Misplaced Pages

User talk:Anachronist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:16, 2 November 2023 editAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,017 edits →Your revert at Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan: clarify← Previous edit Revision as of 04:57, 2 November 2023 edit undoAnachronist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators67,297 edits →Your revert at Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan: acknowledgment of a couple of errors on my partNext edit →
Line 278: Line 278:
I have just realised that you are an administrator. As such, can you please provide an explanation as to how your revert at the above article was not made in violation of the active arbitration remedy clearly stated at the top of the talk page: {{tq|Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page}}? The contested passage (which had been in the article for some time) was removed by CapnJackSp. I challenged the removal, by reversion. I explained my rationale on the article talk page. No 'affirmative consensus' for anything can possibly have been found at that point. Not when you reinstated the change. And not by your subsequent talk page post. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the removal (on which I have made my points concerning Misplaced Pages policy on the use of academic sources entirely clear on the talk page), it seems to me to be entirely improper for an admin, of all people, to be disregarding a clear and unambiguous instruction as to how disputes concerning a highly-contentious article under arbitration remedies should be handled. I await your explanation, and note that should one not be forthcoming I may decide to pursue this further. ] (]) 23:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC) I have just realised that you are an administrator. As such, can you please provide an explanation as to how your revert at the above article was not made in violation of the active arbitration remedy clearly stated at the top of the talk page: {{tq|Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page}}? The contested passage (which had been in the article for some time) was removed by CapnJackSp. I challenged the removal, by reversion. I explained my rationale on the article talk page. No 'affirmative consensus' for anything can possibly have been found at that point. Not when you reinstated the change. And not by your subsequent talk page post. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the removal (on which I have made my points concerning Misplaced Pages policy on the use of academic sources entirely clear on the talk page), it seems to me to be entirely improper for an admin, of all people, to be disregarding a clear and unambiguous instruction as to how disputes concerning a highly-contentious article under arbitration remedies should be handled. I await your explanation, and note that should one not be forthcoming I may decide to pursue this further. ] (]) 23:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
:{{reply|AndyTheGrump}} Let's look at the history. :{{reply|AndyTheGrump}} Let's look at the history.
:* The bit about Jürgen Schaflechner was by {{U|TrangaBellam}} without any explanation in the edit summary. :* 13 May: The bit about Jürgen Schaflechner was by {{U|TrangaBellam}} without any explanation in the edit summary.
:* It was removed and restored several times in the same day without specifically targeting that passage. :* It was removed and restored several times in the same day without specifically targeting that passage.
:* The AE template was added to the talk page by {{U|Abecedare}} . Abededare also extended-confirmed-protected the article on the same day, with the Schaflechner passage in place at the time. We can assume that the sanctions are enforced from that point onward. :* 16 May: The AE template was added to the talk page by {{U|Abecedare}} (). Abededare also extended-confirmed-protected the article on the same day, with the Schaflechner passage in place at the time. We can assume that the sanctions are enforced from that point onward.
:* I removed the passage from the lead . This was the first revert after AE enforcement, as far as I can tell from the history. :* 18 October: I removed the passage from the lead (), in response to a complaint on the talk page. This was the first revert after AE enforcement, as far as I can tell from the history.
:* You proceeded to violate the AE restriction by reinstating the passage. However, you restored it to a different location in the article, so we'll let this slide. Consider it a new edit. :* You proceeded to violate the AE restriction by reinstating the passage. However, you restored it to a different location in the article, so we'll let this slide. Consider it a new edit.
:* I reverted you today, which, if you consider your prior edit OK, would be in compliance with the AE restriction. I challenged your edit with a revert, and it should not have been reinstated. :* 1 November: {{U|CapnJackSp}} reverted you (), which, if you consider your prior edit OK, would be in compliance with the AE restriction. CapnJackSp challenged your edit with a revert, and it should not have been reinstated.
:* You then reinstated the passage ''again'' ().
:* You then proceeded to violate the AE restriction by reverting my revert.
:* Then I reverted you () , not realizing that CapnJackSp had already done so. That was my error.
⚫ :Notwithstanding the fact that this passage violates several content rules (], ], ], ]), and the fact that it's questionable that this ''assistant professor'' is even a notable scholar per ] (he couldn't get his view published in a refereed journal, so he submits it to a magazine?), it's apparent that you, not me, violated the arbitration remedy. Not just once, but possibly twice. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:* And you reinstated the passage again, for the third time ([https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Coerced_religious_conversion_in_Pakistan&diff=next&oldid=1183019748 diff).
⚫ :Notwithstanding the fact that this passage violates several content rules (], ], ], ]), and the fact that it's questionable that this ''assistant professor'' is even a notable scholar per ] (he couldn't get his view published in a refereed journal, so he submits it to a magazine?), it's apparent that you, not me, violated the arbitration remedy. Not just once, but possibly two or three times. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


::How the hell does me reverting your removal of content (i.e 'challenged by reversion') by me constitute a violation of the AE restriction? And how the hell can you justify reverting my restoration of the article to the state it was in before CapnJackSp removed content? That was clearly and unambiguously a violation - on your part. As for WP:FRINGE etc, that is complete and utter nonsense. So nonsensical in fact that I seriously have to question your qualifications to act as an administrator. Schaflechner is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Heidelburg. He has been doing fieldwork directly related to the topic of the article for something like a decade. He is the co-editor, and a chapter contributor, to a book published by the Oxford University Press, where he analyses in detail the subject of the 'coerced conversion' topic. A book I linked on the talk page. A book you refuse to acknowledge with your ill-informed comments being made ''after'' I discussed it on the talk page. His comments are not 'fringe', they are not 'undue', they are prime academic content, from someone vastly better qualified to comment on the matter than the hack journalists etc being cited for almost everything else in the article. We don't reject academic sources written by those best qualified to write them as 'fringe'. That is ridiculous. It is deeply objectionable. It is a violation of everything WP:RS and Misplaced Pages in general has stood for for decades. ::How the hell does me reverting your removal of content (i.e 'challenged by reversion') by me constitute a violation of the AE restriction? And how the hell can you justify reverting my restoration of the article to the state it was in before CapnJackSp removed content? That was clearly and unambiguously a violation - on your part. As for WP:FRINGE etc, that is complete and utter nonsense. So nonsensical in fact that I seriously have to question your qualifications to act as an administrator. Schaflechner is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Heidelburg. He has been doing fieldwork directly related to the topic of the article for something like a decade. He is the co-editor, and a chapter contributor, to a book published by the Oxford University Press, where he analyses in detail the subject of the 'coerced conversion' topic. A book I linked on the talk page. A book you refuse to acknowledge with your ill-informed comments being made ''after'' I discussed it on the talk page. His comments are not 'fringe', they are not 'undue', they are prime academic content, from someone vastly better qualified to comment on the matter than the hack journalists etc being cited for almost everything else in the article. We don't reject academic sources written by those best qualified to write them as 'fringe'. That is ridiculous. It is deeply objectionable. It is a violation of everything WP:RS and Misplaced Pages in general has stood for for decades.
Line 291: Line 293:
::I am going to sleep on this. And if, tomorrow, I don't see a clear and unambiguous apology from you, along with an acknowledgement that I acted entirely in accord with policy, I shall be taking this to ArbCom, calling for you to be de-sysopped, for violation of AP enforcement, and for an understanding of Misplaced Pages sourcing standards so utterly at odds with both written policy and practice that you cannot be trusted with your tools. ] (]) 02:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC) ::I am going to sleep on this. And if, tomorrow, I don't see a clear and unambiguous apology from you, along with an acknowledgement that I acted entirely in accord with policy, I shall be taking this to ArbCom, calling for you to be de-sysopped, for violation of AP enforcement, and for an understanding of Misplaced Pages sourcing standards so utterly at odds with both written policy and practice that you cannot be trusted with your tools. ] (]) 02:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


:::"Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." I challenged an un-explained and un-discussed addition of a passage by reverting it. You reinstated it in another location. Technically that was your first violation, but in a new place. I challenged ''that'' change by reverting you. You reinstated it. That was your second violation. :::"Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." I challenged an un-explained and un-discussed addition of a passage by reverting it. You reinstated it in another location. Technically that was your first violation, but in a new place. I challenged ''that'' change by reverting you. You reinstated it. That was another violation.
:::The history I documented is clear. And instead of an apology, you reply in high dudgeon with threats? You're better than that. ~] <small>(])</small> 03:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) :::The history I documented is clear. And instead of an apology, you reply in high dudgeon with threats? You're better than that. ~] <small>(])</small> 03:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
::::'''I didn't 'add' the passage. I restored it.''' Just how difficult is that to understand? And no, I am not 'threatening' to take you to ArbCom. I am stating as a fact I will do so, since you seem so clearly intent on misinterpreting multiple policies in order to exclude a legitimate academic source from a contentious article on entirely spurious grounds. ] (]) 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC) ::::'''I didn't 'add' the passage. I restored it.''' Just how difficult is that to understand? And no, I am not 'threatening' to take you to ArbCom. I am stating as a fact I will do so, since you seem so clearly intent on misinterpreting multiple policies in order to exclude a legitimate academic source from a contentious article on entirely spurious grounds. ] (]) 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Line 298: Line 300:
:::::::The history clearly contradicts your assertions. ~] <small>(])</small> 03:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC) :::::::The history clearly contradicts your assertions. ~] <small>(])</small> 03:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Only if 'history' conveniently starts where it suits you. The Schaflechner text was in the article (in the lede, where it shouldn't have been, admittedly) when AE was enforced. You stated exactly that above. You removed it. I challenged your removal and restored it into the article body, explaining why. ''After'' you had described it as "published in a reliable source". You made absolutely no objection at the time. No comment at all. I assumed you had no objection, given that ''you stated it was properly sourced''. Given that it didn't belong in the lede, you made an edit. Given that you had removed it entirely, while acknowledging the source was valid, I placed it in the article body. And given your lack of further response, I assumed that was the end of it. But no, instead you are trying to retroactively object to it now, after I have provided ample evidence that your initial 'reliable source' assessment was correct. Object to it two weeks later, after suddenly deciding that published academics writing on their specialist subjects are 'fringe'. Your 'history' is directly contradicted by your own words. ] (]) 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC) ::::::::Only if 'history' conveniently starts where it suits you. The Schaflechner text was in the article (in the lede, where it shouldn't have been, admittedly) when AE was enforced. You stated exactly that above. You removed it. I challenged your removal and restored it into the article body, explaining why. ''After'' you had described it as "published in a reliable source". You made absolutely no objection at the time. No comment at all. I assumed you had no objection, given that ''you stated it was properly sourced''. Given that it didn't belong in the lede, you made an edit. Given that you had removed it entirely, while acknowledging the source was valid, I placed it in the article body. And given your lack of further response, I assumed that was the end of it. But no, instead you are trying to retroactively object to it now, after I have provided ample evidence that your initial 'reliable source' assessment was correct. Object to it two weeks later, after suddenly deciding that published academics writing on their specialist subjects are 'fringe'. Your 'history' is directly contradicted by your own words. ] (]) 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Andy, my involvement in the article has been minimal, a bit in May, and again a couple weeks ago. I don't actively monitor it. I have thousands of pages on my watch list and I don't check each and every diff. The history above starts with the initial addition of the passage in dispute. When I removed the passage on 18 October, I failed to notice your reply on the talk page, and I do apologize for that. I would have objected then if I had seen it.
:::::::::When I saw another objection to the passage today on the talk page, this alerted me to the fact that you had reinstated it. The timeline of events above simply document each addition and removal from the first time it was added. I see now that I missed the removal by CapnJackSp. That was an oversight on my part when I reverted you last, and admittedly that puts my revert in a different context. I've corrected the timeline above.
:::::::::The fact remains, however, that you violated AE when you reinstated the passage. I'm willing to treat this as a content dispute. Escalating to ArbCom, in my opinion, is a waste of time, but do what you think is right. ~] <small>(])</small> 04:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:57, 2 November 2023

Anachronist is busy on weekends and some weekdays due to real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
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.

Archiving icon
Archives

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023


This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

1Firang

Just in case you aren’t watching, they’re asking if they had paraphrased it. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Amongst" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Amongst has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14 § Amongst until a consensus is reached. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Page protection request help!

Hi Mr Anachronist,


Hope you are well. As someone who is an experienced wiki editor, I was hoping you could teach me how to request/ protect pages from edit wars?


All the best! Galaxy21ultra (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Galaxy21ultra: You can make a protection request at WP:RFPP. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Anon IP and PAs

Hi--You were top of list at Recently Active Admins, so, I'm here to ask if you might keep an eye on 70.31.26.72 (talk · contribs), who's been making some pretty defamatory remarks at Talk:David Johnston (some of which were deleted). Or, if you'd prefer not to be involved, could you point me in the direction of an admin who could perhaps assist? Cheers. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: That IP address is blocked for 1 week. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I just noticed that. Thank you. I have a suspicion that the IP might be ScienceMan123 (talk · contribs); though, I place heavy emphasis on the "might" part. The only connection, so far, is that the IP and ScienceMan123 are focused on the article David Johnston and ScienceMan123 went quiet, while the IP became more active, once the article was protected and I made a request for DR. But, it could just be coincidence. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Miesianiacal, let's air all these accusations out in public. You think I might use sock puppets and I think you might be a staffer working out of Rideau Hall. I'm in favour of an admin investigation into both, what do you say? ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not the admin for that. If there's an interest, in pursuing this further, a case can be opened at WP:SPI or WP:COIN, as appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I will see if there is sufficient justification. ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi--I apologize for bothering you with this again; the anon is continuing using a different IP now: 65.93.214.95 (talk · contribs). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I left a warning. Please let me know if further disruption occurs. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Sadly this is continuing. I reverted it with an explanation, and commented on the user's talk page. It was added back again.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oxford Metrics draft

Hello, you kindly left some feedback on a recent article of mine (Draft:Oxford Metrics) in Misplaced Pages:Teahouse. Thank you for suggesting those changes and offering me guidance. I have since taken your thoughts on board and edited the draft accordingly. I would greatly appreciate any further guidance you could offer around the draft before re-submitting for review. Thank you for your help so far and do please let me know your thoughts. EWix76 EWix76 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you delete this page i made?

So I created a page and I just discovered it actually redirects to something. You can see it here. Warrior9994 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, its drafted Warrior9994 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Backward

Thanks for your comment at the WP:Tea house linking the essay WP:BACKWARD, which I wasn't aware of. It contains some poor advice, including an approach that would likely be a policy violation if anyone followed it, and I've commented on the Talk page about it. The only reason I'm not more exercised about it, is that if it took me 15 years to find that essay, probably others won't find it, either. Thanks for your good advice at the WP:Tea house. (By the way, as long as we're talking about the Teahouse, could you have a look at my UTP comment here, about a user's Teahouse replies and tell me if you think it was appropriate? I tried to temper the critique with some praise, but I think it needed to be said.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I replied there. I disagree with your underlying premise. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Help desk

Can I get an explanation from you for deleting my feedback? Here. I'm just discussing with User:Marjuly. I'm a patroller on the Vietnamese Misplaced Pages. I'm just discussing. DANGGIAO 15:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@DANG GIAO:. Please accept my apologies! That revert was never supposed to happen. I believe I was looking at diff popups in my watch list and I clicked on the wrong 'rollback'. I have undone it. This has happened before and I always notice immemdiately, but I failed to notice this time. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Link removal

Why did you make this change? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shepherd_Book&diff=next&oldid=1165932591 I was removing a red link to an article that had been deleted back in 2019. 159.196.100.171 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That's odd. When I looked at the link it didn't look red, but looking again it doesn't look blue either. I should go into my css settings and change my 'visited link' color; it's too close to blue. I have reverted myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Patson Pereira

Hello, you have written this as a reply for the draft -

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Misplaced Pages article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of person.

Question: How to add published media links as source? Also specify if anything else is required to be added to the draft.

Filmymusafir (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Filmymusafir: You need multiple sources that comply with the requirements in Misplaced Pages:Golden rule. See Template:Cite AV media for citing media links. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Unprotection

Because the unprotection was during the time when the topic is highly searched, so there is a lot of disruption during that particular period. The experiment is way too thin to say anything. 14.191.33.160 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

And there will be disruption in the future on Cambodia when it is highly searched again. There is nothing preventing you from making an edit request on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not interested in making edits. What I'm concerned is that the unnecessary protection discourages updates and improvements to the page. If the disruption is periodic (only when it is highly searched) as you said then it should have been a time-set protection, not an indefinite protection. You can compare the trials in other articles of the same category with this article, they have many more time-set protection occurences before an indefinite semi-protection is applied, so this isn't a fair approach. 14.191.33.160 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The views for that page disagree with you, showing the experiment in March was quite valid. When it was unprotected in March, it wasn't a particularly active month, and yet the article was disrupted. It's been more active in subsequent months. The protection is working as it should, there is no reason to remove it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Mohammad Esmaili

Hello, Anachronist,

It looks like you restored this article but didn't remove the PROD tag. It's already been deleted by PROD once so a second PROD is invalid. Thanks. Liz 02:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: The article was newly created. I prodded it. Then I restored the deleted revision history. A new prod should be valid for a new, different article, should it not? If not, I can remove the prod and draftify it. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Followup

Thanks for lowering my requests. Three pages were missed. Indubitably Archives 16, 19, and 35. All others are good. Thank you for your assistance! Zinnober9 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Zinnober9: I have just reduced those to ECP also. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"PCSO-524" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect PCSO-524 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 28 § PCSO-524 until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow up at centre-left politics

You semi-protected centre-left politics on the 26th per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Edit warring to reinstate OR at centre-left politics. The IP editor has now created an account to continue restoring the same edits. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: I didn't protect the article due to that one IP address, I protected it based on the article's history of edits from various IP addresses. The newly registered account is engaging on the talk page. Right now what you have is a content dispute, and the appropriate protection for that is full-protection so only administrators can edit.
Administrators don't get involved in content disputes. That said, it looks to me like he removed the word 'green' from one section but retained the section about green politics, moving it under related ideologies. I have no opinion about the correctness of that edit. If the editor starts edit-warring, he can be blocked for that reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You reverted all my {{clarify}} tags

Hello! You reverted all my {{clarify}} tags for clarification of the ambiguous units of measurement of "ppm" and "%" for the concentrations of CO2 in the air, because "If the sources don't specify or clarify what it means, then neither would Misplaced Pages. Doing so would violate WP:OR.", as you said. Because almost all {{clarify}} tags accross Misplaced Pages are such as you said, according to you, almost all {{clarify}} tags across Misplaced Pages violate WP:OR, therefore, almost all {{clarify}} tags across Misplaced Pages should be deleted?! I strongly disagree with you, so, I will revert all your {{clarify}} tag deletions, and possibly search for a consensus from Misplaced Pages editors about your deletions. Sorry if you are offended about my decision. And I am really confused after you deleted all my {{clarify}} tags (I know, "Read the WP:OR!" you could yell at me, I already did). I am a Misplaced Pages inclusionist, not a Misplaced Pages deletionist. So, please, don't delete almost all {{clarify}} tags across Misplaced Pages. Bernardirfan (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bernardirfan: Simply put, I checked several sources that were cited in the sentences on which you applied those verbose clarify tags, and I found that those sources did not clarify the context of "ppm" either. You cannot expect other editors to invent a definition that doesn't exist in the sources. On that basis, I removed your tags. Replacing them would not accomplish anything. If you are knowlegeable about those subjects and already know the context from professional experience, then you are welcome to add the clarity yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I already clarify (resolved) many {{clarify}} tags, based on my thorough research accross the internet, and based on my knowledge on those subjects and proffesional experience, and I will continue to do that. Other editors put the {{clarify}} tags on unclear information from unclear sources accross Misplaced Pages, so do I. And those {{clarify}} tags I put in the Carbon dioxide article are not verbose, because editors should know the reason why I put those {{clarify}} tags in the Carbon dioxide article, and all the problems that could arise from unclear information. And also, other editors resolved some of my "verbose" {{clarify}} tags, instead of just lazy deleting them, thus, accomplish something — improving the articles. Bernardirfan (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:3 Bachelors

"Draft was moved to article space by creator after it was declined - moving it back to draft" . User:Kailash29792 was not the creator of the draft, I was.

I think you meant "editor" and not "creator", right? If that is the case, then I guess there is no mistake on your part. DareshMohan (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@DareshMohan: Yes, sorry. I meant "contributor". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the article now uses only one TOI source. That good enough? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine, and it's now in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Shivkar_Bapuji_Talpade

You have misunderstood my comments on this AfD. I never agreed that the article should be kept.

I had debunked all of the sources and nobody has disputed my points that: 1) there is no biographical coverage about this subject from reliable sources, 2) minimal coverage only concerns debunking the idea of his unmanned airplane, 3) the sources talk about the unauthentic subject in the wake of the movie Hawaizaada as clearly specified by them.

Most editors opposed stand-alone article thus you should modify your closure. It was not "keep" at all. Editorkamran (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: Umm... in your own words: "KEEP ok, User:Vanamonde93 has convinced me about the sources he mentioned and the need to have this article."
Then you followed it with an analysis of sources concluding that they aren't adequate. I wasn't sure how to interpret that, but since you didn't strike your "keep" I assumed that you still agreed to keep it.
At best this is a "no consensus" but definitely not "delete". I have changed it accordingly. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
That comment was made by Doug Weller, not me.
There were 10 who opposed stand-alone article and 6 supported Keep. Those 6 keeps should be judged carefully. 2 of those votes came from IPs and one blatant WP:NOTAVOTE came from a newly registered editor with less than 100 edits.
There was consensus against stand-alone article. Editorkamran (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Editorkamran: Argh. I see. That comment wasn't signed, it was followed by your analysis of sources and then signed by you, so it looked like the entire thing was your comment. That's why I was confused.
The arguments made matter more than the identity of the editor, whether it's an established account or an IP address.
If you just count the votes, they are evenly split. 5 keeps, 5 deletes, 5 redirects (one was "delete or redirect"), not counting that confusing comment in which you and Doug Weller participated. And I found a couple of the "delete" statements unconvincing and not based on policy (one was a "me too"), just as a couple of the "keep" statements were unconvincing.
Sorry, I don't see a consensus to delete. If you disagree, there's always WP:DRV. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
First source only treats it as a false claim while other three sources you cited are actually 2 different sources which are only debunking the claims made in the movie. My question about finding a single reliable scholarly source in history or aviation for establishing GNG is still unanswered. Hindutva fake news peddlers love pulling out fake narratives but why should Misplaced Pages help them gain notability only because some sources rightfully refuted them? Anachronist should have analyzed the sources. CharlesWain (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
And that clearly demonstrates why there is no consensus. Deletion review is → thataway if you want to pursue this further. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. It was a good close, IMHO; the numerical tilt is balanced out by some deletion arguments without basis. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I've opened a DRV case myself. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 1. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources removed

Hello i noticed that a lot of my sources have been removed from Draft:Burning Men while i cited them. Can you fixe them to be put back, they are probably on history Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I fixed them all and corrected what was missing Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad talk page. I reverted your single subject account label.

I have given a full explanation in my revert comment.

Best regards IP says: Works better yes. 213.237.91.184 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary of your revert uses the link https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=101733832 - which has the wrong ID as it doesn't go to the Muhammad talk page. I found it, you left off the last digit (9): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=1017338329 ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you and once again I find myself in agreement with your comment on the Muhammad talk page. 213.237.91.184 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


Reverted all changes made to IASRI page

All changes were reverted on the page of IASRI (Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute) even though credible references were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickypusa4 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of material wasn't referenced at all. If you have a conflict of interest, you may make minor corrctions only. Anything substantive must be proposed on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

JWs

It’s not clear how reverting an edit introduced an infobox error, which I wasn’t aware of (maybe some kind of database corruption). But aside from that, the ‘average’ and ‘peak’ figures are both from the same date. The cited source provides both the peak and average figures. As has been explained, the ‘peak’ figure includes duplicate reports, and this is why the average figures are a better indicator.—Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: My revert was primarily about the error in the headquarters parameter in the infobox, but I also felt the numerical values were close enough that it doesn't really matter what gets used, and there is no harm using slightly higher numbers. I haven't been involved in the discussion, and I don't have the energy to explain misrepresentations of the few comments I've left (you have, thank you). Whatever number is displayed could have a note like "(average)" behind it to indicate what it is. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I don’t understand how the ‘he’ got added because I used the Undo link to revert and I only typed in the edit summary.
Based on the editor’s behaviour so far, your revert will be seen as ‘support’, and is likely to escalate the behaviour beyond the specific issue at hand.—Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The editor has been blocked for inappropriate behaviour at my Talk page. I won’t revert their changes in their absence but I will attempt to factor in an explanation about the usage of the ‘peak’ figures when not on mobile.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jeffro77: You were correct, he made a lot of edits about how I "resolved" the dispute. Sheesh.
The block is now indef and his talk page access has been revoked. It looks like his absence is gonna be permanent.
It's always a shame to see a new enthusiastic editor go down in flames like that.
I've been asked to have off-wiki communications before too. I simply respond that I prefer to keep Misplaced Pages business on Misplaced Pages and leave it at that. If someone contacts me by email (my email is enabled here), unless it's another admin or someone I've collaborated with in the past, I don't reply by email but put a reply on their talk page without revealing the contents of their email.
The only time I've made an exception was when a notable extreme-sports person was communicating with me in my role as a WP:VRT agent, concerning the article about him. We got on Skype because he wanted a quick lesson about a number of topics like primary versus secondary sources, NPOV, conflict of interest, what his representatives can and can't do on Misplaced Pages, and so on. We ended up having a productive conversation for nearly an hour. His article has been in pretty good shape ever since. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Undid revision 1175273662

Undid revision 1175273662 by Wsetlevel3 (talk) - blatant plagiarism and copyright violation - try again

For my understanding...I am not sure why you responded the way you did when I specifically credited the source. Is it your opinion that I rewrite the information, but credit the source for the concept? In no way did I attempt to claim credit for the text? Wsetlevel3 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wsetlevel3: You didn't quote the text, you copied the text directly from the source into Misplaced Pages article, making it appear that those are Misplaced Pages's own words in Misplaced Pages's own narrative voice. That is a copyright violation. Misplaced Pages prose cannot use the words of others. Even a close paraphrasing can be considered a copyright violation. You must use your own words to convey what the source says. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Got it...thanks for taking the time to reply. I will try again following your guidance. Sorry about that. Wsetlevel3 (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Obstinacy by editor despite 3rd opinion

I request you to now unprotect the History of concubinage in the Muslim world article so that anyone can edit it and impose sanctions on Barbardo if he removes sourced content again - he seems to have misunderstood what consensus means (he does not have any veto about what text should be in the article).-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. My job as an administrator is to preserve the stability of articles. You are basically saying you will continue edit-warring if it is unprotected. You must reach a consensus. Start a WP:RFC if you have to.
After looking at the arguments I am not convinced that what you are trying to add is a mainstream viewpoint. I am not convinced of Barbado's arguments either. Therefore I have no reason to unprotect the article while an active dispute is underway. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

Hi, Anachronist. I strongly agree with your comment on the Teahouse about the bar for autoconfirmed status being set too low. I would like to see a regime where nobody can create an article in mainspace or move a draft to mainspace until they've had, say, two articles accepted through AFC (with some arrangement for grandfathering in old-timers).

I'm less sure about the other abilities that come with autoconfirmed. Whenever I see a question about "Why haven't I got autoconfirmed status" I think "Whatever it is that they're desperate to do they probably shouldn't", but I may be wrong. ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@ColinFine: The autoconfirmed right has been around, I think, before I started on Misplaced Pages 17 years ago. I have no problem with the current threshold of 4 days and 10 edits although I wouldn't object to bumping them up a bit. My comment was about the right to create articles and approve drafts. The bar for that, in my opinion, shouldn't be autoconfirmed, it should be something higher.
We don't want to discourage people from making bold edits and creating new articles. All too often, however, new editors create junk. If it weren't for the huge AFC backlog, I'd be in favor of your suggestion to have new editors through AFC until they've had a couple of drafts approved. Some new editors can write good articles, and those editors should be able to publish their drafts.
We currently have these thresholds of account age and number of edits for various access levels:
  • autoconfirmed: 4 days and 10 edits
  • autoconfirmed through TOR or with IP block exemption: 90 days and 100 edits
  • extended confirmed: 30 days and 500 edits
Perhaps an "article creator" right could be implemented, which kicks in automatically somewhere between autoconfirmed and extended confirmed, like 30 days and 100 edits (more edits than standard autoconfirmed but less days than autoconfirmed via TOR). TOR or IP block exempt would still need to meet the higher autoconfirmed threshold to get the article creator right. Editors who don't have this right would be unable to create any page in article space, even via page moves. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds about right. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


Qisas

Hi Anachronist. You removed my edit and mentioned the following reason ((too much reliance on primary source)). But i mentioned that the source is the one who says these additions. There are other sources. But I wanted readers to know that what Friedman mentioned is not the only information. In other words. I did not write the information in such a way as to make it appear as self-evident. Rather, I wrote the phrase so that the reader understands that this is what the author is conveying in the source. I wanted the reader to see other information from another source. In general, if there is a specific problem in writing, tell me how it can be solved. How can the rewrite be done better, in your opinion? With respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.33.207 (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for editing and being cool!! Keep going, your doing well!! :)

Babysharkboss2 was here!! 15:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It's better than getting a WP:TROUT, which I am sure I have deserved at some point in the past. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Stephen Strang

FYI I wrote a new version of Stephen Strang based on 4 RS. Looking forward to your review. Nowa (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nowa: You didn't submit it for review, you created it directly in article space. I made some minor changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. Yes, there was an earlier "promotional" version that you deleted in 2010 called "Steve Strang". That page (which is now a redirect) suggested you be notified if the page was recreated.--Nowa (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. The deletion actually happened in 2012. It was a speedy WP:G11 deletion. Thanks for informing me. Your version is better than the deleted one. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Anachronist:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1700 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Page Restoring Help

Hi Anachronist.

Sorry if I'm doing something wrong.

There are some notable changes on page which is i restored,

please can I do changes? Hanna213 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hanna213: I have no idea what page you're referring to. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your revert at Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan

I have just realised that you are an administrator. As such, can you please provide an explanation as to how your revert at the above article was not made in violation of the active arbitration remedy clearly stated at the top of the talk page: Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page? The contested passage (which had been in the article for some time) was removed by CapnJackSp. I challenged the removal, by reversion. I explained my rationale on the article talk page. No 'affirmative consensus' for anything can possibly have been found at that point. Not when you reinstated the change. And not by your subsequent talk page post. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the removal (on which I have made my points concerning Misplaced Pages policy on the use of academic sources entirely clear on the talk page), it seems to me to be entirely improper for an admin, of all people, to be disregarding a clear and unambiguous instruction as to how disputes concerning a highly-contentious article under arbitration remedies should be handled. I await your explanation, and note that should one not be forthcoming I may decide to pursue this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Let's look at the history.
  • 13 May: The bit about Jürgen Schaflechner was added by TrangaBellam without any explanation in the edit summary.
  • It was removed and restored several times in the same day without specifically targeting that passage.
  • 16 May: The AE template was added to the talk page by Abecedare (diff). Abededare also extended-confirmed-protected the article on the same day, with the Schaflechner passage in place at the time. We can assume that the sanctions are enforced from that point onward.
  • 18 October: I removed the passage from the lead (diff), in response to a complaint on the talk page. This was the first revert after AE enforcement, as far as I can tell from the history.
  • You proceeded to violate the AE restriction by reinstating the passage. However, you restored it to a different location in the article, so we'll let this slide. Consider it a new edit.
  • 1 November: CapnJackSp reverted you (diff), which, if you consider your prior edit OK, would be in compliance with the AE restriction. CapnJackSp challenged your edit with a revert, and it should not have been reinstated.
  • You then reinstated the passage again (diff).
  • Then I reverted you (diff) , not realizing that CapnJackSp had already done so. That was my error.
  • And you reinstated the passage again, for the third time ([https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Coerced_religious_conversion_in_Pakistan&diff=next&oldid=1183019748 diff).
Notwithstanding the fact that this passage violates several content rules (WP:FRINGE, WP:BURDEN, WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, WP:UNDUE), and the fact that it's questionable that this assistant professor is even a notable scholar per WP:NPROF (he couldn't get his view published in a refereed journal, so he submits it to a magazine?), it's apparent that you, not me, violated the arbitration remedy. Not just once, but possibly two or three times. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
How the hell does me reverting your removal of content (i.e 'challenged by reversion') by me constitute a violation of the AE restriction? And how the hell can you justify reverting my restoration of the article to the state it was in before CapnJackSp removed content? That was clearly and unambiguously a violation - on your part. As for WP:FRINGE etc, that is complete and utter nonsense. So nonsensical in fact that I seriously have to question your qualifications to act as an administrator. Schaflechner is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Heidelburg. He has been doing fieldwork directly related to the topic of the article for something like a decade. He is the co-editor, and a chapter contributor, to a book published by the Oxford University Press, where he analyses in detail the subject of the 'coerced conversion' topic. A book I linked on the talk page. A book you refuse to acknowledge with your ill-informed comments being made after I discussed it on the talk page. His comments are not 'fringe', they are not 'undue', they are prime academic content, from someone vastly better qualified to comment on the matter than the hack journalists etc being cited for almost everything else in the article. We don't reject academic sources written by those best qualified to write them as 'fringe'. That is ridiculous. It is deeply objectionable. It is a violation of everything WP:RS and Misplaced Pages in general has stood for for decades.
I am going to sleep on this. And if, tomorrow, I don't see a clear and unambiguous apology from you, along with an acknowledgement that I acted entirely in accord with policy, I shall be taking this to ArbCom, calling for you to be de-sysopped, for violation of AP enforcement, and for an understanding of Misplaced Pages sourcing standards so utterly at odds with both written policy and practice that you cannot be trusted with your tools. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
"Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." I challenged an un-explained and un-discussed addition of a passage by reverting it. You reinstated it in another location. Technically that was your first violation, but in a new place. I challenged that change by reverting you. You reinstated it. That was another violation.
The history I documented is clear. And instead of an apology, you reply in high dudgeon with threats? You're better than that. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I didn't 'add' the passage. I restored it. Just how difficult is that to understand? And no, I am not 'threatening' to take you to ArbCom. I am stating as a fact I will do so, since you seem so clearly intent on misinterpreting multiple policies in order to exclude a legitimate academic source from a contentious article on entirely spurious grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent what I wrote. I didn't say you added the passage. I said, correctly, that you reinstated it after I challenged it by reverting it. You're also conflating two issues, content and arbitration enforcement. The content is in dispute, and should be handled like any content dispute. Whether it's included or not is to be determined by community consensus, not by you or me. That is a different issue entirely from your blatant disregard of the AE notice at the top of the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I was the one that made the god-damned challenge. Not you. Me. See you at ArbCom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The history clearly contradicts your assertions. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Only if 'history' conveniently starts where it suits you. The Schaflechner text was in the article (in the lede, where it shouldn't have been, admittedly) when AE was enforced. You stated exactly that above. You removed it. I challenged your removal and restored it into the article body, explaining why. After you had described it as "published in a reliable source". You made absolutely no objection at the time. No comment at all. I assumed you had no objection, given that you stated it was properly sourced. Given that it didn't belong in the lede, you made an edit. Given that you had removed it entirely, while acknowledging the source was valid, I placed it in the article body. And given your lack of further response, I assumed that was the end of it. But no, instead you are trying to retroactively object to it now, after I have provided ample evidence that your initial 'reliable source' assessment was correct. Object to it two weeks later, after suddenly deciding that published academics writing on their specialist subjects are 'fringe'. Your 'history' is directly contradicted by your own words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Andy, my involvement in the article has been minimal, a bit in May, and again a couple weeks ago. I don't actively monitor it. I have thousands of pages on my watch list and I don't check each and every diff. The history above starts with the initial addition of the passage in dispute. When I removed the passage on 18 October, I failed to notice your reply on the talk page, and I do apologize for that. I would have objected then if I had seen it.
When I saw another objection to the passage today on the talk page, this alerted me to the fact that you had reinstated it. The timeline of events above simply document each addition and removal from the first time it was added. I see now that I missed the removal by CapnJackSp. That was an oversight on my part when I reverted you last, and admittedly that puts my revert in a different context. I've corrected the timeline above.
The fact remains, however, that you violated AE when you reinstated the passage. I'm willing to treat this as a content dispute. Escalating to ArbCom, in my opinion, is a waste of time, but do what you think is right. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)