2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 |
J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines and Jerry Lohr Drafts
Hello Anachronist It's been a while since we connected about the winery. I've completed extensive research about Jerry Lohr and the Winery, then developed two drafts based on the secondary sources. I agree with your last point; Wikipedia article changes are an incremental process, but I want you to see all references, content, and photos. On the winery article, I've integrated all of the existing content.
Also, we can move this conversation to the sandbox talk pages if that's better for you and the visibility of others.
Best--Chefmikesf (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Any conversation should take place on the talk pages of the articles you want to change. Start a proposal on each page, and include the {{request edit}} tag at the beginning of your proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
New administrator activity requirement
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work. |
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would have opposed this if I had seen the discussion before it closed. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Question
Hi Anachronist, I created this article a few days ago. I was unaware of a declined draft version, until I tried to save the article in main-space. There is now a merge request [1]. FYI, I commented here. Question: can the edit history of the draft version be merged into the edit history of the main-space article? If yes, then that will resolve the merge request, because the draft content will be preserved in the edit history, and anyone can reintroduce old content. And attribution to the old content will be preserved. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Bammesk: Yes, the histories can be merged, but if I do that, the creator of the draft would be considered the creator of the article. Is that OK? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's Ok. Thank you and cheers. Bammesk (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Bammesk: Done! Please include any relevant material from the old revisions into the current version. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's Ok. Thank you and cheers. Bammesk (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Review Draft:Javed Chaudhry
Hi Anachronist, you salted the page creation of Javed Chaudhry, due to repeated recreation. And I guess you also draftified a page (Javed Chaudhry (Journalist)) related to him, which was basically an evade from creation protection. Since then, me and many other editors have worked this draft into a good shape, and now this draft assert Notability about him, and deserve to be in mainspace. I don't think there's anyone better than you to review this draft, that's why I came to request you to review this draft. Thanks Radioactive (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Abdulhaseebatd: I'm not sure I'm the best person. Many other editors worked on it? Primarily you, but that's fine.
- @Nomadicghumakkad: you made an AFC comment about reception, and there's some in there near the end. And @Akevsharma: you declined it previously. What do you think now? It looks better to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Nattarintns
Just a note that you may want to extend this users block and ECP the page given this and the several week long edit war between IPs, this account and editors in good standing trying to clean up that hot mess. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I replied on User talk:Deepfriedokra. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
2000 Mules Vandalism
A troll just undid an edit I suggested. He is suggesting that multiple sources do not claim that there is no evidence for D'Souza's outrageous false claims. This is simply bogus. ALL the sources listed make it a point to say that D'Souza did not provide ANY evidence for the crimes he alleges. Can you please revert him? This is getting old2601:282:8100:D3E0:9905:817E:2083:9A40 (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and continue discussing on the talk page. We're all trying to improve the article and there will be disagreements, but that doesn't mean anyone you disagree with is a troll. We have policies and guidelines that we must adhere to, and we cannot engage in WP:Synthesis. For example, only the WP article cited supports the assertion about nonprofits, the others do not. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- And I proposed a reasonable tweak, and nothing. And, no, I don’t have to assume good faith with someone who has a history of edit warring and WP:FRINGE violations (i.e. the other editor who is likely a shill or plant for D’Souza). On certain issues we don’t come half way like flat earthers. It is absurd and beyond ridiculous to suggest in any way shape or form that the 2020 election was stolen because it is proven forensic fact that the election was legit. Yet WP:OR and WP:UNDUE violations are being allowed to stand simply because the flat earthers in this case are being backed a powerful and dangerous fascist American cult. You are being WP:POINTY on an matter for which is a nobrainer. The sentiment of the sources clearly are saying in unison that there is no empirical evidence that vote mules stuffed ballot boxes to rig the 2020 election. Be obtuse all you want about it, it doesn’t change the fact that you are for watering down the article. What’s next? Editors forming a consensus that a flat earth maybe exists? Or that Elvis is still alive? And then having the article reflect that?!?? The vote mule garbage is no less absurd. Have fun with that.2601:280:CB02:48B2:A9A1:1181:929A:6868 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the behavior of another editor, take it up on WP:ANI, not on my talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- The problem I have is with you enabling said editor with what amounts to meat-puppetry. This doesn't warrant an API...yet. But to give you perspective, this is no different than holocaust denial, also backed by fascistic anti-social conspiracy theory. With holocaust deniers, what they are basically REALLY saying with their 'theory' (i.e. that the holocaust didn't exist) is that the feelings of holocaust victims and survivors simply don't matter because they don't count as humans in the first place in their warped world view.
- The BIG LIE and conspiracy theorists like D'Souza are actively trying to undermine democracy with insurrectionist plots and weaponized propaganda which is their way of saying that votes of blacks and those who don't normally vote in elections (which is why Biden squeaked out a victory) simply don't matter. This is about basic math, and vote counts are NOT partisan, and the sources have no problem calling out D'Souza since it's not just that he's wrong about his theories but that he's dishonest as a matter of reported fact and NOT opinion. Whether it is holocaust deniers or anti-democratic fascist insurrectionists, we don't need to water down articles to appease them. Food for thought...or an WP:ANI if articles like this begin to promote misinformation with your help. Think it over.2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, you think it over, and perhaps study WP:V while you are doing so. We cannot misrepresent what sources say, and we cannot engage in WP:Synthesis. I supported the change you proposed (simply removing the attribution to Philip Bump), I made the edit, but the change was reverted, and the reason for reverting it was that only one source supported the proposed change. I am following the accepted practice described in WP:BRD: I made a bold edit, it got reverted, now we're discussing it.
- I fully agree with your views about the Big Lie.
- In the case of this specific change, only the Washington Post source supported the word "nonprofits". We could change that to "people" and it would probably be OK. There is no denial going on, just compliance with guidelines. The editor you have a problem with hasn't disagreed with your points. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the behavior of another editor, take it up on WP:ANI, not on my talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- And I proposed a reasonable tweak, and nothing. And, no, I don’t have to assume good faith with someone who has a history of edit warring and WP:FRINGE violations (i.e. the other editor who is likely a shill or plant for D’Souza). On certain issues we don’t come half way like flat earthers. It is absurd and beyond ridiculous to suggest in any way shape or form that the 2020 election was stolen because it is proven forensic fact that the election was legit. Yet WP:OR and WP:UNDUE violations are being allowed to stand simply because the flat earthers in this case are being backed a powerful and dangerous fascist American cult. You are being WP:POINTY on an matter for which is a nobrainer. The sentiment of the sources clearly are saying in unison that there is no empirical evidence that vote mules stuffed ballot boxes to rig the 2020 election. Be obtuse all you want about it, it doesn’t change the fact that you are for watering down the article. What’s next? Editors forming a consensus that a flat earth maybe exists? Or that Elvis is still alive? And then having the article reflect that?!?? The vote mule garbage is no less absurd. Have fun with that.2601:280:CB02:48B2:A9A1:1181:929A:6868 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
New page reviewer trial runs
Generally, I feel like I give trial runs to editors whose editing history doesn't provide enough information to really assess knowledge of notability guidelines despite ability to generally be a productive editor. Recent AfDs as scathing as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AP Human Anatomy and Physiology Principles (and the others were just as bad) are a crystal-clear demonstration of a lack of relevant knowledge. signed, Rosguill talk 06:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: I agree. I was trying to be generous in my suggestion for a trial run, while admitting my unfamiliarity with the established process on that request page. 14:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on "Click Bait"
Your trying to help is appreciated.
However when you resized the image the text (within the image) became unreadable.
What is needed is someone who knows Adobe Photoshop. They can use it to "cut" the 3 photos apart and stack them vertically. Then they can be resized larger (allowing the text-within-the photos) to be readable-- without crowding the page (on the left-to-right level, as they have been doing).
Right now as a thumb they are very hard to read (the part of the text that is part of the photos-- not the caption).
I used to know some Photoshop (but it was years ago) so I don't know if I can still do it. Maybe if I have time at some point, I'll try.
Thanks again, Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 06:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chesapeake77: I made it a bit larger again. I disagree that a tall column of images would be an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Anacronist I think you are right-- you found the right balance. I made it about 12% larger.
- I agree that it now works horizontally.
- Thanks for your help!
- Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Polarity therapy
Hi Anachronist. I thank you for reverting speedy deletion notification of this article. From day one I have been working to make Wikipediate a reliable informational source for general public. However, I observe some instances where some global editors unable to understand the policies are working in a way which delays Wikipedia growing to its true potential. The nomination of deletion of articles or redirects to page which only has few similarities with the original article are some such cases. Recently I wrote an article on Gynaecologist,which is relevant for students and it is redirected to Gynaecology which is relevant as subject. Additionally, India being a group of states, some common topics of interest with different places of administration need their presence in Wikipedia, which others are unable to understand. Like please have review on this article. Can you please guide me how in future I can avoid these instances. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist. Hope you are keeping well. I observe that the article Polarity theraphy again getting redirected. Can you please help me taking it to main space and in helping me to avoid these incidents. I see these are happening regularly wasting my time and disturbing me. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You need to take it up with User:Alexbrn, the editor who redirected it. As you can see from the revision history, he worked on cleaning up the article for a while, removing material about medical information that wasn't cited to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, but he ended up with an article that wasn't much different from the article on Randolph Stone where the pertinent facts are already dealt with, so there was no need for a stand-alone article on the topic per WP:NOPAGE. In looking at the sequence of edits he made, I must say I agree. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Gameknight999 has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 19% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)- @Pythoncoder: Wow, that was quick. Only today I revised and re-submitted it (after a year of the draft languishing). Thanks! ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Query
Hi, I Anachronist. I saw your participation in blacklisting discussion of qadrishattari.xyz. I was trying to improve Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri#Disciples and needed qadrishattari.xyz to improve it. It is becoming much difficult for me to find another sources to improve that long term unreferenced section. I believe qadrishattari.xyz will be helpful for that section. Dove's talk (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Defer to Whitelist to request using specific pages on the site. The discussion was pretty clear that blacklisting is necessary and that the site is unreliable. I suggest you start a discussion on WP:RSN before making a whitelist request. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Dietary acid load
Hello, I appreciate your efforts to improve NPOV with the alkaline diet. A new article Dietary acid load has been created. Please improve it. Maffty (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Said new article is a POV fork, and synthesis. 'Improvement' only requires deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Requesting REVDEL for Ahom kingdom
Could you please fulfil the REVDEL request for Ahom kingdom? This is related to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=134307808. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Chaipau: Someone already did it.
- It's curious, however, that I can still see the diffs using popups, even though the diffs don't appear if I try to load one into a page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Sdrqaz did it. And thanks for checking. I do not use popups so did not notice. Could this be corrected? Chaipau (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Chaipau: No need to correct it; apparently it's intentional. I just tried it from my alternate non-administrator account and popups wouldn't show it. It must be a feature available to administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Sdrqaz did it. And thanks for checking. I do not use popups so did not notice. Could this be corrected? Chaipau (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Request
Hi. Could you undelete Draft talk:Blade (2023 film)? That page should not have been deleted along with Draft talk:Blade (upcoming film). Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus: Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Thanks for your help with the RFC. Andrevan@ 18:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC) |
Magnesium torch
Hi Anachronist, when you recently created the article stub Magnesium torch you did not include any references. Please fix. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Pbsouthwood: As you may have noticed in my edit summary of the first edit of that article, this topic pre-dates the world wide web by about 40 years and online sources have proven difficult to find beyond the mentions in the external links I included. The situation is further harmed by the British habit of using the word "torch" to refer to a flashlight, so any searches for "magnesium torch" these days turn up information about flashlights with magnesium alloy cases. I do recall a Jacques Cousteau episode in which these torches were prominantly featured and described in a deep-sea dive but I have not been able to find it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did not read your edit summary until after leaving you the message, as I assumed you would have done some WP:BEFORE research and had forgotten to add the refs. I managed to find enough on the internet to expand the article a bit with some references. I am confident that the topic is sufficiently notable, mainly because of the other uses, but may not be able to prove it beyond doubt to some of our more zealous deletionists. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Happy Twelfth Adminship Anniversary!
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
For your help with Skeeter Reece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC) |
Brandon Lee
Thank you for decision. While I don't think I have anything to add to the article currently, i was criticized for not having formatted the citation identically. I may or may not do it in the future. Not being aware of PCP rules would I still be able to edit the article or a select group of people like high ranked editors would be.
I do think the PCP is the right thing to do since it will stop a mentally unstable individual to post cruel stuff regarding a person who died tragically.
Since his father Bruce Lee also died young it attracts a lot of speculation. Furthermore, there are false reports about him being considered for roles in Mortal Kombat (1995) and The Matrix (1999). While the first is partly true the second is false. I wish I had archived the interviews by the directors of both films when they were online. While this is annoying I can live with it.
I'd love to have some advanced editor rechecking his death section one day, but otherwise the rest is documented to best of my ability.
Thank you Filmman3000 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Filmman3000: Pending-change protection still allows anyone to edit, but the edits of anonymous IP addresses and unconfirmed accounts are not published until a reviewer approves the edit or reverts the change. Everyone viewing the page sees the version prior to the edit that needed approval. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me well done. Thank you.Filmman3000 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)