User talk:Anachronist

Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

Undeletion request for the page "Saar Kashyap"

Last year I created a page for an Indian actor Saar Kashyap which was deleted due to lack of citation and references as Mr. Kashyap was a struggling actor. The situation has now changed, and he has acted in multiple Indian Television series, and is now part of a big budget Indian movie Padmavati directed by one of the country's best director Sanjay Leela Bhansali. In the movie, he is acting along with actors who are known internationally. The movie is currently in the production phase, and the link to the IMDb page was also shared in the profile which was deleted. References and citations to all his work was provided in the page.
Request you to kindly undelete the page.

Thanks, Robert Antony 19:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I deleted it because the page, in spite of the edits you made, was substantially identical to the version deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saar Kashyap. The concerns expressed in that discussion was that there is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NACTOR criteria for inclusion. Merely "acted in" multiple TV series and being "part of" a big budget movie are insufficient for establishing notability. He's getting work, but he's apparently still up-and-coming, and up-and-coming doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. WP:NACTOR requries that he must have had significant roles (not just appeared) in multiple TV shows or movies, or at least garnered significant media attention as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him (interviews are not considered independent, by the way). Your rationale about IMDB was insufficient because IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. And the rationale about "acting along with" notable actors is also insufficient, because notability is not inherited by association.

If you feel my deletion decision was improper, you may take the case to Wikipedia:Deletion review. But based on the comments so far, I don't see a justification for restoring it. You may start the article in draft space if you believe you can establish a case for notability, and submit it for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Vanessa O. Edit Warring

Good day. The user that made the blatant BLP violations on multiple occassions once again undid my fully-sourced fact I added, and put back all the unsourced information about the person's sexuality, marriages, addresses, real names, etc., all without a single source proving any of this information, even though the user claimed all the information was true. I was unable to undo those changes because other edits by other users have been made after his. So, I deleted the unsourced information he added again. I see you blocked that user for 48 hours. If he goes to the page and once again undo's my cited fact and adds back his unsourced information, would you like me to keep undoing his edits and adding back by sourced information? Or will you take care of it in some other way? Thank you for all the work you do on Wikipedia. Salvatore42 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request - Simonetta Lein

Hi, I am not sure this is the place where to write you, so forgive me if it is not. I would appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.220.102 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC) I wanted to thank you for taking the time to reply at my undeletion request. The editor who did the undeletion still hasn't replied to me so I was wondering if you could further assist. The page was up for two years, never showed a page issue, and is backed by multiple big sources. Another editor stated tha "influencer" or "fashion icon" are considered promotional. Maybe he is not familiar with the Millennial culture. Influencer is a legit job and I am backed by facts and sources- Fashion icon is just a title S L was given multiple times and it was explained with sources. If that is the issue could u please help me to make my Wekipedia page a draft again and tell me what it should be fixed so that I can do so? Again, everything is a fact so I am very confused on why it was just deleted without explanation-it is a month I have been waiting and I would like what has to be done in order to have this page back. If I have just to re do it please let me know. I would really appreciate your help. Thank you so much

I have restored the article to Draft:Simonetta Lein. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi I edited the draft, added many sourses and followed all the Wikipedia guidelines. Please let me know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simonetta_Lein

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Putela (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like someone already reviewed and approved it. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The Wikipedia guidelines say that any editor can remove the tags other editors put if they think those tags are inappropriate. Please review them as after published some editor put them - they have no proof the page has a conflict of interest and also they still talk about promotion when the page states only facts. I spoke with other editors as we are really confused on what to change since only facts are stated backed by so many sources. Every other similar page is written in this way. Thank you for your help

Hello Sir, why did you wrote that the purpose of the page is still promotional. The page has the same structure as other page, no one was paid for doing it and there is not contrary prove, it was edited by multiple editors and sources like the metro magazine or La Repubblica were considered non credible when they are major magazines. We hope the page is ok now and can have the tag removed as they state something that is just a personal opinion and not the truth. Putela (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If rm prod instead means that you removed it, a big thank you. Though it would be nice to see the tags removed. Many Wikipedia editors too parts out and fixed what they think it should be fixed. Please if possible clean the page from the tags. Would appreciate your reply. Thank you for your time and your help Putela (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You'd have to examine the history and ask the editor who tagged the article that way. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That editor assumes things that are not the reality so his mind cannot be changed. Facts can prove if the page is ok. If you think the page is ok Wikipedia allows editor to remove tags. The page was edited by bounteous editor so please review it as that tag about someone being paid on top is really un true. Putela (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Numerous-sorry the misspelled Putela (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You have a dispute about content, so you need to take it up on the article's talk page, with the editor who disagrees with you. If a talk page discussion between two editors doesn't reach a resolution, then Wikipedia:Third opinion is a good first step to resolving the dispute. A step you should take prior to that is to be open and transparent about your conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest, the page states only facts and it is done in the same page as other pages. Putela (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What is your association with Simonetta Lein? And why do you use the pronoun "we" in your comments on the talk page? How many people have access to the "Putela" account? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Austrian Aviation Museum concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Austrian Aviation Museum, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

I created a stub at The Cuban Affair (novel, 2017).

I have no association with either Nelson DeMille or Simon & Shuster.

1. I request you remove the general edit prohibition you placed on The Cuban Affair (novel) -- I think it should become a redirect to the new article.
2. I'd like to form my own opinion as to whether the deleted article cited any useful references, so I request you userify it for me. Once I check whether there is anything worth recycling, I'll mark the userification for speedy deletion... unless I strongly disagree with you as to whether there had been content that wasn't tainted with COI. In that case I'll return with some questions

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I know you don't have any association, I'm one of your wiki-admirers in fact. However, I neither deleted nor protected that article. Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) is the most recent deleting admin, and he also placed the protection. All I did was decline the restoration request at WP:REFUND made by an obvious COI editor. The deleted article consists of a 2-sentence lead and a 3-sentence blurb about the plot, similar to what you'd find on the book's dust cover.... and zero references. You version is way more substantial and better put together. Yours wouldn't be deleted, in which case there would be no harm in doing a history merge of the two. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Anachronist, thanks for ping. @Geo Swan:, I've changed the protection to autoconfirmed and created your requested redirect. As Anachronist says, there is nothing of value in the deleted edits. And I won't speedy your version (: cheers! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Unprotecting 2020 UEFA European Under-19 Championship

I would like to ask for unprotection of the article 2020 UEFA European Under-19 Championship. I have created a draft version at Draft:2020 UEFA European Under-19 Championship. Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: I have removed the create-protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Request review

Hi, I've been looking at some of the edits made by Medgirl131 on the Alcohol page. Though I have undone some of them in the past, I would appreciate another editor having a look through the changes she has implemented. Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@EvilxFish: In her contribution history, she seems to have a desire to present ethanol as a drug as if that were its primary purpose. That purpose should certainly be acknowledged, but with appropriate weight and neutral POV. Some of her edits are OK and appropriate. Your changes looked OK to me. I made a couple more edits, including removing her implication that people consume beer to get at the trace amounts of other psychoactive alcohols present in it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol/Ethanol

Hello. The editor interaction tool shows a massive overlap in interest (psychiatric medication, drugs, alcohol) between indefinitely blocked user David Hedlund and Medgirl131, and the latter account was created on 23 June 2014, between the former account's first (48h) and second (first indef) block. Hedlund, a very prolific editor who edited at very high speed, just like Medgirl131 does, created the first incarnation of Alcohol (drug) in 2014, as an undiscussed split from Ethanol, and then proceeded to change all links relating to alcoholic beverages and alcohol consumption to point to his new article, just like Medgirl131 has been doing over the last few days. I don't have time to delve deeper into it right now, but based on what I have found so far, including "interesting" timelines on some articles, I would say that there's an 80-90%, or better, probability that David Hedlund and Medgirl131 are one and the same... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: This really needs to be reported at WP:SPI. It may be too late for a checkuser to do anything, but at least we might get a consensus from administrators. I'm not too keen on blocking since the user's edits haven't damaged the project for the most part. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to block them based on what I've found so far, it was intended only to inform you about the similarities, and get more eyes on it. Hedlund hasn't edited since 12 May 2017, way past the magical three months, and I don't think there are any CU-logs, because there has never been any need for CU-checks, since the IP-socks that have been blocked were blocked because of a combination of very loud quacking and geolocation. So to make a case at SPI will take tons of diffs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

However, the IP address confirmed by quacking in the current SPI case can be used to compare with the geographic location of Medgirl131. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

People on the level where Hedlund apparently is (based on subject areas and articles created) often move from one university to another, even on different continents, so knowing what the geolocation was a couple of years ago doesn't really help (Umeå in Sweden is a university town, and the geolocation that Medgirl131 has kindly provided us with, see 17:30-17:31UTC here, doesn't seem to be a proxy, even though I could be wrong, has a handful of colleges/universities within commuting distance...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Medgirl131 is also doing a lot of logged-out editing on the same type of articles, using a whole IPv6 /64-net, i.e. what a single user gets, from a static broadband connection from AT&T Universe (see this check of the IP-contributions from the whole /64 that the IP above belongs to; a check based on the information provided by Medgirl131 themself, so no outing...). . - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I think it would be good to get more admins involved in examining behavioral evidence, since geolocation and checkuser wouldn't be conclusive. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you can see deleted pages, but I can't, would you mind comparing the lede and infobox of this to what the first incarnation of the article (deleted in 2014 AFAIK) looked like? I want to know if it is a copy of the old article that has been saved somewhere off-Wiki and then recycled, or a new article, written from scratch... 23:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There are only 4 deleted edits in the history of alcohol (drug) and they are all redirects to an obsolete title Alcohols (drug) (plural), no prose, no infobox. One of the versions has an RFD nomination, that's all. Any revision with content is available in the article history. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There has to be more, since the deletion log shows "99 edits restored". Is there a "paper trail" to follow if an article has been deleted, restored and moved to user space? Because we also have this deleted draft and this deleted userpage. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Aha. Yes, you're correct. The article had been moved to Draft:Alcohol (drug) in 2014 (in fact, I performed that move myself and don't remember doing it). Then the draft got deleted after it got stale, after which in 2015 a new one got created in main space. I have restored the draft merged the draft into the main space article, so you can now see the entire history. The talk page histories have been merged also. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment They are NOT the same person with 99.9% accuracy. One worked mostly on alcohol related articles (David) the other works mostly on hormone related articles (Medgirl). Both worked on some of WP:PHARM most viewed articles. But so do a bunch of the core editing community of WPMED and WPPHARM. David struggled per[1] and other comments on his talk page. Medgirl has not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Have you checked their overlapping interests? Edits on alcohol related articles made up only a relatively minor part of David Hedlund's edits here, the majority of his edits were on articles about other things, including psychoactive drugs, psychiatric medication and illegal drugs, subjects that Medgirl131 also seems to be very interested in. There are well over 300 articles that have been edited by both of the named accounts (David Hedlund and Medgirl131), including articles about just about every psychoactive drug/substance there is, and if you add the IPs that both of them are known to have used they have even more in common, including outliers like Linux gaming and Penis size. Medgirl131 was also created between Hedlund's first (48h) and second (first indefinite) block, when Hedlund knew that his then current account was heading for an indefinite block... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Medgirl and I have more than 1,000 articles overlapping.[2] David and I have more than 200 articles overlapping.[3]

That tool does not hold much weight. Med and David have different editing styles, use different types of refs, one follows WPMEDMOS and WPMEDRS while the other did not.

I believe that David is from Sweden and male. Med is not. The links you mention are incredibly tentative. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: People often move from one university to another, including from one country to another, so what the geolocation was a couple of years ago doesn't matter, and do you know for a fact that Medgirl is female? I'm not sure about the two accounts being a single person, but since multiple editors, independent of each other (I saw similarities btween the two before anyone else mentioned it, but did nothing until others started commenting on it...) see similarities between the two and there's a lot of overlap in interest I intend to do some digging. It doesn't have top priority, though, and I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not wrong we're heading for trouble here, considering Hedlund's repeated POV-pushing on every subject that interested him, using both his account and this and other IPs, if we don't do anything about it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am sure. The community that works on medical content is small and many of us know each other via various means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfounded Accusations of Promotion

September 2017[edit] Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sales presentation, you may be blocked from editing. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Yes, one of your primary purposes here seems to be adding links to schueffel.biz all over the place. We don't link to self-published works or personal pages; therefore, I have removed them. See WP:ELNO for further guidance. Furthermore, if you have any association whatsoever with schueffel.biz then you have a conflict of interest, in which case you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and refrain from adding any further links. If you believe your link is worthy of inclusion, propose it on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anachronist and Andy Smith I have no clue why you accuse me of disruptive editing. I finally found a solid source on the topic of Fintech => "The Concise Fintech Compendium" and I am being accused of promoting a page by the name of schueffel.biz. I had a closer look at it: there is not even any product or service being promoted there! It's a page of a university professor... And the same source can also be found on ResearchGate.net. So what is it you're accusing me of? There are so many terms and expression on Fintech existing on Fintech which are not being explained on Wikipedia and as a student one can struggle very hard to find. I thought I could help expand Wikipedia share this knowledge with others, but for some reason you're obviously trying to cut me off. Can you please explain me why? THANK YOU! Rachel I explained why above. I didn't accuse you of disruption. However, your contributions so far suggest that one of your purposes here is to promote a personal, self-published page on the web, describing what appears to be a self-published e-book by an obscure professor. Of course it's found on researchgate.net. One of the primary functions of researchgate.net is to "create exposure for your work" and that professor evidently took advantage of it. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote, publicize, or "create exposure" for anything. This isn't an appropriate link on Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not you have a conflict of interest with it. If you want to link to a book, the best way isn't to link to the author's personal page, but to use the "isbn=" attribute in the {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) template. The fact that the book doesn't even seem to have an ISBN or DOI suggests further that it's is a self-published source, and we try to avoid citing those. It may be OK if he's a recognized expert in his field, but that hasn't been determined yet, and in any case the link is still inappropriate compared to using the ISBN if it exists. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC) @Anachronist: I can't help the impression that you want to silence me and no longer contribute to Wikipedia. Is that the goal? to turn Wikipedia into some sort of old boys network would decide over everything? I just checked Google Scholar: what you call an "obscure professor" has many entries and citation. He has published in international double-blind reviewed journals - if you're familiar with that term. I even found his resume on the Web: a doctorate from the University of Reading - according to Wikipedia one of the top research institutions of the UK! So what is obscure about the author? What would a ISBN change??? Anyone can obtain an ISBN. It much more appears to me that you want to shut me down for whatever reason. Well, you have succeeded. I will no longer contribute anything to Wikipedia after this entirely destructive experience. I believe that this is exactly NOT what Jimmy Wales had in mind when he created Wikipedia. But rest assured, I'll keep on recommending this book - as well as many other sources! - to my family, friends and fellow students. You won't keep me from doing that.