User talk:Anachronist
| Anachronist is busy on weekends and some weekdays due to real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Archives |
|---|
|
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 |
Contents
- 1 Java Champions deleted page
- 2 Draft:Kelly Robert Savage
- 3 Criticism of Muhammad
- 4 Sometimes I wish there was a repository for seriously funny vandalism
- 5 Is it normal
- 6 Removal of Shazir Mucklai page
- 7 Close at Cathy Newman
- 8 email
- 9 Question
- 10 Finance-related malicious edits and more...
- 11 Contested deletion
- 12 User:ArkaHayer
Java Champions deleted page[edit]
Hi. Thank you for taking care of it. Yes, please to undelete it. I will improve it and add references until it is as required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henritremblay (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Henritremblay: I have restored it to Draft:Java Champions for you to improve. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Kelly Robert Savage[edit]
Hi Anachronist,
I find it difficult to know where I am meant to respond. Everything seems to come up on different pages unrelated to each other, and it seems to misunderstandings from people not seeing the context. Here is the progression as I see it:
It all started from my draft article on my son ("Draft:Kelly Robert Savage") being deleted. I can't see the exact history any more because the article has been deleted. From memory, this is what I did: I wrote an article about my son, Kelly Robert Savage, which I had hoped would go in as a biography. I declared my conflict of interest at the top of the page where the instructions said to declare it. At the time, there was a big red statement saying that I had declared a conflict of interest. Then it took several months for somebody to review it. Finally the reviewer said I couldn't write about Kelly because he was famous for a single thing, but I could rewrite it based on the incident (his death in the psychiatric hospital after being tied to his bed for ten days), and the subsequent changes that we have tried to make. They said that the changes needed to be significant. I have been trying to work to make the changes become significant, at which point I planned to revise the page for publication. I would like to have the page back so I could start revising it. I was not warned about losing the page after six months, otherwise I would have revised it earlier.
I asked for it to be brought back so I could edit it.
Then Flighttime said this:
FlightTime mentioned you on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion in "Draft:Kelly Robert Savage".
@Martha.Savage: It seems (because of your username) you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing that article at all. View mention FlightTime View changes
I told him that I had already declared my conflict (which I did at the top of the page, as above)
Then I got this in response from you:
Anachronist left a message on your talk page in "COI or paid editing".
You claim in this edit that you have "already" declared your conflict of interest, but I see no such declaration anywhere in your contribution history.
If you are being compensated in any way to edit on Wikipedia, you must comply with WP:PAID before you do anything else here. This is a mandatory legal requirement to which you agreed when you created your account here. Consider this a serious warning; any other activity on Wikipedia before you address this concern will result in your account being blocked.
Otherwise, what association do you have with the subjects you have been writing about? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
So here is my reply:
I am not being paid for any of this. I simply want justice for my son and for the psychiatric establishment in Japan to change their dangerous practices. Publicising the problems is one of the ways I am working on it. I think you should not jump to conclusions about the source of a conflict of interest without checking the history, which was already given as my having a similar name to the person I was writing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martha.Savage (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not part of our purpose to be used to right great wrongs and to publicize problems you are working on. If you want to do that, get a Facebook page. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Replied on User talk:Martha.Savage. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Criticism of Muhammad[edit]
Yesterday i answered to Batreeq on the article's talk page, but he didn't respond. Instead, a few hours ago he edited the main page despite consensus still wasn't reached, and inserted very questionable links from YouTube and Islamic blogs that, he claims, are "reliable sources". I reverted his edit due to to Wikipedia:NOR and Wikipedia:UNRELIABLESOURCE. Moreover, he added sentences and notes with a blatantly apologetical, propagandistic tone and purpose from a Muslim point of view on that page (for a full overview on what's going on, read the talk page). I'm afraid that he could try to start another edit war in order to block me again and stop me from editing that page, while he's clearly trying to censor the most controversial aspects of Islam on it. What should i do?--GenoV84 (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- @GenoV84: Regarding your last revert: We can use YouTube as a source in special circumstances. I think this is one of those times. The video was posted by the copyright holder so it's legal. The video is of a recognized Islamic scholar explaining something. Therefore the video is no different than if the scholar posted the words on his blog. And as for blogs, we can cite blogs if they are from a recognized expert in the field. So I think that Youtube source is OK. The question is whether the Criticism of Muhammad article is the right place for it. I'm on the fence on that point. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- He did it again, i warned him twice. Meanwhile, an anonymous IP is trying to delete William Blake's illustration of Muhammad.--GenoV84 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Why are you giving me a "last warning"? What are you planning to do? If you're asking for the article to be protected so you can discuss things, the place to ask for that is WP:RFPP, not to me because I've already been involved in that article. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I wish there was a repository for seriously funny vandalism[edit]
Because Another definition is the science of zoo animal species in crypts; this cryptozoology
was totally vandalism, but also quite amusing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought it was funny too. I was smiling while I reverted it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it normal[edit]
To apply full protection to a page 3 days after the last edit, citing edit warring as the reason? See the history of Duane Gish. The edit war looks to have died down already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I hadn't noticed the date. I just saw edit warring in the history with at least 3 reverts on each side so I just protected it. You are correct, that isn't normal. I'll remove the protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not that the page being protected bothered me much (it was actually on The Right Version if you can believe that), but I was just a little surprised by it. I appreciate the quick response. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Removal of Shazir Mucklai page[edit]
Hi, a while back I created a page for Shazir Mucklai. I never properly had the chance to expalin and therefore it blocked me from ever being able to create it again. Here are some notable PR pieces about him:
https://www.kivodaily.com/marketing/what-the-digital-age-means-to-entrepreneur-shazir-mucklai/ forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2017/05/24/fintech-tools-that-can-change-the-world-of-finance/ https://futuresharks.com/shazir-mucklai/
To give a brief history:
Shazir Mucklai is an angel investor and adviser to many startups, he started doing this while a college student and expanded to running a PR Firm.
Here are some of his bios on top outlets:
“ Shazir Mucklai is an angel investor and adviser in disruptive startups. He is a financier and specializes in options, IPOs, derivatives, and Greek analysis. Mucklai currently runs a six-figure PR firm helping startups commercialize their products and launch their ideas. He also writes for numerous publications, including the Huffington Post and USA Today. All of this while still attending college at the University of Texas at Dallas. “ — INC.com
“ Shazir Mucklai is an angel investor and advisor in disruptive startups. Mucklai started his first venture out of high school selling books on Amazon and turned into an overnight success selling thousands of books through the e-commerce platform. He now writes for Huffington Post and USA Today. He is a financier and specializes in options, IPO’s, derivatives, and Greek analysis. Mucklai is a college senior working on an undergraduate degree in finance at the University of Texas At Dallas. Mucklai currently runs an six-figure PR firm helping startups commercialize their products and launching their ideas from inception to conception.” — USATODAY
“ Shazir Mucklai specializes in options, IPO’s, derivatives, and Greek analysis. Mucklai is a freshman working on an undergraduate degree in economics at the University of Texas At Dallas. “- TheStreet
“Economics major at UT Dallas. First start-up in high school. Over 10 start-ups. Successful stock trader. Published Author. Currently writing for TheStreet. 10bet.com “ — Huffingtonpost
Let me know and I can create it again. 2600:1702:410:5EA0:DD66:F540:903:24DC (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I won't restore it, because those PR pieces don't fix the notability problem because they aren't reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you want, you can try creating the article in draft space and submit it for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Close at Cathy Newman[edit]
Am I reading this right:
- On May 2nd an RFC was opened with the question For the sake of WP:RECENTISM, I'd suggest merging § Jordan Peterson interview into the "Channel 4 News" section under § Career
- On July 20th a new section was created (within the existing RFC) asking effectively the same question Should the text under Cathy Newman § Jordan Peterson interview be merged into the section on her Channel 4 News career
- Your close found no consensus for the merge in the May 2nd discussion, but unanimous consensus in the July 20th discussion thus you closed as "merge."
Were editors who !voted in the first discussion expected to re-vote in the second and if so were they contacted? If not, what's to prevent any editor from restarting the !vote at an arbitrary point and nullifying previous votes? D.Creish (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- The two discussions were under one heading. There was no consensus in the first, and unanimity in the second. That RFC was open for 3 months — plenty of time for anyone to present counter-arguments. No one did.
- This RFC was reported as a backlog item in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. That's how I learned of it. I simply responded to the request and closed the discussion.
- Consensus can, and does, change. I have no objection to a new RFC being started, since so much time has passed since anyone responded to the previous one. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm still not clear. Did you consider the !votes in the first discussion in your close? If you didn't, do you know if the !voters in that discussion were notified of the re-vote? D.Creish (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I considered the votes in both discussions. One was no consensus, the other was unanimous. Taking both together, the conclusion was inescapable. And no, I did not check whether any prior participants were notified. Notification is not mandatory, and not everyone checks Wikipedia every day. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining, I misunderstood thinking you ignored the first, and was going to ask you to revert. I'll reread the thread with that correction in mind. D.Creish (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK. And as I mentioned, I have no objection to opening another RFC if you think it's appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining, I misunderstood thinking you ignored the first, and was going to ask you to revert. I'll reread the thread with that correction in mind. D.Creish (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I considered the votes in both discussions. One was no consensus, the other was unanimous. Taking both together, the conclusion was inescapable. And no, I did not check whether any prior participants were notified. Notification is not mandatory, and not everyone checks Wikipedia every day. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm still not clear. Did you consider the !votes in the first discussion in your close? If you didn't, do you know if the !voters in that discussion were notified of the re-vote? D.Creish (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for wrapping it up, Anachronist. I corrected a minor typo ("concensus" → "consensus") in your closing comments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
email[edit]
I've sent you an email 'cause I don't want to risk making a fool of myself in public.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I wondered who sent me that. I think the situation is resolved now. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Question[edit]
You left two comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Lucidchart.
I left an update, six days ago.
Do you have any idea why there has been no reply? I thought my request was a reasonable one.
Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: Apologies. You didn't ping anyone there, and we tend to scroll to the bottom of that page because that's where the activity generally happens.
- In any case, thanks for the rewrite. I have restored the deleted history of the article and its talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
[edit]
Hello Anachronist, I noticed you recently reverted some finance-related edits, almost all of these coming from a specific range (5.170.4x.x). It seems that similar edits also have been done on human emotions or feelings-related articles. Even in different areas, the moralistic style seems very similar and very similar is the IP range these edits come from. Check these edits for example:
The user behind these edits shows an inclination to restore its questionable claims despite repeated motivated reverts, adding sometimes scarcely accredited sources. If you check the contributions coming in particular from IPs 5.170.44.x , 5.170.45.x , 5.170.46.x and 5.170.47.x you will appreciate this long-term behaviour. I'm quite new to wikipedia and I don't know how to warn administrators about this possible malicious misuse of the edition privileges. Can you do something for that and concurrently teach me the correct procedure to follow in these cases. Thank's a lot in advance. Horst Hof (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Horst Hof: Coming to an individual admin like you did is fine, but risks inaction until that admin happens to log in again. Otherwise, to leave a general notice about persistent vandalism, see WP:AIV. A report like you just gave above, to indicate an IP address range, is appropriate; we can block ranges as well as individual addresses.
- For behavioral problems (like the edits are not vandalism but the user is being disruptive, incivil, or uncommunicative), WP:ANI is the place to report that (otherwise known as WP:CESSPIT, which you'll see after you look at it and it's why I avoid it). If you see what looks like the same user with different usernames (not IP addresses), WP:SPI is the place.
- I'm heading off to work now, but when I get a break I'll look into this and take some action. Thanks for reporting it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have blocked the range 5.170.0.0 - 5.170.47.255 for 1 month. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your tutoring, it's exactly what I need to improve my skills as a good wikipedian. Just a last question: in cases like the one above, it is more appropriate to treat it as a vandalism or as a behavioral issue? Horst Hof (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, vandalism is generally damage done in bad faith, and these edits were probably done in good faith, but they're just counter to Wikipedia's rules on neutrality and reliable sourcing. So it's more behavioral: The user doesn't seem interested in communicating and restores material that was removed. The only things that can be done, if the person has no username here, are blocking and article protection. Article protection is requested at WP:RFPP, but generally a request will be honored if there is clear evidence of frequent disruption. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your tutoring, it's exactly what I need to improve my skills as a good wikipedian. Just a last question: in cases like the one above, it is more appropriate to treat it as a vandalism or as a behavioral issue? Horst Hof (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have blocked the range 5.170.0.0 - 5.170.47.255 for 1 month. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Contested deletion[edit]
i need to have it reverted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boinelomatlapeng (talk • contribs) 12:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Have what reverted? Please be specific. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
User:ArkaHayer[edit]
Hello. Since you posted a warning on their talk page the last two sections on my talk page might be of interest to you, since they show that ArkaHayer most definitely isn't here to build an encyclopaedia. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Now indef-blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)