User Talk: AntiDionysius

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:Thayts/Userboxes/DST in user time zone |CET |12h=no |24h=yes |dst=yes |place= |text=where this user lives |bg-c=#e2f2ff |border-c=#2475cd |text-c=#444444 |icon=File:Crystal Clear app clock.svg}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=User talk:AntiDionysius/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=2160|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}

TAs are allowed to remove BLP violations

Please don't do this ↗. A claim of criminal conviction needs multiple high-quality sources, and WP:VG/S ↗ says ''Game Rant'' shouldn't be used for BLPs. The use of rollback was also clear WP:ROLLBACKABUSE ↗ since content removal isn't {{tq|obvious vandalism}} or {{tq|other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear}}. Reverting unexplained content removal isn't a valid use of default-edit-summary rollback, and this wasn't even unexplained. You went on to send them a template saying they had removed content without adequately explaining why, which straightforwardly isn't true. In future, please be more careful when restoring content, and remember the WP:BURDEN ↗ is on you, not on the one removing content. Thanks. lp0 on fire () 17:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

:I am not under the impression that TAs aren't allowed to address BLP violations. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I am.
:I undid the edit because the reason provided for removal was not a good one, and the content was sourced. An article subject denying something is indeed not an ''adequate'' explanation for the removal of a piece of information from the article about them, so I think my template use was appropriate in that regard.
:But I take your point about adequate sourcing. I was not aware that Game Rant is deprecated for BLPs; that's good to know going forward, thank you. I acknowledge also that I shouldn't have used rollback, and instead used an undo. I wasn't thinking. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::No worries, and sorry for the aggressive section heading.
::Even if game rant were reliable, a controversial BLP claim would need two sources, and if someone contests it you should be confident that they are both reliable and that they do indeed verify the content. New users aren't expected to quote the relevant section of BLP, but the statement "the article subject denies this claim" (or the variants "I am/know the subject and this isn't true") are an adequate indication that the sourcing needs to be very solid.
::Thank you for your many contributions to the project, and sorry again for my confrontational wording; I could have been nicer if I'd spent longer writing it. lp0 on fire () 17:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
:::No problem; BLP and potential newbie biting are serious issues, so I don't blame you for reacting strongly. Thanks for steering me in the right direction. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Avoiding edit warring

I definitely don't want to edit war. I wasn't sure where to go with this. I keep referring people to the talk page but get ignored. Some people seem intent on pushing POV on the article. Others seemed to be edit warring. I cited the relevant info on the talk page. ~2026-16286-57 ↗ (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

If you don't want to edit war, don't. It's easy--almost as easy as blaming everyone else. No, you didn't ''cite'' anything on the talk page, besides giving one single primary link. User:Pineways seems to cite news sources. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

*to be honest I wasn't aware of much of an edit war on the page itself until now.{{pb}}My standpoint, for the purposes of the Constitutional Tribunal page, is that there is a dispute between the Sejm and the President over the four specific judges in question, and this should be covered without supporting any side here under NPOV ↗.{{pb}}What makes this more complicated is that the judges apparently swore an oath "wobec prezydenta" without the president being present. There's now a dispute over what "wobec prezydenta" means and whether the oath was valid. (https://oko.press/czy-wobec-oznacza-w-obecnosci-politycy-zapowiadaja-zarzuty-wobec-wszystkich-aktorow-gry-o-tk ↗, https://polskieradio24.pl/artykul/3671470,co-oznacza-wobec-spor-o-forme-slubowania-sedziow-tk ↗, https://www.polsatnews.pl/wiadomosc/2026-04-13/slubowanie-sedziow-tk-zurek-wszczyna-sledztwo-ws-ludzi-prezydenta/ ↗) Pineways (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

**Pineways, none of that is for here: article talk page please. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

***Thanks Drmies. Content issue aside, I see that ~2026-16286-57 has restored their preferred version again ↗. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

****Well we can't have that, and now we won't. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

*****Concerning edit war, someone needs to enforce Wikipedia:3RR ↗ or perhaps establish a stricter rule as it's clearly getting to that point. ~2026-22897-66 ↗ (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

******I think I just did that, and who are you? Drmies (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Formatting of references

Hi, since you readded the reference "İlgürel|2002|Tezcan|2008|Britannica" because it seems well-formatted to you, can you please explain what these references mean? (Because as they seem well-formatted, one guess you have a precise idea of what they are supposed to be.) ~2026-23723-89 ↗ (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

:They're references to three bibliographic sources, which have not been separately added. I'll do that now. Thanks for catching it! AntiDionysius (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::You did not provide the page for the references you cited, so they remain unverifiable, can you fix it please?--~2026-23723-89 ↗ (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Providing page numbers is not a necessary prerequisite for use of a journal article source. But the references ''do'' have page numbers. They're right there in the bibliography. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC
::::Well, I suspect that the real reason for not providing a precise page is that you did not check the sources you cited, did you? You are requested to properly check the references you cite, even copy-pasted from another article. By failing to doing so, you unjustly accused me of "removing sources info" when you actually re-adding source falsifications yourself (out of good will, indeed)--~2026-23723-89 ↗ (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::You did remove sourced information. The information has sources, the sources check out, and the sources have page numbers. I don't understand what your objection is here. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::What "sourced information" did I remove? The precision about Tinos was not in the cited sources, and you deleted it yourself. ~2026-23723-89 ↗ (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::You removed the sources themselves ↗, which verified the claim that she was potentially of Greek origin. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::So, admit that I did ''not'' remove the information itself, which was already sourced by a reference (Somel 2003) that i did ''not'' remove. And some of the redundant sources you readded were too incomplete to be verifiable, and when completed they did not even support the information (İlgürel claims that there is no reliable information about her origin, e.g.)--~2026-23723-89 ↗ (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|And some of the redundant sources you readded were too incomplete to be verifiable, and when completed they did not even support the information}} I don't think any of that is true, but sure.
:::::::I don't understand what you're looking to get out of this discussion. Do you want to see the text changed from how it stands now? AntiDionysius (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

right|80px|alt=The temporary account IP viewer logo, composed of the Wikipedia globe with a user and an IP address ↗
Hello, AntiDionysius. Per your request, your account has been granted ↗ {{mono|temporary-account-viewer}} rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts ↗ that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer ↗ for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy ↗.

Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.

Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.

Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP address ↗es (using the CIDR notation ↗ format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences ↗. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

:Well noted. Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

New

@AntiDionysius Hello! Is the edit on the Joe Thuney ↗ page correct? {{Starwin7 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)}}

:Which edit do you mean - this one ↗? It looks fine to me. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
::@AntiDionysius Is this edit correct? {{Starwin7 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)}}
:::I don't understand AntiDionysius (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
::::@AntiDionysius https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Thuney&diff=1350556903&oldid=1348111190 I mean, was this edit published in accordance with Wikipedia rules? {{Starwin7 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)}}
:::::I can't see anything wrong with it. It appears to be fixing a typo. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::@AntiDionysius okey, good, thanks! {{Starwin7 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)}}

Hello

Hello, So how do I put in other language.
I don't know how to Put another language so can you help me guiding on this.
And another question == can I even put in another language, as I have seen people profile in another language. Subin Bhatta (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:@Subin Bhatta - This is English Wikipedia, so everything has to be in English. If you go to {{URL|wikipedia.org}}, it shows the versions of Wikipedia in other languages.
:I am guessing you're the person who edited Anushka Shrestha ↗? In that case you probably want Nepali Wikipedia - {{url|ne.wikipedia.org}}. --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Sam Kuffour Jr

Hey in regards to Sam Kuffour Jr, his birthday is actually 25th October 2003 but on Wikipedia it says July 4th 2003. Can you change this please. I can provide proof of his birthday and even on FotMob his birthday is 25th October 2003. Thank you for your time! ~2026-25650-69 ↗ (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

:What do you mean when you say you can "provide proof"?
:His DOB is listed as 4th July on Soccerbase, which is considered reliable by Wikipedia ↗. It's 25th October on Transfermarkt, but that's considered unreliable ↗. I don't know what the deal with FotMob is, it seems that we don't have a consensus view on it yet. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
::Actually, it seems quite certain he was not born on 25th October 2003. He was 22 years old on 22nd October 2025 according to this article ↗; if he was born on 25th October 2003, he would still have been three days short of his 22nd birthday then. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | '''New pages patrol ↗''' 
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Each review will earn 1 point.

Interested in taking part? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Tony Dalton

You went ''way'' over WP:3RR ↗ there. Now I know there is a COI in play but ''I don't have one on this'' and am removing that material per WP:PUBLICFIGURE ↗. I would ''strongly'' recommend you leave it out for now. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:I wasn't planning to revert your edit. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for that and for your participation at WP:BLP/N ↗. Hopefully the COI account can join us there. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Maria Condes correct height.

wasnt trying to be rude or anything. https://www.wnba.com/player/1629576/maria-conde/profile.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/wnba/players/c/condema01w.html. ~2026-16346-31 ↗ (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

:I know, I wasn't the one who deleted your comment on the talk page. I just removed your initial edit because it didn't have sources. Thanks for bringing those sources now; I think we actually need to talk about it on the talk page because the sources seem to be inconsistent. WNBA and Basketball Reference reference say she's 6'3"; the Olympics, FIBA, and Eurobasket say she's 6'1". It's not clear to me how to figure out which is correct. I'll start that talk page discussion, and ask at Wikiproject Basketball ↗ to see if they have any thoughts. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello

I can edit in topics of Kurds and Kurdistan for know? NarbazK (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

:No. Your account needs to be 30 days old and have 500 edits ↗. Your account is 5 days old and has 405 edits. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Bihu

You are adding source from 1970 when new source already claim where Bihu came from ~2026-32263-55 ↗ (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

:There is nothing wrong with a source being from the 1970s. Another source being newer does not automatically make it correct. Also, the things you deleted were supported by multiple sources, including ones from the 21st century. I would suggest going to Talk:Bihu ↗ and explaining in more detail why you think these sources are incorrect. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism in the Paris of the East ↗ article

Hello, AntiDyonisius.

Can you protect the article Paris of the East ↗? An IP is constantly removing Baku with its source. This IP's vandalism was reverted by other users several times, including yourself, but he won't stop. Can you add this article to your watch list and prevent this IP's blanking of this page?

Kindest regards, ~2026-32979-99 ↗ (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for the note. I've lodged a request for the page to be semi-protected at WP:RPP ↗. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::More generally I'd draw your attention to the rule on edit warring ↗; you should not repeatedly revert someone else's edits unless they're unambiguous vandalism. While I agree with you that this editor's removal of the content does not seem appropriate, it's not obvious vandalism insofar as they are (now) providing reasoning for their edits and there's not an indication they're acting in bad faith. Thus you shouldn't just keep reverting but try to talk to them. I've also left a message on their talk page noting the edit warring rule. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Looks like the TAs removing the Baku line are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chilloutpeeps/Archive ↗ puppets, given their other edits. May be an Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict issue. Worth keeping half an eye on. @~2026-32979-99, worthwhile starting a discussion on the article's talk page about whether Baku should be there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I was just coming to the same Sockpuppet-related conclusion upon further review of the article history. I've put the page on my watchlist for a few months, anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

political views section

hi! you reverted my addition to political views for Moliere Dimanche ↗. Was citing the sub stack interview the reason? I'm still not clear on exactly what the fix is, but I still need help with that section before I add it again, or would you mind editing the content appropriately? I believe the only way to know the views of any subject is to use the words they said themselves, which is why I took quotes from the interview. Also, can you elaborate on when citing tweets are appropriate, especially for high profile endorsements or public statements or anything like that? ~2026-33560-83 ↗ (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Pending update

Hi there, I submitted COI updates to Lasalle Investment Management ↗ that are still pending. I'm wondering if I submitted a request wrong since it's taking longer than expected to be reviewed. Last time I did a full article edit, it took 4 days. This time it's been over a month and updates haven't been approved. This was the title last time "Request for editors to review full article draft" when it took 4 days. This time it's "Full article edit" did I do something differently for this to take so long? I just wanted to update the stats and management to this year for the company. Let me know if there is something I should have done differently or if I need to resubmit it. Thank you!! Katie at LaSalle Investment (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Slavery in Oman

I reverted the edit in the “Slavery in Oman” article because the claim is not adequately supported by the cited source. The reference does not identify a specific page where the information can be verified; instead, it cites an entire work without providing the relevant page number. This makes it difficult for other editors to verify the claim and does not meet Wikipedia’s standard for precise sourcing, especially for specific or potentially contentious statements. Unless a reliable source with the exact page supporting this claim is provided, the material should not be included in the article. Saoud54321 (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:Hello, AntiDionysius: I think this user needs to get blocked. The information is referenced and they are engaging in edit warring with obvious bias (look for example on this, were they claim "the Baloch have never been slaves": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery_in_Kuwait&diff=prev&oldid=1362433747 ↗). They are a disruptive vandal and need to get blocked imediately rather than try to engaged in an exhausting debate. Greetings--Aciram (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::I'm not an admin so it isn't my call anyway but I don't agree. I think that the content removal wasn't constructive, but they have not crossed the line into edit warring, nor do I think they are a vandal or obviously acting in bad faith. We're talking about the issue now and hopefully it will be a productive discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:That isn't why you removed it, though. Your edit summaries said it was because you believe the claim to be false.
:A lack of page number wouldn't be a good reason for removing it anyway - it would be a reason to leave a Template:Page needed ↗ tag. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::A couple more things, @Saoud54321
::1. I just checked, and the references you removed did have page numbers.
::2. Upon review, the comments you left here and at Aciram's talk page, as well as the edit summary on this edit ↗, sound quite like they were generated with AI. Obviously I have no way of knowing for sure, but it would explain why for example you claimed to have removed stuff because the citations lacked page numbers when A. you already gave an entirely different reason for removing it, B. the citations did have page numbers, and C. lack of page numbers doesn't make something {{tq|not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable and precise sourcing}} - because Wikipedia doesn't have a policy about "precise sourcing". You should be aware that use of AI/LLMs to communicate with other editors on your behalf is not allowed on Wikipedia ↗, precisely because of problems like this.
::3. I would draw your attention to the edit warring policy ↗. You've now been reverted by both me and Aciram, meaning your edit does not appear to have consensus ↗ at this time. We're now talking and that's good, but until you've got consensus for the content removal, you shouldn't try to do it again. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::On the source and the content: I acknowledge the source is considered reliable. However, my concern is not with the existence of the source, but with the selective focus of the article. Balochistan is a region, not a sovereign state. It is highly irregular for an article on slavery to highlight this specific region so disproportionately while ignoring major global powers where slavery was equally prevalent during the same era. This pattern, which is repeated across multiple language versions of this article, appears to be a deliberate and biased attempt to single out a specific community.
:::2. On the AI usage: English and Swedish are not my first languages. Using AI tools to assist in drafting and communicating is a matter of necessity to bridge the language barrier and engage effectively in Wikipedia's technical discussions. This is not a malicious attempt to bypass communication, but a tool to participate in an environment where I am not a native speaker.
:::3. On my editing approach: These are my first contributions to the English and Swedish Wikipedia platforms, as I am primarily accustomed to the Arabic Wikipedia's conventions. If there were errors in my editing process or procedural misunderstandings, they were entirely unintentional.
:::4. A proposal for consistency: If the current consensus is that these specific details about the Baluch community must remain, then to ensure a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), I propose that we apply this same level of scrutiny and detail to every region across the globe in this article. If we are to document this, it should be done comprehensively and fairly for all groups, rather than focusing on one. I am prepared to assist in expanding the article to include these global perspectives to ensure it is balanced and representative.
:::I am here to contribute constructively, and I appreciate your understanding as I navigate these new guidelines. Saoud54321 (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::About the AI I did not know it is not allowed here I use it for Arabic Wikipedia and nobody told me it is wrong so I thought it was okay I will not use it again. Saoud54321 (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

:@User:AntiDionysius I think this user needs to get blocked. They are trying to sound different now after noticing that the first rethoric did not work, but they are removing or changing referenced text and engaging in edit wars on multiple articles. To block a vandal with bias should be an easy thing. They have already had one block at Swedish language Wikipedia were they are doing the same thing. Could you perhaps deal with the matter? I do not have time to engage in a lenghty dispute or ssues such as a several weeks long dispute with a bias vandal. My best wishes, --Aciram (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::I am closing this discussion and will not be making any further edits. However, it is clear that you consistently revert my edits—which are supported by reliable sources—without any valid reason or justification. Furthermore, you ignore my attempts to communicate, and then accuse me of needing a ban when I attempt to restore the information. While this will not affect me personally as I am done editing this article, if there is a definition for bias, it is your conduct. Saoud54321 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)