User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2019


Adding nepali wikipedia

Hello sir, If I search on english wikipedia about Nepali wikipedia it will redirect us into another article please fix it and create a page on Nepali wikipedia. Thankyou पर्वत सुबेदी (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Nepali Wikipedia redirected to List of Wikipedias but I have reverted the change to a redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Global Knowlege Training

Anachronist - can you take a look here at the revision of the Global Knowledge page (talk:Global_Knowledge_Training) you removed earlier. I am trying to get this updated sufficiently to wiki-standards and then re-build it consistently to the other language versions that are living out there (ex. nl:Global Knowledge). Thx. Jobber67 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted that talk page. Please don't create it again, except in your sandbox or in draft space, and submit it for review via WP:AFC. Since you are a disclosed paid editor, that is the only venue available to you for getting any article published.
The fact that there are other language versions is completely irrelevant to the English Wikipedia. The fact is, not a single source in the original article conferred notability on the subject, and your new draft relied mostly on press releases. If you want, you can take your case to WP:DRV to get a ruling over whether my deletion was proper, but I decline to restore either the original article or the new one you created on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

PA

You might want to look at this PA which might be directed at you. — LeoFrank  Talk 14:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: Wow, pretty over-the-top response to a simple civil notice. I notice he removed it though, so no harm done. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Kirlian Photography

Hi Anachronist,

I have recently edited this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirlian_photography&action=historyu and had you redo that revision with a message that I didn`t explain what and why I edited it.

The discussion was in the talk page, (and another part of the talk page that was `archived` by someone) and I would like to have a chance to discuss with you it (since I also saw that you can interfere in third-part disputes in pages.

I will try to explain quickly, I did a first edit on the page which was then rejected and I was explained why. (Because I was disputing a source, and the fact that a (now archived) part of the talk pointed to a peer reviewed article that showed a different explanation to an afirmation on the `torn leaf` session that it self was (at the time) poiting only to a webpage with no further sources)

Since my interference (I am a new editor) was agaist the `no original research` principle (ie. I was disputing a source with a more reliable counter source) I was wrong in doing it.

However, all my addition (including source) was also taken out and the editor did an extra 2 things: added two more `sources`(link to a blog and a webpage) and removed the talk section that gave me the link in first place.

So I answered to his comment in my talk session and also edited back (also including an extra source) and then it was undone by you.

Please help me on how to keep editing it in a good way, perhaps giving me some clues about how to arrange the text (or if, I glad if you edit it yourself).

This article is a controversal topic, but I felt really bad about the fact that a scientific paper was declined in favor to a simple weblink (with no explanation on how the author knew it) and then later a very non tecnical blog entry and webpage.

I used to trust more in wikipedia as a space for open editing and open mind. But was disapointed by some of the editing choices I saw here and elsewhere. In this case I was going to dismiss this whole kirlian photography as a silly idea before I checked the talk page, saw the link, then the article, etc... Others might not be so persistent and I believe they should at least have a chance to read a different point of view and have access to better quality sources too...

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.143.115 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking back at it, I believe I reverted the edit, perhaps being too hasty, because it removed valid citations. If you restored the citations you added without removing the others, I don't think anyone would object. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Non-free text

This encyclopaedia is free. That's pretty much the most important thing about it. Have a look at the logo at the top left and you will see that. Text copied and pasted from a book is not free unless that book is freely licensed; most books are not. Non-free text can be used in Wikipedia, but only subject to strict criteria, including that a free equivalent cannot exist. Given that, and given that you appear to be an administrator, I was quite appalled by this revert and its accompanying edit summary. A quotation means that you are quoting the words that somebody said. This is done when reporting their exact words is important, and the person being quoted must be named in the text. Copying a passage verbatim from a book obviously does not count as a quotation.

Are you aware of the fact that Wikipedia is free, and of the policies applicable to non-free content? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It was appalling for you to revert validly sourced content. It was a quotation and it was cited. The solution is to fix what you see is the problem rather than removing it all outright. Also you should be discussing content matters on the article's talk page, not a user's talk page. In any case I have reverted you again and added the attribution that you couldn't be bothered to add yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
It was not a quotation. It was text copied directly from a source, presented in the voice of the encyclopaedia. I do not think you understand the concept of fair use, because although you have added inline the name of the person you are quoting, there is no reason for their words to be directly quoted, nor for a paragraph of 8 sentences to contain 4 non-free sentences. Furthermore, you left an insulting edit summary. So here are the questions you haven't yet answered, plus one more:
  1. Are you aware of the fact that Wikipedia is free?
  2. Are you aware of the policies applicable to non-free content?
  3. Are you aware that personal attacks are not acceptable?
37.152.231.125 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It was a quotation of a passage in a book, and is now properly attributed to the author. Do you even understand the concept of fair use? According to 17 U.S. Code § 107, uses of copyrighted material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." An encyclopedia article serves multiple of those functions. As for the edit summary, I apologize if it came across as an attack but your approach struck me as lazy; you couldn't be bothered to fix it but you could be bothered to complain. Have a look at WP:SOFIXIT. If you still object to the use of the quotation, then paraphrase it. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
From your failure to answer the simple questions, it's clear that you don't appreciate the importance of free content and you don't understand the applicable policies. The first criterion that must be fulfilled for non-free content to be used is that no free equivalent can be available.
And what a laughable Non-apology apology. You left that edit summary explicitly to insult me because you didn't like the edit I made, and then you have repeated the insult here. Stop making personal attacks. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I'll answer your simple question: Yes, I have a better understanding of the policies here than you do, based on your responses. And you have failed to understand the basic concept of fair use.
The facts are: (a) You made what appeared to be a disruptive edit, removing a sourced quotation rather than fixing it up, destroying the context of the paragraph. You are quite correct, "I didn't like" the edit, for valid reasons that I have spent enough time explaining. (b) The writings of an expert in the field, in this case a notable medieval scholar, have no free equivalent, and your argument along that line constitutes a red herring. (c) Sure, the text could have (and should have) been paraphrased by whoever introduced that material initially. You are welcome to be bold and do that if you want. I'm satisfied that as it stands, there is neither a copyright nor policy violation. And finally (d) I was willing to assume in my first revert that you simply were in a hurry and made a quick correction, but after you re-deleted it and elected to lecture me at length about it rather than fixing it yourself, you gave the unmistakable impression that your removal of well-sourced content was simply laziness on your part, and my next edit summary called it like I saw it. Given that you decline to accept my apology, I gladly retract it. Bottom line: If you aren't satisfied with the text, then fix it, but deleting it is disruptive, bordering on vandalism.
You may have the last word, I see no need to reply further. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Review Eclipse Theia

Thank you very much for defending my deleted article. Too bad it can't be restored. But anyways I am working now on a different article and it would be great if you can have a look at it and give me some feedback. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eclipse_Theia Thanks in advance ChristinFrohne (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well... It isn't clear to me why the topic merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Beyond a description of the product, how is it notable? How does it meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria? You might want to look at the essay Wikipedia:Notability (software). Your citations need to reference significant coverage (not trivial mentions) by reliable sources (generally not blogs) that are independent of the topic (not press releases, reviews, partner sites, sales sites, documentation). Your sources also need to support the statements that cite those sources; this isn't clear in some cases.
Please have a look at Wikipedia:Golden rule to get a brief overview of what's expected before an article can be accepted for publication in main article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

<shrugs> meh ...

What happens after an edit is submitted. I don’t mean about the editor’s process. Is there any further dialogue? If the edit does not appear on the article over what period of time, am I to assume it was rejected? for spelling errors? faulty sources? <shrugs> meh ... ?

Will there be an explanatory email. Any chance to re-edit my submitted edit? The writing world wants to know.

Thanks, Brenda Brenda S of the PW (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, you could look at the edit summary in the article history. What you added wasn't even about the topic of the article, and amounted to original research, which Wikipedia can't publish. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

5 Sigma

In your standard deviations page you say this:

In experimental science, a theoretical model of reality is used. Particle physics conventionally uses a standard of "5 sigma" for the declaration of a discovery.[8] A five-sigma level translates to one chance in 3.5 million that a random fluctuation would yield the result. This level of certainty was required in order to assert that a particle consistent with the Higgs boson had been discovered in two independent experiments at CERN,[9] and this was also the significance level leading to the declaration of the first detection of gravitational waves.[10]

I was trying to correct your 5 sigma claim, and you said this:

"that has nothing to do with confidence level in particle physics, which is what the sentence is about"

When you say a five-sigma level translates to one chance in 3.5 million, where are you getting this from?

I'm honestly trying to understand what the terms 1 sigma, 2 sigma, etc etc mean in general (not specifically for particle physics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabard83 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dabard83: The context of that paragraph was particle physics, and the standard of confidence in that field is 5σ according to the cited source http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=103 which says that's equivalent to a probability of 1 in 3.5 million.
Now, I agree that is confusing, because the table in the standard deviation article says that the tails of the gaussian distribution outside of 5σ from the mean is 1/1.74 million, which is double 1/3.5 million. The "1 in 3.5 million" figure appears to refer to the part of the distribution beyond 5σ for one of the tails.
I have asked for clarification on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Im new

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/world/europe/18dutch.html This is my source. The other text didn't seem right I didn't want to use that source. Omrii (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Omrii: That's fine, and welcome to Wikipedia.
That material is unrelated to the topic of the New Atheism article where you put it, so it doesn't belong there. The point you were making is already covered in the article Ayaan Hirsi Ali. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Wilhelm Rojas/Pacifica Forum

A tag has been placed on User:Wilhelm Rojas/Pacifica Forum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: You tagged the wrong user. I didn't create that. Notice the file name? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No Twinkle tagged you and you did create the page years ago moving the page from Mainspace to Userspace. Don't worry about it. It was POV pushing junk. Legacypac (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a main space article with the same title, with substantially identical content. I honestly don't remember how it got to that fellow's user space or what I was thinking when I moved it. There's some discussion about that revision at Talk:Pacifica Forum/Archive 1#Proposed re-write. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

Hello Anachronist. Am thinking of trying to improve and add information to this article and you seem to be involved and knowledgeable so I hope you don't mind me asking you some questions about the article.

  • what constitutes criticism? What's appropriate to put in the article? In the lede it mentions "Questions relating to the authenticity and morality of the Quran ... scientific errors adding allegations of contradictions in the Quran while questioning interpretations of its moral and ethical message."
    • but how about questions, puzzles, difficulties? things that don't imply rejection, attack, etc. "Literary criticism" is "the art or practice of judging and commenting on the qualities and character" of the literature being criticized. More like analysis. For example, in the work What the Koran Really Says, the editor lists words, phrases, sentences, passages in the Quran "whose meaning is not certain", clear, or thought to be interpolations, etc. Should/can that be included in the article as well? So far as I know wikipedia has no guidelines on this.
  • Article is tagged "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents...." but I could find no discussion, no expansion on what was missing in the talk page. Did I miss it? Or should I just go through the body of the article, find what's missing and add it to the lede?
  • what's up with the long quote at the beginning of Criticism_of_the_Quran#Historical_authenticity? About how some "...have alleged tampering with the original texts. But the argument is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is in fact what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words". No intro. no context. Sounds like a drive-by defense of the Quran that no one bothered to delete. Am I missing something? or is it a ?

Cheers, BoogaLouie (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

These observations and questions really belong on the talk page. Regarding your first question, in my view, criticism falls into two categories: Thoughtful or scholarly analysis that has been reported or cited in reliable sources, and non-expert commentary by notable or influential people that has been reported in reliable sources. We can include both kinds, with an emphasis on the former. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll put it on the talk page --207.225.131.140 (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You removed my addition

Hey there, I added a controversy about Quran criticism. Basically, there is a lot of controversy and this verse is cited everywhere. Wikipedia does not require references on subjects that are generally very known, as this particular subject is... The same principle applies to the articles about the Internal consistency of the Bible... ADDITIONALLY, I cited a famous Hadith that shows how critics used to ask this same question since early times. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page. And see WP:BURDEN, which you have not met. You cited primary sources. You need to cite actual critics or scholarly works, not make vague claims about subjects being "generally well known". Also what may exist in other articles has no bearing on this one. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Jean Mill

Please excuse me if this is not an appropriate question. I saw your post on the afd page regarding this article. Is there a way to put the article into Draft now, as you suggested? It has been swarmed since I posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and it will surely be 86'd until it can be reworked or new sources can be found. I sure stepped in it when I posted there. A bit like poking a bee hive or pulling a tiger's tail. Than you in advance Lubbad85 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lubbad85: You could ask the nominator SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) to consider withdrawing the nomination and move it to draft for improvement. I don't believe there is consensus either to keep or delete or redirect. As I said in the AFD, this could be a keeper but it didn't seem ready for main space to me. Draft space is the right place for it, in my opinion. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I will likely let it go. I got married to the article after the research work, and now I need to get a divorce. You are a very helpful administrator on Wikipedia. Thank you! Lubbad85 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
A userspace draft is a better bet. Too many times there are proposals to do thing like "delete all draft-namespace pages more than X months old", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: As there is no consensus, if you express a willingness to withdraw the nomination, I can ask another admin to userfy the article and close the discussion. I couldn't do it because I voted already. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It's fine to add a followup "re-!vote". I did, earlier today, suggesting userspacing. An AfD like this can't be withdrawn, because it has significant pro and con commentary already (it's out of my hands). Withdrawals are done with there's a WP:SNOWBALL response. Anyway, even if it closes with delete, you can use WP:REFUND to get a userspace copy restored anyway. There's no real risk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

keep it up

The Barnstar of Diligence
Keep up the excellent Wikipedia work! Lubbad85 (☎) 02:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gayla Industries

Hello, Anachronist. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gayla Industries".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks, I completely forgot about that. I've moved it to main space as a stub. Maybe someone with Lexis/Nexis access can find more sources, most of which would pre-date the internet. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng

Hello! About six months ago, I made a few COI edit requests over at Talk:Calvin Cheng. There was a bit of a debate about next steps and some discussion of opening an RFC. If I were to open said RFC, would you be open to participating in it? I don't want to wikilawyer this one, so I'm perfectly happy to drop it if you think there's no room for improvement. (I haven't started a new contract with Mr. Cheng; I'm just exploring the possibility at this stage.) But since the discussion was left unresolved, I wanted to get your opinion. Thanks so much for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@MaryGaulke: Yes, I would be willing to participate. As I recall, the contention was about adding one well-sourced line about motivations. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! I'll ping you when I open the RFC. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:IT 4.0

Hello, Anachronist. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "IT 4.0".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Hi, could you perhaps remove indefinite protection from Technical Guruji? The reason for this protection no longer seems to apply: a valid article has existed at Gaurav Chaudhary since last September so a redirect should now be created. See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 21#Technical Guruji (YouTube channel). Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@PC78: Honestly, that article looks like a ripe candidate for deletion. I don't see multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. But until it's deleted again, I'll go ahead and create the redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've got no opinion on that article one way or the other, though I note that it did survive an AfD discussion back in October. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

List of Oldest Breweries of Canada listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Oldest Breweries of Canada. Since you had some involvement with the List of Oldest Breweries of Canada redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

nurse shark

Hi, I've removed your last edit as the wiki page already states the following: 

Maximum adult length is currently documented as 3.08 m (10.1 ft), whereas past reports of 4.5 m (15 ft) and corresponding weights of up to 330 kg (730 lb) are likely to have been exaggerated.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucoin (talk • contribs)

@Saucoin: I don't see what you removed. You haven't reverted any change I made. I removed a line added by an anonymous IP that stated "However, typically they can grow up to 14 ft in length", which contradicted a prior sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Ah..! My bad. We must've done the changes at the same time and I mistook you for the person who added that redundancy. Thanks.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alfred Music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletions from Talk

Your deletion of an editor’s comments - inappropriate though they were - come as a surprise to me. I have not seen this before. Strikethroughs yes, but not deletions. I asked you to point me to the policies that condone this on Talk, but what you pointed me to seem only targeted to article space. Doing this on Talk is not mentioned. Deleting text left by an editor- rather than replying to it - seems contrary to the spirit of of transparency intended for these discussion spaces. RobP (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rp2006: The fact that you are surprised doesn't mean it isn't a standard practice. Reversion of talk page commentary is commonplace. Talk pages are not forum discussions. WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALKNO are very clear on this; they don't apply to just article space if you read them closely. Drive-by comments that merely complain, engage in speculation about individuals, and make rhetorical points that don't merit a reply, are inappropriate for talk pages.
From WP:NOTAFORUM: "...bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article... Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines."
And from the talk page guidelines, specifically WP:TALKNO: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it."
The author of that comment was venting, concluding with a sour-grapes comment about Wikipedia in general. That has no place on an article talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Please point out how your revert is covered under WP:TPO which specifically covers editing other’s comments on Talk pages. It does NOT seem to be one of allowed exceptions to the “don’t do it” general rules listed. RobP (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The part about off-topic posts: "It is common to simply delete ... comments or discussion clearly about the article subject itself...."
And especially this bit: "Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary." Sockpuppetry also extends to meatpuppetry. This is a WP:DUCK case of meatpuppetry. Paulides has campaigned on his own blog to get his fans to disrupt or whitewash his Wikipedia article and its talk page. The comment was basically trolling and ranting, it got no replies, and it seemed obvious that this drive-by comment by an IP address having zero other contributions was just another meatpuppetry occurence.
The removal was justified. The IP was using the talk page as a discussion forum to leave a drive-by rant, intending disruption. Therefore I deleted it. It's presence is nothing more than disruptive trolling, and I see absolutely no value to the Wikipedia project in restoring it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about template

Hi, Anachronist - when you get a chance, will you drop-in on the UTP of PauBatlleV and fill us in on your intended use of the Template:SealifePhotos? Atsme Talk 📧 04:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I had no idea there would be any controversy about that. The intended use should be obvious, to provide a templated way to link to an available biological information resource page, like we do with others. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — xaosflux Talk 15:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_to_override_Global_range_block. — xaosflux Talk 15:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I replied there. The editor's previous communication with me is two sections above this one. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Nine years of adminship

Wishing Anachronist a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Singapore

Singapore, an article you have significantly edited, has been nominated for Good Article. It seems possible for it to become a Good Article, though it needs tidying up. If you are interested in helping out, see the review: Talk:Singapore/GA3. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

ECP for MCG Health

IMHO, ECP for MCG Health is inappropriate per the criteria for ECP as semi-protection or blocks have not been attempted. Please adjust accordingly. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's odd. I got an error message when I set that protection, so I just assumed it didn't take, and moved on. I've corrected it. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
*Tips his hat* Have a good day, sir. Buffs (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

unblock

Hi Anachronist

I am the italian user from ip range 151.48.0.0/17 who asked to review block settings and i think we talked via mail because it is you who changed the block settings to allow account creation locally

Actually to create this account i am using right now i had to connect from another ip range because if i try creating an account in en.wikipedia.org from the blocked ip range the following message appears

'Editing from your IP address range (151.48.0.0/17) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 19:38, 13 December 2019 by Masti (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason:

Cross-wiki spam: spambot

This block began on 19:38, 13 June 2019'

After creating an account by bypassing this block as i did i am actually able to log in and edit from the blocked ip range but to do this a user has to bybass the block somehow first to create an account

I had already reported such information to Just Chilling who talked with me via mail too and he said it must be a glitch...i thought you were the best person to report this glitch because it is you who changed the block settings to allow account creation

Anyway i still believe that the block settings were made in the oposite way they should have been

Since the reason of the steward's global block was a user who created several accounts from this ip range just to spam messages ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/Masti&offset=20190615224135&limit=20 ) the way this block works does not protect wikipedia from the vandal's spam because he could do as i did to create new accounts to spam but just prevents good unregistered users connecting from this ip range to help with their constructive contributions

Why are anonymous users who had not done anything wrong blocked while the cause of the block that is an abuse in account creation allowed ?

Semplicemente Agghiacciante — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk • contribs) 11:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm glad you were able to create an account.
I can change block settings on the English Wikipedia only. I cannot do it globally or cross-wiki. It seems that the global IP block settings override anything I can do here, so my change to allow account creation would have no effect as long as the global block is in place.
Any time a range block is put in place, there will be collateral damage (that is, legitimate anonymous editors will be affected). The person who blocked the range globally had to make a judgment about the net benefit of blocking the range. If more spambot activity than legitimate activity is present on that range, then blocking the range is an obvious response. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes i know that you are not a steward so you can change only local settings but not global settings

It is strange that your local unblock can not override the global block because it is normally possible

I take an example from it.wikipedia.org where i stay most of time

The italian ip range 5.90.0.0/16 ( https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/5.90.0.0/16 ) is globally blocked but locally unblocked in fact it is locally active despite the global block

Could you ask someone else about this glitch in en.wikipedia.org so that the block can be actually removed locally please ?

Semplicemente Agghiacciante — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I am not sure where to ask. You might try looking at Wikipedia:Village pump. The "Technical" or "Miscellaneous" page might be a good place to post your concern. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I will try there

Thanks Anachronist !

Semplicemente Agghiacciante — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist

After a week another user answered my question at Wikipedia:Village Pump

He made me notice that the original global block by the steward was recreated identically for some reason by another steward and this might have overwritten your local unblock

If it is possible could you do the same thing again ?

I mean can you modify the local block settings making them exactly as they are now in en.wikipedia.org ?

This should fix this sort of a glitch and would let users from this ip range create accounts which was your intent when you set the local block !

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

The current setting on 151.48.0.0/17 is to disallow editing but allow account creation.
I have reblocked it with the same settings although I don't know if that will make a difference. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you !

You have done exactly what the other user suggested me to ask you

Unfortunately this did not fix the glitch because the global block still prevents me from creating an account when i try

I think there is no chance to fix whatever this error is

Thanks anyway for trying

Just one last thing

You have blocked the ip range until 30 december 2019 at 17:07 while before it was blocked until 13 december 2019 at 19:38

Can you change one last time the setting in order to restore the previous expiration time ?

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

Done. The block will expire on 13 December 2019. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Perfect !

Thanks again for taking care of this case and for your patience (-:

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

Hi again Anachronist

I have noticed this morning that you added a message to my request in the requests page

If you just did not know how to override a global block another user told you how to do it so the question is if you want to do it or not

I do not want to open another request for the third time where they tell me to call on you for this so i am asking directly to you if you could do it or not

Sorry for disturbing you again but i hope this is the last time !

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

Thanks for figuring this out. We have had no other complaints besides yours about the inability to create accounts in this range, and the problem has been solved for you. Therefore my inclination is to accept my own prior experiment in overriding the block as a failure, and let the block play out. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I will not insist on asking you to unblock the ip range but i will try asking someone else

Just tell me one thing that i have not understood

You see no reason to unblock this range because i was the only person who asked you this even in the range has been used very often before the block as you could see by watching its last contributions

But is there any reason in your opinion to keep it blocked till december ?

I have explained how en.wikipedia.org does not run any risk if the ip range was unblocked so why keeping it blocked ?

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

Considering that there are only another pair of months to the end of the block i think i can wait till it ends automatically

Thank you for paying attention to this case so far !

Semplicemente Agghiacciante — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk • contribs) 08:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Javed Chaudhry

Help, moving the page: Javed Chaudhry (journalist) → Javed Chaudhry. Störm (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Störm: That looks more like a candidate for speedy deletion. No evidence of notability was ever presented in the deleted version that is now create-protected, and the current revision doesn't even provide an assertion of significance, which makes it a speedy deletion candidate. Are you sure you don't want it moved to draft space instead, where it won't be deleted? ~Anachronist (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stanton Chase

Notice

The article Stanton Chase has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I did not create that article. Please notify the creator. If it were up to me, I'd delete it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for your hard work and dedication! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Muhammad timeline in Mecca

I wish to request the unprotection of the above, which has been protected for nearly a year. When I made the same request of EdJohnston two weeks ago in respect of Battle of Badr he advised me to specify exactly what I wanted changed. So here are the details:

Delete

|-

| style="text-align:right;" |c. 570

|Possible date of birth: 12 or 17 Rabi al Awal: in Mecca Arabia

|-

and replace it with:

|-

| style="text-align:right;" |570

| Date of birth: Monday, 12 Rabi al Awal: in Mecca Arabia (2 June)[1]

|-

References

  1. ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica (4 November 2019). Muhammad Prophet of Islam. Retrieved 23 November 2019. The date 8 June given by Sayyid Ali Ashgar Razwy in The Birth of Muhammad and the Early years of his Life is the date of his death.
Whatever goes in that template needs to be in line with what the Muhammad article says about his birth, and currently the article lacks such detail as you want to add to the template.
I suggest opening a discussion on Talk:Muhammad to get consensus for your proposed change. Note that the topic has come up before, so you may want to search and review past discussions.
I'll leave the protection in place for now. cc @EdJohnston: FYI. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)