User talk:Asilvering/Archive 28

Though the evidence looks convincing to me, would you mind discussing the block with them? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

yeaaaah that's them. -- asilvering (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Finally see a bright side to temporary accounts. We can say, "yeah it's them," without giving away any secrets. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I can't do anything I couldn't do with IPs, in that regard. But, ahem, I can't stop you from reading between the lines as you see fit. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! You have recently unblocked me on English Wikipedia. Thanks for that. However, unbeknownst to me, I am also blocked on Commons and Italian Wiki for the same reason. I have submitted a request on Commons and awaiting reply. But regarding Italian Wiki, I am blocked from editing my talk page and I am not a speaker of the language. I only have one edit there which I have forgotten altogether. Do you have any suggestions on how to navigate this? I wanted a rename for privacy reasons and I understand an editor can’t be renamed with an active block. Thank you very much for guidance. AkoAyMayLobo (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @AkoAyMayLobo, I don't have any idea how to get unblocked from it-wiki. But I don't think a single edit is going to matter when it comes to getting a rename, so you probably don't have to worry about it. It seems more likely to me that the problem you'll encounter is that you were only recently unblocked for sockpuppetry. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Denonia✉ 07:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! First time as an editor, so would like some general editing guidelines. Also wanted to know how you keep bias out of your edits and writings - a problem I have found in my own writings. --Vesta8963 (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Vesta8963, welcome to wikipedia! H:I is a pretty good guide to start with. The second question is harder to answer. Speaking as a historian, the real answer is "you don't", but a more useful answer for your future on wikipedia is that you scrupulously avoid "original research". That is, you do your best to stick to what the secondary sources say. This doesn't really keep bias out of your writing, it just devolves it, but that's the party line, as it were. In practice, I think the best thing to do is ask yourself, "if someone didn't know what I thought about this topic, would they be able to guess from reading what I wrote about it?" If you think the answer is "yes", you have some work to do to make it more neutral. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe that people think that admitting to having a COI/being paid leads to an automatic death penalty, and they don't actually read the policy; they just assume it is gonna be bad for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyCOI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyPAID

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Archive_21#uw-coi_and_uw-paid

I don't really care if someone is getting paid or has a COI; if the edits are not an improvement I am gonna revert anyway. Polygnotus (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Can I get some context for this statement? -- asilvering (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

In this case the issue is also that we define both "conflict of interest" and "paid" in a way that makes absolutely no sense to any non-wikipedian. You are of course welcome to not care whether any particular editor is paid or COI (I think that's the sensible way to handle these edits, personally). Unfortunately for me it's my job to block and unblock the paid ones so I do kinda have to care. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. What do you think about the rewrites of those templates? Polygnotus (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

These are about 500x better than the scary and useless warnings we have right now, imo. You could move them to {{uw-agf-paid}} and {{uw-agf-coi}} and ask for them to be added to Twinkle, probably. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Should the history of Draft:VVDN Technologies be undeleted, given the renewed interest by the original attempts' editor and editorial actions and declines by multiple other editors? DMacks (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@DMacks, I don't see why we would? That would make for very confusing page history, since the article was recreated, not refunded. -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. DMacks (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I posted earlier asking if you could revoke TPA, realised you'd already done it then got thoroughly confused and deleted my post! I've just seen that you revdelled the history, thank you! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about revdel, I got distracted midway through dealing with that and wouldn't have come back around otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Walk away? I don't like not defending myself when I am wrongly accused of course, but it may be a good idea. Polygnotus (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

You are right; I'll go do something more productive. Polygnotus (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The only choice, I think. After you've had some time to get out of the defensive kneejerk, you'll probably want to hat your responses at AE and try again (this time, in some 300 words at most). Be well. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering, I have fixed all source-text integrity issues in the article Anitli, however, the one in the lead is deviant from the rest, its reference is to a now non-existing source and does not follow consistency across the entire article, so I created a EDITREQ rather than fix it myself (considering Ant Wan and Ricky Rich articles), and I remember you saying I can check with you if I had done so correctly, so that is what I am asking today, if you please could check that?

Also, on another topic, on the talk page of Michael the Syrian, when discussion consensus, the other party constantly bashes me with "AI", "POV", "bad faith", in nearly every response, i told to quit doing it! yet the very next response again, i get told "AI will do that." its very annoying constantly being bashed about this... even on your talk page previously, he did this... is this allowed? he ended with "take it or leave it"... feels impossible to reach any consensus without bashing and unwillingess 777network (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you did it right, and it's now in the queue - though you might want to put a new header on top whenever you do this. I did it for you this time: . As for the issue on Michael the Syrian, the very first thing I see in that discussion is not in good faith. You have been thoroughly warned about this a total of six times. So, yes, in my estimation it is now time for you to take this to WP:AE. At least one of you is skirting sanctions. WP:GS/ACAS is the contentious topic you'd be filing this under. -- asilvering (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I am not so technical on Wikipedia, always difficult when stuff like that happens.

Should I take this to WP:AE based on the "AI" "not good faith" "pov" "gaming system" critiques all the time? Sorry I did not understand, because I am not sure if WP:ACAS prohibits critiques/allegations like that? I felt it was just bad sport to always say that to me in every response. Or should I take it there because of another reason? 777network (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

In a contentious topic, you're supposed to be on your best behaviour at all times. So if you're feeling harassed by another editor in the topic area, you can report that at AE. You may want to read back through some other finished AE cases before you list yours, to see how it tends to work. The editor you're complaining about will also get to speak, and you may both be sanctioned, so be aware of that as well. -- asilvering (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the information.

I have one question about sources Asilvering. If we have two modern scholarly sources, one of these sources quote a persons work (he translates/verifies the primary work), for example saying: "I am Swedish, and was born in Sweden."

The second source takes that same claim from the primary source, but does not quote it, rather he writes about it, for example; "Anders states that he is a Swede, born in Sweden, and is a child of Peter."

My question is the following; is it wrong to use the first reference (quoting) in a article? Or would it still be considered a primary source, even if the scholar has translated and verified it, only brought the quote to his work? Or can we use that quote, and say; "He said he was Swedish, and born in Sweden."

And can we use these sources as a combination to form a sentence which both imply, one backed with the quoation and one with the own words from the scholar, forming the sentence; "Anders stated that he was a Swede, born in Sweden, and is a child of Peter"

I am not sure if you understand my question though, was hard putting it in writing.

(Don't mind copyvio here, it was just an example hahah) 777network (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The first reference is probably a primary source, and remains so even after translated by a scholar. When a scholar makes an edition of some past writer's work in this way, they don't act as some kind of fact-checker or anything. As for whether you can use that to say "this historical person says he ways born in Sweden", the answer is "probably". There might be some other reason why this is a bad idea. It will depend on the context. Simply saying "this historical person was born in Sweden", citing the translated edition of that historical person's own work, is probably a bad idea. You'll notice there are a lot of "probably" in here. I can't really be certain without looking at the specific sources in question.

As for whether you can combine the two sources, that tends to get you into WP:SYNTH territory. In the specific hypothetical you've described, it would be fine - but that's because it's essentially what the second source said anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

In what way is pointing out another's disruptive behavior considered disruptive itself, @Asilvering? Hogshine (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA. -- asilvering (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

But, to be clear, I did not say that your behaviour was disruptive. If that's what you've read into in my estimation it is now time for you to take this to WP:AE, that's on you. -- asilvering (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello asilvering, is it permitted to quote a primary source? For example, if the primary source is quoted by a scholar in his work (secondary source), can I then also quote it? Or is it not allowed at all?

Also, if I’m telling someone: “As for the allegations, this is the last time I’m going to tell you to stop with them.”

Is that considered being threatening WP:THREATEN? And he responds with, since I don’t admit to using AI, the other explanation is me being WP:DISHONEST…

I’ve since literally quoted the entire source used, to show that it’s actually supported. But this kind of sh*t talking is crazy, for standing up for myself, he says that I need to be less emotional, and when I answer that I have every right to be emotional (without saying that I’m emotional), he says it’s not going to help my “case”…

Also, is there some kind of tool that can change the redirects of multiple pages at once? For example, the new redirect for Syriac people is Terms for Syriac Christians, yet some articles still redirect to Assyrian people, is there a tool that could perform the change automatically? 777network (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@777network, it's perfectly fine to quote primary sources. Sometimes it's not the right thing to do in the context of any particular article, but that's an editorial decision. Telling someone "this is the last time I’m going to tell you to stop" is also perfectly fine.

You should not be changing those redirects. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Schedule

• The December 2025 administrator elections are set to proceed.
• We plan to use the following schedule:
  • Nov 25 – Dec 1: Candidate sign-up
  • Dec 4 – Dec 8: Discussion phase
  • Dec 9 – Dec 15: SecurePoll voting phase
• If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope you don’t mind a quick question.

I’m fairly new to Wikipedia and have been using the Luke Leonard article as a way to get to grips with sourcing practices, guidelines, etc. I noticed you removed a few of the “citation needed” tags I added in the film section, and I wanted to understand the reasoning so I can improve my editing going forward. The films listed there are unreleased, and I wasn’t able to find any independent secondary sources verifying them. From what I’ve read of WP:VERIFY, WP:BLP, and especially WP:NOTRESUME, I understood that unpublished or unproduced works generally shouldn’t be included unless they’re supported by reliable, independent coverage. If I’ve misunderstood the policy or applied it too rigidly, I’d be very grateful for any clarification. I’m hoping to learn to edit correctly, and this article has been my starting point.

This ties into a broader question I have: the article currently lists “filmmaker” as one of the subject’s occupations, but aside from the subject’s own website I couldn’t find independent sources supporting that description. Should that be included without third-party verification? — MontessoriMomma (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't remove any citation needed tags from that article as far as I can see, so I'm not sure how to answer this question, exactly. If you cannot find that a film exists, it's not verifiable, so by all means remove it. But you don't need independent coverage to verify that the film exists - if you can find the film, then, well, it exists. If you want to remove something because you don't think it's relevant, you can simply remove it for not being relevant.

His listed work includes films. We don't need a citation to call him a filmmaker any more than we need a citation to call a person whose work includes novels a "novelist". You can remove anything you like from an article, including that word - go ahead and be WP:BOLD, and maybe you'll end up in a WP:BRD cycle and end up needing to talk it out with another editor. That's all part of the process. But it does certainly seem to me like unnecessarily splitting hairs. -- asilvering (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

	I need help with an article
	Hey Asilvering I am not a good writer. I need help making an article of a soccer team called LSM Deportivo. Please reach out to me Thanks a lot and have a good rest of your day W2ASfantoday (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @W2ASfantoday, welcome to wikipedia! Do you mean Deportivo LSM? We've already got an article on it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I searched up LSM Deportivo I didn't know I searched it the wrong way Thanks I didn't know that until now W2ASfantoday (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I've fixed that: LSM Deportivo should now send you to the right place. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks W2ASfantoday (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've supported you. Good luck Billsmith60 (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) So much for secret balloting. (Me too.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, both. <3 -- asilvering (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, am I allowed to try and find citations to add to articles with citations missing? I.e. on footballers is Transfermarket allowed for references? I understand it has to be accurate. --Tom | aka Absterrgo (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Absterrgo, welcome to wikipedia! You're not just "allowed" to do that, you're highly encouraged to do so! You'll find general information about what sources to use at WP:RS, and a list of frequently-discussed sources at WP:RSP. You can also use the search bar on that second page to find earlier source discussions. So my assumption is that Transfermarkt isn't a very useful source (see ), and I don't know anything about footballers (there's nothing in the noticeboard history about it). -- asilvering (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Absterrgo: Also, WikiProject Football has had several other archived discussions about Transfermarkt before which may have additional info. If you have further questions about the source, a good place to ask would be the football project talk page at WT:FOOTBALL. Left guide (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you. A user who has recently been unbanned has editied talk page messages they left while banned to make it look like they were written after the unban. Are they allowed to do this? - Example here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2026_Formula_One_World_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=1322925285 Thanks. Louis (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's a straightforward admission that they were socking before the unblock, and it's generally a bad idea to refactor things like signatures. As for what to do about it, I... am still trying to decide. If they start doing anything really outrageously disruptive please let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Louis (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hiya Asilvering, I suspect a new sock of Lewishhh has spontaneously materialised, Thisawful. I am attempting to log a new case and I see...

You are about to add a second or subsequent request to the previous existing cases on: Lewishhh

Page for this report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lewishhh.

Does this mean I go to that page an add new info? This is only the second time I have reported a suspected sock.Halbared (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope, you just follow the instructions in the pre-generated form you're looking at, and it will automatically post it to the correct SPI page for you. -- asilvering (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.Halbared (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I see I cocked it up, looking at it, was it the initialisation of the first letter; lewishhh instead of Lewishhh?Halbared (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they're case-sensitive. -- asilvering (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. ) Halbared (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you check for recent block evasion/sock puppetry? User talk:ToBeFree#UTRS appeal #108452 paints an unpretty picture. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

many thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

He is probably locked out of utrs by the anti spam filter. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, hit the 24 hour limit. We'll have to wait and see. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, asilvering. Sigh, can take the sysop out of the user but can't take the... no that doesn't work... well you know what I mean. Anyways, would you mind taking a look at Special:Diff/1319281635? It's a few weeks old, but given that it's the user's only edit since I imposed the TBAN, probably merits some response. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- asilvering (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to publish a review of the book entitled Socrates' Eternal Dialogue on Death, Wisdom and Virtue by Art Aeon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1990060641. Please advise me on this matter. Thank you! --Canaeonpress (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Canaeonpress, I can't advise you on that matter, since I'm only here to answer questions about Wikipedia editing, and Wikipedia does not host book reviews. -- asilvering (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have written a new article and have found and added sources as much as possible. Please check it out. Draft:Hamid Askari JxAZDrdk (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @JxAZDrdk, I don't do reviews on request except in very limited situations; you'll have to wait for a reviewer. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Would you like to look at most recent response? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Since that's three of us who figure it's worth a shot, I've asked the stewards and unblocked TPA. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. You are awesome. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, I trust you are doing well?

I haven't done this before but it's demanding especially when you are involved someway. It's about @Mariamnei. They have been using the new page reviewer tool wrongly and it does appear to me that, though you assigned it to them on probation, things are already escalating and may cause more damage before the said 25 December or thereabout. I would have dropped many links but I know the person you are and how tough you deal with cases like this, so the talk page will show you that so many experienced editors has already told them about the issue of WP:NPP; draftifying article (as was done yet again with mine–someone who has been an Archbishop of an archdiocese), as well as wrong taggings; I reverted one this morning and will probably do more later (but I am in the class now, we are just on break). Please if they are not ready to calm down, let the right be revoked for the betterment of the Wiki. I may also like to point out that I have seen through their talk page that they speak Italian, hence I have used Italian to talk to them, yet to no avail. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering - I have already written to @SafariScribe on their talk page, but I am quite honestly quite taken aback by this complaint. They do not seem to be assuming good faith since they never discussed this issue directly with me. The article in question was about an archbishop and has two sources, neither of which seem particularly notable. I don't see anywhere that archbishops have presumed notability; if I missed something, I am glad to learn.

I have received a few complaints on my talk page, and I have tried to incorporate the input I have received into my reviewing of new pages. The specific complaint about making drafts was primarily about doing it too quickly; since then, I have always been checking that the page had not been edited within an hour. I have also received much positive feedback from editors who appreciated my feedback. I am still learning the ropes here, and please feel free to send me constructive feedback directly. Thanks and have a good day! Mariamnei (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Update - @SafariScribe has pointed me to WP:NBISHOP. I am not sure why this policy does not seem to be linked to the general notability guidelines. After seeing this page, I realise that I made an error. I will continue to learn and I will review the NPP standards. Mariamnei (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Mariamnei, and thanks for adjusting in response to feedback in general. @SafariScribe, I don't know why you brought this here so early rather than trying to help a newer reviewer learn the ropes. User talk:SafariScribe#I have sent you a note about a page you started is really uncomfortable reading and I'm honestly impressed Mariamnei managed to keep their cool. I think it would be very intimidating to be told That was a very wrong move, you made. and that you're "causing damage" as a new reviewer, especially when you know the admin who gave you the trial permission is about to be looking over your shoulder. I hope you can keep this in mind for the next time a reviewer tags or draftifies an article you wrote.

@Mariamnei, my advice for draftifying is that you don't do it the first time you're looking at an article, unless it's in such bad shape that a CSD tag would be applicable, and you want to move it to draft instead of tagging (eg, for G11) as an act of mercy. So, if you don't think something meets the notability guidelines, you could first tag the article with a notability tag of some sort and then move on and look at another draft. It's common for reviewers to do this to give the article creator time to fix up the article before anything happens to it. You can come by later, maybe a week or so, and move anything that's still not addressed, or maybe another reviewer will come by, agree with the tag, and draftify/AFD the article themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Noted. I apologise@Mariamnei, and i have retracted my words. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering - Thank you for dealing with this and for your advice. Can I ask for your advice in dealing with similar cases where there are no sources at all? Would you still recommend tagging before draftifying? Thanks and have a wonderful day! Mariamnei (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's a brand-new article and there are zero sources, and no one appears to be working on it (see WP:NPPHOUR), yeah, go ahead and draftify that. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the best pleases to fined to source to link if Wikipedia does not have any? --Nostalgintosh (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Nostalgintosh, welcome to wikipedia! For what you're editing, I'd suggest JSTOR as a first look. I get a lot of hits for "puck magazine": . -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I love Puck Magazine, I have a personal collection of magazine and do a lot of research of Puck's History. Nostalgintosh (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, you have given me a notification called 'Introduction to contentious topics' on Pakistan, Bangladesh etc but I did not make any edits about these countries whatsoever. Is there a mixup? 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The notice doesn't imply there is anything wrong with your editing. Now, you know it's a contentious topic. -- asilvering (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that it says I edited tho I haven't edited any article related to those topics. Is it like a random pro-bono heads-up? 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I have seen that Adolph Schwarzmann doesn't have is own Wikipedia Article despite he is the co-founder and business manager of Puck Publishing Co. Why is that and How can it do to contribute to it? Thank you and have a great day. --Nostalgintosh (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nostalgintosh, the simple reason for "why not" is just that no one has gotten around to writing one yet! I would suggest that you get some more general experience editing wikipedia for now, since writing new articles from scratch is pretty hard if you're still figuring out how everything works. But once you've been editing here for a while, go ahead and create it! I think it's helpful to read WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS before starting. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

So I'm afraid I've lost my temper a bit here. That takes some doing, honestly!

I'm wondering about whether this needs to go back to ANI or if I'm inadvertently poking the bear since this is their own Talk page.

Would it be possible to get your opinion if you have a moment please? I'm not sure how best to approach this situation. If I should strike any comments then I'm happy to do so, I'm thinking I shouldn't have let it get this far. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

They've since mostly blanked their talk page. I'd just let them be. If they change their mind and return to editing, we can sort it out then. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• November 25 – December 1 - Call for candidates
• December 4–8 - Discussion phase
• December 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

How do I go about creating a new entry on here for something I invented, but don’t want credit for? --Psychicsoundscapes (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Psychicsoundscapes, we don't write articles about that kind of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering, can you take a second look at this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprinklesoncake? Zalaraz (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Responded at SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Zalaraz (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Is there's a standard style guide to follow on Wikipedia regrading spelling and grammar? Thank you for the feedback. --Nostalgintosh (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nostalgintosh, the style guide can be found at WP:MOS. It's pretty extensive, so if you had a more specific question in mind, feel free to ask that. In general I'd advise new editors not to worry about spelling and grammar guidelines. There are lots of editors who do various kinds of semi-automated editing to fix minor mistakes, and we don't tend to care too much unless you're trying to get an article through one of the featured content processes like WP:FAC, so you don't need to worry too much about it in your own writing. The one thing you do need to keep in mind is that English Wikipedia is written by people all over the world, using their own regional Englishes. Our general rule on this is WP:ENGVAR - in short, leave other editors' regional Englishes alone, and they'll do the same for you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey! It's me again. I wanted to know what I should do if i have found citation links that do not work (end in a 404 error) or citation from sources which are not credible/wrong according to other more credible sources. --Vesta8963 (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

TPS reply: Hi Vesta8963! Quick answer, if it is a dead link (404, other page not found/website gone completely), you can add a {{dead}} after the ref to show that it is a dead link. If it is an unreliable or questionable source, you can add {{better}}. If the source is less than useful (i.e. a blog or retail website, or zero mention of whatever statement/fact is being cited), you can simply remove the ref altogether and replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag. And, of course, you can always just replace it with a better source yourself if you have found one. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Just for further information, how do i add citations from primary sources with no written record? For example, information from a credible insider in an organization/a primary witness from an event. In these cases, these were directly reported to me and not by some news outlet, for example. Vesta8963 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

hehe... you EC'd me (edit conflict) as I was adding a link to HELP:REF to the end of my reply... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, anything reported directly to you would be original research, we can only use content from a third party, independent, published source. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thanks for the clarification! I read through the linked page and I have some further questions. The article states: "the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online". I did not get the "reachable online" part. Does it include a vocal/visual witness account that is yet to be published online but can be found physically? Does that count as original research as the writer/editor himself is the primary reporter of said information and thereby the article itself becomes a primary source for the internet, which, as far as I understand, is not allowed as it is original research? Should such information first be published elsewhere and only then be referenced in the article? Vesta8963 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Not reachable online simply means anything that has not been scanned in or published online yet (some older or less-notable books, newspaper articles, etc.), or is no longer online (i.e., a newspaper article once published online but then removed without archiving). To answer your second question, yes, if it has yet to be published it would fall under OR until we can verify the content ourselves via a published source. Generally, as long as you can point to a reliable published source (whether online or not) that any other user should reasonably be able to find (they can find a copy of said source at their library, book store, etc.), you should be ok. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Recover google account --Ranjha ji (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Google. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, How I know that my entry has been published? --Teamretrograde (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey man it's me again, I just wanted to tell you that after some time and edits, I am now able to add article descriptions, thanks again! --LightandSalvation (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

On my mobile device and not a computer* LightandSalvation (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this -- why are you asking me to do something you can do yourself? Am I missing some subtlety? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I have old Puck Magazines and I also do restorations is there a way to add my restore but still authentic copies to these site or does it have to be untouched? --Nostalgintosh (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nostalgintosh, I'm not sure about the copyright status of those magazines specifically, but if they're out of copyright, Commons would love to have them. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

All Puck Magazines are public domain since they close it doors in 1918 and all publication from 1929 and back goes to the public domain in the United States (Note: I do not know about other countries with there copyright laws, just the United State of America.) Nostalgintosh (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen, received, will get to it. No need to leave me ygm messages, by the way. -- asilvering (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 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) 22:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks for the prod on the above, I have now unmarked. My ambitions for this interesting (for me) article was greater than the available time, though I have made some changes. All was going well until I hit this sentence: Although references to hippodrome factions are extremely numerous in Byzantine historiography, particularly in early Byzantine historiography, no source specifically addresses this subject in detail. Which suggests we are in the land of WP:OR. From a Russian language perspective it may be so, but I can see sources (Cameron 1976, Pliny, Guiiland, Condurachi) that seem fairly detailed to my mind, so I'm not sure it's correct. But I'd need to spend more time on that aspect. Which of course I can do unmarked for review. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to detail on this! -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I need in malayalam --Sk wayanad (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hello Sk wayanad, if you are looking for other languages, this is the English Wikipedia. The Malayalam Wikipedia is found at https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/ - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Adolphus79, I wouldn't have figured that one out myself. -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ha! I had to google "malayalam" myself... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Just in case you were interested in the subject, I've created an article on Bertinistrasse (partly translated from the original German Wiki article) in line with my previous editing on confiscation of German-Jewish properties by the Nazis. Take care. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this! -- asilvering (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello --Sunshineisle (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sunshineisle, welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

WNS Global Services has now a new logo. The new logo is in this link in Wikimedia commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WNS_Capgemini_Official_Logo_November_2025.png). You may search in Commons under the name WNS Capgemini Official Logo November 2025.png

Please upload the new logo and image of the company. The old logo cease to exist as it is no more an independent company and has been fully acquired by Capgemini. Please go ahead with replacing the image and adding the new one. I am unable to do it as the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37467-24 (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is locked because of persistent sockpuppetry. Socking to ask the admin who protected the page to proxy edit for you is not the way to go about this. Appeal your block properly, please. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: Aqw10000's mentor Alyo is away.

How do I write this correctly and it's supposed to be Global Fantasy Assoccer Federation --Aqw10000 (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi Aqw10000! Please clarify, are you asking how to properly link an article, or how to write a new article? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey man, I remembered you're my mentor and I need help: How do I redirect to specific sections of an article or talk page, e.g. In a efn, how do I redirect to a specific talk on a talk page --LightandSalvation (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@LightandSalvation, you can add a # and then the title of the section to a wikilink, so for example, User talk:asilvering#Question from LightandSalvation on Mohamed Rahmoune (23:20, 30 November 2025) will send you straight to this section. You can also use the {{section link}} template, like so: § Question from LightandSalvation on Mohamed Rahmoune (23:20, 30 November 2025). -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that symbol frequently, didn't know it was a template, thanks so much, father mentor asilvering LightandSalvation (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey man, I am getting a lil bored of easy suggested edits, and I don't want to update articles, nor find references for them, what do I do --LightandSalvation (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see you have a bunch of Jamaica userboxes, are you interested in editing on Jamaican topics? Category:Stub-Class Jamaica articles is a huge list (1800+ articles) of stub articles in WP:JAMAICA, and most of those will be something you can expand in some way. That does still involve updating articles and finding references - that's basically what we're here to do - but it's more advanced than the stuff you'll be given through the suggested edits. -- asilvering (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep I'm from Jamaica, reside in Jamaica, proud to be Jamaican, love our cuisine, the music, the culture, the people. Why would I not?. Hmm, I'll check it out but I just wanna tell you incase I find nothing interesting, I like (or specialise in) suppressing vandalism, adding links, and removing links (if it does not follow MOS. Ligh&Salv (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

hello asilvering, how do I add a link between pages thanks --Anonamous1213 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Anonamous1213, welcome to wikipedia! To add a link to pages within Wikipedia, you just type [[ ]] on either side of the title of the article. There's also a chain-link icon in the Visual Editor if you're using that - you can just highlight the word and click that button. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see you are active at the Teahouse, so I put you in as a featured host (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/14). Feel free to customize the picture to your liking. Interstellarity (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Interstellarity, I'm not even on the list of teahouse hosts to begin with, so this seems quite strange? -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I see you around a lot at the Teahouse so I figured I put you in. If you don't like it, I can replace your name with someone else's. Just let me know what you want to do and I'd be happy to do it. Interstellarity (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I pop in often enough but I don't really think of myself as a "teahouse host" and don't really have anything interesting to put in the little "featured host" thing, so it's probably best to swap me for someone else. Honestly, while having a reasonably up-to-date list of teahouse hosts sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure if it really matters if the "featured hosts" are less active - what I think matters the most is probably that they have something friendly to say in the caption, and ideally a photograph. Cullen's comes to mind as one that is really good for showing "these are real people answering your questions". -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it would better to just get rid of the featured hosts and mark the page as historical. I left a message on the Teahouse talk page requesting input on whether we should get rid of it and i was kind of thinking yes. Interstellarity (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Congrats! Blimey, you'll need a bigger hat rack soon. :)

Do we call you Sir now? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it's "the Right Honourable"? Rather more fun than "Sir". -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

A belated Gratz! I just saw your edit on your user page... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, sorry about the confusion, I made some incorrect assumptions based on the block log and order of operations...I found this user through an unrelated deletion discussion and saw that the user had disclosed their paid editing and that they attempted an unblock request, but had not formatted it correctly hence it did not get a response. I assumed this was a good faith unblock request with no other info attached (and I did review their edit history and found nothing suspicious), but I should have checked with you, the original blocking admin, and will be sure to do so going forward. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and cheers. Unfortunately, I'd say that while most promo blocks are appealed in good faith (if not good competence), UPE blocks rarely if ever are. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

• Dec 4–8 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

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

On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

what harm am I actually doing? Regardless, if you think that your little block is going to stop me OR that I would have to beg to be unblocked, I’m laughing. It’s questionable how stupid you have to be as an wiki administrator knowing that I can just make a new account and we will see again after 800-900 edits I make just like every account i had. This is my 4th and i already have another. Stupid is what you are. ~2025-38237-55 (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! -- asilvering (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: Fenderbend's mentor Rafaelthegreat is away.

Hello, I have attempted my first article, I would love to get some feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:A_Place_For_Owls --Fenderbend (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really have anything to say, looks pretty good! I fixed a stray template at the top. -- asilvering (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

thank you very much!! Fenderbend (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, O faithful mentor, I was wondering if talk pages of an article are required to use the article's language (such as Pakistani Eng. for Pakistan), after a temporary user said pure non-English Gibberish and it may be possible vandalism as a new topic. --Ligh&Salv (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@LightandSalvation, typically you can just revert non-English talk page stuff. If it can be successfully machine-translated, it's worth trying that and responding (in English). But we do get a lot of keyboard-smash nonsense, and you can just revert that kind of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh good, I reverted it anyway from Talk:Pakistan Ligh&Salv (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, the account is a sockpuppet of other accounts that have vandalised articles such as U.S. Coast Guard and Talk: United Kingdom, could you consider blocking it? Ligh&Salv (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Those appear to be totally different people. In any case, when it's simple vandalism, it's easiest just to report to WP:AIV. -- asilvering (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

No love for the stalkers? (haha) Talk page comments (not including user talk pages) on the English Wiki need to be in (at least understandable) English, but the version of English does not matter (American, British, Australian, etc.). I'm not sure about the other language wikis, but I know that is the consensus here. Feel free to revert as "non-english comment", and place a {{subst:Uw-notenglishtalk|<page name>}} on the user's talk page... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 Please simply define stalker. The article is too complicated Ligh&Salv (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@LightandSalvation, a (talk page stalker) is someone who has someone else's talk page watchlisted and answers questions or joins in discussions there. I have a banner encouraging it at the top of my own talk page. :) -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That :) sounds like my talk page is watchlisted by you.. Ligh&Salv (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

HELLO Ligh&Salv (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalker: Users who have at one time or another made a comment on another user's talk page, and that page is therefore now on their watchlist. They are known to comment on those other user's talk pages to help new users (or others), even if the comment is not directed at them. 15 years ago, we actually had WP shortcuts (e.g. WP:AN/X, WP:AN/K, etc.) to a few user talk pages, simply because there were so many people "stalking" those pages that you generally got a faster response than on the official noticeboards (WP:AN/I, WP:UAA, WP:AN/3, etc.). - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 So, do you guys watchlist my talk page or not? Ligh&Salv (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't, and I presume Adolphus doesn't either. I watch this page, which is my own talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If it wasn't before, it is now after that P.S. comment... I actually just spent the last few days removing about 500 user talk pages from my watchlist, some of them going back to 2019, any users who hadn't edited since 2021... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

500? Dude I don't even have 25 pages on my watchlist, let alone 20x that at 500. Ligh&Salv (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

And None of them are user talk pages Ligh&Salv (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That 500-page drop brings me to just under 1,600 total pages on my watchlist now, and now just under 200 of those are user pages (and almost 30 of those are my user space alone). I automatically watch every page I edit (the little check box below your edit summary), but that doesn't mean I stalk every user's talk page, only a few of the more active admins/mentors/collection points... or (in the case of this conversation) if I see a username that I know or have recently interacted with... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

1,600 total pages? Dude I don't even have half of that edits and that's just your watchlist? Holy how do you even keep up with all the notifications? My watchlist is just articles only such as the United States or Pakistan, that way I can be alerted (via email and notification on the mobile app) of possible vandalism and revert it if possible. Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No, not notifications on all of them, that's just on my Special:Watchlist. The only page I get email about is my own talk page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Mine's north of 3000... which is why I have that notice on the top of my userpage. -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You have 3000+ things on your watchlist? Bloody hell Ligh&Salv (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I was over 2,800 when I started culling the list earlier this fall, started taking forever for my watchlist to load on my slow-ass DSL... and it's my home page... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Your what, DSL, what's that? Ligh&Salv (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

DSL, one step up from dialup for those of us out in the country... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok Ligh&Salv (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

So is DSL like HTTTP? Ligh&Salv (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No, internet service... like dialup (what we used before broadband), or cable internet, or satellite internet service, or 4G/5G on cell phones... it is how I get online here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I confess, it's been so long since I've used DSL that I still think of it in my head as "fast internet". Presumably by comparison to dial-up speeds of yore. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh internet, uh here in Jamaica it's FLOW or Digicel (or data if you have no electricity as it is for me (4G)). Ligh&Salv (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you! I wonder if it possible to eliminate Russian propaganda and russians bots from constant editing about Ukranian born personalities?it is obviously information war and unfortunately the wiki is the victim of this disruptive editing --Alltruth21 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alltruth21, do not accuse other editors of being Russian propagandists or bots. If you want to dispute someone's nationality, you can do so on the article talk page. Though I'll say that the one you've chosen to dispute is a particularly odd one in this regard, given her biography. -- asilvering (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

hello what should i make an artical about and are you a human --EHZETA1 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EHZETA1, welcome to wikipedia! Yes, I'm a human. As for what to make an article about, I don't recommend that you start out by trying to write an article from scratch. Have you had a look at Special:Homepage? There are ideas for tasks to do there. -- asilvering (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

prove it a human@Asilvering EHZETA1 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No. -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

how old are you EHZETA1 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

As old as my tongue and a little older than my teeth. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey mentor, I have qeston: I am getting bored of suggested edits (after 825 total edits) and I am wondering how do I just find stuff to edit, ie, how did you get 62,000+ edits? --Ligh&Salv (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The admin areas I work in tend to lead to a high edit count. Things need logging, and some "single actions" involve a single button push from me but end up generating several edits at once - sometimes dozens. Unfortunately there's not much I can do about that. As for finding things to edit, my advice is to just keep wandering around and trying things out. WP:TASK is a good place to start. You'll find something that catches your interest eventually. Most of us have a to-do list so long we can't remember what it felt like to have "nothing to do". -- asilvering (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

UtherSRG (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey again, I was wondering if I need to be an administrator to review edit requests for like (since im not extended confirmed) pending changes protected pages. --Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

No, you just need to be a pending changes reviewer. You can apply for that at WP:PERM. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey again, I was wondering if I need to be an administrator to review edit requests for like (since im not extended confirmed) pending changes protected pages. --Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

my bad repeating it twice, data has issues Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)