Jump to content

User talk:Asilvering/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

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: [1]. 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)

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:

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

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 remove this notice 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 MANÍ1990(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)

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)

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)

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)

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
    • 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

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)
I guess I thought it was fairly obvious. They've said they aren't looking to request an unblock...but are taking shots at the editors that they feel 'wronged' by. Why are they being allowed this platform? I obviously don't have access to UTRS, so I don't know the appropriate venue to question their access. --Onorem (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but again - why are you asking? They haven't tagged you, and as far as I can tell you've never interacted with each other. They don't have an open unblock request. What's going on?
As for why they're being allowed, well, it appears to be prep for an imminent unblock request. It's not much of a platform, and they're not tagging anyone other than an admin who's perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, so I don't feel any urgent reason to get in there and stop them from digging that hole even deeper. Maybe they'll find the bottom of the hole, maybe not. If you're concerned about them being unblocked when they finally get around to making a request, don't be. I can't imagine any administrator taking a look at that and thinking "this is someone who will edit collaboratively and productively with other editors, let's let them loose". -- asilvering (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea how their talk page wound up on my watchlist. I'll take it off now. They have said they aren't going to request an unblock...so I don't think that's imminent. If the editors they are attacking don't care, I guess I don't either. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Onorem (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
No worries, it's no inconvenience. -- asilvering (talk) 15:50, 22 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)
Well. Never let it be said that we didn't try. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Man, it’s all you can do 😆 Absurdum4242 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Just ...wow. <smh>. It's amazing to me how people think they can get away with things. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
The SPI revealed that DavidKaf was being used by Wlaak. One of the edits I pointed out is that DavidKaf copied Wlaak's Draft:Aramean people into the Turkish version of Assyrian people. After the blocks I reverted that edit, but what does Wlaak do? They revert back to the version that DavidKaf had [2]. Is this not basically an admission of sockpuppetry? Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
@Surayeproject3, I wouldn't say so, and I'm not quite sure why you think so? Certainly it's further evidence, but an admission of sockpuppetry would be just that: outright stating that both accounts were theirs. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
@Asilvering "Admission" is probably not the best word to describe it, but I would say it's further evidence that both accounts are connected. I will try and reply to Wlaak's message on his talk page with more details (Edit: sometime later today). Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
@Surayeproject3, it's best not to do that, as you will probably end up toeing the line pretty close to WP:GRAVEDANCING. We have a CU confirm so it's unlikely that we'll need further evidence, but you might want to hang onto it for now in case more sockpuppets show up (it might help you write future SPI reports). -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I did not even know that WP:GRAVEDANCING was a thing if I'm going to be completely honest with you, certainly it wouldn't be my intent to try and insult Wlaak as it is unsavory behavior and I want to be as uninvolved as I possibly can be. However, my concerns with Turkish Wikipedia are still valid; they have the same policy for sockpuppetry and there's the CU confirm here, so the fact that Wlaak reverted this revert is a little more then just slightly suspicious.
Furthermore, I just want to inquire on something as well; DavidKaf's account was only blocked for three months after the CU confirmation. Isn't it typically custom that the sock account of a user is permanently blocked? What happens if after December 20th "DavidKaf" suddenly reappears and begins contesting content in the topic area again? Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
The sock account is Wlaak, since DavidKaf is an earlier account. DavidKaf has been blocked temporarily for socking and for violating the tban. The tban will still be in force when the block expires, so if the DavidKaf account goes back to editing in WP:GS/ACAS, we will block again, probably indefinitely this time. -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 21 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)

Yes, the talk page and the draft would both be deleted, if they timed out via WP:G13. But since it's an redirect from draftspace, it will stay there indefinitely, so it's fine. -- asilvering (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 02:59, 21 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)
@Caliimusic, it looks like you accidentally removed the draft submission template. I've added it to the draft for you, so now all you need to do to get a review is press the blue "submit" button. However, I don't think this is likely to be accepted, and I don't think there's anything you can do right now to make it something that would be accepted either - sorry for the bad news. Basically, you'd need to be able to show that you meet WP:MUSICBIO, and it's very unlikely that you do (yet), since your debut just came out this year. Basically, we're looking to see that all our article subjects have significant coverage, so that we can write about them without having to reply on non-independent sources like interviews, their personal websites, etc (see WP:42). This is so we can satisfy our two really central goals of neutral point-of-view and verifiability. Musicians typically need to have released multiple full albums before they have enough independent coverage to meet our guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 19:55, 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}}
Administrator
Asilvering
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning
asilvering has been a champion of the unseen on Wikipedia since 2021; whether by providing hundreds of thoughtful responses to newer editors at the Teahouse and on their talk page, or helping expand the encyclopedia's coverage of things like the Federated Legion of Women with WikiProject Women in Red. They help to keep the queue of literature-related drafts short at Articles for creation, with a staggering 1835 reviews to their name. As an administrator, they work 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. They are now training to be a clerk at sockpuppet investigations.
Recognized for
patience and tenacity
Submit a nomination

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

Congratulations! Incredibly well deserved GoldRomean (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely! It's not just the work you do but how you do it. S0091 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Gratz! Well deserved! - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I was worried when I saw how many pings I had... and then it turned out to be this! Thanks everyone, this is very sweet. :') "Patience and tenacity" makes for a good motto. -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from MaxwelJohn (16:10, 21 September 2025)

I'm trying to add stage credits to an actors wiki page but it isn't saving the credits --MaxwelJohn (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MaxwelJohn, welcome to wikipedia! It looks like you got this sorted out in the meantime, but do let me know if you run into any other problems. I've left you some helpful links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Moved from the DRN on ethnic groups in Afghanistan

Hello @Asilvering, as you saw we are making some progress in the "Discussion on Table" talk page. While we sort out how we want to represent the data, we will have to come back here soon to discuss disputed sources. I put a column with your name in the sources overview to have the opinion on all sources from everybody who was involved in the discussions. Do you consider yourself involved enough to give your opinion on every single source? If yes, I would kindly ask you to add your opinion into the overview as soon as possible, so once we have reached consensus on the ethnicity table layout, we can discuss the disputed sources without wasting too much time. If you don't feel involved enough (anymore), that's also fine, then I would remove your name from the table. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@SdHb, it's not clear to me which version of the table we've settled on yet, if any? The version of yours that I was looking at didn't use most of the sources that are in that larger table. I don't see any reason to add in ones that are under dispute if we've already got a table that functions perfectly well. -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
This may be a misunderstanding. What mostly me and Xan747 are discussing right now is just the format that the ethnicity table should have at the end in the live article. The sources that Xan747 and I are using in our draft versions are more or less placeholders for all sources that will eventually come up. What sources we use for that table, that‘s what we discuss afterwards. And in order to do that, it would be of great help if we know where every involved user stands with their opinion of every source that was ever in question for that live table. For that I think your opinion would be of immense importance, and that is why I have created that overview of sources. It‘s not for the content of the sources, just to visualize whether a source is even reliable or not. If we agree (if needed, after a discussion) that a source is reliable, then we will add the content of that source into the live table. I hope this was understandable. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
mm, alright, I'll have a look. Do you know if the ranges that are in your "demo" tables are likely to change if new sources are added? Or are the numbers also just guesses for the sake of designing the tables? -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes surely they will change. Many numbers are more or less placeholders. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 23:02, 21 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)
Have you thoughts on UTRS appeal #106470 ? Not sure where to go or what to do. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra, I've had a look and added a comment to the UTRS appeal. I don't know what moved Phil to call this "likely" instead of just "possible" but it is probably worth having a double-check on that. @Mz7, @Girth Summit, you've both also had a look at socks in this case, maybe one of you could see what you think? I've left some more beansy stuff wrt possible CU data on the UTRS appeal as well. Sorry if it's useless and/or accidentally condescending, as I don't have goggles and am mostly guessing wildly. -- asilvering (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I've had a look, and I would agree with  Likely, or even  Technically indistinguishable. They're using identical UAs, and there almost total overlap in the IPs ranges they edit from; the only thing that would prevent this from being a confirmed finding is that they don't actually show up on the same IP at the same time - but then, neither of them stay on the same IP within their ranges for very long. (Without giving away too much about the content of the UTRS discussion, I would venture to ask how they know what they know about the other editor they are claiming not to be connected to...). I wouldn't unblock. Girth Summit (blether) 15:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Actually, I strike that last comment - I misread, I was interpreting 'edit' as 'edit from' rather than 'edit about'. Still, the technical connection is very strong, I would not unblock. Girth Summit (blether) 16:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I've added some more detailed observations to the UTRS appeal. Girth Summit (blether) 16:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I was considering carrying the appeal the community. But I think it would be futile to do so. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I am not an admin or CU. All the people commenting here are admins, so I wanted to comment while I was waiting to see if I should comment or wait for things to happen. I have reported more than 100 users on SPI since January. The most famous tactic of socks is to either change their IP addresses or their identities to avoid detection. On this account Grek0map they claimed to be Greek, [3] but they did not edit even a single Greek article. On their newly created account, Turkem1st, they claimed to be Turk, [4] and again, they do not edit articles about Turks. I think all this masquerading through this account and the others was part of deflecting the pov pushing their had been causing. How could someone of Turk or Greek origin possibly be pov pushing in favour of anything Assyrian-related? Especially look at what Etcnoel1 added to the infobox (10,000 Turks and Kurds massacred) [5]Etcnoel1's sock Ashuroyo22 had created a battle article about Assyrians in one of their first edits, [6] and Turkem1st did the same. They had created a battle article about Assyrians in one of their first edits. [7] Kajmer05 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
@Kajmer05, I've given them the standard offer, so it's just a waiting game at this point. @Deepfriedokra, forgive me, but I refactored your comment on their talk page when I cleaned up all the beans off the floor. -- asilvering (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, for them the standard offer would be the best solution. Kajmer05 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Batter up!

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#CU/OS rolling appointment application - September 2025. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

hup hup asilvering (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi @Asilvering! Just wanted to leave a quick note saying thanks for your close on this AfD. If I had the ability to remake that decision, I would've just left it without bothering nominating it, had I known about the drama that was to follow.

I also want to say thanks for giving me a chance with participating in the backlog drive. I'm currently on a break from most online activities, including Wikipedia, as a result I have updated my user page to reflect this and withdrew my username from the drive. It would have felt disingenuous for my name to remain there having only participated for two-thirds of the month. I also don't believe my performance was up to the same standard as other reviewers (that's only a self-reflection of course). I've been notified that the permission will expire in less than a week, which I am okay with! I have made progress at NPP/S, I don't think doing the NPP exercise would have been the best decision to attempt with an ongoing drive. I think a quieter month would give a better chance to complete this without risking the chosen articles being reviewed by someone else.

I'm not going to rush to reapply for NPP, as at the moment I don't think I qualify based on self-assessed performance. That being said, the about 100 articles I did review has given me some excellent practical experience for the moment and I look forward to potentially doing more in the future! Cheers! 11WB (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it's good that you nominated that! Your nomination ended up in that article being fixed up, and many sockpuppets being blocked. The system is working as intended. As for withdrawing from the drive - lots of people only participate for part of the month! You're welcome to leave your name in. And it's a good opportunity to get more feedback than you might otherwise get, since re-reviewing is part of the drive. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
That's true, I guess I was only looking at it from the perspective of it taking up editor time.
I forgot about the re-reviews, I've readded my name for this. There were also a couple of usernames on the list that do not have the NPP right, so I've removed them as well. I've got respect for all the reviewers who have made this is a success, especially those numbering in the many hundreds and thousands! 11WB (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
@11wallisb I agree with asilvering; it was a good nom and one of places where time should be spent is AfD.
Speaking of this particular article, asilivering will you please semi-protect it. An IP from the same range as the one that was p-blocked (User talk:122.171.17.156) is back again under IP 122.171.16.213.. It was previously protected for a week during the AfD but as noted in the AfD, for the entire time the article has existed it has been disrupted by UPEs and socks. S0091 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure @Asilvering took this into account, however I think a point many later participants may have missed is that the article was at least two-thirds LLM generated. This was taken care of after @Milowent addressed all the issues. 11WB (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Just to follow up, I know this isn't the place to request page protection, however the article will likely need it going forward to prevent reoccurrences of the same problems. I second @S0091's request. 11WB (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
oof yes, obvious oversight on my part. Semi'd for a year. Not sure that will really fix the problem, but it will at least help. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Asilvering! Unless they attempt to game the system, that should stop 99% of the issues–though with the SPI, I think they'd be caught long before being able to do any further editing, only to be reverted immediately anyway!
I've completed the theory part of NPP/S. I have decided not to reapply for new page reviewer until I've passed NPP/S completely, hopefully received feedback from the drive and am performing at an acceptable level at AfC and AfD. I would feel comfortable then applying for another month! 11WB (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

AFD Relists

I'm surprised you closed Space Park Leicester as no consensus instead of relisting it, the latest update should be discounted because as I pointed out the article now has fake LLM content, no? Are we just going to let that slide without further review?

On the other hand you relisted Greg Hayes (audio engineer) by discounting my entry, but what I wrote is directly answering what the previous relist by Stifle asked for and is straight from the NMUSIC policy, so the relist is contradicting that? - Indefensible (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

LLM content is an editorial issue - you can easily clean that up yourself simply by editing the article. I closed that one as "no consensus" because there was not a single delete !vote after two relists, so a consensus for deletion is vanishingly unlikely to arise.
As for Greg Hayes, absolutely no one in the AfD has argued that he has not won a Grammy and an Emmy. They've argued that for our purposes, those awards don't "count", for various reasons. winning a Grammy is clearly notable per WP:NMUSIC does not help much for answering Stifle's question. -- asilvering (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Re: LLMs, I disagree and I think I have seem other admins disagree recently because we now have unverifiable information directly on the encyclopedia even after passing through AFD, but okay. Guess it will just be another problem to be fixed.
If the question is whether "the awards won should be counted towards notability" (i.e. Grammy), I do not see how confirming it does count towards notability per NMUSIC does not answer Stifle's question or how it would be answered. - Indefensible (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
It's a problem you can fix in under a minute, by reverting to this version and then removing the AfD tag: [8]. We don't delete articles simply because someone added something objectionable to them midway through an AfD.
Indeed, the question is whether the awards won should be counted towards notability. Your response, winning a Grammy is clearly notable per WP:NMUSIC, does not meaningfully answer that question, since the issue at hand is not "did he or did he not win a Grammy", but "is he inherently notable for having won that particular Grammy (as part of a group)". That is seriously and persuasively contested in this AfD. Keep !voters have additionally not turned up any other reasons to support keeping the article, such as significant coverage. So simply saying that we ought to keep the article on the weight of the award alone leaves the overall discussion in the same place it was before it was relisted the first time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it can be reverted, however I am hesitant to do so because it basically resets the article back to when the AFD was originally nominated. I guess there is no consensus as you wrote, but I do not feel great about making that change personally.
Re: NMUSIC, it seems pretty straight forward based on policy to me, but I guess that is a matter of subjective interpretation still. - Indefensible (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Adamrabbithide (00:13, 26 September 2025)

hi! Im new to editing and i changed the main picture in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfin_squid, is this good? --Adamrabbithide (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamrabbithide, it looks like you've uploaded an image that you don't have the rights to? You can only add images to Commons if you created them yourself or if they meet some very specific requirements. See Commons:Licensing for the full details. -- asilvering (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilvering/Archive_24&oldid=1318894235"