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.

As per your comment in Tryfon Tzanetis article edit request

Once more, I was not posing any questions. I'm unsure why you continue to add content and say that I am asking questions or that I did not understand. I comprehended everything from the initial response, but I made a comment regarding the final sentence of Favorian. (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2025 (EET)

Courtesy Vanishing Request

Hello Wikipedia admin, I request a Courtesy Vanishing action be taken against my account "Klingri"; I want my Wikipedia account to be courtesy vanished as I don't intend to be on Wikipedia anymore. Thank you. Klingri (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Klingri: I am neither a steward nor do I have global renaming rights, so I am not the right person to ask. See WP:VANISHREQ for instructions on requesting courtesy vanishing.

Your edits have been constructive, so I encourage you to consider staying. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Featured host

I see you are active at the Teahouse, so I put you in as a featured host (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/7). Feel free to customize the picture to your liking. Interstellarity (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the image, although I don't see any host pictured in the Teahouse banner. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Teahouse

Why such negative/condescending responses? [1] [2] Toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 05:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree they were condescending. They were honest reactions. Yes, they were negative, deliberately, given that the editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Your honest reaction looks very condescending to me. There's no need to type out "OMG" and "give us a break" just because someone misunderstood Wikipedia's purpose (which happens a lot). If I was an unassuming newbie seeing an admin and VRT member responding like that, I don't think I'd feel comfortable using the Teahouse again. Toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 16:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

What an honest reaction looks like to you isn't something I can control.

When I read the draft, by brain reacted strongly with these words: "Oh my gosh, is this garage-band wannabe seriously expecting reviewers to waste their time on this steaming pile of promotional shit? And he has the audacity to lodge a complaint with his very first public comment?" I actually dialed it back when I replied, in which I pointed out the relevant guideline and essay.

This wasn't an unassuming newbie, this was an assuming newbie who is now blocked, who didn't come here to improve the Wikipedia project, but assumed not only that his band would merit an article alongside, say, Led Zeppelin or The Beatles, but also that Wikipedia can be used as a publicity platform, in spite of Wikipedia being around long enough for the world to know better. To his credit, however, he did provide reasonable replies to challenges before being blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Those comments don't read as condescending to me. I don't even see a lot of negativity in them, beyond the general point that this draft won't be moved to mainspace.

I would suggest, if you see invicivility in them, that you reflect upon what exactly about them seems uncivil, and if you cannot nail down a few specifics, consider that they might not have been intended that way. See User:MjolnirPants/clarify, a page I (usually forget to) use when it seems apparent to me that something I'm typing might come across as angry or condescending and I don't want it to. In fact, I would say it's a good idea to take the advice on my little subpage every time you find any comment to be of questionable civility. Remember that this is a hobby for all of us, and for most people, hobbies are fun.

Finally, I would note that a little condescension is often called for. Most new editors will reach a Dunning-Kruger point in their editing fairly quickly, and a blow to the ego can be a good thing for them when they do. I myself find that an extremely negative altercation I had very early in my wiki-career with a very arrogant (and now-indeffed) editor actually resulted in quite the improvement in the way I approached editing, specifically disputes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I like your page. I'll have to remember it. And my comment "you can't be up-and-coming, you must have already arrived" was written with a smile, although not with the beer. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The funny part is, the only time I ever drink beer is when I'm socializing. So if I'm ever handing you a beer, know that the whole point is because I'm having a good time with ya. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

"Jacknjellify" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jacknjellify 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 11 § Jacknjellify until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your help @ teahouse

I appreciate the advice! Thebest8382 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Unprotect Jacknjellfy

I'm not sure why this needed extended confirmed protection in the first place. Very, very, unnecessary. - ExcitedA. It may be a good idea to look at this. 14:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from looking at the deleted contribution history of the Jacknjellify redirect, in 2022 there was a rash of autoconfirmed sockpuppets and other accounts repeatedly trying to create a page for a topic that wasn't notable then according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacknjellify. ECP was necessary to stop the disruption. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That was three years ago. Give it another chance, and if socks try to create the page again, we can put back the extended confirmed protection. - ExcitedA. It may be a good idea to look at this. 19:20, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a draft ready to publish? Has anything happened in the last 3 years to suggest the topic is notable enough to merit a standalone article? As far as I could tell, the answer was "no", which is why I preserved the protection when I created the redirect. It's only at ECP, so pretty much any reviewer can replace the redirect with an article by approving a WP:AFC draft. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Anachronist: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 🥭 Mango ^{[ talk | edits ]} 16:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

🥭 Mango ^{[ talk | edits ]} 16:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Greeting

—𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 06:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

An idle questioner who was a sockpuppet

Hello - I don't know if it has any significance, but there has also been a noticeable increase - just in the last 2 days, 3 at most - of temporary accounts also asking odd/idle/aimless questions on the Teahouse. (The questions haven't been a particular problem, just wondered about the coincidence factor.) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

They get blocked as a sockpuppet, they log out, likely obtain another IP address automatically from their provider, and then ask for help. The message never gets across that the person behind the account is the one who is blocked, not the account itself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Anachronist!

Happy New Year!

Anachronist,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
🥭 Mango ^{[ talk | edits ]} 10:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

🥭 Mango ^{[ talk | edits ]} 10:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Request

""Regrettably"? I would have said "Fortunately"! etc etc

The reason I said "regrettably" is that it is more polite and friendly. "I'm sorry, we can't use your information unless you can source it to a publication". I'm sure that the individual in question has the best of intentions (and may actually have access to a published source); I would also point out that they may genuinely have access to useful information (which, regrettably, is not the same as usable information).

I politely request that you remove that particular comment from the Teahouse, as it could be perceived as hostile. DS (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It was intended to be humorous. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me, if you also remove the insincere apology "regrettably". Your sentence would be fine without it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to be polite to new users who have no idea what they're doing. You can just not say anything.

Telling other people to not be polite, however, is not acceptable. DS (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I never told anyone not to be polite. I have told people not to be insincere. Prefacing a neutral, factual statement with an insincere apology like "regrettably" or "unfortunately" is impolite, and not acceptable for my own communication. Your own sense of integrity is your business, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

You told me not to be polite to the new user. I will accept that you did not understand that this was what you were doing, because the only other option is that you did understand that this was what you were doing.

I will also accept that you did not understand that it is an insult to tell someone that their politeness and friendliness are insincere. Because, again, the only other option is that you did understand that you were being insulting.

Wikipedia is a project for grownups. Being able to work with others is a prerequisite.

Is it likely that the user in question will have access to a usable source of information about his great-grandfather — honestly, no. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. And telling someone "it's a good thing we can't use your information" is cruel, in a way that "I'm sorry, but we can't use your information" is not.

If you don't think it's a good idea to be polite and friendly to new users who clearly don't know what they're doing, I strongly recommend that you stop interacting with new users. In particular, don't answer questions on the Teahouse. DS (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Where did I tell you not to be polite? That never happened. Or did you think my suggestion to remove "regrettably" makes your statement impolite? No, it just makes it factual. As for insincerity, do you truly regret that someone cannot write whatever they believe is true in a Wikipedia article, without citing sources? You and I have been around for a very long time, add I think we both know that Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and neither of us regret that it doesn't work that way. You may think you were being polite, but it looked to me like you were being insincere. As I said, you communicate how you want within the constraints of your sense of integrity, and I will do the same. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy 25th Anniversary of Wikipedia!!

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Anachronist, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

EXIF data

It is used as an indicator, nor more, no less, that a file on Commons has been photographed by the uploader. Having EXIF data does not guarantee that it has been. Lacking it does not guarantee that it has not. Thus it is useful, but not diagnostic in and of itself. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I did

It's not a thing I would make a mistake about, thiugh I did appear to have made a typo. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah no. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Articles_for_creation%2FHelp_desk&oldid=prev&diff=1334650654 this diff] shows there was no typo.

First, I have a gadget which shows global locks, second I look at the relevant Global Accounts page. here, though obviously it only shows the current status. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I was confused because I'm the one who blocked the guy, and I have no option to lock an account globally. No, you didn't make a mistake, you just pointed out that somebody else did something globally that I wasn't aware of.

In User:Anachronist/vector.js I've got a couple of things that show me user states and permissions, but it looks like they don't show global locks. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It may be the gadget "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" locally here or it might be "MarkBlocked: Strike out links to blocked users" at Meta.

I ticked something ages ago and can't recall which. It's exceptionally useful, despite my having no 'power' on any WMF site.

I'm sure you know that the only way to have a global lock implemented is at Steward Request at Meta. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Wasian

Hi, can you unsalt the page because I want to make it into a redirect to Multiracial Americans#Eurasian-American identity where it’s mentioned and the article notes that it’s seen an uptick in usage in the 2020s. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the redirect. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I was the one that made a number of edits on the Kalshi page and have since logged in. I sincerely believe that the revisions I made are significantly more representative of the topic and should not constitute promotional content. I also do not have any conflicts of interest, I simply use the platform and I work in the financial services industry.

I did not remove the controversies, nor did I exclude any of the lawsuits in the new lede. Additionally, the page in its current state does not respect the consensus in the talk page. For example "prediction betting" rather than a "prediction market".

The current version of the page that's up is significantly more biased and demonstrates nothing to the reader than the controversies. There are indeed many, but it misconstrues the company as merely another sportsbook, similar to DraftKings, but there are fundamental differences that should be outlined.

I think a reasonable compromise could be to go back to versions from early 2025 and update the information. Those revisions are significantly more balanced, nuanced, and provide a fair representation of the company. SpaceEnthusiast23 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Edit Request Wizard and propose changes on the talk page. Since the version to which I reverted, there have been many promotional edits added, along with removal of valid sources. The reversion and protection was to preserve stability, as is the job of an administrator to enforce. I am otherwise not involved with the content of that article, and I have no familiarity with the subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the help SpaceEnthusiast23 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Categorization of AE protection actions needed (3 February 2026)

Hello Anachronist,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 23:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC) (Divya Khosla Kumar)

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Misuse of G6

• Deletion log 07:40  Anachronist talk contribs deleted page Draft:Winston Weinberg (G6: Technical deletion (uncontroversial maintenance): Deleted rejected draft created by editor who created several sockpuppets and is still being edited. Deleted to remove exposure of possibly misleading information about a living person.)

This is a blatant misuse of WP:G6. The last sentence is wildly ambitious as a justification, the individual is very public, the information is well sourced. The problem is merely notability, with probable UPE. The sockpuppety is predictable. Misuse of deletion is not the answer to sockpuppety. Please undelete and send to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The sockpuppet requested deletion here at 4:51 on 5 February, and I deleted it later the same day at 7:40. I admit I did mess up with the rationale, should have been G7 (assuming sockpuppetry). In any case, I see no basis for restoration. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

G7 is also not applicable. A variety of reasons.

By deleting, you are hiding very interesting history of an extraordinary case of interviews being used to argue Wikipedia-notability. There’s also the AI, UPE and then sockpuppety following. It is no great surprise that the person behind it wants to hide the history. I want the page to inform the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#An active test case of this essay, a new editor, and a challenged new article.

Your deletion was out of process. Please reverse it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I consider this a deletion in accordance with WP:G7. Assuming it's a sockpuppet, that was the only person making substantive contributions to the draft, and the creator has a right to request deletion regardless of the underlying reason. Are you requesting restoration in a WP:REFUND sense, or because of your own convenience because you don't want to look for another example? Note that as a draft, it would be deleted in six months anyway if it isn't moved somewhere permanent. Draft space isn't intended to be permanent. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist @SmokeyJoe @Timtrent I don 't think this is G6 or a G7. I don't think Mark is from the same sock farm as WH and friends but haven't filed at SPI. So technically we go to MfD. That said, restoring a rejected draft that a lawyer is going to argue over is a waste of community time and effort. Star Mississippi 21:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

There is the option to restore it and ignore the blandishments of the current interested party. I am half serious, half tongue un cheek. This is a marketing person this new editor, and they will likely find that the rope concept allows them to choose to leave.

You never know, they might pull their horns in. I feel they are under job pressure, so am somewhat sympathetic. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I want to use this specific case with a view to updating WP:Interviews, and possibly making a proposal that interviews alone cannot be used to establish Wikipedia-Notability. It is an extreme case of a public person where all coverage comes from interviews. It also has a fascinating irony, being about an AI company founder where every proponent posts with a strong smell of AI (not the vanilla ChatGPT, but an assertive argumentative style, and that I think has been trained using the Wikipedia back room namespaces).

It’s also a blatant misuse of deletion. It is astounding that restoring is resisted. Is it that old admins don’t care any more? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The draft is likely to be created anew, in a different form. I deleted it because (a) it was requested, an (b) it successfully defused a time-suck of an argument between a paid editor who should learn the ropes, and regulars whose time is valuable. Therefore, I am hesitant to restore it. Why is that so "astounding"? If I truly didn't care anymore, I'd ignore your comment.

Your proposal that interviews alone cannot be used to establish notability seems redundant. That is already covered in multiple places, especially the often-linked WP:42. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You deleted contrary to policy. We can continue at DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Substantially similar content already exists in mainspace[3]. You can link to that. I already explained my reasoning immediately above. Restoring the redundant draft would have zero benefit to the Wikipedia project. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I want the reviewers comments, which were in the draft. I also want Draft talk:Winston Weinberg. Just like we have User talk:WestwoodHights573 and its history/archives. This is a study, not a reference.

It’s also important that you acknowledge that your deletion was out of process, and your log entry statements incorrect (there was no misleading BLP content). SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I already said my log entry was incorrect, above. I disagree that the draft should be restored, for reasons I have already stated. I also disagree that your personal convenience for a study offsets the negative benefit of restoring the draft, which has wasted enough community time already. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Continue at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February 9. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

As pointed out in the DRV, the draft is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20260116135555/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winston_Weinberg with all the reviewer comments. There is no need to restore it here, where it would be deleted after 6 months of inactivity anyway. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Why did you delete my talk page?

It was not vandalism. It was glitched text, which is cool for a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ~2026-82730-4 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nobody deleted your talkpage. An edit filter caught your edit (and several others of your nonsenses). Compare the block on your page, and note that Wikipedia is not a playground. And yes, your edits are vandalism. Bishonen | tålk 16:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC).

George Edwards III page

Thank so much for all the changes you made on this page. Dr. Edwards asked for my help to make some corrections, and I was trying to figure it out and made many mistakes. If I send you proper links and information, would you be willing to make the changes? Brendaskent (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. Anything concerning that article must take place in public, on the talk page: Talk:George C. Edwards III.

Use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to propose changes in the form "change X to Y", citing reliable sources, preferably sources that are independent of Edwards. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

SPI

Hi! I've spent a while on this, could you let me know what you think since you've spent a while talking to them & might have some insight I'm missing? I had to do it on mobile so it took over an hour... [4]

I'm worried it's too long, but since they can't CU TA's I felt I had to explain literally everything. I hope it makes sense? Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah and I didn't see you're an admin - sorry, it's 6am and I haven't slept yet 😅

I was just looking for someone else's view if that's ok, you don't need to do anything with it - I think this is the second SPI I've ever started & wanted a second opinion.

I know admins are super busy so feel free to just delete this if you are, that's totally fine! Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

That looked like a lot of work. In your timing details, the middle one has no link, and the second one has a link that doesn't match your description. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You also have "They've denied this was them here" but the link goes to a nonexistent place; it's better to link an actual diff. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Agh mobile editing strikes again! I'll fix that, thanks so much for checking! Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

TPA

Can you please revoke talk page access for a user recently blocked - Tumi1967. He’s just using it to lash out incoherently and make personal attacks against me. I asked the blocking admin, Robertsky, but it appears he’s offline now. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to reply here. I did this a couple of days ago. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

G11 on The Fifth Discipline

It seems odd to me that such an old article (to where it isn't in the log) was G11-able. Was there no good version of the page to revert to? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I did look at sample version back in the page history (only 133 edits since 2003), and the content was largely the same, basically just a description of the book's contents without secondary sourcing. The latest version cited just three sources, and two of them were junk. I also was surprised that an article obviously existing for publicity purposes survived that long. I thought about declining the G11 nomination, but then figured, it's been in a G11 state for so many years without improvement, it had ample opportunity, and we have stricter guidelines now, so I pulled the trigger. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll add that in spite of my G11 deletion, I have no objection to restoring it to draft space for improvement. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you do so? I've found a couple sources that might be useful from some searching. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done, it's at Draft:The Fifth Discipline. Have at it. A lot of the content currently there shouldn't be there. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

When you unblocked me, you said, "You may want to explain the relationship between the two accounts on your user page." I've done that, but I'm not sure that i did it the right way. Can you check and make sure I did it right? Zuglicnzg (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You did fine. Please let me know if you need help or advice on anything else. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Makrand Dubey

Regarding removal of the page. The data is accurate as I have given the sources as well. I used LLM to make it grammatically correct.

You can check page 110 of his book hindi geeta https://makranddubey.com/geeta.html and page 224 of this book for understanding more https://makranddubey.com/bhagwat.html

These are physically published book. Please restore the page again — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmoghUpadhyay (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It was not ready for mainspace. As I stated on your talk page, you should have gone through WP:AFC and submitted it for review.

You used LLM for more than grammar. The article was full of the vapid flowery prose typical of LLM output, as well as typical formatting with superfluous use of boldface. Vapid prose includes unsubstantiated puffery such as "most widely referenced", "reflecting his twin interests", "stablishing him as a respected voice", "channelled his legal expertise", and more, none of which is supported by secondary sources and none of which is appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Start over. In draft space. And submit it for review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse comments about COI editor

 Courtesy link: WP:Teahouse § When someone else created your wikipedia page

Hello, Anachronist. I am not into debating points of P&G at Teahouse or Help desk in front of users, as it may be confusing to them, but I question some of your reples to a COI editor who fell victim to a scammer in a pay-for-play scheme at WP:Teahouse#When someone else created your wikipedia page. We don't know exactly what their arrangement was, but according to the user, "A person approached me to create my wikipedia page - they charged me £300 they created the page but it hold inaccuracies..." while leaving out plenty of details. At 09:34, 24 Feb, you said:

Submitting an AFC draft for review is the only legitimate venue Wikipedia offers for someone with a COI to get an article published here.

That's news to me; can you cite a guideline or policy? Afaik, publishing on a COI topic is strongly discouraged (WP:COI lead, and WP:COI § COI editing) but not forbidden, so a COI editor in good standing with ten edits could publish to mainspace on their own. Then it would be up to community consensus whether it was proper or not. Alternatively, they could ask for someone at WP:TEA or WP:HD to review it per WP:COITALK in a message declaring their COI, and if the article was well written and adhering to all P&G, that might result in a neutral editor moving it to mainspace with WP:COIRESPONSE in mind. Following a COI editor's suggestions if you have examined it and agree, is not WP:PROXYING. Later, you said:

The "service" provided was to create an article worthy of being accepted in mainspace. That service was not provided, so she should get her money back.

We don't know the details of their agreement, so I don't see how you can make that statement. Did the agreement call for publishing an article in mainspace? Then, then they fulfilled their end and did what was promised. Did it call for the article surviving in mainspace for three months (check) or six months (bzzzt!)? We just don't know.

I have no beef with your blocking the scammer which they rightly deserved, but it seems to me your claims to the questioner were a bit off. I can understand them in the context of simplifying responses to brand new users in order to leave out possibly confusing grey areas, thus translating "strongly discouraged" into "prohibited", and translating a preference for submitting a draft to Afc into a requirement for submitting a draft to Afc. I prefer to stick to actual language of guidelines, and credit the user with the ability to understand some subtlety involved in them. Just my two cents. Mathglot (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

See the COI guideline, fourth bullet point of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing, recommending that COI editors should submit drafts via AFC rather than create articles directly in mainspace. That really is the only venue that the guidelines actually recommend for COI editors to create an article.

You are correct in that I don't know the details of the agreement, but typically the scammers promise to write a "keeper" article. I never heard of a scammer who makes an agreement saying "I'll get the article started for ₤300 and then you get it into shape." ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Very aware; we are in agreement that the guideline recommends it. As far as the article, it sat in mainspace for three months, and likely would be there still, had I not taken the initiative to draftify it. A few days past the no-draftify limit, I might add (which I interpret as a recommendation as well, although some might insist it is more than that, given the Rfc behind it). Here's an irony: if you wanted to catch me out for not adhering to the letter of that recommendation, you could, by just moving it back to main space as improperly draftified by yours truly. But, shhhhhhhhh, if you don't tell anyone, I won't! Mathglot (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Protections in AELOG

Hi Anachronist! Hope you are doing well. I wanted to let you know that after a recent ArbCom motion, page protections are automatically logged, so you no longer need to do this manually. See Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections § About this page for exact details.

I am reaching out as a fellow admin, not as an arb; you are absolutely not in trouble :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know I had to log my protection of a CTOP article until someone informed me a few weeks ago. I tend to stay away from those topics. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Raoul Minetti page created by Abbas Harun

Dear Sir, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing regarding your recent deletion of the Wikipedia page Raoul Minetti created by Wikipedia editor/creator Abbas Harun at the end of January. Please let me know the most suitable way to contact you on this matter. Thank you, kind regards ~2026-13445-35 (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You have contacted me here on this page, which is the best way. Do not use AI to communicate on Wikipedia. Also, there is no such username "Abbas Harun" on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am writing to get information on the source of the problem regarding this page. I was contacted by a Wikipedia editor in January (his name is Abbas Harun, but you can probably see his Wikipedia name on the page you deleted). He asked to create the page, written in an informative, very neutral and non-promotional way of course. Academics have several official pages but he argued that a simple Wikipedia page conveys information to people not working in academia in a simpler way, which is true (I am active also in other fields including cultural foundations, social initiatives, and international prizes for students and scholars, among other things). He posted the page and showed it to me. I think he did a good job, simple and neutral, the information is correct and well written. He personally asked me to verify and correct any imprecise information, which I did. I then saw you deleted because of issues of AI generated content. ~2026-13445-35 (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There were multiple problems:

• The article was AI-generated in violation of the WP:NEWLLM guideline.
• There was no indication that the subject passes any WP:NACADEMIC criteria for inclusion. Had the article not been deleted because of AI concerns, it would have been deleted for notability concerns.
• The article violated the biographies of living persons policy by making assertions about the subject that were not stated in the cited sources. Instead, it synthesized conclusions from primary sources in violation of WP:SYNTH. This is typical behavior often seen when an AI attempts to write a Wikipedia article.
• The article was written by an undisclosed paid editor in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. Paid editing disclosure is a legally-mandatory requirement that the editor agreed to abide by when creating the account. Also paid editors should create drafts and submit them for review via WP:AFC, rather than force-publish directly into article space as was done in this case. This editor knew that, but didn't want the delay of a review with a possible rejection; he wanted to get paid quickly. You're in academia, you know very well that you cannot publish anything without peer review. The same is true on Wikipedia wherever there's a conflict of interest, as was the case here.
• Because it failed to demonstrate notability but simply establish existence, the article's purpose was clearly for publicity, which violates the WP:NOTPUBLICITY policy. In that sense it was not neutral, but promotional.

Furthermore, there is no indication that anyone named "Abbas Harun" wrote it. It was written by an account "Xabareawmav" with absolutely zero track record of ever successfully publishing an article on Wikipedia. That account is blocked and the owner never bothered to appeal it, likely satisfied to disappear after taking your money.

Bear in mind that if you are approached by someone wanting you to pay money to write an article, and that person doesn't have an account with the mandatory paid editing disclosure on it, that person is a scammer. Wikipedia is built by volunteers who have written articles about millions of subjects without pay. Paying to have an article written implies a promotional or publicity purpose, which is prohibited here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that "Abbas Harun" has been mentioned on Wikipedia before, in this complaint that was unfortunately posted on the wrong noticeboard. Apparently he was harassing academics in 2023, and likely before that.

Finally, if you do nothing else, please read the big yellow box at the top of Wikipedia:Scam warning. Take its advice to heart. At the bottom of the box you'll find an instruction for reporting the scammer. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I admit I am increasingly puzzled by this whole situation. This is his LinkedIn page, with 27K connections, where he presents himself as a senior Wikipedia editor and article creator with over 5000 articles. There is a public page that has been online for years. Among his connections there are several others with similar profiles who also claim to be senior Wikipedia editors. Now you are telling me that this has been known for 3 years, but no action has been taken. hehttps://www.linkedin.com/in/abbas-harun?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app ~2026-13445-35 (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Complaints can be made to LinkedIn. Wikipedia has no relationship nor influence over LinkedIn.

Please also forward copies of your entire conversations with him, including email headers, to the address in WP:Scam warning. If you paid him by credit card, try to reverse the charge.

There should be no puzzlement when someone boasts about Wikipedia accomplishments and then does not disclose anything that can be verified. Just seeing "Nigeria" in the description should already raise suspicion. Also there is no such thing as a "senior" Wikipedia editor. He perfectly fits the profile of a scammer in WP:Scam warning, especially if he reached out to you initially, and has stopped communicating with you after the article was deleted.

An editor with at least a modicum of experience would demonstrate some familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, yet he violated a number of them when writing that article (I linked the policies and guidelines in my bullet list above). Whether these violations were deliberate or from ignorance, I cannot say.

Scammers do their best to appear legitimate, so they make public fraudulent claims, hoping to fool people. He is certainly not going to reveal that he's been banned from Wikipedia like all undisclosed paid editors. I have seen others like this on LinkedIn as well. I have complained myself and got no response and saw no action taken. Scammers have a safe haven there, apparently. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate this explanation. I have some considerations however: 1) I now see on google and AI that the problem of a market for wikipedia pages has become severe, with many reporting the same issue I am facing. In scientific journals nothing is visible on the journal page/portal until it's accepted, it simply doesn't exist until it's accepted. Instead, in wikipedia, pages can get created by administrators that look perfectly fine and then get canceled after weeks or months. Abbas showed me a perfectly polished wikipedia page with no warning of any type. Many people are not aware of the rules of Wikipedia. I know that wikipedia pages can be edited and even canceled, but in my naivete I thought that if a "wikipedia editor" creates a page it is automatically a legitimate page, subject to improvement, but legitimate. In the face of this large problem, allowing people to publish pages without putting a clearly visible warning is a recipe for games of every type.

2) When Abbas proposed me the page I checked the list of academics in my category/country to understand whether this was legitimate (I wondered, maybe this is a scam and one needs a nobel prize). Two considerations here. The list of prominent academic economists is severely lacking and largely incomplete. This is fine, most academics don't care or want a wikipedia page, there are many official pages and sources of information they use. I inspected the list in my category and I concluded my notability was above many of those in the list and comparable to various others. So I thought in absolute good faith this page proposal by him was perfectly ok for the standards of notability. Now I see that various pages are written with more references and details, but adding these references and details is very easy. That's why I am surprised by the cancelation, rather than a request to add details and references to the page. Again the page is written accurately, it describes things well and without imprecisions, it just lacks details and references. ~2026-13684-62 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13684-62 (talk page watcher) please set your surprise aside. If you have paid money you are victim of WP:SCAM. We are all sorry for your loss of money, but have no interest of any description in allowing an alleged scammer to make any form of profit, even an intellectual profit.

The item did not meet our standards. The burden of meeting those standards is on the creating editor. This is not worth your time and trouble. If you are truly notable then someone will write an article about you, assuming that you are who you say you are. But this is the internet. We neither believe nor disbelieve you, but note that you could be anybody at all.

With regard to other articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy.

You are welcome to use WP:AFC to attempt to create an article about yourself. It will be reviewed against what is required by experienced reviewers. Most people are incapable of writing a Wikipedia autobiography. I hope you are one of the <2% who succeed. Wikipedia will be improved if accepted and improved if declined. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your polite comments and suggestions Timtrent. I never thought of a Wikipedia page until I was contacted by that person. I admit, not knowing Wikipedia rules, I thought it was perfectly fine that a person asked a small fee for organizing the information and the text. It's work. I know of people who ask friends to write wikipedia pages for them, I personally don't find this particularly more elegant than a person offering a simple service of organization of the information, as long as it's honest work and complies with the rules of the community. Since he claimed to be from Nigeria I thought even more honest to pay a small fee. Regarding the page. As I said, academics use several official pages for information purposes, they don't need of a Wikipedia page in itself. That said I am personally a fan of Wikipedia, when people say it's not reliable and one shouldn't use it, I always strongly dispute these comments. I also suggested the use of Wikipedia many times to my thousands of students over nearly 25 years of classes. So I appreciate your suggestions for Wikipedia page, which I take on board. ~2026-13445-35 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse: "we don't do pre-review reviews"

In reply to a user asking for comments at the Teahouse at WP:Teahouse#Kindly Review on their submitted draft, I noticed this comment of yours (diff ):

...we don't do pre-review reviews

This is not the case. Please do not indicate to new users at the WP:Teahouse a personal preference of yours not to review submitted drafts as if it were some sort of Wikipedia guideline or common practice. There is no such guideline, and plenty of editors respond to such requests all the time. Imho, comments like this just muddy the waters, and are not helpful to new users. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You're right. I've seen others say the same comment, although that may have been on the AFC help desk. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes the grammatical number of a pronoun makes a difference. I think that "I don't do pre-review reviews" would be appropriate on a user talk page, but would muddy the waters differently at a project page like the Teahouse or the AFC Help Desk. (In my opinion, very little that is said at the AFC Help Desk has much value, but that is because most of the questions asked there are asked without thinking.) Maybe that is consistent with what User:Mathglot is saying. If someone asks for a pre-review review at the Teahouse or the AFC Help Desk, ignoring them may be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Bika Naik

Thank you for explaining the warning. Is there an explanation for what is now reference 2, which still comes up 404? References 3 and 6 appear to be the same, except that they do not have a URL, only a description. Are you saying that more than one bad reference is needed to infer the use of artificial intelligence? Can you please explain? 'Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I have inadvertently added 404 links in citations simply by mis-typing them; in this case it looks like the state name was left out in the state editions URL string. I removed the speedy deletion nomination per WP:AGF because I saw no other indications of AI generation. However, I suspect that source indeed may be hallucinated. A google search shows that citation coming up only in Draft:Bika Naik and Grokipedia.

The one without a link, Dictionary of Martyrs, is available online here and does mention Bika Naik, but it's a trivial mention.

The last citation appears to cite a work in Hindi by Dinesh Kumar Mali, titled "Shaheed Bika Naik Ki Jha". It is mentioned here if you translate it, but as far as I can tell it isn't available online, suggesting that the AI wouldn't have access to it either and it might be in the possession of the creator of the draft.

Again, whether it's AI generated isn't clear to me. Some of it may be, and some of it isn't. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Heidi Health logo.svg

Not asking you to undelete, but the reason I used PROD rather than F5 is that the image is free. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It was labeled free, although the decorative 'h' didn't look to me like it qualified as free. Maybe if I looked closely it would be made up of simple shapes? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Request to change Nimmi Ramanujam from Extended confirmed protection to Semi-protection

According to Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Protection_level

"In most cases, it should not be a protection level of first resort, and should be used where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective."

Since the article was never semi-protected, and the COI accounts have not been active for a few years, the protection level of Nimmi Ramanujam should be reduced to semi-protection. ~2026-14941-00 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The article has experienced rampant COI editing from people who would be unaffected by semiprotection. Therefore, semiprotection would be ineffective to prevent further disruption.

Use WP:Edit Request Wizard to propose any changes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Request for Unblock –

I understand why I was blocked from creating articles in the mainspace. I acknowledge that some of my previous article creations did not meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines.

I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused to the community. I am now willing to follow all Wikipedia policies, including creating articles in draft space first, using reliable sources, and communicating properly with other editors.

I kindly request that my block be reconsidered. I assure you that I will make constructive and policy-compliant contributions going forward.

Thank you. RifatHasan25 (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The blocking administrator generally does not unblock. You have appealed your block, now you wait for an administrator to review the appeal and ask me to comment if needed. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Bongthinker

User:Bongthinker came to my notice with this,[5] but looking at their history I see a larger problem:[6][7][8][9]

Related: Talk:North_Korea#North Korea as a communist state

I usually edit in the areas of pseudoscience and technology, not politics. Is the above worth reporting? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't frequent politics topics either. I was sort of a moderator for a brief period on Talk:North Korea when I full-protected the article due to a content dispute due to people changing content against the consensus of a prior RFC, but that's about it. A note on the user's talk page would be the first obvious step. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

After becoming the poster child for the Law of holes, Bongthinker was indefinitely blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking more about give someone enough rope, which in this case ended up satisfying the WP:ROPE essay, but I like your "law of holes" analogy better. The guy did keep digging himself deeper after being warned that he shouldn't. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on We Buy Any Car

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page We Buy Any Car, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for being such great admins for this site! (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Darklightsd

I request an administrative review of this user for persistent policy violations and a demonstrated lack of competence.

1. OR issues displayed by repeatedly inserting personal commentary and religious apologia based on primary religious texts rather than reliable secondary sources.
2. Ignoring Warnings by deleting talk page explanations regarding WP:RS from established editors, including User:Toddy1, alongside other administrative warnings.
3. Engaging in disruptive behavior that previously necessitated your page protection of the Aisha article. They are now doing it at Wives of Muhammad, Fitna (film), and other articles.
4. Poor communication style which involves flodding discussions with fragmented scattered replies, preventing constructive consensus. See Talk:Aisha.

They reject established guidelines despite repeated requests to stop. Note they were blocked before for disruptive behavior. I don't see any real improvement since. — Longewal (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I also suspect a possible use of a sock at Special:History/Child marriage. — Longewal (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

This looks like something more appropriate to report at WP:ANI, not to one individual administrator. Please do so there. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Done — Longewal (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Camoz87 evading the block

Hi, I'm writing you since you were the closing admin of this ANI thread and you blocked the user. I wanted to point out to you that the user since then has constantly evaded your block. See for example here (if you need more context as to why I think it's him I can give you a detailed explanations in private). I think therefore that an indef block on all mainspaces is warranted. That's also needed in order to ask for a global lock (beside it.wiki, where he's already indef since 2022, he's spread his AI slop also on Spanish and Latin Wikipedia). --Friniate ✉ 20:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Please send me email with more detailed evidence.

Note also that a site-wide block or a even a global block of that username would not stop block evasion, if temporary accounts are being used. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, but that'd be a first step for more effective counter-measures and an increased awareness across the Wikimedia projects... --Friniate ✉ 21:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Camoz87 is now blocked site-wide for block evasion. I didn't see anything in your email that couldn't have been shared publicly, which might have to be done eventually if you're pursuing a global block. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! The only reason why I didn't share it publicly was not to give him (who I'm sure is reading us right now) more informations on how to circumvent our blocks more effectively... --Friniate ✉ 23:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran War - marked as done, but seemingly not done?

Hello - you marked the following request as Done, but looking through the edit history I can't see a sign that it was? If a change was made it was reverted and I can't find a justification, but if I'm reading the edit history correctly it appears the change wasn't actually enacted?

"Remove the (WIA) for the infobox under Mojtaba Khamenei. Although there is much speculation he is dead or wounded, there is no reliable confirmation on this"

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit - Wikipedia Mrwho995 (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it was done. I removed it in this edit. It looks like someone added it back. This isn't in the article, it's in Template:2026 Iran war infobox, which is transcluded into the article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it was added back just today in this edit. I have reverted it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for correcting my English variation error! Grammar Fascist (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

{{AINBA}} wants you!

You've been active in LLM-related admin stuff recently. Can I convince you to add yourself to this template? Chaotic Enby and Newslinger could use some company. NicheSports (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Guys, SO SORRY for doing the ping. That's what I get for copy and pasting this from Dr vulpes page (where I correctly did {{AINBA}}) NicheSports (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

FWIW Anachronist I only planned on making this appeal for the two of you :) Sorry again... hopefully you'll stay active at AINB NicheSports (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Done. I note that any user can add themselves to that template, not just administrators. We have many experienced users who are not administrators, who would be helpful there too.

I wish I didn't have to do anything with AI cleanup, but unfortunately it has become an unpleasant necessity. I often feel like we're engaging in a futile effort, like trying to prevent a rising ocean tide. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for adding and good point re: non admins. The most obvious person (Gnomingstuff) doesn't like getting pinged, but I'll ask them. Agreed that things look difficult now. At a minimum, GAs will likely remain human-written. And Chaotic Enby is exploring connections with LLM providers to discuss alignment training to force LLMs to comply with our PAGs and (for example) refuse user requests to generate "wikipedia-style articles". We will see NicheSports (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I doubt an AI would ever refuse a request to write a Wikipedia article, because it is possible to use LLM for Wikipedia effectively. I tried writing one experimentally using LLM after I saw the total paid-editing disaster of a draft reeking of LLM slop here. I used an AI to help me write it from scratch, by asking it for help finding sources (it found a lot but I got it to admit eventually there were only two valid sources at the time) and I asked it to suggest article structure and wording, which I paraphrased into the present start-class article Star of Pure Land.

In such a process I like to compare the editor to a Supreme Court Judge, who has assistants to do research and write briefs, but in the end the judge writes the final opinion. The AI can do research, find sources, and suggest things, but in the end the editor writes the article. That's how AI can be used legitimately. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

vapid phrasing

Thank you for your feedback.@Draft:Mukesh Mishra I have removed the vapid phrasing and revised the overall tone. Kindly review the updated draft and let me know if further changes are needed. Yogiin (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Kite area

Look at the pink kites in the following image. They have one horizontal side and one vertical side each.

Their area is not equal to their width (horizontal extent) times height (vertical extent). You need to be more careful with the words you use in formulating mathematical concepts. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Regardless of the orientation, the area is the product of the lengths of the diagonals divided by two. Obviously, there are only two diagonals regardless of orientation. That's what I attempted to convey. I also disagree that length and width are dependent on orientation, the length of such an object is obviously not the length of one edge unless the object is a rectangle. However, I can see how some might interpret it that way if they assume the reference frame you imply. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliable text

Thank you for your warning. I will take extreme precaution from now on. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Usage of yellow man

Moving it here because we needn't clog up that user's talk page with this discussion. For clarity, I am of East Asian heritage. I don't find "yellow man" the most racist term in the world, but if someone referred to me as such, I would certainly find it derogatory. It just has a very loaded past. Just like "Chinaman" on the surface is purely descriptive, but would definitely be derogatory and in a very anachronistic as well (throwing that in there just because of your user name). I can't speak to how other people of other backgrounds see terms related to their background, but I don't consider it necessary as it's more about what weight that specific term carries through usage. Sasquatch t|c 01:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I cannot help but wonder what heritage might be claimed by the user who gave himself that username. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I honestly think they're just a Curious George fan. Glad we could resolve it quickly! Sasquatch t|c 22:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

A𐤡BA reply

Hello there,

I wanted to reply to you but user Favonian speed-archived the edit request so quickly I didn't have time. Then I tried starting a talk section over at A𐤡BA but of course the system wouldn't let me. Drawing a blank as to where to appropriately post this here I am. Perhaps the following exchange would be useful to display over at Talk:A𐤡BA? If you agree this could discourage the kind of deletion you mention, would you move/copy/teleport it there? For the following exchange to be meaningful to the uninitiated I took the liberty of copying our entire back and forth (but of course ignore/delete at your convenience; or ask me to link to the now-archived edit request) CapnZapp (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

copy-pasted section of archived page revision

A𐤡BA

• A𐤡BA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Creating this page was denied with the error message "Very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles"

This would be one of the exceptions. Searching Wikipedia with the phrase "A𐤡BA" should not return an error, it should serve up the ABBA article.

Please create the page with the following content (an exact copy of the existing page AꓭBA)

#REDIRECT [[ABBA]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R from stylization}} }}

CapnZapp (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@CapnZapp : Not done, as you have not submitted an edit request. Requests for a new redirect should be posted at WP:AFC/R. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I have not? What did I submit then? (The error message said "Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard or open a new edit request." I followed the second link. Is it not correct to direct users here? If you meant to say I did everything right except at the wrong place, please confirm this, Ahecht) CapnZapp (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done, I created the redirect, but it's likely to be deleted as an implausible redirect. This is the English Wikipedia after all. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Anachronist! If anyone proposes deleting this page (but not AꓭBA which have lived since January last year) I would point to the pretty prominent fact that the ABBA article itself mentions A𐤡BA (but not AꓭBA) right in the leading sentence! :) Cheers and thanks CapnZapp (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: You're welcome. You can simply reference the page revision at whatever talk page you want. Special:Permalink/1349288335 is the one. However, I don't believe it's necessary to create a talk page that nobody is likely to see for this purpose. If anyone nominates it for deletion at WP:RFD, you can bring it up then. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I guess I fumbled my ask - let me try again: could you put the sentiment "please don't delete this redirect - it has a prominent mention right in the lead sentence of the article" (in the form of your choosing) on Talk:A𐤡BA?

While I could participate in a possible RfD discussion, I could easily miss that between editing bouts (even though I'm watching A𐤡BA) and besides I generally think that sort of "playing defense" is the wrong way to edit Wikipedia: I don't own articles after all. I guess I don't think people delete articles without even looking at their talk pages.

Thank you for the permalink - I did know how to do that, I was more intending to give you the opportunity to link to the previous discussion instead of outright copying it, and even offered to first set that up to minimize your work load. What I would like you to do is to edit the actual talk page once we agree on what we want to post there.

If you feel you've gotten yourself into more than you bargained for, no worries: thank you for your help and I will instead ask back at WP:RFED. regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I have made an edit request at WP:RFED. CapnZapp (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

See this

[10]. I think your revert of Holy Grail was wrong.Doug Weller talk 19:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I reverted it because it didn't really fit in that paragraph. Additionally, the "rape" language in Elaine of Corbenic also seems inappropriate in implying an act of violence; it was more likely a seduction via deception rather than a rape. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Are you going to change her article? Doug Weller talk 09:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

After looking at a couple of sources, I changed it to "seduced". The sources say "slept with" or "had sex with" or that Lancelot "made love" to her while believing she was Guinivere. Lancelot was obviously willing even if deceived, so the incident can hardly be characterized as rape. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)