unstable political climate in the region.

I didn't know what sock puppetry is until now but I don't doubt due to their similar habits they're at least collaborating in some form. Either way, this is my way of saying this is likely my last time on wikipedia since nobody wants to have a discussion without threatening to, or attempting to ban me and I don't want to invest a large amount of time into debating with people who are unwilling to take it to talk pages (since thats what you're supposed to do right) or embarrass myself and act unreasonably since this is very much a hostile, petty environment MotorolaBoy (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

now now, @MotorolaBoy, you're accusing me of harrassing you (checking your public contribs log) but then you somehow find this discussion where no one had pinged you? Anyways I've already warned you about calling other people WP:NATIONALISTS but you're still at it. Expect an ANI notification in a bit 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't reverted your illogical edits because I don't want to deal with the headache that is interacting with you. I'll be back on this stie after collecting more evidence of your poor behavior.

Look up and you'll see you sent mw a notification my friend. MotorolaBoy (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that's too bad because Wikipedia:Communication is required 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MotorolaBoy, you say you don't want to deal with others since nobody wants to have a discussion without threatening to, or attempting to ban me. But you're accusing other editors of extremely poor behaviour. Think about this for a second. There are two possibilities:

• You are correct. They are pov-pushing nationalists. Now that you have exposed yourself as their ideological opponent, they will try to get you blocked, because they see Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.
• You are incorrect. They are perfectly normal Wikipedia editors whom you have just personally attacked on the basis of your assumptions about them. This is a dick move and doesn't foster a collaborative editing environment. Depending on how annoyed they are by it, they will either ignore you or try to get you blocked, since you appear to them to be a jerk trying to get in the way of constructive editing.

You can't go back in time and retract your statements, but you can do one of two things: apologize, and commit to collaboration and WP:AGF; or, gather a lot of clear evidence, with diffs, and file a report at WP:AE. -- asilvering (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've become a sort of hyperactive editor in my short time here but I'll simply taper my activity off. As far as I'm concerned you're promoting negative behavior from making it more difficult to contribute to the site to outright stopping me from being able to. I know I came off as hostile earlier but I stand by everything I said and I wouldn't be making myself their ideological opponents in any way but opposing ahistorical edits and my own, like I said, harassment. Thank you. MotorolaBoy (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take administrative action against another editor without evidence, and you have not provided any evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never requested you to do so. I'd like both you and Abo Yemen to look through not only this reply chain but my activity and come to more logical conclusions. Well, I don't expect that of him. My intention in this conversation was to not only defend myself from his attempt to ban me but explain my previous comments accusing him of nationalist motivations. Like I said above I will bring forward evidence (of which there's plenty), but due to this interaction that doesn't concern you. Again, thank you for replying to me. MotorolaBoy (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that the tic may be intentionally affected, given how irregular it is and that it doesn't show up in their mainspace edits. Either that, or they're part of a meatfarm and not writing their own mainspace text. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, we're talking about a different tic, I think, since the one I observed is a wikipedia acronym and not one that would end up in mainspace. If you mean the punctuation, yeah, I agree. But then I just get to "to what end?" Whether we associate them with the other master or not, they're still blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see which one you mean. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and now their most recent response on the SPI is back into much more normal grammar/feel. All very strange. -- asilvering (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, IPs should be {{checkIP}} rather than {{checkuser}}. One notable difference is that checkIP inhibits the 'CA' link (IPs aren't centralauth "accounts") and instead gives some IP-relevant tool links. DMacks (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks @DMacks. -- asilvering (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering, given all thats gone on with Dario Item -- wanted to reach out as there is a newly made account editing the page today. The account was made today and this page is their only edit. They are not disruptive, so I wasn't really worried. But as some have been blocked from editing the page recently, I'm naturally skeptical of what goes on there, and wonder about UPE or ban evasion activity. I'm not sure if it is worth raising at SPI. I'm not convinced its a page that people would stumble upon unless looking for it. Just thought I'd get your take on it. Many thanks. Nayyn (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's genuinely their first-ever wikipedia edit, they're a natural and we should keep them around. {{cu needed}}, two questions:

• any obvious sign of block evasion by Fxfrez (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)?
• in particular, of recently blocked Ignatius Shitanda (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)?

Thanks in advance. -- asilvering (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and for having a look. I'm cautious of personally advancing anything related to those pages as I've been accused of some nasty stuff since the page nomination. Which hasn't been a good time. Nayyn (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's been a good time for any of the good-faith editors involved. My advice, if you find yourself in this kind of situation again, is to extend the suspicious ones as much patience and grace as you possibly can, and engage with them as though they aren't attacking you personally. It's really common for newbies who see a deletion tag to assume that this is all some kind of devious plot or censorship or something. Meanwhile, take all the sockpuppetry concerns to SPI and nowhere else. It's good to keep your own hands clean so you can help the newbies, and more evidence of normal interaction can only help whoever shows up from SPI to deal with it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I will take on that advice. I've never been in this situation before. When the page had been deleted by admins 3 times at draft, and was public with issues, I had to nominate it. And then this cascade came. It did not take much investigation to find the connection between the pages. It was clear to me what was going on, but I was of the thought submitting to SPI would be seen as piling on the newbies. I won't hesitate next time. Thanks again for your help. Nayyn (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to Ignatius. Izno (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And amazingly, the specific IP has had traffic from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Aniflower at one point. Not to say it's them since that was long enough ago and Aniflower is all over a few ranges, but still interesting to me. Izno (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also has a login from Special:Contributions/ImerlishvilivakhtangI from a day before, which I can't say is HERE. Izno (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're probably somebody, so I'll fill out some paperwork in case we ever figure out who that somebody is. -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI there are three IP users engaging with the AfD discussion of Item's colleague... it sounds like it is one person, but they join the conversation from 3 geographically different IPs. They linked to Mediascriptor's page in the conversation as well and declared a COI related to the subject. Given the amount of editing overlap between the two articles, maybe it is worth looking into further? They are:

• 205.220.129.231
• 5.148.85.22
• 119.56.98.99

Nayyn (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they sound like the same person, they probably are. I just blocked two of the three as proxies. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it out! Nayyn (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello how to join this site --Aimeelizaortiz (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aimeelizaortiz, you already have! WP:PRIMER can help you get started. -- asilvering (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 600 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to write about my family history, how do I do it? --Flavour Nokwanda Mdletshe (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Flavour Nokwanda Mdletshe, welcome to wikipedia! If you mean you want to write about your family history on wikipedia, the answer is probably "you don't", unless historians have already written about your family. If you're looking for genealogy resources, I probably don't have much help to give, but in any case I'd have to know what country you're talking about first. -- asilvering (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mvakashi had five wives (not in order of seniority), MaDlamini, MaMhlongo, MaDlamini, and two more to be added later. MaMhlongo had three children, two girls and a boy. The two daughters died before bearing any children. MaMhlongo's son, Nkotheni "Sgqoko" Ngcobo married two wives, first wife, Noyingozi/Nozingozi "Slembe" MaShangase, and the second wife Bukwani MaCele. Slembe as she was passionately, had no biological children. She was later allocated one of MaCele's children, as she has four biological children Libelephi Joyce Ngcobo, Bhekephi Florence Ngcobo Skhundla "Nomsakazo" Ngcobo Thashiwe Bertha MaNgcobo Mdletshe born 25 October 1945. Flavour Nokwanda Mdletshe (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For showing the common sense in a difficult situation NOT to cut the Gordian knot on capitalization disputes, but to send it to ArbCom, whose swords may be better suited either for cutting a Gordian knot or for dissecting a great monster with tentacles. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fear they may have to cut several Gordian knots, perhaps while battling multiple betentacled monsters. -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it is over, they can fry it and lunch on calamari. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but when you said He also very clearly did not "start it", since MotorolaBoy's first edits are personal attacks. I've tempblocked as a final warning, since "I'm gonna accuse you of racism and harassment since you're playing dirty" is pretty unambiguous, but since a bunch of this went down on my own talk page, some other admin should handle it if it keeps going. it made me think it may be worth checking to see if this is some sort of sock. What are your thoughts? Gommeh 🎮 17:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Gommeh see User talk:Kowal2701#ANI 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to deal with anything that comes through at SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Capitalization Disputes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ajmer (2nd nomination). If you feel it relevant you may wish to trace the SPI and make a report. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I believe this is a new one. That's not to say its creator isn't a sock, but I don't think they're related to the previous. The forthcoming arbcom decision will hopefully cut these off at the root. -- asilvering (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, do you mind if I email you? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By all means go ahead, @Grnrchst, no need to ask. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I make funny edits yet they get deleted help me… --PoisonTorch (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @PoisonTorch, we take this stuff pretty seriously, and recent changes patrollers in particular have no sense of humour about it at all. If you make any more "funny" edits, you'll probably end up blocked from editing. -- asilvering (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you have previously blocked this user for 14 days for repeating the same edit over and over and over again. His contribution page consists entirely of adding a single name without any WP:RS to the same list and to create a page Charliez (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...for the same subject (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.255.168.165). He is now back at adding the same details without WP:RS. There is no response to attempted contact on his talk page. What would be the best procedure to prevent this from repeating over and over again?

(Apologies for the broken message owing to fat fingers) Charliez (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Blocked again, this time for three months. That's it, really. If they keep coming back, we keep blocking for longer. If you end up getting a lot of active disruption from many different IPs, we protect the page from IP editing instead, but we really prefer blocks if possible. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! Working on a big clean-up job adding proper WP:RS to all entries on the main page, so a great help avoiding disruptive behaviour like that. Thanks! Charliez (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Asilvering sock keeps making edits to the IP address. Special:Contributions/37.167.176.201 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MHD1234567890 It seems like this will never end. Can you at least block this IP address? Kajmer05 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible that this is the same person, but it's also quite plausible that this is another French Kurdish person upset about a wikipedia article for the same reasons. I'd rather not no-warning block an IP as a sock on their first day of activity unless it's really quite blindingly obvious or they're being extremely disruptive. I'll ask them what's up. Remember to use the introduction to CTOPs notice on people editing in Kurds/Kurdistan so they're aware it's a CTOP. -- asilvering (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But really this is them. They even attacked my talk page recently, [8] sorry but I'm sensitive about this. Kajmer05 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an SPI because I have no other choice, I don't even want them to be given WP:ROPE. Kajmer05 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Izno's short-term rangeblock might work, but my suspicion is that they'll get around it. Please do let us know either way. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll report it if I see anything suspicious. :) Kajmer05 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again @User:Asilvering 2A00:801:4EF:E0BE:482D:10E2:1E5:9134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I think protecting the page would be the best solution because the user is extremely obsessed with Rawanduz. Kajmer05 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. Not good. Totally different country. I see GorillaWarfare already got this one, but I'll also page protect, briefly. -- asilvering (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor whom you blocked for 30 days is now editing again. Is it possible to place a longer block or semi-protect the two articles about the major U.S. parties where they are most active? TFD (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reblock. I'd rather not semi an article over a single LTA if I can avoid it. Also, good grief this guy can't take a hint. -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TFD (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add my image to my page --Investor Bobbi (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Investor Bobbi, I'm sorry to tell you, but self-promotion isn't an appropriate use of your userpage. It's okay to put some information about yourself there, but the expectation is that you're here to help write the encyclopedia, not to promote yourself as an artist. We're not a social media website. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I have a new URL for a reference on a Wikipedia page. The current reference is out of date and marked 'permanent dead link'. I can see how to update the URL but not how to remove the 'permanent dead link' marker. Can you advise me how to do this please? --Martinh3579 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinh3579, if you're using Visual Editor, which is the default, you just need to click on the "permanent dead link" bit and hit delete. Unless it's inside a reference tag, in which case you first have to click on the ref tag. If you're using source editor, remove the bit that says {{permanent dead link}} at the relevant part of the article. If you're still stuck, link me to the article in question and I'll sort it out for you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you Martinh3579 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the Teahouse. Sigh. This is why we can’t have nice things :(. GoldRomean (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have a quick question for you. I want to create a new Wikipedia entry, and I am having a difficult time figuring out where to go to start writing it? I have found some directions online but none of them seem applicable. Thanks, Michele --SDbluepencil (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @SDbluepencil, Help:Your first article is a good place to start. Some suggestions from me:

• The most important thing is to gather the sources from which you'll write the article first. Don't be tempted to write the article up front and then find the sources to back it up, because that's difficult.
• Very generally, you will need three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject to demonstrate that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. There's useful information about how to choose good sources and avoid bad sources here.
• Make sure you use your own words to write the article - don't plagiarise your sources, because copyright violations are taken seriously on Wikipedia.
• Use draftspace or your sandbox to draft your article, rather than create it first off in mainspace. That will allow you to take your time. When it's ready, just move it to mainspace.

Good luck! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | July 2025, Vol 11, Issue 7, Nos. 326, 327, 341, 342, 343 Online events: New: Alphabet run M & N | Women in Red turns 10 | Kenya Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: 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 1,514 articles during this period! 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women) 23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women) Tip of the month: A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements, but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations. 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 09:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I added more to the article and more stuff in talk Sunny's Highway 27 12:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunhighway27, no amount of editing can make a non-notable topic notable. If you'd like the editors who argued for deletion in that AfD to have a look at it, you could ask them, but they are likely to say that their opinions are unchanged. -- asilvering (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

did you even check what I added, Sunny's Highway 27 15:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but to be honest, I'm not sure why I did, because it wouldn't have changed my response. asilvering (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you were being a good person Sunny's Highway 27 15:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried thinking if it was a standalone article, here is what I have come up, It can mostly stand alone, also there is a Kidz Search article Not by me. @Asilvering Sunny's Highway 27 15:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a wiki that copies over our own entries periodically, and as far as I know they don't delete pages that we ended up deleting. So an article existing on a wikipedia mirror like that one doesn't help your case, I'm afraid. You'd need to be able to show that the subject meets WP:GEOLAND. -- asilvering (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying the kid search article helps my case Sunny's Highway 27 15:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re: no amount of editing can make a non-notable topic notable. Yes it can if you add your sources and research which i have done Sunny's Highway 27 17:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @Sunhighway27, it can't. It's possible that the previous AfD participants were wrong, but you can't make a non-notable topic notable by writing more about it. It'll still be non-notable. Please see WP:OVERCOME. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but I have checked and it does follow notability guildines multiple times. And we should have an article article on it because it isn't just a neiborhood, it is too far and has multiple roads and houses. Also, @Curb Safe Charmer didn't care, @ToadetteEdit got banned, and the other haven't responded Sunny's Highway 27 17:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the title, that's what I meant :) (@Asilvering and @Izno)

I opened the page 2-3 days ago but for some reason some people started attacking and tried to change things without even providing the source in a vandalistic way... BEFOR01 (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're pretty clear about their reasons. You don't have to agree with them, but they do tell you why. -- asilvering (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you did it because you are a good person. Sunny's Highway 27 15:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#h-User:MHD1234567890-20250424074100 This topic was previously discussed on ANI. If they are going to call everything they don't like propaganda, then there is no need to even talk to them, even talking to a sock is ridiculous. By the way, the protection of the page ends tomorrow, most likely they will return tomorrow. Kajmer05 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to a sock isn't ridiculous. Sure, some are hopeless, but many of them continue to repeat the same behaviours because no one has ever actually patiently spoken to them before. If the page is targetted again, we simply protect it again. -- asilvering (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, at this point I discovered a suspicious account, I will file an SPI. Kajmer05 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did this happen I accidentaly said a commnt to the wrong person Sunny's Highway 27 18:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I can't visit Wikipedia as much as I used to, but can you protect the page for another week? I think this page can develop even more in 1 week without being vandalized.

I looked at the link you mentioned. They are trying to do the same things on the regular Wikipedia that they think they can do on the simple Wikipedia, but they can't. I'm honestly worried that they'll attack the page again. BEFOR01 (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BEFOR01, I won't protect it again unless there's disruption again, but if they come back and start trying to edit-war, we'll probably reprotect it. You can ask here or at WP:RFPP. -- asilvering (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mir_Muhammed_Rebellion&action=history @Asilvering They came again. The IPs were blocked but I think they will come again. Can the page be protected for a long time? Kajmer05 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected it for another little while and we'll see how it goes. I'd rather not page protect it for longer than we have to, and it's normal for articles to have some degree of unconstructive editing, but if they're really persistent and we can't block them, I'll end up going for the CTOP page protection. -- asilvering (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Good
	for being a good person, but a little sassy Sunny's Highway 27 15:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some random ip that's not even worth copy-pasting has asked for a deletion review of Spinny (company). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 08:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Hi, I am still encountering problems in logging in (due to IP block). Could you review @Royalorders appeal request please? Thank you Mediascriptor (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mediascriptor, I'll get to it (or someone else will, since it's in the queue), but in the meantime you'll have to clear your browsing data between sessions. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering sorry to push you again but even clearing the cache I am encountering problems in editing. Most of the times I have to use other wifi points in order to avoid the IP block and this is quite uncomfortable. Could you look into @Royalorders appeal in order to fix once and for all the problem please? Thank you for your understanding. Mediascriptor (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you clearing cookies along with the cache? -- asilvering (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Still the same. Mediascriptor (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. That's odd. In the meantime, apologies, I thought I'd already asked RoyalOrders a question, but I hadn't. I have now. -- asilvering (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilivering, please see my note at User talk:Charliehandsomesuperfan and the recent history at Charlie Handsome. I've tried to explain WP:PAID per their note on my talk page yesterday (as an IP, then they set up an account) but they continue to revert everyone. S0091 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, page-protected and p-blocked. Back to you. Good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try one more time to get them to engage. S0091 (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already reported User:I hate asilvering, but I wanted to bring that to your attention. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this makes you super officially an admin. S0091 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that block happened fast lol. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It took me nearly 11 months, but I've finally Made It. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you now have to toss your admin hat into the wind and do a twirl or something. Pretty sure that's policy. S0091 (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill is a Negro still greets me as a search suggestion whenever I go to check my contributions. I consider it a badge of honor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm laughing, but I'm also thinking that, for the more easily disturbed, that can't be a fun experience - do we really not suppress harassment usernames like that? -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe oversighters or stewards have the ability to edit/suppress the logs? I honestly haven't looked into it myself. I can definitely imagine more disruptive alternatives that I would be less blase about, even setting aside that other (more?) reasonable editors could already take issue with the range of disruption on display. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*hollow laughter* --bonadea contributions talk 20:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's something poetic about Bonadea i am sock of bonadeaphone only _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd hardly imagine you to be easily disturbed, but there are two pretty bad ones in there, if you were the type to be. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Callooh, callay! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: The stewards have been known to lock/hide accounts, but I do not know the thresholkd for doing so. @Tamzin: knows about suppression of such. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I enter my correct address? --Spicedsalsa1 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spicedsalsa1, welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately I don't have a clue what you're asking, but if you want to try asking it again in different words, I can try again. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Asilvering,

Can you check this Possible sock farm? 2409:40F0:3009:A518:4560:2AC6:964F:E628 (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I can't "check" in the WP:CHECKUSER sense, but it looks like you've provided enough evidence on ANI for someone to deal with it. If no one else gets to it in the next 24 hours, feel free to ping me again and I'll have a deeper look. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, It’s been over 48 hours since I posted in ANI and no one has responded. That’s why I’m reaching out to you. 2409:40F0:3189:7FF:C4A:552A:B407:82BE (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so if no one gets to it in the next 24, please do send me another message. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Asilvering,

Here is Evidence, Kindly Check.

• Paradha film previously Created by sock Thewikizoomer, see logs
• Paradha (2025 film) page creator Filmyy. and contributor FilmiKeeda420 - (his last edit was on 20 May, after 39 days his first targeted page is Paradha on 28 june). They have similar username's "Filmy" and the film Paradha release date is not announced fails notability.
• user:Chelaam created account on 28 june 2025, on same day they uploaded poster of the film Paradha.
• Praveen Kandregula, director of Paradha film previously created by User:Advertite which AFD'ed and redirected to Cinema Bandi. Now User:GSV7 created on 2024, came now and removed redirect and recreated the Praveen Kandregula twice on 26th and 30th June 2025.
• users Advertite and GSV7, both only interest in creating Praveen Kandregula page.
• Possible sock farm/UPE wanted to create film & director's page 2409:40F0:300D:19B6:A976:C833:A70D:3447 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thewikizoomer for you. -- asilvering (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Thank you @Asilvering. :) 2409:40F0:301D:9F75:8CC1:5A4A:B10E:3334 (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Asilvering, i have tried tagging Filmkeeda420 created pages for G5. But why it was not tagged/deleted.? 2409:40F0:300F:B301:C5:C1DC:B9E0:6A8B (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be, since this is the first block - the SPI didn't find any strong evidence to link to an earlier master, at least not yet. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, don't have any questions, but nice to meet you! --MarkoMatosevic (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MarkoMatosevic, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy it. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Hello. May you guide me how can request the WP:APAT for another users? HumanRight 18:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the bit that says {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}, just put in the username of the person you want to request it for (without the User:). Should do it. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pppery Just did it. Hope you accepting because User:BlaUser234 deserve it. Thank you again. HumanRight 19:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, with that perm the question is more "do the page patrollers deserve it". Sounds like they do. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I believe that those who make continuous efforts deserve appreciation. In this case, these users will be encouraged more and this will help Wikipedia grow and develop sustainably. Of course, I am not a decision maker or admin, and I just wanted to show my gratitude for this user's efforts with this suggestion. HumanRight 19:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks y'all! :) BlaUser234 (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlaUser234 The combination of Wikipedia, snacks, and cockroaches is not a winning one:) Some days your articles take up 50% of WP:NPP's space. Just when I'm having a snack and enjoying Wikipedia:) HumanRight 16:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Human Right Wiki, you aren't a new page patroller, so I'm not sure why this is bothering you? -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering This is just a simple request, not a complaint. If I made a mistake in requesting this access for someone I thought needed it, I can take it back. Regards. HumanRight 23:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem to suggest that someone else get AP. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I swear I am not going bug you all the time but I think an alternate title needs admin protection to enforce the current protection for Ramayana: Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see log for the disruption). The article was recently recreated under Ramayana (2026 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which I moved to draft then redirected to Draft:Ramayana: Part 1 (see my comments there) per the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Ramayana: Part 1 (2nd nomination). The admin who protected the original title has not been around for a few days or I would bug them instead. S0091 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And I don't at all mind being bugged, but, you know, there's something happening this month that would mean you could do these yourself... -- asilvering (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But then that would make me have to be a more responsible person lol. Nah. Enough of that. Thanks for the help! S0091 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Well, I'm sure you are currently a sufficiently responsible person, but I can't argue with that. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Asilvering. I think the reason so many admins who have noticed the vandal at the Teahouse, and blocked their IPs, have not protected the page is that forcing protection is most likely the vandal's goal. Getting the Teahouse semi'd is a way for them to do a lot of harm, since people who ask for help at the Teahouse tend to be non-autoconfirmed. I'll leave it to you to do what you think best, but please think about it. Bishonen | tålk 14:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I'm well aware. That's why I protected only for a very brief period. -- asilvering (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good use case to test out the IPReputation AbuseFilter integration the WMF just implemented. There's a brief discussion about it WP:EFN#IPReputation variables. S0091 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091, I think our edit filters for this guy already work pretty well, so I'm not sure what extra juice that would give us. I think @Daniel Quinlan does a bunch of filter work and might have ideas? But if you want to test something with it, by all means. At this point the page protection has been up long enough to dissuade and I kind of expect this particular vandal checks the expiry time and sets an alarm or something, so I'll lift it a bit early and see if we still get two hours of breathing room. -- asilvering (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's best to send mail to the mailing list when it's about private filters. I've mostly been working on meme vandalism and other filters where IP reputation isn't too helpful, but everyone is aware of the new features. As to the protection, I personally try to avoid longer protections of pages like the Teahouse, but the protection action seems entirely reasonable. Given the brief duration, it seems clear asilvering is on the same page about keeping the page accessible, so the above comment on the protection seems a little unnecessarily pointed. Sometimes, the Teahouse just needs a break for a few hours. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i need your help and its a important --Iwafft06 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iwafft06, you'll have to tell me what you need help with first. -- asilvering (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to publish a artical of Fasil Dar coz hi is a great personality and im big fan of him please help me to publish his biography article in public and he is most honest jealous , social activist, content creator you can check but no one support him if you need any kind of information please let me know Iwafft06 (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iwafft06, we only have articles on Wikipedia about topics that have been covered in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Internet content creators rarely meet those guidelines, so I think you're out of luck. See WP:42. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what should i do now Iwafft06 (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The world's your oyster. Feel free to create new articles on other topics that interest you and improve the articles we already have. I just don't think you've got any way forward with that particular article. -- asilvering (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering. A page you concluded for deletion here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective (organisation) - has been recreated here - Collective (organisation). However, in my deletion nomination it says it has previously nominated for deletion, have I done something wrong. If so, would you be able to fix this please? I'm not sure how the user was able to recreate something that consensus deemed should be deleted. Helper201 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201, you can't use WP:PROD to delete an article that has already been through a deletion discussion. PROD can only be used one time, ever. If someone recreates an article that was deleted by discussion, and the new article is substantially similar, there's a speedy tag for it, WP:G4. I've had a look and this doesn't qualify for G4 either, though, since there are some brand-new sources that discuss it in depth, which weren't yet written at the time of the previous AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Asilvering. It appears a lot of the sources are of unknown reliability or unlikely to be notable or reliable, many not appearing on WP:RSP. So where is best to go from here if it doesn't fit PROD or WP:G4 but still isn't notable enough to be an article? Helper201 (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping you from taking it to AfD again. And if the sourcing has similar problems as before (eg they're being used as synth, OR, etc), it's likely that we'll end up WP:SALTing the page to prevent recreation until we get something more solid to build from. -- asilvering (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, speedy deletion criterion G13 has been amended to remove "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text."
• WP:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts was upgraded to a guideline following a RfC discussion.

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!

---

Hi, since you CU is not possible, I believe the evidence which submitted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rydex64 is more than enough to justify a block. The ID belongs to a UPE farm and they have created some articles which are clearly non-notable. I don't want to open AFD's for each and every one of them since all of them can be easily G5'd. But it cannot be done without the ID getting blocked and tagged. Could you please take a look at this or do I need to contact some other admins as this is an urgent matter. Thanks in advance. Thilsebatti (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thilsebatti, it's currently awaiting behavioural investigation. What's the urgency? They haven't edited in five days, and infrequently before that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether I should go for AFD or wait for the case to close. I was really absent from the site for nearly 8 months. During this time they recreated many deleted articles by gaming the system. This is making me frustrated. Thanks for the quick reply. Thilsebatti (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother with AfD while the SPI is open, since it might end in G5s. -- asilvering (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Kiat wanted to let you know that they are back by creating another paid article S. Vipin. Thilsebatti (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dalyboy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Klighnight (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is awarded to Asilvering for accumulating more than 15 points during the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your participation! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello asilvering!

Account name was Hherwdfrtty, One block from Adminstrator User:Ad Orientem. Reverted edit on 8-16-24 at 22:20 UTC, (10:20 P.M my time). VegetableReverend (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Menards date inaccuracies, page claimed the founder expired in 1940, yet the store was founded 20 years after supposed death of said founder, true last edit was a question added 2 months later on 10-18-24, but it was a question, and I was not sure if that counted or not. VegetableReverend (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VegetableReverend, I can't find any evidence that username ever existed here. Are you sure that was the exact spelling? The reason I'm asking is that if that old account is blocked, you're block evading right now, which means that any admin who susses out the connection can block you without warning. I'd be happy to look into that block, which I presume I would reverse so that you can get back to editing. If it ends up being something more serious, I might not be able to reverse it right away, but whatever it is, I can work with you to get you back to good standing so you don't need to worry about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's Hherrwdfrtty. Urve (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Urve, and good to see you around. @VegetableReverend, looks like you're safe. Happy editing! -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, even if I were to lose this account at this second, I've made one single minor edit. VegetableReverend (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The block expired after 31 hours, plus my reason for the account creation was that I forgot my password on the old account. Oh it's Hherrwdfrtty, but anyways, if the block evasion thing still stands for served blocks, that would be great! VegetableReverend (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're free. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VegetableReverend Just note somewhere on your user page your previous account name to avoid any questions going forward. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will Do. VegetableReverend (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's done, now off to find a solution to errors. VegetableReverend (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to editing Wikipedia and have lots of questions. Thank you for being my mentor. For now I'm limit it to two: recently I was making some suggested edits and came across an article for "The Master of the Arboga alterpiece. There is no article for the Arboga master piece, and from what I could tell after 30 minutes of poking around, there is nothing commonly called by this name. There is a church in Sweden that has an altarpiece that came from the area this article claims the Master worked in, but that's as much as I've found. Given that there is no article for the Alterpiece itself, it seems strange to have an article about the unknown artist. Is this something that should be marked for deletion? if so, what is the process for that? Here is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_of_the_Arboga_altarpiece&gesuggestededit=1 2. I have a graduate degree in Shakespeare studies and have put together many annotated bibliographies on diverse topics related to Shakespeare. I want to help edit articles using that information/knowledge, and many of those articles have are protected. What are the best practices for requested an edit to a page like this? I have used the talk page on the Macbeth article (yesterday), but I want to make sure I'm going out about this in the proper/respectful way. Thank you! --ShakesPBP (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakesPBP, on the first, does de:Meister des Altars von Arboga help at all? Looks like we have two sources about them in German. But quite old. It's also possible that this is fully invented and those sources don't exist, though this would be an odd kind of article to fake. Normally, I would refer you to WP:PROD in this kind of case (ie, a mostly abandoned-looking stub that you can't find sources for), but since there is an article on de-wiki, its deletion wouldn't be "uncontroversial", and the appropriate process would be WP:AFD. Before you tried taking it there, you'd want to establish that the sources on the German article either don't verify the text or don't say much about the artist anyway. Since only a single page is being cited for either of the relevant sources, my guess is that there isn't much out there and it may be only a brief mention.

As for the articles being protected, I'd bet they're only semi-protected, which means that, as of the edit you just made to my talk page, you're able to edit them. So go ahead! -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's very helpful ShakesPBP (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - our literature articles are pretty bad in general, but especially our medieval/early modern ones, so I'm delighted to see a new editor with interest in this area. You may find you get reflexively reverted by some of our grumpier, longstanding editors - try to take this in stride. They're used to dealing with school kids and people who are way too excited about their new theory on Shakespearean authorship. They'll warm up to you eventually, once they realize you're not one of those. -- asilvering (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will be rigorous with my sources to try to speed up that process. ShakesPBP (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just was working in Sandbox (my first Wikipedia entry) and entered an article that I cannot find in Wikipedia. How can i add a title to the entry? --GJRWhitman (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GJRWhitman, welcome to wikipedia! Looks like you already figured out one solution to this. The other is simply to move the page. You'll be able to do that yourself once you have WP:AUTOCONFIRMED status. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ASilvering, How do I find my submitted article that did not pass muster? I have redone the references using software that I am fluent with, paperpile, so that has been done i.e. in line references have been placed. But I have to be more declarative and impersonal.  And, I need to disclose that i was Dr. Harken's resident 49 years ago. Sincerely, Glenn GJRWhitman (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GJRWhitman, your draft is here: Draft:Alden H. Harken. You can always find your past edits easily by going to your "contributions" tab (or following this link: Special:Contributions/GJRWhitman). I think you may also want to have a look at WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering If you don't mind, could you please tell me how long the page named Mir Muhammed Rebellion has been protected? BEFOR01 (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BEFOR01, here's the protection log, which will tell you precisely when it expires: [9]. -- asilvering (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can we extend the time a little longer? There's so much to add, and I haven't even finished reading the resources I have yet. I'm afraid they'll attack. BEFOR01 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't pre-emptively protect articles. If they come back on a new IP, you can deal with them like you would normally deal with an editor who is making changes you disagree with, and if that gets out of control, we'll protect the page again. If they come back on the same IP, let me know and I'll block it directly. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey. i have a question about what is to be done if a category gets cluttered with users and deletion page discussion links. the category is Nogai people (not writing the actual name of category to not clutter it more). i would like to know what caused unrelated entries to be in the category. the issue needs to be corrected urgently. --Vofa (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vofa, what caused it was your incorrect nomination of the template through AfD. I've cleaned it up and the problem should resolve when July 12 GMT starts. -- asilvering (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Vofa (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mentor, I am part of a London society that gets referenced on Wikipedia several times and I would like to add a hyperlink whenever it’s mentioned.

I see that other London societies that are similar to it have had the same thing done for them. How do I go about adding in these hyperlinks? --Sloth782 (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sloth782, welcome to wikipedia! You can add a wikilink to other pages by typing [[ ]] on either side of the text. See WP:LINK for more details. Please don't add hyperlinks, that is, links to external websites, in the body of Wikipedia articles. You may find https://edwardbetts.com/find_link/ helpful for this. -- asilvering (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]