If you have questions comments or concerns feel free to drop me a line below. Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, and remember to sign your message with four tildes (~~~~).

Click here to start a new topic.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hey again – hope you're doing well. Just following on from last month, GustavoCza's at it again here – thought it might be worth bringing to your attention; thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4TheWynne Dropped another note. Let's see if they take the hint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I didn't realize this was a whole can of worms I was cracking into... RachelTensions (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelTensions (talk page watcher) I know little to nothing of the situation, but let me assure you that most of Wikipedia is not a can of worms. I have, however, noticed that Wikipedians tend to have weirdly strong opinions on music. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelTensions No need for an apology. Sometimes people just need a friendly reminder that this is a collaborative project. This sort of thing happens all the time and usually it resolves itself without too much unpleasantness. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this editor's history I definitely see the WP:OWN issues... these diffs (the edit summaries in particular) about having to fix things that other editors "ruined" and made "visually appalling" gave me the ick.

But anyway, all I wanted was input from informed editors to form a consensus on a content dispute, didn't expect interpersonal issues. RachelTensions (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this one seems to be a whole can of worms with a backstory that I unintentionally looped people back into  :-) RachelTensions (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelTensions Well, like Ad Orientem said above, sometimes people just need to be reminded to collaborate, so hopefully that's all it takes. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't know how many chances we want to give this person, as there are many more examples beyond the ones that we've pointed out so far of them being totally content to engage in edit wars without any fear or hesitation and just having the worst attitude towards other editors in general (even in the aforementioned discussion, With that out of the way, do you mind if I ask why you, a Kpop-focused editor, suddenly took interest on Coldplay? More specifically on making them look like bad? – like, seriously...). I just feel deep down that their attitude isn't going to change, the way things have been going. RachelTensions, I'll respond properly back at the talk page (was on my break at work, so didn't have a lot of time to respond beyond just adding my two cents and meant to clarify that I'd add more later), and even here I wasn't intending to create a whole other discussion, but yeah, unfortunately this is the result of a continuation of some pretty disappointing behaviour, regardless of how well-intentioned they might be. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 09:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If their problematic editing in this subject area continues, then likely the best remedy would be a topic ban. However that is not something I can impose unilaterally. You would need to open a discussion and request at WP:ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I thought you were away, at least for a while, but now I see you on my watchlist again. Forgive me if I am thinking of someone else (possibly TonyBallioni), but it's good to see you pop up! Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender Yes, I've been back for a while. I do miss Tony though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off to bed. It's well past 1am here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all miss Tony. Time flies -- I guess I was thinking of your absence in 2020 or so (perhaps around the FramBan?). Anyway, great to see you around, and I hope you are well. Softlavender (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

[1][2][3]

Hey, can you please delete these revisions that are ascii art vandalism on Karim Ahmad Khan

Thanks,

Daisytheduck 23:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thx :-)

Daisytheduck 01:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey I'm not quite sure if this is worthy of a revdel, but it is fairly nasty so I'm reporting it just in case. Anyways heres the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dog&diff=prev&oldid=1253393452 Gaismagorm (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaismagorm Done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Gaismagorm (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

could you unblock my IP address please?

User talk:81.106.150.115

I think it has been blocked due to “vandalism” but as you can see I have got administrators involved to remove unreliable sources here:

Whigfield

Many thanks Stevieboy82 (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevieboy82 That IP address is not currently blocked and a look at the block log shows no previous blocks. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

Hi Ad Orientem,

First of all, I'd like to apologize for the edit warring on Simcha Jacobovici's page. I am relatively new to editing on Wikipedia and should have researched better ways to resolve the conflict.

I would like to state that I do have a conflict of interest. I have worked for Simcha for over 20 years. Having said this, I do believe it is an advantage as I know what is true and what is false on the page. I also don't believe that any of my edits were "vandalism". There is inaccurate information on the page that I was trying to correct.

I did try to contact GenoV84 on their talk page. I never received a response and only today did I notice that what I wrote has been removed. Hopefully you can help. If not, please point me in the direction I need to go to resolve this.

As for the edits that I was trying to make, originally there were three, but now I just need your help with two of them.

First change being the opening paragraph. I don't believe that pseudo-archeologist and pseudo-historian should be included here as this is just a matter of opinion and not fact. While some people don't agree with the conclusions in some of Simcha's films/shows as cited i.e., the late Amos Kloner and Eric Cline, others do agree..

One of the books that is cited against Simcha “The Tomb of Jesus and His Family?: Exploring Ancient Jewish Tombs Near Jerusalem's Walls” edited by Professor James Charlesworth was the proceedings of a conference inspired by Simcha’s film! In its opening paragraph, Prof. Charlesworth says that the one topic for debate is “evaluating the Talpiot tomb in context” and the claim made “on the Discovery Channel that the tomb of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their son had been recovered in Talpiot”. The paper on “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary and its possible link to the ‘Jesus Family Tomb’” by Drs. Amnon Rosenfeld, Howard R. Feldman and Wolfgang E. Krumbein, concludes “that the James ossuary exhibits the same geo-chemical fingerprints as the Talpiot cave…adding this ossuary…to the cluster of names found in this tomb has a great statistical weight. It raises the calculated odds (Feuverger 2008) in a combined probability equation…from 1 in 1600 to a compelling level or certitude that it is really the historic holy family tomb”. Other academics cited in the book spoke in a similar vain. Eldad Keynan concluded that Simcha’s thesis on the Talpiot tomb “cannot be totally dismissed as an option” and Andrew V. Sills concluded that Simcha’s thesis “should be taken seriously and studied further”. The list goes on.

It is unfair to cite two negative papers as if they are the objective truth, while ignoring the positive papers and the fact that the majority of scholars concluded that Simcha’s thesis needs further studies.

Having said this the original paragraph, before it was changed on May 28th, was based on facts:

Simcha Jacobovici (/ˈsɪmxə jəˈkoʊboʊvɪtʃ/; born April 4, 1953) is a Canadian–Israeli journalist, documentary filmmaker and New York Times best-selling author.

I think this paragraph should replace what is currently there. I even tried to keep the pseudo-archeologist and pseudo-historian on the page under the "Controversies" section where I believe it is a better fit.

The second change I would like to make is the first paragraph under "Early Life". It states that Simcha's parents emigrated to Israel aboard the MV Struma. They were never aboard the ship. Nowhere in the referenced article does it say this and even the Wikipedia article on the MV Struma says that the ship was torpedoed while carrying the refugees and only one person, David Stoliar, survived. This is another change I tried to make but was reverted for "vandalism". (By the way, Simcha’s parents emigrated to Israel in 1948 and in 1952 on separate boats and obviously did not die on the Struma because they had two children, Simcha and his sister Sara).

As you can see from the above, I am not trying to vandalize the page. I am simply trying to make it as factually correct as possible while trying to keep everyones edits (fact based or opinion based) on the page.

Thank you for taking the time to read this very lengthy post and providing any help possible.

Naustin522 (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naustin522

We do not determine what is and is not true. We repeat what is reported in reliable sources. If there is a difference of opinion in those sources it is noted while give due weight to the consensus position. Please see WP:TRUTH. You may propose any changes you wish to make on the article talk page where they can be reviewed and discussed by other editors. As I am involved here in my capacity as an administrator it would be inappropriate for me to take sides in a content dispute. You can also see WP:DR for helpful hints on handling disagreements with other editors. I will append a template to your user talk page with some useful links to our policies and guidelines as well as tips for constructive editing. Best regards...-Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad OrientemThank you for your quick reply. I will go back to the article talk page and propose these changes there. Naustin522 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naustin522 (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]