User talk:Asilvering

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts as a Wikimedia admin. I truly appreciate your work:) Baqi:) (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! VegetableReverend (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

how? TheLegenda3 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on what? VegetableReverend (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This user is pushing an agenda, privs should be removed 2602:FDFC:122:F400:F5EC:54A1:BBA1:BEC8 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This user is pushing an agenda, privs should be removed 2602:FDFC:122:F400:F5EC:54A1:BBA1:BEC8 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

IP block

Hi, I made a UTRS related to my blocked IP and you declined it and answered: You can, however, still edit while logged in with an account. I have no way to answer there so I'm answering here: as you can see I have an account and I'm still blocked (not now as I'm at another location). I made another request (because I didn't get an email for the above one so I thought for whatever reason it didn't go through) and @Yamla also declined it saying: Multiple sources confirm the specific IP address you are using is a proxy. You'll need to use a different IP address range if you wish to edit.. How am I supposed to do that? Sorry if that's a weird request but I've never had this issue in 19 years here... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@A455bcd9, can you tell me the IP address you're unable to edit from? If you don't want to reveal it publicly, feel free to email it to me and I'll look into it. -- asilvering (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that's a checkuser block, so I can't touch it, but I've asked the blocking admin to have a look. Seems to me that we don't need that block at all anymore, but if we do, we might be able to grant you WP:IPBE. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@A455bcd9, you should be sorted out now. If you're still having trouble, try logging out, clearing your browser data, and logging back in - should fix anything lingering. -- asilvering (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it works! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako block

Any chance of unblocking me? I believe, due to the SPI outcome, I'm not entirely guilty. But no worries if the answer is no. It's only one day ;). Regards, MattSucci (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

It always takes two to edit-war, so I'll leave it. But feel free to tidy up after them elsewhere and get back to that article in 22.5 hours. -- asilvering (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

😆😆😆 MattSucci (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Seeing as it turns out the other party here is now blocked as a CU confirmed sockpuppet, whose talkpage I just revoked for potty-mouthed rants in response to the block, would you be good with lifting this or having me lift it? In a way it almost feels like rewarding a sock with getting a legit editor pblocked, but I won't take any action on my own. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, I already answered that question in my previous reply. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!

I came across the latest Srimonbanik2007 sock rather late at night and ham-handedly filed the SPI absolutely backwards. I appreciate you resolving my moderate dumbassery. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries, easy enough to fix with the SPI script. Thanks for the report. -- asilvering (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Simi David on User:Simi David (13:26, 22 August 2025)

How do I know that my article have been either submitted and publish or submitted in general? Also please how can I add a picture on my article? --Simi David (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Your article should immediately be published or submitted once you publish the page. To add a picture to your article, find which one you want, make sure it's within Wikipedia's file guidelines, and then upload the file using the 'Upload File' button on the right side of the homepage. This should upload that file to wikipedia. From there, find where you want the file and type [[File:YourFileName]] where you want it to go. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 16:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44, Your article should immediately be published or submitted once you publish the page isn't quite right. @Simi David, you submitted it and it was declined, so you got a notice on your talk page about that. To resubmit it, you'll have to press the blue "resubmit" button. But I wouldn't do that just yet, because you haven't added new reliable sources, so it will just be declined again. If you need help finding more sources, you can try asking at WP:TEA. But I think you might be out of luck there, and your topic doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:GNG. Sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I no longer understand the article Upload features

Please I need help

I want to submit an article about someone's biography with the person's picture,

the article reference is on my website and I have generated a link that can be used as reference

Please I need help on how to submit an article🙏 Simi David (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Simi David, to resubmit your draft, you have to press the blue "resubmit" button. If you wish to create a wholly new article, WP:WIZARD will walk you through it. -- asilvering (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Let me give it a try Simi David (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from DollarStoreBaal44 (16:00, 22 August 2025)

I saw that User:FaviFake has a Wikipedia news article on his talk page. It says it's a subscription. How do I get that? ----DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 16:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44, it's hidden in the fine print at the bottom. Go here: [1] and add yourself to the list. But you can also get this "delivered" on en-wiki just by watchlisting WP:VPWMF. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

salebot1

SLman Hamdan1 (talk · contribs) Emk9 (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Resolved, Mfield got it. Emk9 (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all the same, since it appears Mfield had yet to meet salebot1's acquaintance and only handed out a time-out. -- asilvering (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! (Hugo Frankema (talk · contribs) is also only blocked for 31 hours, but there's discussion on the talk page about upping that to indef. I've also already added these accounts to my lock request from yesterday, so they will hopefully be locked before long anyway.) Emk9 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Curiouszain

I can't see how he can upload a photo of Paulraj as his own work and claim no connection. User talk:Curiouszain#Conflict of interest editing. I'm considering unblocking Prwiki and partially blocking him from his article, but I'm not sure what to do about this guy. I don't think he should be editing anything to do with Paulraj. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, they've definitely claimed "own work" incorrectly, since the description metadata on the file itself says the photo was given to them: [2]. -- asilvering (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

They are clearly either working together or the same person. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2025082310000869# "'

I hereby affirm that I, Prof. Arogyaswami J Paulraj, the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work depicted in the photograph of myself, as shown here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arogyaswami_Paulraj#/media/File:Prof_A_Paulraj.png,

have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Arogyaswami J Paulraj

Copyright holder " Doug Weller talk 10:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have OTRS access, so I can't tell what account that's coming from. But if you want to block for "obvious COI and lying about it", I certainly have no objections. I was going to wait for their answer to the question they were asked about the photo, since it's going to be the first thing they get asked if they get blocked and submit an unblock request anyway, but I can't say I think blocking now would be jumping the gun. -- asilvering (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Are we talking about a full block of CuriousZain? The message at OTRS was via email by PaulRaj. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, of course we are. In any case, Meatpuppet at worst. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The AI block appeal doesn't exactly fill me with hope. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Not a surprise. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Hah, thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #104378

Wanna have a look? Perhaps you can see your way through to an unblock? Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

gone -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I've responded on their talk page all the same. -- asilvering (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Excellent -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from PRGSGB (02:32, 25 August 2025)

Hi, a recent Wikipedia bio page was published about me.It is a basic page with some errors, no photo, etc. I am not allowed to edit the page, but can suggest edits. What is the most efficient way to offer up suggested edits (with references of course)? Thanks. --PRGSGB (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PRGSGB, welcome to wikipedia! Sorry your article has errors in it. Please have a look at WP:EDITCOI for general instructions. If you don't want to mess around with the template yourself, WP:ERW can format an edit request for you. The most efficient way to do this is to keep individual requests simple, and make sure every one has a clear source (you can provide a URL as a reference, for example). So rather than making one request that includes several major differences, I would suggest making one request that's just to add the photo, another request to add a brand new paragraph, a different request to make some minor changes to what already exists, etc. The clearer your requests are, the more likely someone will get to them quickly. -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:ACAS

Hi Asilvering, could you please tell me what WP:ACAS is? DavidKaf (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@DavidKaf, I assume you mean WP:GS/ACAS? Does that link help? If you've got specific questions, I'm happy to answer. Actually, you should also have gotten an alert, so, one moment, I'll be by your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into my SPI issues (the meaning of disruptive editing)

Though you must have larger worries, I commend you for your thoughtful comment on the sockpuppet investigation of my work IPs of late. After first taking Wikipedia seriously in 2006 when CNN reported it grew to a million articles with many better than World Book items, I edited here since the Great Recession in spurts. However, admins inevitably warn of blocking me or do so, which prompts me to do something else for up to years. I think the main cause of repeated ire is the sheer quantity of contributions I can make in a time interval rather than their quality.

Part of my grasp of what disruptive editing means here is any activity including yet not limited to needless edit warring, gratuitous vandalism, unexplained content removal, defying policies, lack of civility, ignorant personal attacks, and any other damaging, frivolous, or unbecoming conduct. A large volume of edits, if they are properly sourced and constructive for readers, should not be mistaken as any of those concerns.

Since the abuse accusations (part of which I do not get due to jargon) claim to not see my history, I found a few edits from long-gone IPs and lost-password names. As an eco-consultant and a STEM professor, work took younger me to Southwest Alaska which led me to find the region had no article, so I just made it and then did more Alaska stuff. After months, some user kept posting I changed too much and was not Alaskan and was disruptive etc., so I let the account sleep forever. After other flurries of contributing, in COVID lockdown I made the most edits of any stretch, including notable mostly-kept additions to Template:Branches of chemistry seen across this range, which caused my colleagues to buy me lunch when they found out later. Maybe with pride, my then-new links on Template:Fantasy fiction were so many as seen here, some crawling bot came along that permanently semi-protected it same as any other template with at least 250 hypertexts. Those templates have been reorganized since, yet most of the actual branching is still there, so they cannot be grossly off-topic after user scrutiny for this long.

My point before getting to investigation details is that I am really just a slow normie sporadic contributor. Besides vandal reverts, I believe my only works here have been adding proven verified categories to articles and requesting new ones to be made, improving extant template boxes and asking for more too, and (long ago) making baby starter articles that those who are smarter and more invested than me can expand.

Back in January 2025, I noticed perusing vampire literature due to above-average fandom by me and my family that the original Dracula novel by Bram Stoker had a shocking degree of absent categories, given how acclaimed and popular it is. As an important article and a featured one at that, it was no shock that it is semi-protected, yet its categories were so few next to the original Frankenstein novel by Mary Shelley which is pending protected thus still editable by anons by request. Even that had neither scientist nor monster categories till I asked, in my estimation an abysmal oversight greatly exceeded by nigh-endless landscape of literary works of sci-fi, fantasy, and/or horror genres that were and are weakly or wrongly tagged. I then resolved that in my free time, largely during running computational chemistry software related to modeling sea-air interactions, I would do something about it. This turned into a whole lot of somethings. There must be thousands of speculative fiction novels and shorter stories on English Wikipedia before even getting to works in other languages, in other formats, or that just lack articles.

I knew the wise could undo mistakes, and I might be faulted for mass editing if I put a category in many places instead of refining one article at a time. What I never knew (till today) from this info page with a rare graph based on this table was a maximum of 7587 users did a minimum of a hundred edits per month that peaked in 2007. No wonder some are appalled by my numerous revisions. I am too now by comparison.

Even with only adding sourced missing categories, a rate of maybe a thousand per week was far more striking than I would have foreseen. When Golikom (who was later site banned for socking and harrassing) griped about my citable edits to the page for the original Carrie novel by Stephen King which is seen here, it somehow got HJ Mitchell to ban my work IP for a week. That was shared throughout this building or at least part of it, but I also use it as a static IP around campus, at home, and elsewhere for work resources access. Having waited out trouble, I returned only to get fouled again by Soetermans for modest changes to the piece on the film Cast Away starring Tom Hanks that led to HJ Mitchell banning again but this time for a month. When I tried to appeal that on the grounds that I meant no offense and wished to make a case for why it was mistaken, the reviewer Yamla not only declined, but also repeatedly slighted my sincerity, my literacy, and my faculties with malice. If I am out of line and need to step away for a while or until doomsday, then okay, but stifle insults to my person when shown the door.

When I saw talk texts and blocks were gone, I returned. I even got kudos from xRozuRozu that is seen here for literary edits. Lamentably, my dumb butt missed that the university or provider had rotated the IPs without loss. This is likely the proximate cause of Harryhenry1, who was critical before others and whose talk page brims with posts on vandalism and warring and disputes and contention and hounding, filing a probe.

If my editing is normal, then please share the articles or I can link some samples for my cause, but no biggie. I have work, a troubled marriage, and a child newly starting at college. Also, you have a life. I am just mildly infuriated that all this time, being bold seems to never apply to category definition as others do multi-kilobyte edits to main content. I just try to aid navigation, period. Maybe I broke policy and now must fear sock claims for days or decades, so maybe I should let go and leave. Even so, if this is fixable, I wish to know how. Thanks for thinking on this. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, none of these have active blocks, so I think you're clear. A question before I get into anything else - is ColonelBatGuano you? -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Glad you replied fast, though I was slow to notice. Last night, I figured what ColonelBatGuano is, yet it hurts my plea. My geek brother-in-law coworker did a "fun" libelous fake of me, sought categories like mine, and let me find them. I made many before, yet failed to question this gift horse herd. The log shows here I likely edited on a shared workstation that he did not log out, and he halted once I noted the probe.

To paraphrase Doctor Manhattan (if I dare), I am very disappointed. I had lunch / strife with him today about his crummy house renovation contractor referral, his failure to pay his share of a vacation to Mayaguana this past New Year, and the stupidity that I am posting about here.

He and I are Earth Sciences associate faculty at a suburban Northeastern U.S. public college whose wives are sisters and in healthcare. He is professional, yet an odd nerd (more than me). Anon IP geolocation makes it easy to identify us, but I prefer privacy unless off-site if asked.

If it matters, I found some old use cases by me here and here and here and here and here yet more exist that are lost. There is a nontrivial chance of incidental anon parallel edits in that time, but a null chance it did lately without that guy. I did no edits since this befell me, so if they have been otherwise constructive and "normal" as you said, I wish to resume in some way if alright. Thanks for your patience. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I think you should do: you should create an account, and do your very best to only ever edit while logged in to that account. On that account's user page, I would suggest writing something like "longtime IP editor, recently encouraged to make an account" or something so that people understand that you're not a) a new editor with unusual skills for a newbie or b) someone evading a block. If you have an account, it's easier for people to contact you and easier for your edits to be linked across different locations, which you will find very useful - your category edits will almost certainly be reverted less often if they're made from an account with WP:XC, which I expect you will get quickly. Also, with an account, you can use some convenient userscripts like WP:HOTCAT.

Some of your category edits have been reverted because they don't adhere to WP:CATDEF, so please have a read of this guideline before making any more. Wikipedia used to be more anything-goes about categories, but it's stricter now. If you're specifically interested in TV shows and other pop culture categorization by minutiae, TV Tropes is all over that sort of thing and I'd recommend getting into that when you have that particular urge.

I love I had lunch / strife with him today and plan to immediately assimilate this into my active vocabulary. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess of the long-running referenced investigation, but also for not replying in a timely manner. I have been busy with mundane adulting, the start of the school year, and disturbing current events. To make it up to you as an admin here who thus likes both irksome discontent and dark humor, I suggest this article talk page to see folks have a food fight over what is assassination, what is homicide, what is fascism, what is mourning, what is motive, what is suspect, what is political, and what is the meaning of is. If you wish to see every type of passive-aggressive Wikipedia dispute resolution technique, it might make a good funread for you.

As though you have nothing else to do, I actually broke down your last response to prepare better comments than I compose for most memos around here. Generally speaking, I have no problem creating a new account, using only that, and not telling anyone who can do an impersonation of me along with the other nonsense they are doing. However, though I do wish to contribute as I was earlier this year, there must be tools on here that are admin-only or unknown to me that go beyond page history where the same person keeps spamming or like-minded people are playing games like this creep as explained earlier. Assuming I even get to edit again without being called out for editing going back seconds or decades, I have several questions about your recommendations.

As there is an ongoing investigation that you commented on as seen here with plausibly positive comments about me, if I create much less edit with a new account, why would that not be seen as new or continued sockpuppet or otherwise suspicious activity?

If I made an account with a user page with text that amounts to "Hey, I fooled on here as an anon for a long time which is why I am slightly good at it, but an admin said to log in so it is fine now", what stops a new investigation, mass deletions, or total banning?

When (like Thanos) I inevitably do the same or similar activity by improving see also sections, making templates bigger, and most of all adding categories to places I wrote on before, how would that not be seen as edit warring, pointed disruption, or not letting go?

Though I am familiar with the extended protection level of the larger page protection tier system, since I am stumped by the WP:XC concept past the very low numerical thresholds despite reading the entire user groups page, how may it prevent or at least hinder admins, logins, or casuals from reverting or reporting my edits? (As an aside, the WP:CXT feature as described seems awesome!)

Speaking of filthy casuals, as almost all my posts are single category or template links of less than 100 bytes each (though at times in quick succession), what would be the point of using a gadget such as HotCat when I find even visual editing to be major overkill?

Due to all major complaints I get here relating to verification, overcategorization, and citation overkill, is the issue in part that a given reader may object less to a single edit instead of several items in a row or many, causing hostile reflex even if all content is suitable?

Though mention of TV Tropes as an open moving image archive is familiar and intriguing to me, in light of past and hopefully future work on Wikipedia on stuff other than fiction, why should I go to an inferior wiki that is ad-run, full of memes, and quite limited?

It is tons to ask, yet another issue relates to the investigation. For his privacy and mine, I will not feud with "ColonelBatGuano" here. Even so, if you go the Climate change article and use the what links feature at least six iterations out in all directions as with Kevin Bacon, the most evasive warring puppeting vandal is him. There must be other actions on here by him as on other platforms. He is among many I know in the United States who changed or revealed themselves for the worse in recent years, and not merely due to the unlinked person and/or outbreak you may think. I cannot figure your location from your user page and you did not ask me, yet though not discussable at length, the issues seeping from my corners of the real and online worlds are making this site worse too.

I protest too much, yet many years ago, this giant geek wondered what the heroic scholars at then-new Wikipedia were like, yet learned they were even more titanic nerds. I am a STEM professional of some success who figured out late in life that my passion for speculative fiction was okay despite my childhood. Both are excursionary since science and sci-fi are symbiotic across centuries. Add to that my old data entry clerk skills, and the inclination to edit here is almost innate. If it is at all possible for you to help resolve this jam with a favorable outcome so I can start chipping in better as you suggest, I would thank you for it. Thanks yet again. 160.72.124.213 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, unfortunately I am already quite familiar with the chaos on Charlie Kirk.

Regarding the various queries: technically speaking, nothing stops another investigation - any editor can have a sockpuppet investigation about them opened at any time. (Well, admins can't, but that's only because charges of admin sockpuppetry skip SPI and head straight to WP:ARBCOM.) But if an editor tries to open an SPI saying "this guy used to edit as an IP and now has made an acccount!", the SPI clerk is is going to say "good for them!" and close the case without action. Saying on your userpage that you were an IP editor for a while before making this account will help ward off that kind of thing.

Having an account won't hinder anyone from reporting your edits, but I can promise that it will happen less often; XC users get more benefit of the doubt than IP editors or editors with fewer edits. That's not any kind of policy, it's just social dynamics - most editors who have reached XC aren't vandals or otherwise out to destroy things (they get caught before they make it up there), and you've "put in the time", as it were, so people are less likely to assume ill of you. There are also some technical anti-abuse systems that stop firing for established users.

As for gadgets, Hotcat might not be your thing if you're very efficient with the source editor, but you'll really like WP:AWB/WP:JWB, I expect.

As for the various behaviour questions: making a lot of very tiny edits does tend to drive people crazy, but it's good to break your edits up by "genre" so that if someone wants to object to one of them they don't need to revert your entire complicated edit. So one edit to change categories, one to mess with the infobox, one to add a new paragraph, etc. But really that's up to individual editors and how they like to work. Verification, overcategorization, citekill - these are all issues that you shouldn't be having, that is to say, once someone points out an issue you're having with them, you should do your best to stop repeating that problem. (Though, it's possible that other editor is wrong. You're always welcome to ask for a second opinion at WP:TEA or so on.) The reason I suggested TVTropes is that they want a much higher degree of overcategorization than we do, so if doing that is what brings you joy, it's a much better place for you to edit than here, where you'll constantly fall afoul of WP:CATDEF.

Also, another nice thing about having your own userpage as a registered editor is that you can tell other editors about yourself there, or use it as a repository of handy links, or (mostly) whatever else you like. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Alex78695 (04:11, 28 August 2025)

Hello Pls check my edit on Larry Reed (puppeteer) what's mistake I have done in that page pls explain and how can I solve this --Alex78695 (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Alex78695: Hello, at the article Larry Reed (puppeteer), you removed large amounts of content without explaining why. Going forward, please use edit summaries when removing content so other community members know why you believe the changes improve the article. Left guide (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

So my only mistake was that I didn’t write an edit summary? Alex78695 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The most obvious mistake. I haven't inspected the content in-depth enough (or have enough knowledge and familiarity with the subject) to judge its merits. Left guide (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you also removed a bunch of things from the filmography table, and added instead a link to an article that doesn't exist? -- asilvering (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Because there is a lack of references, sir. But, I think I made a mistake. Could you please clarify which link I added that does not exist? Alex78695 (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alex78695, see this version: [3]. You clipped the list, and it looks like you intended for it to be documented in full at ShadowLight Productions. But there's no article there.

If you're going to remove stuff from an article because there is a lack of references, make sure you only remove unsourced info in that edit (so there's nothing else anyone can object to) and say "removing unsourced info" or something similar in your edit summary. Then everyone will understand what you're doing. They might revert you anyway, because they disagree, and then you can talk it out with them on the article talk page. But if you just remove content without saying why, most editors will just revert without thinking twice. I see you're using edit summaries now, which should really help. Happy editing! -- asilvering (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

But I'm really confused by this edit, where you say "copyedit only", but add several paragraphs of text. What's going on here? -- asilvering (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alex78695, could you please answer the above question? Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I wrote “copyedit only” since my focus was grammar, phrasing, italics/punctuation, and chronology, but I also added a small, sourced clarification. That was a slip in wording; “copyedit + minor expansion (research/career)” would’ve been clearer. The additions were neutral and cited, just for readability. If any part seems undue, I’ll trim or adjust right away. Alex78695 (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened - you didn't actually add that whole section, you duplicated it by mistake! Have a look at Jala Makhzoumi - you'll want to remove one of those two "Research, career, and activism" sections. So in that case your edit summary is mostly fine, yes. Though, my advice is, keep copyediting and similar edits separate from any additions, even minor additions. The reason for this is that copyedits are usually things that editors don't object to, but additions can often be something contentious. You want to make it easy for other editors to review and maybe revert your additions. For the same reason, it's good to keep major formatting/structure changes separate from other edits (ie, don't change anything except the order of the paragraphs or whatever other formatting thing you're changing). -- asilvering (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Tejendrasinghgurjar (05:55, 28 August 2025)

Can we make a page about someone know personality --Tejendrasinghgurjar (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Tejendrasinghgurjar: Yes, but you would need to declare the conflict of interest and work on it as a draft for independent editors to review before publishing. Left guide (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Alex78695 (12:07, 28 August 2025)

How can I remove warning from my talk page --Alex78695 (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Alex78695, welcome to wikipedia! You can remove a warning the same way you remove anything else - just edit the page, highlight the text you want to remove, delete it, then publish. But I really strongly suggest not removing warnings from your talk page. We'll all just assume you're up to no good. -- asilvering (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from DollarStoreBaal44 (12:58, 28 August 2025)

Are Userpages required to be named 'User:WikipediaName' or can they be moved to a custom page title? (e.g. moving your Userpage to a page called 'WikiNameUser'. Is this against Wikipedia policies? Thanks in advance, --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 12:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Asking for a friend. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 13:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44, there's no way to move your userpage to another title. You can move the page itself, but the page that is "your userpage" will always be User:Yourusernamehere. So if you move User:WikipediaName to User:WikiNameUser, unless you leave a redirect, no one will find that userpage anyway. And an admin will just come around and delete User:WikiNameUser an obvious mistake, or move it back to User:WikipediaName.

If you want a different userpage location you'll have to get a rename. See WP:RENAME. -- asilvering (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I work on a small, independent wiki, where this is possible. I guess I have two questions then:

1: Do WP policies apply to small, independent wikis? (not on fandom, it's got its own domain.)

2: On this wiki, you can. User:Lettherebedarklight has a user page called 'raeb'. Would this violate WP Policies? --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 13:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Btw, it's powered by MediaWiki and has a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, in case you need that. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 13:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44, maybe I'm misunderstanding your question entirely. User:Lettherebedarklight is their userpage, and they don't have any subpages named "raeb" either. Can you clarify?

As for your first question, no, they don't apply to any other wikis. In fact, English Wikipedia policies only apply to English Wikipedia. Other language editions all have their own policies, though of course most of them are pretty similar. -- asilvering (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding it, but you answered my question at the same time. Thanks, I'll let him know. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 13:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria da Conceição Brito

Wwew345t/Steven547 has popped up again on this AFD. Should any action be taken? MattSucci (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @MattSucci, blocked again. This really is a very funny combination of editing interests. -- asilvering (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

IP Block Issue for WikiPedia Training.

Open Foundation West Africa is having a training for new Wikipedia editors,

At this event, we are eligible creating several accounts for new users and this activity has lead to we having some IP block issues and user account creation restriction.

Is there a way you can assist us to ensure this issue is solved? Znyadzi (OFWA) (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Znyadzi (OFWA), you're looking for WP:EVC. I don't have any experience granting this perm so I'd rather not do it myself - once you've had a read of that page and confirmed that it's what you need, can you ask for it at WP:PERM? Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I should add: that perm also allows you to autoconfirm accounts so they can evade captcha challenges and create articles directly in mainspace. I don't think there's any problem with you autoconfirming the accounts you create, but if your trainees are going to be creating new articles, I strongly suggest that they use WP:WIZARD and submit their articles for review at WP:AFC (wizard makes this as easy as pushing a couple buttons) rather than creating articles right in the mainspace. Getting in a fight with WP:NPP on your first day of editing is not a fun new user experience. -- asilvering (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Asilvering

all the best Znyadzi (OFWA) (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, Asilvering. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of Operation Pamungkas and Operation Wibawa

Hello Asilvering, WP:G5 clearly applies to these articles. I tried to edit the articles to improve readability, not knowing the 'background' of the principal author. But I certainly did not check the details purported to come from the 'references' and have no great interest in the subject matter. Consequently, both articles should probably be deleted – do whatever you believe is the best way forward. Another concern is how such poorly written content ends up as articles on Wikipedia? I suppose that when there are more than 7 million articles, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Woodlot they end up on Wikipedia because we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you see any more borderline incomprehensible articles about Indonesian history topics, swing by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilberatalessandro054. The sooner we nab them the sooner we can G5 the lot. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

As a follow-up Asilvering, you might want to take a look at Draft:Operation Naga before it goes to main space. Woodlot (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I've left the drafts on purpose, as a honeypot. :) -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Question from Valentinapappas (16:40, 31 August 2025)

how do I post an article --Valentinapappas (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Valentinapappas, welcome to wikipedia! I've left you some helpful links on your talk page. I don't recommend posting an article just yet, as it will be much easier to do once you've learned your way about this place. You'll want to read WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS before you try, in any case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red September 2025

Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349 Recognized as the most successful topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Women writers & their works | Microstates Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the Month: Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published. Progress ("moving the needle"): The WikiProject Women in Red homepage is usually updated weekly, using the Humaniki tool. Sadly, Humaniki has been out of action since 23 June. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Highly interested. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@MelisaaArcadia, glad to hear it - you can sign up at WP:WOMRED! It's a really welcoming and friendly wikiproject, I recommend it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

done, thx for the guidance. Its my first wikiproejct, actually. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Aditya Jha Page Deletion

Hi, I have a few comments that you can help clarify, please.

I noticed you recently deleted the /AdityaJha page, which I believe was the right decision given the various policy violations.

I had stubified it (just before deletion), but during that process I discovered that the only two news sources that might have established notability couldn’t actually be trusted. I had summarized in the second-to-last bullet point posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Jha (2nd nomination). Some of the “keep” votes were based on this source, or other sources that simply repeated the same information. Everything else is/was riff-raff as almost all votes noted.

My limited understanding of WP:TNT is that it applies when notability is already established but there are discussion about content within; please correct me tho. In this case, notability is highly doubtful. As another admin (OwenX) pointed out: “the Order of Canada honour does not confer automatic notability, the question is whether independent, reliable sources provide SIGCOV about him.” I don't think that kind of coverage exists.

I have also noticed a recurring pattern of this page being created and then deleted, either by an admin independently or through AfD discussions. Does it really make sense to leave the door open for yet another recreation, when notability isn’t established enough to warrant encyclopedic entry?

• 01:23, 31 August 2025 Asilvering talk contribs deleted page Aditya Jha (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Jha (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser)) (thank)
• 17:47, 14 October 2008 Thingg talk contribs deleted page Aditya Jha (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person) (thank)
• 04:21, 23 December 2007 Kurykh talk contribs deleted page Aditya Jha (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Jha) (thank)
• 14:21, 14 October 2006 UtherSRG talk contribs deleted page Aditya Jha ({{prod}} > 5 days) (thank)
• 20:51, 15 August 2006 Gurch talk contribs deleted page Aditya Jha (CSD A8 (copyright violation)) (thank)

MelisaaArcadia (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@MelisaaArcadia, those deletions are all from ages ago, so I wouldn't put any stock by them at all. Anyone who does try recreating it will have to contend with the arguments you made in that AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Uche barnabas on User talk:Uche barnabas (13:49, 1 September 2025)

Uche barna born on september 29 2005 --Uche barnabas (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Uche barnabas, welcome to wikipedia! I've left some links on your talk page to help you get started. -- asilvering (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For noticing small details and responding speedily to matters, despite, likely and in spite of being a busy admin. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Salebot1 again

Flu773r (talk · contribs). Blocked, but Salebot1 has been creating a whole lot of new accounts like User:성정현1, User:성정현2, etc. (I'm intentionally not linking to the user pages because I don't want to grow any beans.) I went to Meta to request locks but the accounts need to be blocked in the meantime; if you can help at all, please do. I listed the accounts I found at SPI. Thanks! (I posted the same message on Zzuuzz's talk page.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The SPI has been closed and the accounts are all off to Meta to be locked thanks to the handiwork of Zzuuzz. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi, since I see you're online and helping with the situation, can you please add protection to WP:Articles for deletion/WNS Global Services in response to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunaita? Thanks. Left guide (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave it, so far just the one sock IP. If things get worse, maybe we reconsider. -- asilvering (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Understandable, thanks for responding. Left guide (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Another big revert in Ethnic groups in Afghanistan

Hello asilvering, @Xan747 mentioned you on my talk page because the other user reverted to an old version again, potentially causing another edit war. How can he/you handle this? SdHb (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @SdHb, been somewhat out of sorts recently and left this hanging, will try to get to it today, feel free to ping again if I don't. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that and hope you feel better soon. Having slept on this, I was thinking about asking the problem editor to self-revert and select one of the dispute resolution options I suggested on their talk page within some reasonable time frame--48 hours feels about right--and announce my intention to take the issue to ANEW if that ultimatum offer isn't accepted or time expires. @SdHb, open to other ideas if you have them. Xan747 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Belatedly, I realize that since the other editor has indicated that administrator intervention is the better option, in a way that suggests I not further interact with them, perhaps SdHb and I can craft an offer that you deliver on our behalf. Less work for you, while honoring the other editor's implied non-interaction request. Xan747 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Xan747 I thank you for your commitment in this case. I think argumenting by myself against him would make it that much harder since he has neither been very cooperative when it came to sources he deemed as not reliable with no apparent reason (many „arguments“ seemed to be AI generated nonsense but I delibaretely tried to argument against it without mentioning it) nor very consistent in his argumentation. I‘m glad that you saw my efforts for finding common ground, and I appreciate your involvement that much more. I‘m sure your first intention hasn‘t been a deep dive into ethnic politics in Afghanistan when you offered your help, yet you‘re here. At least you‘re learning something along the way 😅. That being said I‘m open to all solutions in this case. Trying to get the other user to revert back himself may be the best idea, offering the first solution that you gave him on his discussion board. Let me know if I can help! I moved our last consensus to my draft page User:SdHb/Ethnic groups in Afghanistan (working). That can be the starting point of our suggestion of our solution. SdHb (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't regret my involvement at all. I've learned a lot about the Afghan people, Wikipedia policy, and mediating disputes. Plus you've been pleasant to work with, and a good and hard-working collaborator. I intend to see this through. Xan747 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Perfect. @Asilvering I take the freedom to ping you again on this matter. I hope you're feeling better by now. SdHb (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@SdHb It appears our friendly admin is busy mopping up sockpuppets and other important admin tasks. I'll swing by your talk page in a minute to discuss options for handling this ourselves. Xan747 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Only a little bit better, I'm afraid, but better enough that I can look into some more complicated edit-warring without biting someone's head off by mistake (I hope). Sorry for leaving you both hanging. I'm sad to see all this since it really did seem to be going very well, given the circumstances! -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that and completely understand. You're heroic for doing as much work right now as you are. If you do have the energy to look in, I posted this on the dissenting editor's talk page, and there are 28 hours on the clock for them to respond before I escalate to ANEW. Feel better. Also, if there's anything you think I can do to help you out as a vanilla editor, please don't hesitate to ask. Xan747 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Block req

Can you also block User:BraindotBot, since you indeffed User:Braindot Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

No apparent need, since they're not trying to evade their block by using it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for assistance on reported user

Hey Asilvering, I'm having a bit of trouble getting admin attention at ANI on a user I reported. Would you be willing to take a look? It can be found here WP:ANI#User Kironshikder NOTHERE; its been up for 4 days at this point with no response from admins. I'm hoping this isn't canvassing since as it stands there's no ongoing discussion to speak of, and I'm not sure where else to post notice if I can't get a response at ANI. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Wasianpower, I've been pretty out of it. I can probably look into this in a little bit - if I don't get back to it in the next 24 hours, ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, looks like GorillaWarfare is on it actually, so I'll let her handle it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

RE: three questions about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Engage01

1. I'm not an SPI regular by any stretch, and I read your note that CU can't establish that their old account was definitively connected to their new account, but can a CU reveal if they also used IPs at any point during their socking spree? I know IPs can't be revealed to the community for privacy reasons, but the CU can at least note the behavior if there's further disruption later.
2. As far as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_with_personal_attacks_in_edit_summaries is concerned, there was !voting underway for an indef block. I know WP:THREESTRIKES is a thing, but should that discussion be noted as a successful WP:CBAN, or does the community need to explicitly !vote for a CBAN vs. indef block?
3. And this question will relate to your answers to 1 and 2; if a CU can confirm IPs were also abused, would those uses count as separate "strikes" for THREESTRIKES? (again, this may or may not matter depending on your thoughts on those first two questions)

Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 20:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems @Tryptofish closed the AN/I discussion while I was writing this, so pinging them here just so there's no surprise if anything changes or they have any thoughts. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Locke Cole, a CU could reveal that they were WP:LOUTSOCKing while they were using this sock account, but it wouldn't do us any good for the purposes of establishing WP:3X since we can't tie it back to the master anyway. In practical terms, I don't think it matters much either way - no admin is going to unilaterally unblock someone who was blocked like this without some pretty good assurances anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Request: Assist with my malformed SPI case

@Asilvering: I see that my SPI case on Rakibul Hasan Chowdhury is malformed. Not sure what I did wrong? Can you please assist and let me know what I missed. — ERcheck (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@ERcheck, Oshwah beat me to it, but did you create it using the username field on WP:SPI? It sure looks like you did, so I'm not sure why it broke like that. -- asilvering (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Weitz & Luxenberg

Hello, Weitz & Luxenberg (Law Firm) was just created by a new editor, whose edit history suggests UPE. How close is the new article to Weitz & Luxenberg P.C., deleted and redirected by you in May following AFD, three weeks before their account creation? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Completely different. The new one is clearly LLM generated, and the old one was a genuine article, built up over the course of some years. -- asilvering (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Tewai Village

Hi, could you please restore Tewai Village? I know it was created by a sockpuppet, but I also edited it maybe half a year ago and I want to keep working on it now. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Yikes, sorry about that @Vortex3427, that shouldn't have been G5'd. Back up now. -- asilvering (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Email ...

... I've sent you one. JBW (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated, as always. -- asilvering (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from HummingBee3 (12:53, 8 September 2025)

Hi, I have just started editing and wondered if I am going in the right direction. My skills are primarily in the simple grammar edits and I am happy to keep to that for now if that is acceptable. I have two concerns though.

How will I know if I have made mistakes or over corrected?

Are there many differences between English grammar and American grammar that I should be aware of and be taking in to account.

I am really enjoying it so far and hope that what I have done is okay. --HummingBee3 (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@HummingBee3: If Asilvering will allow me to offer a few comments in answer to a question addressed to them, here are a few comments which I hope you may find helpful...

My short answer to what you have asked is yes, I think you are going in the right direction. I'll give you some more detailed comments.

Doing minor things such as those you are doing is a good way to start. Editors who rush straight into bigger things, such as creating whole new articles, very often have a frustrating time, because they keep doing things which they have no reason to realise would not be considered acceptable, with the result that they keep seeing hours of work deleted. If you just make small changes, then when you make mistakes (which you will, because we all do) they will be small ones, and not much will be lost. Over the course of time you will gradually build up experience of how Wikipedia works, and will be able to do bigger things. (If you choose to; there's nothing wrong with sticking to the little things if you prefer.)

In my opinion a good sign is that you have asked this question: some of the worst editors are the ones who rush in, convinced that they know best, and won't listen to advice from more experienced editors.

There are lists of differences between British and American grammar, but I can't tell you where. You may like to do a Google search for one. Unfortunately, while most of us probably know some obvious ones, such as colour/color, tap/faucet, there are much less obvious ones waiting to catch us out. For example, many years ago I did what I thought was a minor correction, but got shouted down angrily, because I had never realised that standard in British English is "a hundred and seven", but in American English "a hundred seven". The best advice I can offer is be aware of the possibility of such problems, watch out for them, and if in doubt don't change anything. Even then, you may well make mistakes sometimes.

I've looked at your edits so far, and most of them were, in my opinion, good. However, there's one thing which I think is worth mentioning. Several of your edits have removed Oxford commas, also known as serial commas. (If you know what that means, fine, but if you don't, it's a comma before the last item in a list. For example, "Tom, Dick, and Harry" has an Oxford comma, but "Tom, Dick and Harry" doesn't.) Despite the name with "Oxford" in it, the Oxford comma is actually significantly less common in British English than American, but in both those versions of English, and in others, it is sometimes used and sometimes not: there is no firm rule. Wikipedia's stance on matters such as this, where usage varies and there is no universal standard, is generally: (1) either can be used; (2) it is best to be consistent within one article; (3) one should leave things as they are unless there is a specific reason for making a change; changing just because of one's personal preference is not acceptable. I therefore advise you to lay off Oxford commas, unless, as I say, there is a specific reason for killing one. JBW (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@JBW, thanks so much for this extended response - it's much better than the one I half-finished before I realized I needed to make a bunch of phone calls and forgot about it. To add to what JBW's said about commas, @HummingBee3, I'd advise avoiding messing with commas at all unless you're really, really sure they're incorrect - for example, if you see a comma splice. You've removed more commas than just the Oxford comma JBW mentions, and judging by your original post here, you use an unusually low number of commas in your own writing. So I think you're more likely to annoy people than not, if you mess with commas, and it's better to just leave them.

In general, there's not a lot of grammar fixes that need doing around here, because we're pretty chill about grammar that is "good enough", and there are lots of people who specifically search for common grammar errors in order to fix them. If you're not finding enough of this kind of thing to do, but you don't feel ready to do "bigger" edits, let me (or us) know, and we can help you find some other small and helpful task to get into. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

After reading your reply I have decided Wikipedia editing is not for someone with my very modest abilities. HummingBee3 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, @HummingBee3, and I'm not sure how I gave that impression. Not only do you obviously have the ability to edit Wikipedia, there are plenty of "modest" edits to be done. I was simply suggesting that, if you find yourself unable to find as much grammar-fixing to do as you'd like, there are plenty of other similarly approachable tasks that need doing, and we can help you find one of those. -- asilvering (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you JBW for your thoughtful and very encouraging reply. Everything you said made sense and you seemed to understand exactly where I was coming from. Unfortunately, after reading asilvering's longer reply which came next, I decided Wikipedia editing was not for me.

All the best to you and yours! HummingBee3 (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @HummingBee3: If you're keen (and competent) on cleaning up grammar, consider dabbling in topics related to areas where English isn't the main/native language, like India, other parts of Asia, and the Arab world. Anecdotally from my own past copy-editing stints, such articles often really need grammar help, even among busy/popular topics. One thought that comes to mind is that people who have a native language that's not Latin-based sometimes mix up the order of verbs and subjects when writing in English as a second language since it's different; there are other nuances too. Articles pertaining to topics from areas like the United States, UK, and Australia are usually well-trafficked from folks with a good command of the English language, and thus rarely need copy-editing help. I must beg to differ from Asilvering that In general, there's not a lot of grammar fixes that need doing around here, as there's actually a lot of grammar cleanup that needs to be done if one knows where to look. Left guide (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much Left guide for taking the trouble to send such a positive reply. Unfortunately the moment has passed. All the best to you and yours. HummingBee3 (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide, I'm of the opinion that most of the articles you describe need rather more than just simple grammar improvements, so someone looking for something small and helpful to do is more likely to feel overwhelmed or despondent than energized when running into those ones. That was my own experience as a new editor - I told the newcomer homepage module that I was after some "easy" edits, like minor copy editing assignments, and it sent me to articles that basically needed a top-to-bottom rewrite. It was so discouraging I went to WP:GTF to complain about it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, on the subject of starting with small things, my first edit after creating my account was removing an apostrophe that shouldn't have been there. JBW (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Zarutska closing comments

I thought your comment re multiple AFDs was well-taken. I just nominated to merge an article that I unsuccessfully sought to delete ten years ago. Time passes fast. Coretheapple (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I certainly hope it hasn't been bothering you that whole time! -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Ha! Actually I had totally forgotten about it, which is what happens to newsy articles. Lots of interest initially and then forgotten by pretty much everybody involved, and of course a lot of the accounts that were initially involved are no longer active. It popped up on my watchlist because of bot edit or something. I posted a merger notice on the two pages involved a week ago and have gotten zero interest of any kind. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Walter Herrera Sosa on Tanfoglio (16:39, 9 September 2025)

Buen dia solicito información si se puede reparar una arma qué se quebró de la parte interior donde ba la tolva y proteje el reten de la tolva es de polimero? --Walter Herrera Sosa (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

no tok Spanish. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Walter Herrera Sosa, sorry, I'm only here to answer questions about Wikipedia editing. If you have a nerdy historical question about guns, maybe I'll bite, but I'm not going to answer questions about gun repair. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #106194

Meh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I already used up this spell slot but I've thrown it back at Giraffer. -- asilvering (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Ethnic groups in Afghanistan".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Xan747 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Jianluchengda (05:21, 10 September 2025)

Hello, I have submitted the sandbox for reviewing. But Why i cannot type the title. Cus i wanna create "Jian Lu" Bio in wiki. --Jianluchengda (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jianluchengda, welcome to Wikipedia! You can change a page's title only by moving the page. This has already been done for you, so there's nothing you need to do in this case. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

A goat for you!

I'm afraid I'm all out of scrolls at the moment, but here's a magic goat instead? Though we haven't interacted much, sending well wishes and hopes for a speedy recovery from a friendly talk page stalker :).

GoldRomean (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This is delightful, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for approving me for AfC. I’ve already managed to review and accept an article 😆 Just happened to be a NZ based one, so I knew which news sources were trustworthy. Went in afterwards and tightened up some of the flabby bits, which I assume is good practice and not something frowned on as a conflict of sorts? The AfC helper made the whole process super painless.

Anyway, thanks again. Will see you round the place. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, by all means go ahead and clean things up! It slows down your reviewing, so it's not expected that reviewers do this, but it's so helpful, and most new editors really appreciate the help. You're even welcome to go ahead and add sources to the drafts so that they meet notability guidelines - I do this all the time while handling the books backlog. You might be interested in having a look at User:Squawk7700/sandbox, which has some helpful links. Actually, it was accepting your application that made me realize we really ought to have a template notice like this, so that's brand-new, and if you spot any errors or have any questions or suggestions about it we'd love to hear them. -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

That looks excellent - no suggestions, top notch. 👍

Oh, one question though… could you just give me a quick sanity check re companies which may or may not be notable… I looked at this draft here [[Draft:Flowbox (software)]] - there are quibbles about some of the sources, but he’s gotten it really close now. Close enough I could probably message him and say “good to go if you’d find me just one more source”. But….. assuming that the sources check out (it’s a bit of a drag because they’re in Spanish / Swedish as well as English), would that actually be enough to make his company “notable” as it is currently written? Like, how “big” do companies need to be, especially to overcome the suspicion that it might be advertising… (editor also has conflict of interest, but I could probably rewrite it myself from the sources - albeit in a very stripped back form).

Thanks as always for your help 🙏 Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

We don't actually care how "big" companies are when it comes to notability, which sometimes leads to bizarre results (companies worth many billions of dollars being declared "not notable", for eg, while scrappy startups that got some breathless hype coverage can pass). The only thing we care about is whether they meet WP:NCORP, which I suggest reading in full, particularly WP:ORGTRIV. I'd also suggest participating in some company-related AfDs to get a feel for how they go before jumping in to AfC reviewing in that area, partly because this guideline is tougher than all the others and requires an additional level of savvy (many sources look independent but are not, many things look "significant" but don't meet orgtriv, etc), and partly because this is the site of most of our COI/UPE-type editing, so the stakes are a bit higher.

As for that article specifically, without following up on any of the sources, just going by what I can glean from the reflist itself, this is so much better than the original version, which is a very good sign, and I don't think it's in "obvious decline" territory. But it's definitely not "obvious accept" to me either - I'd have to double-check those sources, since a lot of them hint to me at paid or "standard" coverage, the kind of stuff that doesn't pass orgtriv. -- asilvering (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, that really helps. That was more or less my thinking too… right in the middle, which is why I needed the sanity check 😆 I guess I might just have to go and do some company AfDs… or at least lurk a bit. Honestly, the Japanese football AfDs sucked my will to live to the point I stopped editing for a few months though… so I’d rather THAT doesn’t happen again 😆

Also… I’m aware that I am an Incrementalist by nature, and more willing than some other editors to see true but not entirely three-independent-sourced stuff stay up, on the assumption that a lot of it will get fixed / more thoroughly sourced in future… is there any kind of penalty (either formal, or just reputational), to approving AfC drafts which later turn out to fail AfD? Not that I’m planning on trying to sneak anything past, but just as something I need to watch out for? Absurdum4242 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, sorry to keep bugging you, but one draft I just checked, and was about to decline [[Draft:Verkehrsverbund Ost-Region]] has been moved to full page somehow (in an identical version), so there is now a draft AND a full page. So what to do now? The full page isn’t really bad enough for me to want to PROD or AfD - there is ONE proper independent source, and bound to be more… but, also, what to do with the draft which has been left behind?

um, and is there an actual like chat I can ask this stuff on, so as to stop bugging you? 😆

thanks and sorry Absurdum4242 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to join the NPP discord server if you'd like real-time responses: [4]. If you don't want to bother with going after something that's been copied into mainspace, don't worry about it - NPP will catch it. We don't need to worry about the draft either, since all drafts die eventually via WP:G13. So unless it's copyvio or something truly heinous you can just shrug and move on if you don't feel like cleaning that up.

There's no penalty for approving drafts that later fail AfD, and an AfC pass only means that you're pretty sure it will pass AfD, not that you're certain, so as long as you're pretty sure, that's fine. Some people may come after you over this (that's the "reputational" hit I suppose), but if they do, stay calm, remind them that AfC approval doesn't mean "will pass AfD with 100% certainty", and come grab an AfC-adjacent admin if you really get into hot water. Our bigger problem at AfC is reviewers being too hesitant to approve things that do meet the AfC criteria, not the other way around.

Regarding the incrementalist approach, my advice is to at least check to make sure there are sources - ie, don't accept anything you couldn't vote "keep" on at AfD without having to do further research. You can always then tag the article with "sources exist" (I've done this a couple of times where it's truly highly obvious that they do), but better still is to dump those sources you've found into "Further reading" so that NPPers don't feel like they have to go find them. Once you're more confident at reviewing you might be able to play the "sources exist" card more often but for now I'd suggest you keep it conservative. Whatever you do, make sure that you're not accepting any sensitive BLP stuff without a source (the top one here is birthdates - remove unless there's a clear source for the info), and for WP:UPE-likely topics like BLPs and companies, I would advise not taking the incrementalist approach at all, and only letting those through when you're sure sure, since AfC is the catch valve against that sort of promo. -- asilvering (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Afghan Ethnic Groups

Thank you. I will be starting the discussion over at DRN, and may or may not read the previous discussion on the talk page. If the issue is the reliability of sources, we will take the discussion to RSN. Thank you for pinging me. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not so much about reliability of sources generally so much as which sources are best to use for the information in the article, and what information to use, as well. I think RSN is probably the wrong place to go because we're likely to just end up with a "these are RS and these are not RS" response, which won't actually break the deadlock here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sort of. I will see what I can do. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Well. Pain shared is pain halved? -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

As of now, the three of us have agreed on six acceptable sources for the table, which I am going to count as a minor triumph. I think all we need to hear from you is whether you have any objections to any of those, and then we can move forward with how to present the data. Xan747 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Report of a topic ban violation by User:Il Nur

Hello, Asilvering. I am sorry to bother you again, but I need to report a clear and immediate violation of the topic ban you recently warned User:Il Nur about. Despite your direct warning on his talk page to "cease editing on Tatar-related topics", he has now moved his disruptive editing to Wikidata. On the Wikidata item for the historical newspaper "Vestnik pravitel'stva Bashkirii" (Q20613678) (Bashkir Government Herald), he has just made the following edits:

• He changed the newspaper's title (P1476) and label to use "Tatar Cyrillic". The original newspaper was published in 1918 using the Arabic script.
• He removed "Bashkir language" from the language of work property (P407), leaving only "Russian" and "Old Tatar". This is factually incorrect, as Bashkir encyclopedic sources state it was published in the "Old Bashkir language".

Here are the diffs of his disruptive edits on Wikidata:

• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q20613678&oldid=2403055836
• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q20613678&oldid=2403056260

This is a direct continuation of his POV-pushing on a Bashkir historical and linguistic topic, which is clearly covered by his topic ban. He is ignoring your warning and simply moving his battleground to another project. I have not reverted his edits myself to avoid any appearance of edit warring. I am bringing this directly to you for administrative action, as you handled the previous incident. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MR973 (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @MR973, the topic ban only applies to English Wikipedia and not to any other wikis, so even if I were an administrator at Wikidata, I would not take admin action there for a tban violation. If their editing is disruptive on Wikidata you will have to take it up with admins there. It may help you to show evidence from en-wiki like the relevant ANI threads, but you will need to demonstrate a clear pattern of disruptive edits on Wikidata itself for them to take action. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from WilliamTurtleClark (07:23, 13 September 2025)

Hello, I added a link which was found to be copyrighted, how can I remove it? --WilliamTurtleClark (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @WilliamTurtleClark, welcome to wikipedia! If you go to the page history of wherever you added the link, you should be able to see an "undo" button next to each individual edit. Just press that to reverse any recent edit. If you can't use that method (usually because too many edits have been made in the meantime), you can simply edit the article and remove the link. But I'm not sure what you mean by "a link which was found to be copyrighted" - can you show me the edit in question? -- asilvering (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from EpiTee (13:09, 13 September 2025)

I wanna set my own wikidia page --EpiTee (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EpiTee, welcome to wikipedia! Sorry, we don't write pages about ourselves, since wikipedia isn't social media. Your userpage can say some basic things about you if you like, but we're here to write about other people. Have a look at Special:Homepage for some ideas. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

SPI ping

I answered your question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NotPlanningOnDoingMuch. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not seeing it. -- asilvering (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Zaher O Merhi

Why did you delete the page Zaher O. Merhi? It was accepted by a senior administrator at Wikipedia who thinks that the page is worthy of publication. Would appreciate your explanation thank you 2600:1000:B150:B632:407A:F02F:BDD:6EF2 (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

AWB permission

Hello! I am requesting AWB permission so that I can do some clean-up. I think I am qualified, since I have JWB experience and sysop perms on the Gamepedia Zelda Wiki. I also plan on doing additional edits with it as I find edits that need to be done. Twineee 22:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Twineeea, you'll have to request that at WP:PERM. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Twineee 23:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Cite Unseen September 2025 updates

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. We are excited to share details about a big update we just deployed. With grant support from Wikimedia CH, we've added several new features, including a citation filtering dashboard, settings dialog, support for localization, and the ability to easily suggest domain categorizations. Cite Unseen now also lives on Meta Wiki, as part of our effort to serve all Wikimedia projects. Our source lists are now also on Meta-Wiki, where they can be collaboratively edited by the community.

Please see our newsletter on Meta-Wiki for full details. If you have feature ideas, notice any issues with our new updates, or have any questions, please get in touch via our project talk page. Thank you!

From SuperHamster and SuperGrey, 05:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

This message was sent via global message delivery. You received this message as you've been identified as a user of Cite Unseen. If you are not a Cite Unseen user, or otherwise don't want to receive updates in the future, you can remove yourself from our mailing list here.

Revert Article Name

@Asilvering Hi, thanks very much for your help! Really appriciated. Now I try to change the article name to back before the "edit war" but i cannot. Instead of "Master Equations for Noisy Qubits" i used now "Noisy Qubits Master Equations" since it did not allow me to revert it back. Now before i get mixed up in an other "war" would it be possible for you to make the correct change? Cheers Harold Foppele (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele, it needs to stay in the same place while it's up for deletion or else it will break the scripts we use to close discussions, so I've moved it back to the original title. If it's kept after the AfD, then we can move it to wherever it needs to go. -- asilvering (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank You :)Harold Foppele (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S. is it ok if i detele te L.S. vote ? Since its now double vote (thanks partioally to youi :) ) Harold Foppele (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you have time to look at my User:Harold Foppele/sandbox ? It has a lot of changes. Since i am allowed to edit the article under discussion i could copy it to the real article. But only if it is usefull Harold Foppele (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like the AfD is going to close as delete, so don't worry about copying your new version over. It's fine to keep working on it in your sandbox. Better to leave the comments you've already placed in the AfD as well - don't worry about it, the closer can handle that. -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Taabii (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Zac Smith

Two of the canvassed subjects of the closed with no action SPI are, yet again, maligning BLP for having accused a person of sexual assault. So the disruption looks like it will continue indefinitely. Advice about possible next steps would be appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223, you'll have to give me something more to go on. I handle a lot of SPIs. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The ones associated with FixerFixerFixer- see Talk:Zak Smith. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

68 posts to that talk page. Wow. Well, my advice would have been WP:AE, but they've never been given the CTOP notice. I've given it now (please hand these out early, it makes admin actions much easier), so if serious disruption continues, that's where I'd suggest you go. But as the RfC stands heavily in favour of the "not sockpuppet side" anyway, and you've made even more edits to that talk page yourself, I'd warn you about throwing stones in glass houses. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

SPI

Hi @Asilvering: I’ve added a few points to this SPI and shortened parts of my comment to make the evidence more straightforward to review. Could you take a look? I’d appreciate your opinion. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not familiar with this case, can you give me a brief description of what Urabura gets up to? I don't mean evidence with diffs, just a general description. eg from my quick skim through the case it looks like they're interested in Polish history and have a habit of edit warring. You mention a conversation that comes off to you as "inauthentic", does this sockmaster have any previous history of this kind of thing? -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

A request

Can you help with this (the blocking, not the making Schazjmd an admin bit, ha).AlsoPonyo (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Indef or for the three months? -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Definitely indef. The BLP violations are overt-the-top and the falsification of the references pretty malicious. I'm fairly certain this is an LTA, but haven't dug deep enough in the target article histories to verify. Or temp block for now and I can modify when I'm back on my admin account.--AlsoPonyo (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I was indeed coming to the indef conclusion myself, though I have to admire the moxie. -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --AlsoPonyo (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Qcne (18:14, 15 September 2025)

Note: Qcne's mentor Clovermoss is away.

Test --qcne (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Dominican–Spanish Treaty (1855)

Hi I came across this article as a new page reviewer. The creator was blocked for copyvio and this article reeks of it - great slabs of text without attribution, and in many cases the citation numbers lifted from the original source have been left in the text. Earwig can’t identify the original it’s been lifted from unfortunately. I could take it to AfD but as it’s a pretty clear copyvio I thought it might qualify for admin action. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. They're blocked for unattributed translations, but that one isn't a translation from es-wiki. They don't have a corresponding article, and also the editor appears to have gotten the Spanish name for the treaty wrong (they've just directly translated the English title, but my googling finds Tratado de Reconocimiento, Paz, Amistad y Comercio de 1855 as the standard Spanish). They're still around, so maybe they'll tell us where it came from. -- asilvering (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article seems to have been created as a direct translation of this Spanish-language journal article, which is CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0. I've stubified it and tagged it for revdel. MCE89 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You have made a mistake

@Asilvering, I figured instead of just hiding from administrators like other alternative acounts of blocked users I would like to be honest with you because you are an administrator and administrators are there to help you.

I am an alternative acount of pandachini bananini check my IP or was it ID adress anyways Isma4l isnt an alternative acount Isma4l i dont even recognise Isma4l but Isma4l is an imposter I swear thats not an alternative of my acounts so i hope you understand the mistake youve made a steward globaly locked my acount known as Pandachini bananini and provented me from posting anything for a while before giving me a second chance. So i hope you realise the mistake Kind regards, Square Guard (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Square Guard, I'm sorry, but you have to stay away from Wikipedia editing while you're blocked. You can't keep creating new accounts. As for Isma4l, you don't need to worry about them. -- asilvering (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello asilvering,

I took your message to heart about being nice and polite. You were right.

Along those lines, I wanted to apologize for how I responded to your message on my talk page (which I subsequently deleted) in regards to that flautist from NJ. I know you weren't calling me that and your message was helpful. I didn't react properly to it, and I'm sorry. I also bit the newcomer.

I've turned a new leaf and appreciate all the help I can get. Thank you. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 16:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, @Mamani1990, and apology accepted. I don't know that I can provide help, exactly, but I can offer some advice: always act as though the people you're talking to are collaborators who want to work together with you to improve the encyclopedia. And of course, vice versa: act as though you want to collaborate with them. If you don't believe that, it doesn't matter - fake it 'til you make it. It will certainly feel very foolish at first, but you'll get used to it and it'll become second nature.

Perhaps you're thinking, "but what if they are here in bad faith and don't at all want to improve the encyclopedia?" Doesn't matter. The only way to avoid the ABF trap is to never make an assumption. If they're up to no good, and you're there next to them acting in the highest of good faith, everyone else will be able to see what's going on. And it's much, much easier for an admin to take action. Go grab one if you ever get too far in over your head. Good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Monthly editathon

We are getting stoked to elevate Katherine Hayles Wikipedia article to Good Status. We have had it reviewed, and there are lots of great comments to follow up on. N. Katherine Hayles - Wikipedia.

Please edit directly in the Wikipedia article, as we need as many editors as we can get to elevate that status and interest--and if you don't feel comfortable doing that, (or if you have a conflict of interest) you can always note what should be added to the article in our Google doc for drafting. tinyurl.com/welwwrite.

Please share this invitation widely! our women Electronic Literature Writers editathons are Every third Thursday at 3 UTC! LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, @LoveElectronicLiterature! I don't think I'll be able to join in, but I wish you all good luck and happy editing. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your expert help with our WP:ELIT project! Please let others know about our work. Thanks LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikifreak20012

Hi, thanks for your response at the SPI. The last two socks haven't been blocked yet, could you whomp those please when you get chance? Wikishovel (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Er, thanks for pointing that out. Not sure how that happened. Fixed. -- asilvering (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Phyo Phyo Htun (07:55, 17 September 2025)

thank you --Phyo Phyo Htun (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Phyo Phyo Htun, welcome to Wikipedia! I've left you some helpful links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Stray training tag

Mz7 copied an SPI report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TylerKutschbach/Archive without removing the notice that you were training on it. Just wanted to let you know in case you wanted to clean it up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to stay there? There are lots of them in the archives from previous baby clerks. -- asilvering (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Guess I made a bad assumption, then. Thanks! SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I don't really have any idea what it's for, so I just quietly stopped using it. No one's come after me since, so... -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Women in Green's 9th Edit-a-thon

Hello Asilvering:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2025!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event with the theme What Women Do! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 different occupations or professions (or broader roles in society) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk), Spookyaki (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Shoxrux Hamdamov

I saw you salted Shoxrux Xamdamov; the previous one Shoxrux Hamdamov is not salted on en-wiki, only on uz-wiki -- so flagging that in case you'd like to salt that one as well. Thanks for reviewing the SPI. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating. Assumed it had been since they did the run-around with the name spelling. I'll leave it, actually, for honeypot reasons. I'm more keen on salting the slightly weirder versions that are easier for patrollers to miss. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Turkem1st

I had no other choice but to log off my account to write this to you. You have told me on my recently unblock request that i should appeal an unblock request on my talk page, But i cannot do this, im blocked from doing so. And i cannt appeal another unblock request on that UTRS website thing. Philknight blocked me from doing any thing at all. 94.191.153.156 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

UTRS is actually available to them -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Turkem1st, are you maybe trying to edit the old UTRS that was declined? You have to start a new appeal. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

RM closure

Hey there, re the RM closure - as I summarized here - the prior RM could very easily been challenged at MRV that the alternative had basically universal support and the result should have been moved at that time (which likely would have made this RM here a lot less chaotic). While the "homosexual -> LGBTQ" proposal found no support, no one really challenged the notion of "homosexual -> homosexual men" at the new RM either, so do we really need to re-tape another RM for that move to happen, when no one fundamentally disagreed with such a move? Feels like a pretty simple application of WP:RMNOMIN to execute the alternative move. The same could be said for the other 2 articles, which were broadly supported (I assume you ignored the 2001:8F8:* harassment who's been chasing me for weeks, collecting more diffs to narrow down the range to block, see Ponyo's talk page for more context), some people only voiced opinions on the homosexual article and the only person that opposed it was Buidhe.

• Comment only on homosexual title
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ
    • Rsk6400 (Strong oppose The existing article Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany is a featured article and the hatnote says that it is about the persecution of homosexual men)
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ, but support homosexual -> homosexual men
    • Panamitsu (Oppose per Rsk6400. If we were to move the article, I would change "homosexual" to "gay men". ... "Persecution of homosexual men in Nazi Germany" was suggested instead, which I think would be a better title than what we've got now.
• Comment on homosexual & trans / lesbian
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ & support trans & lesbian
    • Brigade Piron (Partial support. I agree that moving the Persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany and Persecution of lesbians in Nazi Germany makes sense.... disagree with the "homosexuals" to "LGBTQ people"
    • SchroCat (Oppose; others have been more eloquent.... There is space and freedom on the project for this article and focused articles on other groups persecuted by the Nazis.
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ & support trans
    • Zenomonoz (Strongly oppose moving "Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany" to "LGBTQ... However, I do support moving "Transgender people in Nazi Germany" to "Persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany".)
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ, but support homosexual -> homosexual men & support trans / lesbian
    • AirshipJungleman29 (oppose the moving of this page to "Persecution of LGBTQ people.... instead, I support the moves on the relevant transgender and lesbian-related articles)
  • Oppose all homosexual -> LGBTQ & Oppose trans/lesbian, no comment on homosexual men
    • buidhe
  • Oppose homosexual -> LGBTQ & Oppose split of new article to homosexual men & neutral of trans / lesbian
    • Denaar (Oppose - Options 1 and 4, neutral about options 2 and 3
  • Harassment
    • 2001:8F8:* IP range harassing me for weeks, reverting changes and commenting in opposition of various threads I'm commenting on

So, summing it all up (discounting the IP):

User	Homosexual → LGBTQ	Homosexual → Homosexual Men	Trans / Lesbian
Rsk6400	Oppose	—	—
Brigade Piron	Oppose	—	Support
SchroCat	Oppose	—	Support
Zenomonoz	Oppose	—	Support (trans), no comment (lesbian)
Panamitsu	Oppose	Support	—
AirshipJungleman29	Oppose	Support	Support
Buidhe	Oppose	—	Oppose (later comment agreeing there are more sources for trans people compared to lesbian)
Denaar	Oppose	Oppose creation of new article if homosexual -> LGBTQ had happened	Neutral
Raladic (RM author)	Oppose	Support	Support

Or totaled:

Proposal	Support	Oppose	Neutral	No Comment
Homosexual → LGBTQ	0	9	0	0
Homosexual → Homosexual Men	3	0	1 (Oppose creation of new article if homosexual -> LGBTQ had happened)	5
Trans	5	1	1	2
Lesbian	4	1	1	3

Plus the prior RM of homosexual -> homosexual men (initially -> gay men), which Buidhe and Fff explicitly supported as well (and didn't voice further comments on in the new one), plus Panamitsu who now clarified in the followup that they support the alternative.

So just reading it all, a flat out "not moved" seems like an unlikely reading unless you ignore all supporters' comments and only considered Buidhe's comment, or didn't differentiate that some commenters only commented on the homosexual title and not the other two. I even tried to address Buidhe's concerns in the special response for them specifically (with the linked addendum since no other commenters were asking for that much detail), and while they didn't strike their initial vote, they did seem to come around at least on the trans title.

So, I think in the interest of saving the community more red tape discussion, this is a more genuine reading of the discussion: "Moved to alternative Persecution of homosexual men in Nazi Germany per this and the prior prior RM of homosexual -> gay men which had broad support for the alternative homosexual men. There was broad support for the other two articles (support was slightly stronger for the transgender case compared to the lesbian case) being moved to Persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany, with one opposition, one neutral and two abstentions, and for and Persecution of lesbians in Nazi Germany, 4 supports, one opposition, one neutral and 3 abstentions, which in light of WP:RMNOMIN supports the moves."

I could understand the slightly weaker support for lesbian (one less support and Buidhe's later comment), but I think support for homosexual men and transgender articles was broad enough to support the moves.

Anyway, I hope the above is convincing to save the community time instead of having to spend more time in another red tape several discussions. Raladic (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Raladic, this verges on the absurd. This is more than two full scrolls of my computer screen. Please stop making excessively long comments and unnecessarily complicated RMs as this is, in itself, a waste of community time. The RMs will take very little time, and require very little further discussion, if you simply open them and let them run. I strongly suggest that you write a statement of no more than 100 words in support of any of your proposed moves, and additionally I strongly suggest that you hold yourself to that same limit when replying to anyone in the discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For mopping with empathy, nuance, and rigour — and for being unquestionably charitable with me with your time. I really appreciate it :) Giraffer (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Exxess

It's been a few months since you changed the block on an UTRS appeal, but is this what you meant to happen when you gave talk page access back? --Onorem (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Meant to, no, but why are you asking? -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Tban

Hi, I just noticed I am involved in yet another CU, am I allowed to reply to it? Wlaak (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fair, so long as you stick closely to the topic of the SPI, rather than wandering into discussions about content any further than that. @Hammersoft, you set the tban, do you agree? -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Until Hammersoft responds, let me just say that it's been 4 months, in 2 months I am able to appeal the TBAN. I would not risk anything this far in. But I have nothing against doing a CU check on me, do it as much as you want.

The TBAN has made me detached/not as attached to the topic as I was, which is good. So please, don't start dragging me into it again. I've skimmed through the report, and must say it is not weird for the edits to be on said villages as it currently seems as they are the only ones having a different name of the population from all other villages in the mountain. Regarding the Turkish one, I don't know what to say, might be because there was a GS:ACAS left on his talk page which has the Draft as the number one article listed.

Regarding the "off-wiki" evidence, sure, email them, show whatever they feel like showing, I am more than happy to email you Asilvering my name and Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok username, I've got nothing to hide. I don't have anything against telling my IP, phone, software, whatever you want. I just hope after this time, the constant bashing on me can be let go.

And like I said, do the CU check, do it 100 times a year if you like, this just feels like poor attempts to get rid of me. I've nothing to hide, keep going.

Is there some kind of rule on Wikipedia that mentions ANI & CU abuse against one person? Wlaak (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they're attempting to get rid of you, so much as that they're picking the SPI in your name as the location of the filing because you were one of the more active new editors in the topic area. I'd be surprised to find you are technically related to any of the listed accounts in the current SPI, and said as much there. You certainly don't need to send us any personal information.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. We do have policies against harassment and WP:HOUNDING, if that's what you're asking. Opening an SPI when there is evidence of sockpuppetry is not harassment or hounding, however. Though if this one also ends in no blocks for anyone and editors return again a third time, I don't think the clerks/CUs will be particularly amused. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will keep logging on as normal and edit whenever I feel like it.

But I have a question again, this TBAN, is it only on the English WikiPedia? Or can I upload images to Wikimedia as well? And edit other languages I know? Not saying I will, but I am curious, specially curious on the Wikimedia thing Wlaak (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wlaak; so far as I'm concerned, I feel you are free to act without concern of the TBAN strictly only in responding on and too the CU Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlaak. I.e., editing OUTSIDE of the CU about the CU would not be covered, only editing on the CU itself. Anyone who questions your actions on that CU can be referenced to this comment by me. As for the TBAN's project scope: It applies strictly only to en.wikipedia.org. Any other Wikimedia project is not affected by the TBAN. However, if you did something on this project that referenced your work outside of en.wikipedia.org and that external reference were to violate the TBAN, then we would have to consider that a violation of the TBAN. Example; uploading an image to Commons would be ok. But, including that image somewhere on en.wikipedia.org...if it could be construed to be in violation of the TBAN...would not be acceptable. Certainly feel free to ask me if you have questions. I'm happy to answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but if I were to appeal the TBAN in 2 months, can my contributions outside of en.wikipedia.org be used against me, like "well you still edited within this topic, proving you could not stay away of it." Or something like that? Wlaak (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

No, that won't be held against you. The fact that you haven't made many en-wiki edits in the interim will, however. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I've tried looking for topics to edit on, but its hard. I've looked into history but all articles are super detailed already... I have tried to edit some finance articles recently and started a topic on Swedish 30 year wall about moving title but no response hahah.. its difficult Wlaak (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Would you be interested in working through some kind of maintenance backlog? There are loads of them, and they're all pretty boring to handle, unless you're the sort of person who likes handling that particular backlog, in which case you find them deeply satisfying. It's hard to guess in advance which tasks you'll find boring and which ones you'll love, but you could start by looking at WP:TASK and seeing if anything jumps out at you. If nothing does, I'd suggest just picking something randomly and clearing 10 items from that backlog. If you hate it, then move on to another one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I will look into this Wlaak (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I came here to ask Asilvering a favour, and just saw this in passing, but one thing which always needs done is the basic proofreading / editing tasks they give newbies. Another which I grind away at is, pick a random WikiProject. There will be thousands of stub articles, many of which are no longer stubs because they’ve been edited. Recategorise the non-stubs as start/C class, and if it’s genuinely a stub, see if you can get it to a start level and enter it into the Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge list. That way all the articles you see will have minimal detail. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Quick favour

Hi, I have a quick favour to ask. I merged a draft I declined to an already existing page which MUCH less content than the draft (including edits I had made). Could you just check to make sure I haven’t buggered anything up? This is my first tie. Attempting a merge. I followed the steps on the merge page, and it LOOKS ok, but…

page is Kyosuke Takumi

The thing I’m most worried about it whether, when the draft expires, it’s talk page will also expire, deleting the edit history that the merge notice links to…

Thanks 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Beginner help

A quick guide to get started Caliimusic (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you able to help me review my draft? I am unsure how to move it to and from the draft. Caliimusic (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:HouseBlaster and User:TechnoSquirrel69 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Since 2021, asilvering has been a champion of the unseen on Wikipedia, whether by providing hundreds of thoughtful responses to newer editors at the Teahouse and their talk page, or helping expand the encyclopedia's coverage of things like the Federated Legion of Women with WikiProject Women in Red. They've put in a lot of work helping to keep the queue of literature-related drafts short at Articles for creation, with a staggering 1835 reviews to their name. Since becoming an administrator, they've been working on unblock requests—a taxing and largely thankless task—helping editors understand why they were blocked, and teaching the nuances of sourcing, copyright, and conduct. The fact that they're now training to be a clerk at sockpuppet investigations is a testament to their patience and tenacity. Wikipedia needs more editors like asilvering, and we hope you'll join us in presenting a small token of appreciation for their work. This nomination was seconded by theleekycauldron, Vacant0, Perfect4th, QuicoleJR, Tarlby, WeWake, Vanderwaalforces, Bunnypranav and Sohom Datta.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)