This is an archive of past discussions with User:AntiDionysius. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Royce white
please stop removing sourced content, you have been reported and hopefully you will be disciplined. either way you'll be asleep soon and your disruptive edits will cease. 104.129.191.26 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to talk here, I just thought you should be aware of the fact that you received no less than four warnings from two different users for three kinds of policy infraction. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I edited the Peggy Cyphers article on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2024. It was removed due to not citing reliable sources, but all sources that I cited were from news articles that mentioned the artist in question. Please replace the edit. The article has also been flagged as being written like an advertisement and including promotional content. All information that was added was at the request of the artist, and based on factual information. Cialre (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Some of it was cited, but not all of it; and many of the sources were not news articles, they were the artist's own website, which is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. And yes, a lot of it was very much written like an advertisement - a problem which is probably related to the fact that it was written "at the request of the artist". If you are acting on the behalf of Peggy Cyphers, you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, and thus should not be editing the article directly. Please read the conflict of interest policy before proceeding. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
2.6B views Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (Official Video)
as of September 2024.. GOD BLESS 190.10.199.23 (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
if you go to the page.. this is what it reads... so nobody made an update since October 2015....as for the DATA ON YOUTUBE Views ---- this is what it reads on the page.... As of October 2015, "All About That Bass" was the only debut single by any artist to accumulate a billion views on YouTube.
just trying to make it more modern
2.6B views Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (Official Video)
I got you a digital cookie
I got you a digital cookie,,. thank so much for telling me on the edit ... enjoy the digital cookie
Hi, I saw that you tagged Draft:YearlyArtical for speedy deletion as U5 and G11. Just as a friendly reminder, U5 only applies to pages in user space and is not applicable to draft space. The page turned out to be copyvio, though, so I deleted it anyway. Cheers, Complex/Rational21:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder! I believe in this case the creating user moved it between the tag and the deletion, hense the misalignment of tags, but I appreciate you getting it anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
hi. thank u for warning me about my bad behaviour im sorry. here kitten for show appreciation and i also want to thank u for using your free time to expand the access for free knowladge irish boy <3
Hi @AntiDionysius. Referring to your comment about vandalism on Jayant B. Udgaonkar, it is to clarify that the edits are essential information aimed at prospective students joining IISER Pune, the institute that the person in question is affiliated to. The edits in question are NOT defamatory or vandalist, as you have infered, and are approved by the ethics committee of the Institute. The information added now is deemed essential for future students planning to join Dr. Udgaonkar's lab and to prevent future harassment and sexual exploitation of students. Acetyl-CoA35 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am currently new to Wikipedia and is trying to help in weather-related topics. Could you please explain to me why my recent edit was not approved. I noticed your message and was confused; any information would be appreciated. Thank you! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I have come across that problem before, would you be interested on referring my information to a site as I am not familiar with creating sites. If I were to redo my information without evaluative language, would it be accepted? Again, I just want to help. Thanks! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.
We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.
The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.
You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2024 administrator elections.
The article text says "Fred Barton, songwriter/arranger and Desmond's cousin, found extensive genealogical proof that both the Breitenfeld and Löwy families were Bohemian Jews." That text more than supports the category. If you think the problem is that the text is wrong, I would suggest getting a discussion going on the talk page and getting consensus for its alteration or removal, but while the the text is as it currently is, there is no reason to remove the category. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not that I think the text is wrong, however; I don't think it is right, either. The point is, the assertion is unproven and isn't proven simply because someone cites a book title that we're to take on faith backs the claim. Nonsense. Absent the type of genealogical proof typically required to establish family lineage, there is every reason to remove the text until a time when a more detailed description of proof can be added to the text. My personal research on this topic indicated that Barton's conclusions were purely speculative, an educated guess, hedging his bet. Additionally, conveniently left out of the article is the fact that there are many Breitenfelds and Lowys in the region who aren't Jewish. Are we to assume there was no possibility of musical knowledge in those lines? Even Desmond's immediate family wasn't sure about the topic, nor did they didn't observe the traditions. I realize that proves nothing either, however, it does raise important questions. Until the time that Barton's "proof" can be shown to be unassailable, there should at least be room for a dissenting opinion, without the category added.
A talk page can be useful, providing there is interest and a desire to determine facts. The chances of that happening in an article about a sideman from a defunct assemble that played a musical form of an increasingly low-level of interest are slim to none, wouldn't you agree? So the article will remain sub-par, as is, in this regard. 2601:547:CB00:3D40:C4AA:8517:9872:F0E1 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
There's plenty of room for dissenting opinion. That room is on the article talk page. You would be better off making your case there rather than on my user page. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Our Admin Election Test
Hello there. As we're preparing to move from one stage to the next, this is just a quick note from one member of the test group to another, wishing you well in the process of this new alternative to RfA. It seems that there are more of us in this group than some in the community anticipated, so i hope that doesn't make the experience any the worse for all of us. Whatever our individual results, i thank you, along with the rest, for stepping up and testing this process; happy days, ~ LindsayHello07:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey, AntiDionysius! I'm sorry about deleting content without explanation. The "Characters" section was just a suggestion I typed a while back before I had a fuller understanding of Wikipedia's morals. The responses to that suggestion are also from me because I was so anxious to get a response that I pretended to be someone else to respond (IP editors' addresses change every day). Anyway, that suggestion doesn't really need to be deleted, and I promise that I won't try to do it again. :) 74.132.195.94 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, about "Humongous Sports", that was a section I created because I have noticed that when you start Backyard Baseball 2001 or Backyard Soccer: MLS Edition, along with Humongous Entertainment's logo, there is a logo of a website called "Humongous Sports", which was Backyard Sports' website during the time of Baseball 2001 and Soccer MLS's releases. I just wanted people to know this. 74.132.195.94 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Your answer to my question
And excellent answer. I, too, have wondered more than once if we should propose "post-2016 United Kingdom politics and personalities" as a CTOP (Brexit brought out the crazy, as you no doubt perceived more acutely from where you were, in the front rows, while I watched from the upper decks).
I would also be supportive of "far-right politics", although it's mostly edit-warring about whether someone or some organization really is far-right. I mean, we can say we're just using the term because reliable sources do, and that lets us off the hook as far as our own policies go, but ... I have to ask: By what standards do those reliable sources distinguish someone as "far-right" from conservatives in general? It would seems to me that "far-right" is taken to mean anyone whose ideology includes strongly nationalist/populist/racialist components, even at the expense of the free market, as a primary ingredient.
But too many writers for our reliable sources seem to just throw it around for "any popular conservative person or organization I don't like" (In this respect I think some of the many IPs whose edit wars have forced pages into protection have a splinter of a point, just maybe not the one they think they have). This just raises so many issues for me:
It seems lately we are describing so many people and groups as "far-right" that we might be better off distinguishing people as "near-right" (or the more common "center-right"), since that would appear to no longer be the norm.
It's worth remembering that 60 years ago, Barry Goldwater was described as, effectively, "far-right" by the standards of his time for his extreme anti-New Deal libertarian politics. Yet by the 1980s he was more in the center of the Republican Party without really having changed his positions too much, and by the time he died it was increasingly obvious that he wasn't happy with the direction the party was taking post-Reagan (I can only imagine what he'd be saying if he were alive now). Are there any libertarian politicians, pundits or groups today we'd describe as "far-right" purely on the basis of their positions on that?
Do we describe anyone as just far-left? That article delineates a general category of ideologies generally linked by a rejection of free-market capitalism as having any place in the economy. But in practice we generally describe people or organizations aligned with those ideologies by those specific terms (which makes sense in some ways, as the Popular Front era notwithstanding the three ideologies most exemplified there—anarchism, communism and socialism—are often in conflict with each other). Yet we treat the far right as if any distinctions among their positions were too unimportant to mention.
Ah, thank you. I broadly agree with you on all of this (especially on Brexit bringing out the crazies). There was a time when journalists seemed unwilling to use the term "far-right" even to describe people/parties to whom it patently did apply but now they seem to be overcorrecting and it's become imprecise. And it is true that "far-left" does not get used nearly as frequently, something I've seen brought up in discussions from time to time. As you say, we can (and should) fall back on the "what do the sources say" test in all these cases but as long as the sources themselves continue to be much-less-than-perfect in their approach I presume the arguments, and probably the edit warring, will continue - which is an argument for a CTOPS designation of some kind.
The argument against it is that, in my experience, disruptive editing on this topic tends to be concentrated among unregistered and very new SPAs; editors with more tenure and good faith newbies are usually able to talk about it productively enough. If we're talking primarily about drive-by disruption, a CTOPS designation is arguably unnecessary. But oh, I don't know. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete without feedback
Dear AntiDionysius, you asked me to write you here about a topic, but now apparently you asked for deletion of these comments. Honestly, a feedback about why you did would be appreciated as I just did what you asked me to do. Thanks AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you ended up in such a fraught area for your first edits. Much of the encyclopedia isn't mired in the additional rules and regulations. I suggest you spend some time editing on less controversial topics to get a feel for things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Echoing this sentiment @AyubuZimbale; though this kicked off with us having a slight disagreement over the content of the article, I didn't intend for it to turn into a big issue. I hope it's all cleared up for you now and that you'll stick around Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
That is a....good question. I'm not wholly sure. I think I must have been looking at the wrong set of revisions before I hit rollback, or something like that. Apologies. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
AntiDionysius what!? So far as I'm aware I've made one revert on one page to do with Stuart Campbell. How can you suggest that's a pattern? Or do some of my other contributions have a connection I'm unaware of? 82.11.195.62 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)82.11.195.62 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I did a brief look for sources (since I thought there was a good chance the anons were judt being over-eager) but couldn't find anything, for some reason. I'll stop bothering to revert, then; I presume you can just push your update over any edits that are made in the mean time. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
