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

Archives

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

Thanks for lowering my requests. Three pages were missed. Indubitably Archives 16, 19, and 35. All others are good. Thank you for your assistance! Zinnober9 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zinnober9: I have just reduced those to ECP also. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect PCSO-524 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 28 § PCSO-524 until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You semi-protected centre-left politics on the 26th per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Edit warring to reinstate OR at centre-left politics. The IP editor has now created an account to continue restoring the same edits. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: I didn't protect the article due to that one IP address, I protected it based on the article's history of edits from various IP addresses. The newly registered account is engaging on the talk page. Right now what you have is a content dispute, and the appropriate protection for that is full-protection so only administrators can edit.

Administrators don't get involved in content disputes. That said, it looks to me like he removed the word 'green' from one section but retained the section about green politics, moving it under related ideologies. I have no opinion about the correctness of that edit. If the editor starts edit-warring, he can be blocked for that reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! You reverted all my ((clarify)) tags for clarification of the ambiguous units of measurement of "ppm" and "%" for the concentrations of CO₂ in the air, because "If the sources don't specify or clarify what it means, then neither would Wikipedia. Doing so would violate WP:OR.", as you said. Because almost all ((clarify)) tags accross Wikipedia are such as you said, according to you, almost all ((clarify)) tags across Wikipedia violate WP:OR, therefore, almost all ((clarify)) tags across Wikipedia should be deleted?! I strongly disagree with you, so, I will revert all your ((clarify)) tag deletions, and possibly search for a consensus from Wikipedia editors about your deletions. Sorry if you are offended about my decision. And I am really confused after you deleted all my ((clarify)) tags (I know, "Read the WP:OR!" you could yell at me, I already did). I am a Wikipedia inclusionist, not a Wikipedia deletionist. So, please, don't delete almost all ((clarify)) tags across Wikipedia. Bernardirfan (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bernardirfan: Simply put, I checked several sources that were cited in the sentences on which you applied those verbose clarify tags, and I found that those sources did not clarify the context of "ppm" either. You cannot expect other editors to invent a definition that doesn't exist in the sources. On that basis, I removed your tags. Replacing them would not accomplish anything. If you are knowlegeable about those subjects and already know the context from professional experience, then you are welcome to add the clarity yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already clarify (resolved) many ((clarify)) tags, based on my thorough research accross the internet, and based on my knowledge on those subjects and proffesional experience, and I will continue to do that. Other editors put the ((clarify)) tags on unclear information from unclear sources accross Wikipedia, so do I. And those ((clarify)) tags I put in the Carbon dioxide article are not verbose, because editors should know the reason why I put those ((clarify)) tags in the Carbon dioxide article, and all the problems that could arise from unclear information. And also, other editors resolved some of my "verbose" ((clarify)) tags, instead of just lazy deleting them, thus, accomplish something — improving the articles. Bernardirfan (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Draft was moved to article space by creator after it was declined - moving it back to draft" [1]. User:Kailash29792 was not the creator of the draft, I was.

I think you meant "editor" and not "creator", right? If that is the case, then I guess there is no mistake on your part. DareshMohan (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DareshMohan: Yes, sorry. I meant "contributor". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonetheless, the article now uses only one TOI source. That good enough? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's fine, and it's now in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have misunderstood my comments on this AfD. I never agreed that the article should be kept.

I had debunked all of the sources and nobody has disputed my points that: 1) there is no biographical coverage about this subject from reliable sources, 2) minimal coverage only concerns debunking the idea of his unmanned airplane, 3) the sources talk about the unauthentic subject in the wake of the movie Hawaizaada as clearly specified by them.

Most editors opposed stand-alone article thus you should modify your closure. It was not "keep" at all. Editorkamran (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Editorkamran: Umm... in your own words: "KEEP ok, User:Vanamonde93 has convinced me about the sources he mentioned and the need to have this article."

Then you followed it with an analysis of sources concluding that they aren't adequate. I wasn't sure how to interpret that, but since you didn't strike your "keep" I assumed that you still agreed to keep it.

At best this is a "no consensus" but definitely not "delete". I have changed it accordingly. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That comment was made by Doug Weller,[2] not me.

There were 10 who opposed stand-alone article and 6 supported Keep. Those 6 keeps should be judged carefully. 2 of those votes came from IPs[3][4] and one blatant WP:NOTAVOTE came from a newly registered editor with less than 100 edits.[5]

There was consensus against stand-alone article. Editorkamran (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Editorkamran: Argh. I see. That comment wasn't signed, it was followed by your analysis of sources and then signed by you, so it looked like the entire thing was your comment. That's why I was confused.

The arguments made matter more than the identity of the editor, whether it's an established account or an IP address.

If you just count the votes, they are evenly split. 5 keeps, 5 deletes, 5 redirects (one was "delete or redirect"), not counting that confusing comment in which you and Doug Weller participated. And I found a couple of the "delete" statements unconvincing and not based on policy (one was a "me too"), just as a couple of the "keep" statements were unconvincing.

Sorry, I don't see a consensus to delete. If you disagree, there's always WP:DRV. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sorry but you clearly got it wrong about the AfD. You cannot find a single reliable scholarly source in history or aviation which would help this subject in meeting WP:GNG, let alone finding multiple sources. CharlesWain (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That is objectively not true. The deletionists just ignored all the sources that post-dated the movie, even though those sources discuss the historical narrative and myth-making, and mention the movie only in passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First source only treats it as a false claim while other three sources you cited are actually 2 different sources which are only debunking the claims made in the movie. My question about finding a single reliable scholarly source in history or aviation for establishing GNG is still unanswered. Hindutva fake news peddlers love pulling out fake narratives but why should Wikipedia help them gain notability only because some sources rightfully refuted them? Anachronist should have analyzed the sources. CharlesWain (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that clearly demonstrates why there is no consensus. Deletion review is → thataway if you want to pursue this further. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. It was a good close, IMHO; the numerical tilt is balanced out by some deletion arguments without basis. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've opened a DRV case myself. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 1. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello i noticed that a lot of my sources have been removed from Draft:Burning Men while i cited them. Can you fixe them to be put back, they are probably on history Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed them all and corrected what was missing Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have given a full explanation in my revert comment.

Best regards IP says: Works better yes. 213.237.91.184 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit summary of your revert uses the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=101733832 - which has the wrong ID as it doesn't go to the Muhammad talk page. I found it, you left off the last digit (9): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=1017338329 ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you and once again I find myself in agreement with your comment on the Muhammad talk page. 213.237.91.184 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All changes were reverted on the page of IASRI (Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute) even though credible references were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickypusa4 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lot of material wasn't referenced at all. If you have a conflict of interest, you may make minor corrctions only. Anything substantive must be proposed on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s not clear how reverting an edit introduced an infobox error, which I wasn’t aware of (maybe some kind of database corruption). But aside from that, the ‘average’ and ‘peak’ figures are both from the same date. The cited source provides both the peak and average figures. As has been explained, the ‘peak’ figure includes duplicate reports, and this is why the average figures are a better indicator.—Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeffro77: My revert was primarily about the error in the headquarters parameter in the infobox, but I also felt the numerical values were close enough that it doesn't really matter what gets used, and there is no harm using slightly higher numbers. I haven't been involved in the discussion, and I don't have the energy to explain misrepresentations of the few comments I've left (you have, thank you). Whatever number is displayed could have a note like "(average)" behind it to indicate what it is. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I don’t understand how the ‘he’ got added because I used the Undo link to revert and I only typed in the edit summary.

Based on the editor’s behaviour so far, your revert will be seen as ‘support’, and is likely to escalate the behaviour beyond the specific issue at hand.—Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editor has been blocked for inappropriate behaviour at my Talk page. I won’t revert their changes in their absence but I will attempt to factor in an explanation about the usage of the ‘peak’ figures when not on mobile.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeffro77: You were correct, he made a lot of edits about how I "resolved" the dispute. Sheesh.

The block is now indef and his talk page access has been revoked. It looks like his absence is gonna be permanent.

It's always a shame to see a new enthusiastic editor go down in flames like that.

I've been asked to have off-wiki communications before too. I simply respond that I prefer to keep Wikipedia business on Wikipedia and leave it at that. If someone contacts me by email (my email is enabled here), unless it's another admin or someone I've collaborated with in the past, I don't reply by email but put a reply on their talk page without revealing the contents of their email.

The only time I've made an exception was when a notable extreme-sports person was communicating with me in my role as a WP:VRT agent, concerning the article about him. We got on Skype because he wanted a quick lesson about a number of topics like primary versus secondary sources, NPOV, conflict of interest, what his representatives can and can't do on Wikipedia, and so on. We ended up having a productive conversation for nearly an hour. His article has been in pretty good shape ever since. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undid revision 1175273662 by Wsetlevel3 (talk) - blatant plagiarism and copyright violation - try again

For my understanding...I am not sure why you responded the way you did when I specifically credited the source. Is it your opinion that I rewrite the information, but credit the source for the concept? In no way did I attempt to claim credit for the text? Wsetlevel3 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wsetlevel3: You didn't quote the text, you copied the text directly from the source into Wikipedia article, making it appear that those are Wikipedia's own words in Wikipedia's own narrative voice. That is a copyright violation. Wikipedia prose cannot use the words of others. Even a close paraphrasing can be considered a copyright violation. You must use your own words to convey what the source says. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it...thanks for taking the time to reply. I will try again following your guidance. Sorry about that. Wsetlevel3 (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I request you to now unprotect the History of concubinage in the Muslim world article so that anyone can edit it and impose sanctions on Barbardo if he removes sourced content again - he seems to have misunderstood what consensus means (he does not have any veto about what text should be in the article).-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely not. My job as an administrator is to preserve the stability of articles. You are basically saying you will continue edit-warring if it is unprotected. You must reach a consensus. Start a WP:RFC if you have to.

After looking at the arguments I am not convinced that what you are trying to add is a mainstream viewpoint. I am not convinced of Barbado's arguments either. Therefore I have no reason to unprotect the article while an active dispute is underway. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Anachronist. I strongly agree with your comment on the Teahouse about the bar for autoconfirmed status being set too low. I would like to see a regime where nobody can create an article in mainspace or move a draft to mainspace until they've had, say, two articles accepted through AFC (with some arrangement for grandfathering in old-timers).

I'm less sure about the other abilities that come with autoconfirmed. Whenever I see a question about "Why haven't I got autoconfirmed status" I think "Whatever it is that they're desperate to do they probably shouldn't", but I may be wrong. ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ColinFine: The autoconfirmed right has been around, I think, before I started on Wikipedia 17 years ago. I have no problem with the current threshold of 4 days and 10 edits although I wouldn't object to bumping them up a bit. My comment was about the right to create articles and approve drafts. The bar for that, in my opinion, shouldn't be autoconfirmed, it should be something higher.

We don't want to discourage people from making bold edits and creating new articles. All too often, however, new editors create junk. If it weren't for the huge AFC backlog, I'd be in favor of your suggestion to have new editors through AFC until they've had a couple of drafts approved. Some new editors can write good articles, and those editors should be able to publish their drafts.

We currently have these thresholds of account age and number of edits for various access levels:

• autoconfirmed: 4 days and 10 edits
• autoconfirmed through TOR or with IP block exemption: 90 days and 100 edits
• extended confirmed: 30 days and 500 edits

Perhaps an "article creator" right could be implemented, which kicks in automatically somewhere between autoconfirmed and extended confirmed, like 30 days and 100 edits (more edits than standard autoconfirmed but less days than autoconfirmed via TOR). TOR or IP block exempt would still need to meet the higher autoconfirmed threshold to get the article creator right. Editors who don't have this right would be unable to create any page in article space, even via page moves. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that sounds about right. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Anachronist. You removed my edit and mentioned the following reason ((too much reliance on primary source)). But i mentioned that the source is the one who says these additions. There are other sources. But I wanted readers to know that what Friedman mentioned is not the only information. In other words. I did not write the information in such a way as to make it appear as self-evident. Rather, I wrote the phrase so that the reader understands that this is what the author is conveying in the source. I wanted the reader to see other information from another source. In general, if there is a specific problem in writing, tell me how it can be solved. How can the rewrite be done better, in your opinion? With respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.33.207 (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for editing and being cool!! Keep going, your doing well!! :)

Babysharkboss2 was here!! 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. It's better than getting a WP:TROUT, which I am sure I have deserved at some point in the past. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI I wrote a new version of Stephen Strang based on 4 RS. Looking forward to your review. Nowa (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nowa: You didn't submit it for review, you created it directly in article space. I made some minor changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Yes, there was an earlier "promotional" version that you deleted in 2010 called "Steve Strang". That page (which is now a redirect) suggested you be notified if the page was recreated.--Nowa (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, that explains it. The deletion actually happened in 2012. It was a speedy WP:G11 deletion. Thanks for informing me. Your version is better than the deleted one. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Anachronist:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

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

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1600 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Anachronist.

Sorry if I'm doing something wrong.

There are some notable changes on page which is i restored,

please can I do changes? Hanna213 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hanna213: I have no idea what page you're referring to. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just realised that you are an administrator. As such, can you please provide an explanation as to how your revert [6] at the above article was not made in violation of the active arbitration remedy clearly stated at the top of the talk page: Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page? The contested passage (which had been in the article for some time) was removed by CapnJackSp. I challenged the removal, by reversion. I explained my rationale on the article talk page. No 'affirmative consensus' for anything can possibly have been found at that point. Not when you reinstated the change. And not by your subsequent talk page post. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the removal (on which I have made my points concerning Wikipedia policy on the use of academic sources entirely clear on the talk page), it seems to me to be entirely improper for an admin, of all people, to be disregarding a clear and unambiguous instruction as to how disputes concerning a highly-contentious article under arbitration remedies should be handled. I await your explanation, and note that should one not be forthcoming I may decide to pursue this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: Let's look at the history.

• 13 May: The bit about Jürgen Schaflechner was added by TrangaBellam without any explanation in the edit summary.
• It was removed and restored several times in the same day without specifically targeting that passage.[7][8][9][10][11][12]
• 16 May: The AE template was added to the talk page by Abecedare (diff). Abededare also extended-confirmed-protected the article on the same day, with the Schaflechner passage in place at the time. We can assume that the sanctions are enforced from that point onward.
• 18 October: I removed the passage from the lead (diff), in response to a complaint on the talk page. This was the first revert after AE enforcement, as far as I can tell from the history.
• You proceeded to violate the AE restriction by reinstating the passage. However, you restored it to a different location in the article, so we'll let this slide. Consider it a new edit.
• 1 November: CapnJackSp reverted you (diff), which, if you consider your prior edit OK, would be in compliance with the AE restriction. CapnJackSp challenged your edit with a revert, and it should not have been reinstated.
• You then reinstated the passage again (diff).
• Then I reverted you (diff) , not realizing that CapnJackSp had already done so. That was my error.
• And you reinstated the passage again, for the third time ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coerced_religious_conversion_in_Pakistan&diff=next&oldid=1183019748 diff).

Notwithstanding the fact that this passage violates several content rules (WP:FRINGE, WP:BURDEN, WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, WP:UNDUE), and the fact that it's questionable that this assistant professor is even a notable scholar per WP:NPROF (he couldn't get his view published in a refereed journal, so he submits it to a magazine?), it's apparent that you, not me, violated the arbitration remedy. Not just once, but possibly two or three times. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How the hell does me reverting your removal of content (i.e 'challenged by reversion') by me constitute a violation of the AE restriction? And how the hell can you justify reverting my restoration of the article to the state it was in before CapnJackSp removed content? That was clearly and unambiguously a violation - on your part. As for WP:FRINGE etc, that is complete and utter nonsense. So nonsensical in fact that I seriously have to question your qualifications to act as an administrator. Schaflechner is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Heidelburg. He has been doing fieldwork directly related to the topic of the article for something like a decade. He is the co-editor, and a chapter contributor, to a book published by the Oxford University Press, where he analyses in detail the subject of the 'coerced conversion' topic. A book I linked on the talk page. A book you refuse to acknowledge with your ill-informed comments being made after I discussed it on the talk page. His comments are not 'fringe', they are not 'undue', they are prime academic content, from someone vastly better qualified to comment on the matter than the hack journalists etc being cited for almost everything else in the article. We don't reject academic sources written by those best qualified to write them as 'fringe'. That is ridiculous. It is deeply objectionable. It is a violation of everything WP:RS and Wikipedia in general has stood for for decades.

I am going to sleep on this. And if, tomorrow, I don't see a clear and unambiguous apology from you, along with an acknowledgement that I acted entirely in accord with policy, I shall be taking this to ArbCom, calling for you to be de-sysopped, for violation of AP enforcement, and for an understanding of Wikipedia sourcing standards so utterly at odds with both written policy and practice that you cannot be trusted with your tools. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." I challenged an un-explained and un-discussed addition of a passage by reverting it. You reinstated it in another location. Technically that was your first violation, but in a new place. I challenged that change by reverting you. You reinstated it. That was another violation.

The history I documented is clear. And instead of an apology, you reply in high dudgeon with threats? You're better than that. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't 'add' the passage. I restored it. Just how difficult is that to understand? And no, I am not 'threatening' to take you to ArbCom. I am stating as a fact I will do so, since you seem so clearly intent on misinterpreting multiple policies in order to exclude a legitimate academic source from a contentious article on entirely spurious grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't misrepresent what I wrote. I didn't say you added the passage. I said, correctly, that you reinstated it after I challenged it by reverting it. You're also conflating two issues, content and arbitration enforcement. The content is in dispute, and should be handled like any content dispute. Whether it's included or not is to be determined by community consensus, not by you or me. That is a different issue entirely from your blatant disregard of the AE notice at the top of the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was the one that made the god-damned challenge. Not you. Me. See you at ArbCom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The history clearly contradicts your assertions. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only if 'history' conveniently starts where it suits you. The Schaflechner text was in the article (in the lede, where it shouldn't have been, admittedly) when AE was enforced. You stated exactly that above. You removed it. I challenged your removal and restored it into the article body, explaining why. After you had described it as "published in a reliable source". You made absolutely no objection at the time. [13] No comment at all. I assumed you had no objection, given that you stated it was properly sourced. Given that it didn't belong in the lede, you made an edit. Given that you had removed it entirely, while acknowledging the source was valid, I placed it in the article body. And given your lack of further response, I assumed that was the end of it. But no, instead you are trying to retroactively object to it now, after I have provided ample evidence that your initial 'reliable source' assessment was correct. Object to it two weeks later, after suddenly deciding that published academics writing on their specialist subjects are 'fringe'. Your 'history' is directly contradicted by your own words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andy, my involvement in the article has been minimal, a bit in May, and again a couple weeks ago. I don't actively monitor it. I have thousands of pages on my watch list and I don't check each and every diff. The history above starts with the initial addition of the passage in dispute. When I removed the passage on 18 October, I failed to notice your reply on the talk page, and I do apologize for that. I would have objected then if I had seen it.

When I saw another objection to the passage today on the talk page, this alerted me to the fact that you had reinstated it. The timeline of events above simply document each addition and removal from the first time it was added. I see now that I missed the removal by CapnJackSp. That was an oversight on my part when I reverted you last, and admittedly that puts my revert in a different context. I've corrected the timeline above.

The fact remains, however, that you violated AE when you reinstated the passage. I'm willing to treat this as a content dispute. Escalating to ArbCom, in my opinion, is a waste of time, but do what you think is right. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disregarding our evidently differing understanding of AE and the timeline, are you still claiming that Schaflechner is 'FRINGE'? Because if you are, my comments above about your misunderstanding of core policy stands, and I'm not prepared to simply walk away from that - it is utterly fundamental to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to sleep now. A dispute over content should be continued the article talk page. I'll look for it tomorrow. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the "criticism of muhammad", you made a complaint after reverting my revision. The revision already included about heresy and demonic influence. Furthermore last line already contained "criticized Muhammad's handling of doctrinal matters and his promises of carnal pleasure in the afterlife" which is synonymous with 'perverted' and 'deplorable man' both of which also seem synonymous. It seemed bit repetitively biased. Now I understand that this is a criticism article but its written is such a way that it does not has any objective lens and there must be least some kind of WP:Balance. Note that I am not in anyway disagreeing about the lenghty details of those critisism in the rest of the article, the lede section in which we write the outline, shouldn't it be written in neutrality. The current content also may not uphold WP:Label. Please correct it or let me correct it. Even historical villains like Hitler and Stalin do not have this level of subjective judgements on their respective article. 182.183.41.97 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no objection if you try to rewrite it again, but not the way you did before. I know you were attempting to be neutral, but it came across as whitewashing, not conveying what the source actually says. That's why I reverted it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you be more specific how it came across as whitewashing. The mention of essential critisism 'heretic' and ' possessed by demons' as well as equating with the 'Antichrist' were already included in the revision.

I changed the words like 'perverted', 'deplorable' which seem synonymous with the critique in the last line and changed the word ' false prophet' which is synonymous with 'Antichrist' in the christian context, to uphold WP:Label and WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:BREVITY.

I dont know who wrote the lede but it is written in a WP:TENDENTIOUS way. 182.183.41.97 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Anachronist! Da du ja auch auf der dewiki aktiv bist, trau ich mich deutsch zu schreiben. Manche Sachen kann ich nicht so gut auf Englisch ausdrücken.

Seit ein paar Tagen fällt mir im Teahouse ein neuer User mit Namen "Fotzendurchfall" auf, muß ich mehr sagen? Ich habe mir die Policy zu den ungeeigneten Usernamen angeschaut, die in solchen Fällen eher zu "ansprechen" raten. Ehrlich gesagt, ICH als Deutsche möchte den User nicht ansprechen...

Hast du eine Lösung, abseits des großen Dramas?

Liebe Grüße --Maresa63 ^Talk 06:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo @Maresa63: Ich bin in der deutschen Wikipedia nicht aktiv.

Obwohl meine Mutter Deutsche war und ich in der High School jahrelang Deutsch gelernt habe, habe ich es nie gelernt. Ich schreibe dies mit Google Translate.

Um einen unangemessenen oder anstößigen Benutzernamen zu melden, gehen Sie zu WP:UAA. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, then I'm sorry. Thought I read your name at dewiki regularly. I shy away from the big drama. And "offending" isn't even a point at UAA (they advise to speak to the user). A name composed of a deregatory term of a female's vagina and diarrhea, please understand, I don't even want to speak to this user. But I can at least ignore it.

Thanks for your answer, and there is no need to translate your replies to german for me! Greetings! --Maresa63 ^Talk 08:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maresa63: The purpose of WP:UAA is to report usernames that violate Wikipedia:Username policy. Violations include offensive or derogatory names. No discussion with the user is required if the name is obviously disruptive.

Here on the English Wikipedia, User:Fotzendurchfall has been blocked by Valereee. I don't know if there is an equivalent to WP:UAA on the German Wikipedia, if that user also exists there. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See [[14]] Doug Weller talk 07:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I don't know that I can even understand how to fix the mess. I'm also having an odd problem with some keystrokes creating text at the very beginning of my text - only on Wikipedia though.

Hm, seems to start when I put the click on the symbol to ping a user which adds the at symbol. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: I think (hopefully) that I cleaned it up. The guy created redirects, which is fine, so I targeted them correctly and applied some page protections.

There is a symbol to ping a user? I just type ((ping|username)) in the source editor. Are you using the visual editor? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HankT@Anachronist No, using the source editor. What I see above this edit field is a bold B, italic I, and A for styling with a dropdown box, a symbol for linking, one to give me special characters, and a stylized head and shoulders with a plus sign over one shoulder. I'm having problems now with characters I type showing up at the very start of my post before the @ sign. I just tried to type Thank and see what happened! Doug Weller talk 14:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: I don't see what you see. I use the source editor too. My icons are (identified by hover text) bold, italic, signature and timestamp, link, images and media, insert a template, and syntax highlighting. Then there are drop-down menus after that for advanced, special characters, help, and cite. I'm using the Chrome browser on a laptop. Maybe it looks different on a mobile device, if that's what you're using? I've never tried to edit Wikipedia from a mobile device. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I mean when I hit reply to your post above, not when clicking edit. Sorry to confuse you. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, now I see it. I don't recall hitting that reply link before. When did that appear? I always just edit the section out of habit.

So if I click that little ping icon, I get a '@' symbol with drop-down menu containing your name, and I get this: @Doug Weller ~Anachronist (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anachronist Yes, that's it. Should we have Sethubandhanam as a separate article? I can't see why. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I speedy deleted it in accordance with WP:A10. It could be a redirect, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please undelete Sethubandhanam. It was created in 2014, which is clearly not recent (A10 only applies to recently created article[s], and the fact that User:NmWTfs85lXusaybq chose to create a redirect means that the requirement that where the title is not a plausible redirect isn't satisfied either. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created this redirect because it's the primary topic of Sethubandhanam (disambiguation). Since it's an alternative name of Adam's Bridge, it could be blanked and redirected as WP:ATD-R stated. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A redirect is a good solution. The content of the article had almost no content about the actual subject other than to state it's a synomym, and more content (and citations) about Thriprayar Temple, which holds a celebration. I merged that content into the temple article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree that it's an alternative name of Adam's Bridge: Ram Setu means both the (mythical) bridge from the Ramayana and the extant real-life geographical feature, which are separate things. Many people claim that the former is based on the latter, but even that isn't a sure thing. I would favour undeletion and expansion of the Sethubandhanam article, too. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dāsānudāsa: I have restored the deleted contribution history but left it as a redirect, and it should remain that way because it contained absolutely zero citations about the topic. The only thing that actually had a citation is already merged into [[Thriprayar Temple. When you can flesh it out more with actual citations, feel free to replace the redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Cookies!
		ThatOneWolf has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Nice seeing you from the Minecraft Wiki! To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookies)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThatOneWolf: Thank you. I used to have a different username there, but got it changed when the Minecraft Wiki migrated, so now they are the same in both places. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mention your old username on your user page both here and on the Minecraft wiki, so I would have recognized it by reading your page here, even if it was Anachronist here and Amatulic over there. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The LTA responsible for the page protections of Hagger, Grawp, and other pages is gone now. Would you consider unprotection as its hopefully no longer necessary? funplussmart (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Funplussmart: Because I was the last person who protected Grawp, I have reduced that from extended-confirmed to semi-protection. I had reduced it from full-protection to extended-confirmed in 2020. I didn't protect Hagger. I have no objection to removing protection on that. @Number 57: do you agree? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Funplussmart: How do we now they are gone? Cheers, Number 57 08:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Number 57:, WP:OUTING keeps me from saying a whole lot on-wiki, but let's just say they are physically unable to edit the website. funplussmart (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Funplussmart: You can always send us private email. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Funplussmart: Thanks for your email. Unfortunately, he would still have access to the internet where you say he is, but based on what I found, he is no longer there as of August. The protections should be kept in place. @Number 57: FYI. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Anachronist, hope you're doing well. I was wondering why you reverted my edits on the article Speech synthesis. Mooonswimmer 17:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mooonswimmer: I meant to revert only your last, unexplained, unsourced edit about hate speech. I didn't realize that all of the edits were reverted. I have corrected this. Overall, however, I think you gave undue weight to ElevenLabs in your additions. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Anachronist. I noticed that you enjoy familiarizing yourself with talk page discussions and offering neutral third opinions when needed. I have been working on updating Dahua Technology and am wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing an ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding specific terminology used in the article. I would appreciate your thoughts and assistance with implementing the edits as you see fit. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, looks like I started responding to the edit request before you did. Feel free to erase my response if you want to respond instead Andre🚐 06:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andrevan: I just added my comment to yours. I agree with you that "strategic" shouldn't be changed to "tactical" but I felt it best to remove the adjective altogether. A target is still a target, whether strategic or tactical. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine by me. It was a little redundant and wordy, though not technically inaccurate, but your version is an improvement. We had crossed wires at the same time. Andre🚐 06:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Anachronist: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that. I didn't think you were going to tag. Do you know you can use WP:Twinkle to do the block and tag the talk page at the same time? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UtherSRG: Yes I know that, I tried Twinkle many years ago, didn't really like it. I prefer to avoid automated tools in my work here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has gotten better, but to each their own. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been a busy 2 days. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but it may be resolved before I get to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Anachronist! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note your request in edit notes "it would be nice to see an excerpt from this book". I'm not sure that's a done thing on WP or how it would be achieved? I understand it is right to cite the book and relevant page numbers, and paraprase what is said there plus "fair use" limited direct quotes, all of which there are currently. Are you suggesting adding to the article a large block of text taken from the book in quotes? Wouldn't this pose copyright issues? What exactly are you suggesting/requesting here in terms of the public-facing page? Walton22 (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Walton22: Nothing at the moment. My edit summary was intended to mean that I, personally, would like to see the excerpt that serves as the basis for this paragraph in the Wikipedia article. I said this because I am skeptical that Streisand would so blatantly contractict what's already in public records. Maybe sometime I'll see if it's in my local library and look it up. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Her account is meant to be reported NPOV for WP. I'm not sure if you're questioning that it is a fair paraphrase of what she said in her book? That would be the only WP concern here, surely? Contradicting what is in the public record is the nature of a rebuttal by definition, but still I'm not sure anything in her account even does that: it seems to only attempt to clarify. For example, she doesn't deny that the lawyer went for supression of the photo rather than only removal of her name which she claims is all she wanted, saying that the lawyer went further than her instructions. Again: NPOV about the veracity of her rebuttal, just reporting it. Walton22 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You for helping me protect the Bloomington ECHL team page. As you can see, there's been a number of times I've had to undo edits. By chance, is there a way to extend the protection for more than 2 weeks?...Roberto221 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roberto221: Normally, the first time an article is protected, it is for a short duration in the hope that the disruptive people will leave. Wikipedia is supposed to be for anyone to edit after all, so longer-term protection is applied if disruption resumes. If it starts happening again after protection expires, drop me a note or make a request at WP:RFPP. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your input on Patsy Widakuswara and wp:lede.

I wonder - not to lengthen it, but perhaps just to clarify it, if it might not perhaps be slightly better if the sentence you added were revised as follows .. not a major point, and I am happy with whatever your judgment is.

An incident involving following VOA news director Robert R. Reilly's interview of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo resulted in her removal from the White House beat and subsequent reinstatement 11 days later.

The reason is that it all happened after the interview. At which Reilly did not allow his reporters to pose questions. Rather, it happened as Pompeo was leaving the building. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you agree, might you make the revision, to your own added sentence? Whenever I make a change, one editor seems to enjoy reverting it for some reason.2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]