Thanks for your input in resolving issues on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Jordan_(artist).
I hadn't logged-in for awhile, so missed your request on talk page for identifying secondary sources. Apologies about that. I have now provided examples of secondary sources on talk page, plus a new citation (secondary source) has been added to a Guardian review of the artist's film Concrete Forms of Resistance.
Other citations (eg 1, 2, 3, 4, 8...) are secondary sources, independent of the subject or venue, such as reviews in professional contemporary art journals and film magazine publications etc.
Hope this answers your question and addresses notability requirements. If you have time to check the page for any other issue, such as neutrality, that would be much appreciated. I feel these templates are somewhat undermining the page's content and I'm anxious for it to be improved and all Wiki guidelines met. Many thanks again for any help in resolving this. Jorbert30 (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a rule: Assume good faith. That is what I did in your case to get you unblocked. the scenario you describe is unlikely to happen.
We have administrators with checkuser privileges, which include a number of technical tools to determine which accounts are operated by the same person. You were open and transparent about having two accounts, so there was no need to involve a checkuser admin. If you weren't transparent about it, someone would have opened a sockpuppet investigation and a checkuser would have determined that both accounts are operated by the same person. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Wikipedia had a feature in which full-protection reverts back to the previous state once it expires. Thanks. Administrator Favonian already restored indef semi on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could I get you to reverse your decision to lower the protection level of Qing dynasty? The sockpuppeteer who made that protection necessary is is PhαΊ‘m VΔn RαΊ‘ng, who is still very active (see SPI). Their most recent sock, BakaMH980, was blocked less than two weeks ago, and posted to the article's talk page, so it seems likely that they will continue disrupting the article if given the chance. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to wait. The request was made by user Minecraft6532, who as far as I can tell isn't a sockpuppet. I don't feel that the article should be brought back to ECP pre-emptively, I'd rather wait to restore ECP in the event disruption resumes. The article is on my watchlist. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to push further on this, but I don't see "because someone asked" as being sufficient justification for reducing the protection level, when that request was based on a factual error (the presumption that the sockpuppetry had stopped), and especially not when there's clear evidence that protection was still necessary very recently. I'm assuming you were unaware BakaMH980's posts to the talk page. I'm not asking you to preemptively protect a page out of nowhere here, I'm asking that you recognize that you made decision without being aware of all of the relevant facts, and to reverse that decision accordingly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I did not know the history of this sockmaster, I observed that the sockpuppets were blocked, the edit filter log showed nothing since protection was applied, and new sockpuppets would still be prevented from editing by semiprotection, and ECP should not be permanent in most cases ("indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite"). Those are the relevant facts. Therefore I felt it was worth trying semiprotection. I'd appreciate if you refrain from presuming to know the mind of another administrator that led to this decision to reduce protection, and instead assume good faith that the decision wasn't made in ignorance.
If you look at my history of protection, you will see that I err on the high side compared to other administrators, usually applying more protection than others would think necessary. Indef ECP did not seem necessary here. I could have applied an end date, but I figured we might as well try indef semi instead.
You have the ability to restore ECP and I won't object if you do, although I point out, again, that we don't protect pages pre-emptively. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trickle-down economics addition
I found a Thomas Sowell quote on trickle-down economics and added it to the article for context. You deleted it saying: "this article is about the term, and doesn't refer to a 'theory'. All Sowell says is that no economist ever advanced such a theory." However, the article clearly discusses the theory, not just the term. Nevertheless, I reposted a link to the Sowell quote, focusing only on his specific criticism of the term. Yet you deleted that, as well, and protected the article from further edits. None of this seems justified. RCJournal902 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been reverted by multiple editors. Make your case on the page Talk:Trickle-down economics. The word "theory" occurs only in quotations. Not only is Sowell making a straw-man argument (arguing with the Pope, who isn't an economist), but you also violated WP:LEAD by putting the passage in the wrong place, and using WP:PEACOCK terms in it. None of that is acceptable. The article was protected due to disruption from multiple IP addresses, not just yours. Please follow WP:BRD as a best practice in the future. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think economists recognize the concept as a political policy position and no economist has ever advanced it as a "theory". There's room for expanding on this point in the body of the article, and briefly mentioning it in the lead section. You just went about it in the wrong way. I suggest you propose such a change on the article talk page so others can review and discuss it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You replaced text and removed a citation, leaving it completely uncited, while failing to explain each of your edits in an edit summary. That's why. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: However; after. 50 years of research on this topic, I have never seen a comment, of value, that GAC was βineptβ - whereas my edit can be verified as fact .
Nonetheless, Iβve ordered the Ambrose book and weβll see where his source is from and if it has merit. I suspect this conversation is not over so do be prepared... Β :) 96.230.248.215 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion or dispute about the content. I reverted you for the reasons I explained. Rewrite it while citing a reliable source and use an edit summary, and you won't be reverted. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Violence against women during partition
Hello, I saw you undid my edit. The estimates of the abducted vary, you can see the violence and estimate section that some authors state that more women were abducted in Pakistan and some others say more women were abducted in India. So it's wrong to say that the no. of women abducted in East Punjab was twice the number of women abducted in West Punjab. Lalitadityaaa (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Anachronist - just following up again as a new citation (secondary source) has been added, linking to a Guardian review of the film Concrete Forms of Resistance on Nick Jordan (artist). I've also answered your question on the article's talk page, explaining that many of the other citations (eg 1, 2, 3, 4, 8...) are secondary sources, independent of the subject or venue, such as reviews in professional contemporary art journals and film magazine publications etc. I believe these are all reliable, independent sources and meet the Wikipedia: Golden Rule. Please let me know if you think this is not the case.
There are also no specific, editable COI issues flagged, so please could you or an editor re-review and remove the templates, as per the guidelines. That would be much appreciated. Many thanks again for your help in improving the page. Jorbert30 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He lied. The IPs he slandered were the ones updated the article and added results, which he doesn't. What he said is rather a content dispute. He refused to discuss anything, either in talk page or even in edit summary. I said "refer to 2006 FIFA World Cup" but he reverted without comments or any reason to justify his version which contained piping Wikilinks. 49.157.47.46 (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any vandalism, and honestly I don't see any revert warring. Why are you failing to discuss anything on the article talk page? Instead you both bring your dispute to my talk page? That isn't where it belongs. It seems you are both willing to communicate with me. I suggest you communicate with each other on the article talk page. Bear in mind that if the article is protected, neither of you would be able to edit it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works in a content dispute. I can protect the page so you cannot edit it along with an IP address, or I can block you both for warring. Again, go to the article talk page (which you haven't bothered to do yet) and start discussing your dispute rather than shopping for an administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is true. I don't get a sense that most of the people coming here to publicise themselves or the affairs think they're breaking any rules: the internet is for promoting yourself, and Wikipedia is not only part of the internet, but one of the most prominent parts. Naturally, they suppose that getting yourself on Wikipedia is an important step in selling yourself. (Of course, they also often fail to recognise that they are engaged in promotion at all).
We understand what Wikipedia is not, but I don't believe that most people do - even people who at one level value Wikipedia's neutrality have likely never thought about what it takes to maintain that neutrality.
I know that when I see attempts to promote via Wikipedia I often get annoyed and want to shout at them, but I get that out of my system before replying, because I'm convinced that in most cases they have no reason to realise thay're doing anything wrong. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of that. I was trying to explain why newcomers intending to promote something can be greeted in a non-friendly way. I should have said that it's my own hypothesis that the regulars here feel that being new is no excuse for ignorance because Wikipedia has been around for so long and the purpose of Wikipedia is so widely known. It doesn't help that there are hundreds of scammers spreading the message that promotion is what Wikipedia is for. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get together
What could be better than beer or coffee with a fellow Silicon Valley old dude? I work in Mountain View and live in Los Altos, and can meet anywhere, but one of my favorite go-to places in the Computer History Museum, where I'm meeting an old friend this afternoon. They have a couple of new displays this month that include some of my stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. What do you have on display?
I've always wondered if the Computer History Museum could use my old Amiga 1000, complete with external memory and hard drive. I learned C, C++, and real-time programming on that machine. Last time I fired it up 20 years ago, it still worked. It's finicky though, need to let it get warm before inserting the boot disk, probably due to something loose on the daughterboard. It's been in a storage room.
I don't know if they have beer there (but they do across the street), and I didn't mean you should join me this afternoon, but yes, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday are possible, or next week Wed or Thurs (AM) when they open again. You can search their collection, e.g. for Amiga 1000. I can introduce you to a docent if one is around, and you can see if there's any interest in more of that. October specials are described here; I have some of my things in both the "Mice" and "Ears" displays. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hi - I see that you've undone all my reverts to the editor who removed all mention of Issue One from the articles of its members on the basis that the source fails verification, but the source is Issue One's own website. Could you please let me know what your reasoning is here? Theknightwho (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any mention of the names on the cited web page. Only after I reverted most of your edits, I noticed a button that displays the names. I started reverting myself at that point, but family matters got in the way and I was unable to complete it. I hope to get back to correcting all of this later tonight.
@Anachronist Thanks for self-reverting. You may be right about them having difficulties, but do note that they wrongly marked all their edits as minor, and gave the misleading edit summary "Cleaned up opening to bio" for a bunch of them, so I think they knew they weren't supposed to be removing them. Theknightwho (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! That went much quicker than I expec ted, because I could just roll back each of my edits without manually typing an edit summary each time. I believe I got them all. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and about "cleaned up opening bio", that would have been correct if removing the statement about Issue One from the lead. And the statement doesn't belong in the lead, and would be correctly removed, if it isn't mentioned in the article body. I didn't check all of the cases, I just reverted every one of my edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wrote an article about rapper Kilo G, but when I went to contribute it, I was notified that the page was locked because it was previously deleted and if I'd like to contribute it, I should reach out to the deleting administrator (you). The deletion log said it was deleted for being a copy/paste from another website, and my version is different. I'm new to editing wikipedia hope this is the right place ot make this requestΒ ! Ts4ts4ever (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No administrator would undelete a copyright infringement. So my answer to your section heading is "no".
The path forward is for you to create a draft and submit it for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation for instructions. I do not see any draft about Kilo G in your contribution history.
By submitting a draft for review, the reviewer can verify that your version doesn't have any of the problems of the prior versions, and that the concerns in the deletion discussion have been addressed. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you want, you can notify me before you submit the draft for review and I'm happy to look it over and give you feedback before a reviewer sees it. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your comment was very helpful, after reading it I learned about the draft process and also creating drafts of pages on my user subpage which I wasn't aware of. Would love to get your feedback as I do not write very often and have never written for wikipedia. Here's my draft - User:Ts4ts4ever/kilog. Thanks againΒ ! Ts4ts4ever (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it over, made a few minor changes, and added a link to Google Books for the first cited source, which establishes WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2. Good work overall, but it needs a bit more work. I didn't look closely at all the cited sources, but I tagged two of them that failed to verify the claims in the sentences that cite them. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you havenβt yet had a chance, there is still time to participateβ weβd truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Hello. I would like to inquire if it would be a good idea to try unprotection of Maon Kurosaki, especially that it's been almost two years since her death and I imagine whoever was disrupting the article may have lost interest by now. I brought this up on WP:RFUP but you rejected it as premature. Now that the election has passed, I wonder if it may be an appropriate time to at least try unprotection, if not pending changes protection, without prejudice against re-protection if disruption continues. If you cannot unprotect yourself, would it be fine to ask a second opinion from a different sysop, or would it be a bad idea to request it now? I understand that you said to wait another year, but that seems too long a wait and I feel like sufficient time has passed anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk Β· contributions) 01:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the protecting administrator. The last one who applied protection to Maon Kurosaki was Courcelles, who protected it as an arbitration enforcement action because COVID-19 is a contentious topic, and still is, regardless of whether an election has passed.
.jpg)
