User talk:Asilvering/Archive 26

Hey @Asilvering! I'm working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudhir_Kakar, and you can see some of the things I hope to accomplish in my sandbox. I noticed that the author infobox and the actual page do not have any pictures of this author.

The WP:NONFREE guidelines are a bit confusing to me. There's a decent picture of the author in one of the references https://doi.org/10.1080/00207578.2024.2375116 (his obituary). Would copying that picture violate WP:NONFREE? EspressoMachine77 (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that would be a great picture, but I don't know if we can use it. First, you'd have to be really sure that no adequate free alternative exists (that's the basic requirement for any of our non-free uses). Past that, I'll have to call in backup. Sennecaster? GreenLipstickLesbian? -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EspressoMachine77, as far as I can tell, there is not an easily accessible free alternative. Kakar passed last year, so if you wanted, I believe you can reach out to Katharina Poggendorf-Kakar, his wife, to ask if she has a photo that she would be willing to release under a permissive license. You can find templates to modify at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, and Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator is a fantastic and easy to use tool that you can link to her. I am also comfortable doing so if you don't want to for any reason! As a VRT agent, I do mostly permissions work so I am used to this and even uploading submitted photos for users.

Now onto the boring pedantic copyright stuff. @Asilvering, you asked, you get the rambly paragraph. Biographies of recently living or currently alive people almost always have some kind of unlicensed or free media for them; the theory and practice is that you can always request a photo of a public figure. However, we like waiting for a respectful amount of time to pass if a person has recently passed to request any photos. When we do get an instance where no free media exists (ie. only a mugshot exists) then we go through the nonfree criteria. An infobox image of the article subject will amost always pass NFCC with ease, as it fulfills all the criteria by default as long as it's not extensively used. The more you know. Welcome to the headache that is copyright. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Seconded (Senne is much better than I am when it comes to this stuff), but before we get too far down the NFCC rabbit hole, there appears to be a free alternative. It's part of a video taken by an audience member at the 2012 Jaipur Literary Festival, and it's under a compatible Creative Commons license. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all so much @Asilvering, @Sennecaster, and @GreenLipstickLesbian! It's encouraging to witness this type of mutual support as a new editor. To be frank, I was hesitant to even ask!

I especially appreciate @GreenLipstickLesbian's find! I'm curious to learn how you went about looking for this video so that I can replicate the model later. Simultaneously, though, I'm only seeing quite a low-quality (480p) image of Kakar in the video, and that too blocked by the mic in front of him. I'm kind of leaning toward messaging Kakar's wife to see if she'd give permission to use a picture from their site using the method @Sennecaster outlined. Or maybe there are other free images out there?

Open to advice. EspressoMachine77 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It can't hurt to ask! If a family member is willing to release an image to Commons, that's the best outcome, really. -- asilvering (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to move this discussion to my talk page so that we're not spamming Asilvering's notifications! EspressoMachine77 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@EspressoMachine77 But... spamming asilvering's notifications is fun! Anyways, to answer your question - you can often find free images of people on sites like Flickr and Youtube, both of which have an option to filter uploads by Creative Commons licenses! And yeah, sorry that the image isn't the best - the disadvantage of this method is that there's no "quality" filter LOL. I hope contacting his wife proves more fruitful, and sorry for taking a few days to remember this ping existed! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian LOL well, as long as I'm spamming fair in square, so be it! Thanks again for the help and clarifications! I'll report back once I know something from his wife! EspressoMachine77 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering. File:Logo Pidax Film- und Hörspielverlag.png was uploaded as non-free content for use in Pidax Film- und Hörspielverlag; however, said usage became non-policy compliant per WP:NFCC#9 once you draftified the article. Since the file is now "orphaned non-free use" it's most likely going to be tagged by a bot for speedy deletion per WP:F5 with in the next day or two; it's possible, though, that the file could actually be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} since it seems to fall below the threshold of originality followed by US copyright law per c:COM:TOO US even if it's still protected per c:COM:TOO Germany. I'm posting here to see whether there would be any point in doing that in your opinion, i.e. whether it's likely the draft is ever going to be improved enough to be accepted as an article, because of the COI and LLM concerns you expressed in your edit summary when draftifying the article.

There's kind of no point in relicensing the file if it appears the draft is never going to get anywhere; moreover, if the draft ultimately ends up deleted per WP:G13, the file will most likely end up being orphaned anyway. Do you think it's worth converting the file's licensing or should it just be left as is so that it can be deleted per F5? FWIW, I only noticed this because the file showed up in Special:NewFiles. I also guess a WP:REFUND request could always be made if the draft does somehow someday make it to article status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, do you think it is protected in Germany? It seems to me that our example suggests it would be perfectly fine to upload to Commons. -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It might not be, but I can ask for other opinions at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I asked about this at COM:VPC, and the responses received so far indicate that your hunch is probably correct; so, I went ahead and relicensed the file, tagged it with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and re-added it to the draft. Thanks for taking a look a this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bhj867 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:A011:8990:6947:C2AB (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) page move  Done. Left guide (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

When will my profile be active --George L Carrillo (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@George L Carrillo, you never submitted it for review, so the answer would have been "never"! I've moved it to draftspace for you. You can submit it by pressing the blue "submit" button. But before you do that, I recommend that you have another look at the long list of external links at the bottom. I've removed them for you (that doesn't belong in the article at all), but you might want to integrate some of them into the article as footnotes. They're all still in the article history, and you can see the page before I removed them here: . Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way - please be aware that anything you upload to Commons can be used for any purpose, even commercially. All the photos in the draft were improperly listed as "own work", so I've tagged them on Commons as having the improper license. If you do nothing about this, that's fine, and all of them will be deleted from Commons in a week. If you do want them to stay on Commons, make sure you provide the actual source - usually, the person who took the photograph. But again, make sure that person is ok with releasing them to the world to be used for any purpose whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and for removing the content. I submitted the draft for review. Have a great weekend. George L Carrillo (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You too! -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for recommending me the backlogs that really need help! My ADD has found a new home! CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 18:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Glad you're enjoying it. :) -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm 10gokk10 I have only two accounts 10gok10 and 10gokk10. I made 10gokk10 because I can't log into 10gok10 and Wikipedia say we send you verification email but don't send me email. If you want block my all my accounts block it,but do not block other poor people that has nothing to this. 2A01:5EC0:1002:26C:1:0:7DEA:8749 (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If you want more explanation, you can ask me here and I answer it. 2A01:5EC0:1800:1881:1:0:7DEF:66AF (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, it's aecents / aesurias.

Wondering if you could take a look at this:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#2025 Buffalo mayoral election

As I am rather concerned, 1. about the article itself but 2. the user still being allowed to edit anything in the first place.

Thank you so much and have a good day! Aesurias (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that WP:CT/AP is a thing. You may want to take this to WP:AE at some point if you continue to have concerns about this editor. -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you review this again and let me know if I should go to WP:AE? They've made repeated personal attacks and are unable to answer the simple question despite prompting from other, random editors. (I should note that the photo of Gainer is set to be deleted in 2 days as a result) They also appear to be stalking my Wikipedia edit history and are leaving comments on other talk pages I'm in, so I'm sure they'll see this too. c; Aesurias (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I've just blocked them for personal attacks, but yes, if you don't get a straight answer and continue to be harassed like this I think you should go to ANI or AE about it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear ruling. To ensure I comply with it fully, I'd like to clarify the procedure for the specific articles discussed in the ANI.

My understanding of your warning is that replacing terms is only permitted to correct a "source-text integrity issue." In the cases of Bar Bahlul and , Jabril ibn Bukhtishu the specific sources I cited use "Syrian writer" and "member of the Church of the East" respectively, but the articles currently read "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian" following Hogshine's reverts. The same goes for Jacob of Edessa where all mentioning of the term Arameans was removed.

May I revert these specific articles to align with their cited sources, as this falls under correcting source-text integrity? Or would you prefer a different process, such as first raising the issue on each article's talk page?

I want to ensure my future edits are fully compliant. Thank you for your guidance. Historynerd361 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll speak generally, and let me know if this still leaves loopholes. I can imagine seven general situations, which I'll illustrate with the example terms you gave:

1. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are footnotes on the sentences that do this. You read those sources, and find that the subject is actually described as a "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East". You change our article to match those sources.
2. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are no obvious direct sources for this information. You spotcheck the sources used in the article and find that they universally describe him as a "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East". You change our article to match those sources.
3. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are no obvious direct sources for this information. You spotcheck the sources used in the article and find that they vary in how they describe him. You change our article to say "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East", because these are used in most sources.
4. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are no obvious direct sources for this information. You spotcheck the sources used in the article and find that they vary in how they describe him. You remove the sources you don't like, so that the sources now universally describe him as a "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East". You change our article to match those sources.
5. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". There are no obvious direct sources for this information. You find a new source that describes him as "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East", change the article to match that source, and cite that source in a footnote.
6. our article describes someone as an "Assyrian writer" and "Assyrian Christian". You skip all other steps and simply change it to "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East".
7. you write a fully new article. The sources you use call this person "Syrian writer" and a "member of the Church of the East". You use those terms, and provide footnotes.

And here's the response to each:

1. This is fine for everyone. If someone reverts you, I suggest reverting them only once, with a clear explanation of why. If they persist, do not edit-war. Go to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI to report them for edit-warring in WP:GS/ACAS. Cite this comment if you like. If it's someone who has already been warned (presently just @Hogshine), I will sanction them without further warnings.
2. This is fine for everyone. Proceed as above if reverted. Anyone seeking to dispute this would need to go to the talk page with alternative sources.
3. This is fine for most people, but not you, because you've been warned. If you want to dispute this, you'd have to start on the talk page. I don't recommend going to the talk page at all, because it will be very easy for you to be accused of a failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK and might result in sanctions for that.
4. This is bad form for everyone, and instantly sanctionable behaviour for you, because you've been warned.
5. This is fine for most people, but not you, because you've been warned. If you want to dispute this, you'd have to start on the talk page. I really, really do not recommend going to the talk page at all, since an uninvolved admin has every reason to see this as a breach of the warning.
6. Immediate sanctions. I hope this one was obvious.
7. This is fine for everyone.

asilvering (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this exceptionally clear and comprehensive guidance. I truly appreciate you taking the time to provide such detailed scenarios. it eliminates any ambiguity and gives me complete clarity on how to proceed while staying within policy bounds. This is exactly the guidance I needed. Thank you again for your oversight of this case. :) Historynerd361 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that for Bar Bahlul, it was you who appealed to Wiktionary, which I've demonstrated does not align with your view. I'm aware that this is not real scholarship but it was you who used it authoritatively.

At the time, I have already added a source for Jabril; I don't think you noticed.

Jacob's does not call him anything beyond a Syriac Christian, and as I've mentioned before many times, no "Aramean" content was removed. This is a separate issue altogether re:‌ recent warnings. Hogshine (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples.

I suggest some leeway on replacing "Syrian" with "Syriac" to disambiguate the national peoples from those of Roman Syria, Syrian region (Levant), and modern republic, in specific & relevant contexts. I don't think this is controversial. Let me know what you both think. Hogshine (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have opinions. Maybe look at Talk:Cilly Schäfer? What do and don't you think? No hurries if you are still injured (but please don't be, you know?). Polygnotus (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

And my apologies for bringing up such a topic instead of something fun (UFOs?) but I found you on the list over at Wikipedia:Nazi_affiliation_task_force#Task_force_participants and I've been working on some WW2 stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, welcome back! I'm slowly getting better. Have added this to my monstrous list of open tabs, re-ping if I forget to get to it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Did they manage to find all the pieces of the other guy? I will return here every 17 minutes to poke you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me I keep picking fights with things like "cars" and "the ground". Pretty sure they didn't find all the pieces of the car though. So there's that. -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

what are some common grammar mistakes that i could change in articles? --Pringleguy22 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pringleguy22, most of the really common ones are already on someone or other's list already, but you could ask around at places like WP:TYPO or WP:TEA to see if anyone has any they'd like to "adopt out". They'd have better ideas than me, since I usually just let the helpful gnomes fix my own typos. :) -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Pringleguy22: also consider checking the category of articles tagged as needing copy edit help and/or joining the guild of copy editors. Left guide (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering. Please see this: The "Assyrian" bit is actually cited. That can be verified in the included citation. This was communicated to the user 3 times in total. . On your list above, it violates #6. Hogshine (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like @Historynerd361 has self-reverted in this case? -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

That was done after my post here pointing it out. Hogshine (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering For clarity and to ensure full compliance with your guidance, I wanted to note that I recognized an error in my edit to Jabril ibn Bukhtishu. I had created a source-text integrity issue by removing a term while leaving its citation. I didn’t notice the new source because the edit summary said: COE member from Iraq, what else would he be'’ and the version before didn’t have that source. I have since reverted my own edit to correct this and have started a talk page discussion to properly address the underlying issue of source reliability. The situation is now being handled through the correct channels.

Hi @Asilvering, I saw in this edit you reverted a sock and removing the AFD template that they added to Saleh al-Jafarawi. Did you also intend to remove/close the AFD itself, or plan to let it run? Only noting as a bot has readded the template to the page since the AFD is still active. Thanks, Nil🥝 03:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, crud. That was me just rollbacking their edits wholesale. The bot replaced it, which is fine. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you please check if the current version and the previous one are similar? Chandra Kuber Khapung. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I CSD'd. A bit sleepy to get out the goggles myself but I'll set up an SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I won't make comments like that again. Would it be alright with you if I delete it? JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, and you're welcome to remove my response to you as well. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! @Czello: fyi JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bhj867 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:F905:8567:AB91:6629 (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP, you can just report things directly to SPI, no need to grab me or anyone else on their talk pages. I see this one has already been dealt with. -- asilvering (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

im just asking if its confirmed that bhj is a sockmaster 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:3540:AC72:4C6D:B2E7 (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Checkusers will not confirm accounts to IPs. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi asilvering,
82.46.25.83 had IP hopped to 82.7.175.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 82.7.175.187 is doing same disruptive edits on the same articles and few Drafts as IP 82.46.25.83. Both the same city Birmingham. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sure looks like the same person. I'll leave it for now since they don't appear to be doing that disruptive thing with drafts anymore. If they start doing that again, let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

how create new article --Chaistoner (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Chaistoner, welcome to wikipedia! There are some good tips and explanations for this at WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. But I don't recommend that you take up this task just yet. Creating a new article from scratch is pretty hard. Instead, you might want to start with something from the giant list at WP:TASK, or, if that looks too overwhelming, Special:Homepage should have some suggestions for you. -- asilvering (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

please unblock me for editing Photz9201 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Photz9201, you need to appeal your block on your talk page. You may want to use Wikipedia:Unblock wizard. -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to pop up here again, but I don't think any of the noticeboards warrant this matter as its not significant enough.

In your opinion, is this Special:Contributions/Atuires112 user editing maliciously? I find it hard to believe that someone has such a small understanding of simple spelling and grammar conventions that they would think these edits are constructive and helpful. They even removed a word and replaced it with em dash, I cannot understand why someone would do that. Aesurias (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aesurias, that's almost certainly someone WP:GAMING autoconfirmed. Not a problem yet, and possible to do in (misguided) good faith. We'll find out what they're up to in four days, probably. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is related the User talk:asilvering#Thank you!/WP:Articles for deletion/WNS Global Services above and this SPI where you blocked the IP from the AfD and after the AfD closed protected the article The same IP/range, 122.171.XX.XXX, is now adding promotional content to Capgemini, the company that is in the process of acquiring WNS. Can you protect the page or add onto the p-block Ponyo already has for the /21? S0091 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Added to the pblock, since that appears to catch all the related IPs. -- asilvering (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! S0091 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering

I saw that Draft:Legora was deleted under G15. An AI was indeed used to check Wiki mark-up as a final step but the article itself was handwritten. However I understand the reason for the deletion and appreciate the policy intent!

Would it be possible to restore the deleted draft to my sandbox at User:Neilyoung77/Legora so I can manually rework the draft offline before any resubmission?

Thanks very much for your time. --Neilyoung77 (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Neilyoung77, most of the references in that draft were falsified. If that was your own, human work, we have a much bigger problem than AI use. If you'd like to try again, please start from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

They were not falsified at all - all of the articles cited are genuine. If there was a mistake in some of the links, that is my fault but certainly not a result of made-up attributions! 82.132.228.87 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, there were mistakes in most of the links. Furthermore, the draft bears other obvious hallmarks of AI creation. Please start from scratch, without AI. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

That simply isn't the case. I will certainly make sure to triple-check all links in future to ensure they are pointing to the correct location.

Many thanks for taking the time to review and reply in any case. Neilyoung77 (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I am a little confused about why my draft was deleted-- I did ask AI to help me figure out if certain words could be considered not "NPV" but it was a handwritten article... I've spent way too long sifting through articles and was working through making sure only the best, most relevant & factually correct were incorporated. I had some trouble with sources and was working on revising the draft and my article was deleted... I've been editing for a while and I hadn't resubmitted it, it was just a draft work in progress. Janya Arts (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Janya Arts, this was very evidently not a handwritten article. You left in the comment, "Let me know if you'd like a separate section for interviews/media appearances (based on the “Interviews” column in your screenshot) or if you want to begin compiling a References section with inline <ref> tags for Wikipedia formatting." -- asilvering (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm very confused, I wrote my article by hand and only bounced a few things like whether a phrase was neutral or making sure I was formatting things correctly for Wiki (like which tags may be useful etc). I am worried that you may have looked at someone else's draft article? I know someone tried to write this page in 2023 and did a terrible job & used AI, but I am an academic and wrote this page myself! I didn't have "interviews" as a column in my article at all... I specifically left those out since they may be flagged for non-neutrality. Janya Arts (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a really hard platform to navigate, I've spent so many hours trying to build this article and I'm just so confused... Janya Arts (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not look at someone else's draft article. That is what it said on the article you submitted. I will restore it so you can see, and so you can keep working on it, if you agree to not use AI for any purpose with regards to wikipedia, including asking whether a phrase is neutral or whether you are formatting things correctly. AI is terrible at these things and its advice isn't worth anything anyway, so I assure you that you won't be missing out by agreeing to this. -- asilvering (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there any way I can have XC perms removed until I reach 500 mainspace edits? I just feel like I might have been unintentionally WP:GAMING. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 14:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@CREditzWiki, don't worry about it. That would only matter if you were trying to edit in extended-confirmed required articles, which you haven't been doing as far as I can tell. I do suggest that you cease your gaming-like edits, though. If you need help finding an encyclopedia-building task you'd be interested in, just let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: — This is a formal, urgent objection to your *100+* recent “return to draft” moves which you are still doing as I type this, around every 10 seconds. Your move summaries repeatedly cite **“no sources”** and/or **“machine-generated text”**, yet the affected pages already contained **multiple independent, reliable sources** at the time you draftified them. This broad-brush approach is disruptive, misstates on-page evidence, and has removed sourced content from readers en masse.

• • Relevant principles (for clarity):**
• **WP:DRAFTIFY / New Pages Patrol** – Draftification is not a catch-all when sources are present and significant coverage is plausible. Each page requires an *individual* policy-grounded rationale; boilerplate isn’t enough.
• **WP:V / WP:GNG / WP:BEFORE** – Where independent, reliable, secondary sources already exist, the correct path is improvement (or AfD if genuinely borderline), not mass draftify.
• **LLM accusations** – Wikipedia evaluates **verifiable content**, not vibes or detector guesses. If you allege “machine-generated text,” please provide **page-specific diffs** showing unverifiable claims or fabricated citations. Otherwise, existing sources should control editorial outcomes.

1. 1. 1. Requested actions (time-sensitive)

1. **Cease** blanket draftifications on this topic set. 2. **Undo** the 100+ draftifications, or explicitly confirm that I may move them back to mainspace immediately now that you’ve been notified sourcing is present. 3. For any page you still contest, **identify the precise sourcing defect** (independence, reliability, or lack of significant coverage) so it can be fixed on-wiki. Generic “no sources/AI” notes are not sufficient.

1. 1. 1. How to verify the pattern quickly

• Your October move log: Special:Log?type=move&user=Asilvering&year=2025&month=10 (filtering shows the bulk same-day moves).
• Your October contributions (moves and associated edits show in sequence): Special:Contributions/Asilvering

1. 1. 1. Tracking (audit list)

I am assembling a consolidated audit tying **each** move diff to the **pre-move revision** demonstrating extant sourcing. I will keep expanding this list; please respond **page-by-page** rather than with boilerplate.

I’m ready to tighten prose, prune any weak refs, and add stronger coverage where needed. What isn’t acceptable is continuing mass draftifications under an inaccurate “no sources / machine-generated” rationale.

If this cannot be resolved promptly on-wiki, I will seek outside review at WP:NPP/N (and, if necessary, WP:ANI) so other patrollers/admins can examine the diffs and sourcing across the whole set.

— PaulHSAndrews (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It is extremely bold to use an LLM to write your talk page message to me about this. -- asilvering (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not an article and you forced urgency with "speedy delete" on 80+ articles, sorry if my communication wasn't good enough. You "speedy deleted" 80+ articles in under a half hour. I'm still frantically trying to figure out WTF. PaulHSAndrews (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Update:

@Asilvering: Asilvering, you once said this, when asked why you wanted to be an Admin:

The noobs I helped along the way. No, but seriously: I remember fondly the people who were kind to me when I was new - though I doubt most of them remember me, since for them it was just an ordinary Thursday. I do what I can to pay it forward.

Today, I am that noob. I did no intentional wrong, and I stand before you begging your forgiveness, for the fast submissions and inaccurate references. All I ask is that you give me another chance, in the spirit of Wikipedia comradery. I am not a robot nor a spammer, just another user asking for your understanding.

— PaulHSAndrews (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@PaulHSAndrews, a couple of notes on talk page procedure.

1. When somebody replies to a comment of yours, and you then change your original comment substantially, it makes it very confusing for others who come to the conversation later. If you want to revise a comment that has received replies, it's best to leave the original comments but strike them, as described at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments.
2. Talk pages are where human editors discuss issues with other humans. Using AI to participate in discussions is frowned upon by many of us, Your own perceived sense of urgency is no excuse not to explain things in your own words.

ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I fixed everything. Left guide (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"**LLM accusations** – Wikipedia evaluates **verifiable content**, not vibes or detector guesses. If you allege “machine-generated text,” please provide **page-specific diffs** showing unverifiable claims or fabricated citations. Otherwise, existing sources should control editorial outcomes."

This may be one of the funniest things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Complete with the incorrect bold symbols that LLMs use too Aesurias (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, the AI providing a fake link inserted into the message. That is the 2nd funniest Aesurias (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

My favourite is the WP:NPP/N one, myself. A very good example of why it's not great to ask AI to help you understand wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello , I saw your comment on WP:AE and frankly I would like you to reconsider your proposal regarding Pofka. If you are considering to ad a logged warning to me, It should go to them too, after all calling out people by their ethnicity (or what they think that their ethnicity is) and also try to locate my address goes strictly against privacy and Wikipedia rules. If this editor goes without any sanctions then the new WP:AE case regarding their behaviour should be open. Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason, this is an inappropriate comment to make while there is an open WP:AE thread involving your behaviour, in which you have already considerably exceeded the word limit. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

That is why I dont comment there. And also the case was not regarding my behaviour but regarding the dispute on Serbia men basketball page.Theonewithreason (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Commenting on individual admins' talk pages is not an end-run around the AE word limits. -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I strongly agree with asilvering’s assessment regarding this thread on their talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) FWIW, me too. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is URGENT: Mass draftifications by User:Asilvering (100+ in like a half hour) despite great sources; targeted at one editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess ChatGPT didn't tell them they needed to make this notification themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, just saw you removed that wikibreak banner from the top of the talk page. I hope you're recovering well! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm now asleep 60% of the time instead of 80% of the time. Progress!! -- asilvering (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, 'tis done as best as I can manage.

That hasn't been my experience at AfC in yoinks. (I remember when it was about assisting the would-be creator in house style and referencing. That was clearly double yoinks ago.) I've had agonies trying to get some articles accepted: notably Draft:Rikkeisoft, where all I can conclude is that the bar for businesses is v. high and since unlike the article creator who got run off by assumptions of bad faith—and the very much COI editor who subsequently tried with a different draft—I don't have the necessary language skills, I can't do a good enough search to get it over that bar. But that's only the one that rankles worst.

So thanks for being so humane :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The bar for everything is the same inasmuch as it's "do you think this has a better than 50% chance of success at AfD". Which does work out to being much harder for articles on businesses, yes. If you think it's mainspace-ready in its current state you can simply move it there yourself (you'll have to remove the AfC submissions templates manually after you do). I'd pull the "corporate responsibility" bit for sure and probably also the awards section if I was going to do that, myself, but you're under no obligation to. -- asilvering (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

How can I publish my biography on Wikipedia --Reward Aya (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Reward Aya: Please see WP:Autobiography. It's not recommended to write an autobiography here, but if one insists, it should be done as a draft for independent editors to review before publishing. Left guide (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Reward Aya, it looks like you're a youtuber? Unfortunately it's really quite difficult to meet our inclusion guidelines as a youtuber, since reliable sources don't tend to write much about them. Have a look at WP:42 for a quick explainer. -- asilvering (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m not seeing the notability of this article you accepted through ARC. The refs about the author’s bio are inadequate and the rest are related to the books. As a BLP we surely need better sourcing than this? Can you help me see what I am missing please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Spartaz, author articles are regularly kept at AfD when they have at least two reviews each for at least two books. -- asilvering (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I whacked this into shape and Asilvering pointed out that it could pass NAUTHOR, but I wouldn't be averse to its being tagged primary sources. The books are the only part with adequate third-party references. I was unable to find out anything about his biography except for his doctorate. But I see him as meeting NPROF. He's highly active and respected, and Borrowed Words is much cited. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

ok, I can see what I was missing now. It's not as if I'm unfamiliar with AFD or DRV but the NAUTHOR part just passed me by. Thanks for the patience. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying lying is not something auts are known for? My incipient senility is making comprehension hard, and I know sometimes words have two meanings. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm saying autistic people are known for not lying, which isn't quite the same thing, but yes. Plenty of research about how autistic people are bad at "white lies", and some of it even tries to cast a desire to tell the truth as something pathological. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe that's why if left unchecked, I tend to say things that get me into trouble. Perhaps a family trait. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I am new to this, so please. patience. I am a gemmologist and have found the Wikipedia page of the Gemological Institute of America (where I went to school) is missing a link to their gem instruments. I added a link as my first edit, but am insecure. I have read lots of material about what I can and cannot do, as I think I have followed the instructions... Is there a way for you to view my edit before I publish it? --Synthwelastmet (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Synthwelastmet, welcome to wikipedia! No, there's no way for me to view the edit before you publish it. Time to Be WP:BOLD! It's ok if you screw something up. It will be really easy to reverse if so. -- asilvering (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

At UTRS appeal #107467 you have suggested possible IPBE. I've suggested an alternative, which you may like to consider. Being a CU you can, of course, see relevant information that I can't, so if you have good reasons for preferring not to follow my suggestion then that's fine. 00:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)JBW (talk)

JBW, I'll have another look and let you know if that's possible. I worry about the undisclosed alt for IPBE reasons but it's not a concern otherwise (I wouldn't call it a sock violation whether it remains undisclosed or not). -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@JBW nope, sorry. Comment on UTRS. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

Are you able to take a look at this Talk:Better Australia page when possible and suggest better wording for a paragraph I wrote? Another editor is continually saying I am writing from a biased POV but is now unable to explain the specific issue after I altered the wording 3-4 times.

Perhaps if you or someone else rewrote the article, I could understand the complaint better and the issue would be rectified.

Have a good day! Aesurias (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Not in this case, sorry, since I've been administratively involved in a dispute between the two of you. I'd suggest asking at WP:3O to find a neutral editor to break the deadlock. -- asilvering (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Great , thank you!! Aesurias (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I just sent you a request on my new account on Discord -- we are both in the Wikimedia server. (ElleBelle)

As I cannot upload an image here. I would appreciate a second of your time Aesurias (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and not entirely sure how it works, so this might be a bit of an obvious question, but is it possible for multiple accounts to work on one draft article? If so, how? Mooshqui (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mooshqui, welcome to wikipedia! Multiple accounts can work on one draft article. It's the same as editing basically any other page on the encyclopedia. What you can't do is edit it together and see each other's changes in real-time, like you can in google docs and similar programs. Instead, you have to publish your changes for other editors to be able to see them. -- asilvering (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

A quarterly update from the Growth team on our work to improve the new editor experience.

New releases

English Wikipedia gets "Add a Link" Structured Task

We released the "Add a Link" Structured Task to 100% of accounts at English Wikipedia on Tuesday, September 2nd (before then it was available to 20% of accounts).

Growth features for Wikidata

After examining if the Growth features and Mentorship could be adapted to Wikidata, we activated the Growth features on Beta Wikidata to allow for testing and discussion (T400937). Although some features, like Suggested Edits, are Wikipedia-specific, the Growth team designed most features to be more wiki-agnostic.

Work in progress

Revise Tone Structured Task

The Growth team is making progress on the technical architecture, onboarding design, and early user testing. We are targeting an A/B test before the end of this year, with constructive edits by newcomers as the primary success metric.

Add a link to more wikis

The machine learning team has been working on a new model that can suggest links to more languages, including Urdu, Chinese, and Japanese Wikipedias. We are starting to release the “Add a Link” feature to Wikipedias that weren’t supported by the previous model.

Add a link, which can be configured by the community locally, increases the chance that a new contributor will make their first edit and then continue to participate in Wikipedia.

Research

The Growth team is involved in several research initiatives to help guide our future work:

Progression System – We have published initial findings from interviews with 10 English and French Wikipedia newcomers. The research examined motivations, challenges, and feedback on a prototype system intended to help editors build confidence, develop skills, and contribute more constructively over time.

Mobile Web Editing Research – This project combines quantitative and qualitative data, community feedback, and user journey analysis to identify possible ways to enhance the mobile editing experience.

Newcomers Survey – This project surveys successful newcomers on English Wikipedia to understand their early editing experiences, tool use, and community interactions.

Community events

The Growth team participated in several community events to listen, share, and collaborate on improving newcomer experiences across Wikimedia projects.

Wikimania - Organizers as key partners to support newcomers' growth in our movement

This session invited organizers to share how they introduce newcomers to Growth features and the challenges they encounter. The discussion focused on common newcomer questions and opportunities to strengthen collaboration in supporting new editors.

Wikimania - Lightning Talk: Structured Tasks

This talk demonstrated how Structured Tasks help newcomers take their first successful steps on Wikipedia. It shared impact data, community configurations, and a demo of “Add a Link,” illustrating how these tasks make editing more accessible and sustainable, particularly for mobile contributors.

Wikimania - Building a Sustainable Future for Wikimedia Contributors

With active editor numbers declining, the Contributors Strategy aims to create a clearer, more engaging path for participation. This session, led by the WMF Contributors group with involvement from the Editing, Growth, Moderator Tools, and Connection (formerly Campaigns) teams, highlighted efforts to streamline contributor experiences, offer structured and mobile-friendly workflows, and foster meaningful engagement. Participants learned about ongoing initiatives and shared feedback to help shape a more inclusive and sustainable future for Wikimedia contributors.

CEE Meeting - Retaining beginners and improving content moderation: an inclusive and sustainable future for Wikipedia contributors

Many communities face a decline in volunteer engagement. Newcomers often leave soon after joining, while experienced editors struggle to manage increasingly complex workflows and overwhelming backlogs. We presented the Contributors Strategy and the different features and workflows that can help communities to address these challenges. We listened to the specific needs of the CEE communities to help guide the Contributors teams' work.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

10:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted add a page about a person who is renowned in a niche sector of phytogenics in india. I tried doing that but I am unable to view it. Can you help? --Raina Raj V R (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Raina Raj V R, welcome to wikipedia! I'm not sure what your trouble was, since your page is still visible. I did just move it to Draft:K. Narender Reddy, where you can work on it and resubmit it once it's ready. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering, I left a comment with some additional evidence and socks on an SPI case you recently declined. Not sure if that was the correct procedure; if you think it's better for me to make a new request, reopen the old one, or something else entirely, let me know. Cheers, 2001:4BC9:1F91:69C7:80D1:9DFF:8FB1:86E9 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Adding more socks to a closed investigation is a problem, but since no one's looked at this beyond to assess whether a check is appropriate, it's fine to add some more. The only mistake was putting the comment in the "patrolling admins" section, but that's easy enough for anyone to fix. :) -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hollow haw can i make sec --Andiswa cele (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Gave 'em a welcome. Maybe that'll help. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi asilvering,

I am just reading the reaction to my adding of information (hellojohnbuck & jebediahfunk) to the PowerBook and QuickTime pages with regards COI. My intent is to share information taken from first hand interviews with people involved at Apple in these and other projects. I have published those interviews with the interviewees permission in a book. I am not trying to generate revenue, but to ensure that the facts on topics is truthful and in order to allow others to 'see' that there is an actual source - like a footnote - so i have cited the book as proof of validity.

What is the best way to do that?

Best

John Hellojohnbuck (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hellojohnbuck, can you provide the ISBN of the book, so I can have a look at it? -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Inventing The Future: Bit By Bit

ISBN-13: 9781685837693

ISBN-10: 1685837697

Author: John Buck Hellojohnbuck (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Since you also have something of a COI as the author, I'd suggest that you follow the guidelines at WP:EDITCOI and propose edits on the talk page of the articles in question. But since that's a self-published book, it would fall under WP:SPS, and I'm not sure that editors on those articles would accept it as a reliable source. You may find that your edit requests are denied for that reason, in which case you might want to open a discussion about the book on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

i understand. i get it. i'm not picking a fight.

if i am using information that is taken from first hand interviews, but self published.. is it ever admissible?

is the same true of a stranger who reads/buys my book and cite's the facts in an edit on wiki? Hellojohnbuck (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The stranger who reads your book and tries to cite it in a Wikipedia article wouldn't need to go through WP:EDITCOI, but they'd run into the same WP:SPS problem, yes. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I understand that you and the others on the SPI team are often dealing with dozens of requests at a time. Bearing that in mind, I'm hoping you or a talk page stalker can assist with the DUCKy Rochambeau1783 case. Since the case is pretty open-and-shut, they seem to have attempted admitting to meatpuppetry in the mistaken belief that it isn't also a policy violation. While I understand that we ought to "wait our turn" on these things, the fact that the meatpuppetry "admission" was made four days ago and nothing has moved on the case since then (all while the sockmaster keeps editing) is a bit unfortunate. If you (or any TPSs) need a couple more days yet to get to the case, I understand. Thanks for your hard work at SPI and hope all is well. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Ack sorry, I missed this post because the GAN newsletter came in after it. I'll have a look in a minute. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that one was fun. :D -- asilvering (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Love seeing the process that CUers go through when working on SPIs. Someday, I'd love to consider helping your team more. The technical end of it seems like a challenge, but a rewarding one. Thank you for helping here! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Since I'm both the newest clerk and the newest CU, I don't really know anything about the clerk recruitment process and can't advise you there, but I can say that we're down a clerk recently, so there's a gap that needs some filling... -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

need the picture of the flag that was hoisted during Gilgit-Baltistan’s independence on November 1. --Nadil Malik (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Nadil Malik: The article Gilgit-Baltistan Independence Day (commemorated on November 1) contains a historical picture showing a group of people hoisting a flag. Is this related to what you are looking for? Left guide (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Howdy.

I suspect it likely is a result of fixing MOS:LISTGAP problems resulting in the software thinking that I was trying to mention you, but I got a notification that I pinged you (unintentionally) at the thread on AN. My apologies for that inadvertent ping - and I hope you can understand the reason why I made the changes to the format of the list/replies that I did.

Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries! -- asilvering (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Hello, it seems like the WP:BATTLEGROUND initiated by user Bildete (who you recently topic banned from "Poland and Lithuania" topics and who argued that "Someone could also be saying modern Lithuanians are fake" in his edit) escalates further by other users and IP users regarding article Great Lithuanians (for example, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Lithuanians). I believe that at this point traditional dispute solving measures are not sufficient and it is necessary for the Arbitration Committee to eventually evaluate and address the problematics of Litvinism topic per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe#Arbitration Committee decisions to simplify the reporting in WP:AE Litvinist editors who edit Lithuanian topics in the English Wikipedia in a disruptive manner. As it was demonstrated in the case of user Bildete, WP:TOPICBAN is the only way to stop disruption by such users in Lithuanian topics.

Quick summary of Litvinism (if necessary, see for more in the article): it is a pseudohistorical branch of nationalism, philosophy and political current (WP:FRINGE) which has dedicated followers who attempt to: 1) present nowadays Lithuanians as not historical Lithuanians (that is to deny that nowadays Lithuanians ancestors created Lithuania's statehood in the Middle Ages, sometimes describing modern Lithuanians simply as Samogitians); 2) To deny Lithuania's historical continuity (that is by claiming that the Lithuania's restored statehood with the 1918 Act of Independence of Lithuania is not a historical continuation of earlier statehood periods of Lithuania); 3) To deny Lithuanian language historical continuity (e.g. by describing Belarusian language as "real Lithuanian", while modern Lithuanian language as Samogitian dialect); 4) Claim that "Lietuva" (a name of Lithuania in Lithuanian language) is not "Litva" (a name of Lithuania in Slavic languages). Such Litvinists activity is highly threatening the reliability of Wikipedia and I think it can be described as fringe WP:TROLLING. In comparison, if you look in the Encyclopedia Britannica there are clear statements that: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times" (see: cited article), see also preamble of Constituon of Lithuania, so this is the level of content the English Wikipedia should seek and quality editors should not "feed the trolls" again and again.

Currently, multiple users and IP users in multiple discussions (by ignoring Lithuanian sources) support the keeping of the totally misleading content of the article Great Lithuanians (initially created in the Polish Wikipedia by an user with a hidden IP and just one edit in his history and later translated, so highly likely just a WP:TROLL) where with terms "i.e." (translated from Latin to English means "that is") the "modern Lithuanians" are equated with Samogitians (so the whole Lithuanian nation is equated to just one of its ethnic groups) and "modern Lithuanian" is equated with Samogitian dialect (so all speakers of the Lithuanian language are equated to speakers of just one dialect of the Lithuanian language). The creation and attempts of preservation of article "Great Lithuanians" probably is so far the most aggressive Litvinistic attempt to distort Lithuanian topics (to WP:POVPUSH that modern Lithuanians are not creators of Lithuania), but Litvinist editors in the past regularly attacked many other top-importance articles within Lithuanian topics (e.g. Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Name of Lithuania, etc.), so the problem is much broader and if necessary it would be possible to gather additional evidence (diffs) how widespread the problem of Litvinism in Lithuanian topics is.

In order to effectively prevent regular Litvinists disruption in the Lithuanian topics and to simplify the identification and sanctioning of disruptive Litvinist editors in WP:AE, I believe that the Arbitration Committee should adopt a new decision in the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe#Arbitration Committee decisions that: "Anyone who repeatedly deny the historical continuity of Lithuania, Lithuanians, Lithuanian language, name of Lithuania since 1009 to nowadays should be topic banned from Lithuania topics per WP:NOTHERE" because the mainstream scientific approach and preamble of Constitution of Lithuania do not question these things and so should not Wikipedia. The year 1009 is the first mentioning of Lithuania in written sources. Can you help with that? -- Pofka 15:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pofka, my guess is that arbcom is extraordinarily unlikely to formulate a decision like the one you've described, since arbcom as a general rule doesn't make determinations about content. But you can bring a case about conduct in the topic area to arbcom if necessary. However, you'll need to show that previous dispute resolution has been insufficient. Since we do already have WP:CT/EE and that does cover Lithuanian history, I would suggest that you bring conduct issues to WP:AE, and if you need rulings on things like "Litvvinism is pseudohistory", that's more the realm of an RFC. -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: - FYI, I updated your block of User:Unbanned Appeal to remove edit rights to the user talk page. I outlined the false statements being made about having no relationship to the sockmaster. — ERcheck (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)