Jump to content

User talk:Anachronist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SantaWinsAgain (talk | contribs) at 11:09, 4 June 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Civil Rights Movement portal

There are a few supporting subpages that should also be restored (and moved to the correct titles).

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Lake & Veronica Lake

I see Stewart Lake has at long last prevailed in his quest to be listed on Veronica Lake's page as her husband. Could you tell me what happened?

This has been going on for a couple of years now. I'm involved because I run a wiki for Historic Saranac Lake, and he has hassled us about it as he hassles everyone, with threats of legal action. His claims strike me as utterly fake. One of the documents he provided lists him as the son of Alan Ladd! Another claims he was a famed mega-recording star. Despite his threats I note that at least one [blog that he threatened back in 2015] (see his threat at the end of the page) continues to ignore his demands. He says he'll have Google remove all references to Veronica Lake, and that he has sued MGM. The whole thing just seems screwy.

So did he present better evidence than previously, or did he just wear folks down?

Thanks for whatever light you can shed! -- Marc Wanner

@Mwanner: These claims were made in the OTRS communication:
  • Veronica Lake married Stewart Lake.
  • Robert Carleton Munro was not married to Veronica Lake but to her mother.
  • Veronica Lake was born in Brooklyn, not Seattle. There is apparently a birth cert available, if requested. (And I agree that the Seattle factoid doesn't belong, as it was WP:OR cited to the US Census.)
I note that any claims in the article about who she married are unsourced and should be removed. My reversion inadvertently changed a few other things.
The article isn't fully-protected. Any extended-confirmed editor such as yourself may still edit it. If you do revert it back, be sure to provide reliable sources. The points under contention need sourcing, for sure. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't seen, a thread has been opened at WP:AN regarding this, though I'm not too sure why. I removed the unsourced marriage claim. ansh666 18:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Civil Rights Movement

A, why "deleted revisions should stay deleted"? This hides my own contribution, and makes it hard to get it back now that the capitalization decision has been reaffirmed via the RM consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Coffee's revisions. If you want, I can restore yours. Personally I don't have a dog in the fight, I was just trying to find a compromise that would allow the article to be kept while appeasing Coffee. I must have succeeded because now everybody is equally displeased! ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He had reverted my changes, but I'd like to get them back; could do manually if restoring the history seems like a bad idea, but I don't understand why it would be. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I restored your edits. I also don't understand why restoring the history would be a bad idea. At the time, it seemed the only way Coffee would agree to restoration is if the page weren't attributed to him. But now that he's gone and blocked himself and retired, we could restore it. He was adamant that a G7 tag mandates deletion, and it doesn't really. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now it shows the move I did, but still not the edits. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: Nothing remains in the deleted contribution history with your name on it. Is it possible you made edits on a different article? I checked Portal:Civil rights movement but that has zero deleted edits. I saw it had been briefly moved to Draft:Civil rights movement, but when I checked that, the only deleted edits were from Winged Blades of Godric, Coffee, and a bot. Were there any other versions? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; thanks for checking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Nobel Prize effect

Hello! Your submission of Nobel Prize effect at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for the IP block exception. Will help a lot. It's quite hard to get back in once you've been locked out like that. Anyway, I appreciate what you've done, now I can get back to work. Kind regards, Vitreology (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm happy I could help out. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nobel Prize effect

On 23 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nobel Prize effect, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Richard Hamming, Nobel Prize winners often discover they can no longer work on small problems? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nobel Prize effect. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nobel Prize effect), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Dear Anachronist. Could you please reverse the changes you just made to the entry for Laurie Patton and revert to my my most recent version. The version I posted this week is up to date and accurate. I have disclosed a COI and have been advised by Wikipedia that it is permissible for me to make changes in order to update / add so long as they are accurate and substantiated with references, which I have done. As it now stands the entry is inaccurate.

You made substantive changes. Please propose them on the talk page. You are permitted to make small corrections. If you want to restore your substantive changes, the COI tag is going back onto the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enniferj/Housing theory

You just deleted User:Enniferj/Housing theory. I had cheked it and was about to decline the speedy. Thus was moved to userspace by the xloser of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housing theory, so it cannot be a G4 recreation. It is plausibly useful notes for an article on the subject, so it is not in my view a U5. I urge you to reconsider this deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been hanging around since 2009 with no changes. I should have deleted it as G13. Because nothing was done in all those years, will there be anything done if I restore it? Or will it just languish like it's been doing? Wikipedia, after all, isn't an indefinite hosting service for material that has been deemed unsuitable for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a draft nor in draft space, so G13 doesn't apply, and "stale" is not a speedy deletion criterion. Whether anyone will make use of it to draft a valid article, i can't say. I might not object to it being n deleted by MfD, but it simply doesn't fit any of the WP:CSDs, at least not in my view, and i feel taht those should be quite strictly adhered to. Particularly i want U5 to be strictly adhered to, because it tends in my view to be drastically over-used. I don't see this doing any harm as it was. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A draft needn't be in draft space to be a draft. In fact, "draft space" didn't even exist back in 2009 when that was deleted. The fact remains, it was deleted via AFD, deleted again via WP:G4, and also copied to userspace. At that point, it became a draft. Articles don't have to "do any harm" to qualify for deletion, as this did. I may have erred in deleting it as G4, but it certainly qualifies as a G13. I can restore it as if it were G13, and if it isn't improved in 6 months, it will be deleted again. Is that acceptable? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G13 didn't exist in 2009 either. It was created after AfC migrated from project space to the newly created draft space, and very carefully limited. G13 Quite specifically says This applies to any pages in the draft namespace, as well as any rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages with the {{AFC submission}} template in userspace (my emphasis) Any deletion of a page under G13 that is in userspace and is not tagged with an AfC template is out of process, and subject to summary restoration. But please do restore it, and if someone tags it for G13 in 6 months I can remove the tag then. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a WP:STALEDRAFT, so it should probably be restored to draft space and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption. The correct thing to do at this point, actually, is consult with the deleting administrator for a different viewpoint. I have directed him to this talk page here. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

iDubbbz redirect

The page iDubbbzTV has been salt protected. However, it should be created as a redirect to iDubbbz. That's all. Can you or another admin please make that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuyonYouTube (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page iDubbbzTV must be re-created as a redirect to iDubbbz. Originally the criteria for notability was not met, but his single Asian Jake Paul charted, making the article meet the criteria for notability. Thanks, Howpper (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder how that article got into main space when Draft:iDubbbz has existed since October 2017 and has been edited up to a week ago. @Anthony Appleyard: who merged the contents of different articles to main space, and @AngusWOOF: who created the live draft: What gives? I see in the history of iDubbbz some declined AFC submissions but no approval -- and the current incarnation is disturbingly similar to the last version declined. Should this even be in main space? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had moved an earlier copy to Draft back on April 9, 2018 because it clearly wasn't ready for mainspace. But MrDankMeme ignored whatever I commented on in Draft and re-created the article in mainspace, and a histmerge was requested. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: thanks. To me, this looked like an evasion of article create-protection. My first reaction was to summarily delete it as such, or restore it to draft, until I saw your activity and Anthony's. Do you agree this incarnation is appropriate for main space? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It sucks that editors are ignoring the draft approval process, but now about the only thing that can be done is to leave the BLP primary sources tags on the article until it eventually can be referenced with secondary sources independent of the subject. iDubbbz is the more appropriate name of the subject, as the TV part is just the channel name, so iDubbbzTV could be re-created as a redirect. To be fair, MrDankMeme did edit Draft:iDubbbz on April 27 so he probably had his local draft prepared based on that one. So Draft can be redirected to the article. Version 2 can be deleted as that is a placeholder article created during the histmerge. The concerns from the Draft were all posted to the talk page of the current article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two factor authentication

I want to enable two factor authentication in my account, but I don't know how. I've been notified that there was two fail login attempt in unknown device. Please help me. Thanks. Nguyenducminh2508 (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Nguyenducminh2508: See Wikipedia:Simple 2FA to get started. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short unreferenced articles

Hello. I wanted to reply the message that you left in my talk page. I want to create more articles. Some of they might also be very short in contents, because of lack of information. But if you consider that some articles have to be deleted, please do so. But please don't block my account. I only want to contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknown contributor123: All you have been doing so far is making work for others, and you articles end up being deleted. Use your sandbox or draft space if you want to create draft articles. Don't put them in main space. The disruption you are causing will result in you being blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Two things: 1) Can I keep creating articles even though some of them might be short? If you consider that they should get deleted, then you can do it. 2) What's the meaning of creating draft articles? Aren't those supposed to be only yours and not get published in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknown contributor123: If you keep creating articles that others must delete, it is much less work for everyone if your account is blocked, to prevent further disruption.
To create a draft article, see Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Basically you title it with the prefix "Draft", as in Draft:Example article. Your draft articles are available for anyone to work on, but they will get deleted if they have no activity for six months. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of articles are destined to get deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any articles not meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria will get deleted (see Wikipedia:Notability). Any biographies of living persons that don't have any references to reliable sources will get deleted. Any promotional articles will get deleted. Any original research (topics not described in independent reliable sources) will get deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House with an owl

I'm curious about why you moved this back to draft space. It had showed up in the queue waiting to be reviewed, and looked like it met all the criteria so I accepted it. What problem did you see? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I came across that in a list of new articles created by newbies, and it looked to me like an article still in draft form, with citations to works that briefly mentioned the subject, that was unintentionally created in main space instead of draft space. I moved it to draft to protect it from deletion, and in doing so I failed to notice that you had already reviewed it. I did eventually notice, but then I got pulled away by family matters so I never got a chance to revert myself. I'll do that now. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool, thanks. Yeah, I don't think it's the best article in the world, but compared to most of the drek I see at AfC, it's really not so bad :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WebTeb

The article was created today and been nominated for speedy deletion, but after having a talk with the editor who nominated it for speedy deletion, he told us to make some changes and we made them, and we added En references to the article that show that it has a good high notability .. at least in the Arab world!Mohammad Hijjawi (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I deleted it, I looked at every source and did not find any example of significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Instead I found brief mentions and press releases. If you like, I can restore it to draft space for you to improve and submit for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Or I can restore it to main space and nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. What is your preference? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of refs were available in the Arabic language, and they were strong enough and from very good newspapers and trusted sites, but we had to replace them by En refs, I prefer to create a draft version, I will try to add more refs and lets take other editors' opinion. ThanksMohammad Hijjawi (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammad Hijjawi: All right. I have restored the article to Draft:WebTeb.
There was already an older draft, written by someone else, so I merged the histories of your article and the older version, and designated you as the author in the submission box at the top of the page. You can view the older revisions in the article history in case there is anything useful there.
While English sources are preferable, they are not mandatory. Non-English sources are better than none at all!
When you're done, submit it for review by clicking in the box at the top. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Wilhelm Vossenkuhl

Hello Anachronist. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: Appears to be a notable academic. Please see the German article at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Vossenkuhl. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, having an article in another Wiki is IMO not a criterion for inclusion in en.Wiki. Especially as in this case where the German article has only a list of the subject's publications and two interviews as sources. If you can establish that he holds a named chair, then he would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Otherwise it is a candidate for one of our three types of deletion process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) To be fair, the article makes (at least one, arguably two) credible claims to significance. Having said that—and certainly in the article's current condition—Eastmain has somewhat merely postponed the inevitable: it's unlikely to survive an AfD. Which, if I ever get off this blarsted phone, I may lodge myself. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 09:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: @Kudpung: While the article as it stands looks speedy-deletable to me, in looking at the Google translation of the German Wikipedia article, I find the statement "From 1993 to 2011 he taught at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich as a chair holder of Philosophy I." Holding a chair position is sufficient to meet WP:NACADEMIC inclusion criteria. It is likely, therefore, that an AFD would result in a 'keep'. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I knew about the chair. I was just testing how good we are at researching for articles. A bit disingenuous perhaps, but it worked. We still need the source though. While this source, not used on de.Wiki, is important and while Vossekuhl as a subject is highly notable, the Wikipedia articles about him probably meet one of Wikipedia inclusion requirements per WP:NACADEMIC, but must nevertheless be adequately sourced. The creator, EgyptianSnow on the other hand, should probably be asked to provide complete articles rather than starter stubs of little value in the expectation that others will do their work for them. I have moved the page to draft. (FYI: Eastmain. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That hoary old chestnut "just testing" :D *pokes Kudpung* But seriously, if there are furren langwidge sources out there, can we get them into the article? I'm afraid I (as is probably claer) have no effective access to de.wp, but thanks Acanchronist for clarifying. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title.

Hello. Just a question please. How can you edit an article's title? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to move the article to another title. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: warring

Hi. You left a message on my talk page regarding edit warring on the Beachwood, Ohio article. Just so you are aware, if you look at the talk page for that article, both I and another editor have both left rational explanations for the various reverts (the reverts were made due to inaccurate and/or random/redundant information as well as NPOV language), however, the other party in the alleged edit war has not responded. If you get a chance, I would ask that you please look at the history of the article going back the past 8 months as the editor (see: User talk:Davidbergeraza1823), was previously warned repeatedly under another username ( see: User talk:Mark612 ) about his editing. He has a history of either inaccurate or unsubstantiated edits that are akin to marketing language and/or journalism. His edits are limited to a handful of articles, at least one of which he created himself and has since been deleted per WP policy. And for the record, I reached out to two different admins regarding this and received no response. Meanwhile, I've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years and have no agenda other than to keep the articles encyclopedic and on topic. But now I'm being warned that I will be barred for trying to make edits that, under WP editing guidelines, are effectively in the right. Please have a closer look. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. To an uninvolved admin, I see several back and forth reverts, well-reasoned, but that is no excuse for edit warring over a long period, as has happened. Stability of the article should be preserved. I don't care how much time any of the editors have on Wikipedia, warring is warring, and if you can't avoid doing that, my options to preserve stability are limited: protect the article, or block accounts. In the event that both parties seem equally disruptive (even if in good faith), I would block both parties. Rather than resorting to those solutions, I elected to warn both parties and then I went through the article with fresh eyes to remove anything that seemed unsubstantiated or non-neutral. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. I see another admin already protected the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Your Recent Reversions

I believe you may be acting overzealously. I would like to discuss a certain issue with you you continually intervene in. The issue involves several members with administrative status, intense COI, and a case I am going to submit to the arbitration committee. Is there anyway we could speak in private?73.58.148.1 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss what you want to discuss in the open, on the article talk page. In your case, I saw an anonymous IP address with zero previous edits remove validly sourced content from Karl Kjer without leaving any explanation whatsoever. It looked like vandalism, so it was reverted, plain and simple, which is a standard practice. If you want to defend your edit, please do so on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing refspam

Hello! I'm writing on your last edit of my article List_of_WebGL_frameworks. You removed most links from that article with that edit. The problem is that not all WebGL frameworks listed there have a dedicated article. So the only way to confirm that a particular WebGL framework exists, and that it is notable (I used to remove non-notable frameworks from that list), is to provide a reference to the official website. Also, without having a direct link, WebGL developers would need to take some efforts in order to find the official website where downloads, demos and documentation are usually located. If providing a link per each table entry is against the rules of Wikipedia, I'll just remove all frameworks without a dedicated article from there. SantaWinsAgain (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anachronist&oldid=844354611"