New editor respectfully requesting your advice regarding addressing issues raised in templates for article. As noted in Dave Carley talk page Thanks in advance.
That's why I left the welcome message instead as I didn't leave an edit summary (I usually do). Doh, I'm blaming a sticky finger and ice cream. Knitsey (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you stood a good chance of being elected. It's hard to know what the reasons for the opposition were without the discussion part but I hope you're not disheartened. I would say give it a few months and then drop me a line if you're looking for a nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?23:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very good of you to reach out, thank you. I'm not disheartened, it was evidently a tougher test than many people were expecting and I probably just need to wait a few months. The discussion did give me some ideas for things to improve on too, so it was productive in that way. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably doesn't mean much, but I voted for you and I was suprised you didn't get through. I hope you give it another go soon. Knitsey (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The election format adds to the unpredictability, which has pros and cons. The bottom third looked pretty much how I expected, there were a few (pleasant) surprises in the top third. It's hard to know if the opposition in the middle was to the candidates or the process or something else. I'd like to see the experiment repeated with a smaller field and a bit more discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concern Regarding Sourcing and Accuracy on Timothy Hollingsworth's Page
Subject: Concern Regarding Sourcing and Accuracy on Timothy Hollingsworth's Page**
Dear AntiDionysius
I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out regarding a recent edit made to the Wikipedia page for Timothy Hollingsworth. I noticed that some statements added to the page lack proper sourcing or rely on unreliable sources, which could potentially lead to misleading or defamatory information about the individual.
Given the sensitivity of editing pages for living people, I’d like to respectfully ask if the statements could be revisited, ensuring that all claims are backed by reliable, verifiable sources that meet Wikipedia’s content standards. Specifically, it would be helpful if you could provide more robust citations to support any contentious or potentially harmful claims.
If you'd like, I’m happy to assist in finding appropriate sources or discussing the changes further to ensure the page remains accurate and fair.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Dear AntiDionysius, I just read your message regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QLever . The current version (before my edit and after you reverted it), is a good start, but contains various errors and inaccuraries, which I tried to correct. I also tried to improve the readability and added various missing references. Since I am involved with QLever, you suggested that I "draft the revised article, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it." I would be happy to do that, but I don't understand what exactly I should do, especially since I already wrote a revision. Was there an option to "recommend it as a draft" instead of publishing it? And why was it not an option to revise what I wrote (in case you thought that something needs revision), instead of fully reverting it? Hannah Bast (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You!
I like how you tried to help me. And do you know how to make suitable references for the topic "Talking Tom". Let me know from my talk page. -FBIGUY81
Well, it seems from Draft:Talking Tom that you don't have a problem formatting references, so I'm guessing you mean actually finding references in the first place? Well, Google is your friend in this regard, particularly Google News. This page on reliable sources will help you identify which websites you find are useable on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, news articles from reputable publications are always useful. --AntiDionysius (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Elnäthar page deletion
Hello,
I'm adding that page, as the micronation I run, It's a draft, so i'm working on it.
So why did it get deleated? I still not understand, I do not try to desinform anyone, If you want, I can send you the link to the web and to the Microwiki (a wiki of micronations)
Thank you. BielBX2010 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; it got deleted because draft pages are places for writing potential future Wikipedia articles, and what you were writing was a work of fiction which is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there are more micronations on wikipedia (Here are some of them: List of micronations)
So, are they fiction too? So why they do not get deleated but mine yes?
Because what you wrote was in-universe, phrased as if this country is a real place. Those articles you're referring to are about micronation projects, describing how people have created them.
Hi @AntiDionysius! Hey I found out that Talking Hank likes making T.S.B's. And am I a good friendly guy because I am. -FBIGUY81
Cailey Fleming
I see that you canceled the vandalism of the user with IP 46.7.118.168, this person has been changing the actress' date of birth for at least a year, even though she was born on March 28, which she confirmed in an interview that is no longer available, only on her Instagram, while that user (46.7.118.168) keeps changing without any justification to March 25 for the purpose of vandalism, if you can, block the possibility of changes, thanks 81.15.175.232 (talk) 00:27, 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 haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d 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,
I'm writing to you as Harmen's older sister. I've been asked to contact the people editing this article, as it contains an incredibly vast amount of information, some of which is uncomfortable to us as a family to be shared. I understand mentioning the death of my father to a certain degree, though it is not necessarily information the public has to know, but in previous editions it mentioned both myself, as well as my sister in law and nephew by name. I've contacted editors of the page previously about removing these, but using the tweet as source material linked gives the public very wide access to the name of a minor. It would be very much appreciated to remove this as a source, and simply not mention the name of my nephew, who is a minor. 46.29.241.16 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make your edit summary okay. If you have an issue with something another user has done, go talk to them in a civil and constructive manner. Don't leave insulting edit summaries. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi - you have included incorrect information about the former CEO of Air Mauritius. I am his lawyer and will take legal action should you continue to undo my changes. Thank you 147.161.172.199 (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@147.161.172.199 Wait what sorry I didn't do anything and if I did I'm sorry I was checking out the edits feature and I don't actually know any info on the former CEO. But you could've asked me instead of being so rude. I'm sorry damn chill out. Zonklify (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@188.150.7.54, I didn't delete it, I just reverted your edits. The text you wrote is still available in the page's history.
Generally speaking it is a good idea to either add in sources as you write (indeed, good practice on Wikipedia is to find sources and construct your text from them, not to write text and then find sources to fit it) or if you feel very much that you need to add the sources in a separate edit, to put a note in the edit summary of your initial edit indicating you're not finished. --AntiDionysius (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information about udham singh on wikipedia have some big mistakes.Because the books that are referenced about him on wikipedia are wrong. udham Singh's family want to help from wikipedia to publish Wright article.please help
I would like to dispute the removal of my edits on Martin Kulldorff. I extensively cited my sentences using links. If it was not sufficient to provide the links in-line, that I can understand, and can write citations in the references section. However, I don't think it is a fair characterization of my words to say I invented the sentences that I wrote - they characterize Kulldorff's real participation in a supreme court case in an attempt to show he was censored when he actually had plenty of opportunities to share his point of view on sympathetic media channels. I am trying to point out that he is not correctly characterizing his censorship. GarconCanadien (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My MIAR entry for the talk page of the Telos article
Your deletion of my entry about the Spanish bibliometry research unit at Barcelona University is in the final analysis simply totalitarian - you remove an important information simply because the information simply because the information doesn’t fit your world view Frete unicolore (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I heeded your advice. In objective terms, the problem remains that the serious scholarly evidence provided by the team of Spanish bibliometry researchers cannot be overlooked here. The MIAR team published widely ob the subject, and a Wikipedia editor cannot brush away years of research with a word … Apart from that: did you look at all these interesting articles in TELOS? Frete unicolore (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
by the way: Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J. M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall's list. El profesional de la información, 25(5). Frete unicolore (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: Suzanne Blier page vandalism
Hi - thx for leaving me a message. The content that's been added/removed/readded/etc on Suzanne Blier's page was a personal attack consisting of material taken out of context from local website. This appears to be a violation of Wikipedia's personal attacks policy. This odd attack is likely being done a member of a group opposing some of her local personal work. It's my understanding that as a well-known/respected Harvard professor, author, and authority on art history, an article about her should be about her professional work, and not delve into he said-she said personal attacks (unless the controversy is about one of her articles/books).
When I removed the text, the link "personal attack" appeared. I thought I had noted that and cited wiki's policies, but I'm still a wikipedia newbie - and your help/advice would be greatly appreciated.
@Cdrp221: The material not vandalism (as defined by Wikipedia policy), it's not being pushed by anyone with an agenda, and it isn't a personal attack (as defined by Wikipedia policy). It's possible it ultimately doesn't belong on the page, but it isn't any of those things.
The way forward is to go to the article's talk page, Talk:Suzanne Blier, and explain very specifically what you believe is wrong and why (what has been taken out of context? What is the context? How does having that context change how the information is viewed? etc). When doing so, it would be best not to assume that anyone involved is behaving maliciously, because they almost certainly aren't - even if they happen to see things differently to you - and because everyone on Wikipedia is asked as a matter of policy to assume good faith of each other. Plus, an argument based on the content itself, rather than your perception that whoever added it must have been acting in bad faith, is much more likely to convince other editors of the need to remove the content.
Ok - Thanks and I'll follow your suggestions. I'll re-read the policy pages as well.
I disagree 100% about your initial statement (it's not being pushed by anyone with an agenda). Ms Blier has been under constant attack by a local pro-development group known as "A Better Cambridge." These attacks have appeared continually in local media - and most of the attacks are anonymous. I can't link the author of the last section to any group/individual, as he is using an alias.
Analyst | Scientist | Journalist - not a conspiracy theorist, that's what Maram Susli is. Why would yourself put your own views as the one and only truth by calling someone a conspiracy theorist?
Should somebody judge somebody else's point of view as a conspiracy theory each time their views do not kiss?
On desktop, you click the "create account" button in the top right corner. On mobile, you open the menu (by clicking the icon to the left of the word "Wikipedia" at the top of the page), click "log in", and then on the next screen click "Join Wikipedia" at the bottom of the page. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m so sorry I didn’t mean to vandalize ok I would like to let you know that I’m still learning what is acceptable and what isn’t so please forgive me for this and reply soon thank you Alexander Hamilton13579 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bigo Live that you keep reverting
Please stop. it's clear you don't understand enough about Bigo Live and have not done your research.
@AntiDionysiu I have not said "its true because I was there" I said I was there I saw it happen which is not a source, this edit is not based on my personal experience it seems to me you need to do your research. As you've seen a new account and presumed I am making false edits which I am not MadHatter800 (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are describing exactly the thing I just said. Your edit summary said we know this as we were members of Bigo Live and were on when it got permanently got shut down - this is a textbook example of using your personal experience instead of a source and is very much against the rules of Wikipedia.
I'm not presuming you're making "false edits". I have no assumption about whether what you're saying is true or not. I just know that you're not providing a source, which you need to. Something being true is not good enough. It also needs to be sourced. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you are doing is bullying new users on the site because you have no clear knowledge of anything #TheWhiteKnight. When did I once say that was a source? I'm writing facts and you're reverting them, I thought Wikipedia's whole policy was not to mislead readers? You're the reason Wikipedia Readers are misled. How you're some top guy for vandalism I'll never know, as looking at your page you're the vandal MadHatter800 (User talk:MadHatter800) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your eyes on User:Lincoln School Project/Sandbox
I declined the user space speedy, and moved it to sandbox myself. But tagging is how I know to do stuff, so thanks for your work in this area. It's all explained at User talk:Lincoln School Project. They are not a paid editor, but the school is in their neighborhood so they have an interest (but seem to also have sources). BusterD (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I saw you ran for the admin elections and you got pretty close, which is awesome--I'm sure you'll get it next time. I'm also sure tons of people have given you advice so I'll abstain from that. Some valid points were brought up at that "Debrief", and I can offer some more tips, a bit different from what you saw there perhaps. But here's a question: when does that need to be blocked, and for what? Or have we reached that point already? I suppose these are the kinds of things that might come up when you run in the "regular" process, and because the answer is not necessarily obvious you might want to ponder what you'd do, and when, and how, if you did have the bit. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! There's been advice, but more is always welcome, and I'd be really grateful for any tips
Regarding Smoho; I don't think we reached the point of needing a block quite yet, and they appear to have knocked it off anyway so it's a moot point now, but we came very close. Exactly when it's evident that someone is WP:NOTHERE is ultimately a judgement call, but persisting in vandalism after three warnings (over the course of a few hours) with zero remotely encyclopaedic contributions (not to mention trollish responses to those warnings) would I think clearly meet that definition.
On the other hand, spamming nonsense on their own user page is a pretty low-level harm (except that it clogs the recent changes feed), so as long as they were only doing that and didn't go back to vandalising mainspace I'd be more willing to err on the side of caution. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. OK my two tips are 1. article creation and development (there's not a lot of that in your history) and 2. visibility on noticeboards (particularly ANI) where you can gain experience in discussing disruption (more than just reporting it) and growing/showing off your judgment in cases like the above. Adminship is a bit of a popularity contest, and ANI participants are often also RfA voters. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not surprising the source says Genovese, because Pandolce is an Italian word and it makes sense that the accompanying adjective would also be in Italian, not in English.
My reverting of it was largely predicated on the fact that you removed content without explaining your reasoning. If you'd like to re-do the edit with reasoning in the edit summary, I would have no objection. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(this is directed towards the unregistered user) I already discussed how I made a mistake, and how I wasn't actually okay with it but it more that I wasn't sure, and as such wanted to back down. I stated that I regretted not being as clear on the matter, and that I should have simply used my words. But even so, I have already discussed this and I would prefer it if you didn't drag me into this discussion again, as I have stated before that I am not supporting the edit, I merely am unsure. Gaismagorm(talk)01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this appears to be the third time. While the first time you mentioned me, I can assume that it was in good faith (and really was mainly my fault), it does frustrate me that you keep on keeping in the ping whenever you copy and paste this message. As such, next time you copy and paste the message, please remove the ping. Gaismagorm(talk)01:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I am a first-time editor! I wasn't sure if my edits were being made - didn't realise it was being revert-edited, and thought I was doing something wrong!
@NoviceUser123 No problem, mistakes happen. I appreciate you dropping a message here. I've left a note on your own talk page with some helpful introductory info for Wikipedia; hope you decide to stick around! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe tomorrow I will look to see what the underlying issue was, but it probably doesn't matter. They also filed a request at DRN, which was closed as a conduct dispute, and have now been blocked. They are now ranting from a different IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It boils down basically to the two sources that accompany the label "socially conservative" in the Alba Party infobox. The IP was not entirely incorrect to say that the sourcing could be better. But after that it was just a huge amount of OR; they wanted not only to delete it, but to change it to "socially liberal" on the basis of absolutely nothing but their own feelings. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page including by yourself.
AntiDionysius, I have been meaning to ask you about this use of rollback since October 2024, when it crossed my watchlist. My apologies for the late response, as real life issues have made it difficult for me to keep up on Wikipedia. Also, I am not an admin, so it's possible I have missed something, but my understanding of WP:ROLLBACKUSE is that, except for issues with widespread implications like rolling back banned or blocked editors or misguided bots, it is to be used for "obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". I have always understood that we are ultra careful in rollback use so as not to chase off or bite the newbies.
I can't decipher any reason for considering the talk page comment at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt as vandalism (in fact, the IP posted about a view held by reliable sources and also pointed out garbled prose), nor can I see any other "reason for reverting" that "is absolutely clear".
Browsing your talk page, I see other inquires about your use of Rollback have been raised:
At Martin Kulldorff in November 2024, I can understand your thinking in removing the content rather than tagging it with citation needed, per BLP, but it doesn't appear as obvious vandalism.
SandyGeorgia, gotta be brief: there are dogs to walk. I certainly think that Talk:Blame It on the Boogie didn't warrant rollback, though I might have rolled back on Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, since it has too much of a rant-flavor to me. My note to the editor was not in any way in response to anything other than the RfA thing--I have come to know AntiDionysius as a valuable editor who helps me do the things admins need to do. Oh, yes, just looked at the Biryani edit--that's not a good use of rollback. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go walk those dogs, and Merry Christmas (I was more concerned that something about Rollback had changed while real life has been beating the crap outta me, and there are plenty of experienced admins to look in here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I got the admin bit flipped all of a sudden there were rollback links on my watchlist and I immediately did the same thing. Let me go ahead and hide those links before I end up at Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
