User talk:Asilvering/Archive 32

Why do many wikipedia articles in visual editor mode seem to have at least 1 to 3 double spaces? --I am NewestPiano (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry @NewestPiano, I can't be sure. But my guess is that the spaces are there in the source code. Mediawiki will just ignore extra spaces when it's published, so it's probably nothing you need to worry about. -- asilvering (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh. I am NewestPiano (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your edits on WP:ARM, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/~2026-34318-9 seems to be one, and whatever's happening at Special:IPContributions/103.137.210.167 is fairly weird too. Their "usual" IPs tend to be AT&T IPv6 addresses, unless we're conflating multiple LTAs. I've found some more interesting things I'll send through email if you wish. Thanks, Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The Amsterdam one is a proxy, yes. The other is not, and if you look a bit closer at it you'll probably be able to infer why it's not in the usual place. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, if you mean the airport thing, that's what I was about to email you anyway. There's some others as well. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. They've been travelling. Fewer SPI reports in the last little while, so I assume they've gone back to the usual ranges, which are still blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This range has spent a ton of time blocked for checkuser issues as a range of proxy addresses; see . The block is not set to impact logged-in users, so I don't really understand why it would be catching good-faith editors. I've unblocked for now but I am concerned about leaving a range of proxy servers wide open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@ESkog, when you block account creation, that prevents all editors from creating new accounts. That means good-faith editors are unable to edit around the block. You can also see many good-faith editors in the edit history of this IP here: . The block was cutting off all of them too.

There have only been four blocks on this range in the last five years, most of them brief; prime's is targetted and brad's was marked as ACC ignore. So that's not a strong foundation for a block. I'm not at all sure why you think this is a proxy. It's not a proxy - it's a mobile network. A very heavily used mobile network. -- asilvering (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft_talk:Tri_Dao#comments._criterion_1 may be of interest. PamD 18:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Already blocked, I've seen, and I've declined the unblock. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey. I want to create this page, but I see that it was deleted. How is it possible that the banned user created a page? Is it ok to recreate it? Can I ask why the author got banned? jcubic (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jcubic, it was created by a sockpuppet account they made to get around the ban, which was subsequently discovered and blocked. It's fine for you to recreate the page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello dear Asilvering, in 5 August 2025, i uploaded a poster File:Dhumketu (2025 film).jpeg for the film Dhumketu (2025 film) and it was used in the article! But in 14 January 2026, user Tiger Shankar uploaded a poster File:Dhumketu (2025) film poster.jpeg for the same article! Then, the user removed my uploaded poster and used his uploaded poster!

Please! discuss this matter! Aqsis Bey (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aqsis Bey, the person to discuss this with would be Tiger Shankar. You can go to their talk page about it, or, better yet, the talk page of the article in question. -- asilvering (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to request an extension to my statement in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment in order to respond to polygnotus. I've stretched the limits of lossless compression.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for you to do this, and indeed I'd advise you not to. -- asilvering (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I see, I will follow your advice then. Will it be possible to request an interaction ban based on his behavior in other wikis as well?

Thank you for the help & advice, NorthernWinds (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I usually just ignore word limits since they are unhelpful. Should I rewrite and edit to meet the limit? That seems incompatible with your request to stop editing the statement. So it is unclear what I should do.

If I should respect the word limit then I need to drastically edit what I wrote, and using <ins> and <del> and the like would make it incomprehensible. Polygnotus (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It sure would make it incomprehensible, yes. My general suggestion would be to write your statements in a text file first and get all your tinkering out of the way before posting them on wikipedia. As for rewriting to meet the limit, I would say don't bother, though you may have a clerk come by and rap your knuckles about it. Just don't add any more. -- asilvering (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Tried a different tactic. Thinking, like Wikipedia editing, is an iterative process. No one can complain about limits now. Hope this helps, Polygnotus (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: note starting your comment with a bulleted list item (*) and then changing to an unbulleted list item (:) will cause screen readers to announce an extra list end/start pair for each time the list style changes. This results in two extra pairs of announcements for this case, since the comment following yours changes back to a bulleted list item. Could you consider using the {{pb}} template instead of changing the list style in the middle of your comment? For more details, you can refer to User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup § New paragraph within a list item or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Multiple paragraphs within list items. I appreciate your time in considering this matter. isaacl (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Isaacl (talk page stalker) Can we make a userscript for this stuff? Does one exist? Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the change. I apologize for neglecting to ask you to consider changing your following second-level comments so that they preserve the list style of the first-level list, by changing the prefix to *: instead of ::. Thanks again. isaacl (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit! isaacl (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi how to post details of a new page article --Radhabhava (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. This is a lot more complicated than I expected! I will change my user name and I do have a draft of how I think the entry should read, but right now I cannot make sufficient sense of the guidance to submit it to the editors. --HMS President (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@HMS President, does WP:ERW help make sense of it for you? This wizard helps you format an edit request properly, so if that's the bit that is confusing, problem solved. If you're having trouble with something else, can you describe the problem a bit more for me? -- asilvering (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really. The page does not appear to me to do anything remotely like "helps format an edit request". The Hartford Medical Society site is very out of date and really in need of an overhaul. Is there a way I can submit a new article in entirety to another editor who could then perform the on-line process? That would allow me to avoid having to learn this very complex process? By the way, I was able to change the opening sentence, but then could not apply the appropriate new citation. HMS President (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You can try writing a new draft, sure: WP:WIZARD. But that might be more of the same issue? It will let you use the WYSIWYG editor though, which might help. Make sure you change your username before you make any edits, though. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I change my user name? HMS President (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest and fill in the form to change your username. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide the details, but I'm a text-based AI and don't have the capability to send voice recordings 😊. However, I can give you the details in text format:

Radha Bhava Gaura Das is a senior ISKCON devotee, initiated by Kirtananda Swami Maharaj in 1982, and later by HH Jayapataka Swami Maharaj. He's the Temple President of ISKCON Shyamadesh Yatra in Sharjah, UAE.

Some key points about him: - Initiated in 1982 by Kirtananda Swami Maharaj - Later initiated by HH Jayapataka Swami Maharaj - Temple President of ISKCON Shyamadesh Yatra, Sharjah - Well-versed in Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita - 43+ years of service in ISKCON - Experience in Germany, Oman, and UAE - Topper in Bhagavad Gita advanced course (1987-88)

Would you like me to provide more info or clarify anything? --Radhabhava (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Radhabhava, I'm only here to answer questions about editing wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. @Easternsahara has once again violated their topic ban with this edit at Talk:Ali Shaath. The article page and the talk page both have the ARBPIA template, and the article is clearly related to the conflict.

I am writing to you directly because they asked me not to write on their talk page. Denisaptr (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Denisaptr, this edit is adding the politics wikiproject, it's not actually editing about the conflict in any meaningful way. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I’m creating the article for Western Canada Marine Response. I attempted to upload the organization’s logo, but my account is not yet confirmed. Could an experienced editor please upload the logo locally as a non-free logo for use in the infobox? Source: https://www.wcmrc.com --Aryan.M.Chambyal (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aryan.M.Chambyal, just make two more edits and you'll be autoconfirmed and be able to upload it yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, how do I create citations, also draft articles that are Wikipedia worthy? --Fabochemkwani (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Fabochemkwani, does WP:REFB answer your questions about citations? As far as drafting articles, my advice is that you work on improving articles that already exist for a while before trying to create new ones yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What does this down-then-left arrow mean in visual editor mode? --I am NewestPiano (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@NewestPiano, my guess is you're looking at a return symbol. -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but what does the return symbol do in wikipedia when seen in visual editing? I am NewestPiano (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Nothing. But you'll see the difference if you look in source mode. I tend to write articles this way when I write from scratch, since it's cleaner and easier for me to find footnotes this way. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I asked a similar question to this in the Help Desk and they said it might be a good idea to reach out to the clerk involved with my SPI case so here I am!

I made a SPI report for a user, and while that user did end up being a sockpuppet, they weren't the sp of the sockmaster I thought they were. This made me start thinking about the Evidence needed to submit a SPI review.

Do you think my SPI review was reasonable? The SPI report page states that there must be clear evidence, but thats such a subjective term it's hard to know what that means. Id really appreciate any and all feedback on this topic. Thank you! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mustbeotherwise, can you link me to the SPI you're talking about, please? -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Most recent SPI in this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaredryandloneria - Otherwise (Talk?) 04:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think that's pretty obviously not ChronicleBooks885, but I can see why you thought it might be. CB885 is a prolific teahouse/refdesk troll, you saw someone trolling the teahouse in a way you thought was similar, and you reported it - that's all fine. You provided the right kinds of evidence. You were just wrong. It's perfectly ok to be wrong sometimes. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thats a relief! I really do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.

Now this is just out of curiosity but how are you able to tell that it's not CB885? - Otherwise (Talk?) 04:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Linguistic differences. CB885 example grammar: , . Your sock, saying basically the same thing, but in different grammar: . Plus, CB885 tends to write a Teahouse post and a refdesk post at basically the same time. -- asilvering (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense why you're a clerk, I wouldn't have thought to check for that. Thank you for entertaining my silly questions! - Otherwise (Talk?) 06:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It's more the other way around: you become a clerk, and you pick up the rest as you go. -- asilvering (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Either way, it's clear I have a lot to learn. I sincerely appreciate your helpfulness and patience while us newcomers bumble our way through Wikipedia! - Otherwise (Talk?) 06:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. What am I s'pose to be editing? L --Janicelcdrennen (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Whatever you like! Special:Homepage will have some suggestions for you. There's also WP:TASK. Or you can just go about reading wikipedia as normal, and make edits when the mood takes you. World's your oyster. -- asilvering (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering, i have a question, when editing wikipedia articles where can i put my sources so that other editors will not delete and reedit my edits, thank you. --Carl Cedrick (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Carl Cedrick, welcome to wikipedia! We generally want to see a footnote at the end of the sentence or section you've added that verifies the statement. There are built-in tools that will format these for you - see WP:REFB for details, and feel free to come back and ask for help if you get stuck. -- asilvering (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding e.g. this, I think it's noteworthy that this company is real and has a very long history of socking; it doesn't appear to be a scam. But yes, the client list likely contains fake entries. Janhrach (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The sock farm ones are scams. They make promises they can't keep and charge money for them. Some of them even go on the offense against subjects that decide not to work with them, or get in AFD wars with rival sockfarms who got a contract they were angling for. And they're well aware that if they list their actual client list we'll triangulate the socks and block the whole set. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

In that sense, yes, they are scammy. Janhrach (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Duck at Battle of Borodino. Noorullah (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

(of user @Ender-theBoy: Noorullah (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Noorullah21, can you report this one at SPI? And add this TA to the list? They're on the same IP and that earlier TA predates Ender-theBoy, so this needs a bit more digging than I can do at the moment. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

i've made the report here Logoshimpo (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I was hoping to gain insight about creating new wikipedia pages? There are certain companies and people that are high profile and missing from Wikipedia and I was hoping to gain insight on how to begin the process of building a page? --Emckenzie21 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi Emckenzie21, and welcome to Wikipedia. I believe WP:FIRST should be able to help you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

And to follow up on that, I would suggest gaining experience improving articles that already exist before you try creating new ones from scratch. It's much easier to learn how to start a new article when you don't need to be learning how to edit at the same time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. 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

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I see you're a recently active oversighter. Please see Special:Contributions/~2026-69338-8. I have no idea how to report such things so please forward this if asking you is wrong. Thank you. Amientan (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, @Amientan. If you see threats like this, they do need revision-deletion and you should contact an admin, but they should also be reported to emergency@wikimedia.org. I'll handle that bit now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | February 2026 Backlog Drive
February 2026 Backlog Drive: On 1 February, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted a good article review in the past year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I did ask for more words, but you removed the ask? Levivich (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, it says In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. So rather than have them read "A broad outline" for my request of like 200-300 (depending on what word counter you use) words, I just showed them what I wanted to say. I don't understand what you want me to do? Levivich (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Levivich, you asked for words, after you'd already made the post. Please ask for permission rather than begging for forgiveness. "I want to respond to x and I believe words quoted from arbs are exempt from the word count" is all you need to say. Unfortunately I don't know the answer to that question so I can't just give you the go-ahead right now and you'll have to ask it on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it that way. But AFAIK, asking for words after making the post--aka begging forgiveness--is the usual practice. Here's an arb doing it, here's an admin doing it, these are from last month. This is the first time I've heard that this is not the right way to do it. Levivich (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I really do appreciate it. As for the rest, I don't know that there is a "right way", which at the moment is causing some decision paralysis on the part of the clerks. Perhaps we'll solve this by motion! (oh god) In the meantime I'm personally requesting "the way that makes the clerks less sad and asilvering less insane". -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Anything to cheer up those poor clerks! You want my 2c? Just bump it to 750 or 1000. My impression after years of reading arbcom cases is that people almost never ask for more than 1,000, but commonly ask for 500-1000, especially 500-750. This ain't twitter, we shouldn't be communicating in sound bites. It's hard to express any kind of nuanced/involved thought in under 500 words--that's enough for a hot take, not a discussion. And exclude quotes, because quotes just make things easier for people since they have to click less. (Quotes are already excluded from the 1,000-word CTOP limit.) If I removed the quotes from my statement, I'd be way under 500 and wouldn't need to ask for an extension, but would that make my statement easier or harder to understand? Anyway, thanks and cheers! Levivich (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @L235, how annoying would it be to have the wordcount bot ignore anything in {{tq}}? -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This would be a good idea and should not be too hard, fingers crossed! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Should be done now. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, congratulations and thanks for the recent SPI,

Here is one more potential sock of this group @Muhskk.

I apologise if this is inappropriate.

Happy editing! Zuck28 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

And this @Shubuam chak Zuck28 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zuck28, please add a new SPI report for these socks with your evidence. If you go to WP:SPI there is a box for you to type in the sockmaster name (case-sensitive), and this will open a form for you. -- asilvering (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

... for clearing up behind me here. Not sure what happened there, but it looks as if I managed to delete the page without closing the discussion – either through a script error or (much more probably!) user error. In any case, many thanks for tidying the room and closing the door! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries! Actually, looks like you were cleaning up after me, and I should have handled that WP:G5. So, we're even. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, you said you planned to have a look at my 1st GAN review back in January. I don't think that's necessary now, and it's all but completed, but I'd just like to ask a question about GAN reviews in general: how rigorous am I actually expected to be? To finish this review, I read everything linked to from WP:GA, and already tried to lower my standards/let stuff off the hook when reviewing, yet I still spent a massive amount of time and dragged it out for over 5 weeks. I looked at another GAN the nominator had done recently, and it seems like it was done in a matter of days, for an article of similar calibre and length. I am fortunate to have worked with a patient nominator, but I am concerned whether or not frustrations will brew in future reviews over my nitpicking and amount of time spent. Yet I believe myself to have strictly followed all advice and guidelines regarding reviewing a GAN, so does it really only take experience to familiarize oneself with all the ins and outs, such that less time needs to be spent? Or is it really unnecessary to spend so much time? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, and congratulations on your election to ARBCOM! Best regards, HKLionel TALK 17:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) GA reviews are expected to be rigorous and detailed and to cover the entire article. Ideally, they should be done within a week or two after the review starts, but this is not always the case. If a review takes longer, then that's fine. The way I handle my GA reviews is I try to get it done in two or three longer sessions over the course of a week (at most). As in, I'll spend about a half hour to an hour (for an article that size anyway) going over the article in detail in one sitting instead of two smaller sessions. However, the longer time you took indicates a higher level of detail, which I appreciate since it was my GAN you're talking about.

It's not necessary to spend 4-5 weeks on one GAN (unlike FAC where it definitely is), unless you have extenuating circumstances (e.g. going on vacation or unexpected medical issues that prevent you from editing, in which case you can put the review on hold). All that being said, however, the amount of detail you went into I think made that an excellent review despite the time you took.

TLDR; the review was good. Keep doing what you're doing, just do it in less time. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow, didn't expect to see you here. Yep, I'll absolutely try to manage my time and task priorities better from now on. Thanks a lot! HKLionel TALK 18:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Ack, sorry for dropping that. Please feel free to send me re-pings at any time. As for your review, it looks good to me. My first one was Talk:Lorenza Böttner/GA1, for comparison, and it's that long even though that article was pretty much ready to go out the gate. Editors are usually really happy to get detailed feedback. The important thing is that you aren't insisting on anything that isn't related to GA criteria. I tend to make the basic copyedits myself to save everyone time and bother (make sure you leave a note that the nom can object to any of your changes if they want, so they don't feel boxed in). And watch out that you don't get caught in a WP:FIXLOOP. -- asilvering (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, I would've expected there to be editors with prolific GA track records that would rather not waste too much time on a single one. I tried my best to frame suggestions as just suggestions, but I'll still keep the criteria in mind in terms of whether or not other aspects are relevant, and will make minor changes myself next time. Fix loops was a very insightful essay, thanks for that and your advice in general! Have a great day, HKLionel TALK 18:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Congrats on getting elected to Arbcom, @Asilvering! Well deserved. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Just seeing this now as well! @Asilvering: Congratulations, thank you for everything you've done to get to this point and I wish you luck in the road ahead! --Grnrchst (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

And thank you too! Very refreshing to hear from people who are not armpits-deep in wikipolitics and user conduct issues, haha. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

How to i get the best out of wikipedia --KingTwum (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @KingTwum, welcome to wikipedia! I've left some links on your talk page to get you started. You might also be interested in Special:Homepage. -- asilvering (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

May I request you to review the article P. C. Haldar since I can't review my own? SatnaamIN (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't review articles on request. -- asilvering (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Isn't using quick requests for user sanctions out of scope for the section? The header explicitly says that it should not be used to request that an editor be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 08:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hm, apparently so. What I recalled was This section may be used for short requests for enforcement intended to be answered by a single administrator. And that one was well into the "any reasonable admin" bracket. But it does make sense that there are many people we wouldn't want trying to judge that on their own. -- asilvering (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: WilliamMGoodman's mentor Alyo is away.

Hello Asilvering. I've been periodically adding, over several months, new Wikipedia pages, which have been accepted. Can you please take a look at my new submission for "Hamilton's Restaurant" in Ottawa, and help explain the objections. I think the page's value and relevance may have been clearer if there were _also_ some Wikipedia pages existing for Stephen Collins House which is a recognized historical feature of Ottawa, and also for Stephen Collins. (Which I could create next.) I always give thorough references--as is the Wikipedia preference--but I do not believe the piece is a "research paper". It just describes one step in the history of an historical building. Can you please clarify what you'd recommend I do to address the concerns? Thanks --WilliamMGoodman (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering. This is a follow-up. I see that someone has altogether _removed_ my new proposed page, and redirected to a small page about the Stephen Collins house. Is that a common thing to happen? It's kind of upsetting. WilliamMGoodman (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the link you put on Ottawa, I think it's pretty reasonable to remove that - you mention that it was only briefly, anyway. Things on the main Ottawa page should be pretty major. On your article, Stephen Collins House, that's still there - it's just that another editor changed the scope to fit the title. You can expand on the restaurant a bit in that article, if you like. But it does look like most of what you had in the original article was what is known as "original research" on Wikipedia. Your sources are things like advertisements in the local paper, rather than secondary sources. What we're looking for is what secondary sources say about the topic. It looks like "Good Food, Character and History abound at Hamilton’s" is the right kind of source, so by all means you can use that to flesh out the Stephen Collins House article a bit more. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Are there some issues with the infobox on this user page? Caught my attention after I had to remove a self-posted message on their talk page where they vowed to "continue the legacy of Turvill (Jeffrey Epstein) with Diddy" ... they later added this to a draft

Please also see this message they later removed from my talk page. They sent the same thing to me via email about being "threatened off-wiki" but I don't have a linked email on Wikipedia so I just get the first few words as a notification... I don't know what any of this is but I think the editor has overstayed their welcome. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, it's a huge infobox, you're going to have to be more specific. As for the Epstein-related trolling, @HorseBro the hemionus, that's completely inappropriate, knock it off.

As for the off-wiki threats, I'm not at all sure why you think the editor who is being threatened off-wiki is the one who ought to be blocked in this case. HorseBro, reports like that need to go to arbcom. There's nothing aesurias can do to help you with that. -- asilvering (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I did knock it off after seeing the diff on my talk page and i did send the reports on the arbcom, i am sure it was sent. — The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Re: the wikibox part I'm talking about the massive slur in the middle of it. I would have liked to have brought this up myself at his talk page but to be honest a conversation with him just results in a lot of deflection.

To be honest, I assumed that the off-wiki threats were not real. This had been discussed at a noticeboard previously and it turned out to be a whole lot of nothing. One of the editors accused is already blocked for unrelated things and the other is inactive.

And @HorseBro the hemionus this is unrelated but please stop calling @AirshipJungleman29 "Mr. Airship the Page Wizard" and "Airship the article wizard". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks aesurias. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see from the page history that that bit was already removed by the time I saw it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

How do I know if something is copyrighted or not? --Theglizzywiththerizzy (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Theglizzywiththerizzy, a full answer to this question gets very complicated, but there's a very simple rule of thumb: unless it explicitly says it is not copyrighted, chances are it's copyrighted. Don't copy anything to Wikipedia unless you're really, really sure. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

How to i apply for visa? --Shaman Ali BALOCH (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Shaman Ali BALOCH, that will depend on where you currently reside and what your citizenship is. I can't answer that question for you. I'm just here to help you learn how to edit wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

Hi asilvering, I'm concerned about the conduct of the recently untopicbanned user NorthernWinds. Particularly with their editing at the Zionism as settler colonialism article, such as here: Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism#Lead proposal.

They appear to me to be POV pushing in trying to shoehorn the POV that the Zionist colonization of Palestine was something benign or "neutral and non-exploitive". There also seem to be mild competency issues.

Any advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you're coming in much too hot here and need to recalibrate. -- asilvering (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh I'm surprised to hear that. You mean I'm being "too hot" at the article talk page discussion or in this message on your talk page? Either way I'm not sure how best to proceed and would be interested in your thoughts on this. Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

In the talk page discussion. NW has explained their reasoning pretty calmly, and I think the discussion would be more successful if you responded in kind. In particular, if you find yourself reaching for CIR in a talk page discussion, it's probably well past the time you need to step back. It's rarely an appropriate thing to say, and almost never helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you asilvering, you're right of course and I do know better; I should have brought up those concerns at their user talk page. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Also feel free to let me know if you'd rather not deal with this and I can ask someone or somewhere else. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Is this the correct way to deal with (perceived) CIR? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for validating my pain. It is very tempting, but I am not going to bring anyone to ANI or AE over such a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things. Since I am not a sock puppet I am going to trust the system to discover that without me wasting my time (and everyone else's) with long explanations of why all that "evidence" is a pile of nonsense. Editing Wikipedia should not be this hard. DaringDonna (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

At this point you don't need to respond to anything about the evidence; I'm sorry the investigation is still hanging over your head, but I can't close it out entirely just yet. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey Asilvering, I have returned. I am asking you for advice on whether or not I should re-request pending changes reviewer now, or if I should wait until 1 month has passed. Thanks! --MosquitoDestroyer (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mosquito, LTNS! :) Did you give up your permissions? Looking at your user rights, it says that specific permission was revoked per your request. Is everything ok? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, Im reviewing the article John of Tella and i encountered a NPOV issue. I'm really unsure on how to handle this situation. Can you pls help me? Thanks, Warriorglance(talk to me) 09:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi Warriorglance, I just quickly skimmed over the GA review, but don't see where/what you need help with an NPOV issue there. Could you please provide a little more detail? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 It's regarding the last point, like the comparison between John and Ephrem. Specifically, regarding the portrayal of Ephrem in the bad light. If an average reader was to read this, They would automatically identify Ephrem as the bad guy coz the narrative is like that. Is that allowed on Wikipedia? Like, if a person has committed a lot of crimes, do we specifically say that he is a bad person? Warriorglance(talk to me) 09:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I see the conversation between you and the other editor, and it seems everything is remaining civil and cordial, although you have not replied to Hogshine's latest changes and comment yet. As far as what Wikivoice should say, that depends fully on what the sources say. We can only add content from reliable sources, so if the sources are worded that way, that is how the article needs to be worded also. Please note that I have not read the article or all the sources to see what they say, I am basing my comment purely on the review page itself. I would suggest that if you don't think Ephrem was a "bad guy", then you need to find sources that say he wasn't a bad guy. Another editor's opinion is not going to change that. I see you already linked WP:NPOV in your conversation, but also be careful of (or discuss with the other editor) using WP:PEACOCK wording or synthesizing content not specifically stated in the sources. Otherwise, we are not going to sugar-coat someone's criminal past for the sake of "it makes them look like a criminal", especially if the sources paint him in that same light. I hope this helps, feel free to ask if you need more help/details/etc. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The sources do say like that. Well, I thought it would be something like "According to historian X, he is considered..." So, there should be no change in the wording. Thanks a lot for the help! Warriorglance(talk to me) 16:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

How do we edit a page name? For instance, George Riley (abolitionist) should probably be George Putnam Riley or George P. Riley as he is referred to in publications and advertisements for his speeches. --Rrpie (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rrpie, we edit page names by moving the page itself. I've done this one for you. -- asilvering (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you can work with this investigation again as the open cases are piling up. This user was known as ThijsStoop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fairyspit ~2026-10620-41 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

How I can share information hare --Muhammad shafique ch (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Name: Muhammad Shafique - From: Azad Kashmir (AJK) - Profession: Teacher - Qualifications: - BS (Math) - UoAJK - BEd - AIOU - MA Political Science - UoAJK - Caste: Gujjar - Religion: Muslim Muhammad shafique ch (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Muhammad shafique ch, unfortunately Wikipedia is not Facebook or a job search site. Is there something encyclopedic that you wish to contribute? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Helle l use this app on my phone. Is this option best for my phone or no???? --Ahma Farzan (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

TPS comment: Hi Ahma Farzan, could you please clarify what option you are asking about? Are you asking if Wikipedia is safe to use on your phone? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Ahma Farzan: I suppose that depends on which type of phone you are using, since that would determine which apps you have access to. H:MOBILEAPP and List of Wikipedia mobile apps may have additional information you need. Left guide (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts Four years! ...

Precious

Four years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)