User talk:Anachronist

Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Anachronist:

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

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

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

There is a backlog of over 2200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Page Restoring Help

Hi Anachronist.

Sorry if I'm doing something wrong.

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

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

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

Your revert at Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan

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

@AndyTheGrump: Let's look at the history.

• 13 May: The bit about Jürgen Schaflechner was added by TrangaBellam without any explanation in the edit summary.
• It was removed and restored several times in the same day without specifically targeting that passage.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
• 16 May: The AE template was added to the talk page by Abecedare (diff). Abededare also extended-confirmed-protected the article on the same day, with the Schaflechner passage in place at the time. We can assume that the sanctions are enforced from that point onward.
• 18 October: I removed the passage from the lead (diff), in response to a complaint on the talk page. This was the first revert after AE enforcement, as far as I can tell from the history.
• You proceeded to violate the AE restriction by reinstating the passage. However, you restored it to a different location in the article, so we'll let this slide. Consider it a new edit.
• 1 November: CapnJackSp reverted you (diff), which, if you consider your prior edit OK, would be in compliance with the AE restriction. CapnJackSp challenged your edit with a revert, and it should not have been reinstated.
• You then reinstated the passage again (diff).
• Then I reverted you (diff) , not realizing that CapnJackSp had already done so. That was my error.
• And you reinstated the passage again, for the third time ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coerced_religious_conversion_in_Pakistan&diff=next&oldid=1183019748 diff).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only if 'history' conveniently starts where it suits you. The Schaflechner text was in the article (in the lede, where it shouldn't have been, admittedly) when AE was enforced. You stated exactly that above. You removed it. I challenged your removal and restored it into the article body, explaining why. After you had described it as "published in a reliable source". You made absolutely no objection at the time. [8] No comment at all. I assumed you had no objection, given that you stated it was properly sourced. Given that it didn't belong in the lede, you made an edit. Given that you had removed it entirely, while acknowledging the source was valid, I placed it in the article body. And given your lack of further response, I assumed that was the end of it. But no, instead you are trying to retroactively object to it now, after I have provided ample evidence that your initial 'reliable source' assessment was correct. Object to it two weeks later, after suddenly deciding that published academics writing on their specialist subjects are 'fringe'. Your 'history' is directly contradicted by your own words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Contentious labels.

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

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

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

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

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

New User with offending Username

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

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

Hast du eine Lösung, abseits des großen Dramas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV editor has made a mess

See [[9]] Doug Weller talk 07:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sethubandhanam

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

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

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

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

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

A little something for you...

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

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

Consider unprotection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speech synthesis

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

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

Dahua Technology

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

edit request

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

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

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

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

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

MarketingYOR

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

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

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

ANI, Arb

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

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

Thanks, Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Excerpt from Barbra Streisand autobiography

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

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

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

Thank You for the help

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paisley

@Anachronist thanks for telling me about titlecase

Can i use those links you deleted as citations later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew Stanley (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drew Stanley: Of the five sources that I removed, three of them are not reliable sources. Two of them were blogs (adamley.co.uk and kashmircompany.com) and one citation was to Wikipedia. None of those are acceptable.

The citation to https://www.naturaldiamonds.com/in/style-innovation/paisely-pattern-journey-beyond-natural-diamond-indian-jewellery/ is written by a journalist, so that would be OK. The citation to https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/gallery/2011/sep/26/paisley-london-fashion-week is also OK because The Guardian is considered a reliable source. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: thanks and i will probably find other sources too Drew Stanley (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I am having trouble organizing the paragraphs. Is there a standard template that i could follow?

@Drew Stanley: Please append your signature on your comments. You can do this by typing four tildes: ~~~~ which are automatically converted to your signature.

The only template I know of is for sections, not individual paragraphs. See MOS:LAYOUT. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks i just learned this recently Drew Stanley (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 22:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

ARCA closed

Hello Anachronist, I'm informing you that I've closed the ARCA you were listed as a party at with "There is a consensus among responding arbs that non-EC editors are not to participate in AFDs." Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of single-artist museums, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Picasso Museum and Dalí Museum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Awesome Aasim 23:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Awesome Aasim 19:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Reversion

This is Hanoi Road, my edit per WP:BANREVERT. However, I probably should've taken the age of the comments into account and just left them alone. Grandpallama (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: You must be privy to information I am not. Hanoi Road has no contributions to the clean eating article or its talk page, and that account was blocked a full two years before the IP address commented on Talk:Clean eating. How would this be block evasion? Not even a checkuser could conclude that due to the age difference. All I see are a couple of articles in common between the contribution histories of both. While that looks suspicious, it isn't enough for me to conclude that they're the same person. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar from past interactions both with this IP range he edits out of (there are others I also suspect, but there isn't a clearcut connection) and with his editing behaviors (interests, use of language, claims of personal knowledge, etc.). If the edits were more recent, I would open up a case at SPI and look for a rangeblock, if it were deemed reasonable without too much collateral. If you want to keep digging around, the point of clear connection can be found in the Sean Lucy article in the June 2021 editing where, after he was indeffed, the article was protected because he returned to reinstate his edits. Once you know some of the editor's behavior patterns, he sticks out like a sore thumb when you see him, especially when he edits out of this known IP range. I was pretty inactive during his last spurt of editing, but I will keep an eye out and take it to SPI next time I see it. As I say, given the age of the edits, moving to revert them now was probably overzealous. Grandpallama (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)