User talk:Asilvering/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Good article mentorship

Hi asilverling. Would you be willing to be my good article mentor? I'm a somewhat experienced editor (about 8000 edits and two years editing), who wants to reduce the backlog at GAN but is a bit nervous about where to begin. My areas of interest are Eastern European history (broadly construed), biographies of women, and crime-related articles. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing! I see you've already found your way to WP:WIG, which is good. I went through their GAN list and found Augustina Gabel, who fulfils all three categories at once, if you're not scared off by the Ukrainian sources. It looks like the most-cited one is online, at least, so we can muddle through it with machine translation. If that one's not appealing, you can find that list of women-related GANs here: . I tried picking through it but the likely-looking ones are all pretty long, and I expect you'd prefer a shorter one for a first try? -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I was thinking more Virginia Christian (sorry, I forgot to mention that). Do you think that would be too difficult for a first-time reviewer? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're not worried, I'm not worried. Shoot me a ping from the review page once you start if you have any particular questions that make sense to answer there. Or go ahead and ask anything you like here, if it's something more general. Or, if you'd prefer to just get to it and just want another set of eyes when you're done, feel free to tag me in for that. If you haven't installed it already, User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool.js makes the last part (closing the review) really easy, and I recommend using it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this settles my doubts. I will try my best. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm almost done with Talk:Virginia Christian/GA1. Can you please take a look at it if it is not too much trouble? Thank you, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: I've concluded the review with a result of pass after improvements by the nominator. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! I'm impressed haha, these take me ages. Though, now that I've had a closer read through it than my earlier skim, I can see why. It was in great shape already. A couple suggestions, which are mostly my own preferences and in no way invalidate the review:

1. I just make those little picky grammar/link fixes myself, since it's more bother for both reviewer and nominator to write them out and have them do it. ymmv. Some noms don't like you touching the article at all, others will get irritated if you don't. When it comes to anything that's not strictly "mechanical" (like adding a space, etc) but requires some thinking and rephrasing, that kind of thing I do leave for the nom. If you do any changes yourself, imo it's a good idea to say so and explicitly invite them to revert any they hate.
2. I'd have gotten pickier about the sourcing on the political cartoon. But I was able to find it with this information, so it's technically sufficient.
3. I'm not thrilled that more than half of the citations are to a PhD dissertation. Typically we'd want to avoid citing them at all if possible. It may well be the best source for all of this information, and all that information may well be WP:DUE in the article (none of it felt "off" as I was reading without looking at the citations), but I'd want some evidence of legwork showing that (mine, the nom's, or both) before I passed the review.

Again, this is all in the spirit of general feedback for the future - it's a good article! And your review was also good. By the way, if you're interested, Derryn Moten, the historian who wrote that dissertation, doesn't have an article here. But I'm pretty sure he's notable (a quick google brings up stuff like ), and without any extra effort we can already link him to three articles (). -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I'll keep this in mind. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

GA question

Hi asilvering, I've another quick question. This time, it's about an article I'm thinking of nominating for GA status (Elena Gorolová). Is there any size requirement for GAs? The article is about 800 words, but is extensively sourced (if I do say so myself) and covers her career in as much depth as possible. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Nope, no size requirement. If it's short, you might find reviewers are more picky about whether you meet the "breadth" requirement, but in a case like this one where you are confident you've covered her career as much as possible, that would be fine. I'd add another sentence or two of article summary to the lead, but the overall length is no biggie. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		Appreciate your help with my WIR articles and learning process. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Aww, thanks. And gosh - 44 articles! Glad to see you caught the bug. -- asilvering (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film roles for which Tom Hanks was considered

I've a bunch of disagreements with this, but rather than rehash your close of the discussion, I'm going to limit my challenge to List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered as it had clearly usable RS'es that were above and beyond the other bundled nominations (such as the Washington Post referencing the topic in a dead tree book on Murray's career) and not challenged by any of the other participants except for Rewas92--in fact, DonIago explicitly disclaimed ever looking at the linked news articles. Please restore it.

I'd further ask that each of the deleted articles be restored as redirects (protected, if you prefer) to the respective filmographies as was proposed by BD2412. Only two participants objected to his proposal and then only to the merge. Redirection allows any sufficiently RS'ed content to be appropriately integrated into actor or filmography articles without need for further administrator involvement. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you have to accept that you're against consensus on this one. I've had another look at the AfD, and while I'm normally very happy to take redirect as an ATD, in this case I think that would be a supervote. Regarding restoring this specific article, the dead-tree book you're referring to is not cited in the deleted article, so the sources here aren't going to do anyone any good (you've already identified a better source), and the text won't either (participants objected to the merge). -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ryuya Fukushima

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ryuya Fukushima. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from SuperSillyGuy (17:24, 13 March 2025)

Hey, quick question, if I am to make a edit, what is the proper format for writing what I changed? Do I generally need to get approval from other editors before I make a change? Thanks! --SuperSillyGuy (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SuperSillyGuy, welcome to Wikipedia! If you're asking about edit summaries, no, there's no "proper format" for writing those. If you're asking about the text of the article itself, all of that information is at WP:MOS - but don't worry about it. Look at the rest of the article you're editing for a model, but don't worry about screwing something up or not doing it "right". Probably, what you write will be fine. If it's not, another editor will fix it or undo it, and they'll either tell you why they did that or you can ask them yourself. I'll come by your talk page to drop some helpful links to get you started. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Procedurally would be a problem :)

Hi asilvering, thank you very much for having a look at User talk:Dietricht, but as I am the originally blocking administrator, an unblock request should probably not be closed procedurally based on any of my actions. I left the request open so that someone can have an independent look whether revoking talk page access was justified or the user should be allowed to use their talk page or even edit freely again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to worry, they've already found their way to UTRS (a few times...) and I procedurally closed those ones and not the one at UTRS since the editor has no way to reply to any questions on their talk page. For your convenience, that's UTRS appeal #101283 for the most recent one. (In the meantime, DFO got to it.) Incidentally, I don't think you should have revoked TPA in this case, because you were the originally blocking admin and have been called out "by name" (ish...) in the most recent unblock request. That's not the same as thinking TPA should be restored, however. You'll notice I left that as-is. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have done that at very least in response to an appeal that directly addressed me, sorry. I wasn't aware of the UTRS appeals, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello

I have to note formally I don't avoid block, just was some way frustrated with your, though quite a practical, approach about "edit like normal, " is possible only after registration (however only if I'll change my behaviour and edits thematic and be as silent and still as the midnight fornoone 'd see any similarity, but that's not funny and have lack of any interest for me if we talk about wiki is together created pedia and not 'the articles of one' space). But what if I don't mean to be registered? Editing as normal is not for me? That's not some trap, but exclusively applies for my deeper understanding what's really going on here and not what said as have to be. Don't hurry with the answer. And thanks in advance. 83.142.111.64 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to be silent, it's just that creating an account will allow you to leave your past behind, provided that you do it once your block expires and don't go back to the same topics you did before. What I was suggesting was that you try a WP:CLEANSTART. You can't really clean-start from an IP. We can all see who you are.

Sorry in advance about the rangeblock I assume you're about to get for block evasion. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You have some contradiction here.

Doesn't "don't go back to the same topics you did before" mean "need to be silent" exactly I'm not willing to and you tell me I don't need to ("edit like normal, "")? )

Does WP:PROXY block evasion ever possible? ))))

We both know they will block me with same fake reason again as they did it already twice (hardly believable as accidental).

But I got your idea. It looks like it's: "There's no place for IP editing." (as normal, correct me if i got it wrong).

So sad.

Thank you for clarification. Will go to take some range block and dissappear from your sight. 83.142.111.124 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from JeyRuff (00:23, 16 March 2025)

Hello! how are you? I've finally joined, like I should have done at least 15 years ago. If you want to show me the ropes, I thank you.

If it matters to you or anyone, wanting an error fixed was the spark of realization that I should join, but I have a general passion for education, as well as agreement and truth. I felt I had no authority to edit decades ago; yet I never knew you could edit without logging in.

... In case someone wants to edit that survey I took. 🙂 Thanks! ✝️☮️🇺🇲 --J --JeyRuff (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, @JeyRuff! I've left some helpful links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your action. I may fall short in my communication sometimes but the amount of aspersions which were being thrown my way was getting extremely tiring. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. I really do suggest working with those editors next time, to come up with an actually neutral RFC question you can use to settle the issue for another good while. Even if it just reaffirms the result of the RFCs from four years ago (and I don't yet see any reason why it wouldn't), you'll still have the benefit of a more recent consensus to point to in these situations. -- asilvering (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Seriously I don't think they'd know a neutrally worded RFC if they tripped over it. I was hoping that @Novem Linguae would take you up on your suggestion but I can understand if they were hesitant to stay away from that mess. I'll try and think of a question to resolve the mess, but given the number of RFCs since then I don't know. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me for this, but I will probably take a pass on this one. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"Seriously I don't think they'd know a neutrally worded RFC if they tripped over it." civility is required @TarnishedPath:. Please don't trash editors behind their back. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't read this as "trashing editors behind their back" any more than, say, essays like WP:YESBIAS are. ie, I don't think this is a statement about any particular editors so much as a genre of editors. That said, @TarnishedPath, I think it's a strong sign that you should step back from the topic area. I appreciate that it is really, really tiring to keep explaining the same thing to people all the time. But the editors who pop up trying to change things on these articles because they've recently read about some other evidence, they haven't had that same argument dozens of times before. To them, it's new. And you can't treat them like they're all a single person who hasn't been getting it for years and years. There was recently an AE thread about something very similar, which ended in sanctions. Please, take a vacation from the topic area before someone forces you to take one. You do so many other things on the encyclopedia. Don't let this one part drive you insane. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am spending too much time on this topic area at present. As you correctly point out I edit accross a broad range of areas and this has been a distraction from some of the BLPs that I have in draft and other articles that I'm wanting to improve to GA status. I'll leave the current discussions in the article's talk to others. TarnishedPath^talk 01:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Originality Is Key, Like Seriously. It's Called Copyr!ght (21:15, 18 March 2025)

Hello, and sorry if this bothers you, but I'm curious on how I can easily find articles which aren't heavily restricted on editing. --Originality Is Key, Like Seriously. It's Called Copyr!ght (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Almost none of our nearly 7,000,000 articles are restricted. If you don't care about the topic, Special:Random will take you to one of them. -- asilvering (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

GAN question

Hey asilvering, I have a quick question about GAN. Can super recent articles be nominated? I'm thinking of nominating Kočani nightclub fire, which took place on 16 March of this year, and I wrote about 40% of the article? Since it would be a few months until someone gets to reviewing it, do you think this would be a good idea? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people who go from nothing to GAN on a single day - nothing stopping you! -- asilvering (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's comprehensive enough as it stands, since most of the initial investigation reports are out. I'll wait a week, nominate it, and update it if more stuff comes out. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from LagioiaP (21:00, 19 March 2025)

Hello! I am very passionate about art, and I noticed my local theater doesn't have a Wikipedia page and decided to make one. Do you have any tips to make this smoothly, so more people can know about their beautiful history? :) --LagioiaP (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @LagioiaP, welcome to wikipedia! I've left you some general help links on your talk page. Probably the most important ones to read before getting started are WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. For your specific article, what's the theatre? It might be better to write a little bit about it on the article for the town it's in. -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2025

Women in Red | March 2025, Vol 11, Issue 3, Nos. 326, 327, 332, 333, 334 Online events: New: Alphabet run E & F | Artists+Activists | Women of the Arab World Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements from other communities: March editathons around the world Celebrate Women 2025 office hour series Tip of the month: You can access the Wikipedia Library if you have made 500+ edits, and 6+ months editing, and 10+ edits in the last 30 days, and No active blocks Moving the needle: 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) 23 Dec 2024: 20.009% (2,041,741 bios, 408,531 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

References

Question About Luna Snow AfD Closure

Hi @Asilvering, I noticed the Luna Snow AfD was closed as a merge, but there was significant "Keep" support citing sources like Polygon, Kotaku, TechRadar, and IGN. Given her multimedia presence (games, animation, music, comics), could you clarify how consensus was determined, especially given how many "keeps" were listed? I was also in the process of cleaning up the sources for that page and using more reliable references, and since the most recent post was a "Keep" just 1 day earlier, I assumed it wouldn't be closed so abruptly. Thanks for your time! -- Pokedigi (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the close timing, AfDs stay open for a week, and after that they can be closed at any time, though usually they are allowed to run for another 7 days after each relist. It looks like I closed this on the 8th day after the relist. So as far as AfDs go, this was actually closed a bit later than normal.

Regarding the close outcome, the keep votes were pretty clearly refuted by the merge/redirect. The main point from those participants, It's a lot of sources verifying she exists, but nothing offering commentary., meanwhile, wasn't refuted or even really addressed by the keep side.

I understand that's a bummer given your own position in the discussion, but I hope to see you back at AfD in the future. We always need more participants, but we especially need more participants who are interested in trying to fix up the article while it's there. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

So does that mean the only way to get the page reinstated is to present better sources of notability in a deletion review? Sorry for my ignorance on this, I haven't ever had to deal with a page being deleted before. -- Pokedigi (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Pokedigi, I'm so sorry, I missed this reply ages ago and I'm just seeing it now. You don't need to go to deletion review to get an article reinstated, necessarily - especially not in the case of one like this, where the content was merged into another article. In this case, you can easily go to the page history of the original article (), where everything that used to exist there is still visible, because it wasn't actually deleted. The article itself can easily be restored, even by a non-admin, by removing the redirect.

Of course, if you do that without any previous discussion, someone will get annoyed at you and revert your edit, because we already had a consensus discussion at AfD. What I would suggest in this particular case is simply to develop the new target, List of Marvel Comics characters: L#Luna Snow, however it pleases you. From a reader's perspective, that's not all that much different than if there were an article at Luna Snow. If eventually it gets too long and detailed for the list article, you can then post on the list article's talk page suggesting that you spin it back out again. Before you do that, you'd want to be confident that you had new sources, not considered in that AfD, that address the problem observed in that discussion: ie, you'd need sources that offer commentary - critical/academic discussion about her, not just explaining that she exists and what she does in-universe. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Medmewiki123 (22:31, 17 March 2025)

I suspect that some or many of the drugs listed in Wikipedia are written/edited by sock puppets for pharmaceutical companies and I'd like to know of any work done to suss that out. I've looked at the history pages of some drugs and tried to track a few editors but i can't figure much out. Would the Wikipedia Check group be willing to examine that? --Medmewiki123 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Medmewiki123, welcome to wikipedia! I'm not aware of any efforts to track down medical-related sockpuppets in particular. If by "Wikipedia Check" you mean WP:CHECKUSER, they can only look at private details if there is good reason to believe an account is a sock of another, specific account. I'd guess that it's probably more likely that editors doing something nefarious (ie, WP:UPE) on drug articles are individuals rather than socks. Either way, my advice would be that you hold off on trying to investigate that kind of thing yourself until you're a more experienced editor. You'll be better at it then, for one thing, because you'll have a better sense of what normal editing looks like. But also, wrongly accusing someone of undisclosed paid editing would be a real bad way to start your own editing career. -- asilvering (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been reporting on drug companies for more than two decades and you might be unaware of just how brutal their promotions are (including punishing attacks on doctors who dare to challenge their claims). I've covered medical whistleblowers and I'm aware of how drug makers spread their money around to every entity that has anything to do with healthcare- and that includes so-called "patient" groups, professional organizations and "non-profit entities" that spread false/biased information about their drugs. I'd be shocked if they aren't managing wikipedia entries and I'm only privately hoping that someone with more computer savvy than I will look into this. I can go to various drug pages on Wikipedia and show just how much the entries hew to corporate claims while avoiding any and all mentions in the scientific and medical literature that counter some of those claims. Is this a project the CheckUser group might be willing to undertake? I'm not saying that the companies are directly running the wikipedia pages, it's much more likely that they have one degree of separation by using a paid "patient advocate" or "professional liason" who is not an employee of the company but is instead a "consultant" or some other title. I can give more details about how serious the problem is, but I'm wondering - this would be a hugely valuable project for the public if the CheckUser group would be willing to undertake it. Medmewiki123 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not unaware, and I don't think your suspicions are unfounded. I just think it's more likely to be a case of WP:UPE than WP:SOCK. Maybe you're operating with a different definition of "sockpuppet" than Wikipedia does? Here, we mean someone who has been blocked or banned on one account, creating a new one to avoid that block/ban. Or someone making multiple accounts to create the appearance of multiple people agreeing with a particular statement in a discussion. Have a read through those two links and see what you think. You may also want to watchlist WP:COIN to get a sense for how these kinds of discussions unfold. It's very important that you first read WP:OUTING. We take this policy very, very seriously.

One of the issues with using scientific and medical literature to counter these kinds of claims is that many of those articles will be primary sources, and we have some pretty strict guidelines about how to use those. See WP:MEDRS. You may want to join and lurk at WP:MEDICINE as well.

You're asking whether CUs will do this work, but since you have two decades of related reporting experience, it's probably you who is best-placed to do this kind of investigation. So when I say "you should hold off on that kind of thing until you're a more experienced editor", please don't take that as an attempt to discourage you from doing the investigations, so much as an attempt to encourage you to put in the editing time yourself. Getting involved in this kind of thing right from the jump is a recipe for disaster. I assure you that the Wikipedia community does not want that kind of person writing our articles on medical topics. Become part of the community, develop a nose for them, and then have at it - you'll have plenty of allies. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

thank you so much for you helpful comments. Yes indeed, i used the term sockpuppet differently from what i now know is how wikipedia defines the term. i can see that it would take an enormous amount of work to decipher who is entering what on drug pages and whether they are linked to pharma in some capacity (one trick i know they've used is to have spouses with different last names make certain public claims without any hint of financial conflict of interest). So, I'll drop my query for now. Too many scandals to chase as it is, which is what I've been reporting for forever! As my writing partner and i always say, "So many scandals, so little time." But again, thanks for your comments and time. Medmewiki123 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't I know it. And as a Wikipedian, you soon end up with "so many articles, so little time." Happy editing, and happy scandal-chasing. -- asilvering (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help and for understanding the small things with love. I truly appreciate your patience in understanding my mistakes. You are my first favourite admin! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 17:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about laundry day. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you sir, i understand better now and i appreciateit sir 197.211.59.98 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

"you're not blocked"

I've found that when people are requesting unblock, but do not seem to be blocked, it works well to ask, "What message are you getting?" and "If you don't want to reveal your IP, send your request to UTRS". Often these are victims of collateral damage. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing. Could you rescue that one with CU goggles? -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I've emailed the blocking admin. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

And the rangeblock is now lifted. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

unblock

I'm not sure someone's refusal to get it is a good reason to unblock because the whole situation has become stupid. Why do you think the fact the situation has become stupid means the community should just tell the editor, "fine, this has gotten stupid, just try not to be ornery"? This person was absolutely refusing to get it. We just basically told that editor -- and anyone watching -- that if they refuse to get it for long enough, someone will come along and unblock because "it's gotten stupid". I'm a little bemused. Valereee (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Myself, I'd prefer to let this kind of person waste as little of everyone's time as possible. If they go back to being uncommunicative and irritating, and I don't have much doubt that they will, next time we can just indef, yank tpa, and move on with our lives. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

And when two admins warn them before blocking, and another five refuse to unblock them, and an eighth comes in and unblocks because "this is stupid"? You didn't consult, you didn't offer a condition for unblocking. You just unilaterally decided "this is stupid". Valereee (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You specifically set that block as one that could be reversed by any admin once the blocked editor had begun communicating, and they had. So that editor was left trying to argue their way out of a block they'd already fulfilled the conditions for, after AE had also declined to take action on their edits. Cue a whole lot of frustration and wasted effort all around. We shouldn't be trapping people (or ourselves) in these scenarios. If you'd reblocked them as a full indef for being a jerk incompatible with a collaborative editing project, I don't know that any of those eight admins would have batted an eye, so if you want to do that now, and you're only holding back because you think it would be wheel-warring, let me be clear that I lifted the block because it had served its stated purpose, not because I think they're actually a really nice and helpful guy and everyone else has got it all wrong. Would I do that, personally? No, I'd prefer to wait and see if they go back to driving other editors crazy, and, if so, come down on them like a ton of bricks. But you (or anyone else) should do as you see fit. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did, because I figured it was a minor problem: once they realized it was important to communicate, they'd go, "Oh. Sorry, didn't realize that was important." But once they were forced to communicate, it became obvious that they didn't think communicating was necessary. Literally all they had to do was tell any admin, "Oh, okay. I didn't realize this was important. I'll answer concerns from now on." But instead they doubled and tripled and quadrupled and quintupled down on "why should I communicate if I don't think there's anything wrong with my edits?"

I'm not going to reblock. That would be jerking that editor around, and no one wants that. What I want is for you to consider consulting next time you're in this situation, or consider offering a conditional unblock. Preferably both. Responding to unblock requests doesn't mean you have to close every one of them in some way. Some are no-brainers. Some aren't. This one wasn't: we had a basically well-intentioned editor who is just behaving as if they don't get the problem, and tiptoeing around it in a way that showed they did, too, get it. They just didn't agree it was kosher for that to be a problem. I was hoping someone besides me would suggest a conditional: "RP, to get unblocked, can you agree to respond when someone expresses a concern, here on your talk or at a noticeboard?" And if RP had agreed, and I'd been pinged, I'd have agreed, too. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

But we're functionally in the same place, with or without the conditional unblock. We all know what they've been doing wrong, including them. They plainly know what the expectations are and are capable of following them. Presently, if they choose not to engage when someone expresses a concern, they'll be indeffed for it. In the hypothetical, if they had agreed to communicate when someone expresses a concern, and then chose not to do so, they'd be indeffed for it.

There were three possible outcomes: indef now, indef later after they demonstrate they still don't care to communicate about their edits, or, miracle of miracles, no indefs necessary because they learned their lesson. I was not prepared to take option #1, and none of the seven other admins did either. That's the only choice any of us admins really had - the difference between option #2 and option #3 is entirely up to the editor in question.

My apologies for not tagging you in and waiting for a response. Truthfully, I have no idea why you'd want to spend even another second dealing with that editor. But I'll avoid making that assumption in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

(I hope this doesn't feel like me harping on and on, I sincerely am not trying to do that, truly sincerely just trying to understand one another.) I agree they know what they did wrong. I was expecting to see them acknowledge it and agree to do their best to fix it. I came in because I was surprised, and I wanted to express that in case it would help prevent future surprises. :) And next time I tag a block as 'no objection to any other admin', once that's no longer true I'll strike it. :D Valereee (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

My sense of the situation is that, to them, that would be letting us "win", and so no matter how hard you expect it from them, they're not going to do it. Since the outcome we actually want (well, I'm assuming again, but bear with me) is that they go back to editing, just now with actual communication, I'm happy to be the one who "loses". They'll find out soon enough that they've misunderstood the ROE. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's hoping you're correct! Valereee (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #101414

We're bantering back and forth over the TBAN. Any EE edits do you think, or just EE politics? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Wants to edit about sports. Which, as we all know, are never contentious. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

the sigh i just sighed... -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

oh. Deer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Video games, not sports -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

As we all know, a perfectly uncontentious topic. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mymensinghi language

Hi User:Asilvering, I wanted follow up on the AfD discussion for Mymensinghi language. Consensus was reached on 21st March, but the discussion hasn't been closed yet. Could you please assist with closing this discussion? Thank you.Snusho (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I've relisted it actually - I think there's a clear consensus against keeping the article, but that's not quite the same as having a consensus about what to do with it. I'd like to see if there's any other support for a merge before we delete it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Alexandersibley (10:58, 7 March 2025)

I was always on the Wikipedia page for Cooper’s company in Coburn School as I was very famous. As my daughter is just attended I looked again and for some reason the last couple of months my name was taken off. I’ve tried to put it back on but someone keeps taking it off which is really annoying. I am on Wikipedia on the Big brother three section of the Wikipedia page. --Alexandersibley (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Alexandersibley, your name is being removed from that list because there is no reference given that states you went to that school. Are you able to provide a reference that says so? -- asilvering (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course I can. I have all my gcse certificates. I’ve been on the wiki page there for years. No idea why it was taken off. Google me and my school name comes up. Why on earth with someone wants to pretend to go to a school is beyond me I just want to be back up on there especially if Richard medley. Tell me where I’ve got to send you proof. Alexandersibley (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

By reference, I mean a reliable, published source. So if there is a newspaper article about you that mentions that you went to that school, that will work. We don't want to see your GCSEs. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s not online, but there’s a news article about when a man ran into the side of my car and died from his injuries. It said in that that I went to Coopers company in Coburn School would that be enough? Alexandersibley (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Alexandersibley, I'm sorry, I missed this reply earlier and I'm just seeing it now. I'm not sure that article will be useful - can you post a link to it here? I'll have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes I have a reliable source from the Romford recorder Friday, the 10th of March 2006 on www.romfordrecorder.co.uk you were it mentions that I went to Coopers school and also I don’t particularly care whether or not you see what grades I’ve got, but my GCSE certificates which my dad kept clearly state what school I went to so if you’d like to see them the certificates and the newspaper article about where I went to school, please tell me where I send them to 86.153.202.179 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Please provide the URL to this story, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Subhashyadav120 (14:25, 23 March 2025)

Dear Sir, I am very much interested in Indian stock market and finance but I am not getting the right mentor who can guide me in writing data related to Indian stock market and also add me to India Wikipedia events so that I can work better under their mentorship. --Subhashyadav120 (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Subhashyadav120, welcome to wikipedia! You might be interested in joining WP:INDIA. I can't really help with anything about the Indian stock market in particular, but I notice that you've been adding hyperlinks to a lot of articles, which looks like spam. I'm sure your intent is to add links to helpful information, not to spam, so please have a look at WP:ELNO so you can see what we try to avoid. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not add any link to Wikipedia team from now on. If I am adding any official link of any website, then all the links will seem spam or promotional to you. Yesterday I added the official link of SEBI's broad member site, you found it promotional but you did not check the data of the post properly. That post had very old data. I had collected the data by giving my 2 hours of time, still you thought that I am promoting that website. Sorry, if we do not promote small sites, then big media houses will do as they please. I have checked myself too. Many such media houses have been given links from Wikipedia which do not provide any value to the user, still their links seem correct to you. It is like Wikipedia is a person without eyes and big media houses take his stick, wherever he reaches, consider it home. Now that is home or railway track. Sorry, but this is the truth. Being a Wikipedia member, I am very sorry and sad about this. We need a lot of improvement in our way of working. I think now maybe I cannot give much time to Wikipedia, now I should give my time to Reddit and Quora, my writing work will get value from these platforms and I will be able to make a good name for myself in my field of writing,,, thanks Wikipedia family for support... Subhashyadav120 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Subhashyadav120, can you link me to the specific article? I can try to explain why that link was removed but I'm not sure what article you're talking about. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Securities_Markets Subhashyadav120 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Well... yes, that was spam. We're not trying to direct traffic away from wikipedia to websites that make money off of that traffic. We might do so in limited circumstances, such as putting an author's official website on their wikipedia page, or linking to their publisher's page for one of their books. But we don't tend to link to things like guides and explainers unless they're reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:RSP) that are particularly useful, or they're "official" in some way that makes them relevant. Updating old articles is a really important thing for wikipedia editors to do, so I hope you'll keep doing it. Just make sure to use reliable, published, secondary sources to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Subhashyadav120 (10:46, 24 March 2025)

Can you tell me how I can become a content writer on Wikipedia? --Subhashyadav120 (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You are already! Just edit, that's all there is to it. If you'd like some tips for starting out, WP:PRIMER is a good place to start. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Not a big deal but

With respect to this, I don't think your characterization of j's comment as lacking an assumption of good faith is fair, given the background. Especially this is relevant but also things like this -- RE has spent more than a little time making comments that are separated from serious personal attacks only by a thin veneer of vagueness. (I'm not asking you to do anything, I just think that anyone who's involved with them should be aware that they put up a very civil face but there's more to their behavior than that.) --JBL (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Milofetches (00:11, 25 March 2025)

Hi there I hit publish and cannot find where it was submitted. Please advise. Thank you. --Milofetches (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Milofetches, welcome to wikipedia! Your edits are in your sandbox, User:Milofetches/sandbox. -- asilvering (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qezeljeh, Ahar

How'd you come to the delete conclusion? All of the rationales were flawed, GNG doesn't apply, I've never seen the "circular reasoning" one used before, especially because Google uses a different Anglicization. We just need to be able to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There are four people arguing for delete, and your weak keep, in which you acknowledge that we have no verifiable information on the place at all. More than two weeks after your !vote, no one has seconded it or given any additional information. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

We really needed someone to check the census, but this source shows a politician was born there. What else do you think I'd need to show to get it restored? SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, what would really convince me is if you could get Uncle G to agree you had a case... but failing that, we've at least got to have some verifiable information about the place. WP:GEOLAND requires a place to be "legally recognized", and, specifically, that it not simply be an Abadi, so we need some more information beyond just "appears to exist". -- asilvering (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from TheophilusDonoghue (03:10, 25 March 2025)

I received a warning when I added an unlisted book to Schapiro's publications. Do you know what that would be about? --TheophilusDonoghue (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheophilusDonoghue, thanks for asking. Yes, you have a conflict of interest because you represent the estate of the person you're editing about. You can read WP:COI for more information - I would suggest that you make your edits as edit requests on the article talk page. Regarding your very first edit, that one was removed as a copyright violation - you (typically) can't copy material from anywhere else and put it on Wikipedia, because all text on wikipedia is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, which is to say that it can be used for any purpose, even commercially. But as for why you received a warning when you added that unlisted book - you didn't! The warning on your talk page is from last year. It's just that you've only noticed it now.

Please let me know if you have any further questions. We don't want the article on Schapiro to be inaccurate, but it's important that you go about making edits the right way so that you don't get blocked from editing. -- asilvering (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much. That's good to know. TheophilusDonoghue (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Subhashyadav120 (15:06, 25 March 2025)

Dear Sir, I want to add updated data about ITC company but when I click on edit, I am getting the option of editing the source plus guide. I want to add this data.

ITC is one of India's foremost private sector companies and a diversified conglomerate with businesses spanning Fast Moving Consumer Goods, Paperboards and Packaging, Agri Business and Information Technology.

25+ FMCG Mother Brands 200+ manufacturing units

100+ Export Countries --Subhashyadav120 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Subhashyadav120, you need a source to be able to add this information. Where did it come from? -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from TheKroise35 (16:53, 25 March 2025)

I joined wikipedia just to make one page. How do I start? --TheKroise35 (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheKroise35, welcome to wikipedia! I've dropped some helpful links on your talk page, and specifically before writing an article you'll want to read WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. But, judging by your comment on Pizza Tower, it looks like you might be more interested in working on a wiki specific to that game? It looks like the "official" one is this one: . -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I regularly use the Pizza Tower wiki. I just wanted to make a new page as a list of characters in the game. Thanks! TheKroise35 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)TheKroise35

We probably don't want a list of the characters - we only want that sort of thing if the topic is notable. Basically, the characters need to be discussed in depth by secondary sources (see WP:42). I doubt there's enough on the characters to do that, so we'd normally just discuss them on the main Pizza Tower page. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKroise35 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Declined G4 question

Hey Asilvering, quick question about a recently declined G4, not trying to fight you on it or anything, I just didn't really understand your reasoning and I know the nature of the edit summary makes it difficult to fully explain. What did you mean by not a full look? Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is a big upgrade from the previous version. So I had a look at the AfD, to see if these sources had already come up and been dismissed, but it looks like participants were either judging the article based on the sources in the article at the time, or weren't able to find sources at all (even though, as the current version shows, at least some definitely exist). So I think we need a new deletion discussion for this one, even though the last AfD was not long ago and there aren't any new notability claims in the article that post-date it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, I know it's difficult to do without being able to see the version that was deleted—I was trying to intuit the same information. I know that's been the focus of some previous discussion at WT:NPP/R and the limitation of G4, but I figure if it's plausibly close, flag it for someone with the bit to investigate. I appreciate your response! All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Women in Green's May 2025 edit-a-thon

Hello Asilvering: WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in May 2025!

Running from May 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a women's rights activist? Go for it. An Olympian gold medallist? Absolutely. A famous painting by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts. We hope to see you there!

(You are receiving this message as you are on the Women in Green mailing list. If you wish to opt out of receiving future messages, feel free to remove yourself from the list.) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Mind having a look?

I was going through the articles of ImperialAficionado as we faced a minor issue on the article Battle of Kaliabor. Saw you made this comment here , and the current discussion at talk:Battle of Kaliabor goes around the similar case. Could you leave a comment on that? The discussion started from Mir Jumla's invasion of Assam. There's a discussion on its talk page. Mind having a look if you're free. Cheers. Borax || (talk to Borax) 00:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @JunkBorax, you'll have to be more specific - what are you asking me to comment on? You can ping me from the discussion if that's easiest. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2025

Women in Red | April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336 Online events: New: Alphabet run G & H | Business Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements (Events facilitated by others): The European Destubathon – a stub improvement contest/editathon from 1–30 April 2025 Tip of the month: When creating biographies, don't forget to use Template:DEFAULTSORT. Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited, it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name. Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool) 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women) 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Homosexuals

Hi Asilvering! I was looking through old discussions I participated in, as I occasionally do, and I came upon Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 20 § Category:Transsexuals. No objection to your close there with respect to Category:Transsexuals, but I think you may have misread my comment with respect to Category:Homosexuals, based on your finding of "no opposition". I'd argue it's either a keep or a no-consensus on that one, depending how much weight you give to the nonstandard proposals to rename the redirect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hm, seems like I did. But then, what's the "both" in your "delete both"? -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe that's what we in the trade call "Getting to the end of your comment, realizing you haven't fully considered both questions, going back, adding a different answer for the first question, and then completely forgetting to remove the word 'both' at the end of the post." Happy to call this my mistake more than yours, then. But probably should be restored? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'll happily take the credit/blame. I've restored it and removed the CfD tag. -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Created by Aaronsw Z''L. Huh. There's a slice of Wikipedia history right there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Support needed

Main page: User talk:Drmies § Requested move, end of March 2025 to start of April

It is, by my computer's clock, past 00:00 AEDT on 2025-04-01. So it would be appreciated if you (and any of your lurkers) could today add a little happiness to Drmies's day with some Support of your choosing.

Of course, as we all know, a good rationale is a key thing in these sorts of discussions.

It does not have to involve furniture, despite the obvious Round Table that Drmies just built entirely unprompted, or even dead people (in the Lincoln Cemetery or otherwise). You could address anything, from taking an axe to axe, through belting out AFC approval on The Onion Belt and finally (after 12 years!) letting us know that we had been speaking an African Urban Youth Language all along, to the plenisocculence of the tumble-dryer of life.

Only 100 Supports to go! ☺

Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

When I first saw this, I hadn't yet had enough coffee to be able to reply. Now I have, and I feel very sorry for the poor doctor - who in our line of work hasn't accidentally genäht a pair of corpses together across national and centennial borders - but also for myself, since now the conversation has gone quite past me and I'm out of coffee again. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Requesting closure

Hi, I thank you for your comment about closing the ARE report filed against Dympies, I agree that it should be closed. There are no diffs that are actionable in the original report (filed by Malik Al Hind) and even the diffs provided by Dympies's opponents in various content disputes don't appear to be. Additionally the user who filed it has said that they have withdrawn it (don't know if it counts anymore).

I would say you should close it as no action with a suggestion that others interested in questioning conduct of Dympies can file a report if they want. That would be more suitable as I think the pile up (as generally happens in this area) over there is not really coherent at this moment. Thanks NXcrypto Message 13:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to close it, since I don't really take Valereee's "should we just close this" as a suggestion so much as a question. That means I'm the one who proposed closing it, and I'd rather another admin second me on that than do it kinda-sorta unilaterally myself, especially now that the discussion has continued. -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Tahar Farah on User:Tahar Farah (20:58, 1 April 2025)

My photo to add --Tahar Farah (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tahar Farah, welcome to wikipedia! Does WP:PHOTO answer your question? -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from TheKroise35 (21:36, 1 April 2025)

What if there's something I know is true from firsthand experience, but I don't have a source for it? --TheKroise35 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

99.9% of the time you must simply enter a state of amnesia and proceed as though you do not have this firsthand experience. What information are you trying to add? -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag

Hello,

Today I was trying Wikipedia's Content Translation Feature (I translated the page Grey-crowned goldfinch from English to Hindi), but it made some errors and translated the page incompletely. Now the page is tagged for speedy deletion. What do I do? Mitsingh (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mitsingh, it looks like it's been deleted already, but you can ask the admin who deleted it to restore it to your userspace for you if you want to work on it some more. Otherwise, you can just start again - it was deleted because it wasn't translated, so it's fine to recreate it. Did you know that you can set the content translation tool so that it will publish the completed article to your userspace, instead of to articlespace? That's what I do with mine - it means I can fix any weird problems the tool created before moving the article to mainspace, so I don't get hit with speedy deletion or maintenance tags. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from WikiPetiaF (02:17, 3 April 2025)

Hi Asilvering, Thanks for being my mentor.

I am a new editor. I have created my account specifically to add an article about an organisation to which I belong - Australian National Museum of Education (ANME). I am a volunteer for ANME. It has no paid staff. I note the many warnings about creating articles on topics with which I have a conflict of interest. I have declared my COI as per instructions. I am working with text that has been approved by the Director of ANME but I am concerned that there is a degree of self-promotion within it eg. 'nationally significant'. I would prefer not to preemptively redact approved content.

Do I risk a kind of reputational damage by asking for the draft to be reviewed as is or should I try to clean it up first?

I will have other questions I'm sure, but I hope this is a good one to start with.

Cheers, Peter --WikiPetiaF (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @WikiPetiaF, welcome to wikipedia! You've done everything right so far, but don't submit your draft just yet. Right now, it doesn't have any sources at all, so it's certain that it won't be accepted. What you're going to need to find in order to get a reviewer to accept the draft is independent coverage about the museum or its collections, by someone who isn't affiliated with the museum. That might be a tough ask, since I bet most of the writing about this museum is done by museum volunteers or people from the University of Canberra. As far as tone goes, I wouldn't worry about "nationally significant" - the museum has "national" in the name, so that seems pretty obvious. The rest of the text looks pretty neutral too, you've done a good job of that. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Iindmusician on Draft:Syed Fardeen (07:50, 3 April 2025)

Help me to improve this page --Iindmusician (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Iindmusician, there's no way to improve a draft if the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines. You'll have to give this one up, I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

UTRS

UTRS appeal #101912 and UTRS appeal #101914 might require your thoughtful, nuanced approach. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Always with the best presents... -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Tahar Farah on User:Mohamed Farah2 (18:44, 3 April 2025)

Report image --Tahar Farah (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi again @Tahar Farah, I still don't know what you're asking. I've left you some messages on your talk page, in case those help. -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from THEkAISERrOLL (17:42, 4 April 2025)

Very new here, how do I replace the "Venom Energy" logo with the most current .svg version? --THEkAISERrOLL (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @THEkAISERrOLL, welcome to wikipedia! Do you mean the logo that's being used on Venom Energy right now? If so, open the article in source editor (click "edit", then find the pencil-shaped icon in the upper right to switch to source editor if you're at the visual editor) and replace what it says after "image =" (5th line) in between the square brackets with the name of the file you want to put in there. If you don't already have the file uploaded, go to Wikipedia:File upload wizard to do that first. -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarification

If I understand your response a, each user is allowed only 500 words and 20 diffs for all replies they make, unless the administrators expand their limits, correct? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

That is indeed my understanding. -- asilvering (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)