User talk:AntiDionysius

It is approximately 23:43 where this user lives.

Archives (Index)

2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Thank you

I pressed edit without leaving an edit summary [1] Knitsey (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No prob! I saw the "mobile edit" tag on your edits and figured it might be easier if I added the warning with Twinkle. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why I left the welcome message instead as I didn't leave an edit summary (I usually do). Doh, I'm blaming a sticky finger and ice cream. Knitsey (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Mobile editing is hard at the best of times, never mind when you're trying to juggle ice cream. Now I want ice cream. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Do it, you know you want to. Knitsey (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You're so right. Thank you for this inspiration. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

re: Welcome

Thank you for fixing my userpage. I'm a little rusty, and maybe still not fully awake today. SunnyTango (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Maybe it's time for coffee. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

=thank you so so much for the info... I saw that the edit was deleted ...in a really Quick time.. maybe someone who is able to unlock the key and then make the edit on the main page

2.6B views Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (Official Video)

as of September 2024.. GOD BLESS 190.10.199.23 (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC) if you go to the page.. this is what it reads... so nobody made an update since October 2015....as for the DATA ON YOUTUBE Views ---- this is what it reads on the page.... As of October 2015, "All About That Bass" was the only debut single by any artist to accumulate a billion views on YouTube. just trying to make it more modern 2.6B views Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (Official Video)

I got you a digital cookie

I got you a digital cookie,,. thank so much for telling me on the edit ... enjoy the digital cookie

• 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_Trainor

maybe someone can make an edit that can unlock the LOCK on the page listed

imagine that 2.6billion views... just trying to update the data

2.6B views Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (Official Video)

Oct. 2015 is the last time it was updated...

again.. thanks so so much.. and enjoy the Digital cookie AND A VIRTUAL lemonade

• 
  Drink dispenser containing lemonade.

GregLindquist article

Hi You said you removed inappropriate external links, can you please explain? It appears you deleted the entire section as well, which I assume is an error. Ratt675 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to basically never put external links into the body of an article.

I deleted the whole section because it was completely unreferenced and written like an advertisement. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about EL, but this section is key-- It is describing the artists' bodies of works, which is essentially their contribution to art. How can it be not "written like an advertisement"? Ratt675 (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

A few things for avoiding promotional writing:

1. Articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that come from reliable sources, and those sources should be referenced.
2. Anything that's not a fact but an opinion, evaluation or determination should be attributed; e.g. "The Dan River coal ash spill in 2014 has been the conceptual, visual, thematic, and political driver of his Smoke and Water project." should instead be "Lindquist has described the Dan River coal ash spill as the...driver". Though excessive inclusion of the person's description of their own work should be avoided anyway - independent critics are much preferred.
3. What Wikipedia calls "peacock words" should be avoided.

AntiDionysius (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Nutall

how was it not neutral when I quoted several sources? LuffyDe (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The use of language: "aggressive campaign", "threatened" etc. Also you can't just say something was "deemed antisemitic"; you need to say who described it that way. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Lasseter Family Winery

Hi there, and thanks for deleting what doesn't belong on wikipedia, as I take my first stab at Wikipedia edits and try to correct the Lasseter entry.

Four basic goals thus far:

1. Remove railroad map, which is part of a private residence.
2. Remove outdated case production number in the opening paragraph, as footnoted in footnote 1, from an article 13 years ago. Since we don't publish our case production anywhere, there is no replacement number, though it's ~4,000 pending each vintage's yields. Can this entire sentence just be removed?: "The winery, once inhabited by the Grand Cru Winery, produces approximately 1,200 cases of French red wine blends annually, with the capacity to produce up to 6,000."
3. Just requested today to replace the homepage quoted in footnote 2 at the bottom of the page, since we updated that verbiage on our home page, with our website redesign launch on 9/6/23. I want to replace it with verbiage from the new home page (or take it out completely). "We produce Bordeaux and Rhône inspired white, rosé, and red wines, as well as century-old Zinfandel in a field blend with rare heritage varieties."
4. I want to remove the outdated info from that article, which appears in the opening paragraph: "The winery grows Bordeaux and Rhône varietals on 27 acres. One of the Lasseters' winemaking mentors was Jess Jackson, of Kendall-Jackson."
5. Thanks for any help you can provide! I appreciate it.

Jeniferfreebairn (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My edits

Hey, why are you removing my edits when everything has been correctly cited. Please let me know what is needed to be added. Thank you. LuffyDe (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Can I add information to English Wikipedia articles using material I've read and researched? Thank you. Happy editing! 185.213.229.120 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can, if you cite it correctly. See this page. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. what is your name For example, how? Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't give out my real name on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Won't you block me if I enter wrong information? Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Make sure all of the information you add comes from a reliable source, and is cited, and you won't have any problems. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is my real name in my username? Just tell me, I won't tell anyone else, please. Thank you. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

What? AntiDionysius (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I like to keep secrets, like being interested in Wikipedia. Thank you. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and guidance. I start editing. Abduvaitov Sherzod 476 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft.

Hi Anti! Since you were so polite and gave me a warm welcome, I wanted to come to you for advice for my draft. Asdf;jldsafdl (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Royce white

please stop removing sourced content, you have been reported and hopefully you will be disciplined. either way you'll be asleep soon and your disruptive edits will cease. 104.129.191.26 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Check your talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You also didn't report me, you reported the edit filter. Which was working correctly. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

no I reported both just so you're aware, and not was not working correctly unless you're referring to your own disruptive edits. 104.129.191.26 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you think you reported me, your edit history shows no such report, and nothing has been posted at either WP:AIV or WP:EWN. But alright. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

let's use this one! 104.129.191.26 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to talk here, I just thought you should be aware of the fact that you received no less than four warnings from two different users for three kinds of policy infraction. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@104.129.191.26 There is a discussion about this issue on the article talk page which you are welcome to join. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Peggy Cyphers article edit

Hi, I edited the Peggy Cyphers article on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2024. It was removed due to not citing reliable sources, but all sources that I cited were from news articles that mentioned the artist in question. Please replace the edit. The article has also been flagged as being written like an advertisement and including promotional content. All information that was added was at the request of the artist, and based on factual information. Cialre (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Some of it was cited, but not all of it; and many of the sources were not news articles, they were the artist's own website, which is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. And yes, a lot of it was very much written like an advertisement - a problem which is probably related to the fact that it was written "at the request of the artist". If you are acting on the behalf of Peggy Cyphers, you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, and thus should not be editing the article directly. Please read the conflict of interest policy before proceeding. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Opinion.

Hi Anti! I wanted your brutal opinion on the draft I'm working to approve. Draft:Corisande de Gramont. Hectorvector27 04:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ceadach O'Neill

Hi there, the reference states 10 April 2008. I think the new user is correct in changing it? Knitsey (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay, I'll change it back. Thanks for flagging! AntiDionysius (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Knitsey (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You've been very active on fighting vandalism! You usually beat me in recent changes patrolling. Thank you :) نوحفث   Let's Chat! 15:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah thank you! I am, frankly, using it to procrastinate, but there are worse ways to pass the time. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

correct khmer-Javanese word etymology

That is the the correct word etymology of Loy Kanthong. reliable academic dictionary is the source. Loy krathong is the Thai pronoucation of the Khmer word Loy Kanthong. Loy kantong ritual is on the bas relief of Angkor Thom temple located in Cambodia. Its origin is Khmer-Javanese Hindu ritual. SEAlang is a collaborative effort between CRCL and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) https://sealang.net/khmer/search.pl?dict=khmer&hasFocus=orth&approx=&orth=+%E1%9E%9B%E1%9E%99%E1%9E%80%E1%9E%93%E1%9F%92%E1%9E%91%E1%9F%84%E1%9E%84&phone=&def=&anon=on&matchEntry=any&matchLength=word&matchPosition=any&source=&ety=&pos=&usage=&subject=&useTags=1 174.164.30.163 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

reference 18, 20, and 31 on Loy Krathong page also supports Khmer-Javanese word as correct etymology 174.164.30.163 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSD#U5 reminder

Hi, I saw that you tagged Draft:YearlyArtical for speedy deletion as U5 and G11. Just as a friendly reminder, U5 only applies to pages in user space and is not applicable to draft space. The page turned out to be copyvio, though, so I deleted it anyway. Cheers, ^Complex/_Rational 21:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I believe in this case the creating user moved it between the tag and the deletion, hense the misalignment of tags, but I appreciate you getting it anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I was about to revert then...

Come and ask you about Orange Pi. You have a good memory, I'm sure I've seen them before? Knitsey (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

They were certainly editing as 79.175.80.211 (talk · contribs) a little while ago, but I don't know that I know them from any previous occasion - not off the top of my head anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. Knitsey (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi. thank u for warning me about my bad behaviour im sorry. here kitten for show appreciation and i also want to thank u for using your free time to expand the access for free knowladge irish boy <3

VojvodinaLinuxUser (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

164.47.225.1 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry for the revert at AIV, thought you reverted me instead of the other IP user. Cheers. 62.74.24.237 (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

No prob, misclicks happen! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Danao, Cebu

Probably best to open a ticket on wp:EWN. I would, but need to sign off. Keep up the good work! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Already reported them at WP:AIV, but EWN may be more appropriate. Thanks, take care! AntiDionysius (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing "Jayant Udgaonkar"

Hi @AntiDionysius. Referring to your comment about vandalism on Jayant B. Udgaonkar, it is to clarify that the edits are essential information aimed at prospective students joining IISER Pune, the institute that the person in question is affiliated to. The edits in question are NOT defamatory or vandalist, as you have infered, and are approved by the ethics committee of the Institute. The information added now is deemed essential for future students planning to join Dr. Udgaonkar's lab and to prevent future harassment and sexual exploitation of students. Acetyl-CoA35 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Elaine Parent

Stop reverting my edit; I already replied to you on my page and the information I am using is in the documentary which is already cited on the page. 2607:FEA8:FE40:7E69:15D4:F7C6:C357:1138 (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation and Information

Hello, I am currently new to Wikipedia and is trying to help in weather-related topics. Could you please explain to me why my recent edit was not approved. I noticed your message and was confused; any information would be appreciated. Thank you! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that I didn't add a site, is that the problem? BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Partly the issue was the lack of a source, yes. The other issue was the use of the word "inevitably" - we try to avoid evaluative language like that on Wikipedia, generally speaking. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I have come across that problem before, would you be interested on referring my information to a site as I am not familiar with creating sites. If I were to redo my information without evaluative language, would it be accepted? Again, I just want to help. Thanks! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by creating sites? AntiDionysius (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Source, sorry, I misspelled. Anyways, would it still be accepted without the use of evaluative language such as the word,"inevitably"? BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My space bar won't work, (word, "inevitably"?). BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It probably would, yes. As for sourcing, there is a simple guide to referencing for beginners here. It's not too hard, and I suggest that you give it a try as it is a key skill for Wikipedia editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I am going to revert my edits but with some changes. Have a good rest of your day! BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! AntiDionysius (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Update

So, Tropical Depression Fifteen is on the loose and I created a new article all about it! Feel free to edit it when this storm progresses. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Candidate instructions

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 15–21: SecurePoll setup phase
• October 22–24: Discussion phase
• October 25–31: SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–?: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2024 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Paul Desmond

Despite your assertion, the category is not supported by the article text. Paul Desmond's paternal heritage is merely speculative. Merely supplying a book title does not provide proof of heritage. 2601:547:CB00:3D40:C4AA:8517:9872:F0E1 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The article text says "Fred Barton, songwriter/arranger and Desmond's cousin, found extensive genealogical proof that both the Breitenfeld and Löwy families were Bohemian Jews." That text more than supports the category. If you think the problem is that the text is wrong, I would suggest getting a discussion going on the talk page and getting consensus for its alteration or removal, but while the the text is as it currently is, there is no reason to remove the category. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not that I think the text is wrong, however; I don't think it is right, either. The point is, the assertion is unproven and isn't proven simply because someone cites a book title that we're to take on faith backs the claim. Nonsense. Absent the type of genealogical proof typically required to establish family lineage, there is every reason to remove the text until a time when a more detailed description of proof can be added to the text. My personal research on this topic indicated that Barton's conclusions were purely speculative, an educated guess, hedging his bet. Additionally, conveniently left out of the article is the fact that there are many Breitenfelds and Lowys in the region who aren't Jewish. Are we to assume there was no possibility of musical knowledge in those lines? Even Desmond's immediate family wasn't sure about the topic, nor did they didn't observe the traditions. I realize that proves nothing either, however, it does raise important questions. Until the time that Barton's "proof" can be shown to be unassailable, there should at least be room for a dissenting opinion, without the category added.

A talk page can be useful, providing there is interest and a desire to determine facts. The chances of that happening in an article about a sideman from a defunct assemble that played a musical form of an increasingly low-level of interest are slim to none, wouldn't you agree? So the article will remain sub-par, as is, in this regard. 2601:547:CB00:3D40:C4AA:8517:9872:F0E1 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require "unassailable" proof. It just reflects what reliable sources say. Additionally, your own research on the topic cannot, by Wikipedia policy, weigh into the discussion. So yeah, a citation to a book is plenty. And as long as that citation is there, the category can be too.

There's plenty of room for dissenting opinion. That room is on the article talk page. You would be better off making your case there rather than on my user page. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Our Admin Election Test

Hello there. As we're preparing to move from one stage to the next, this is just a quick note from one member of the test group to another, wishing you well in the process of this new alternative to RfA. It seems that there are more of us in this group than some in the community anticipated, so i hope that doesn't make the experience any the worse for all of us. Whatever our individual results, i thank you, along with the rest, for stepping up and testing this process; happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it's much appreciated. Wishing you all the best in the coming days/weeks too! AntiDionysius (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Backyard Sports Talk Page

Hey, AntiDionysius! I'm sorry about deleting content without explanation. The "Characters" section was just a suggestion I typed a while back before I had a fuller understanding of Wikipedia's morals. The responses to that suggestion are also from me because I was so anxious to get a response that I pretended to be someone else to respond (IP editors' addresses change every day). Anyway, that suggestion doesn't really need to be deleted, and I promise that I won't try to do it again. :) 74.132.195.94 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, about "Humongous Sports", that was a section I created because I have noticed that when you start Backyard Baseball 2001 or Backyard Soccer: MLS Edition, along with Humongous Entertainment's logo, there is a logo of a website called "Humongous Sports", which was Backyard Sports' website during the time of Baseball 2001 and Soccer MLS's releases. I just wanted people to know this. 74.132.195.94 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your answer to my question

And excellent answer. I, too, have wondered more than once if we should propose "post-2016 United Kingdom politics and personalities" as a CTOP (Brexit brought out the crazy, as you no doubt perceived more acutely from where you were, in the front rows, while I watched from the upper decks).

I would also be supportive of "far-right politics", although it's mostly edit-warring about whether someone or some organization really is far-right. I mean, we can say we're just using the term because reliable sources do, and that lets us off the hook as far as our own policies go, but ... I have to ask: By what standards do those reliable sources distinguish someone as "far-right" from conservatives in general? It would seems to me that "far-right" is taken to mean anyone whose ideology includes strongly nationalist/populist/racialist components, even at the expense of the free market, as a primary ingredient.

But too many writers for our reliable sources seem to just throw it around for "any popular conservative person or organization I don't like" (In this respect I think some of the many IPs whose edit wars have forced pages into protection have a splinter of a point, just maybe not the one they think they have). This just raises so many issues for me:

• It seems lately we are describing so many people and groups as "far-right" that we might be better off distinguishing people as "near-right" (or the more common "center-right"), since that would appear to no longer be the norm.

• It's worth remembering that 60 years ago, Barry Goldwater was described as, effectively, "far-right" by the standards of his time for his extreme anti-New Deal libertarian politics. Yet by the 1980s he was more in the center of the Republican Party without really having changed his positions too much, and by the time he died it was increasingly obvious that he wasn't happy with the direction the party was taking post-Reagan (I can only imagine what he'd be saying if he were alive now). Are there any libertarian politicians, pundits or groups today we'd describe as "far-right" purely on the basis of their positions on that?

• Do we describe anyone as just far-left? That article delineates a general category of ideologies generally linked by a rejection of free-market capitalism as having any place in the economy. But in practice we generally describe people or organizations aligned with those ideologies by those specific terms (which makes sense in some ways, as the Popular Front era notwithstanding the three ideologies most exemplified there—anarchism, communism and socialism—are often in conflict with each other). Yet we treat the far right as if any distinctions among their positions were too unimportant to mention.

Oh well. Just some thoughts I keep having. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I broadly agree with you on all of this (especially on Brexit bringing out the crazies). There was a time when journalists seemed unwilling to use the term "far-right" even to describe people/parties to whom it patently did apply but now they seem to be overcorrecting and it's become imprecise. And it is true that "far-left" does not get used nearly as frequently, something I've seen brought up in discussions from time to time. As you say, we can (and should) fall back on the "what do the sources say" test in all these cases but as long as the sources themselves continue to be much-less-than-perfect in their approach I presume the arguments, and probably the edit warring, will continue - which is an argument for a CTOPS designation of some kind.

The argument against it is that, in my experience, disruptive editing on this topic tends to be concentrated among unregistered and very new SPAs; editors with more tenure and good faith newbies are usually able to talk about it productively enough. If we're talking primarily about drive-by disruption, a CTOPS designation is arguably unnecessary. But oh, I don't know. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete without feedback

Dear AntiDionysius, you asked me to write you here about a topic, but now apparently you asked for deletion of these comments. Honestly, a feedback about why you did would be appreciated as I just did what you asked me to do. Thanks AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm assuming you are referring to you're recent comments on this user talk page. AntiDionysius (probably) didn't request for these comments to be removed, they apear to have been removed due to involving the israel arab conflict, which requires you to be extended confirmed to make any edits related to it, other than edit requests. Courtisy ping @ScottishFinnishRadish: GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 16:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification. I am not yet an expert in Wikipedia. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you ended up in such a fraught area for your first edits. Much of the encyclopedia isn't mired in the additional rules and regulations. I suggest you spend some time editing on less controversial topics to get a feel for things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Echoing this sentiment @AyubuZimbale; though this kicked off with us having a slight disagreement over the content of the article, I didn't intend for it to turn into a big issue. I hope it's all cleared up for you now and that you'll stick around Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim AlHusseini

Hi AntiDionysius, why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a....good question. I'm not wholly sure. I think I must have been looking at the wrong set of revisions before I hit rollback, or something like that. Apologies. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing Pattern

AntiDionysius what!? So far as I'm aware I've made one revert on one page to do with Stuart Campbell. How can you suggest that's a pattern? Or do some of my other contributions have a connection I'm unaware of? 82.11.195.62 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)82.11.195.62 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The context made it appear, to me, to be a question worth asking. It's not a sanction or a warning or anything, just a question. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case I apologize, it reads as such. No, I'm not in contact with any other editor, and I don't use any other account. 82.11.195.62 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying! AntiDionysius (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Kopa Trophy

BTW some of the anon edits have been correct, though uncited. I am working on updating the article using this citation. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I did a brief look for sources (since I thought there was a good chance the anons were judt being over-eager) but couldn't find anything, for some reason. I'll stop bothering to revert, then; I presume you can just push your update over any edits that are made in the mean time. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Got it done, hopefully that will quell the tide of the well-intended (but understandably MOS-ignorant) stampede. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Kindly desist from edit warring on my entry. You are supposed to engage in discussion on the article Talk page and have repeatedly refused to do so. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Lewis Lynch

Hi, I saw that you'd reversed my edit on the article of Peter Lynch regarding his son Lewis. I'm not sure how I would provide evidence that Lewis is his son that would be considered sufficient other than what I explained in the edit summary. 82.39.59.222 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's something that's only traceable to social media posts, it probably just isn't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia - which is fine. Wikipedia isn't meant to contain all the knowledge in the world, just that which is contained in reliable sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Peace? Saarabout (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a shame

I thought you stood a good chance of being elected. It's hard to know what the reasons for the opposition were without the discussion part but I hope you're not disheartened. I would say give it a few months and then drop me a line if you're looking for a nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Harry. I don't imagine it means much, but I did support your nomination.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :+) AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, you already give me enough thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You just always seem to be on duty at AIV! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's very good of you to reach out, thank you. I'm not disheartened, it was evidently a tougher test than many people were expecting and I probably just need to wait a few months. The discussion did give me some ideas for things to improve on too, so it was productive in that way. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably doesn't mean much, but I voted for you and I was suprised you didn't get through. I hope you give it another go soon. Knitsey (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's meaningful, thank you. I'll give it a few months and then consider either an RfA or an election (if the latter continue to happen). AntiDionysius (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The election format adds to the unpredictability, which has pros and cons. The bottom third looked pretty much how I expected, there were a few (pleasant) surprises in the top third. It's hard to know if the opposition in the middle was to the candidates or the process or something else. I'd like to see the experiment repeated with a smaller field and a bit more discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, I concur on all points. For my own purposes I'm not against the idea of doing an RfA. I suppose we'll see. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

About the passing of David "Dave" Jackson

why did you revert that? Dave has been a friend of mine and a jammed with him frequently. I have just been told that his suffering ended. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blame_It_on_the_Boogie&oldid=1256003453 83.236.67.218 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss. I reverted it because it was not a discussion related to the editing of the article Blame it on the Boogie, and such discussion is the only thing allowed on that article's talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Concern Regarding Sourcing and Accuracy on Timothy Hollingsworth's Page

• • Subject: Concern Regarding Sourcing and Accuracy on Timothy Hollingsworth's Page**

Dear AntiDionysius

I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out regarding a recent edit made to the Wikipedia page for Timothy Hollingsworth. I noticed that some statements added to the page lack proper sourcing or rely on unreliable sources, which could potentially lead to misleading or defamatory information about the individual.

Given the sensitivity of editing pages for living people, I’d like to respectfully ask if the statements could be revisited, ensuring that all claims are backed by reliable, verifiable sources that meet Wikipedia’s content standards. Specifically, it would be helpful if you could provide more robust citations to support any contentious or potentially harmful claims.

If you'd like, I’m happy to assist in finding appropriate sources or discussing the changes further to ensure the page remains accurate and fair.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Best regards, Billygoats1234

--- Billygoats1234 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I and others have been trying to discuss this issue with you; there are messages on your talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

QLever

Dear AntiDionysius, I just read your message regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QLever . The current version (before my edit and after you reverted it), is a good start, but contains various errors and inaccuraries, which I tried to correct. I also tried to improve the readability and added various missing references. Since I am involved with QLever, you suggested that I "draft the revised article, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it." I would be happy to do that, but I don't understand what exactly I should do, especially since I already wrote a revision. Was there an option to "recommend it as a draft" instead of publishing it? And why was it not an option to revise what I wrote (in case you thought that something needs revision), instead of fully reverting it? Hannah Bast (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank You!

I like how you tried to help me. And do you know how to make suitable references for the topic "Talking Tom". Let me know from my talk page. -FBIGUY81

Of course @FBIGUY81.

Well, it seems from Draft:Talking Tom that you don't have a problem formatting references, so I'm guessing you mean actually finding references in the first place? Well, Google is your friend in this regard, particularly Google News. This page on reliable sources will help you identify which websites you find are useable on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, news articles from reputable publications are always useful. --AntiDionysius (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Elnäthar page deletion

Hello, I'm adding that page, as the micronation I run, It's a draft, so i'm working on it. So why did it get deleated? I still not understand, I do not try to desinform anyone, If you want, I can send you the link to the web and to the Microwiki (a wiki of micronations) Thank you. BielBX2010 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi; it got deleted because draft pages are places for writing potential future Wikipedia articles, and what you were writing was a work of fiction which is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

But there are more micronations on wikipedia (Here are some of them: List of micronations)

So, are they fiction too? So why they do not get deleated but mine yes?

I still not understand... BielBX2010 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Because what you wrote was in-universe, phrased as if this country is a real place. Those articles you're referring to are about micronation projects, describing how people have created them.

Those articles were also not written by the people who created those micronations but instead by uninvolved Wikipedia users, and if you read through the list you'll notice that there are only articles about those micronation projects which have received a large amount of coverage in reliable, independent media sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

So, if I write it talking explaining how I created it and saying many times it's a micronations, then it won't get deleated? BielBX2010 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The draft wouldn't be deleted immediately, but I can say with confidence that it would not be accepted for publication as an actual Wikipedia article either. You're not meant to write about your own projects, and subjects of Wikipedia articles need to be provably notable through independent coverage, as I said. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

94.64.80.27

still proceeded to add swastikas to the Scholz cabinet article anyways. Clearly a troll. Block indefinitely please. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 21:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I am, alas, not an admin, but I've made a report and someone should take care of it shortly. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Hi @AntiDionysius! Hey I found out that Talking Hank likes making T.S.B's. And am I a good friendly guy because I am. -FBIGUY81

Cailey Fleming

I see that you canceled the vandalism of the user with IP 46.7.118.168, this person has been changing the actress' date of birth for at least a year, even though she was born on March 28, which she confirmed in an interview that is no longer available, only on her Instagram, while that user (46.7.118.168) keeps changing without any justification to March 25 for the purpose of vandalism, if you can, block the possibility of changes, thanks 81.15.175.232 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Harmen Krul edits

Hello, I'm writing to you as Harmen's older sister. I've been asked to contact the people editing this article, as it contains an incredibly vast amount of information, some of which is uncomfortable to us as a family to be shared. I understand mentioning the death of my father to a certain degree, though it is not necessarily information the public has to know, but in previous editions it mentioned both myself, as well as my sister in law and nephew by name. I've contacted editors of the page previously about removing these, but using the tweet as source material linked gives the public very wide access to the name of a minor. It would be very much appreciated to remove this as a source, and simply not mention the name of my nephew, who is a minor. 46.29.241.16 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

your rollback use

explain why this wasn't a misuse of rollback — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.44.127 (talk • contribs)

I was reverting a poorly-sourced, promotional addition to a page. I then went and discussed it with the user in question. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

All companies need an infobox.

 AntiDionysius, the reason why I put an infobox on Ealing Studios was because it looked less advocate to exclude and @MrOllie didn’t have to revert it back. 2600:1004:B004:9421:6F:4205:DA49:AA08 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make your edit summary okay. If you have an issue with something another user has done, go talk to them in a civil and constructive manner. Don't leave insulting edit summaries. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this is Masierra2008 (talk · contribs) evading their block. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

air mauritius edits

Hi - you have included incorrect information about the former CEO of Air Mauritius. I am his lawyer and will take legal action should you continue to undo my changes. Thank you 147.161.172.199 (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@147.161.172.199 Wait what sorry I didn't do anything and if I did I'm sorry I was checking out the edits feature and I don't actually know any info on the former CEO. But you could've asked me instead of being so rude. I'm sorry damn chill out. Zonklify (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblocked, sorry, I don't know how that happened. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries! I was very confused for about ten seconds. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Finally, someone took you down a peg! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Justice! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there was a voice somewhere in my head saying "ah you probably had this coming" AntiDionysius (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Not for any particular reason. Just, like, catholic guilt or something. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI

{{db-gs}} -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh excellent, that is good to know. Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Nyhamnsläge

Why Did you delete my article about Nyhamnsläge? I didn't had time to Add sources until you deleted it 188.150.7.54 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@188.150.7.54, I didn't delete it, I just reverted your edits. The text you wrote is still available in the page's history.

Generally speaking it is a good idea to either add in sources as you write (indeed, good practice on Wikipedia is to find sources and construct your text from them, not to write text and then find sources to fit it) or if you feel very much that you need to add the sources in a separate edit, to put a note in the edit summary of your initial edit indicating you're not finished. --AntiDionysius (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Information about udham singh on wikipedia have some big mistakes.Because the books that are referenced about him on wikipedia are wrong. udham Singh's family want to help from wikipedia to publish Wright article.please help

please UdhamSinghFamily (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi; like I explained on the Udham Singh talk page, you need to read the Wikipedia conflict of interest guideline; it explains how you can request changes to the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing Martin Kulldorff

I would like to dispute the removal of my edits on Martin Kulldorff. I extensively cited my sentences using links. If it was not sufficient to provide the links in-line, that I can understand, and can write citations in the references section. However, I don't think it is a fair characterization of my words to say I invented the sentences that I wrote - they characterize Kulldorff's real participation in a supreme court case in an attempt to show he was censored when he actually had plenty of opportunities to share his point of view on sympathetic media channels. I am trying to point out that he is not correctly characterizing his censorship. GarconCanadien (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@GarconCanadien: I'm assuming you mean this edit to Martin Kulldorff, which I reverted? You didn't cite any sources in it. You linked to other Wikipedia pages, but that's not the same thing as citing sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hemshin people

Hello, I'm Feeglgeef. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hemshin people, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Feeglgeef what? I was reverting the deletion of information which is sourced. The deletion claimed it was POV/OR - it isn't, it's taken directly from the Wixman source. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks a lot again for helping me earlier with the Mahfuz Alam Wiki page edits ^-^

Msadmansakib (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

My MIAR entry for the talk page of the Telos article

Your deletion of my entry about the Spanish bibliometry research unit at Barcelona University is in the final analysis simply totalitarian - you remove an important information simply because the information simply because the information doesn’t fit your world view Frete unicolore (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was a personal attack. Those aren't permitted on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I heeded your advice. In objective terms, the problem remains that the serious scholarly evidence provided by the team of Spanish bibliometry researchers cannot be overlooked here. The MIAR team published widely ob the subject, and a Wikipedia editor cannot brush away years of research with a word … Apart from that: did you look at all these interesting articles in TELOS? Frete unicolore (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

by the way: Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J. M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall's list. El profesional de la información, 25(5). Frete unicolore (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

re: Suzanne Blier page vandalism

Hi - thx for leaving me a message. The content that's been added/removed/readded/etc on Suzanne Blier's page was a personal attack consisting of material taken out of context from local website. This appears to be a violation of Wikipedia's personal attacks policy. This odd attack is likely being done a member of a group opposing some of her local personal work. It's my understanding that as a well-known/respected Harvard professor, author, and authority on art history, an article about her should be about her professional work, and not delve into he said-she said personal attacks (unless the controversy is about one of her articles/books).

When I removed the text, the link "personal attack" appeared. I thought I had noted that and cited wiki's policies, but I'm still a wikipedia newbie - and your help/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Cdrp221 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cdrp221: The material not vandalism (as defined by Wikipedia policy), it's not being pushed by anyone with an agenda, and it isn't a personal attack (as defined by Wikipedia policy). It's possible it ultimately doesn't belong on the page, but it isn't any of those things.

The way forward is to go to the article's talk page, Talk:Suzanne Blier, and explain very specifically what you believe is wrong and why (what has been taken out of context? What is the context? How does having that context change how the information is viewed? etc). When doing so, it would be best not to assume that anyone involved is behaving maliciously, because they almost certainly aren't - even if they happen to see things differently to you - and because everyone on Wikipedia is asked as a matter of policy to assume good faith of each other. Plus, an argument based on the content itself, rather than your perception that whoever added it must have been acting in bad faith, is much more likely to convince other editors of the need to remove the content.

You have a conflict of interest (as defined by Wikipedia policy) because of your prior personal connection to the subject matter. You should familiarise yourself with the basics of the conflict of interest policy and disclose your conflict when you start the discussion on the talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok - Thanks and I'll follow your suggestions. I'll re-read the policy pages as well.

I disagree 100% about your initial statement (it's not being pushed by anyone with an agenda). Ms Blier has been under constant attack by a local pro-development group known as "A Better Cambridge." These attacks have appeared continually in local media - and most of the attacks are anonymous. I can't link the author of the last section to any group/individual, as he is using an alias.

In any case, I'll do what I can here after studying the noted sections. Cdrp221 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would you keep non correct information?

Analyst | Scientist | Journalist - not a conspiracy theorist, that's what Maram Susli is. Why would yourself put your own views as the one and only truth by calling someone a conspiracy theorist?

Should somebody judge somebody else's point of view as a conspiracy theory each time their views do not kiss?

Not fair at all, by an anti-fascist self proclaimed dude 151.36.213.254 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I do prefer when people's views kiss.

The "conspiracy theorist" part is very well sourced. If you think it should be removed anyway, start a discussion at Talk:Maram Susli. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Help making an account.

How does one go through the process of making an account? 2600:6C46:4400:C3F:A469:D84B:B0C3:D36B (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

On desktop, you click the "create account" button in the top right corner. On mobile, you open the menu (by clicking the icon to the left of the word "Wikipedia" at the top of the page), click "log in", and then on the next screen click "Join Wikipedia" at the bottom of the page. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. By the way, I noticed that you are a fan of the Houston Astros, I am too. Too bad they didn't get too far this year, though. 2600:6C46:4400:C3F:A469:D84B:B0C3:D36B (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem.

Yeah, the postseason was a bit heartbreaking after a pretty good regular season, but what can you do. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Ain't it the truth? 2600:6C46:4400:C3F:A469:D84B:B0C3:D36B (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Smart Brabus

Why did you delete my addition to the Smart pages of the 2017 Brabus?

This was all accurate and is not covered anywhere else.

Would have been better to contact me if you had an issue so we could make it better. SmartieUSA (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@SmartieUSA: As I said in the message I left on your talk page, the edit was reverted because it was unsourced. It is not enough for information to be accurate, everything on Wikipedia must be directly supported by a citation to a reliable source. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry

I’m so sorry I didn’t mean to vandalize ok I would like to let you know that I’m still learning what is acceptable and what isn’t so please forgive me for this and reply soon thank you Alexander Hamilton13579 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Bigo Live that you keep reverting

Please stop. it's clear you don't understand enough about Bigo Live and have not done your research.

Bigo is now Defunct as I keep mentioning and it's not my personal experience it is what happened. MadHatter800 (User talk:MadHatter800) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@MadHatter800 - you need to provide a source. Making an edit without a source and then saying "I know this is true because I was there" - that is an example of making an edit based on your personal experience, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. --AntiDionysius (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@AntiDionysiu I have not said "its true because I was there" I said I was there I saw it happen which is not a source, this edit is not based on my personal experience it seems to me you need to do your research. As you've seen a new account and presumed I am making false edits which I am not MadHatter800 (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You are describing exactly the thing I just said. Your edit summary said we know this as we were members of Bigo Live and were on when it got permanently got shut down - this is a textbook example of using your personal experience instead of a source and is very much against the rules of Wikipedia.

I'm not presuming you're making "false edits". I have no assumption about whether what you're saying is true or not. I just know that you're not providing a source, which you need to. Something being true is not good enough. It also needs to be sourced. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

All you are doing is bullying new users on the site because you have no clear knowledge of anything #TheWhiteKnight. When did I once say that was a source? I'm writing facts and you're reverting them, I thought Wikipedia's whole policy was not to mislead readers? You're the reason Wikipedia Readers are misled. How you're some top guy for vandalism I'll never know, as looking at your page you're the vandal MadHatter800 (User talk:MadHatter800) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I have clear knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, which say that everything requires a source, as I've told you several times now. Otherwise, we have no way of telling if what you said is indeed a fact. If you provide a source, your edits won't be reverted. Let me know if I can assist with anything else. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your eyes on User:Lincoln School Project/Sandbox

I declined the user space speedy, and moved it to sandbox myself. But tagging is how I know to do stuff, so thanks for your work in this area. It's all explained at User talk:Lincoln School Project. They are not a paid editor, but the school is in their neighborhood so they have an interest (but seem to also have sources). BusterD (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, I appreciate the explanation! AntiDionysius (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Smoho

Hmm I saw you ran for the admin elections and you got pretty close, which is awesome--I'm sure you'll get it next time. I'm also sure tons of people have given you advice so I'll abstain from that. Some valid points were brought up at that "Debrief", and I can offer some more tips, a bit different from what you saw there perhaps. But here's a question: when does that need to be blocked, and for what? Or have we reached that point already? I suppose these are the kinds of things that might come up when you run in the "regular" process, and because the answer is not necessarily obvious you might want to ponder what you'd do, and when, and how, if you did have the bit. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! There's been advice, but more is always welcome, and I'd be really grateful for any tips

Regarding Smoho; I don't think we reached the point of needing a block quite yet, and they appear to have knocked it off anyway so it's a moot point now, but we came very close. Exactly when it's evident that someone is WP:NOTHERE is ultimately a judgement call, but persisting in vandalism after three warnings (over the course of a few hours) with zero remotely encyclopaedic contributions (not to mention trollish responses to those warnings) would I think clearly meet that definition.

On the other hand, spamming nonsense on their own user page is a pretty low-level harm (except that it clogs the recent changes feed), so as long as they were only doing that and didn't go back to vandalising mainspace I'd be more willing to err on the side of caution. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. OK my two tips are 1. article creation and development (there's not a lot of that in your history) and 2. visibility on noticeboards (particularly ANI) where you can gain experience in discussing disruption (more than just reporting it) and growing/showing off your judgment in cases like the above. Adminship is a bit of a popularity contest, and ANI participants are often also RfA voters. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That's useful, actionable stuff. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Please restore my edit :)

Hi I already engaged with the previous editor on this exact same issue. They are ok with restoring the original edit. Please see the latest post on their talk page. Many heartfelt thanks. @Gaismagorm 2601:41:4300:9370:1CAA:9137:1299:3919 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For marking randomly greated misinformation pages into speedy deletion! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you're too kind, thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Christmas cake - Pandolce Genoese

GENOESE is correct, not "Genovese" - STOP GASLIGHTING. 49.180.200.150 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, a few things.

1. I don't think you know what gaslighting means.
2. The source says "Genovese", and we go by what the sources say.
3. It's not surprising the source says Genovese, because Pandolce is an Italian word and it makes sense that the accompanying adjective would also be in Italian, not in English.

AntiDionysius (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You really deserve it. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Two in one day? This is really lovely, and a sign I'll do anything to avoid working on my dissertation. Thank you <3 AntiDionysius (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Kindly following up on the previous post :)

Hi I already engaged with a previous editor on this exact same issue. They are ok with restoring the original edit. Can you please undo your undo? Please see the latest post on their talk page. Many heartfelt thanks. @Gaismagorm 2601:41:4300:9370:B074:7BD3:27F6:75E9 (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

My reverting of it was largely predicated on the fact that you removed content without explaining your reasoning. If you'd like to re-do the edit with reasoning in the edit summary, I would have no objection. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

(this is directed towards the unregistered user) I already discussed how I made a mistake, and how I wasn't actually okay with it but it more that I wasn't sure, and as such wanted to back down. I stated that I regretted not being as clear on the matter, and that I should have simply used my words. But even so, I have already discussed this and I would prefer it if you didn't drag me into this discussion again, as I have stated before that I am not supporting the edit, I merely am unsure. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In fact, this appears to be the third time. While the first time you mentioned me, I can assume that it was in good faith (and really was mainly my fault), it does frustrate me that you keep on keeping in the ping whenever you copy and paste this message. As such, next time you copy and paste the message, please remove the ping. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if that's a bit of a mouthful Gaismagorm (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies @Gaismagorm!! Many thanks to all @AntiDionysius. In the spirit of the holidays, I ask your forgiveness :) 2601:41:4300:9370:E887:6D46:A2:336F (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, honestly I kind of was a bit too harsh there Gaismagorm (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Giving you another barnstar for your hard work at combatting vandalism yet again with some other people at Bakhtrioni Uprising, well deserved! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Fairytale

Hi there,

Apologies, I am a first-time editor! I wasn't sure if my edits were being made - didn't realise it was being revert-edited, and thought I was doing something wrong!

Understand the process now - thank you. NoviceUser123 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@NoviceUser123 No problem, mistakes happen. I appreciate you dropping a message here. I've left a note on your own talk page with some helpful introductory info for Wikipedia; hope you decide to stick around! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your constant efforts to fight against vandalism! Your efforts have helped me, and possibly numerous others. Thank you so much, and enjoy this barnstar! AJRossetto9953, Editing with SSStyle! (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it means a lot! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

=] AJRossetto9953, Editing with SSStyle! (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello AntiDionysius, an angry IP editor is demanding an apology from you at ANI. Cullen328 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 ah, I believe I know which one. Thanks for letting me know. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And I had juuust finished typing out a reply when @Drmies closed the thread. That's what I get for making a cup of tea first. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As Kurt Vonnegut was fond of saying, "so it goes". Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I love Vonnegut. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow I will look to see what the underlying issue was, but it probably doesn't matter. They also filed a request at DRN, which was closed as a conduct dispute, and have now been blocked. They are now ranting from a different IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It boils down basically to the two sources that accompany the label "socially conservative" in the Alba Party infobox. The IP was not entirely incorrect to say that the sourcing could be better. But after that it was just a huge amount of OR; they wanted not only to delete it, but to change it to "socially liberal" on the basis of absolutely nothing but their own feelings. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hey i contacted you cause i reverted one of your recent edits cause it is considerd vandalisation Omarisonfire (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit was me reverting someone who removed content from a page without explaining why. It was an appropriate edit and not vandalism; I have reverted your reversion of it. AntiDionysius (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh thank you for making it clear and am sorry Omarisonfire (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Advice

Hello, AntiDionysius.

The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page including by yourself.

I asked for an intervention in WP:AN/I, but to no avail, and for a temporary block in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which was rejected as insufficient to warrant a block.

Do you have any additional advice?

Kindest regards, Moroike (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your recent use of rollback

AntiDionysius, I have been meaning to ask you about this use of rollback since October 2024, when it crossed my watchlist. My apologies for the late response, as real life issues have made it difficult for me to keep up on Wikipedia. Also, I am not an admin, so it's possible I have missed something, but my understanding of WP:ROLLBACKUSE is that, except for issues with widespread implications like rolling back banned or blocked editors or misguided bots, it is to be used for "obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". I have always understood that we are ultra careful in rollback use so as not to chase off or bite the newbies.

I can't decipher any reason for considering the talk page comment at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt as vandalism (in fact, the IP posted about a view held by reliable sources and also pointed out garbled prose), nor can I see any other "reason for reverting" that "is absolutely clear".

Browsing your talk page, I see other inquires about your use of Rollback have been raised:

1. At Martin Kulldorff in November 2024, I can understand your thinking in removing the content rather than tagging it with citation needed, per BLP, but it doesn't appear as obvious vandalism.
2. At Barbershop in Germany in November 2024, doesn't seem to be obvious vandalism.
3. Ibrahim AlHusseini questioned in October 2024 by ToBeFree
4. Talk page comment in November 2024; how is that vandalism?
5. As explained on talk, this Sept 2024 rollback doesn't look like vandalism

With those as examples, I looked at more recent edits:

1. December 2024, appears justified by content in the body of the article, not vandalism
2. December 2024, uncited, but not a BLP, and not obviously vandalism, so why not just add a CN tag?
3. November 2024, ???

I noticed that the highly experienced HJ Mitchell conferred rollback rights about a year ago, so I've pinged him for a look, as I trust his judgment and wisdom. I saw also in your talk archives that Hurricanehink noted a small problem in August 2024. And I see the good Drmies engaged here, recently. With additional feedback here from Ponyo and ScottishFinnishRadish, along with this December 2024 note from BusterD, you are very well advised by experienced editors, so perhaps I am misinterpreting the correct use of Rollback. If I'm wrong, please excuse my intrusion; if I'm right, I hope the good admins on board will guide your future edits. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, gotta be brief: there are dogs to walk. I certainly think that Talk:Blame It on the Boogie didn't warrant rollback, though I might have rolled back on Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, since it has too much of a rant-flavor to me. My note to the editor was not in any way in response to anything other than the RfA thing--I have come to know AntiDionysius as a valuable editor who helps me do the things admins need to do. Oh, yes, just looked at the Biryani edit--that's not a good use of rollback. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Go walk those dogs, and Merry Christmas (I was more concerned that something about Rollback had changed while real life has been beating the crap outta me, and there are plenty of experienced admins to look in here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi AntiDionysius, SandyGeorgia and Drmies, thanks for the ping and the detailed list of rollback issues. I think the advice at User:ToBeFree/rollbackgiven may be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This is why I never bothered getting rollback. Too easy to make a misstep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm scared to death of it; I installed some gadget so I wouldn't keep mis-hitting it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

When I got the admin bit flipped all of a sudden there were rollback links on my watchlist and I immediately did the same thing. Let me go ahead and hide those links before I end up at Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

LOL !!! I think everyone knows "that shit happens" :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I reported myself for missuse after catching the rollback button whilst scrolling on my mobile. Knitsey (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)