User talk:Asilvering/Archive 29

Hello asilvering, the current version on Fairuz article has been changed by both me and another editor named Mugsalot for violating source-text integrity issues. A certain editor called “Barçaforlife” has reverted the corrected version twice! I was thinking if you could tell him about it and give a warning to not do this. 777network (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@777network, you haven't tried to discuss this on the talk page at all. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@asilvering I’ll let him know! I did not know I had to discuss it with him, thanks. I do have another question regarding the 7 point list you made about source-text integrity issue, specifically about point 2 where we can change the term of a sentence that has no direct source if the rest of the sources universally describe them as one of the names. My question is if it’s okay to treat a source that is “dead” which the url takes you to a error page (the website doesn’t exist anymore and is not on wayback machine) as a sentence that lacks a direct source, which would allow me to invoke point 2 on your list? 777network (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@777network, can you please link me to the comment you're talking about? -- asilvering (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It’s not a comment by a specific user, I’m wondering across any article, that if there is a reference attached after a sentence, but this reference is “dead” (the url and website don’t exist anymore), can I treat that reference as non-existing and apply your second point in your list, where if there isn’t a direct source, I can look if there is a term that is universally used across all sources in the article, and apply that term to the sentence that has the broken/dead sentence. 777network (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean the list you're talking about, if you could link me to that please. I know I wrote it somewhere but don't have it handy. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh sorry, here it is. I am currently sick and not as active so sorry for my late replies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asilvering/Archive_26#Result_of_ANI 777network (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello again Asilvering, upon checking on Anitli, Midyat, I noticed that what I had filed for an edit-request was indeed an source-text integrity issue where there was no direct source supporting the information in the passage. I have thus corrected this information and applied a correct source, along with new content to the article, all within the rules of the 7 point list you made above.

However, I do not know if I have taken the edit-request back correctly, I removed it from the source in the talk page, but I am not sure if it has been removed from the backlog where patrolling edit-request editors checks. Whilst editing the article, something weird happened with the reference list, it became one column instead of two, if you please could help me fix that I would really appreciate it! 777network (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@777network, you removed it correctly and the edit request is no longer outstanding. As for whether you can count 404'd references as "not existing", I would say yes, if you really try to find the source first. Often, sources are marked as dead links but are actually pretty trivial to find on archive.org, or you can find their new URL simply by searching for the title. Make sure you at least do this kind of basic check before removing something sourced to a link that appears dead. -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please note that you have already violated your warning here , which I've corrected . Mardin also falls under WP:GS/KURD. Best to pay attention to the source and whether an article falls under KURD sanctions as well. When in doubt, **always** refer to the talk page, never undo another user's revert without discussion first (as you've done here ) ~ Hogshine (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

First of all, the first diff you are referring to was a source–text integrity issue, and no other source was added to the lead. I then added a reference to the lead that supported all the other sources, which universally described them as Syriacs. I later noticed it was a non-independent source, so I changed it.

After that, I saw that you had changed it to “Assyrians” again, and I realised that the other source I had added to the lead used the term “Assyrian.” All of this was done by me. It’s not a violation if I first fix all integrity issues, then add another correct source, and then replace it with an independent one but mistakenly use one that says “Assyrian.” It’s clear that this was a mistake.

As Bushranger has said, Kurd-related topics only affect me if I change the context of Kurd topics; it doesn’t mean I can’t edit articles that merely mention Kurds at all.

As for the reverts, you seem to be applying a double standard. On Michael the Syrian, you apply the principle “if no consensus is reached, I’ll revert it,” but on Jacob of Edessa, when your version is without consensus and contested, reverting it is suddenly not OK because we “can’t revert just because I don’t like it.” You seem to think that contesting only works one way; your version has been contested by two people. 777network (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@777network, @Hogshine is correct here, that article falls entirely under WP:GS/KURD. It's not just "Kurds" but "Kurdistan" - see Turkish Kurdistan. -- asilvering (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

mistake is the keyword here. It was a mistake to add it. Mardin is not tangentially related to GS/KURD, half its population are Kurds.

As for the reverts, you seem to be applying a double standard I've already explained on Talk:Jacob of Edessa. You have a habit of repeating yourself often. Moreover, consensus is almost reached, we're all waiting for your reply . You've already threatened and called me a shit talker with Asilvering's blessings before, let's not stoop that low again. ~ Hogshine (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering,

Thank you again for your help earlier. I have now updated my draft with independent references, DOI-backed research, and verified identity sources (Zenodo, ORCID, portfolio). Here is the main identifier link for reference: https://zenodo.org/records/17830869

If you have a moment to review the structure or advise before I submit it for AfC, I would truly appreciate it.

Kind regards, Hamed Hamedbh editor (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hamedbh editor, just resubmit the draft and an AFC reviewer will get to it soon. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a recent SPI report or other discussion that's generally available on the recent actions regarding these accounts? I was notified early in the year about behavior that appears related that may have resulted in content that needs cleanup. - Hipal (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I came to ask something similar. FMSky had a quarter of a million edits and had been active for years, is there a SPI case I can see which details this connection? It's a surprise for sure and it looks like there was no noticeboard discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No, there is no SPI. @Liz, as a member of arbcom you have access to all the breadcrumbs you could possibly need. @Hipal, I didn't look into the WhatsUpWorld connection very deeply because it looks from that SPI report like the responding admins there didn't think the connection was very likely, and my very brief glance at the evidence didn't convince me either. Since Urgal is already glocked I didn't bother going back much further than that. Can you point me at this related behaviour that may need cleanup? In general most of this sockmaster's edits are gnoming fixes that probably aren't worth really digging through, but they've been really active causing problems via loutsocking. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't find the evidence I was given to be actionable - assumptions were being made on which editors were involved and what articles they were targeting. I was hoping that a SPI report might shed some light. As far as I'm aware, most of the editing took place in the past year or two. My best guess was that Hasan Piker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was the main article being targeted. --Hipal (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, if it's something that's happened in the last year or so, the disruption would be happening via temporary accounts / IP editing, and it would be about "culture war" topics, very broadly construed. I didn't find any evidence of throwaway, named accounts, at any point in the investigation. That doesn't mean they don't exist but I would consider it unlikely. Unfortunately I think that's about the limit of what I can say while staying inside the ANPDP. The kind of evidence that would have been discussed in the open in an SPI report is the behavioural evidence that led us ultimately back to Urgal as a suspect, which I'd prefer not to discuss openly for WP:BEANS reasons, but which I think will be really readily apparent to anyone with a background in sock-hunting (I actually found a few other people noticing the connections years ago, as I went back through edit histories). I don't think this evidence would be useful to you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That's understandable, and more detail that I expected. Much appreciated. --Hipal (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering, thanks for the reply. Although I was elected to ARBCOM, I never went through any CU training. So, I don't know about the tools or reports that are generated. But I can see the CU Wiki and maybe I'll find some information there. I'm also off ARBCOM as soon as the new members are added as I only served a year. Maybe because there are new arbs coming on board, there will be another training soon and I can learn more about how the process works. I've had a lot of problems this year getting into the 2FA log-in process, I've tried over and over and just can't get in. Maybe I'll try once more before throwing in the towel. But that's why I was just looking to see if there was a SPI report that would give me some quick answers. Any way, thanks for the response and have a good week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

See UTRS appeal #108887. Feel free to email me if that doesn't clear everything up! Yamla (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! If you have some spare time, can you check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3 Löwi? I think the evidence now points to a duck but I do not want to revert their edits without a block first. They are still continuing to restore sock changes (compare for example this edit with this sock edit) so I am hoping to get this resolved ASAP. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

On it. -- asilvering (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Mellk (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, that was really obvious. Sorry it took me like half an hour, I was busy having an existential crisis trying to figure out how to wear the clerk hat and the CU hat at the same time. -- asilvering (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for taking the time to look into this. Congratulations on becoming a CheckUser. Mellk (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! Drmies (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. Can you block 95.127.7.14? I created a new report but I think this one can be blocked as an obvious duck and the case can be closed. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. Would be great if they would try to appeal their ban like a normal person, instead of assuming we're part of some kind of Russian troll farm, but we can't always get what we want. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again. It is indeed baffling considering they've been blocked for more than two years at this point IIRC. Or maybe they enjoy playing cat-and-mouse, who knows. Mellk (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering. I was away for a while and just found out that some changes were made to SPI. Do I need to explicitly request for CU in the report itself (it looks like the parameter is now gone)? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mellk, no need to explicitly request in the template itself. Clerks/CUs will be pulling the CU-relevant ones out of the "new" bin on their own, generally, but if you have a particular reason to want CU and you want to make that clear in the filing, go right ahead. -- asilvering (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that clears things up. Mellk (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have spare time, could you check the latest SPI report? The CU result came back as "possilikely" but the behavioral evidence seems to suggest that this is indeed the same person. It seems they have started following my edits like before (e.g. slavery in Finland). Many thanks in advance! Mellk (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oops, sorry @Mellk, missed this, looking now. I tend to miss things further up the page if I get multiple talk page messages at once, but if you ping me, it'll also go into the pings notifications bin and I won't lose it as easily. -- asilvering (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thanks again. Mellk (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Hi again, hope you're doing well. Recently there was a RfC relating to how the Baltic states should be mentioned in the infobox at the time they were part of the Soviet Union, and one of the 3 Löwi socks attempted to overturn the result of this, and now there is a temporary account that appeared the day after the sock was blocked and they are referencing this RfC in the edit summary and attempting to implement their own solution in a way that does not follow the RfC result.

It is my understanding that we cannot link IPs to temporary accounts, but for SPI, is it possible to comment on geolocation? I am also not sure how to handle this since the infobox changes affect a wide range of articles and this is a subject that is dear to the sockmaster, so there is no doubt they will hop between IPs to frustrate attempts to implement the result of the RfC. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

And of course, another temporary account has appeared to undo some of my reversal of sock edits. Mellk (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mellk, if you want to say something like "please note the geolocation of these TAs" I don't think that falls afoul of anything. I'll look into these IPs in a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that should be good enough. Mellk (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If Ekko and Ryuudou are on proxies, does that mean they should be blocked? NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The proxies have been blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Asilvering, I have a question to ask- I have an iban at the moment, so I wanted to ask where/how can I ask for it to be changed to a tban in the space it took place in/ have it removed altogether? HSLover/DWF (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly that you'd like to take a tban from DYK instead of the iban? Or Dr Who? -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer- I didn't want to refer to the details of the iban as that's not the best thing to do per the iban. But yes, than from doctor who instead of the iban, because the issue was only in doctor who space, but the iban somewhat prevents me from editing many entertainment/media related articles. HSLover/DWF (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your reply. I think you'd have to ask for this at WP:AN, as it's not exactly a cban, but given all that happened I can't imagine any single admin lifting it unilaterally. -- asilvering (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you- I have asked at WP:AN. HSLover/DWF (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

I'm sure you've heard this plenty by now, but congrats. I just saw your ArbCom "promotion". I wish you a good day and good luck.

Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The voting phase of the December 2025 administrator elections has started and will continue until Dec 15 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has 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 vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 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) 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

on ArbCom. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

what to do after reaching 1,000 edits --Ligh&Salv (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep going to 2,000? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

That's the plan, Already 51.6% of the way there (1,033) to 2,000. Ligh&Salv (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Watch out that you don't catch WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. -- asilvering (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't have that "disorder" or "obsession", how dare a mentor mention that to one of his students, I am under no obligation if I have nothing else to do to edit, I am solely editing because I have the mood and want to, I'm not under stress either Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope you're playing along, but just in case you aren't, there's a "humour" tag at the top of that entry. -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw the humour tag, O faithful mentor, and what does "playing along" even mean Ligh&Salv (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey mentor, question! How do I really determine when consensus has been achieved, and I want you personally, as a admin, checkuser, and ArbCom-elect member, to tell me without the use of the WP:CON page. --Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, if consensus is actually achieved, it's pretty easy: read the discussion, observe that everyone is at least mostly agreeing, and, well, whatever they're agreeing on is consensus. It's often not that simple. But once editors stop coming up with new things to say, that's generally about the time. As a participant in formal discussions, you don't need to worry about that too much, since someone will show up and close it eventually. If you're editing an article and you've been discussing a change with just one other editor, usually you end up at a point where one of you is saying "how about this?" and if the other agrees, they can just go ahead and make that change. -- asilvering (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

ok Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello mentor! Remembering you are a Admin, Checkuser and ArbCom member-elect, I am requesting you to investigate sockpuppetry by five (not just these alone, these are just ones I have reverted or noted) seperate accounts, two indef blocked by another admin:

• 1: ~2025-39514-15, changed the British monarchy article to display Kim Jong Un as the monarch. I reverted it within seconds.

• 2: ~2025-39722-83, changed the same article to display Shrek. Also reverted within seconds.
• 3: ZUksu9-zufter-zefboz, changed the UK's talk page to, under the content assessment scale rating (show button) to say "United Georgia", and got blocked indefinitely (indef) thereafter, with two other users (who also vandalised); ~2025-37803-72 not blocked, but ~2025-37809-42 is blocked.

All accounts' edits have been reverted and all accounts have 1 edit and have not edited again since that 1 edit. I kindly request you investigate these accounts. Thanks! Ligh&Salv (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@LightandSalvation, there's no need to investigate an account that's only made one edit and has already been reverted. -- asilvering (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, uh okay Ligh&Salv (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Do I need to state the reason for the edit in edit summaries? --Ligh&Salv (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Need to? No. Ought to? Yes. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

explain the difference bro Ligh&Salv (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Can I add something? --Christopher Lamar (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course. Looks like you already have? -- asilvering (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Check what I did to Chadwick Boseman's Filmography and Robbie Jones's Filmograghy? Christopher Lamar (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Christopher Lamar, you haven't added references for this information. Where did you get it? -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

IMDb and Google? Christopher Lamar (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

We can't use IMDB as a source, since it's user-generated. As for google, it's not a source in itself, it's just a search engine. What source did you actually find that said this? As in, which webpage, article, etc? -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Letterboxd and Filmaffinity Christopher Lamar (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think either of those are reliable sources. You'll want to have a look at WP:RS, which explains this, and WP:RSP, which lists sources that we've discussed frequently. -- asilvering (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Christopher Lamar: According to WikiProject Films these are not good sources. See WT:WikiProject Film/Resources#Letterboxd and the fourth bullet point of WP:FILM/R#Questionable resources. Left guide (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Very suspicious behavior, with the WP:CATS (see SPI), and being registered only a few days after GettingSwole got blocked. If this is really him and he continues this, he will likely have to be WP:3X banned, and this is also only putting more scrutiny on his actions, as, he has not pursued any appeal to his original block in place after divulging that he was not compromised from the beginning. ~2025-39704-27 (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

hello, i made my first contribution, but its not findable in search --Colorshifter (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

do we have an issue with eachother? Sorry if it's semmingly condescending or passive-aggressive, but we've been running into, for lack of a better term, arguments for the last week-ish. Tankishguy 02:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I want to make this better. Tankishguy 02:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tankishguy, I can't recall having any arguments with you, but please feel free to refresh my memory if you had something specific in mind that you'd like to talk about. I know I've given you a couple of warnings, one for unhelpful and inflammatory comments at an unblock request, and one for pinging unrelated people at ANI. I would really quite strongly recommend that you avoid user conduct discussions for now and focus on building the encyclopedia instead. -- asilvering (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah. Tankishguy 03:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll keep working in the background on vandalism, then. Tankishguy 03:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, I would strongly suggest building the encyclopedia - write some articles, expand some stubs - and not handling user conduct issues. -- asilvering (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

oh. OK. Tankishguy 14:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

A question about the value of DVDs and books in education on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk received several responses that I was reading with interest. May I hear why you deleted the whole section? I am curious because the last response was a well considered one by Lambiam who is a respected regular contributor on the desks. ~2025-32374-12 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to ruin the fun. The rationale was in the edit summary - WP:DENY. The thread was created by a banned WP:LTA whose modus operandi is wasting contributor time, effort, and goodwill by asking seemingly innocuous help/refdesk questions, again, and again, and again, and again. -- asilvering (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your sterling work at the AryaanKhan056 SPI. Thank you very, very much. Wikishovel (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. :) -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello and I hope you are good @Asilvering, I wanted to bring to your attention that on Fairuz, Surayeproject3 who is very aware of this topic, reverted the source-text integrity issue and wrote Assyrian again, adding more sources with the reason “There are sources that describe Fairuz as Assyrian; making talk page post”

Shouldn’t he have made the talk page post before reverting, and so what if there are sources of Assyrian? Current ones said Syriac, and there are also many others saying such… this is a clear violation. Honestly, I was shocked noticing that he has not been warned previously, specially for having been one of the most involved in this topic, Surayeproject3 got off with not even a warning, and now he does edits like the above. It’s also a similar edit that got myself warned not too long ago. I know that regarding Barçaforlife I was told to make a talk page discussion, but since it now is Surayeproject3 who’s very familiar with everything and even wrote himself up on your GS/ACAS list, I assume that is not needed in this situation. 777network (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@777network, I don't understand what you're suggesting this is a violation of. Surayeproject3 to my knowledge does not have any editing restrictions. -- asilvering (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t understand how he cannot receive a warning for such an edit when I got a warning for such an edit. Isn’t the whole point of the GS to stop people from doing such POV edits? When I did so on Ricky Rich, I got a warning. And he is very familiar with this topic and being involved in numerous ANIs, so I just don’t understand how a warning cannot be issued to not do edits like that? 777network (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Surayeproject went to the talk page and discussed the edit. That's what editors are supposed to do. They don't need a warning for making the edit they made, because they've had a civil discussion about it and followed normal procedures. You got a warning because you were not doing that. Surayeproject has previously had such a warning, but, as far as I am aware, stopped making mass changes and learned to discuss things on talk pages, and so it was lifted and they don't need it any longer. If you think there are recurring problems with their editing in WP:GS/ACAS, you should file a report at WP:AE. -- asilvering (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I found your contact on my user (Home page). Can you please teach me how to check AI generated content on Wikipedia? --Girdi45 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Girdi45: Hi, some tips for spotting AI-generated content can be found at the essay WP:AISIGNS. Left guide (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank You. It helps. Girdi45 (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

O faithful mentor, do sources override MOS? (See Talk:Russia for what I mean) Ligh&Salv (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean. What's the MOS violation? -- asilvering (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty; MOS:SEAOFBLUE, Line 1: When possible, do not place links next to each other that appear to be a single link, as in chess tournament. In the article, the lead thereof to be specific, they have "autocratic dictatorship" as two seperate links that appear as one, the specific scenario the MOS outlaws. Ligh&Salv (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't outlaw that; it says to avoid it when possible. So now the question is, is it possible to avoid? Seems easy enough to do so, to me. You might propose some alternatives and see where you get. But using the MOS as a stick to hit people with usually doesn't start things off on the right foot. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok Ligh&Salv (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to add one of those edit notices to articles that need to be expanded? I have found an article that is one paragraph long, (here is the article link: úyanga Bold) but does not have any notices that it needs to be expanded. Lemur3215 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lemur3215, it's a WP:STUB, so it's already in a category that identifies it as needing expansion, and there's nothing else you have to do there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Lemur3215 (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Can we use works like According to, the work The and to indent and wrote paragraphs? --Christopher Lamar (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Can we use the words like According to and the words "the" and indent also wrote paragraphs ? --Christopher Lamar (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you can use words like "according to". As for the rest of your question, I can't understand what you're asking - can you rephrase it? -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 08:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for protecting this tp. There's a small detail that seems to have been overlooked; while spamming accounts have been blocked, this account appears to have been missed. Evgenia1864 (talk · contribs) Kajmer05 (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kajmer05, I left that one out on purpose. They weren't making the same kinds of edits. If they continue disruption elsewhere, you can report them to AIV as normal. -- asilvering (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi - Just wondering why I am blocked and prevented from uploading my article to AfC. I declared my COI, the language is neutral and the material is well sourced. Can't find a volunteer editor either. Ritchy Dube (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchy Dube, you aren't blocked from submitting to AfC. I've moved your sandbox article to draftspace for you, is that what you were trying to do? You just need to press the blue button to submit it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi - Thanx for your reply. I have a new draft and was trying to submit to AfC for review. Ritchy Dube (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, check out Ritchy Dube's latest edits, eg. on Star's talk and User:Theroadislong (AGF, the latter was probably meant for TRIL's talk, I'm not saying the location is intentional). Not great for someone only recently out of their block, wouldn't you say? I don't want to reblock them, but I do feel they may be heading in that direction. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, you link to WP:WW on "reblock", but if you were to reblock, that wouldn't be wheel-warring. If you were to do so, I'd recommend revoking TPA from the jump while you're at it. -- asilvering (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that WW reference non-literally, more 'in the spirit of'. And yes, take your point RE TPA, haha.

Maybe this will right itself, although I'm not holding my breath. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@LEvalyn, I don't suppose you'd want to do the admins and NPRs of this world a solid and tidy up Draft:The Haven by Richard Dube so it can be accepted and we can stop getting confused and/or snarky talk page messages about it? Should be notable, looks like there are enough reviews, I think it was declined incorrectly the first time. -- asilvering (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

i don't think we should reward his disruptiveness with an article. i'd recommend blocking. ltbdl (click) 13:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

His disruptive behaviour began because he was not helped much earlier in the process, when he should have been. That's on us. Re-checking the initial draft for notability and assessing whether it can be accepted or not is not "rewarding" his disruption, but correcting our earlier error. Whether we reblock him or not, it ought to be done. Since we'll also probably stop getting communication about the draft if it is correctly accepted, we may be able to avoid blocking him if we fix that first. -- asilvering (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

In one of their walls of text, they said (I think) they want Draft:The Haven by Richard Dube deleted, not accepted, and Draft:Richard Dubé accepted instead. Although that latter seems to be at the wrong title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It was at the right title when I moved it there... . -- asilvering (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m currently on vacation but in a few days I’d be happy to take a look. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering! Im YuMmYDONUT2016. As your mentee, Id like 2 get 2 know u a bit better. --YuMmYDONUT2016 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This user appears to have logged out for good after finding out that Wikipedia is not a dating website. lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

But, you know, for the record, I do like long walks on the beach. -- asilvering (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barnstars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5 Check Users 4 Oversighters 3 GAs 2 Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. ✨ May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. ✨ Tankishguy 19:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC) This message was generated using {{subst: The 12 Days of Wikipedia}}

Tankishguy 19:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw a icon saying (on this user's user page) "This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia", and I am wondering how do I get one? --Psalm 27:1 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

That's {{Autoconfirmed topicon}}. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I mean I did see that in the source mode of the page but because when I hovered over the "This user welcomes new Wikipedia editors" and in the bottom left corner the URL direct included a "Welcoming Committee" that I am not a part of, I just wanted to ask you first. Also how can I get that "This user welcomes new Wikipedia editors" topicon? Psalm 27:1 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Just add the {{Autoconfirmed topicon}} to your user page... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

What about "This user welcomes new Wikipedia editors" icon? Psalm 27:1 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

That one is {{WP:Welcoming committee/Topicon}}... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 and @Asilvering, can you both visit my user page, rate it on a scale of 1–10, state your honest opinion (s) about it, and any suggestions please (this counts as a question)? Light&Salvation (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I honestly can't do that, I have seen way too many over the years, everything from highly decorated and sectioned out, to very simple, to blank. Even mine used to be a lot more decretive and informational than it is now, but I had someone else's help in designing it back then (who then disappeared in 2007). I believe a user's page is their own space to use as they please (within reason), and will change as their time and experience (and trends) do, and should not be judged. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

That said, it looks fine to me... ;) - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Well I'm blanking and rewriting it after asilvering gives me his input, and thanks for your input and I'm sorry for that person's disappearance. @Asilvering? Light&Salvation (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering's taking too long, gonna rewrite my user page Light&Salvation (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

What was wrong with what you had? lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Nothing actually, I'm gonna redo it again Light&Salvation (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Yo check out my new user page Light&Salvation (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey guys what is the teahouse? Psalm 27:1 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:TEA, a place for new users to go to get help, I think there's a tutorial there, and you can post questions, etc. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks then. Light&Salvation (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

If 2 editors support a option but 1 editor does not, is it consensus? I know consensus is not a vote but if it isn't then what really is consensus and how do I know when it's achieved? --Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Probably not, but it would depend on the specific case. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok question 1 answered ("If 2 editors support a option but 1 editor does not, is it consensus?") but what about question 2 (I know consensus is not a vote but if it isn't then what really is consensus and how do I know when it's achieved?)? Ligh&Salv (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I already answered that second question for you, on 10 December. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Well this talk page discussion, does option 1 have consensus or is there consensus to do something...and not nothing? Psalm 27:1 (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

No, there's no consensus there yet. Give it time for other editors to weigh in. -- asilvering (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Zamn, well thanks and just to clarify, I can know consensus is reached on something if everyone (or more than just a majority) is agreeing on that something? Psalm 27:1 (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

If everyone agrees, yes, that's certainly consensus. "More than a majority" is probably consensus, but might not be. For example, if two people have a detailed argument, and four opposing people just say "no, lol", that's probably not consensus for whatever those four people have in mind. -- asilvering (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It's 3 and a half AM, I'm surprised I'm even awake to see this. That "no, lol" doesn't sound like a real or serious no as they don't state why they oppose. Anyway, thanks faithful mentor <:D Psalm 27:1 (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your latest message. Your time and help are apparecaited. I just updated my article in my Draft space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchy Dube (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

What draft space I want to see it? Christopher Lamar (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Christopher Lamar, draftspace is any page that starts with the word "Draft:". Like Draft:Example. -- asilvering (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello asilvering.

Since I am considering changing my username, and would like to stay within policy, I have a question; are usernames that are song names against WP:PROMONAME? Thanks, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 09:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Surely not? Though I suppose it could depend on the song title. Whoever renames you will (or should...) let you know if you've picked something that violates policy. -- asilvering (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But I think 45dogs is a great name! Bishonen | tålk 20:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC).

I've always assumed it was a reference I didn't get. This comment prompted me to google it, and now I am extremely suspicious of people who count dogs. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I change my username --Light (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:RENAME... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Is "Ababajoni" ok? Light (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Um... it isn't already taken, and isn't immediately offensive or disruptive, so it should be ok? Unless it means something bad in another language... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 It does not mean something bad in another langugage to my knowledge Light (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: it's been 6 hours and no one has even responded to my request while for another person, it's been 5 hours and their own got responded to and approved????? Light (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@LightandSalvation, global renamers, just like everyone else, are volunteers. Six hours isn't long to wait. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I understand maybe the guy who approved their request just left mine for someone else but is the system like only one responder per request? Light (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not a global renamer. -- asilvering (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I meant to reword "but is the system like only one responder per request?" to "but the system is not like only one responder per request right?" but you still wouldn't know so bruh, fair enough. Light (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I have renamed your account. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

What a joy! Thank you so much @HouseBlaster! Abni (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yo I know it's almost 7 AM UTC but UTC isn't Wikipedia's only time zone so question, does 4/5 editors in agreement constitute consensus? Abni (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You only just pinged the other editor, so if I were you, I would give them some more time to respond. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Good morning (it's 7:07 AM)! Yes I am giving them some more time to respond. Abni (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope you & @REAL_MOUSE_IRL will publicly acknowledge that your comments here and here were misplaced, that the first opponent-ejecting accusation was untrue, that it was not "transparently clear" I was intending to eject anyone (in fact, I basically begged the other party to engage in discussions, which they did not) and that Asilvering misquoted what I called an aspersion by Talk-quoting the fact that I dispute the content not just the copyvio - something I agreed with in the subsequent comment . Please go ahead and state so now since it was frequently brought up in your presence without objections from youse. ~ Hogshine (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine, I stand by what I said, which you have paraphrased incorrectly. If one of the responding admins in that AE thread have any questions for me, I will happily answer them. But more to the point, being told by a responding admin at AE that you're over the word limit and need to stop posting does not mean "go to one of the AE admins' talk pages and keep posting". -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I‌ posted this here before said admin asked us to stop posting. ~ Hogshine (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

And to you. :) -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello: how do I add to someone else's bibliography? --Marw100 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Marw100, welcome to wikipedia! Can you show me the specific example you're trying to edit? Most Wikipedia articles just have a references list made up of footnotes, so you don't need to add anything to a bibliography at all - just put the cursor at the end of the sentence you're trying to add a reference to, press the "cite" button, and follow the prompts. Lots more info at WP:REFB. -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll try that Marw100 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, just joined, after contributing $15. I have experience in writing and editing. However, my chief complaint about Wikipedia at present, is that the article on Reiki uses the word pseudoscience in the first paragraph. It is debatable, whether or not Reiki is a pseudoscience I would contend that pseudoscience is a negatively charge word and should be removed from this article, or at least not contained in the first paragraph. Thanks in advance for your feedb. --EllyHopkins (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EllyHopkins, welcome to wikipedia! Unfortunately you've stumbled into a very contentious area on Wikipedia. I would really strongly advise that you avoid editing about anything related to "pseudoscience" (even if you don't think it is pseudoscience) until you have a lot more experience. This topic area has a lot of very heated debates among established editors and new editors unaware of that history tend to get baited into rash actions and wipe out really quickly. Once you have more experience handling content debates on Wikipedia you'll be able to give those ones a try, but for now, I'd advise you to do basically anything else. Sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

It's odd that you are focused on the word "pseudoscience" instead of learning something about the art of Reiki. If you want to learn about Reiki, I suggest you read a book about it. Some research might give you a basic understanding of what Reiki is. It is NOT a pseudoscience, and of thousands of people would attest to its power. ~2025-41911-21 (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

You are the original blocking admin for User:Sirikwa. I have extended the block from partial to full as they have attempted to get around the block by just writing what they wanted at a different title (Abagusii (Kossova)). I have no confidence based on their talk page and ANI report that they won't try again at this or some other title. As you are more familiar with this, could you review my block and let me know if you think it needs adjustment. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. I did think that would probably happen, but I was hoping otherwise. You're clear. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Whpq (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I found an article (link: Paul Doumer) but I also found some possibly incorrect information on it. I put details in the articles talk page so that others could help look into it, but I am wondering if there is anything I specifically could/should do. Lemur3215 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lemur3215, on that list article you've mentioned, I do see Paul Beau as the next one in office, as Jean Baptiste Paul Beau. The others in between are down as "acting". Does that longer name get you anything more helpful, if you try to find sources? -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

It actually does. I found several sources, and apparently a Wikipedia page that Google Translate claims is in French, though I don't want to rely on Google Translate to translate the article. I think I might have just missed the part that says that they are acting.Lemur3215 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_Kurdistan Shadow4dark (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. And looks like another admin already handled re-protection. -- asilvering (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Daily Skimm which you banned, may be back on a new account created today, Kavento. On an article I created, Artsakh–United States relations, they did the same defaultsort edit. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan, please file a new report at SPI if you think they're back on a new account. A single edit, especially something basic like a defaultsort, though, is not very good evidence. If that's all it is, you can just ignore it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)