User talk:Asilvering/Archive 22

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. 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) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello team wikipedia my wikipedia acccount is new fresh I am new page please support me thanks --Kishor kishu salvi (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your caution, but please consider this a formal and irrevocable waiver of any and all G5 "substantial edit" consideration of my involvement in de-spamming paid articles. :) Especially from that group/person. Sam Kuru (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You got it. And same to you. -- asilvering (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me about the articles I write. Everything I write is sourced. There are no fictional vehicles, no erroneus successors and predecessors, everything is sourced. See the similair message I left on the German Wikipedia page: Benutzer Diskussion:Johannes Maximilian – Wikipedia Thedarkestsideofthetownn (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Thedarkestsideofthetownn, you're currently evading a block (and a global lock), and have done so so many times that you are now WP:3X banned from English Wikipedia. I would be more than happy to consider your unblock request and forward it to the community, but you cannot keep making new accounts and continuing the same behaviour. We are never, ever going to consider unbanning you while you are still actively engaged in ban evasion. Your accounts and IPs will continue to be blocked, and your articles deleted, until you get your ban lifted. Ball's in your court. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

This should have been procedural closed, there is a reason why you don't bundle biographies, for instance, Mohammad Anwar Afzal in that last, started several companies and was a millionaire, since he passed away his son now runs some of those businesses. This is a bad close, this is why biographies should not be bundle. I strongly suggest you reconsider what you have done. Regards Govvy (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It is simply not true that biographies can’t be bundled, as discussed ad nauseam in the AFD. The assertion that biographies cannot be bundled is neither based in P&Gs, nor did it receive consensus in the discussion.

Regarding Afzal, you had the opportunity to present sourcing showing that he was notable as a businessman in the discussion. You didn’t do it. “Ran some businesses” is anyway not a pass for notability, even if it can be shown that the businessman is the same person as the sportsman.

However, as the closer indicated, nothing prevents these articles being recreated with appropriate sourcing. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Biographies should be assessed individually, people do different things. I don't know why you insist on redirection and not doing any real discovery on the people on the list, if you did you would say procedural close. Everyone is different. Have different lives, you can't assess a group of people simply because they all played one game of football together. That's such a bad redirect. Govvy (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"Biographies should be assessed individually, people do different things" - You are free to go and propose that change to our present P&Gs over at WP:VPP. I don't think it will receive a consensus, because it didn't receive a consensus in the AFD, but you're welcome to try with a larger audience.

" I don't know why you insist on redirection and not doing any real discovery on the people on the list" - I searched, I found nothing. Since you also evidently found nothing, what more is there to discuss?

"you can't assess a group of people simply because they all played one game of football together" - The article-creator did that. They assessed all these people as notable based on them having played a single game together. In the AFD we revisited that assessment, particularly in light of WP:NSPORTS2022, and the opposite conclusion was reached.

Anyway, I said way too much in the discussion and I'm in danger of doing the same here, so I'm Audi 5000. FOARP (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I found enough, each different for different people. They played for different football teams, they certainly don't have the same children, what a bizarre outcome. Fatally flawed arguments for a redirect. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Govvy: Where'd you find that information about Afzal? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The close was without prejudice to spinning individual articles back out if GNG-passing sourcing could be found. If you have the sourcing that would allow any of the individual biographies to pass GNG, by all means remove the redirect and add those sources to the article. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This was a good close. The right way to derail a bundle (as indicated in the final comment) is to show source evidence that at least one of the entries has a reasonable chance of meeting GNG on its own merits. An example of this can be seen at WP:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia. At any rate, an AfD close like this is not permanent, or even necessarily long-term; the community is fine with any of them being restored if and when GNG-compliant coverage is found. Left guide (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

How do I create a page about a music arts me being the

artist --NWLACHOPPA (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You don't. Sorry. See WP:AUTOBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Bio of batimehin II --BATIMEHIN II (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Who is batimehin II --BATIMEHIN II (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You, I assume. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to make my user page cool --TheLegenda3 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheLegenda3, welcome to wikipedia! Honestly, most people don't have "cool" userpages, so it hardly matters. There's a huge guide at WP:UPDG if you're interested, though. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Slap me with a fish, I got over zealous. Thank you for the quick refresher. VVikingTalkEdits 14:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry for being sharp about it. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Good day!! My edit was rejected saying it had no reference to bio Please what is the solution? --Simi David (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Simi David, the reviewer is assessing whether the subject of the draft meets WP:42 - see the links in the decline message for more information. You're going to need to find references that contain significant coverage on the subject. Unfortunately it looks to me like you're not going to be able to find that kind of sourcing for this draft. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Is it alright if I list the same source many times, considering the source I have is full of a vast range of information? --Forestake (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Forestake: Yes, absolutely; this is a very common practice on Wikipedia. WP:REFNAME offers guidance on how to do this efficiently without needing to repeat full citations for each instance. Left guide (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey so I know a guy who's name is wrong on here how do I help fix it? --Brandyland13 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Brandyland13, you'll have to be more specific for me to be able to help. What article? And what's the correct name? -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Brandyland13: I assume this is referring to these attempts to change Mike Riggs to simply "Riggs", since those are your only edits outside of this page. To avoid being reverted again, a reliable source should be cited supporting this name change. To modify the page title, a move request can be filed, though it is unlikely to succeed without any supporting sources. Left guide (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! I see you're active in SPIs a lot, so I have a question.

If a CU check is completed on an SPI that is now awaiting admin closing, but another (sort of obvious) sock has been found editing in the same topics - should I open a new investigation? Or should I add a comment to the existing one and/or ping someone? - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Open a new investigation - otherwise no one will notice the new maybe-sock hasn't been investigated until they come around to close the original case. -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that then! - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering, it has been pointed out to me that your topic ban "Mk 2" includes "Moving or renaming any page or subpage in the encyclopedia." Surely you meant "capitalization related", no? Dicklyon (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Dicklyon, I didn't - that's the text that was voted on in the discussion. I agree that it's a much wider prohibition than one would expect given the underlying dispute, so you may have some luck proposing an alteration to the wording at WP:AN. -- asilvering (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you just go ahead and adjust it with a note that this was all in the context of "capitalization related"? Dicklyon (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Because it's not "my" topic ban. I didn't set it as an administrator, I set it as a closer of that discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, you did one odd revision to your close already, so I have to believe you could do this. Surely this was not the intent. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I reclosed it to align it better with what the community had actually decided; I'm not going to reclose it again to move it further away from that. I really am sorry - I don't like that the discussion focused mainly on whether or not you should be tbanned and not more specific questions about what kind of tban might be appropriate, but that's the discussion that was had and that's the discussion that I closed. I don't think Arbcom is keen on overturning community discussions, but I have to hope they're not reluctant to comment on them. The Indian milhist case that closed recently had some suggested tban topic categories that admins could use to issue AE blocks without having to ban editors from the entire South Asia topic area. You might ask them to do something similar in this case, so that you have some decent wording to start an AN tban appeal off with. -- asilvering (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | August 2025, Vol 11, Issue 8, Nos. 326, 327, 344, 345, 346 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Indigenous women | Film and stage Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the month: Read the essay Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for status as Native American or Indigenous Canadian 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) 14:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi asilvering,
82.46.25.83 had IP hopped to 82.7.196.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 82.7.196.61 is doing same disruptive edits on the same articles and few Drafts as IP 82.46.25.83. Same city Birmingham. You blocked their sockpuppets 31.94.70.221, 31.94.70.220, 31.94.8.129, and 31.94.8.128 just early last month. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

They are tied to WP:LTA. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#Disruptive IP range across television articles and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Long-term abuse (gaming the Article for Creation process). — YoungForever^(talk) 00:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That's why I blocked them (several times now...) -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

how do I center my text? --MonsoonsSoon123 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MonsoonsSoon123, welcome to wikipedia! I can't say I've ever needed to centre text on Wikipedia. What are you trying to do? -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @MonsoonsSoon123: Text can be centered by using code <center> before the text and </center> after it

just like this

Left guide (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering, BNLC here (Branch on Not Last Card - a nick name I chose tonight :-) My goal is to add to the list of books by Spider Robinson, one that is my shelf, but was not listed on his page. I then found that the page: Antinomy (novel) but it not as well done as say: Callahan's_Lady In particular the book's cover and details What is the proper way to use the image of a book cover? Looking closely at the cover image for Callahan's_Lady sees a lot of text - is it OK to C-n-P that text? What is the best way to load the cover's image? I have found the cover on the web, I could take a picture of it, ... ? Answer can be pointers to the pages I should read :-) No rush, the cats says it is past time I was reading in bed advTHANKSance TTFN --BNLC (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @BNLC: Hello. About the image, one option is posting a request at files for upload. If/when your account becomes at least four days old with ten or more total edits, you could try doing it yourself with the file upload wizard. Assuming you don't hold the copyright and it's not in the public domain, it also must comply with the non-free content guideline; in any case, the original image source typically needs to be identified when requesting or uploading. FYI, it's unlikely for a non-free book cover image to be allowed on the author's article; it's generally only permissible on the book's article. As for copy-pasting between articles, it must be done with proper attribution in the edit summary. Hope this helps. Left guide (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think @Left guide has got everything here, but @BNLC, I'd also like to invite you to WP:BOOKS and WP:SF. And possibly also WP:CANADA? Welcome! We truly can use all the help we can get with our literature articles. Some are in great shape. Most are... dire. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. How do l create a page? --Alrich Williams 1 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Alrich Williams 1: Hi, please see Wikipedia:How to create a page. Left guide (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm a bit new here and I want to make sure that I'm going about this the right way. I made this account because I noticed some inconsistent formatting on tables associated with pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Drum Corps

There was already a template here for how these things should be formatted, however, there is a user that is formatting them differently and citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility as the reason. I've read through that and don't see that the table formatting is at odds with the guidelines there at all. I left a message on his talk page a couple months ago, and I didn't really get any good dialogue about it. He went to the project page and changed the template that was posted, I reverted it. Since then I've left it alone, until yesterday.

I posted another message on his talk page, asking if maybe we could seek a third opinion, or if he could tell me where there's a guideline about this type of formatting that I may not be aware of. I linked a page where there were some issues with the formatting as an example. He changed the table on that page, and told me that the way the template is currently is too decorative. I've gone and left a message on the talk page of the project, to try to gather other opinions on the subject.

Am I going about this the right way? I've tried to spend a lot of time familiarizing myself with how things are done here, and it kind of just feels like I'm being steamrolled while there are processes to build consensus on how these things should be done. TheRainComes (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @TheRainComes: Hi there, from what I've seen, you seem to be handling this disagreement in a reasonable manner. You've first attempted to discuss with the user on their talk page, and then on the drum corps project talk page; those are good steps to take. I'd suggest waiting a week or so to see if anyone else responds as fragmented simultaneous discussions are unhelpful in achieving consensus and can sometimes be seen as forum-shopping. If the current discussions don't go anywhere meaningful, consider the third opinion program or other means of dispute resolution. Another option more unique to this circumstance is if you have concerns about how the Manual of Style guideline is being interpreted or applied, you could try posting at the guideline's talk page where folks familiar with the guideline can review and weigh in. Good luck. Left guide (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice! I'll wait to see where the discussion goes on the project page. TheRainComes (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it's worth trying once more on your own talk page - if it were me in your shoes, I'd say something like "I'm sorry, can you please explain that in a bit more depth? I'm new at this and I still don't understand what the accessibility issue is here." I don't think the other editor's responses have been at all helpful but I'm not prepared to say they're being unhelpful on purpose. They've been here for a while and they make a lot of edits; it's easy for editors like that to forget what it was like to not know any of the guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about being too pushy, but if you think that's the best course of action I'll give it a shot. Do I just tag him in a post I make on my own talk page? TheRainComes (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke - you were talking on their talk page, so I should have suggested that you go ask there, not your own talk page. In the thread where you were already talking about it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood! Thank you for the advice, I'll give it a shot. TheRainComes (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon, please how do i make my article go live. --Nsikan Okon (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Well... not like that, that's for sure. -- asilvering (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I got a message on my talk page. Clearly someone who has been on wikipedia before and socking now. RangersRus (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@RangersRus, It would take CU goggles, and I don't think anyone will run that check simply based on that post. It's not, in itself, harassment, nor is it disruptive enough to justify a WP:LOUTSOCK block even if we do think it's pretty obvious that this is someone's catspaw. But is it consistent with any harassment you've received previously? That would change the calculations here. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, Just wanted to check if there's value in opening another new SPI thread to continue the collection of the IP socks ranges? There's been a few new ranges (and one re-appearing) and the old thread was archived now. I did report the two from today at AIV (but incidentally that is currently experiencing a mile long backlog). Raladic (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

No, no value. I don't have any reason to believe these are sockpuppets anyway - starting a trans healthcare arb case was bound to stir up mumsnet or something - so we're basically playing defensively until they get bored. If they hit any particular pages more than a couple of times, head to WP:RFPP for page protection. Otherwise, AIV. Basically no backlog there right now, just checked. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Whac-A-Mole it is. At least my time spent on doing WP:CVU helps with having the right tools already and knowing the processes :)

The AIV backlog was cleared after I poked the admin ship with digital cookies 🍪 at ANI an hour ago as the maintenance bot was starting to remove reports. :) Raladic (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for locking the page. That is all. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering,

I've noticed you've locked the page ROSA (organisation), but you'll need to likely revert it to prior to the changes by the IP editor, as they've introduced material regarding self-published allegations of sexual misconduct to the page. Despite not naming anyone I believe this could still violate BLP. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler If the material is self published and used as a citation for why they left an organization as no other citations exists, then it is not inappropriate. The allegations do not violate BLP as there is no reference to specific individuals in the cited references. Stop trying to find justifications for your actions against ROSA and affiliated pages. 5.149.174.126 (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it is inappropriate and remains so. Just because there are no specific individuals named doesn't suddenly make a group publishing a statement accusing the people of running another group of being involved in safeguarding issues and cover-ups thereof not a possible BLP violation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the organizations the cited source would've or could've constituted a leadership role within the broader organization. If you refuse to research further into the subject then you really shouldn't be making edits to the pages about the subject.

Sincerely. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) If there is disagreement over whether a page should be an article or redirect, articles for deletion is a common venue for settling the page-handling dispute. If there are BLP concerns over specific pieces of content, the BLP noticeboard may be a good place to gain community input on the matter. Left guide (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Left guide I was attempting to put an AfD together before it spiralled into what it is now, which is repeatedly adding self-published website posts by two former groups of a political international claiming the leaders of said International were covering up sexual abuse. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Rambling Rambler you engaged in antagonistic behavior by sending me multiple messages accusing me of vandalism. No effort at discussion. Straight to accusations. Constantly incorrectly quote wikipedia rules to justify your edits. you want to play the victim to admins, you're an egotistical bully. Deleting/reverting/redirecting entire edits & pages instead of compromising. I hope you get banned. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  IP, I agree that you have not been treated well here. But you need to avoid making personal attacks, like calling another editor an egotistical bully. That's not going to get you any closer to resolving your dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler, what is the BLP violation? Is it This faction later disaffiliated from ISA due to allegations of abuse made against ISA leadership.? That is a statement that can either be true or false, but it is in no way a BLP violation. -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This is being discussed over at their talk page now. It's a BLP violation because the source for the claim is a press release put out by the Socialist Party themselves claiming ISA leadership covered up sexual misconduct. So it violates WP:BLPSELFPUB and therefore must be removed under WP:BLPREMOVE as a contentious claim as far as I've always understood the policy and seen it used. Rambling Rambler (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

But if that is why the Socialist Party disaffiliated from the ISA, that's a perfectly valid use of self-published material. The statement in the article is "due to allegations of abuse made", not something like "because ISA covered up sexual misconduct". -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I've honestly never seen that ever before regarded as a valid use of self-published material. The full line it's cited to is The Socialist Party, along with other branches of ISA, formed the faction to Defend Safeguarding, Socialist Feminism and Internal Democracy (SSFID). This faction later disaffiliated from ISA due to allegations of abuse made against ISA leadership.

So the self-published letter is still the only source there for the idea there was any sort of allegation of abuse against ISA leadership, and that it was around safeguarding in a way that implies ISA leadership weren't supporting that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

A statement by the organization itself, describing why it left another organization, is a perfectly acceptable use of a self-published source. It is completely immaterial whether there was any actual abuse. The statement does not say whether there was or wasn't. It just says that's why the organization said they left.

At any rate, this is clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. Do not report content disputes to AIV. -- asilvering (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering It is completely immaterial whether there was any actual abuse. The statement does not say whether there was or wasn't. It just says that's why the organization said they left.

I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. How can it be "completely immaterial" to publish a line talking about allegations of abuse within an organisation when the only source even making claim to there being allegations is the self-published one cited from the Socialist Party who are the ones making the allegations?

WP:BLPSOURCE states "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion", so how does a line saying there were allegations of abuse regarding ISA leadership not breach that when the sole source for said allegations is the self-published press release by the Socialist Party?

WP:BLPSELFPUB specifically says self-published material by the article subject can only be used about if "it does not involve claims about third parties". The press release contains several allegations of misconduct by ISA leadership, so how is that not involving claims about third parties?

WP:BLPCRIME very explicitly sets out that "for individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime." ISA's leadership are not public figures but the additions clearly contain accusations of a crime being committed, so how is that suddenly allowed?

You suggesting that the material proposed to be included is acceptable under BLP is quite literally the antithesis of every BLP decision I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The line we have in our article does not say "ISA leadership committed sexual abuse", nor does it even say "so-and-so said that ISA leadership committed sexual abuse". I do not know how to be any clearer than I already have been. If you want to argue that it is inappropriate for the article to mention that, that's perfectly within your rights as an editor. But you are going to have to do that on the article's talk page, because I have protected the article due to your edit warring. In the absence of a bright-line BLP violation I will not be rolling that back to an earlier revision.

Again, this is a content dispute, which you tried to "win" by reporting your opponent to AIV. Do not do that, ever. It does not matter how right you think you are. You have been around long enough to know about WP:NOTVAND. -- asilvering (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you for being understanding on this matter. 188.65.190.76 (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I'd rather you didn't make assumptions about why I made a report to AIV. It wasn't some underhand attempt to "win" anything, but done because Trotskyist pages across this site that myself and others have attempted to clean up over the last couple of years have seen numerous vandalism incidents from IPs, which their lack of communication despite attempts to do so were reminiscent of.

And what I will be doing is taking this to the BLP noticeboard, because quite honestly I'm rather disturbed by your interpretation of BLP where we can source a claim of "allegations of abuse made against ISA leadership" to the group making the allegations in a self-published source and that not be considered a BLP violation despite being an allegation of criminal conduct without a reliable source. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the BLP noticeboard is where this should have gone in the first place. Not AIV, since this is very obviously not vandalism. Do not report people to AIV if they are not vandals. End of. -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I noticed to helped him get unblocked. He and an IP user have recently been busy editing Shinchō Kōki. Their edits/sources feel very WP:COATRACK, especially with his inclusion of articles from Alaric Naudé (a lit professor and pop historian whose wikipedia article he helped edit under his IP and which was later deleted and whose work was found to be WP:Fringe previously* that he has repeatedly tried and failed to get included in the article on Yasuke), among other questionable sources that I'm sure would get shot down on most well edited articles if he tried to include them there. Their timing on their editing of the Shinchō Kōki article feels rather suspicious as well (no idea if it's the same guy working from yet another new IP or what's going on there). I'm sorry to contact you this way, but I'm very much a novice editor and wasn't sure who to notify or what to do about all this.

*In the time since the the study was not deemed reliable by that RSN, the Publisher has apparently completely given up the illusion of being unconnected to Alaric Naudé. It's listed as operating from 301 Nosong Building, Geumho Rd., Suwon, Republic of Korea (registered in Alaric's birth country of Australia) and it's Editorial Review Panel is made up almost exclusively of University of Suwon/Suwon Science College staff. The only one listed not from there is listed as a professor from "Jungbu University" (I'm sure they mean Joongbu University). DragonBrickLayer (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@DragonBrickLayer, if I don't get to this in the next couple of hours, can you take it to WP:AE so it doesn't get forgotten? Filing there can be admittedly pretty daunting but just say, as you did here, that you're new and still learning how this all works and someone will help sort you out if you screw it up. -- asilvering (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

So, I took it to WP:AE as you suggested and they recommended I start a conversation on the articles talk page, which I did. I still feel an Admin should look into Between work and 110.131.150.214. Two Japanese editors who have been inactive (Between since you unbanned him, and the IP since December 17, 2024) starting to heavily edit a WP:COATRACK within a day of each other and making 2-3 edits a day for nearly a month, all without collaborating (which appears to be their claim), and with their largely uncommented edits? It feels really hinky to me.

I'd also like someone to look at the conversation on that talk page, I tried my best to invite the IP editor to continue editing the article as long as they avoid the subjects of Thomas Lockley and Yasuke, and not cite Alaric Naudé (as they obviously can't help but be WP:TEND on those subjects) and the article could use improving, but the dude comes off as hostile and was us versus them right off the bat. Between work just dropped his defense of the coatrack and Alaric Naudé then peaced out early on and hasn't commented since (stated he's traveling for work for the month and without internet). DragonBrickLayer (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, the IP says they've flounced , so I guess you don't need to deal with them anymore anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This editor (2603:7080:393C:353:B80D:5942:9C6C:9986 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)) tried to remove my small note as a "lie". I can't wonder whether it's the same sockpuppet I've reported over and over. Well, the edits provided are inconclusive apparently, but then why trying to edit other people's comment? George Ho (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @George Ho: The /64 range is generally operated by the same person. Looks like they have a history of reverting you in the past, and you've also reported some. Left guide (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@George Ho, if you want to dispute that article's notability, please do it at AfD. If you persist in disputing it elsewhere, the IP editor(s) who disagree with you will continue to disagree with you; you are obviously never going to convince them. If they're disruptively editing in the articles, we can issue page protections. We're really into dead-horse territory on both sides here. -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Even this edit (diff) made by another IP? George Ho (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked for block evasion, but seriously, these are maintenance tags - it's not worth the edit war. Just let it go. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! You unblocked me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dino42

I didn't get an answer from the other administrator so I'll try you since you helped me. Do the conditions that the other administrator set (who was originally judging me for whether to unblock me or not) still apply even though you were the one to unblock? Some of those conditions are hard to understand how to actually successfully follow in practice and don't seem like proper conditions.

I'm also wondering about some of the conduct of several of the administrators in the discussion. I don't know if what/how much you read, but in my opinion there was power abuse by one administrator and poor behavior/poor treatment/misconduct from some others. It was a bad experience enough for me that I think it should be addressed. Can you advice me what, if anything, I have good reason to bring up to a board that can judge such things? I have seen some of the pages, but I am very bad at navigating Wikipedia's documents. X(

I'm quite annoyed at the behavior of these administrators and would like to request someone proper to judge the behavior if that's a possible route. What options for this kind of thing do you have on here? The experience with those administrators was very unenjoyable, rude, unnecessary and from one of them straight up illicit and I feel like it should be addressed if there are proper channels for it.

Have a good day and thank you in advance :) Dino42 (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I haven't set any conditions. You're free to do whatever you like within policy, just like any other editor. But please be aware that you've already used up a "first chance", and you're likely to be given less WP:ROPE every time you use up another one. So be as careful, polite, and helpful as you possibly can be. That's how anyone should act, of course, but you in particular now.

I agree that the entire dispute is absurd. Your userpage should not have been deleted. You should not have been blocked. In my opinion, at every possible moment in that entire dispute, every individual person who made a choice made the wrong one. That includes you, sure, but administrators are held to higher standards. My advice to you, nevertheless, is to drop it. It's simply the smallest possible potatoes. The WP:LAMEest dispute to ever occur, anywhere. Absolutely nothing good would come of escalating this anywhere at all. My "job", such as it is, obligates me to tell you that the place to request neutral input on the matter would be WP:AARV. My conscience obligates me to tell you that going there would be the newest most wrong choice in a long series of very bad choices. If you are open to personal advice, let me take my admin hat off for a second to say: if I were you, I would scramble my password, log out of Dino42, go do something else entirely for at least 91 days, and then WP:CLEANSTART. Embrace the right to be forgotten, and extend it to everyone else involved.

Admin hat back on. Two principles are important here: 1) we are here to build an encyclopedia, and 2) volunteer time is our most precious resource. You have now used up a tremendous amount of volunteer time and absolutely no building of the encyclopedia was done with it. You're already in a big hole, and now you're thinking of digging it deeper. If you do, it will be very difficult for others to escape the assumption that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. The only way to backfill that hole now is to get out there and build the encyclopedia. So go do that instead.

Is this "fair"? No, not really. Are you right to be upset about it? Sure. Like I said, I think the whole thing was completely fucking stupid start to finish. I'm sorry this happened to you and I'm sorry we don't have a sense of humour. I wish I could find for you the essay I read once when I was starting out that really usefully formed my approach to all of this, but I can't. (It's surely somewhere in WP:EDIR, but I've given up.) My poor summary of it is basically: "If someone tries to start a fight with you, you can fight back uncivilly or you can fight back civilly, and we think the second person is doing this 'right' and the first person is doing it 'wrong'. But you know who's actually building the encyclopedia? The person who walks away from the fight and is now busy improving some other article, somewhere else." Sometimes, it really is worth the fight. This isn't one of those times. WP:LETGO. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Christ couldn't ride a motorbike. His robe would get tangled in the spokes or the chain -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, we may not know whether God can create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it, but at least we know this about Jesus's ability to get his kicks on route 66. -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reply and your great advice. I agree with everything you said. It is easier to walk away from it and find enough justice in the way you solved it. It was a great and satisfying way to end it.

But I do also have a strong sense of fairness and "if someone did something wrong, they should be dealt with according to the proper procedures". I was, so they should too. But it on the other hand takes away the already satisfactory ending I already got. These are some of the different things I'm weighing against each other.

You adviced that I take time off and that is what I do if I start becoming personally annoyed in a situation like this. After that time I can consider if the principle of it, without feelings, is worth it. That's what I did with the block and what I'm going to do before I decide to complain about potential misconduct.

Thank you for your reply and advice, and for taking your time to understand the situation when others wouldn't. I'm satisfied with the result and whether I go through with a complaint of the misconduct by the admin will be a decision for the future. What I already have decided though is that my final action is going to be to leave Wikipedia's community completely. These admins claim that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia when in reality they have scared off a user that was just about to start participating more in it. Dino42 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

This languishes. I have opined. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. If anyone thinks I'm going too far with my bad habit of trying to save people from themselves, they have... well, not my blessing, exactly, but, you know. -- asilvering (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought on second guessing is that if we unblock too soon and they are again blocked they will never be able to get unblocked ever. Sigh indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. But I also don't think they have much chance with a community appeal. And that rejection would be bad. -- asilvering (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've been rehearsing a speech in my mind. I think they are too young to grasp ramifications. After all, "this time it will be different. I can feel it." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad to have you with me in this. It's hard. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Other way around, really, since it's my block. Or co-block, anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, he(?) gave us what we asked for. You be the judge. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I’ve been editing a section in alex lopez wiki business career section but some of my revisions keep getting reverted. I’d like to make sure I’m following the proper Wikipedia format.

Could you please guide me on:

How to format citations properly (especially when referencing local news reports or government data)?

Style and tone guidelines for writing about civic or environmental issues?

Best practices for adding new info without sounding promotional or editorialized?

Thanks so much! I really appreciate your help and mentorship. --Ghostwriter1925 (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Ghostwriter: Hello, for formatting citations properly, see Help:Referencing for beginners. For the other aspects, I think WP:NPOV#How to write neutrally may be a good starting point. Left guide (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I missed this one, @Ghostwriter1925, and thanks @Left guide. Regarding why you're being reverted, I honestly have no idea - the edit summary the other editor used doesn't make any sense to me. When you're in a situation like this it's a good idea to ask the other editor directly. -- asilvering (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The page I created got deleted. How may I resolve this please? Stanley makazhe (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Stanley makazhe, your article was deleted because it was self-promotional. It's my advice that you don't try to rewrite it, and work on other things instead. If you do try again, what you need to do is make sure that everything in the draft is backed up by reliable sources. The information needs to be verifiable, so it can't just be stuff you know about yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

JohnAdams1800 who is blocked and edited on articles about the Democratic and Republican parties seems to be back. TFD (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that's him. Blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

	A Jambiya for you!
	Oh where should I even start? From your work as an Admin, all the way to the SPI stuff, you deserve recognition for all that work (Heck, I can't even imagine myself doing all that). Please accept this (JPEG of a) Jambiya as a sign of respect from me . Keep up your hard work! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added the additional information as previously mentioned. How do I resubmit it (Tempt Destiny Experiment)? --Ddesignsideas (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ddesignsideas, I've moved it to draftspace for you and added the submission template. Just press the blue button to add it to the queue. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Ddesignsideas (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I've seen your post on their talk page, but this latest attack on Acroterion suggests that this editors behaviour is not going to change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dino42#-Unblock_conditions_are_meant_to_be_taken_seriously They haven't followed your advice to WP:LETGO nor have they done any actual editing since you unblocked them, they've just gone on and on. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

If they've not posted to a board, are they just venting? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

In both of these occasions, that editor has been responding to an admin's post. Can't you guys let it go yourselves? I'm dying of second-hand embarrassment over here. -- asilvering (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbing you for the favour I'm about to ask (Pardon). On Mughal–Sikh War (1621-1635), I have tried everything to bring this piece to perfection, but somehow it ended up in AfD, and is getting stuck in vague waves. Can you guide me to fill the gaps and suggest what it lacks to stand as an article in mainspace? Heraklios 13:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus, I'm busy with some other things that unfortunately use the same level of brainpower as doing research on this topic would, so I'm not sure how much help I can be - but I see you've listed some sources in the AfD that use the phrase "Mughal-Sikh War" or something similar. Can you provide some short quotes from those sources, with the use of those terms in them? And, imagining that we were writing a paper encyclopedia for a moment, so we have restrictions on how many topics could possibly be covered, under what topic do you think this would be discussed if "Mughal-Sikh War (1621-1635)" wasn't an option? I don't quite mean "what would be a good [Wikipedia] redirect target", but, if you absolutely had to boil this down to a paragraph or so, where do you think that paragraph would go in a conventional encyclopedia? A particular article? Broken up between some other articles? or something else? -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. How do l create a new article? --SAlrich Williams (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SAlrich Williams, welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a new article is as easy as going to WP:WIZARD and typing the title of your new article. But it's also a really quite difficult for someone to do when they're new to wikipedia, so I recommend you don't do that yet. Have a look at WP:TASK, the links I just dropped on your talk page, or explore the options in your newcomer homepage first to get a feel for the place, and you'll find creating an article a much easier step. asilvering (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a regular at SPI, but that has to be some kind of land-speed record, less than three minutes from submission to endorsement. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 00:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In the right place at the right time. :) -- asilvering (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not so much interested in editing as such, but when I see an error I would like to be able to suggest a correction. That's pretty much independent of the topic. Would that be OK? --Rodeomouse (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Rodeomouse: Hello, yes it is OK (and encouraged) to point out errors needing to be corrected. If you see an error in an article but aren't sure how to fix it, you can use the {{Help me}} sign on the talk page, and an experienced editor will take a look and try to help. Left guide (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll also add, @Rodeomouse, when it comes to simple errors, do go ahead and Be WP:BOLD! Welcome to wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this was implied by but aren't sure how to fix it, but I think your clarification is also helpful. Left guide (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi I’m reaching out for some guidance as part of the newcomer mentorship program.

I’ve been trying to create a Wikipedia article about a Chinese electric vehicle company, LS AUTO (Jiangxi Longsheng Automobile Co., Ltd.), but my draft has been repeatedly declined—typically with the explanation that it appears promotional or does not meet notability standards.

I’ve done my best to follow the relevant guidelines, including WP:NPOV and WP:NCORP, and I’ve used multiple independent sources. However, the article still gets rejected almost immediately after submission, and I’m unsure what I’m doing wrong or what exactly needs to be improved.

Would you be willing to take a quick look at my draft and offer some advice on what changes would make it acceptable for publication? I’d really appreciate your help. --Frederik Scheidgen (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Frederik Scheidgen, welcome to Wikipedia! You've started out with basically the hardest task we've got (making a new article on a company). The primary issue with your draft is that you don't have enough independent, reliable, secondary sources to show that the company "qualifies" for inclusion as a separate article in the English Wikipedia. The relevant guidelines are: WP:42, WP:NORG, and especially WP:ORGCRIT. Let me know if you have any questions about those. -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• CoconutOctopus
• Curbon7
• Hinnk
• Jlwoodwa
• Kj cheetham
• KylieTastic
• Ser!
• Smasongarrison
• UndercoverClassicist

• Bbb23
• Beeblebrox
• David Gerard
• Oleg Alexandrov
• Satori Son

CheckUser changes

• Alison
• Bradv
• Joe Roe
• RickinBaltimore
• ST47

Oversight changes

• Bradv
• RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

Hi, me again. There's a word missing in a caption in the article I've been reading, but the article seems to be protected in some way. I can't find a button with which to edit it or suggest an edit. --Rodeomouse (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Rodeomouse: Hi, which article is it? Left guide (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that the article isn't protected, and that you're just looking for the edit button in the wrong place. There's no edit button near an infobox or a picture caption - you have to use the edit button that's at the top of the page, and then click on whatever picture or whatever you're trying to edit the caption for. (That's assuming you're using the default Wikipedia skin.) If you don't see an edit button at the top but you do see "View source" where the edit button normally is, yes, that's protected. You should see a little padlock up in the upper right-hand corner in that case as well, which will tell you the protection level. In that case you'll have to propose edits on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)