User talk:AntiDionysius
 | It is approximately 18:50 where this user lives. |  |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| For marking randomly greated misinformation pages into speedy deletion! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
- Ah, you're too kind, thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| You really deserve it. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
- Two in one day? This is really lovely, and a sign I'll do anything to avoid working on my dissertation. Thank you <3 AntiDionysius (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| Giving you another barnstar for your hard work at combatting vandalism yet again with some other people at Bakhtrioni Uprising, well deserved! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Your recent use of rollback
[edit]AntiDionysius, I have been meaning to ask you about this use of rollback since October 2024, when it crossed my watchlist. My apologies for the late response, as real life issues have made it difficult for me to keep up on Wikipedia. Also, I am not an admin, so it's possible I have missed something, but my understanding of WP:ROLLBACKUSE is that, except for issues with widespread implications like rolling back banned or blocked editors or misguided bots, it is to be used for "obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". I have always understood that we are ultra careful in rollback use so as not to chase off or bite the newbies.
I can't decipher any reason for considering the talk page comment at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt as vandalism (in fact, the IP posted about a view held by reliable sources and also pointed out garbled prose), nor can I see any other "reason for reverting" that "is absolutely clear".
Browsing your talk page, I see other inquires about your use of Rollback have been raised:
- At Martin Kulldorff in November 2024, I can understand your thinking in removing the content rather than tagging it with citation needed, per BLP, but it doesn't appear as obvious vandalism.
- At Barbershop in Germany in November 2024, doesn't seem to be obvious vandalism.
- Ibrahim AlHusseini questioned in October 2024 by ToBeFree
- Talk page comment in November 2024; how is that vandalism?
- As explained on talk, this Sept 2024 rollback doesn't look like vandalism
With those as examples, I looked at more recent edits:
- December 2024, appears justified by content in the body of the article, not vandalism
- December 2024, uncited, but not a BLP, and not obviously vandalism, so why not just add a CN tag?
- November 2024, ???
I noticed that the highly experienced HJ Mitchell conferred rollback rights about a year ago, so I've pinged him for a look, as I trust his judgment and wisdom. I saw also in your talk archives that Hurricanehink noted a small problem in August 2024. And I see the good Drmies engaged here, recently. With additional feedback here from Ponyo and ScottishFinnishRadish, along with this December 2024 note from BusterD, you are very well advised by experienced editors, so perhaps I am misinterpreting the correct use of Rollback. If I'm wrong, please excuse my intrusion; if I'm right, I hope the good admins on board will guide your future edits. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, gotta be brief: there are dogs to walk. I certainly think that Talk:Blame It on the Boogie didn't warrant rollback, though I might have rolled back on Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, since it has too much of a rant-flavor to me. My note to the editor was not in any way in response to anything other than the RfA thing--I have come to know AntiDionysius as a valuable editor who helps me do the things admins need to do. Oh, yes, just looked at the Biryani edit--that's not a good use of rollback. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Go walk those dogs, and Merry Christmas (I was more concerned that something about Rollback had changed while real life has been beating the crap outta me, and there are plenty of experienced admins to look in here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi AntiDionysius, SandyGeorgia and Drmies, thanks for the ping and the detailed list of rollback issues. I think the advice at User:ToBeFree/rollbackgiven may be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is why I never bothered getting rollback. Too easy to make a misstep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm scared to death of it; I installed some gadget so I wouldn't keep mis-hitting it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- When I got the admin bit flipped all of a sudden there were rollback links on my watchlist and I immediately did the same thing. Let me go ahead and hide those links before I end up at Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- LOL !!! I think everyone knows "that shit happens" :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I reported myself for missuse after catching the rollback button whilst scrolling on my mobile. Knitsey (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- When I got the admin bit flipped all of a sudden there were rollback links on my watchlist and I immediately did the same thing. Let me go ahead and hide those links before I end up at Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm scared to death of it; I installed some gadget so I wouldn't keep mis-hitting it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the extremely belated reply; I ended up taking a semi-unplanned break from Wiki while my PhD got properly underway.
- I hear what you're saying. I think it’s fair to say I’ve gotten sloppy about the distinction between rollbacking and undoing in some cases; I stand by almost all of the edits above, but I understand they should've been done by undo (with explanation) rather than through rollback. As people flagged in some of the replies here, rollback deserves to be taken seriously. My bad. I'll do better going forward. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello again, and welcome back; I hope your offWiki work is progressing well. This edit, as discussed below in this talk section was not vandalism. It's a good faith edit turned now into a content dispute. The IP believes the content in the lead is supported by cited content in the body; you disagree. There are at least three other ways to handle good faith edits that aren't purely and obviously vandalism: 1) add an individualized edit summary explaining why you are removing or reverting certain content; 2) add "citation needed tags" on the content you believe is unsupported in the body; or 3) start a talk page discussion. Using rollback over what amounts to a disagreement about the word important isn't likely to move content development in a productive direction. It doesn't appear to me that you are as yet understanding that potentially helpful editors can be chased off by excessive use of rollback, and that you could have better informed by simply removing the word important with an edit summary explaining why, rather than using rollback. The IP raises good points about the content; so we have a somewhat simple situation escalating now to a content dispute in which the IP's knowledge of the subject matter and efforts to improve Wikipedia are discounted. In other words, I remain concerned about your use of rollback, and whether you are fully understanding the distinction between vandalism and good faith edits by (at times) inexperienced editors. Providing a fuller explanation of why you remove or revert content via an individualized edit summary not only helps other editors-- it can also help you clarify your own understanding of Wikipedia policy and guideline. @ToBeFree, HJ Mitchell, Ponyo, Drmies, and ScottishFinnishRadish: can give you better feedback and information than I can. I haven't had a chance to review any of your other edits, as real life difficulties have limited my Wikipedia time. Regards, and thank you for your dedication to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello AntiDionysius, SandyGeorgia and the others, thank you very much for resuming this discussion and for the ping. I think once someone has received the rollback permission, even if they mostly use Twinkle which doesn't require it, it is usually hard to give the permission up in response to valid concerns about its use. This seems to be pretty binary: Keep and use properly, or have it removed and live with the tarnished reputation caused by a permission removal forever. But that's a false dilemma because I'd like to offer a different option: I'll remove rollback "for now" as "currently not needed" / "self request" or similar, without any blame and without a link to this discussion in the permission removal summary. And I promise to grant it back without complications and without a huge check whenever you ask for it. If having rollback is currently causing problems with tasks that would work well with Twinkle, then let's take rollback out of the equation for a few months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good approach ... AD is a clearly helpful and productive editor, but just needs perhaps some time to really understand the importance of this matter, yet not have it appear to unduly tarnish the WikiCareer of a helpful editor. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's also not a big deal to not have it. I didn't have rollback until it came with the admin toolkit, and even now I only use it for mass-rollback of blocked socks and vandals. This resolution seems like a win/win. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good approach ... AD is a clearly helpful and productive editor, but just needs perhaps some time to really understand the importance of this matter, yet not have it appear to unduly tarnish the WikiCareer of a helpful editor. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello AntiDionysius, SandyGeorgia and the others, thank you very much for resuming this discussion and for the ping. I think once someone has received the rollback permission, even if they mostly use Twinkle which doesn't require it, it is usually hard to give the permission up in response to valid concerns about its use. This seems to be pretty binary: Keep and use properly, or have it removed and live with the tarnished reputation caused by a permission removal forever. But that's a false dilemma because I'd like to offer a different option: I'll remove rollback "for now" as "currently not needed" / "self request" or similar, without any blame and without a link to this discussion in the permission removal summary. And I promise to grant it back without complications and without a huge check whenever you ask for it. If having rollback is currently causing problems with tasks that would work well with Twinkle, then let's take rollback out of the equation for a few months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello again, and welcome back; I hope your offWiki work is progressing well. This edit, as discussed below in this talk section was not vandalism. It's a good faith edit turned now into a content dispute. The IP believes the content in the lead is supported by cited content in the body; you disagree. There are at least three other ways to handle good faith edits that aren't purely and obviously vandalism: 1) add an individualized edit summary explaining why you are removing or reverting certain content; 2) add "citation needed tags" on the content you believe is unsupported in the body; or 3) start a talk page discussion. Using rollback over what amounts to a disagreement about the word important isn't likely to move content development in a productive direction. It doesn't appear to me that you are as yet understanding that potentially helpful editors can be chased off by excessive use of rollback, and that you could have better informed by simply removing the word important with an edit summary explaining why, rather than using rollback. The IP raises good points about the content; so we have a somewhat simple situation escalating now to a content dispute in which the IP's knowledge of the subject matter and efforts to improve Wikipedia are discounted. In other words, I remain concerned about your use of rollback, and whether you are fully understanding the distinction between vandalism and good faith edits by (at times) inexperienced editors. Providing a fuller explanation of why you remove or revert content via an individualized edit summary not only helps other editors-- it can also help you clarify your own understanding of Wikipedia policy and guideline. @ToBeFree, HJ Mitchell, Ponyo, Drmies, and ScottishFinnishRadish: can give you better feedback and information than I can. I haven't had a chance to review any of your other edits, as real life difficulties have limited my Wikipedia time. Regards, and thank you for your dedication to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Welcome back
[edit]I've hovered a few times around you talk page, wondering where you were and should I ask. I figured you were busy and I didn't want to pester you. Glad to see you back and in full swing. Knitsey (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, you're very kind. I kept meaning to get back on the horse and it kept slipping down my to-do list. But I am glad to be here now. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- You can slow down though. If you want. I mean either slow down or I can take a holiday. Quick draw McGraw. Knitsey (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hahah. I do aspire to engage with Wikipedia in a more slow and measured way going forward. We'll see how that goes. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Poor start then. Glad you're back. Knitsey (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hahah. I do aspire to engage with Wikipedia in a more slow and measured way going forward. We'll see how that goes. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- You can slow down though. If you want. I mean either slow down or I can take a holiday. Quick draw McGraw. Knitsey (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
RE: Incorrect edit
[edit]Hello, please see this order issued today by Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States. The District Court order reinstating Gwynne Wilcox as a member of the NLRB is stayed pending further action from the Court. In other words, as of now, she is no longer a federal employee.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040925zr_p8k0.pdf
I'll be reverting my edit back since it is correct. Thanks. 2605:4A80:740A:1AB0:B074:8E12:D2C8:65F1 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- If you have sources for edits that you make, you should cite them. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
The Palestinian Museum
[edit]Heads up that in reverting back to before the non-ECR edits, I also removed your addition of the promotional maintenance tag. Since I wasn't sure if you had added that based on the now-reverted edits, or whether you felt it was applicable to the article in its (now current) state, I did not reinsert it myself but wanted to give you a heads up in case it was the latter and you could reinsert it (or let me know and I can do it, to avoid any confusion about a potential revert on a 1RR-covered article). ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for the heads up! I think it still applies, though perhaps to a lesser extent. I'll re-add it now AntiDionysius (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Nina Kouprianova
[edit]
Hello, AntiDionysius. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nina Kouprianova, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Huh?
[edit]I'm sorry, but I must say that it's as if a hen is jealousy sitting on a rotten egg and doesn't know it's rotten.
- Rewalsar, India is known as a very important pilgrimage site for 3 religions. This information has been deleted from the lede since my last visit. Why?
- Furthermore, it's been replaced by wholly unimportant demographic info, geographic info, and tourist info. Why?
- I re-added the notable info, and shifted the ridiculous demo and geo info to where it belongs (if at all) - at the bottom of the page. You deleted these improvements. Why?
- I've been noticing that many previously good pages in the fields of Asia/Tibet/Tibetan Buddhism/founders of Tibetan Buddhism have been completely targeted and rewritten so that notable info is deleted; their existence as historical figures is debased; everything is obsessively labelled as "legend" or "myth"; info boxes dominate the subject; and geographic and demographic facts and figures (who needs those - an invading army?) are ridiculously detailed.Why?
- I can answer (unless your answers are better): This is revisionist history in action. Is that your intention?
2400:1A00:B040:6C86:B6CB:18D2:31A5:5476 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- You need to provide citations to reliable sources to support anything you add to a Wikipedia article. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Clever. The page is already full of references. The lede encapsulates the page. You should know that. 2400:1A00:B040:6C86:B6CB:18D2:31A5:5476 (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- The page is actually rather under-referenced. And nowhere is there a reference describing the pilgrimage site as "important" - that word did not appear in the article until you added it. Nothing in the body of the article supports that description, making it an unreferenced addition. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Clever. The page is already full of references. The lede encapsulates the page. You should know that. 2400:1A00:B040:6C86:B6CB:18D2:31A5:5476 (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Noticeboard mention notice
[edit]Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Medhane Roasted (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)