This is Asilvering's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Note: Stereowavey's mentor Nythar is away.

How do I remove the color from text boxes or turn them into the regular color? Trying to update something highlighted for being upcoming into present-tense. --Stereowavey (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stereowavey, can you link me to the article you're talking about? -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was trying to turn the movie Merv under Zooey Deschanel's filmography into present tense, but it looks like somebody already got to that. Stereowavey (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to retrieve the deleted material for Draft:Intero Digital to make improvements and revisions to a new draft. Could you share that, please? Thank you Lauren Tellman (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lauren Tellman, can you show me at least one in-depth, independent, reliable source about this company? -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Here are a couple independent and reliable sources:

This one is in a Colorado-based newspaper: https://gazette.com/2023/01/11/digital-marketing-firm-based-in-colorado-springs-gets-a-branding-facelift-641b4b64-91dc-11ed-a2b2-574a69095229/

This one is in The Silicon Review magazine: https://thesiliconreview.com/magazine/profile/master-digital-marketing-evolution-with-intero-digital Lauren Tellman (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first gives me a 403 error, and the second is not independent. -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange! The first one doesn't give me an error. Have you tried copying and pasting the URL into your browser instead of clicking? The article is behind a paywall, but many of the reputable news outlets have paywalls to access the content. Is that where the error is coming from? Lauren Tellman (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that your link is a paywall-only link. But a 403 error would be a weird one to get there. I did just try googling and got a mirror here: [1]. I would say this is not really significant coverage, sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good day hope you are doing fine, I saw on your user page, that you are giving advice to user hoping to become an admin, so i was looking for one, Thanks. Destinyokhiria 💬 09:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Destinyokhiria, if I don't email you in the next couple of days, please give me another shout. -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Destinyokhiria 💬 10:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering just checking in. Destinyokhiria 💬 10:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I wanted to let you know about this draft that I recently declined.

I've been looking through some AfC submissions and found this: Draft:ZeroSSL

I declined it for AI (honestly, I think there's at least 10 reasons why it should be declined) but I really don't understand what this is even supposed to be. There's an edit request notice that links back to this draft on this draft for...some reason? Is that even allowed on a draft?

The sections don't make any sense at all, the text is garbled and appears to be like wikitext or code or whatever. I just don't understand what this is meant to be. I'd like to know what you think of this mess of a draft. I should note that several other reviewers have declined this before for the same reason, but I am the first one to leave a comment on it. Thanks in advance! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 16:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SignedInteger, it's a mess because it's AI-generated. At some point you just need to say "I don't talk with robots" and give up, as far as reviewing a draft goes. If you'd like to try to help the editor understand what's wrong with their approach, it's best to go to their talk page directly for that kind of thing (since it's more general). If you do, good luck to you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to explain the many problems this has to them when I can. Even then, if they for some god forsaken reason decide to resubmit this in its terrible messy form, it should be rejected, not declined, rejected, there's no excuses for them if they do that, and I think you'd understand why that would be the best course of action. Hopefully that doesn't happen, but you never know. Once again, thanks! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I cite a article well? What needs citing. --72011copperfan2 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@72011copperfan2, there is a pretty limited list of things that need to be cited; that list is at WP:MINREF. But we really prefer that you cite everything. In principle, everything on wikipedia should be verifiable in a reliable, published source. So anything you add should be coming from a source - and so it shouldn't be too hard to add it in a footnote. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Asilvering,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Zalaraz (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy New Year!

Asilvering,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Chronos.Zx (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chronos.Zx (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering, hope you are enjoying New Year's. Just noting that I invoked you by name at ANI. Nothing about you, it was in the context of your message to SchroCat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yo yo yo mentor, what's good G, I have question for you: I see that @HouseBlaster has a welcome template for their talk page and I was wondering if it is possible for the talk page for me to have one too? --Abajo (talk to me) 05:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also congratulations on beginning your term on the Arbitration Committee! Abajo (talk to me) 05:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; you can style your own talk page how you like. And thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aight G, and no problem for the world's best mentor (if that award didn't exist, in exists now in my heart, and I give it to you :), along with @Adolphus79). Abajo (talk to me) 07:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also is there a waiting period before renaming usernames, as I recently found out this current one goes against my religious beliefs. Abajo (talk to me) 14:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Er, oops. I don't know of any waiting period, no. But make sure you take a lot of care choosing the next one because they might not be too keen on repeated renames. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think EditorPsalm271 is ok. It's perfect, I won't need another one. Ababajoni (talk|contributions) 22:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also my pending changes reviewer permission request was approved, and I am now a reviewer, I've already reviewed three pending changes. Ababajoni (talk|contributions) 22:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! And good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I don't like that good luck part... Ababajoni (talk|contributions) 22:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can wish you "future success" or "God bless", if you'd prefer, haha. I do not mean to imply that you'll only succeed via luck. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I am a faithful, but I thought that "And good luck." meant dark times lie ahead... Ababajoni (talk|contributions) 22:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they do tend to. But we're refined as silver all the same. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Refined as silver, tend to....?*gulp* Ababajoni (talk|contributions) 23:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the new name (and signature) if you have any......?? MosDet (Need help destroying mosquitoes? | Mosquitoes destroyed) 23:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the name, but the sig is pretty long. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

let me make it simpler hold on MosDet (Need help destroying mosquitoes? | Mosquitoes destroyed) 00:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout now? MosDet (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 00:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also can pending changes be edited before they are approved (or denied)? Answer quik plssss MosDet (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 00:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that if a PCR edits an article, all previous revisions count as reviewed. I could be wrong. You'd want to ask at WT:PC to be sure. The sig is fine now. -- asilvering (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, actually, that's explained at WP:PC itself, in the FAQs. So I stand corrected. -- asilvering (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see anything about editing a pending change before it's decided whether to approve it or not under FAQs. MosDet (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 01:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've been notified to assist in this case; if you need anything from me, please let me know; I just learned this was happening and I'm frankly concerned that an editor decided to throw several editors into one hat and call us 'sockpuppets' when our edits and behavior (and technical logs) indicate much difference. Nathannah • 📮 13:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately I have to retreat into the "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation" verbiage that I'm sure isn't much of a comfort to hear. All I can say for now is what you already know: neither of you have been blocked on en-wiki. -- asilvering (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to know whether there are any restrictions or criterias for creating sections in the page. I am asking this because i have created some sections on pages but these are merged into other sections and are made subsections. For more clarity, i had created separated sections of judges elevated as chief justices and judges elevated to Supreme Court of India on the pages of respective Indian High Courts but on pages like Allahabad High Court and Madras High Court some senior editors had combined these section into the section of Madras High Court#List of judges and Allahabad High Court#Composition. I may understand that such separate sections may not be prudent if the list contained in these sections is small but for the High courts like Allahabad and Madras which have had numerous judges elevated as chief justices and to Supreme Court of India (no of such judges exceeds 55 in case of elevation as chief justices and 22 in case of elevation to supreme court of India), i believe separate sections are not totally futile. So in this context i want to ask you whether there is any such policy restricting creation of sections on the page, and if there is any then i kindly request you to guide me about it. Thanks and regards.. --Aruunn (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aruunn, to my knowledge there is no policy that restricts whether sections can be created on individual articles. Of course, that doesn't mean there might be very good reason not to make those sections! If other editors disagree with your edits, you can talk to them on the talk pages of the articles in question to sort it out. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thankyou..☺️☺️ Aruunn (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm excited to get started. My inclination guides me towards articles where I know or care about the topic or am connected to it. I am just having a weird place figuring out where to start and contribute accurately. Let me know if you have ideas for jumping off points. Thanks for your help. --Craigrelish (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craigrelish, and welcome to Wikipedia! A lot of us got our start just making minor fixes to grammar or punctuation, but there are no rules on what you have to do yourself. The best answer to your question is, "What do you want to do here? Why did you create an account to begin with?" Is there a particular topic you enjoy? Do you see anything that can be improved on those articles? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll start poking around on those grammar/punctuation basics.

I hope to contribute and document some of this history of the area in which I live and work in New England specifically the history of bicycle manufacturing.

I will start cruising those articles and their Talk pages to continue to get a feel. Craigrelish (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigrelish, one thing to watch out for is that on Wikipedia we have somewhat eccentric definitions of COI. So, if you happen to live and work in New England and are very interested in bicycle manufacturing, you're fine, but if you happen to live and work in bicycle manufacturing in New England you'll want to be a bit more careful. Let me know if that's the case and I can give you some more specific information.

Regarding local history - great! In general our articles on smallish towns are underdeveloped everywhere on the encyclopedia, and in the USA there is so much accessible sourcing about this kind of thing that isn't being used, so you've got lots to do here. One thing I'll warn you about up-front is that if you have any background in local history research, amateur or otherwise, you're probably quite comfortable with using primary sources, but in general, on Wikipedia we want to avoid using primary sources as much as possible. You want to make sure that the sources you're using are published sources, and usually secondary ones. Luckily, the local newspaper usually counts as both secondary and published, regardless of date (yes, I know this is silly). -- asilvering (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's super helpful and I'm already inspired at just YOUR willingness to guide.

I used to work in bicycle manufacturing and I don't now. But that also helps me understand how I might think about articles in the area in which I do work (clean energy startup incubation).

I will continue to read resources for now and look for small but straightforward ways to contribute with grammar/punctuation as I continue to read more and more articles.

I just finished Jimmy Wales book and am deeply inspired by Wikipedia in a new way - although I've been reading it since it debuted, this is the first time I've ever stepped beyond simply reading. Thanks again for your support. Craigrelish (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigrelish, I'm sure he'd love to hear that! You can go tell him directly at User talk:Jimbo Wales.

As for editing in the area you work in (startups), I'd avoid it entirely - even if you don't have a COI, that's a really difficult topic area to work in. We have really tight guidelines about sourcing for companies (because they try to spam us) and it's always hard to get something "new" onto Wikipedia (because fully independent secondary sources haven't been written about it yet). Writing about startups of any kind means dealing with both problems at the same time. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Asilvering for your help with getting the article started for draft:Kenneth Ray Schneider. And happy new year! I've added references to that page, and I also attempted to use a template for declaring my conflict of interest at the top (and start of) the associated Talk page. It doesn't look right. Should I have just used normal narrative to declare it? Thanks! -- Climbingwater (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Climbingwater, I have fixed your template. Good luck, and happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Adolphus79, from a novice, thanks so much! I'll get the hang of it. (You may have received a more concise thanks from me already, when I was on my phone only). - Climbingwater (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your filing here. I'm not read-in on all this, but I noticed that this looked a bit like this and shared some behavior with this one's earlier edits. Thoughts? Looking a bit more broadly, I'm not seeing much on that could be called collateral. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Pbritti, I'm afraid I have to give you a No comment with respect to IP address(es) on TAs that might be related to Urgal/FMSky, but if you want to take that to SPI you could get someone who isn't data-poisoned to look at it. I know this master for edits to musical topics in the metal genre specifically, but that doesn't preclude them going on a tear about Christmas music. -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I more wanted a sanity-check on the music stuff, so I appreciate that insight. I'll probably throw it to SPI and see if someone is willing to investigate a bit deeper. Glad you err towards privacy here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do if something has multiple different things you could call it, but people keep changing it to one of them when it actually fits the other more, and what else do i do if someone reverts my grammar fix. --Kkuuupen64 (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kkuuupen64, if your edits are being reverted by other editors, you can post on the article talk page or on their talk page to ask them about it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello asilvering, in regards to a few of the comments you made recently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, I'd like to suggest that something similar to WP:RFCBEFORE be considered for Arbitration Enforcement or similar processes. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS, you're going to have to explain what you mean here, I don't really understand what you're suggesting. -- asilvering (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that an editor should be required to take certain steps before coming to AE, and if these steps are not taken then the report could be procedurally closed. Similar to how RfCs work with WP:RFCBEFORE. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but that's the opposite of what I'd like to happen! I'd like to demystify the process, not add more rules to it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree with you that it needs to be easier to file complaints and/or to get admin attention to problems in the topic area. There do have to be some rules though, and vexatious reports need to be prevented more, especially in PIA. Just my 2 cents. Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Aqw10000's mentor Alyo is away.

I want to write a page for the Global Fantasy Assoccer Federation and I don't know how to and also it is Fantasy Assoccer Federation when it should be Global Fantasy Assoccer Federation and I don't know how to change many Thanks. --Aqw10000 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aqw10000, welcome to wikipedia! I don't think you'll be able to create an article on that topic, I'm afraid. New articles need to meet the guidelines at WP:42 and it doesn't look like this topic will. Is there anything else you'd like to edit about? -- asilvering (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I hope you are doing well Sir How can I edit or input any additional information to an article --Farman Adil (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on asilvering's behalf since they are a very busy Arbitrator with tools of trust,

It is very simple how to edit, first things first; what do you want to edit? MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 22:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to link to a talk page's specific sentence from a editor? MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 22:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can link to the specific diff, but not to a specific sentence in it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm okay, thanks, ima head to sleep. See you tomorrow. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 03:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a scientist, how technical versus lay should I be in my writing?

Thanks :) --Biologybaddie (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Biologybaddie, welcome to wikipedia! We have a guideline for this around here somewhere with more information (maybe one of my talk page watchers knows it), but in general topics we aim for "as approachable as possible". A good basic rule of thumb is that the article should be readable by people who are a "step down" from where it's normally taught. So if it's a very advanced concept that no one is dealing with until they're PhD students, you don't need to try to figure out how to make it legible to 8th graders, but you'd want to aim for something that someone with an advanced undergraduate's understanding could read. If it's something from Chem 101 a highschooler should be able to read it. etc. -- asilvering (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Biologybaddie: The guideline asilvering refers to is most likely WP:Make technical articles understandable. Left guide (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that's a mouthful. Looks like I wanted WP:ONEDOWN specifically. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello <3! Out of interest, how many edits do most editors make in a given week? --UnknownPotatos (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UnknownPotatos, welcome to wikipedia! Honestly, most editors make zero edits in a given week. Lots of people edit Wikipedia only very occasionally! -- asilvering (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I had one other question regarding extended-confirmed-protection pages. Is one able to send on the talk page for one without being confirmed? I was unsure how that works, but I mainly joined Wikipedia since I noticed a source inconsistency on one of the extended-confirmed-protection pages. UnknownPotatos (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@UnknownPotatos, you can post on the talk page unless it's also under page protection, which only happens to talk pages very rarely. But most talk pages don't get a lot of traffic, so if you post to ask about about something that's wrong on the article, chances are no one will notice. If you use an edit request though, it will go into a queue for more experienced editors to have a look at and implement for you. WP:ERW makes this easier but if you want the full instructions page that's at WP:EDITREQ. -- asilvering (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

Dear Asilvering i'll admit that Its me @Pandachini bananini so anyway could you not block me for block evasion? 1 idk what that means. 2 first johannnes19 (or 89 i dont remember) blocked me for something then some other guy global blocks my account and then i waited till block ran out to create another account to try to be nice and not troll. So then i grew a new fear a fear for being blocked for block evasion even though I waited for block to pass. But my main subject is because i am no longer trolling and you are a good person give me advice to do good and please no one delete this oh and asilvering if you want further proof that i am not Isma4l ask him what is my age and once he tells you dont tell me what he said just say on my talk page its my turn to answer and if we have same number we are same account but if we have diferent numbers he aint my account I have no idea who he is. But give me an advice to do good Sea Eater (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and THANK YOU for believing in me you should use the user oops template look

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

Sea Eater (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Just so you know, everyone can see everything that is posted to Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love it when block evading socks out themselves... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For asking some of the right questions, even if they went unanswered and to little effect. It was reassuring to hear a measured minority voice in spite of the faults of the wider process. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't dig deeper into it earlier. But otherwise, no comment, and let's keep it to WP:ARM. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am here because I would like to create a page for Hollywood comedy screenwriter Eddie Moran (1899-1987). He is mentioned on many wikipages but there are not hyperlinks for a page to him. Any help is appreciated. --WikiKahan2026 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WikiKahan2026, welcome to wikipedia! I've left some helpful links on your user talk page. The easiest way to start a wikipedia article is via WP:WIZARD, and I'd suggest reading WP:FIRST in particular, but my advice would be to hang onto that idea for now. It's really tough to write a decent new article from scratch without any other editing experience. If you work on other articles for a while first, you'll find it much easier. -- asilvering (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of removing the wizard link (which you inserted last month) from this one block. Uw-spamublock is quite specific in its requirements, and they don't match what the wizard is asking for. As you know, without the wizard, we require:

1. Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
2. Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
3. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
4. Provide a new username.

But with the wizard, we find them instead answering:

1. Can you explain, in your own words, why your edits were promotional?
2. What is your relationship with the subjects you have been editing about?
3. If you are unblocked, what topic areas will you edit in?
4. Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

They don't really match up...Thoughts? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think they do line up pretty well, and are more likely to get useful answers out of editors than the four questions we currently provide. Have you been finding that unblock requests made using the wizard have been unusually poor? -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start logging. I find the wizard output annoying in the first place -- it emphasizes the questions rather than the answers, and puts them in harder-to-read bold italic. That's just my own keep-it-clean aesthetic bias. I'll start collecting and comparing. The one I was looking at that showed it all poorly is at User talk:Holykailashtours; there's a useless AI-generated blob first; then I see no attempt to disclose any compensation or discussion of that specific requirement, nothing that even vaguely tries to convince us that they understand the reason for their block, no description in general terms of intended contributions. It's a whole different set of requirements -- no, it isn't even requirements, it's just suggested verbiage. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular case, we've got a perfect A/B test right there on their talk page: we got AI slop before, and incoherent (but not AI!) responses afterwards. Which is to say, I don't think this example tells us much. But we could try adding a bit more to some of the questions. Maybe: "Can you explain, in your own words, why your edits were promotional? How will you avoid promotional editing in the future?" and "What is your relationship with the subjects you have been editing about? Please disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement." -- asilvering (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we asking them questions rather than giving them instructions? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to test out variations on instructions too. But, as I'm sure you've noticed, the current set of instructions don't tend to elicit very helpful responses. Anything that can help people make decent or at least half-decent unblock requests on the first try will save us all a lot of time and bother, and will save the blocked editors frustration as well. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and we can just stick a single field in the unblock wizard template and put the old instructions in it. I do have hopes that breaking up the questions like this at least reduces the amount of AI-generated slop appeals we get. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really weighed what proportion of spamublock unblock requests are deficient. We should get some metrics and figure out if there's really a problem. I think there was a noticeable, maybe even significant, drop in legitimate-and-unsatisfactory requests after I tweaked the requirements section, but that could well be confirmation bias on my part. Now, we're telling them two different sets of things they should do to get unblocked; are the ones in the block notice required, or the ones in the wizard questions? Or both? It seems...messy. This needs a broader audience, anyway. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the wizard questions:

• 1. lines up with the first half of 2. from the block template
• 2. is a more general version of 1. from the block template – ideally, we do want non-paid COI editors to be transparent with their COI for an unblock
• 3. addresses 3. from the block template in more accessible terms, which also provides reassurances for the second half of 2.
• 4. is an optional "free-form" field

Additionally, the wizard has a parameter to add another field at the top asking for a new username, lining up with 4. from the block template. So, the wizard questions are really just a more accessible version of the block template requests, although slightly reordered.

More generally, blocked editors will virtually never address the points from the unblock template in that strict order, as they're less a list of questions and more a set of requirements. Before the wizard, most of them did not address these points at all, or only incidentally. Now, the wizard offers much more structure to that and actually guides them towards giving the relevant information.

Also, courtesy ping to @GoldRomean who's been working on some statistics about this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello good morning --Bashiru rabiu (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This is awarded to Asilvering for accumulating more than 114 points during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process were crucial in reviewing over 9,000 drafts during the drive. Thank you for your participation and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's an archive, and is there a project page for it? (like there is for the blocking policy) --MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 20:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARCHIVE. You can generally find things like that pretty easily just by guessing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried shortcuts, but it kept redirecting me to "Help:How to archive" (whether it be a talk page discussion or otherwise). MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 21:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Many people review drafts. You review the reviewers. You peer-reviewed the peer reviewers and supported your fellow Wikipedians. :) This is awarded to Asilvering for completing more than 50 re-reviews during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Thank you for your efforts and teamwork! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you a lot for that, I am just baffled that it had to get to this point. I never thought I'd see the day where this is even needed. A very strange case, I know that editors can (and have) been attacked by people like this before, I just never thought that I'd be targeted. I mean, it is possible that I did think so because of my identity and ethnicity and the like, but more often than not, the editors targeted for stuff like this are editors who are either admins, anti-vandalism-related editors or just the type that clean up messes that people like this tend to make. As such, as someone who's activity is...well, I really can't tell why some random person would look at my activity and be mad at it, it's just so weird to me. This is just another reminder that you never can tell on here. I must thank you and the other admins for cleaning this mess up, and I hope that this won't happen again but if it does, I guess I can get used to nonsense like that. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 08:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that I think it's very unlikely you've been targetted because of your ethnicity/identity. I think they've just picked up on that as something they can use. -- asilvering (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I'm just baffled that someone would want to do this to me. Then again, I think every user who's been targeted like this before has had the same sort of reaction. There was another odd user, ~2026-25311-8, who kept talking about "liquids" in their shower for some reason? They were blocked as a possible sock of another TA who just yelled slurs and told me to die, though they were also blocked for disruptive editing as well. What rubs me the wrong way about this one is the pronouns used. "We". We? Who's we? I doubt that there's multiple people involved in this nonsense but if there are, then good lord, don't these people have anything better to do? Again, thank you and if this keeps happening and it really does turn out that there's multiple people involved, do what you need to do. I trust you :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 08:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any suggestions on how to proceed to have something like this investigated, or want to alleviate @User:Newslinger of the burden, please let me know. Tiamut (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiamut, if you have any particular evidence you want to share, I've opened a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tombah. -- asilvering (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly don't know what kind of other evidence to provide, beyond what I explained in my message to @User:Newslinger. Is it enough to post the same comment? Should I provide diffs of the WP:AE filings they both made? Also not sure its the same puppetmaster, but rather a related one from a larger network that seems to operate in collaboration. The details are all very opaque to me. Its more of an instinct/behavioural thing. Tiamut (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Providing diffs of the AE filings would help, yes. Saves me having to dig them up. When filers say things like "these appear to be part of a network that operates in collaboration" I tend to get pretty skeptical, especially when nationalisms are involved (everyone thinks their own nationalism is the only obvious one and everyone against them is working together), but if you have any off-wiki evidence of that you'd want to send that to arbcom instead. -- asilvering (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled across something that looks pretty definitive while checking the info added in a citation at Tuqu' and posted it to the investigation page here. Tiamut (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is your block of Nehushtani based primarily on private CU things, or primarily on behavior? I'd guess it's probably private CU things. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A block based primarily on CU evidence will be marked with {{checkuserblock-account}}. Other CUs have access to my notes, though. -- asilvering (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you will permit me a sigh of despair. I think they, like I do, get stuck into things and have to learn how to extract themselves before it goes belly up for them. They appear to be choosing an inexorable route to being blocked again. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We must live in hope. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I live in an area called Hope Valley already. I want this editor to succeed. Thank you for telling both to drop the stick. We all must wait to see if they will take firm advice and act on it. I fear they are heading towards self-immolation over this. For your part and mine I think we each have done the best we possibly can. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am living in hope of a speedy outcome, now. Either useful presence or enforcement of their apparent choice for absence and the latter seems likely. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Won't be me at this point, since they've expressed an intention to appeal my unblock conditions. (And I already feel like I've handed them a loaded gun simply for informing them of the process...) -- asilvering (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, even were it allowed, you are ethical and would not. It needs to be an admin wholly uninvolved, as we both know.

Guns may be unloaded and placed safely in a gun safe. That is a free choice. I hope they make the correct one, but, put plain, any choice right now would be welcome.

We have tried very hard and in a measured and pleasant way. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A happy 25th to you too. Glad you stuck it out. :) -- asilvering (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I fit for requesting rollback rights? --MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 00:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MosquitoDestroyer, I don't grant rollback, so I can't say for sure. The admins at WP:PERM will want to see that you're accurate at reverting vandalism, warn editors accordingly, and are polite and responsive. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I think I do allat just not warn editors everytime (although I have before). MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 00:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what the rollback page says, I have more than 200 mainspace edits, and I've never edit warred. I guess I just need to work on Special:RecentChanges patrol and warning editors everytime they vandalise. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 00:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can study up on all the different kinds and different levels of warnings at WP:WARNING... ;) - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I issued 10 vandalism warnings, I think that is the beginning of my track record, I'm gonna continue my RecentChanges patrol tomorrow (and issue more warnings of course); and everyday I am able until the 15th of February (at least one month experience). MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 04:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also edited 59 times during today's patrol. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 04:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello, im new to editing.im inspired by many things such as Art and im also on fandom.If u could help me edit sometime i will be very happy. Yours Sincerely Thekokonator

Im also fluent in webdings :] --Thekokonator (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, dear mentor. Happy Wikipedia anniversary! Here's to more laughs, and more adventures on the incomplete jigsaw puzzle globe. Also, congratulations on your induction into ArbCom. Cheers!

If you're interested, here's my future self according to Wikipedia — Python Drink (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I got "Consensus-Driven Collaborator"... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a "data-driven researcher", which I think is the WMF calling me a nerd. -- asilvering (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who to talk to about this, so I will just ask you. I stumbled on an article that's talk page has a lot of random opinions about stuff, that is starting to clutter up the talk page. Link: The World (archipelago) Lemur3215 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemur3215, those are all pretty old, so there's nothing really to do about them, but I've set up an archive bot on the page. If you see people making "random opinions about stuff" kind of posts and it's fresh (like within the past couple of days), you can simply remove it and cite WP:NOFORUM. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I had to ask you that Wikipedia only has options to edit pages, or we can also create new pages. Thanking you for your Support! --HIusing wiki (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HIusing wiki, welcome to Wikipedia! You can also create new articles, via WP:WIZARD. Before you do that, you'll want to read WP:FIRST. But I really recommend that you get experience doing normal editing of articles that already exist before you try creating a new one from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Asilvering! I created a new Sockpuppet Investigation Ticket. Please let me know if I need to provide usernames for the suspected and temporarily registered SPs here. Thanks! Retro music11 (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need, you filled out the SPI correctly. I've closed it - just go ahead and assume those are all the same person. People can't always control whether they have more than one temporary account. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming @Asilvering. Also, could you please let me know if the SPI tool is for reporting registered sock puppet accounts only? Retro music11 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can report temporary accounts to SPI, yes. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Retro music11 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over fresh on a new account, as I don't feel like waiting six months to rename my account once more as I do not like this name to the extent it is de-motivating me from doing anything on Wikipedia, so @Asilvering and @Adolphus79, till we meet again, I think this is goodbye. MosquitoDestroyer (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For your immense patience and generosity with me and my (sometimes unwieldy) endless questions. It means a lot.

Giraffer (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

psh, anytime. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do I just add more fonts? --SpyC0der77Alt (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SpyC0der77Alt, I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you be more specific? -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I bring it up to date? SpyC0der77Alt (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		Thank you for all of your recent help at ACC. Your CU goggles played a big role in taking the (cursed) backlog from 135 requests down to 70. That means dozens of new users can now start improving (or vandalizing, we'll see lol) the encyclopedia thanks to you. I really appreciate the time and effort you have already put in, and ACC is better for it. Happy editing! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give me that much credit, the backlog was only ("only") at 100 when I started! -- asilvering (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice them putting words in your mouth. Had I noticed, I would certainly have reverted. Thanks for doing so. Let's hope this is the last we hear from that troll. --Yamla (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm just excited to be accused of hating someone other than Eastern Europeans or minority groups from the Middle East. -- asilvering (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am working for the Milwaukee Turners, a distinguished social justice organization here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and we are hoping to edit certain Wikipedia pages of those who we have recently found out were a Turner in the past. Is this possible? --Alyssa.samson (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alyssa.samson, welcome to wikipedia! It is possible, yes. But you'll need to have a published source that verifies the claim - do you have those? If it's just something you found in your org's own records, I'm afraid that's no good. See WP:V for details. -- asilvering (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You're a common face I see! Thanks for your work here :) jolielover♥talk 17:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was going through citation hunt where I found that Alamo, California needed a citation in the history section. I found a source pretty quickly (https://www.srvhistoricalsociety.org/home/history-articles/alamo-then-and-now/), but it appears that most of the history section was plagiarized from it. I haven't really done a significant article edit yet, and I don't know how to mark the article as needing to be fixed. How do I do this? --StudiousGriffon (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StudiousGriffon, welcome to wikipedia! In this case, actually, it looks like they probably got it from us. Here's what the article looked like at the end of 2014: [2]. So in this particular case, unless you have good reason to believe that pdf is created from something even earlier (which it may be), the thing to do is ad {{backwards copy}} to Talk:Alamo, California, at the top where all the other templates are.

If it was a copyright violation, you'd want to remove the content and tag it for revision deletion, or post it to WP:CP for someone else to help. Rather than explain that to you, I'll leave you to muddle your way through that page on your own first - can you let me know if it makes sense, or, if it doesn't, where it stops making sense? I think this page probably still needs some help and newbies looking to do something for the first time are an ideal test audience. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do many wikipedia articles in visual editor mode seem to have at least 1 to 3 double spaces? --I am NewestPiano (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @NewestPiano, I can't be sure. But my guess is that the spaces are there in the source code. Mediawiki will just ignore extra spaces when it's published, so it's probably nothing you need to worry about. -- asilvering (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I am NewestPiano (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering! I am a little confused by some of the punctuation: brackets, etc, on the editing page, but my real challenge is how to change the citations. --HMS President (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HMS President, if you use the Visual Editor (this is the one that looks like a word processor, not source code with all the brackets and so on), there's a "cite" button in the toolbar that will automatically format citations for you if you have a URL/doi/ISBN. More details at WP:REFB. Let me know if you're still stuck. -- asilvering (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. This is a lot more complicated than I expected! I will change my user name and I do have a draft of how I think the entry should read, but right now I cannot make sufficient sense of the guidance to submit it to the editors. --HMS President (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HMS President, does WP:ERW help make sense of it for you? This wizard helps you format an edit request properly, so if that's the bit that is confusing, problem solved. If you're having trouble with something else, can you describe the problem a bit more for me? -- asilvering (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The page does not appear to me to do anything remotely like "helps format an edit request". The Hartford Medical Society site is very out of date and really in need of an overhaul. Is there a way I can submit a new article in entirety to another editor who could then perform the on-line process? That would allow me to avoid having to learn this very complex process? By the way, I was able to change the opening sentence, but then could not apply the appropriate new citation. HMS President (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can try writing a new draft, sure: WP:WIZARD. But that might be more of the same issue? It will let you use the WYSIWYG editor though, which might help. Make sure you change your username before you make any edits, though. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change my user name? HMS President (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest and fill in the form to change your username. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your edits on WP:ARM, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/~2026-34318-9 seems to be one, and whatever's happening at Special:IPContributions/103.137.210.167 is fairly weird too. Their "usual" IPs tend to be AT&T IPv6 addresses, unless we're conflating multiple LTAs. I've found some more interesting things I'll send through email if you wish. Thanks, Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Amsterdam one is a proxy, yes. The other is not, and if you look a bit closer at it you'll probably be able to infer why it's not in the usual place. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, if you mean the airport thing, that's what I was about to email you anyway. There's some others as well. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They've been travelling. Fewer SPI reports in the last little while, so I assume they've gone back to the usual ranges, which are still blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This range has spent a ton of time blocked for checkuser issues as a range of proxy addresses; see [3]. The block is not set to impact logged-in users, so I don't really understand why it would be catching good-faith editors. I've unblocked for now but I am concerned about leaving a range of proxy servers wide open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ESkog, when you block account creation, that prevents all editors from creating new accounts. That means good-faith editors are unable to edit around the block. You can also see many good-faith editors in the edit history of this IP here: [4]. The block was cutting off all of them too.

There have only been four blocks on this range in the last five years, most of them brief; prime's is targetted and brad's was marked as ACC ignore. So that's not a strong foundation for a block. I'm not at all sure why you think this is a proxy. It's not a proxy - it's a mobile network. A very heavily used mobile network. -- asilvering (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft_talk:Tri_Dao#comments._criterion_1 may be of interest. PamD 18:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked, I've seen, and I've declined the unblock. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I want to create this page, but I see that it was deleted. How is it possible that the banned user created a page? Is it ok to recreate it? Can I ask why the author got banned? jcubic (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcubic, it was created by a sockpuppet account they made to get around the ban, which was subsequently discovered and blocked. It's fine for you to recreate the page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear Asilvering, in 5 August 2025, i uploaded a poster File:Dhumketu (2025 film).jpeg for the film Dhumketu (2025 film) and it was used in the article! But in 14 January 2026, user Tiger Shankar uploaded a poster File:Dhumketu (2025) film poster.jpeg for the same article! Then, the user removed my uploaded poster and used his uploaded poster!

Please! discuss this matter! Aqsis Bey (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aqsis Bey, the person to discuss this with would be Tiger Shankar. You can go to their talk page about it, or, better yet, the talk page of the article in question. -- asilvering (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to request an extension to my statement in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment in order to respond to polygnotus. I've stretched the limits of lossless compression.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any need for you to do this, and indeed I'd advise you not to. -- asilvering (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I will follow your advice then. Will it be possible to request an interaction ban based on his behavior in other wikis as well?

Thank you for the help & advice, NorthernWinds (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just ignore word limits since they are unhelpful. Should I rewrite and edit to meet the limit? That seems incompatible with your request to stop editing the statement. So it is unclear what I should do.

If I should respect the word limit then I need to drastically edit what I wrote, and using <ins> and <del> and the like would make it incomprehensible. Polygnotus (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It sure would make it incomprehensible, yes. My general suggestion would be to write your statements in a text file first and get all your tinkering out of the way before posting them on wikipedia. As for rewriting to meet the limit, I would say don't bother, though you may have a clerk come by and rap your knuckles about it. Just don't add any more. -- asilvering (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tried a different tactic. Thinking, like Wikipedia editing, is an iterative process. No one can complain about limits now. Hope this helps, Polygnotus (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: note starting your comment with a bulleted list item (*) and then changing to an unbulleted list item (:) will cause screen readers to announce an extra list end/start pair for each time the list style changes. This results in two extra pairs of announcements for this case, since the comment following yours changes back to a bulleted list item. Could you consider using the {{pb}} template instead of changing the list style in the middle of your comment? For more details, you can refer to User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup § New paragraph within a list item or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Multiple paragraphs within list items. I appreciate your time in considering this matter. isaacl (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl (talk page stalker) Can we make a userscript for this stuff? Does one exist? Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on your talk page. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the change. I apologize for neglecting to ask you to consider changing your following second-level comments so that they preserve the list style of the first-level list, by changing the prefix to *: instead of ::. Thanks again. isaacl (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit! isaacl (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how to post details of a new page article --Radhabhava (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to provide the details, but I'm a text-based AI and don't have the capability to send voice recordings 😊. However, I can give you the details in text format:

Radha Bhava Gaura Das is a senior ISKCON devotee, initiated by Kirtananda Swami Maharaj in 1982, and later by HH Jayapataka Swami Maharaj. He's the Temple President of ISKCON Shyamadesh Yatra in Sharjah, UAE.

Some key points about him: - Initiated in 1982 by Kirtananda Swami Maharaj - Later initiated by HH Jayapataka Swami Maharaj - Temple President of ISKCON Shyamadesh Yatra, Sharjah - Well-versed in Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita - 43+ years of service in ISKCON - Experience in Germany, Oman, and UAE - Topper in Bhagavad Gita advanced course (1987-88)

Would you like me to provide more info or clarify anything? --Radhabhava (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Radhabhava, I'm only here to answer questions about editing wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. @Easternsahara has once again violated their topic ban with this edit at Talk:Ali Shaath. The article page and the talk page both have the ARBPIA template, and the article is clearly related to the conflict.

I am writing to you directly because they asked me not to write on their talk page. Denisaptr (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Denisaptr, this edit is adding the politics wikiproject, it's not actually editing about the conflict in any meaningful way. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m creating the article for Western Canada Marine Response. I attempted to upload the organization’s logo, but my account is not yet confirmed. Could an experienced editor please upload the logo locally as a non-free logo for use in the infobox? Source: https://www.wcmrc.com --Aryan.M.Chambyal (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aryan.M.Chambyal, just make two more edits and you'll be autoconfirmed and be able to upload it yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do I create citations, also draft articles that are Wikipedia worthy? --Fabochemkwani (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabochemkwani, does WP:REFB answer your questions about citations? As far as drafting articles, my advice is that you work on improving articles that already exist for a while before trying to create new ones yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does this down-then-left arrow mean in visual editor mode? --I am NewestPiano (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NewestPiano, my guess is you're looking at a return symbol. -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what does the return symbol do in wikipedia when seen in visual editing? I am NewestPiano (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. But you'll see the difference if you look in source mode. I tend to write articles this way when I write from scratch, since it's cleaner and easier for me to find footnotes this way. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I asked a similar question to this in the Help Desk and they said it might be a good idea to reach out to the clerk involved with my SPI case so here I am!

I made a SPI report for a user, and while that user did end up being a sockpuppet, they weren't the sp of the sockmaster I thought they were. This made me start thinking about the Evidence needed to submit a SPI review.

Do you think my SPI review was reasonable? The SPI report page states that there must be clear evidence, but thats such a subjective term it's hard to know what that means. Id really appreciate any and all feedback on this topic. Thank you! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mustbeotherwise, can you link me to the SPI you're talking about, please? -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent SPI in this page

https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaredryandloneria - Otherwise (Talk?) 04:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's pretty obviously not ChronicleBooks885, but I can see why you thought it might be. CB885 is a prolific teahouse/refdesk troll, you saw someone trolling the teahouse in a way you thought was similar, and you reported it - that's all fine. You provided the right kinds of evidence. You were just wrong. It's perfectly ok to be wrong sometimes. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a relief! I really do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.

Now this is just out of curiosity but how are you able to tell that it's not CB885? - Otherwise (Talk?) 04:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic differences. CB885 example grammar: [5], [6]. Your sock, saying basically the same thing, but in different grammar: [7]. Plus, CB885 tends to write a Teahouse post and a refdesk post at basically the same time. -- asilvering (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense why you're a clerk, I wouldn't have thought to check for that. Thank you for entertaining my silly questions! - Otherwise (Talk?) 06:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the other way around: you become a clerk, and you pick up the rest as you go. -- asilvering (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it's clear I have a lot to learn. I sincerely appreciate your helpfulness and patience while us newcomers bumble our way through Wikipedia! - Otherwise (Talk?) 06:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What am I s'pose to be editing? L --Janicelcdrennen (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you like! Special:Homepage will have some suggestions for you. There's also WP:TASK. Or you can just go about reading wikipedia as normal, and make edits when the mood takes you. World's your oyster. -- asilvering (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Duck at Battle of Borodino. [8] Noorullah (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(of user @Ender-theBoy: Noorullah (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21, can you report this one at SPI? And add this TA to the list? They're on the same IP and that earlier TA predates Ender-theBoy, so this needs a bit more digging than I can do at the moment. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i've made the report here Logoshimpo (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Asilvering, i have a question, when editing wikipedia articles where can i put my sources so that other editors will not delete and reedit my edits, thank you. --Carl Cedrick (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Carl Cedrick, welcome to wikipedia! We generally want to see a footnote at the end of the sentence or section you've added that verifies the statement. There are built-in tools that will format these for you - see WP:REFB for details, and feel free to come back and ask for help if you get stuck. -- asilvering (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding e.g. this, I think it's noteworthy that this company is real and has a very long history of socking; it doesn't appear to be a scam. But yes, the client list likely contains fake entries. Janhrach (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sock farm ones are scams. They make promises they can't keep and charge money for them. Some of them even go on the offense against subjects that decide not to work with them, or get in AFD wars with rival sockfarms who got a contract they were angling for. And they're well aware that if they list their actual client list we'll triangulate the socks and block the whole set. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that sense, yes, they are scammy. Janhrach (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask for more words, but you removed the ask? Levivich (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it says In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. So rather than have them read "A broad outline" for my request of like 200-300 (depending on what word counter you use) words, I just showed them what I wanted to say. I don't understand what you want me to do? Levivich (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich, you asked for words, after you'd already made the post. Please ask for permission rather than begging for forgiveness. "I want to respond to x and I believe words quoted from arbs are exempt from the word count" is all you need to say. Unfortunately I don't know the answer to that question so I can't just give you the go-ahead right now and you'll have to ask it on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do it that way. But AFAIK, asking for words after making the post--aka begging forgiveness--is the usual practice. Here's an arb doing it, here's an admin doing it, these are from last month. This is the first time I've heard that this is not the right way to do it. Levivich (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really do appreciate it. As for the rest, I don't know that there is a "right way", which at the moment is causing some decision paralysis on the part of the clerks. Perhaps we'll solve this by motion! (oh god) In the meantime I'm personally requesting "the way that makes the clerks less sad and asilvering less insane". -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to cheer up those poor clerks! You want my 2c? Just bump it to 750 or 1000. My impression after years of reading arbcom cases is that people almost never ask for more than 1,000, but commonly ask for 500-1000, especially 500-750. This ain't twitter, we shouldn't be communicating in sound bites. It's hard to express any kind of nuanced/involved thought in under 500 words--that's enough for a hot take, not a discussion. And exclude quotes, because quotes just make things easier for people since they have to click less. (Quotes are already excluded from the 1,000-word CTOP limit.) If I removed the quotes from my statement, I'd be way under 500 and wouldn't need to ask for an extension, but would that make my statement easier or harder to understand? Anyway, thanks and cheers! Levivich (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @L235, how annoying would it be to have the wordcount bot ignore anything in {{tq}}? -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good idea and should not be too hard, fingers crossed! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was hoping to gain insight about creating new wikipedia pages? There are certain companies and people that are high profile and missing from Wikipedia and I was hoping to gain insight on how to begin the process of building a page? --Emckenzie21 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TPS comment: Hi Emckenzie21, and welcome to Wikipedia. I believe WP:FIRST should be able to help you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And to follow up on that, I would suggest gaining experience improving articles that already exist before you try creating new ones from scratch. It's much easier to learn how to start a new article when you don't need to be learning how to edit at the same time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. 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

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]