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.

ARCA closed

Hello Anachronist, I'm informing you that I've closed the ARCA you were listed as a party at with "There is a consensus among responding arbs that non-EC editors are not to participate in AFDs." Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of single-artist museums, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Picasso Museum and Dalí Museum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Awesome Aasim 23:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shithole countries cnn.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Awesome Aasim 19:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Reversion

This is Hanoi Road, my edit per WP:BANREVERT. However, I probably should've taken the age of the comments into account and just left them alone. Grandpallama (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: You must be privy to information I am not. Hanoi Road has no contributions to the clean eating article or its talk page, and that account was blocked a full two years before the IP address commented on Talk:Clean eating. How would this be block evasion? Not even a checkuser could conclude that due to the age difference. All I see are a couple of articles in common between the contribution histories of both. While that looks suspicious, it isn't enough for me to conclude that they're the same person. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar from past interactions both with this IP range he edits out of (there are others I also suspect, but there isn't a clearcut connection) and with his editing behaviors (interests, use of language, claims of personal knowledge, etc.). If the edits were more recent, I would open up a case at SPI and look for a rangeblock, if it were deemed reasonable without too much collateral. If you want to keep digging around, the point of clear connection can be found in the Sean Lucy article in the June 2021 editing where, after he was indeffed, the article was protected because he returned to reinstate his edits. Once you know some of the editor's behavior patterns, he sticks out like a sore thumb when you see him, especially when he edits out of this known IP range. I was pretty inactive during his last spurt of editing, but I will keep an eye out and take it to SPI next time I see it. As I say, given the age of the edits, moving to revert them now was probably overzealous. Grandpallama (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Help at AE

Hi, I observed that you have edited the article about Aksai Chin. Please see the AE request here and respond there as an admin. Thanks!-Haani40 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The only edit I ever made in that article was a minor change to the size of an image. I don't even have that article on my watchlist, so I have not been following it. I have no opinion on the AE request. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I improved your edit on Simon Ekpa. Do well to check it out and give us feedback on the affected discussion talk page. Best regards. Fugabus (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You changed the meaning, which was not an improvement. Reliable sources say he is self-appointed, therefore he appointed himself. That is a relevant distinction to make.

Sorry if you're feeling bullied, I do sympathize, but it's best for new editors to avoid contentious disputes in the beginning. You are arguing with others who are far more well versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines than you are. I commend you for your approach, by discussing on the talk page in a civil manner and avoiding edit-warring. Please continue to do so, and be careful to restrict your comments to be about the content and not about other editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I truly appreciate your involvement the Streisand Effect page and have incorporated some of your points. I think we should be able come to agreement on the lead. I’ve just opened a new topic on that talk page and look forward to a productive dialogue. Both of our have leads improved greatly on what was prior to our involvement. 5ive9teen (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Request to review history (tag was already placed and removed)

Thank you for altering the tag. May I ask you please to review the history as the tag you have placed has been there for months after it was removed by the same persons that has placed it. Everything is sourced and except for done minor alterations the text was fine. You can consult the person who has removed it (also many years of experience on Wikipedia), that would be great. Kind regards and a nice evening. Ewout12345 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

As long as you keep making substantive changes to the article instead of proposing those changes on the talk page using edit requests, that tag will keep being restored. You can make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, dates, names, etc. You can revert obvious vandalism. You can add missing citations. Anything more substantive, however, you should propose on the talk page. You may preface your proposal with the template {{Edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed on a catagory page that is monitored by some editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

restore image

"While the image is good, the text cites a forum, which isn't acceptable" - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcoholic_beverage&diff=prev&oldid=1223699022

But you didn't keep the image. Please improve your working methods. Can you please restore it? --94.255.152.53 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Either image is fine with me, so whether the new one or the old one is there makes no difference. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Justin Stebbing

Hi Anachronist. Since you unblocked the account Justinstebbing after getting verification of his identity as the subject of the article Justin Stebbing, he has continued to directly edit article multiple times (first, second, third), despite your own notice and subsequent notices/warnings from other users (myself included). He's made no attempt to engage other editors or make proper edit requests on the talk page. I wonder if another block (or threat thereof) is in order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocking would be counterproductive because it would prevent the subject of the article from suggesting improvements. So... while I normally don't ever protect an article based on disruptive actions of one editor, in this case I have, to steer the editor to the talk page. Once the COI editor starts making requests on the talk page, then I can remove the protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Barry De Vorzon § Fixing the spelling of his name

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Barry De Vorzon § Fixing the spelling of his name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist. Would you mind taking a look at this when you have a spare moment or two? It appears related to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1225#Barry Devorzon. It looks like the subject of the article is responding to a question about the spelling of their name asked more than eight years ago. If things are as the subject is claiming, the page might need to be moved; however, Google shows the subject's name to be spelled in multiple ways, and it's unclear which one is correct per WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps VRT verifying the account is really the subject would be one way to clear this up? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the subject has also just asked WP:HD#Barry Devorzon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

I removed the topic in the Casualties of the Israel Hamas war article because there is already Talk:Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Two_proposed_changes_--_header_and_death_toll_section about that by them on that talk which I had left and I had already warned them about WP:ARBECR. NadVolum (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Your edit summary implied that the editor wasn't permitted to contribute to the talk page, and the ARBECR message does not specify that talk pages are included in the restrictions. That is why I restored the request. The talk page is fine if it remains unprotected and the contribution isn't disruptive. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User talk:1934 1938 1982 2006 Italia

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I would hope and expect that an admin with your level of experience would know that not every sock block requires an SPI beforehand, but since you asked it is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14 novembre. This person is not subtle and is not actually trying to edit Wikipedia, they are trolling. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, for some reason I didn't find it, probably because I misspelled it. In any case, I would have simply declined the unblock request rather than nowiki it out. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess I look at it the same as deleting pages created by socks, the request is not valid on its face and not worth anyone's time to review because the user is a disruptive block-evading troll. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Pure Imagination Studios

User:Phoenix219 created Draft:Pure Imagination Studios and has not disclosed that they are a paid editor? Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: The person currently involved has disclosed it. I hadn't noticed the creator is different. I suspect they're both the same, based on the WP:TEAHOUSE discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Phoenix219 mentions in a comment on their talk page that they are a paid intern, I have dropped them a message about disclosure. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Two different people, we are both working on this project together. Phoenix219 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the disclosure. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

RFPP

You're probably nicer than I might have been on this one.[1] I'm rather curious where one might find "local editors" for that particular article... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that's funny! The word "local" didn't register in my mind at the time. Even the "local" inhabitants in David Brin's novel Sundiver turned out to be fake. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Anachronist and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which I get flagged by Raoul mishima Kelvintjy (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist case request declined

The Anachronist case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Racial views of trump

Sorry. Not sure how that happened. I meant to comment only not erase. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That's OK. It happens to me too, about once every couple of months or so. Just today, in fact, I rolled back someone's 10 good edits when my finger involuntarily twitched as my mouse pointer passed over the rollback link on a diff. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Help with page

Thanks for your input in resolving issues on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Jordan_(artist). I hadn't logged-in for awhile, so missed your request on talk page for identifying secondary sources. Apologies about that. I have now provided examples of secondary sources on talk page, plus a new citation (secondary source) has been added to a Guardian review of the artist's film Concrete Forms of Resistance. Other citations (eg 1, 2, 3, 4, 8...) are secondary sources, independent of the subject or venue, such as reviews in professional contemporary art journals and film magazine publications etc. Hope this answers your question and addresses notability requirements. If you have time to check the page for any other issue, such as neutrality, that would be much appreciated. I feel these templates are somewhat undermining the page's content and I'm anxious for it to be improved and all Wiki guidelines met. Many thanks again for any help in resolving this. Jorbert30 (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You so much for your unconditional support towards me, and unblocking this account. I am extremely obliged to you. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What if someone copies me.?

Hi, I just want to clear this doubt. I have only two accounts, one being unusable now. What if someone else starts copying me just to put me into troubles, and I am unaware of it. What should I do then.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a rule: Assume good faith. That is what I did in your case to get you unblocked. the scenario you describe is unlikely to happen.

We have administrators with checkuser privileges, which include a number of technical tools to determine which accounts are operated by the same person. You were open and transparent about having two accounts, so there was no need to involve a checkuser admin. If you weren't transparent about it, someone would have opened a sockpuppet investigation and a checkuser would have determined that both accounts are operated by the same person. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it. So, even I can start a Sockpuppet investigation if I found them. right.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can start a sockpuppet investigation. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Page protection

You should put semi-protection on Mahatma Gandhi page. Your full protection expired thus disruption from non-autoconfirmed accounts has resumed. Thanks. Azuredivay (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia had a feature in which full-protection reverts back to the previous state once it expires. Thanks. Administrator Favonian already restored indef semi on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		You've been a great advisor—𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Qing dynasty page protection

Could I get you to reverse your decision to lower the protection level of Qing dynasty? The sockpuppeteer who made that protection necessary is is Phạm Văn Rạng, who is still very active (see SPI). Their most recent sock, BakaMH980, was blocked less than two weeks ago, and posted to the article's talk page, so it seems likely that they will continue disrupting the article if given the chance. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to wait. The request was made by user Minecraft6532, who as far as I can tell isn't a sockpuppet. I don't feel that the article should be brought back to ECP pre-emptively, I'd rather wait to restore ECP in the event disruption resumes. The article is on my watchlist. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to push further on this, but I don't see "because someone asked" as being sufficient justification for reducing the protection level, when that request was based on a factual error (the presumption that the sockpuppetry had stopped), and especially not when there's clear evidence that protection was still necessary very recently. I'm assuming you were unaware BakaMH980's posts to the talk page. I'm not asking you to preemptively protect a page out of nowhere here, I'm asking that you recognize that you made decision without being aware of all of the relevant facts, and to reverse that decision accordingly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

While I did not know the history of this sockmaster, I observed that the sockpuppets were blocked, the edit filter log showed nothing since protection was applied, and new sockpuppets would still be prevented from editing by semiprotection, and ECP should not be permanent in most cases ("indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite"). Those are the relevant facts. Therefore I felt it was worth trying semiprotection. I'd appreciate if you refrain from presuming to know the mind of another administrator that led to this decision to reduce protection, and instead assume good faith that the decision wasn't made in ignorance.

If you look at my history of protection, you will see that I err on the high side compared to other administrators, usually applying more protection than others would think necessary. Indef ECP did not seem necessary here. I could have applied an end date, but I figured we might as well try indef semi instead.

You have the ability to restore ECP and I won't object if you do, although I point out, again, that we don't protect pages pre-emptively. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Trickle-down economics addition

I found a Thomas Sowell quote on trickle-down economics and added it to the article for context. You deleted it saying: "this article is about the term, and doesn't refer to a 'theory'. All Sowell says is that no economist ever advanced such a theory." However, the article clearly discusses the theory, not just the term. Nevertheless, I reposted a link to the Sowell quote, focusing only on his specific criticism of the term. Yet you deleted that, as well, and protected the article from further edits. None of this seems justified. RCJournal902 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You've been reverted by multiple editors. Make your case on the page Talk:Trickle-down economics. The word "theory" occurs only in quotations. Not only is Sowell making a straw-man argument (arguing with the Pope, who isn't an economist), but you also violated WP:LEAD by putting the passage in the wrong place, and using WP:PEACOCK terms in it. None of that is acceptable. The article was protected due to disruption from multiple IP addresses, not just yours. Please follow WP:BRD as a best practice in the future. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I get what you're saying. However, your point about the Pope is unfounded; while the Pope's use of the term was the entrée to the conversation, the main thrust of Sowell's criticism (and what I quoted from) was of the term itself. As for the rest, I'll certainly take note and do better next time. RCJournal902 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think economists recognize the concept as a political policy position and no economist has ever advanced it as a "theory". There's room for expanding on this point in the body of the article, and briefly mentioning it in the lead section. You just went about it in the wrong way. I suggest you propose such a change on the article talk page so others can review and discuss it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Custer

Can you explain why you changed my update since the reference from Ambrose is unsupported by fact and is, in fact, his sole opinion? Best… 96.230.248.215 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You replaced text and removed a citation, leaving it completely uncited, while failing to explain each of your edits in an edit summary. That's why. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough: However; after. 50 years of research on this topic, I have never seen a commen, of value, that GAC was “inept” - whereas my edit can be verified as fact .

Nonetheless, I’ve ordered the Ambrose book and we’ll see where his source is from and if it has merit. I suspect this conversation is not over so do be prepared:::  :) 96.230.248.215 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion or dispute about the content. I reverted you for the reasons I explained. Rewrite it while citing a reliable source and use an edit summary, and you won't be reverted. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)