User talk:Asilvering/Archive 27

Hey @Asilvering, long time no see!

Just had a quick question. I’m working on souring Big Bad Wolf: The Wolf’s Revenge. The name of the roller coaster starts with a “The” instead of just Big Bad Wolf. This is also the same for its predecessor, (The) Big Bad Wolf.

I’m curious to if I should rename/move them to include “The” at the start of their titles. Or at least change existing articles to remove “The” so we have a standard and consistent policy across all of the coaster articles. (See: The Bat, The Ride to Happiness, The Barnstormer, The Flying Cobras, e.t.c. All of which are coasters commonly referred to without a “The”.)

Perhaps there is a WP policy I’m missing here, but I’d appreciate any feedback you may have. Thanks!

Therguy10 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

“Sourcing”, not “Souring” (lol).

Also, when I say the name of the roller coaster, that’s the official name given to it. Not what may currently be on WP. Therguy10 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Therguy10: Hello, the general policy on this is summarized in WP:DEFINITE:

Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). They needlessly lengthen article titles, and interfere with sorting and searching.

WP:THE is a guideline page that goes into more detail, and seems to list some types of exceptions. Regarding official names, WP:ON discusses how that relates to article title policy. I hope this is helpful. Left guide (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the help here. After reading both articles, I’m going to conclude that the official name for a roller coaster may also constitute as a proper name. However, honestly this seems like more trouble than it’s worth to tinker with, not to mention it’s still trivial.

It seems to be case dependent for each coaster. WP:ON mentions practicality, and each coaster has different circumstances. So, I’ll move ones that would definitely need moved (which there don’t seem to be any glaringly obvious ones right now, but I’ll double-check) and add simple redirects for those that need them.

@Left guide thanks for your help! If I need correcting with my thinking, please let me know! Therguy10 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Please assess the declarations on the user pages of each, and their editing pattern.

• Leo Fux
• Michael Bieglmayer

I'm really asking for advice. I think their declarations (his declarations), while accurate, break our rules became the two accounts are tag teaming, and are here and on Commons for pure advertising purposes.

It doesn't quite look like SPI material, and yet it also does. To me it doesn't look like legitimate use of alternate accounts 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'm also not seeing the tag-teaming? -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll accept your view. One uploads pictures the other does the words. But, if they are ok then they are ok. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, since it's disclosed. Weird, but fine. If their behaviour would be acceptable if the two accounts were in fact a single account, they're not tag-teaming. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You get reported to yesterday (and you were pinged and saw the report) that an admin was lying about CU reporting a positive result for IP to account match and you aren't going to do anything? You were provided with IPs and you have the ability to run CU and verify that there are no matches, independently of me. 95.168.107.41 (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I blocked the proxy. Anon only. 1 week. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, no. How would they know all this? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't do checks on request like that, and there's no evidence that the other CU did anything wrong. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry about that revert, I had been watching the conversation and was trying to read the context to figure out if it was a personal attack. I did not mean to actually revert the message. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 17:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry about personal attacks against admins in situations like that. We're big kids and can handle ourselves. :) At best, you'll just piss the blocked editor off. -- asilvering (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Indeed. If I'd been blocked (again), I'd've been pissed too. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I see that you have identified the above as possible sockmaster & sockpuppet. Does an WP:SPI need to be created? Both editors blocked? (Background: Came across the 2nd editor in a G11 sd nomination & found your note on his user talk page.) — ERcheck (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

There's already an SPI, but no need for any action at this point. We'll see what they have to say. -- asilvering (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering - Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just read through about Hogshine's warning in the discussion above, did not know he had gotten one until he mentionied it.

However, I was looking through his contributions, and saw a WP:POV, an extreme POV one, that distorts the source. He did this edit, creating the "Identity and Geography" section.

He wrote: "Barhebraeus, along with the Syriac Orthodox people of his time, did not identify as "Arameans" and explicitly rejected the term as a self-designation..." while referencing this source.

In the source we only find one mentiong of a name being rejected, this name is "Jacobite," the source reads: "In the Arabised Christian world – be it Egypt or Baghdad – the word “Jacobites” was apparently considered an acceptable self-designation while the Western Syriac Orthodox rejected it."

But Hogshine changed this word for Aramean, while in the same source, it is actually said that Syriac Orthodox did in fact use this word as a identity, we read: "Unlike Michael the Great, Bar ʻEbroyo declined to use the word “Arameans”. Neither did he mention the debate about the “real Syrians”."

So Michael the Great uses Aramean as a identity, Bar Hebraeus does not favor it, and instead uses "Syrian," but somehow Hogshine distorts this source and writes that both him and the Syriac Orthodox community rejected this term? When in fact the Syriac Orthodox community rejected the term Jacobite, not Aramean (as seen in Michael the Great). He further says that Bar Hebraeus rejected this name, when the source says that he did not favor (abstract) and declined to use it, and instead used Syrian. Nowhere is it stated that he and the Syriac Orthodox community "rejected" it.

And overall, the entire section looks very POV even if it would've been according to the sources, and coming from Hogshine who tries to get Assyrian in the lead section of Syriac Monasteries as a "Assyrian monastery" and "Mecca for Assyrians", it seems as its intented to be very POV. 777network (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly as cited in article: it should be observed that Bar ‘Ebroyo does not favor the term “Arameans” as a self-designation. His audience apparently did not identify with this term; (p.303)
Bar ʻEbroyo declined to use the word “Arameans”. (p.323)
Really pushing assuming good faith here by not thinking this is intentionally dishonest.

I have consistently kept the ACAS word as it appears in the source multiple times, including in Barhebraeus where I used "Syriac priest", "East-Syrian", and "Aramean" as they appear.

It is actually you who has repeatedly broken this rule on Mor Gabriel and Mor Hananyo by removing sources that use one ACAS word, substituting them for another e.g. removing . Hogshine (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I was just writing a update about Mor Hananyo as a reply when you wrote this. Anyhow, not identifying as something, perhaps by location is very different to "rejecting" it. Where is it stated that his audience rejected this term, they might just not have been in a area where its a identification and not just thought about it? It's WP:OR and twisted, and obvious POV. Again, anyone can check whether if not I have broken the rules, or if I have only corrected content, and followed WP:RS, WP:V. I'd just say we wait this one out until a non-involved admin/editor steps in, for example Asilvering. 777network (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Right, you've taken to changing & removing ACAS words like "carried out by the Syriac ['Assyrian' in the source] architects Theodosius and Theodore" and removing a handful of citations including scholarly ones, a direct violation of the sanctions which you seem to be aware of and having accepted.

I have corrected the Mor Hananyo article as well, if I'd done any mistake please let me know and I can correct it. I checked each individual source and corrected the content, removed non-WP:RS, and corrected some terms for the names of the architects, a quick search showed me that the common name/term for the architects was not the one already written in the article. I removed obvious POV, such as "Mecca for Assyrians" which seems to only be a thing in one self-published blog. Also removed completely unsupported sentences, such as a ceiling being completely intact since the Assyrian period (2600 years ago). I've removed WP:OR, on many places! I have also updated the numbers for the population of the region, it's not close to 4,000 today in majority of sources. And again, removed some very odd sources, one was a completely unfinished website under the domain name "github.io." About the Assyrian wine: it was a misquote, source did not say it, but I did quickly find a source that did and replaced it. 777network (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

These things should be discussed on the articles' talk pages, not a 3rd-party user's. You have twice already broken the rule to which you tried framing me for, having announced you're aware of such ruling beforehand. Hogshine (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

To not make a wall of text out of this, I'll refrain from replying any further. Editors don't need consent when correcting obvious errors. I am not framing anyone, I am simply putting up concerns. And once again, any admin/editor who genuinely thinks my edits were not correcting WP:RS, WP:V, and overall the POV of the article may tell us that. 777network (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to add my name on Wikipedia and what I do For fame --Ekzydaniel (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Ekzydaniel, that's not what we do here. See WP:PROMO. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, sorry to drag you into this again. This recently happened; need some advice here re: warning. This latest edit has removed well-cited content and specifically replaced sources just to replace the ACAS word, besides the sources that don't even support it.

If I revert that, would it count as breaking my warning? In usual circumstances, this is very much reversion-worthy.
Worth mentioning that sources, including scholarly ones, were specifically replaced for others that use a different word (and have less info altogether, hence how much info was deleted) or removed entirely. Just need to know if a reversion is acceptable from my end.   Edit: also, like every other one I've come across, this edit is wholly AI-generated. Hogshine (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve not removed the ACAS word, I’ve corrected the content. Multiple sources did not mention what was stated, many where cherry picked/POV, for example stating it’s an “Assyrian monastery” or “Assyrian Orthodoxy” when the obvious and most well established terms in all of WP:RS is “Syriac monastery” and “Syriac Orthodoxy.” I’ve left the template, I’ve left the mentioning of Assyrians in protests, and I’ve left the mentioning of Assyrian in the interview, as well as the metropolitan visiting Assyrian villages, I’ve left the Assyrian categories.

I removed a specific source, one originating from AINA, from a person by the name of Abdulmesih BarAbraham who’s the “formal advisor to the Assyrian Federation in Germany” and the source you quoted him on originates from his editorial on AINA “Assyrian International News Agenecy,” it’s not WP:RS. Had I only targeted the Assyrian name, I’d have removed all mentioning of Assyrian, the templates (which are very visible on the article), and so. And it’s not AI generated, I’ve only corrected the content per the sources, not added anything new.

@Asilvering:, you can check the sources yourself, nearly all of them said something else. Many were also misquoted and not even supported in the sources. I’ve corrected this, removed non-reliable sources and left Assyrian mentions. 777network (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry both, woke up with a migraine and it's only gotten worse since, so I'm not going to be of much use here. It sounds like what ought to happen is a talk page discussion about whether the sources are reliable, before anyone makes any other changes or reversions. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

That is indeed the best way to go. I hope your recovery is going well, take care! Hogshine (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

After the paid editing comment I read over Rachel Marsden and saw that this sentence and link had been removed at some point in the past year or so: "In 1997 Marsden came to public attention for her role in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy." I don't know if someone was "paid" to remove it but I've put it back in. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

By all means, add that back, but there's no need for the paid tag to stick around once you've fixed the issue. The website linked as evidence is very clearly a scam operation and is highly unlikely to have made any edits to any of the listed articles. -- asilvering (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 11, Nos. 326, 327, 353, 354 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run: U, V, W | Asian women Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Women in Red's Asian women event is part of the global Wikipedia Asian Month 2025 campaign. You are welcome to add your contributions to both event pages. Tip of the Month: Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year. 21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women) 28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

where is edit button --Ironman291010 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ironman291010, welcome to wikipedia! It should be in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. -- asilvering (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Am I correct in deducing that Ruling party was a Trust Is All You Need sock that was never identified as such? They were indeff'd for their behaviour, not for socking. TheUzbek appears to have very similar problematic behaviour – mass controversial moves, resorting to insults etc. Just wondering what's the best way to deal with it. Number 57 23:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

They've already been blocked and unblocked for sockpuppetry, and that was about a year ago now, so it doesn't really matter at this point (unless you turn up a new probable master who is office banned, in which case, we'd have to do something about that). So for insults, controversial moves, etc, just handle them the same way as you would for anyone else. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Asilvering. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you please block GabooRuls25? Multiple warnings against disruptive editing have been given but they don't respond. Cards84664 03:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. But you can take this kind of thing to AIV in the future (no guarantee I'll notice the ping in a timely manner). -- asilvering (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I recently wrote a bio, but it was deleted. --Omalepoe (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Omalepoe, it looks like you created it in the wrong place, but you've still got it at Draft:Abraham Efemena. In order for that draft to be accepted, you'll probably want to find some more coverage about Efemena himself. Right now the sources look like they're all about Apex Network. See WP:42 for a really basic explainer of how this works, and if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

the new edit it `Draft:Abraham Efemena` Omalepoe (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You've removed some of the unreliable or non-independent sources, which is good. But I still have the same comment - it looks like these sources are all about Apex Network. -- asilvering (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. How do I make my edits flow nicely into the text? --TimmyPrevails (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TimmyPrevails, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, and I've had a look at your edits and that didn't help me guess, either. Are you still having trouble? -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

disregard what I previously said, thank you for your time. TimmyPrevails (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I have made another edit, please kindly check it out and let me know what you think. Omalepoe (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the ACAS warning has been broken again for the 3rd time by a user who's aware of it , replacing & removing one ACAS word for another. First time was on Mor Hananyo and again Mor Gabriel.
I would appreciate it if you could please be responsive this time. The warning you issued has, so far, only been followed by me. @Asilvering Hogshine (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

What's the word being swapped in this diff you've linked? The old version has Barhebraeus, along with the Syriac Orthodox people of his time, did not identify as 'Arameans', the new one Bar Hebraeus did not favor "Arameans" as a self-designation; his audience likewise did not use it; we also have He instead speaks of "ancient Syrians" vs Instead, he identifies ethnically as Syrian and uses the expression “ancient Syrians” -- asilvering (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

In the sentence after that. My version said (per sourece):‌ Among intellectual Assyrians as Barhebraeus, the usage of 'Assyria' did not disappear after Islamic conquests, and he frequently mentioned Assyria (Syriac: ܐܬܘܪ, romanised: Āṯōr) as a contemporary
New version says: Bar Hebraeus refers several times to Assyria (Syriac: ܐܬܘܪ, romanised: Āṯōr) in his Chronography and clearly

Source cited is Hogshine (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This does not breach my warning. -- asilvering (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

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". Instead of "change", it's remove. Am I understanding that intentional ACAS-word removal is okay? Hogshine (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

These two versions say basically the same thing. Yes, the word "Assyrians" has been removed, but it occurred in the old sentence three times, which is redundant, and so it was collapsed to one single time. This is fine. -- asilvering (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It isn't the same though. What was removed was directly calling Barhebraeus himself an ethnic Assyrian. In the context of the naming dispute, this is critical. Clearly I don't understand your warning that fluctuates in meaning.

I'd also point out the whole edit is copyvio and the new source doesn't check out. Hogshine (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine, my warning does not fluctuate in meaning. In this case, the meaning of the text was not changed, therefore it is not an edit disallowed by my warning. Editing in CTOPs requires working together and making compromises to get to a version of the text that satisfies interested editors, including interested editors who strongly disagree with one another. If you are unwilling to accept even minor changes in wording, you will not last long in this CTOP. Please recalibrate your approach. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and that's why I've not engaged in edit wars, reverted only once, and sought your advice/okay before doing anything. Yet the contested uncited copyvio is the one that's still up despite my multiple requests to undo & start a talk page discussion. I'm mostly aware of how the content dispute process works and have been more than courteous in that regard, eg Jacob of Edessa still has the contested version up.

Finally I would still disagree on "meaning of the text was not changed"; a direct cited reference to his ethnicity was removed. But I won't peruse this further. Hogshine (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

What you are referring to as the "contested version", I assume you mean the Aramean mentions in the article. Just a FYI, whatever "Aramean" is on that article, has been on there since before your account was created, see this version from 2022. 777network (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The contested versions are these . Note the before/after versions. The WP:ONUS is on you to reach consensus to have your version, or another we (the community) agree on, published.
If no conesus is reached, then the original version before your first edit is published; I'm aware how bad it'll look on me if I constantly object to everything and just default to that each time while you make good points.

But you need to revert and initiate discussions, at least as a sign of good faith. In the future, if you're reverted once esp. on such ACAS topics, you should bring it to the talk page instead of undoing the reversion. See WP:BRD.

Regarding Jacob, older versions don't matter when it's (my) version that's being changed &‌ expanded upon. I'll initiate the discussion myself there soon in a few hours. Hogshine (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine, you are free to revert copyvio. Make sure your edit summary clearly explains that's what you're doing and where the copyvio is from. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @asilvering, I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to point out that my latest contribution on Barhebraeus was reverted, despite content being accurate to sources, this would be a direct violation of number 1 in your list. He reverts correction of the sources, as well as removing new content I added from a new source. I don’t feel like there’s any free room in contribution, every time I do an edit, I always check back on the same article, thinking “Hogshine might have reverted” or “Hogshine probably reported me” and so on. It’s not a good feeling, the topic is already under sanctions and it seems to me that he guards all religious article with his Assyrian POV. I have done another edit that included rescuing info and added new things to Michael the Syrian, hopefully it is not targeted as well. 777network (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering (Sorry the ping did not go through) 777network (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Your latest edit on Michael the Syrian reinstated the banned socks/meats versions of DavidKaf and Devi van velden. You republished copyright violations despite warning again on Barhebraeus. I'm not sure what to make of this emotional appeal since all pages you contested were ones I rewrote from scratch — Michael is GA — & on my watchlist, but there is a process to content dispute: WP:BRD / WP:DR. Hogshine (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I reinstated the edits, yes. I learned yesterday that Devi van Velden was blocked. But, the information itself was very good. I did add things to it, including new sources. I do not see what's wrong with that edit. And if anyone want to double check, please do. When I checked and went through the versions all was supported!

Regarding the copyright violation you say, could you please tell me what exactly is a copyright? Instead of constantly reverting due to it, why not help with correcting whatever is copyrighted? From my perspective, I do not see any copyright.

I am aware of the process, but asilvering said that if it's someone who's already been warned, to inform about it.

Your warning on my page doesn't check out, you claim that "identifies as ethnically Syrian" is not supported in the source, yet the source says "Both Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus thought of themselves as Syrians in ethnic contexts (as opposed to the Greeks and Armenians), or as Jacobites in religious contexts"

I appreciate you expanding these pages, but it doesn't make you the sole owner of them.777network (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@777network, you've had it explained to you below so I hope you don't have outstanding questions about copyright anymore, but please feel free to ask if you do. Regarding Instead of constantly reverting due to it, why not help with correcting whatever is copyrighted?, it's completely unreasonable to expect other editors to clean up after you in this way. If you add copyvio to articles and are merely reverted, consider it a kindness. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for all help, yes I do understand now that it is unreasonable to do so, me doing errors and then expecting others to fix those errors. I have since fixed the copyright issue now, thank you @REAL MOUSE IRL And sorry for us being like cat and mouse, constantly chasing and reporting to you. 777network (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @777network parts of your edits do seem to be very closely paraphrased from the sources. I suspect you began with directly copied text and tried to paraphrase it in place, which leads to issues like this. See WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. I only checked the second paragraph of this section (Bar Hebraeus did not favor...) and found vios in almost every sentence, but ~30% of the text seems fine, and I have hope you can improve on this.

There is no burden on those removing copyvio to preserve and reword the content, but obviously Hogshine wants it removed for another reason. It's transparent that they cite WP:CVREPEAT in a first time warning because they are itching to eject an opponent from the topic area. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It's transparent that they cite WP:CVREPEAT in a first time warning because they are itching to eject an opponent from the topic area Not sure where you got that from and it sounds like an aspersion. I couldn't find any copyvio templates so I went with all the ones I came across just to be safe. I do want it removed for other reasons like poorly/un-cited content and style errors; I made those perfectly clear many places.

777network is welcome to engage in the usual content dispute process, which includes undoing their edits and starting talk page discussions.
Edit: User:777network Do note that this is another copyvio; you can't copy & paste sentences verbatim. Hogshine (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

obviously Hogshine wants it removed for another reason is so transparently true I would strongly caution you about implying that anyone else is casting aspersions here, @Hogshine. -- asilvering (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course it is true. I said so myself . Including in the above reply. The aspersion was the "ejecting opponent" part; linking to a Wikipedia rule page hardly counts as that?
I'm all out of ways of saying this and no one else is, but @777network you need to establish consensus once your edit has been contested. This includes undoing your latest edits (to the version before your first edit) and starting a talk page discussion for each. Hogshine (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The unverified claim appears to be the incorrect page numbers in ref 74. It's actually p36-37. I assume you mistook the "87." in the references on page 36 as a page number. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You are completely right, I did take it from the references, it was positioned in a place where I thought it was the page number when the page was "XXXVI" thank you for helping me 777network (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will sit with this on the evening and figure it out. I appreciate you lifting this to me, initially I thought I had rewritten it enough. 777network (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

How do I make a new citation ? --Scotindylawyer (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Scotindylawyer, welcome to wikipedia! If you're citing from a book or something online, it's very easy: press the "cite" button to bring up an automated citation generator, then dump the URL/ISBN/other identifier of your source into the box and click the button. You'll want to check that everything is correct, but this works reasonably well for most things. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for encouraging me to do the thing. Having gotten past both myself and that other guy (who is still on here), I was surprised there was no alert for passing the threshold after over a thousand legit edits in much less than a month. However, on checking the extended confirmed user list, my persona has definitely achieved it, so I might have minimal respectability now, at least till an inevitable complaint.

Since you sort of know me now, I have some questions about this level of access and related site use issues which I hope you will address.

Though there several tens of thousands of extended users listed here, as so many are long dormant, what is the number of current WP:XC accounts who are active participants? To be in good standing, should I still do at least 500 edits per 30 days? How if at all is it monitored?

Assuming automated statistics collections deem all edits to be equal, how less likely or differently addressed are complaints? Would your or some other third party look into any challenges to my edits if needed? How should I handle them, especially disruption accusation like before?

Having earned Magnificent XC Expert status as said here by adding novel info to novel articles, can I expand the rate and kinds a little more now? Perhaps lots more? Maybe a passionate crusade again, yet claims of excess categories or cite repeating will be checked for accuracy?

On my new conquering ability to edit pending changes articles, semi-protected articles, and extended confirmed protection articles (which may compel my caution), can edit review still be requested? If not, should I ask on talk pages? If no problem, do I just forge ahead with my mods?

Now enfranchised by upgrade, at least in theory, which if any of the other user groups might be the next lowest bar to pass that is relatively idiot-proof after one is trained? Pending change review? Rollbacking? Some constructively overpowered yet uniquely Wikipedial third option?

By the way, why was my page edited by this bot just hours after switching this avatar that lasted a month to this one which got nuked? Is there use difference though posted to relevant articles here and here? If so, how do I select a safe hashtag-relatable fictional character image?

This is lots already, yet please also thwart the New Climate Change Vandal Guy. It is not my relative. This one is skeptical to cartoon extremes.

While I do not intend to abuse power or annoy people by going straight into massive edits of the most vandalized or edit-warred or contentious articles, I mean to raise the pace and mix of revision. Near the outer fringes of possibility, I have a non-zero chance of becoming a respected Wikipedian someday, at least for as long as it keeps staggering toward all truths. I look forward to your continued insights, and wish you well.ThoughtlessMcSheep (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope, it's not monitored in any way at all. Once XC, always XC, unless you do something that causes an admin to revoke it from you (this is very rare). You can make any edits you like, but if it's something that might be contentious, you'd be advised to test the waters first, either by asking for opinions first or by making a few edits to see if anyone objects before you make more. As for making edit requests, usually we say you should just be WP:BOLD, unless you fall under WP:EDITCOI. So go wild (within reason).

I'd say the next one up is WP:PCR.

The original image is public domain, so you can use it anywhere. The one you swapped in is non-free, so we can only use it in articles.

If you can point me at this New Climate Change Vandal Guy, I can have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

What is WP:FORPETESSAKE? --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 17:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

wikt:for Pete's sake. -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It would've been simpler to link to the wiktionary page rather than imply that there is a shortcut that doesn't exist... anyways, thank you for clarifying :) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 18:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It was intended to be some light humor. Giraffer (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

How do I add a picture --TheOneWhoSpectate (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheOneWhoSpectate, welcome to wikipedia! H:IUI has a guide for you. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the NepalFirst account was blocked several weeks ago, and then a few days ago you upgraded it to a CU block. I can't remember, is NepalFirst the master or sock, and what's the other account? (If you can't say publicly, could you ping me an e-mail?) I'm mainly asking because I came across a new account JilingHat which quacks to me. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Here: . I wrote "I presume there's an older master, but didn't find one." in my notes. Will have a look at this new one. -- asilvering (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks! Haven't had my first coffee yet, so brain still stuck on idle. (Coffee is my excuse, and I'm sticking with it!)

I'm happy enough to block the new user as-is, but if you do have time to check it, that'd be great. Ta, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, that's almost shockingly artless. KashitarHat is Confirmed, and the one you found is Highly likely. Still no idea who they are, but would you mind spinning up a pro-forma SPI so we can start tagging these guys somewhere centrally? -- asilvering (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Yup, will do. Thanks for dealing with it so swiftly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

		The Administrator's Barnstar
		For the work at WP:SPI. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 04:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

AGH, every time I initiate an SPI, I get instantly rejected! Obviously, 4 SPIs is not that much, and I don't expect myself to get any better at filing SPIs anytime soon. Is there any guide to how to file an SPI instead of waste a random sysop's time? HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 04:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest getting more familiar with WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK in general, and also having a read of WP:GOODSPI. There's nothing in common across your filings I can tell you to do or to stop doing, aside from, I guess, that you should try to talk to the editors in question first. There are lots of reasons why people might have multiple accounts, and most of them are perfectly fine. Another benefit of asking first is that if they outright deny it and you're really sure they're the same person, the sysop will feel much better about handing out indefs. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Toadspike

• Elahrairah
• Juliancolton
• Magnus Manske

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

• The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
• Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.

Technical news

• You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
  • Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Wondering why my report was closed. I don’t see another against said user being open. I only see them reporting another user, which is different than me reporting them. Maybe you were confused? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I was not confused. As it says in both ANI threads, the edit war is already listed at AN3. -- asilvering (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know what AN3 means or how to find it, but I hope your right. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:AN3 is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, where edit-warring is reported. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I am a new user and found one of the admin people unhelpful and rude. I have gained another source to help and updated the references as suggested. A discussion or warning would have been sufficient. In light of this please unblock so I can add the references. LJBCrackenthorpe (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@LJBCrackenthorpe, you're not blocked, as far as I can tell. Can you copy-paste the message you're receiving when you try to edit? -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If what you're concerned about is deleted edits, it doesn't look like anything you've written has been deleted, just moved. See Special:Contributions/LJBCrackenthorpe for a list of all the edits you've made - you should be able to find whatever draft or article you're looking for there. Does that help? -- asilvering (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello --Muhammadrubelctg (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Muhammadrubelctg, welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Can I create a public page for me --Muhammadrubelctg (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You already have, in the sense that you've created a userpage. I assume you mean an article about yourself? In that case, I'd really strongly recommend that you don't try to do that, but if you're quite set on it, WP:AUTOBIO has the information you need. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it looks I might be a bit rusty on handling sockpuppets. My understanding was that admins are discouraged from sending obvious WP:DUCK-type cases to SPI as it's always overloaded. The account here was an extremely obvious sock. This person has also been socking using IP accounts for a long time, which WP:SPI notes won't be connected publicly with a registered account as well. Can you please let me know what best practice now is for cases like this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses can be connected with registered accounts on behaviour, just not by CUs or TAIVs. I don't believe this is an obvious duck case, and I think you've started to jump at shadows a bit - which does tend to happen when there's long-term disruption driving a person crazy - so it would benefit going through SPI for a second look. The IP address you noted is almost certainly not them, for example. It's quite possible you're dealing with at least two similar long-term contributors. -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice. I'm actually very confident that the most recent IP address is them though, based on the editing pattern and content, but I'll take your advice to be more cautious. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

To belatedly answer your question: I don't recall my actions, but I suspect I looked at the hatnotes, the page header box, and the lede, and found nothing in any of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, by "page header box", do you mean the thing that starts out If you suspect sockpuppetry by an administrator,? -- asilvering (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I want my own Wikipedia page? --Christopher Lamar (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Christopher Lamar, welcome to wikipedia! We really don't recommend that people write articles about themselves, so I'd encourage you to do something else. See WP:AUTOBIO for more information. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey..I want to get my information on Wikipedia what’s the process --Kevin Maeta (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kevin Maeta, welcome to wikipedia! I'll give you the same answer I gave the last fellow - we really don't recommend that people write articles about themselves, so I'd encourage you to do something else. See WP:AUTOBIO for more information. -- asilvering (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Asilvering, I’d like to connect with a senior editor who isn’t also a mentor. A few months ago when we were back-and-forthing for a while, I somehow got the impression that you were not. If so, may I run something by you — an idea? Augnablik (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik, by "mentor", do you mean someone who automatically receives questions via the WP:GTF mentorship module? If yes, I'm a mentor, I'm afraid (that's all these "Question from..." on my talk page). But I'm happy to answer whatever question regardless. -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

What I see above on your Talk page does seem to indicate that you're a mentor, judging by all the questions you've received and answered. What I saw at WP:GTF, however, seemed a bit different ... in fact, it may be a place where I'd like to contribute after I complete work on several tricky articles. So I guess I need to continue my search, but thanks all the same. Augnablik (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The Civility Barnstar

Thanks for helping me keep my cool at that MfD discussion. TBH the nominator made some comments that were valid criticisms but not valid reasons for deletion. I think the wording they used definitely didn't help, and it definitely came off as a little mean even if they didn't mean it to. I have no idea how I would have reacted if you hadn't stepped in and helped me to calm down, as I was pretty incensed and had already had a bad day due to IRL stuff, so... thank you! If there was a such thing as a double barnstar I would send you that instead lol. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad everything worked out. :) -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		After dbeef—the next most recent local CheckUser grantee—topped the CheckUser use counter in their first month, I told them that [w]e both know that the number of beans counted is a terrible metric for, well, anything. But I wanted to give a special shout-out for topping the WP:AUDITSTATS leaderboard in your first month as a CU. I am delighted to see that I get to do the same for you! Congrats, and thank you for all your work: unblocking editors, at SPI, mentoring others; everything! To many more months of CUing, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I see @Izno deliberately suppressed his own usual output in order for me to receive this honour. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Psh, I said as much. Izno (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Need more updates on Robbie Jones wiki Christopher Lamar (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Christopher Lamar, be WP:BOLD! You can make the updates yourself! -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

how I don't know how to start? Christopher Lamar (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

My advice would be to go to Special:Homepage and start out by doing some of the easier guided edits it suggests, like the add a link task. These won't be about Robbie Jones specifically, but they'll help you get a feel for editing. Then you should feel more confident making the edits you are interested in making on your own, but even if you're not, it will probably teach you enough about editing that you'll be able to ask a more specific question than "how do I start", which will be much easier for me to answer. Good luck! And happy editing. -- asilvering (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Can we make someones Wikipedia page? Christopher Lamar (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed we can. In one sense, it's as easy as going to WP:WIZARD and following the prompts. In another, I'd say that starting a new article from scratch is one of the harder things you can learn to do on Wikipedia, and I'd suggest becoming familiar with other kinds of editing before you try that. More helpful info at WP:FIRST. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Hope you're well... Is there a way or what are the steps that require us to do before making a original new page ourselves? --HeyStranger42 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @HeyStranger42: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! To answer your question, new accounts can't make articles directly, so you'll need to submit a draft: please see WP:AFC. All articles must meet our notability policy. I also highly recommend you read Help:Your first article. Happy editing! Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Could you please tell me that do I need to add any other things or any links if I add any images in any posts? TIA --ו7 (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ו7, welcome to wikipedia! The answer to your question as stated is "no". But I gather from your talk page that you added an image that someone else objected to and removed. There are all kinds of reasons why someone might do that, so the best thing to do when you end up in that kind of situation is ask that editor directly, either on their talk page or on the talk page of the article in question. If you have any trouble understanding what that other editor has said, or you run into some other problems doing that, do go ahead and let me know and I can try to help you out. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I just joined to participate in the loft mission of Wikipedia. Please help me learn how I can assist it in the future. --Canaeonpress (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Canaeonpress, glad to have you here! I suggest starting out by going through H:INTRO. Feel free to ask any specific questions you may have. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello how do I post my events --Mr Chris alvin gospel (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mr Chris alvin gospel, welcome to wikipedia! The answer is, unfortunately, "you don't". We're not here to promote events. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello how do I post my events --Mr Chris alvin gospel (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to post event schedules. I would suggest contacting your local newspaper. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi asilvering.

Could you perhaps look at Coalinsky Brimson? Their userpage seems to indicate they are an LTA, though I'm not sure which one. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't recognize them, no. -- asilvering (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

How to put images in Wikipedia pages --Qsrfecv (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Qsrfecv, welcome to wikipedia! H:I has a tutorial you'll find useful. -- asilvering (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)