I have fewer high-level spell slots than normal and may not be able to respond quickly to complex issues or requests for admin assistance. Patience and/or scrolls of restoration much appreciated. Apologies to everyone already waiting on something from me.

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

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic 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, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 21 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.

Hello asilvering. I've been following wikipedia's suggestions for edits, mainly finding reliable sources, since I can't edit tone or update articles. Very few edits have been answered and only 2 accepted. There's something like 50 edits pending, most of them citations. Am I doing something wrong? What can I do to move this faster in order to get enough edits so you can unblock me? Thanks for your time and help. Artful Historian (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I spot-checked a few of them, and it doesn't look like you're using the template incorrectly. So it's just taking time because, well, we're all volunteers and no one's gotten to it yet. I'll see if I can't find someone to go clear that backlog. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Artful Historian (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending help. GoldRomean did check a few edits, but there's still many more waiting. I just did several edits on a human rights in Iran page and asked for help to one of the last editors who edited the page. I'm wondering how many edits will need to be accepted in order to be unblocked. Thanks again for your help. Artful Historian (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure, but it's been a while now, so you might try requesting unblock again. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will list several edits for NorthernWinds and I will request an unblock again after that. Artful Historian (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello asilvering, I requested an unblock as you suggested and it was decline here. I don't know what else I can do. I would appreciate very much any suggestions. Thanks again for your time and help. Artful Historian (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NorthernWinds gave good advice. You might also try making edit requests that aren't just "here is some verification", ie, ones that add some actual prose. That's the thing we'd be worried about most, so demonstrating that you can get that kind of edit through would help. -- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Over two months ago, I started doing the same kind of edits I was blocked for (Manuel Benedito page). They have been completely ignored so far, maybe because the sources are in Spanish. I guess I will try to fill another unblock request in the hope that my wording is the right one for whoever looks at it. If not, I will just try to request the kind of edits you mention with English citations. Thanks Artful Historian (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Artful Historian Please ping me to all your requests or leave a list on my talk page NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Artful Historian (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it of inappropriate bother or waste of time. I already asked it some other user, but probably it is out of their competence, and as you're related to the investigations here, I will dare to ask you too (I'll copy from the other place):

Could an editor here get some lingering consequences for repeated false accusations against other user? I'm just not sure if its something that could be of matter for such a huge project, as it, obviously, relatively minor in comparison to more serious cases happening daily here.

Other user said its unclear what I'm trying to ask, so I tried to rephrase it there; not sure if it really better, but will copy too in case:

Suppose there is some editor, who had redundantly repeated false accusations about somebody else. Could it lead to some lingering consequences for that user if some certain action had been took here via site structure?

I also asked there if it possible to point me to the more knowledgeable person initially, but it should be redundant in your case I think. ~2026-28690-14 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there can be consequences for false accusations. Relevant pages: WP:AGF, WP:ASPERSION, WP:TE. There's a difference, of course, between "mistaken accusations" and "false accusations". -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a part of potential significance: by "false" I meant "not based on reality". While "mistaken" could be read as "something person do believe in, regardless to reality". As it obviously what would be claimed, if it provide a noticeable difference, I'd ask about it too in advance, while I reading it: is it something that also would be clear from those links or not (because it was precisely outlined aside mentioned pages)? ~2026-28690-14 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't have any idea what you're trying to ask. Can you rephrase? Or you could just tell me what this is about. What editor or comments are you concerned by? -- asilvering (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try:

You're provided some actually useful links to read, but immediately made a warning about difference between "mistaken" and "false" accusations, as if it wouldn't be covered in those links. As it is important distinction (and indeed no really addressed in those links, and ones I followed from them), because it seems to be already a big part of problem I'm wonder about.

In short, some people already pretend to operate as if they could just generate some claim about others, with no reasoning against is possible, as they always have a right to "suspect something, or think some particular way". While I, obviously, agree with that premise, I'm not sure it is include to be able to act as if that "suspicion etc" is a verified truth. With it resulting in repeated false accusation of the unrelated editor in sockpuppeting, and in effect also accusing me in the very same thing very same time (with it later expanding to some other accusations against me, but, at least, dropping them from the other editor, when it become too obviously ridiculous (worthy mention that it was done truly insulting way, they agreed to "forget these incidents" despite claiming them as a true still, just gratuitously letting it to "pass like water under the bridge", that is, to "forget" own false accusations)).

But if it could get them to any trouble, obviously they always would be able to claim that their false accusations actually were merely "mistaken". And it would be even technically true, I think, its not that they are intentionally attacked others due to some premeditated malice, but rather stuck in own initially unintended mistake, nevertheless resulting in not good things. So I tried to clarify at spot: if such defense is expected to work well here, and as you immediately warned me about it, it could be read as a discouragement to bother further.

Links themselves are inconclusive; there are many mentions about very similar things, with explanations roughly about "don't do that", but without clear explanation what to do if somebody else still do so. And on the other hand, other places tends to advice more in a line "try to solve it on your own, and if unable to, just forget about" (even mentioned vexatious litigation). So my main point was: is it worthy bother many unrelated people about such rather small deal (there were no open threats etc), so I tried to ask one competent person for advice first (turning it to a comedy a little, by getting lost in accounts, and asking an editor without actual competence first). Hope its more clear now.

Now, as I see that the decision should I do something about it or not is obsolete, as the case is already opened not by me, and those many unrelated people are already bothered anyway, I'd still dare to ask about technical advice how it is more convenient to do:

Should I file some own complaint about it, or it would be already assumed in ongoing one? and

Should I write something there from this account, or somebody would ask me on their own if they would feel to?

Sorry if of bother, in case you're actually think its better to ask somebody else about it, please, tell. Just I thought it could be appropriate to try, as you're admin who actually involved in similar investigations. ~2026-28793-90 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-28793-90 Just in case you use a new temp account and didn't get the notification: I have started a new thread at Wikipedia: Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#IP user is WP:NOTHERE about you. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 15:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get it, I just not sure what I exactly expected to do from now, so I already asked about it in message you answered to. ~2026-28793-90 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone is making accusations that are simply wrong, there's no need to report them anywhere. In general, you can assume that the admins handling whatever accusation you're talking about will also warn or sanction the accuser if they're doing something wrong. It's not at all uncommon for that sort of thing to happen (see WP:BOOMERANG). If there's an incident you'd like me to have a look at, I can look into it for you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, and I could only hope is that I'm writing is not entirely difficult to understand, at least not all the time, and I will try to clarify any part that would fail it in case it would happen.

More or less all that I thought as maybe worthy to show somebody to review is already provided in links in that AN incident. Honestly, it is something truly Kafkaesque, I think: outright from the beginning I had to address some accusations without any underlying ground provided for them, but when I was doing so (reasonably, I hope), it was simply dismissed as a "counterproductive numerous walls of text aimed at taking up editors' time".

As I was already accused to be a some other user 1 doing sockpuppeting (via myself), I realized that I couldn't just leave it on a spot as it, because it would looks as if the accusation is true (cannot do anything with a see-through clairvoyants). Still seeing it as freak misunderstanding, I tried to explain it more, and even pointed that the editor I was talking with had more than once very similar cases in their past, according to themselves. Then I just become accused as being a sockpuppet of some other user 2, then that I'm "dyslexic", then later, that I'm actually a sockpuppet of some another other user 3, if I got it right, then with some numerous various accusations of "WP:"s violations I also at fault of, again without actual evidence about.

As one of the users, who was accused to be a sockpuppeter (via myself) during that time was under a sockpuppet investigation (acquitted there by now, as I got), I worried that all of that could be of some source of confusion related to it. And indeed, turned out I was reported there simply as another accounts of the investigated editor; not even as "supposed ones", but merely as a fact. Sadly, it turned out to be a source of a real confusion: editor there asked if my accounts mentioned were indeed not by accused editor as they claimed, and I got mixed and lost in accounts and mistook them for an administrator running the case, so decided to confirm to them, that no matter other things they're about, this is not at defendant's fault at all. Turned out that the editor I reached with it were not administrator, and, from the way it went later, likely an unrelated person, who get involved due to be a fellow of accusers. So the administrator required question I mistakenly asked them, resulted in a some dark comedy: despite I came to answer their own question initially (with it being totally ignored, as if it something assumed on its own, or totally irrelevant), my own question caused a honestly weird non-answer, and, sadly, not yet realizing that I'm talking with a wrong person, I tried to re-phrase it, believing I wrote it badly (looks like the more concise I trying to do so, it become less clear exponentially), resulting in a justified irritation of that editor. I apologized about it, and could do it again if needed; it was really unlucky accident, but entirely my fault, I should had a double-check on whom I'm writing to.

Thats the place where I wrote the first message to you.

Now, as all of it already have a direct links provided not by me, there is one place that is directly related, but omitted. As I see it as a truly disgusting and outrageous, I think it should be added to a case: this subsection till "Thanks for edits on ...". It is directly related to accusations of mine: 2 editors come to bring their "excuses" to the editor accused by them falsely and without any basis for. Not only the ongoing realization of them being totally wrong in "suspicions" or "thinking in a particular way" hasn't changed anything related to me, and simply resulted in a next accusation of being a some third user's sockpuppet. That is related to me, and it's at least not something particularly new or unexpected from them by that time. The thing that really averse me there was the way they're pretended (politely saying) to do their excuses (for an editor, repeatedly falsely accused by them). One that is sorry only for "accusatory tone" is even good in comparison; "I falsely accused you, sorry if it was in unpleasant tone". The real place is "excuses" of other user, who not only plainly accused that editor in sockpuppeting as a given fact, but also brought a case about it into investigation, where aforementioned editor was acquitted. So, there was a case of extraordinary evidence, and all that evidence (accused user was acquitted) resulted in a change roughly from "You're sockpuppeter, it just a fact" to a whooping "However, I am now convinced that ButteyFelicity and PageTheEditor are (probably) different people". X brought Y to a court, court acquitted Y on X's charges, X gratuitously agree from now that Y probably not guilty. And "forgive" them for it, and also for other accusations, that weren't brought to investigation, so weren't dismissed, so they are still true: "However, I don't regret the observations, user comparisons, or nooticing that I made on the talk pages outside this SPI discussion, because all those observations are still true.". And yes, it directly means that according to that editor (while contrary to the other one, as I got), it is "still true" that accused user used me as a sockpuppet: "The WP:LOUTSOCKING done by ButteyFelicity on User talk:Zero Contradictions#Hi is reminiscent to ..."; so the very same false accusation masquerading as "apologizing". Sorry for length of the last part, but I see it as immensely disgusting incident, that would likely gone unnoticed; in fact without it happened, likely I wouldn't bother with pursuing it at all, but this part is too much, I think.

Sorry for length, again, I hope its more clear than my attempts at concise writing. In case something would require rephrasing or something, tell, please. Thank you for bothering. ~2026-28793-90 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea what could possibly cause anyone to think that you are a sock of either of those editors; they're presumably native English speakers, and you are not. If those editors were continually going around making false assumptions about sockpuppetry, that would be a problem, but I don't believe that they have been. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.) So no, there isn't anything to be done here. Well, aside from simply letting it go. Easier said than done, really, and having been accused of sockpuppetry early on in my own wiki-career, I sympathize. -- asilvering (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that is exactly qualifying as "continually" in this case. It already went into some ongoing at that time sockpuppet investigation, while, as I got, technically it was an accusation of some other user, but I was directly related to it still. Otherwise it was over a course of a few days, but from it could be seen now it gradually changed to some other accusations mainly, but the incident that editor opened (one you already aware of) is still include the same accusation of "feeling" of "block-evasion" (its that third person from that "apology", I think, after first two accusations easily came and easily left); does invoked ongoing AN investigation qualify as "continually going around"? Is is that you talked about at very start, and I tried to clarify: that they could just claim it was simply "mistaken" and continue as is then? Its just a "feelings" when it suit better that way after all, anybody could have them. Many thanks for bother anyway, sorry in case of too much time wasted (that exactly what I was trying to get, does it worthy to bring anyone's attention at, or its too minor for an effort). ~2026-28793-90 (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by continually is that they make this kind of erroneous accusation frequently, about different people. Then we would be able to give them a warning or restriction about discussing sockpuppetry. Since it looks like it was just this one case, we can just hope they learned something from the experience and move on. It's important that people are able to be wrong sometimes! It's unfortunate that you were part of the lesson, though, and again, I sympathize. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I'm confused about how an IP's first edit ever would be on another user's talkpage.

An interesting phenomenon that I've noticed is on the user's fluid ability to control their degree of passive aggressiveness. Specifically, that they seem to be perfectly reasonable, open for apologies and to show willingness that they're probably wrong when they're talking to an admin. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask to clarify two points, because I'm clearly not understanding them right?

> continually is that they make this kind of erroneous accusation frequently, about different people

It does include more than one case, at least that other user who had an official investigation that time, they were accused by the same people in parallel. And the nature of such accusation itself involve more than one person; say user 0 is accused to be a sockpuppet of user 1, then of user 2, then of user 3, ... of user 999. How many persons are accused in this case, one or thousand?

> warning or restriction about discussing sockpuppetry

Other accusations are not a problem? Currently it looks like accusation bear no cost at all: you're sockpuppet of this user. no? ok, no problem, of that user then. no? of some third one then. no? its WP:this and WP:that violations then. no? it would be something-else-maybe-it-will-stick then, etc. Mention of only "sockpuppetry" in this context could be read as if that is beside it is fine or irrelevant?

As you're said, there is no need for me to write at "Incidents", but, if you would think its of worthy to comment about something for you or there, tell, please.

And two not entirely directly related questions, if it appropriate:

> I notice more and more usage of some fancy teal font color to mark a quotes. But they don't lead to the actual place of context. Its something on my side doesn't work properly, or its not planned to work that way, and its merely an eye-candy?

> I read some other cases at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As I got, everybody could just come there and discuss. But recently I noticed that non-administrators also could vote there. Initially I assumed that all the users who cast votes are admins, but its not the way it is then?

And, of course, thanks for reminding me about a missed edit. ~2026-28969-81 (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The teal colour is editors using {{tq}}. It doesn't lead to anything, it's just a way of formatting quotes. Regarding Currently it looks like accusation bear no cost at all: you're sockpuppet of this user. no? ok, no problem, of that user then. no? of some third one then. no?, yes, if someone is doing that, it's a problem. But that's not what's happening here; this is one incident.

Anyone can comment at ANI. Only administrators can issue blocks. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for bother, looks like just one line from you works wonders here. As I understand all this stuff is considered closed, no additional actions are needed and expected from anybody, right? (After more reading about related I'm really glad that I'm struggled with a pushing that for investigation, as it is ridiculously irrelevant compared to a crap you guys have to deal on a daily basis, truly impressed with your resolve.) ~2026-30342-65 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone can move on and get back to building the encyclopedia, yes. :) -- asilvering (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilver. Finally got a proper keyboard and can type out my reasoning, and I'll keep it short(er).

1 / This edit is, as far as we know, the first ever edit of the user.

The thread is started by a suspected-as-sock_{(and eventually found to be innocent)} user trying to clear their name. Half-way during the arguments, after I've provided some advice to the by-then suspect, this IP replied to me.

By which point I immediately assumed it to be a case of WP:LOUTSOCKING - afterall, how can a newcomer stumble across either SPI or a user talk page before editing something else? It is after all the back-and-forth did I start to realize that the IP is another user, by which point I asked for their username point blank. It remains unanswered.

2 / Ability to switch between different levels of passive-aggressiveness.

I don't think new users tend to type down these responses with such levels of confidence and entitlement, and/or achieve such density of implications on others' wrongfulness _{("zero is strange, you're harassing, you're doing things wrong, zero's lying, you're whitewashing...")}. The teahouse part also shows that they've already known what a teahouse is, is expecting such suggestion to come up, prematurely declined such suggestions, and asks specifically for the user's response (or "some actual person [to answer me]")? Again, no one is entitled to an answer on Wikipedia. We care about other users' feelings only when we value their contributions.

3 / Granted, that if an experienced editor or an editor with few hundred edits decided to do all of the above, I'll feel that the editor is just reasonably frustrated with a project they're trying to improve, and 've never taken this to the AN/I. What bothers me so much is that I've told the IP two times that Wikipedia is a place to write an encyclopedia, and that they should put down the stick and go do exactly just that. They didn't. So from my point of view, an IP came out of nowhere, spent many veteran editors' time and mental energy with their questions, tries to be subtly hostile to make people feel annoyed, and didn't make any improvement to the encyclopedia. So I concluded their conduct on this site is unproductive / disruptive. tldr: Write the damn encyclopedia.

iris 9:02p, edited 9:39p (U+8) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IrisChronomia, your point 1 is incorrect. This is the earliest immediately obvious edit by this editor, but they've plainly been on wikipedia before. People who edit without an account cannot be assumed to be newbies, as IP addresses change, people edit from different locations, and so on, not to mention that there are hundreds of Wikipedia editions in various languages. It's true, they might be LOUTSOCKing. But they're certainly not a sock of PageTheEditor. You don't need to let your time be wasted by anyone - you're not obligated to respond to this TA's questions with anything other than a "please ask someone else". -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that their behavior is disruptive and concerning; I actually never thought of them of being PageTheEditor (for that PTE doesn't speak like this).

My suspicion is that this is a case of block evasion. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 01:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should not imply something is out of anyone's competence. Your edit history on this site shows that you're not trying to write an encyclopedia.

Just in case, check WP:SEALIONING. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 08:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article's recent history is riddled with new accounts and IPs (MartillodeMurcia, ~2026-27288-68, Jayboot) behaving identically to the socks Skaderberg, Deusestlux, JavierNF, and huge etc.

This is obvious block evasion by a persistent sockpuppeteer: Sockpuppet investigations/Deusestlux/Archive Emeherald (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Javier. But remember, you're also banned. -- asilvering (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Asilvering, thank you for taking a look at the AE case I filed yesterday. I have a couple of procedural questions I wanted to ask but wasn't sure if the case itself was the right venue; I hope it's okay to ask you here:

• The subject of the case left me a talk-page request to alter its format, and about three hours later changed it unilaterally (1, 2, 3). I do not want to get into a formatting dispute at AE, but I am unsure whether that kind of alteration to another editor’s filing is proper, particularly since if I'm not mistaken the additional comments section is intended for subsequent additional material, and the initial material I placed in the diffs section was properly placed there as it provides necessary context for the diffs. I'm not sure how to handle their edit here - any thoughts?

• Also, the word counter the editor added currently shows 499 words. May I request a 150 word extension so I can add some directly relevant diffs responding to issues raised in subsequent comments?

Thank you very much. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That... is very strange. I will revert it and have another look, one moment. -- asilvering (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I can't use the revert button to do it and I don't think it's worth messing around, since it's readable in any case. I'll warn them not to do that in the future, and I'll grant the extension. -- asilvering (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Appreciate it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for this kind of situation, so I'm trying to tread carefully. Should I forward the email as evidence to someone, & if so, who? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to ignore, reply, report, whichever, whatever seems appropriate depending on why they were blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I sent you an email. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how it works and how do I know if am verified --Samebigsystem~ sbs (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Samebigsystem~ sbs, I'm only here to answer questions about Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to read and edit articles that are random or articles that are in different topics. Like, Arts, Sports, Entertainment, Games, etc. Is that possible or allowed? --7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi @7SecondSurgery, that's definitely possible and allowed. You can read about any topic you'd like, and you can edit in the vast majority of them. You can find random articles using Special:Random. If you happen to not be able to edit any articles, you are always welcome to suggest edits on the article's talk page. Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 16:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are doing well!

I'm new to wikipedia and have an eventual goal of adding to the electrofuel article and some bioinformatics articles. Do you have any suggestions about ensuring i'm following the rules and how to work up to eventually adding sections to articles or adding new article content?

Thanks again! best,

Rowan --Rowena206 (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rowena206, welcome to wikipedia! If you want to read the rules first, H:I is a good place to start. As far as editing tasks that aren't as difficult as writing new article content, I see you've already found the suggested edits on Special:Homepage. You might also be interested in joining a wikiproject and seeing what's on their to-do list. You can find relevant ones by checking the talk page of articles you're interested in, like Talk:Electrofuel. Not many editors bother to update wikiproject pages anymore, so the thing actually called "to-do list" is usually pretty out of date. But you'll be able to find their cleanup list, and those are updated automatically. Here's Wikiproject Energy's: [7]. Some of the tags on that list are easier to solve than others, but everything on that list is an article that needs help of some kind. Even if you're not fixing "the problem", there's probably something you can do to make any of those articles better. -- asilvering (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful, I am checking out the wikiproject and cleanup list now. Thanks for the message and response. Rowena206 (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having trouble reaching an active admin; have to communicate an issue via email. If you're around, let me know, and I'll send! cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. -- asilvering (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey asilvering,

May I have a few more words at AE to respond to Paparikaiser?

Thanks NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best I think to wait and see if an admin attending the case has any questions for you. If they don't, there's no need to respond. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The context is a little bit beyond what is present in the linked discussions. Indeed most of the content is just a repetition of what Smallangryplanet pointed out. I'll do as you said. Thanks! NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering is it possible to get an extension for providing more policy violation evidence against Smallangryplanet? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think engaging further before someone takes on the case is a good idea. -- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "someone takes on" the case? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking since it's been days since it started. Thank you for all your advice; I saved the statement I made. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I intervened just to handle the question of downgrading the protections on Talk:Zionism and haven't looked at the meat of the case. I don't know if theleekycauldron was planning to do so, either. In my opinion, it would be best for non-arb admins to handle this one. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron presumably did look at the evidence (she did give her opinion and said that there's no case for sanctions against me). The additional evidence I want to submit is partly divorced from the original context of the report and highlights other CPUSH activities on the part of the filer (WP:BOOMERANGing the report) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to say this that is both clear and kind, so forgive me: a key Wikipedian skill you have yet to learn is "when to say nothing", and you need to learn that skill as fast as you possibly can. I am not a fan of WP:COAL; I think it is reductive and, overall, unhelpful. But do read and consider it. -- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have disproven the first sentence here, annulling your request for pardon.

I do think it would be productive if parties were encouraged to provide as much evidence on each other as possible. I feel at a disadvantage being discouraged from doing so, specially when (I believe) it provides important context to the report. Further, Wikipedia is at a disadvantage since it misses an opportunity to uncover policy violations and prevent additional ones.

Nevertheless, as said yesterday and as remains the case, I follow your advice. Not only follow but also take it to heart! Thank you for consistently providing valuable input and having patience for me, NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wasn't the outcome I expected, but I can't fault the responding admin for just closing the thread. I don't recommend jumping right back in with a new AE filing of your own, since that will inevitably be seen as retaliatory or tendentious, but if you feel like you need to bring them to AE in the future for a pattern of behaviour, you can certainly include anything you think was overlooked this time around. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chat with Senne, it's alright and I forewent any further noticeboard filing with relation to Smallangryplanet at this time NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today: Felicity Lott. My story. If you have time, listen to her singing Friendly Vision, with the word "peace" (Frieden) floating up high, softly and serenely. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: strike. In advance, in case I am inactive or otherwise not paying attention:

1. Please indefinitely block me once a strike has started(*), leave me my TP access though per usual.

2. Add {{On strike}} (ie whatever the temp geeks come up with) to my userpage & talkpage.

3. This is my explicit consent, for part 1 and 2, no need to request any further permission for this.

4. I, CNC, am of sound mind and am fully aware of the consequences of such actions requested.

5. I am also aware I will be unable to participate in discussions regarding the strike, nevermind.

6. Unblock me when the strike has ended, or I'll ping you from my TP to request that.

(*)I'm comfortable trusting your judgement on this based on an 'official start' or otherwise 'implied beginning', however that may appear. Consider me as being in the FOMO boat if there is any ambiguity over timing, ie you can be liberal about it. If you block me mid-editing then that is the intended design of such an action afterall. That sound ok, does that work? CNC (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine I'd shoot you a talk page notice first, if you were actively editing. And you or anyone else are perfectly welcome to hold me to this, if it slips my mind in the moment. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that works. I just mean no need for chit chat or confirmation prior to any blocking action, especially if you're busy, just block and move on :) Likewise, my statement means you can hold me to that request, as much as I will hold you to the offer. Also @Queen of Hearts, same applies. Thanks and solidarity always. CNC (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm necro-ing, but I'd also like to request the same, @asilvering. Should we actually go on strike, I'd like a p-block from all namespaces except Wikipedia talk, User, and User talk until the strike is lifted. Unlike CNC's request above, please check in with me before any such action to see if I still want it or I can abstain myself.

Again, sorry if I'm necro-ing, I just saw this already open topic here and thought it would be better to put my request here :) --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they) 14:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Asilvering, hope you're doing well. I know you're caught up on things, but I was hoping if you could help me with this topic.

I had always questions about how citizenship parameter work especially on articles like Mother Teresa. Could you help me with this or suggest me someone who is an expert on this matter? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 08:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what's your question? -- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do you view the list of nationality as? We know that per MOS:INFONAT, it is quite clear on what to add and what to not. When it comes to people born during British India for eg, should their citizenship be omitted completely? for eg John Doe born in 1920 (can't we add the citizenship parameter as British subject (until 1947) Indian (from 1947)? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 18:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that regard I'm not sure. The place to ask would be WT:MOSIBOX. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering you sure that is the correct place? I mean it does seem so but I haven't received any reply yet so far. Any better alternatives? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 16:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've got one now. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Yeah they were helpful but I had some questions about the article lead now especially when it came to how nationalities worked. Where can I take this discussion to? I tried asking them there but I guess it was wrong of me to mention it in MOS:INFOBOX talk page :/ Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If no one can answer you for it there, it's quite possible there is no answer. Just edit the article the way you think best, and if someone disagrees with you, you can talk it out. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering To be honest about this A, it has to do with my sanction on this topic, hence I needed more clarification on my questions when it came to using citizenship in the lede. I would have talked it out at the respective talk pages but this is regarding a whole group of people for eg Goans. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I forgot about that. I'm not sure why you're asking, in that case, since you can't touch this part of the infobox anyway. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering To have it lift off? thought it was obvious already, its been like 6 months. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 01:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me get Stiven Mikhail soccer coach page back up ? --Baggioo10 (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. But if you write a new draft, and it's accepted by an AFC reviewer, I can unprotect the page so that your draft can be published. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you getting back. I personally never wrote the page. It was created and used to be published but someone edited it without disclosing something and it was taken down. Is there any other way you can help ? Baggioo10 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok , I will ask for it to be submitted and touch base. I appreciate it Baggioo10 (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

its been submitted Baggioo10 (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to mention this, because it relates to something which you have said that you hate, so you may wish to ignore it. However, UTRS appeal #113086 relates to a block of yours. It has been referred for CU review, and of course a second opinion from another CU may be a good thing, but you just may like to have another look at it yourself. (I have posted a fairly long opinion there, but of course it is based only on behavioural evidence, not CU data.) JBW (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Back to you! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I only joined to make a page a dedicated for Filian vtuber, I mean it looks complicated as I understood, I’m not interested in editing any other articles, if it’s complicated I’ll quit the site --Mrorangs (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mrorangs, welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry I missed this question. It's true that it isn't easy to make a new article (have a look at WP:FIRST for some tips). It's also really unlikely that a vtuber is eligible for an article, since media don't tend to report on vtubers. Sorry. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | June 2026, Vol 12, Issue 6, Nos 358, 359, 373, 374, 375 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Alphabet run: Countries starting with I, J, K and L Article improvement campaign: Orphaned women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: Eiffel women Tip of the month: Consider contributing to two of our monthly events at once, and improve coverage of LGBTQ+ women by de-orphaning their articles. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello,

I am David M. Waisman, a biochemist whose research has included work on endoplasmic reticulum calcium‑binding proteins and a recent historical review on calreticulin (“Calreticulin—Enigmatic Discovery”, 2024). Because this represents a conflict of interest under Wikipedia’s policies, I am not editing the article directly, but I would like to request that editors consider adding a short, sourced “History and discovery” subsection to the Calreticulin article.

At present, the article does not describe the discovery history of calreticulin. The literature distinguishes between early work on a hepatic endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-binding protein (calregulin/CRP55) and later sequence‑based consolidation under the name “calreticulin,” as well as a more controversial connection to a previously described skeletal muscle high‑affinity calcium‑binding protein (HACBP). My recent review and earlier primary papers summarize this development and may help provide a neutral, sourced overview.

<nowiki>

History and discovery Calreticulin was first identified in the early 1980s as a calcium‑binding protein in liver, where it was purified from the 100,000×g supernatant and characterized as a novel cytosolic calcium‑binding protein distinct from calmodulin [ref 1]. A subsequent study isolated and characterized a related Ca²⁺‑binding protein (CAB‑63, formerly called calregulin) and established its basic biochemical properties [ref 2].

Further work on calregulin demonstrated its purification, cellular localization, and tissue distribution, showing that it is a high‑capacity, low‑affinity Ca²⁺‑binding protein localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) lumen of hepatocytes rather than the cytosol, and that it is conserved across vertebrate livers [ref 3]. These studies established calregulin as an ER luminal Ca²⁺‑binding protein with properties distinct from cytosolic Ca²⁺‑binding proteins such as calmodulin.

In 1989, Smith and Koch cloned and sequenc --Dmwaisman (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dmwaisman, I see you figured out that you need to add this to the talk page for Calreticulin. But you haven't actually made an edit request, so no one but me will see it! I'll fix this one for you. If you want to make other requests in the future, try using WP:ERW to make it easier. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've been looking at this page which has a marked issue for subjective wording. What's the best way to rephrase some of that language? --BigBadChonkus (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BigBadChonkus, it looks like the wording on that article has already been fixed up and no one thought to remove the tag. I've removed it now. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can I cite Youtube videos, podcasts, or social media posts if they are from an official verified account? --7SecondSurgery _Roar! 18:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what you're citing them about. WP:ABOUTSELF has the details. You also want to be careful about link rot, so try to make sure that, whatever it is, it's something that is on, for example, internet archive. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm looking to get an article published for Crystal Caves, Atherton. I will submit a Articles for Creation link as I am directly linked to the place as stated in my user profile. I was wondering if you could guide me on hows best to proceed? I'm writing the article now so if its already out there when you see this check it out! --Curiousparrot532 (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Curiousparrot532, I'm not sure what you're asking exactly - you've already submitted the draft, so now you just need to wait for a reviewer to accept or decline it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:10, 28 May 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.

EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @EaglesFan37, I wrote most of a reply to you earlier, then got distracted and didn't send it. But it now seems to me that you've already made a decision? I'm no longer sure what you need from me in response. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Tbh, I am curious what the reply was. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Just sent an updated one. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering, Can you extend my IPBE? I've given the reason to you privately. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...based on my playful discussion on a user talk page, so I'm reaching out. Block evasion and sockpuppetry on my talk page from user "JeanScallini.ScalliniEmpireGlobal", whom you blocked from accessing the email function (log), now reappeared as "JeanScalliniStrikesBack". I applied the initial block, and then it was escalated twice (TPA revoked, then email revoked).

Perhaps he needs some direction on the use of UTRS. I have found that this mystifies some users, who find it simpler just to evade the block. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user has unsuccessfully used UTRS in the past - see appeal #112490. I think they are one of the rare sort where they will never "get it". CoconutOctopus talk 19:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That appeal has a very different tone from the talk page communications and emails I have received, which are filled with pomposity and delusions of grandeur. However, he didn't even try to explain what he intends to do with an unblocked account. Evading the TPA and email block just to harass me and send me another accompanying email doesn't fill me with confidence that unblocking would be a net benefit to Wikipedia, although his email to me was more straightforward and included specific promises about how he would conduct himself. He should have sent that to UTRS; it might have gone somewhere then. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Huh boy. There's a sleeper, too. I may as well do the SPI paperwork. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has left a comment on my talk about reporting of my TBAN. Am I permitted to archive it? TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SFR cheers. TarnishedPath^talk 10:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello asilvering -

I am trying to restore this page. I understand that i missed the deadline on the primary warning to do so. I apologize, but i am new to the Wikipedia editing process. The task fell off my radar, and it is my fault for taking so long.

I have now obtained verifiable references, but the page will need to be altered to include them. A list of these links is available on request.

If i do in fact need to go through "drafitification" to restore the page, how can i initiate this process?

Obviously, i would prefer to simply have the page un-deleted again so that i can (promptly, this time) insert the required references. If however, "draftification" is required, i am happy to comply. I respect and understand the need for strict page editing guidelines. Either way, i just want to restore the page.

Thanks for your time, have a good day

N. Carburetor Dung (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted following an AFD discussion in which participants looked for other sources and didn't find any. What sources have you found that they didn't? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely 2 weeks with all the fun happening on the both talk pages? ~2026-32085-47 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the admin who handled that. You should direct any questions at them. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be rather offensive to question the quality of their work out of sudden while having no relation to a case in question, at least without getting a qualified opinion about it first. But indeed, it's inappropriate to try to make you spend you're personal time on it, providing you're unrelated as well. Just thought it as curious enough case, because the original complaint is plain wrong, but it reveal another bad things related. (If you actually meant that it's appropriate to contact the admin in charge about it, and it wasn't just a polite phrase, I will do then.) In either case sorry for a wasted time of you. ~2026-32471-13 (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did, in fact, mean that you should contact the admin who handled it. As a general rule, admins don't go around reversing each other's actions without asking each other first, and I don't know what was going through the other admin's head as they took that action, so I could give you an answer but it wouldn't be as good as going to the admin who actually did the thing. You haven't wasted any of my time, don't worry about that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mentor, will you pls check my draft if i did it right? Thank you --Ewoks69 (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, but not far off either, so I've fixed it for you. I've also added some "citation needed" tags for sentences that need some clear source. Watch out for overly promotional language - if you're going to say something like "showcasing her versatility and vocal prowess", that ought to be coming from some kind of professional review, and not her own PR or your own opinion. You may want to read WP:PROMO and WP:WTW for more help. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep that in mind Thanks… I will have it checked again after i finish it thank you Ewoks69 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You may not know that I supported you in the arbcom elections last term, and I just wanted to thank you for vindicating that decision with your hard work overall, nothing specific. Andre🚐 22:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it seems you closed the case right as I was submitting my comment, but nonetheless, I think I should note that my concerns with their conduct goes beyond disruptive editing as they actively misrepresented sources & fabricated quotes.

I'll fully accept if you don't believe this warrants any further action then you've already taken, but I wanted to bring this additional context to your attention regardless. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Butterscotch Beluga. I did notice, but after I'd already made the block. Feel free to just copy-paste that comment again if they come right back to AE. This is a really uncomplicated case so I'm hoping we can handle it with quick escalating-to-indef blocks rather than spending the usual amount of AE time on it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

Help me --Organicpreshhsh33 (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, Organicpreshhsh33! What do you need help with? --TheAuroraBorealis (she/they | In solidarity) 14:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Related to what we discussed via email: Now that AlphaChip (company) - an article created by one of the Qq8 socks - has been deleted, can you look into moving AlphaChip (controversy) to AlphaChip? I see this move requires an admin. Alternatively, I can propose a page move on the Talk page if you feel that's more appropriate. I continue to question whether the AlphaChip article should even be retained, given the most recent sock/CoI revelations, but at the very least the title should be updated. Thanks. LovinLifer (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LovinLifer, if you're thinking of deleting the article, you may as well try that first, and then we can rearrange the disambiguation page if necessary if it's kept at WP:AFD. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think it should be deleted. I think other editors may agree, but I hesitate to nominate it again myself given the bad reaction I got to my previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlphaChip (controversy). Do you have any advice on how to move forward? I feel a bit stuck. Thanks, LovinLifer (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello so If something changes to the world I can put it on Wikipedia right? --Halotech495 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! So long as you provide a reliable source for any changes you make, go right ahead. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally out to sea with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etcnoel1. Could you make things clearer for me in the UTRS? Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lordy. Probably not, but I'll try. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does ACAS/KURD stand for? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/ACAS (Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean & Syriac) & WP:CT/KURD (Kurds & Kurdistan) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for what reason have you blocked me from editing a Wikipedia article? I’d be grateful to know thanks. ~2026-19434-62 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, unless you're presently block evading. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, I don't understand you closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Colombia. You said it's a speedy close, but you closed it as no consensus despite the discussion being closed earlier than 7 days. Shouldn't a sock nomination be closed as WP:SPEEDYKEEP?

But a speedy nomination wouldn't apply in this case. The speedy keep guideline says:

The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, so they were not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be removed from the log, tagged with {{db-banned}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution.

The nominator was not blocked, but even if they were, then the page should've been speedily kept, right?

However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed, unless all such comments support keeping the article. (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision).

There were two editors in good faith who supported a merge, so in theory this discussion shouldn't even have been speedily closed in any way. Am I missing something? FaviFake (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, the page should not have been speedily kept. The page was created by the sockpuppet. The merge discussion was opened in order to fix the actions of the sockpuppet in the first place. Rolling back their edits obviates the need for the merge. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was it closed as no consensus if the discussion wasn't allowed to run for the full seven days? That's only permitted for speedy closures. FaviFake (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as "no consensus" because it was procedurally closed. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions can't be "procedurally closed" as no consensus, according to WP:NOCONSENSUS. That's misleading, as it implies there was a standard discussion. Would you mind re-closing it as "speedy redirect" or a similar wording? FaviFake (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[13]

@Patrick.N.L didnt get the hint. Should i just file a report again? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I strongly prefer not to give back-to-back blocks so another admin should handle this one. Feel free to copy-paste whatever from the earlier one to speed it up. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a good faith modification which is well sourced by BBC and other journals which are well established as neutral such as nasha niva. I do not understand why any countering viewpoints are promptly removed. We need to add some information to give some neutrality to the page gaza genocide denial, because currently a POV should be added.

Legal experts and the highest legal international bodies have also denied the Gaza genocide. The chief prosecutor of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) refused to lay genocide charges on Israel and considered there was no evidence of a genocide in Gaza ^[1][2]. The International Criminal Court has refused to conclude the Gaza genocide was plausible ^[3] Patrick.N.L (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Patrick.N.L (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick.N.L, it doesn't matter whether your actions are in good faith, or even if they are substantially correct; you're being blocked for disruptive editing, not for being wrong or for acting in bad faith. You need to work together with the other editors of that page to achieve consensus. Please listen to what they are saying to you and treat them as your colleagues. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the modifications in the talk page and I'm waiting for them to comment. Patrick.N.L (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i have put forward a single modification with strong sources such as bbc, an editor has reverted it and i went to the talk page to discuss it. I'm unsure on how i went wring. Patrick.N.L (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has responded to you, and you need to discuss this with them on the talk page. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review why a few editors of gaza genocide refuse to add some neutrality to the page. The highest courts, both the ICC and ICJ have reviewed the evidence and both refused to say a genocide was plausible (ICC) or even lay charges of genocide against Israel (ICJ). The chief prosecutor of the ICJ even said there was No evidence of genocide in Gaza and that “It would be a reckless prosecutor to move simply because of clamor. You move based upon evidence.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/may/26/icc-prosecutor-khan-undercuts-gaza-genocide-narrative-israel/?__cf_chl_tk=qSSg337UZqLDLApKjbn6QM496rdfeP3nKN4P_u1AP4k-1780674554-1.0.1.1-lLYdQDGjH0wMHIaCZc0EoSLWYPoHmu5pfnG1YZJF570

https://nashaniva.com/en/395378

The fact that the ICC and the ICJ are the highest legal bodies, it would be quite relevant to put their countering viewpoints, or even consider that the page change from "accusation of gaza genocide" to "Gaza genocide" on December 11 was reckless and not based on evidence as the chief prosecutor of the ICC said “It would be a reckless prosecutor to move simply because of clamor. You move based upon evidence.” Wikipedia should be based on evidence, not on a group of editors trying to remove all dissenting viewpoints. Right now, the lack of neutrality hurts the credibility of all wikipedia.Patrick.N.L (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument that you need to make on the talk page of the article. Make sure you're using reliable sources that are not opinion journalism, like that Washington Times piece is. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]