User talk:Asilvering/Archive 30

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2026 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to contact us, and indicate the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business. It is strongly encouraged to use a Gmail address for ArbCom business, for functionality reasons.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the VRT users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45). Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If isn't, and you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed them. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 16:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Music to celebrate, illustrated with historic images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow well done! Your Wikipedian career trajectory certainly escalated quickly. Folly Mox (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Folly Mox, that was impressively fast. Congratulations on becoming an arbitrator! QuicoleJR (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats everyone. I think fellow arbs Aoidh and Elli have me beat in time-to-arb, but I guess I did make it look a bit faster by stopping in for CU on the way. (To be truthful, I hadn't been planning to do this at all, I just lost arbchicken.) @Gerda Arendt, thanks for the lovely photo. We seemed to skip that phase around here, went straight to snow. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I woke up to a Bach cantata, GA by an editor's first review, and it was the first time that I was involved (a bit) in a pictured ITN blurb. More pics of buildings by him on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Today's 1715 Advent Bach cantata translates to "Prepare the ways", - listen ;) - "places" have new pics from Copenhagen". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Just realized I haven't been around to add to the pile yet! Let me rectify that. :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am new here. I made some edits but then I have seen that it may be seen as spamming. I am confused how the platform works. Shouldn't I write multiple edits? --HaileyEurope (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@HaileyEurope, writing multiple edits is fine. But are you using AI/LLMs to help write your edits? -- asilvering (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

HELLO! MELLO! JELLO?, H. E. L. L. O!! WHAT ATTRIBUTION? --Charlesmnoble (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Why I kept getting revisions ? --Christopher Lamar (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Christopher Lamar, please read your talk page. Several editors have been leaving you messages there, explaining why they've been reverting your edits, but you haven't been responding. -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hvad sker der med min sage angående insigelse --Mohamad ahmed78 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mohamad ahmed78: Detta är engelska Wikipedia. Var så snäll och kommunicera på engelska. Danska Wikipedia finns på adressen https://da.wikipedia.org .

This is English Wikipedia. Please communicate in English. Danish Wikipedia is at https://da.wikipedia.org . --bonadea contributions talk 22:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Can I please publish an article? --Brandonkl889 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Brandonkl889, welcome to wikipedia! You sure can, but we don't recommend you do that until you get more experience editing articles that already exist. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays and a prosperous 2026!

asilvering, we passed the baton last year, we did it again in throwing our hats into the ACE ring, and then we did it in the ACE results, too! I greatly look forward to serving alongside you in what is sure to be a crazy adventure. Thank you for all the support you have given everyone over the past year, from mentoring to unblocking to nominating. You are truly awesome. Best to you and yours this holiday season and in 2026 :)

Unoriginal yet thematic

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Delighted to be on this descent into hell crazy adventure with you, of course. :) -- asilvering (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I just signed up to donate $10.40 usd a year to Wikipedia and I decided to make an account. --Worldrecordpace (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Worldrecordpace, and welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Asilvering, there's been a pattern of disruptive editing from some temp accounts and I wanted to get some advice on handling the situation as well as hopefully a check on whether or not they are all coming from the same IP address. Based on this , I know that at least three of the accounts in question are coming from the same IP address.

Some background: I've noticed a group of temp accounts making similar edits to organism articles. The edits are typically adding etymology information that is not sourced, not formatted according to the MOS, and sometimes either in the wrong place within the article or when the information already existed in the correct section of the article. There have been numerous attempts to communicate with the temp accounts via their user talk pages as well as the article talk pages, with specific feedback on their editing (e.g., not using edit summaries, reverting without discussion, not citing sources, including original research, etc,), but they exhibit a pattern of reverting without discussion and not acknowledging any of these attempts to discuss. The single response to attempted discussion that I have gotten is this . An example of an article that demonstrates this pattern well is Nothobranchiidae.

I have seen that @Dyanega has encountered this all as well, such as at Chloroharpax and Acanthophis.

The temp accounts in question include the following (though I'm not confident I found all of them): User:~2025-37748-37, User:~2025-37785-83, User:~2025-37843-14, User:~2025-38105-68, User:~2025-39371-06, User:~2025-39513-04, User:~2025-39817-97, User:~2025-39513-04, User:~2025-37717-80, User:~2025-38289-61, User:~2025-39503-41, User:~2025-39009-24, User:~2025-37748-37, User:~2025-39624-60, User:~2025-40307-49, User:~2025-37939-83, and User:~2025-38319-70

If you have suggestions of a different admin to reach out to or a different approach, please let me know. Thank you in advance for your help. MossOnALog^Talk 19:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Adding the link to a Wikiproject discussion on the matter of needing sources for etymology of taxon names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_65#h-Is_there_a_specific_policy_in_WP_for_editors_trying_to_provide_novel_etymologies-20250319163900 MossOnALog^Talk 20:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@MossOnALog, I've blocked the underlying IP for a week. If you spot them again before the week is up, feel free to report the relevant temp accounts at WP:AIV. File with this link and say it's the same as this person. The responding admin should be able to connect the dots from there. -- asilvering (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. MossOnALog^Talk 13:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, the user is back and engaging in the same behavior of failing to engage in a disucssion despite repeated attempts to inform them of the issues with their edits; e.g., User:~2025-42168-07. I can see this temp user and the ones listed from before have "51–100" temp accounts associated with the IP group. Let me know if you have advice for dealing with this kind of thing. Thank you again for all your assistance. MossOnALog^Talk 20:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I've given them a longer time-out this time. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated, though disappointing they aren't interested in just working cooperatively. MossOnALog^Talk 21:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on 2025 Iraq drone atacks (1) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CNC (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor fyi, I think G6 is generally a better CSD for this kind of thing. Not that it really matters. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this because of copyvio content that was there temporarily? I queried previous R3 with KylieTastic​, but realising this one had content (even if short lived) so I can understand it being better as G6. Would this be generally true for these types of page moves redirects per redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended? I was kind of assuming the unless nothing was at the title until recently of R3 was a catchall when created from round robins, rather than being history dependent. Regards, CNC (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

While I was happy to use the "unless nothing was at the title until recently" clause of R3 to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy - G6 is still the preferred option for such pages. KylieTastic (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok noted, will use that from now on. Thanks. CNC (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The intent of R3 is to clean up pages where someone has done something annoying like spell "Earth" with every typo imaginable, so to me, the "recently created" rider is in there for if you do accidentally create the page at Xarth and then realize your mistake and move it right away. Whereas G6 is your general "oops, my bad, dear admin plz clean up my mess". -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

OK that makes more sense, I'll treat G6 as a substitute for WP:Page deleter rights given delete-redirect doesn't go far enough in these cases, or otherwise use surpress-redirect when possible. I otherwise realise there is a way to avoid leaving a G6 behind by creating an unnecessary redirect, for example:

1. 2025 Iraq drone attacks to 2025 Iraqi militias drone attacks (with surpress)

2. 2025 Iraq drone atacks (1) to 2025 Iraq drone attacks (with surpress)

But that doesn't seem very productive and would be rather unorthodox? CNC (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to do, but what you've just described looks to me like a page swap? In which case you can automate this whole process with User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap. -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The G6 was from a page swap, that's actually the problem. Anyway. Sorry for wasting your time, I just realised that what I described is effectively a variation of Revertible alternative for bold moves with a different purpose, which makes a lot more sense in this case for a title that needs deleting. I've therefore made this edit, in an attempt to document this. I don't think it will necessary stick given it's a policy page, but it best explains what I should be doing in these cases unless mistaken? CNC (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You've lost me entirely, I'm afraid, though perhaps someone else will chime in. I've never done a page swap that left redirects behind and don't really understand why anyone with PM would. -- asilvering (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Because a round-robin automated swap literally swaps two pages. I'll wait to hear what others have to say, as whether PMs should be encouraged to make these G6 deletions more often is the questionable part, I've no issues with just using page swap and tagging. CNC (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Or even first step as 2025 Iraq drone attacks to 2025 Iranian-backed militia attacks in Iraq using suppress & delete if I was thinking outside the box. But not convinced this would be fair use of G6. CNC (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello!!! I just realised that even this message is available to the public!! Haha, woops. If you can help though, that'd be cool. :) --Starshineglimmer (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I definitely broke the rules by accident. I apologise, remove the edit as needed. Starshineglimmer (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Starshineglimmer, you didn't break the rules as far as I can tell. It looks like the edit you're worried about never went through in the first place. But I did clean up your other one. -- asilvering (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, Asilvering

I would like to inform you about the article titled Mir Muhammed Rebellion, which I created in a neutral manner based on primary and academic sources, concerning a topic that previously did not have a complete page on Simple Wikipedia and which I have observed to be subject at times to vandalism involving ahistorical and unsourced information.

Recently, I became aware that certain claims regarding this article have been made without references and independently of its actual content, and that these claims may have caused you inconvenience. For this reason, I wanted to address the matter transparently. I believe that any content-related discussions with the relevant user would be more appropriate if conducted on the article’s talk page and within the framework of reliable sources.

In addition, I have been receiving persistent and disturbing messages from the same user outside the talk page, via private communication. On each occasion, I have attempted to respond by providing the sources I used. Should it be necessary, I can share these messages and relevant user information with you for review.

My aim is to ensure that the discussion proceeds openly, without becoming personal, and in accordance with Wikipedia’s content and sourcing policies. I wanted to bring this to your attention. BEFOR01 (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@BEFOR01, I don't have any idea what you mean by these claims may have caused you inconvenience. If this is intended as an apology, there's no need to apologize! If it's intended as context, you'll have to explain the context for me more clearly. Regarding the private communication, you're under no obligation to speak to people off-wiki about your edits. I'd advise you to just block and ignore. If you think it rises to the level of harassment or off-wiki co-ordination, please contact arbcom about it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear asilvering, I am a complete novice to Wikipedia "behind the curtain," and you were assigned to me when I created my account. I'm grateful to have a mentor!

I am writing a memoir that is heavily influenced by my dad's ideas about city planning and his driving motivation that our society should uplevel its goal from production and consumption to supporting each individual's potential. He authored 6 books. I am in the final years of my tenure as a councilmember for the City of Bainbridge Island, a small city a ferry ride from downtown Seattle. My writing mentor said, "I want you to write a draft Wikipedia article on your dad before our next meeting." So I did that, in my sandbox.

But I don't know how to declare my "conflict of interest" as a daughter, or whether I should ask if anyone else could write the article for me. I also would like to invite some professional colleagues of my dad to take a look and add to it, if they can. Before or after it is publicly published? One is already linked (Jeff Kenworthy, Intro to Sustainable Transportation). The other reference is from Nautilus Magazine by Kevin Berger, the Editor in Chief at the time of writing, around 2021. He is now an editor at large, semi-retired. I can't find his tribute article online.

I don't know if you can access my sandbox, but here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Climbingwater/sandbox

Any advice is greatly appreciated! Your mentee, Climbingwater --Climbingwater (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Climbingwater, welcome to wikipedia! Your draft looks great so far. Have a look at WP:REFB for an explanation of how to convert your sources into footnotes. It's actually already "published", in that it's available for anyone to view - any edits you make on Wikipedia are instantly published, in this sense. So your dad's professional colleagues can edit it already, and all you need to do is give them the link. But to move the draft to "mainspace" so that it becomes an actual wikipedia article, you will need to submit it for review. I moved the draft for you to Draft:Kenneth Ray Schneider to make this easier for you. When you're ready to have a reviewer look at it, you just need to hit the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button to put it into the queue.

You have a conflict of interest, and so do your dad's professional colleagues, because of the close relationship. So have a read of WP:COI as well. Since you're submitting this as a draft, you're doing what's expected of you already, but you may want to also add {{userbox COI}} to your userpage. Your dad's colleagues will also have a COI and should declare it when they edit. You may run into a bit of trouble about this, because multiple editors with apparent COIs tends to set off alarm bells around here. But what you've described is perfectly fine.

In order for your draft to be accepted, you're going to have to show that your father meets the guidelines at WP:N. I give you that link mostly for interest's sake - it looks pretty likely to me that he does, so you don't need to spend a lot of time sifting through the guidelines. (Lucky!) What you'll need to do to show this most easily is find sources that talk about his books - professional reviews (newspapers, academic journals) work fine for this. Do you have any of those? -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! You've given me a lot to chew on. His reviews will be hard to find online (late 60's to early 80's). I'm sure I can find hard copies. Can I scan and upload them?

Again, I appreciate the actionable and thoughtful feedback. Climbingwater (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to scan and upload them - I'd assume that would be a violation of someone's copyright, actually. Basically, what you're trying to do is fulfil two requirements: one, that everything in the article needs to be verifiable in published sources, as in, someone other than you could, in theory, check your work; and two, that we have "enough material" to write a complete, neutral article on him in the first place. We don't care if the article is complete now - you could write a single sentence and list ten sources and that would be enough to fulfil this requirement. But we need to know it's possible, with sources that exist somewhere. That's why we have WP:N, the "notability" requirement. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Climbingwater I converted the two in-line sources you had in the draft into a proper citations to give you examples. You'll see they are now footnotes 1 and 2 in the References section. I'll try to take a more in-depth look at it after the holidays and see if I can find additional sources. S0091 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thank you for your considerable work assisting other editors MossOnALogTalk 22:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

And thank you for the barnstar. :) -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Asilvering, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Howdy asilvering, it's Yue. Just stopping by to wish you and your family and friends a Merry Little Christmas and a Happy New Year! Thank you for your contributions to the project this year, and a special thanks for your advice and support in this year's December Administrator Elections. P.S. I thought your name was A. Silverling before someone pointed out to me it's a silver ring – my apologies. Here's to even better work from us in 2026!
Yue🌙 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

A Merry Christmas and HNY to you too. PS, Whoever pointed that out to you was wrong! There's only one r in "asilvering". -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this as it looks like German Kitty is more of a farm of paid editors instead of one person with multiple accounts. But, I see it happening again. Note two of the usernames have similar styles (name connected to three numbers at the end). I understand coincidences but there has been a lot of AfD gaming and this looks like more of it in my opinion. Should I go back to SPI? Not sure if CU would be useful or not. CNMall41 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the four accounts that are voting keep all have sustained interests related to the topic or to AfD more broadly, so I'd need quite a lot of circumstantial evidence to justify a check on any of them. Which is to say, I don't think you should take these editors to SPI unless you can prove it's part of a much larger pattern. These aren't the obviously disruptive votes of so many GK socks. -- asilvering (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Blue Sonnet (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Asilvering: Since you moved my reply to you to its right place, my statement has been found to surpass the 500-word limit. Is this going to be a problem for me? StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I've reverted your most recent addition. Please don't feel like you need to defend yourself at length. This isn't a very complicated case and it looks like a misunderstanding to me at present - so you're more likely to score an own goal by responding than anything else. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Thedarkknightli (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Thedarkknightli (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Asilvering, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Wishes from Vestrian24Bio

Click here to see the Christmas message I wrote...💞! Vestrian24Bio 09:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

It's been 30 days since I made my account and I have triple 500 edits, yet I a still not extended-confirmed. Please help Abni (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Ababajoni: Your account was created at 12:20 UTC, so there's still about 6–7 hours left until it reaches the 30-day mark to be extended-confirmed. Left guide (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok, it's because im not good with times but thanks! Abni (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Well I am extended confirmed now so, after gaining the power to edit 30/500 protected pages such as Pakistan and the United States, I am looking for advice on what to do now going forward, especially from @Asilvering and @Adolphus79. Abni (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I assume you are asking about contentious topics? I'd just say be careful to follow the rules, read the entire page to understand that there are some areas that have different rules from the rest of Wikipedia. Otherwise, life after EC isn't much different than before. Your new permissions aren't really a big game-changer, it's more like taking the training wheels off a new user because we assume they have learned what to and what not to do after a little time and experience here. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 I know they aren't a big game changer, it's just an expansion of editing jurisdiction over more pages. However, I do still thank you for that contentious topics advice, and by "....follow the rules, read the entire page....", do you mean the contentious topic policy page or any article that I want to edit that the former applies to? Abni (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Both. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, any other advice? Abni (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

No. -- asilvering (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't feel like you Asilvering...is everything ok? Abni (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course. There just isn't really anything special about being XC, so I don't have any particular advice about it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Still suspicious but ok thanks I guess. Abni (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Please compare the page history, and my attempts to talk with the creator on their page. Bishonen | tålk 10:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC).

Yep, on it. -- asilvering (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, I swear half of all I know about Wikipedia comes from something you said at one point—from patiently explaining things to one new inexperienced G11-over-tagging AfCer (me) to an excellent unblocks guide to random comments of yours I stumble upon at noticeboards and elsewhere. Good luck with ArbCom, and I look forward to clerking for you and the committee in 2026 (I’ll need your coffee order by the end of the year). Happy holidays to you and yours!

GoldRomean (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

i updated links Logoshimpo (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I am wondering on what the guidelines are for using research papers as sources to get information on stuff. Lemur3215 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lemur3215, do you have a specific question about that? Otherwise I'm mostly just going to have to throw you at WP:RS. Usually we consider research papers published in reputable journals to be the "gold standard" of sources and it's what we prefer people use everywhere. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not really have any specific questions, I just had found some research articles that could possibly help add more information to some shorter articles, and I was uncertain weather or not I could use them. Lemur3215 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I wanted to add a page for Amanda DiGioia, an academic mentioned on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina_Museum. Would that be possible? --Shearsofatropos (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

TPS comment... She is barely mentioned in that article, only once as the author of a book. The first question you should ask yourself when considering writing a new article about an individual is "Would she pass our notability concerns?", then, "Is there enough significant coverage of her in reliable sources to warrant her own article?" If both of those questions are answered with a "yes", then check out this page to help you with creating your first article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Amanda DiGioia is a graduate student, so ordinarily I would say it's vanishingly unlikely that she meets our criteria under WP:NPROF. But it appears she's a graduate student who already has multiple books in print, so, uh, wow. She's probably notable under WP:NAUTHOR at least. Can you find two or more professional reviews of two or more of her books? By "professional" I mean by critics - in newspapers etc - or by academics. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Here is a review of her duelling book, that was published in a peer reviewed academic journal: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/427/article/875295/summary

Here is her google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JW-FKCgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

She is referenced here alongside her co-author in the context of Metal Music Studies: https://intellectdiscover.com/content/journals/10.1386/mms_00164_1#referenceContainer

Here, her work on soft power and Sansa Stark is cited and mentioned in the context of Game of Thrones: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=4697637535050013685.

Is this sufficient? Shearsofatropos (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Brief citations and mentions aren't the kind of thing you need - it's full-length reviews like in your first link that you're looking for. -- asilvering (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I am so sorry for the multiple replies; I am still learning this system. I found some newspaper articles, but two are in Finnish:

DiGioia was mentioned in this Finnish news article: https://www.iltalehti.fi/viihdeuutiset/a/201806282201042267

In addition to this Finnish news article:

https://porinylioppilaslehti.com/2018/07/18/kriittista-moshausta/

And has been quoted in UniLad regarding Sansa Stark in Game of Thrones.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191213173315/https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/i-will-be-teamsansa-until-the-end-hear-me-out/ Shearsofatropos (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the kind of thing we're looking for. You need sources that discuss her or her work, not quotes from her discussing something else. -- asilvering (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay! I would gently counter that The Critical Headbanging article by Atte Timonen in Finnish does talk about her work (and women in metal more generally, in 'A Woman's Place') and references her as a scholar. They also include quotes from her. Shearsofatropos (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The UniLad piece also says: "UNILAD spoke with Amanda Digioia from the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES) about the leader Sansa has become. Ms Digioia has previously written academic texts about fan phenomena in relation to Game of Thrones, with Sansa being one of her favourite characters."

Is that not sufficient? Shearsofatropos (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. -- asilvering (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

So what would qualify a woman who has published three academic monographs and co-edited another need to obtain a Wikipedia? Other than arbitrary reviews in the press? Being peer-reviewed in a journal in addition to that is not enough? Shearsofatropos (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

What we're looking for is significant coverage in reliable sources (see WP:42). So being peer-reviewed in an journal is good, but that's just one source. A person's achievements or resume has basically nothing to do with whether we can write a wikipedia article about them or not - we're looking for sources that discuss that person (or their work). -- asilvering (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

But one of the articles in Finnish does that? Shearsofatropos (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

"At Tuska, renewal has meant, for example, that in 2016 the festival began offering panel discussions alongside gigs. This year, discussions in the Solmusaali venue in Suvilahti will include the ethics of metal music: in the slot titled ‘The Counterpart of Evil’, topics include metal artists’ activism on animal rights, equality issues, and environmental challenges. Participants include, among others, American metal scholar Amanda DiGioia. On Sunday, the panel discussion ‘Metal and Nostalgia’ will take place." https://www.iltalehti.fi/viihdeuutiset/a/201806282201042267 Shearsofatropos (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a passing mention. We mean discuss at length - like the full academic book review you found. -- asilvering (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, if the peer review, being mentioned on another wikipedia page, and being referenced in multiple media articles isn't enough, it isn't enough. If only DiGioia had gone into the lucrative field of being born posh and a being a private zoo owner instead, perhaps she could have made the cut. Shearsofatropos (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

That guy has a full-length obituary in the New York Times. If DiGioia gets one of those, she too will likely have a wikipedia entry. If you can't find any more full book reviews now, I'm sure she'll have some more soon enough, since she's a currently active academic. Sometimes it takes quite a while for academic reviews to make it to print. In the meantime, you may be interested in participating at WP:AFD. This is where we discuss whether article subjects meet the inclusion guidelines (and, therefore, whether the articles should be deleted or not). It's a good place to learn about how all these guidelines intersect in practice.

(I removed your post including the full text of one of the newspaper articles - sorry, but you can't copy-paste that kind of thing here, even to talk pages, for copyright reasons.) -- asilvering (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

So what was in that translated text was not enough? Shearsofatropos (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I included the full text because you told me the other article wasn't enough. And, yes. It is regrettable that those who are likely accessories to murder are elevated over disabled women doing the work on the ground. Finally, DiGioia is not active anymore, due to her disability and leaving academia. Womp womp! I tried, feminism.

Thank you for the advice! And the very informative gatekeeping. Shearsofatropos (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You may be interested in joining WP:WIRED. It's a very newcomer-friendly group dedicated to increasing the proportion of biographies of women on Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Nah, if tabloids are good enough for men, but multiple articles are not good enough for a woman, I've heard and experienced enough to be discouraged from participating further. Thank you for your help! Shearsofatropos (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Seriously though, how is the full length text that you deleted not enough, when combined with the review, when a NYT Obituary and Evening Standard Articles are sufficient for men? Shearsofatropos (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Shearsofatropos, this doesn't have anything to do with the gender of the subject. The man you're talking about had a full life and career, and that life and career was described in some depth in a NYT obituary. The woman you're talking about is a graduate student. We have almost no articles on graduate students, of any gender. And no major paper will have an obituary of her long life and career, because she hasn't had either of those things, and additionally has not yet died. Unusually for a graduate student, DiGioia has published multiple books, so she has a better chance at having sources about her and her work than, well, basically every other grad student. You've shown one review, which is great, but we'd need more than that to be able to describe her work. The newspaper articles you've supplied aren't about DiGioia, but rather about the topics she's being interviewed about - Finnish metal and Sansa Stark. Those topics both are notable (you'll notice we have articles about them already). -- asilvering (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Gender is implicated throughout, but I digress. Is she cited on Wikipedia in any of those fields, given that she does not have an article of her own? In any case, you are factually incorrect. She was not interviewed on Finnish metal. She researched it. She appeared on a panel as the only non metal musician discussing social issues in metal music studies. Shearsofatropos (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, DiGioia recently obtained her PhD, so she is a doctorate, not just a graduate student. Shearsofatropos (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I've also shown my partner this. Prior to this, he had donated to Wikipedia regularly. Now he won't. Shearsofatropos (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how this article here is different than the Evening Standard ones on Damian Aspinall's page? Except for the fact that it is in Finnish? Why does Aspinall's qualify but this one by DiGioia does not? The Evening Standard is also a major source throughout that article. Shearsofatropos (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I ask because traditionally tabloids are not considered reliable sources. But are enough for a man who is a posh man zoo owner (and the son of a man who got a NYT Obituary), but not a woman who is an author and discussed, both in depth and in passing, in multiple sources. Shearsofatropos (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: or been the son of a private zoo owner. Shearsofatropos (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Also in academia a lot of those discussions occur within articles (as citations), not only peer-reviews of books. But if it's not enough, it's not enough. Just trying to get disabled women authors represented on here (DiGioia is permanently disabled by the chemotherapy treatment that saved her life, she discusses this in the introduction of her second book, and the review mentions it too). Shearsofatropos (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Publishing three books and a co-edited volume is not enough to be considered an 'author' on Wikipedia? Shearsofatropos (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

So a link to the books themselves is not enough? Shearsofatropos (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I can see why you find this frustrating, but no, nothing by a person gets "counted" when we're evaluating whether they meet our criteria for author articles (or our criteria for academics' articles or our general criteria for biography articles). Wikipedia is a tertiary source that just summarizes what other people have already written in secondary sources -- a known but sadly inevitable source of systemic bias here, as long as the rest of the world remains biased. DiGioia has clearly accomplished an impressive amount for where she is in her career, but Wikipedia won't be able to say anything about her if there aren't sources to summarize from.

The required standard for sources is explained here; all of the sources you've found have been what we call "reliable" but only this book review appears to be both "significant coverage" (eg staying focused on DiGioia for more than a paragraph) and "independent" (eg not written by or an interview with DiGioia). An existing article can be expanded with non-"gold standard" sources (so you'll often see them used), but only after the criteria are met.

For authors specifically, the simplest way to meet the criteria is with 4+ detailed sources about their books (2 each for 2+ works). If any of the scholarly sources that cite her include at least 2-3 paragraphs of discussion about her (as opposed to 2-3 sentences), that could meet the bar as "significant". Usually we find reviews, which can be in newspapers or magazines too (not just academic journals).

Of course, DiGioia's books do count for the topics she is writing about: you could cite her works to improve our articles on Sansa Stark, Deena Weinstein, Music of Finland#Heavy metal (it might even be possible to split that out into a full article on Finnish heavy metal!), Blade Runner 2049, etc. Improving articles like those is also a good way to get the hang of editing in general. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of metal music studies articles that discuss her but I am not going to dig for them. DiGioia and Helfrich actually wrote the first critique of Deena Weinstein in metal music studies. Additionally, your Finnish metal music article on Wikipedia is missing this source, and has nothing by Charlotte Doesburg, which is exactly why students are warned against using Wikipedia as a scholarly reference. Shearsofatropos (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

For the record, Charlotte Doesburg also has her doctorate, so she is not just a graduate student. If you want to carry on with this (putting those sources in those articles), that is up to you. I am done. You can keep the gatekeeping and the graduate student digs.

It is also worth stating explicitly that not every academic has, or is required to have, a monograph.

Thank you for your help. Shearsofatropos (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is entirely a volunteer effort, so you don't have to do anything that doesn't bring you joy. But I'm a bit perplexed by your response, because your critiques are exactly why I mentioned those articles: DiGioia wrote about them and you clearly have the expertise to see what sources ought to be cited but have been overlooked. The majority of academics do not have biographies on Wikipedia, but every academic publication has something to offer to our articles on their subjects. Personally, I know nothing about music, but a lot about queer 18thC pornography, so "my" articles are things like A Spy on Mother Midnight and Passions Between Women. It takes many people with wide-ranging interests to make a comprehensive encyclopedia. Your contributions are very welcome here if you ever choose to write. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you’re perplexed by my response, given that Wikipedia upholds the same toxic power structures found everywhere else. No one is entitled to my labour, and Wikipedia is not a scholarly source for good reason. Regardless, your administrators should also know that graduate students just like DiGioia can contribute to their fields as much as tenured academics. The fact that they do not is enough for me to step away. Thank you again. The offer is there if you want to take up the torch, but after my experience here, I have no desire to contribute. Shearsofatropos (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I assure you that @LEvalyn and I are both very much aware that graduate students can contribute to their fields as much as tenured academics. The difference, from the perspective of Wikipedia's guidelines, is that tenured academics have had a long enough career that other academics have typically written extensively about them or their work. In DiGioia's case, so far you've only turned up the one book review, so we're not there yet. But if you want to bring her work to a larger audience, an article about her isn't the way to go anyway - doing what L has described would be better for her career, her field, and the encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I also shared relevant media coverage relating to her, though it was ultimately considered insufficient. I had hoped to include a much broader list of women working in metal music studies and musicology, too, including (Dr) Olivia Lucas and her excellent writing on Meshuggah. Unfortunately, that material will now remain unseen.

@LEvalyn I understand that limits have to be drawn, and I respect that process. At the same time, it is worth saying that scholarly labour is finite, and freely given rather than owed. My only real regret is that women scholars such as DiGioia, Doesburg, Helfrich, and Lucas did not get the visibility their work deserves. I would have liked to see them have their moment in the sun. Ah, well. Shearsofatropos (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

My only real regret is that women scholars such as DiGioia, Doesburg, Helfrich, and Lucas did not get the visibility their work deserves. We would like that, too - that's part of why both of us edit in the first place. And that's why we're both suggesting that you make that work more visible, by adding it to the relevant articles. It really does help, much more than putting up a biography of any particular ECR. People don't tend to navigate to (or edit) academic biography articles. But they do read the articles on, say, Meshuggah (band). That article has had 25,158 page views in the past 30 days. Meanwhile, Eleanor Prescott Hammond, an article I wrote about an academic who is well-known in her field and had a full career, only has 1,305 in total. If what you want is visibility, add to the articles about the topics these women academics are writing about. I promise this will help them and their ideas much more than a biography ever could. -- asilvering (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way - you've forgotten to log in, and accidentally posted from a temporary account. If you would like me to redact that for you so that your IP address is hidden, I can do that for you. -- asilvering (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do redact (but come say hi anytime in the Big Smoke)! Did Hammond do any work on Chaucer and Dante? As in comparing their works? Shearsofatropos (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I expect so, somewhere, though I haven't read it or I've forgotten it. She was quite fond of Dante. -- asilvering (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, so was Chaucer (arguably). I will have to do some digging. Thank you! Shearsofatropos (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

And, I want to thank you and @LEvalynfor your time and energy. I know those are both valuable. I will do my best to edit those women in (as well as actual Finnish scholars talking about Finnish metal). Shearsofatropos (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: She is also cited in the 2021 Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, vol. 19, on page 1245, in the article by Theresa Sanders. Shearsofatropos (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I suspect a user being discussed at ANI right now (for disruptive editing) of having extensively WP:LOUTSOCKed in the pre-TA days. I also suspect them (with less certainty) of having multiple named accounts. The latter I can handle, open an SPI case. How should I handle the suspicion of LOUTSOCKING? Is it fine to connect the named account to the IP address because the editing happened before the TA rollout? NicheSports (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports, so long as you're not using your TAIV IP reveal abilities to connect an IP to an account, you're fine. That is, if you make the connection behaviourally, in a way that someone who doesn't have CU/TAIV could have done, it's fair game to connect IPs to TAs to named accounts. -- asilvering (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Got it. No use of TAIV at all in this case so it sounds fine then. Btw, after digging further I'm sure these are unrelated. I.e. the user potentially using multiple named accounts is separate from the (now blocked) editor I suspect of potentially LOUTSOCKING. I filed an SPI for the former. What do I do for the latter? SPI as well? NicheSports (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep! -- asilvering (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, asilvering,

When using the the feature to "Nuke" the contributions of a socking editor, please be sure to also delete the Talk page and any redirects that exist. I have been told there is a box that can be checked off to ensure that the Talk page is deleted along with the article or draft. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hm. I definitely checked that box. Which ones did I miss? -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

how to creat a page --Akashdara91 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:FIRST will help you write your first article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

What's up? --Dazzle returns (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Dazzle returns, welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You recently issued a one-week block for an IP range associated with the the TAs ~2025-41905-55, ~2025-43822-62, and ~2025-43753-37, who all made similar edits. Not sure who was the evading user or IP, but the recently created and concurrently active User:Botelli is apparently associated as well. Yue issued a 36-hour block for the latter for disruptive editing, but maybe it should be changed to indefinite, depending on who the evading editor behind the TAs was. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993, I'm afraid I can't comment on this specific case, but I can say generally that if I blocked an IP for loutsocking and didn't increase the block of the master, that was much more likely to be on purpose than an oversight. The blocked editor will know that we saw what they were up to, so those blocks will serve as a warning. If they keep loutsocking, that would be different. -- asilvering (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

If you don't mind? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I get edit awards (such as 100 and 1,000 Edits)? --Abni (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ababajoni, you should have received a "thank you" note from the system when you hit each of those milestones (I think you get one for every power of 10 edits). That's the only "official" award. But you might be interested in WP:SERVICE. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I did receive them, but I see that edit awards, such as the 100,000 on 331dot's user page, exist? Abni (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

That is {{User 100,000 edits}}. -- asilvering (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a 1,000 Edits award,? Abni (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, and I would warn you against caring much about your edit count. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't care......if admin isn't a big deal.....why would 1586 edits be? I'm just asking....

Another question, am I too new for pending changes reviewer? Abni (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Nope! Go ahead and request it at WP:PERM. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright man I feel motivated the way you said that, thanks for the motivation :) Abni (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Did it, hope it gets approved Abni (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

That's just a userbox, the same as the "This user has made more than 40,000 contributions to Wikipedia." on my user page. You can find it and many others here, and add them to your page just like any other userbox. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 Oh ok, the fact you just did this is the exact reason why I described you the way I did on my user page. Abni (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

ha... tps 4 teh win! - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

english please...... Abni (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You're also currently a Novice Editor and are entitled to display that award... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 oh ok Abni (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there any way to change my name? I accidentally used the wrong username. --Dazzle returns (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

No problem. See WP:RENAME for instructions. -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Dazzle returns (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Happy New Year, asilvering! In 2025, other editors thanked you 1194 times using the thanks tool on the English Wikipedia. By that measure, this made you the #5 most thanked Wikipedian in 2025. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2026! Mz7 (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Gosh. Looks like I have to step up my own thanking game. And, uh, thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)