User talk:Allan Nonymous

Welcome!

Hello, Allan Nonymous, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to CIA influence on public opinion. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GabeIglesia (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panama Canal fence

Can you explain what you were trying to do here please? What you've actually done was make a mess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the article deleted, because it could be better summarized as part of history of the panama canal. Is there any way you could help me format it properly? Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the nomination for you. Twinkle is general helpful in constructing AfDs discussions and many other tasks, although I don't personally use it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment from David Tornheim

Are you familiar with the essay WP:BLUDGEON? For an editor with less than 600 edits who has never participated at WP:AN/I before, I don't understand why you are so aggressively defending another editor there.--David Tornheim (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bludgeon and I apologize if it appeared if was so. I was merely trying to engage all stakeholders here who are distributed across a variety of comments. As to how I ended up in AN/I, it was actually a complete coincidence involving a... rather unusual user. Somebody suggested we take it to AN/I and I asked what that was and then decided to take a look (it seemed like an interesting place), only then did I see this discussion, about an editor I had seen make a compelling case against closing "Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism". The reason I am interested in aggressively defending this editor is because, I felt his contributions to the community are essential. I personally agree that his editing methods can be disruptive, but I feel the punishment is out of proportion here. Frankly, I believe the best approach would be to resolve these things in a WikiProject Venezuela RfC, as well as a strong warning to NoonIcarus to follow any consensus reached there. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. It's probably better not to say much about why I disagree here. I do suggest you look at everything posted at the WP:AN/I, particularly the WP:diffs--those are the essence of what makes for a valid complaint. The reasons I disagree should be clear from what I wrote there--particularly the paragraph, "I remember NoonIcarus's behavior under the former name Jamez42. In January 2020, s/he received a 1-year editing restriction for behavior like the above. After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned." The warning was ineffective. Also restrictions are not punishment--they are to protect Wikipedia.

I did not respond to your question there as I think it is a red herring. I would be willing to discuss your concerns after the WP:AN/I issue is closed. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason I raised the GrayZone concerns is twofold:

1. GrayZone personally attacked the editor in question here, so I felt there was bias concerns.

2. In addition GrayZone is a big supporter WP:FRINGE ideas, so there is a concern there with regards to what would be considered NPOV.

Both of these would significantly impact any judgement reached there. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why it would "significantly impact any judgment reached there." Did you actually read the article? I had to laugh when I read:

Some of these anti-Chavista advocates, such as Jamez42 and ReyHahn, even openly discuss their Venezuela edits on Wikipedia talk pages.

Oh dear! They discussed their edits on the talk page! Obviously the writer has no real experience on Wikipedia.

The final parting blow:

Wikipedia is corrupted on a fundamental level. It has been purged of any sense of internal democracy, and a fanatical gang of obsessive, politically motivated editors control its content, effectively monopolizing the entire world’s easy access to information.

It is obviously hyperbole. There is definitely a bias. The New York Times (and Western media) has bias too--but it is hidden much better. They have decades of experience of how to make their bias look like indisputable, irrefutable and authoritative fact. Until you look under the hood--as Chomsky did.

Consider the 2019 convoy sent from Columbia to Venezuela that caught fire. On 2/24/2019, Grayzone contradicted Western media's claim that Maduro's troops started the fire. On 3/19/19, the New York Times admitted they got it wrong, partly because they relied too heavily on a U.S. State Department video.

Of course, our article 2019_shipping_of_humanitarian_aid_to_Venezuela#Colombian_border relies on the Western media saying the military caused the fire. It's a good example of the kind of bias Wikipedia gets from throwing out sources that disagree with the U.S. State Department position.

Take a look at this discussion (and what I said about how Western media echo U.S. State Department positions and advance propaganda per Noam Chomsky) about the superficial way that sources are chosen by WP:RfCs as "reliable" or "unreliable" which go against the traditional way that sources are evaluated. Quite a few editors share my concerns.

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, and a little pet peeve of mine, it is Colombia, not Columbia.

Dismissing personal attacks on editors as "hyperbole" is, at the very least a bit concerning. I read the Grayzone rant and it was, at best a blatant attempt at WP:CANVASING and at worst a WP:THREAT. It is true that all sources have bias, but, as Wikipedia shows, even biased people can write (or at least get close to) NPOV, as a lot of western media outlets *try* to do (even if they do fail often). By comparison Grayzone hardly tries at all, and its close connections to Russia, a country known for international disinformation efforts raises a lot of red flags. Noam Chomsky, is again someone who is himself a rather unreliable source *cough* cambodia *cough* Faurisson. Grayzone was right once, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, that is a classic case of an n = 1 sample size. It's the Rasmussen effect all over again (to explain: if you are consistently biased in one direction for the wrong reasons, you will occasionally outperform sources that are overall unbiased due to noise). The Grayzone is described by the first adjective in the opening sentence of its Wikipedia article as "fringe" (i.e. WP:FRINGE). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Your MfD nominations

Hello. I noticed on Hans's talk page (who I will not ping, as I'll explain) that you've nominated several of their user pages at MfD. When I brought up my issue with Hans on the Discord, I specifically said that I was not trying to WP:CANVAS forum shopping for other editors to "pile on" to their talk page. It is likely you did not see this message since you have posted on their talk page multiple times since then, so I am explicitly asking you: please delete these nominations and delete the relevant notifications you put on their talk page until Hans has been given a chance to read my messages and resolve this issue on their own. I believe your nominations are in good spirit as, indeed, Hans appears to be blatantly misusing their user pages. With that said, I'm already trying to educate them on the relevant policies and guidelines, so there is no need to escalate it before they've even had a chance to respond to my latest message. If Hans is still not hearing me about the problems with their user pages, I will bring the user up at ANI. At that point I am more than comfortable for you to weigh in at ANI and/or re-nominate the pages at MfD. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand your concerns on this. I will try and close them and wait for an AN/I or voluntary delete. It may take me a little while. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

All right, I think I removed them all (I think?). Again I'm sorry if my intervention was a bit rushed, maybe I was being too WP:BOLD for my own good. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I think you mostly did it fine except you forgot the notifications you posted on their talk page.

Unrelated: you posted a notification that they were copying pages, what pages were copied? I didn't see anything. Maybe you should consider posting a follow up comment to that notification giving the specific copies you think were problematic. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

They were copying templates, I into their userspace (not sure what the correct warning for that should be TBH?) but yes, I will give examples. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Just wanted to make sure you saw my edit summary when I reverted your recent edit in User Talk:HansWobbe. Please do not edit or reformat other people's talk page comments, especially not on their own User Talk page. I know you're trying to help, but it can be jarring and confusing for editors to see that a message they wrote earlier is now different than they remember. It can also be a bit disruptive to repeatedly reformat your own comments on a User Talk page as many people have them on their Watchlist and will receive a notification each time. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, Mokadoshi (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. (I was personally unsure about that edit I made, hence why I noted that in the edit summary). Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello. Please do not tag pages for speedy deletion if you haven't read and understood the CSD criteria.

Please review WP:CSD carefully, especially the section on G5s. It takes some editors a while before they understand when it does and does not apply. It is not for being a sockpuppet master but for block evasion. This is often done with IP accounts or sockpuppets but if an article wasn't created when an account was blocked, it is not eligible. If you aren't sure whether or not a criteria applies, do not tag a page for speedy deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also do not tag pages for WP:BLPROD which do not meet the criteria. You nominated Nurbani Yusuf and Mimi Mariani, neither of which are a biography of a living person, and both of which have sources -- so they are doubly ineligible for BLPROD. Jfire (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So sorry about this, I misread the criteria, will renominate with better criterion here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now you incorrectly tagged some User pages with CSD U5. User pages that have ANYTHING to do with Wikipedia like article drafts or with editing or one's role as an editor or any WikiMedia projects are not eligible for CSD U5. U5s are for content that has nothing to do with editing on this project. Valid User pages can include headers for ones User page, lists or articles an editor wants to work on, bits of content one wants to use eventually in a draft, notes to oneself, information about policy, anything can be on a User page if it has to do with Wikipedia and editing.

I also think you should get more experience editing yourself before you start policing other editors. As I said, read over WP:CSD CAREFULLY and THOROUGHLY. I don't think you have because your CSD tagging is still iffy. I definitely would oppose any effort if you tried to become a new page patroller because of your inaccuracy in tagging and inexperience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

And what happened with Bhavini Purohit? You cited three different CSD criteria and your tagging deletion was declined twice. Please do not tag any more pages for any type of deletion until you know the policy pages regarding different types of deletion so well that you could explain it to another editor. There is a learning curve to patrolling pages but it looks like you are barreling ahead and not learning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That occured before, again, I have mentioned before, I'm sorry about not reading some of the policies. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I assumed that in this case, it was OK, since the user had gotten blocked and some of his userspace articles had also gotten removed under U5. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Last word. Please configure Twinkle to create deletion logs for you, for CSD, PRODs and XFDs. Then you can have a record of your taggings and see where you might be making mistakes. It's very easy to you, I think you just check a box in your Twinkle Preferences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this advice. I do apologize again for acting a bit hastily. But I do have a question here, would a U5 CSD be the right move for the user space pages in question given the fact he had been blocked? Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Noam Bettan

Hello, I added more information about it with its proper citation in the article Noam Bettan, it tells me what I should do to remove this template filed by you in a hurry. You are invited to collaborate. Greetings. --Acartonadooopo (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello about your template incorporated in the Noam Bettan article, the question of notoriety is relatively obvious, and has multiple sources. So I request the removal of this template since there are sufficient arguments to notify the relevance in the article Noam Bettan. Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, Allan Nonymous,

A lot of the articles you have proposed for deletion have been Kept and you have faced a lot of criticism over your choice of articles that you have nominated or because of a perceived lack of BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. If this happened to the average editor, they would have ceased nominating articles or at least slowed down and start devoting their time to other tasks on the project. But you haven't slowed down at all! Are you fully understanding the criticism that has been leveled at you by more experienced editors because it doesn't seem to have had any impact on your activities. I'd like you to limit yourself to nominating ONE article for an AFD discussion each day so that you would start being more selective in your choice of deleting articles and also slow down your pursuit of deletion of articles.

This is not a formal editing restriction yet, just a suggestion to slow down and fully taking on the words of advice that have been directed your way. There are also so many other areas of the project that could use your help and I don't think it's great for editors to be focused on article deletion instead of content creation and improvement. Please consider my request. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback here. Not sure I agree with your suggestions, but I can try to be more careful about nominations. I will say my weakness seems to be foreign language entertainers and media, so I'm planning to avoid nominations there where possible. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You should take an admin's advice. After writing your message, you created a nomination for a novel that, once again, is easily demonstrated to be notable. Your track record with nominations is very poor. Toughpigs (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My track record is about 50/50, but I apologize for that nomination, it was clearly made in error. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

50/50 is very poor. You are wasting editors' time, and upsetting editors who have put a lot of work into the pages that they created. This is the third nomination in less than 24 hours that you've apologized for. Toughpigs (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if I'm doing a poor job here. I hope you can WP:AGF with respect to my actions. I would really appreciate some constructive feedback on how to be more reliably better on these. I'm a new editor WP:NOBITE me plz. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Liz gave you some very helpful feedback: a) limit yourself to nominating one article a day, and b) find pages where you can add content, instead of focusing only on deleting. Toughpigs (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I was asking with respect to increasing the reliability of my nominations and doing a better job of ensuring my WP:BEFORE case is solid when I make a nom. You, clearly, are rather good at dredging up sources, and I, clearly, am not. I appreciate your efforts by the way, hence, why I am quite willing to withdraw noms. My hope here is to avoid making any more silly noms where I miss obvious info. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Noam Song 2

The song Noam's Song 2 is a war song, which occurred on October 7 remove PROMOTION check again Acartonadooopo (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

AfD stats

Hi, I see you're keeping track of your AfD stats. There's actually a great tool for this on Xtools: check it out here. I think that'll be helpful for you. Toughpigs (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aedy Moward

Hello, Allan Nonymous,

It looks like you closed this discussion but you didn't remove the AFD tag you placed on the article and didn't put the appropriate tagging on the article talk page. If you are going to take on these responsibilities, please read the instructions and follow through on them, completely. Only do tasks if you are going to do them correctly. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I missed that one, must have escaped me. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány

Hello, Allan Nonymous! I just saw my message page, that you writed, the Category:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány category thing, that you say, this category is nominated for deletion, but why ? This category is not a bad category, like Opposition to Viktor Orbán and Opposition to Vladimir Putin category. Dear Allan Nonymous, there is no need to delete this category, this category is not a nonsense and not worst category. I say, do not delete it, okay ? Let this category stay, okay ? Leave a message to my talk page. KovZXad1970 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous Okay, i've added few categories to the Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány category. Please, do not delete it! Let this category stay! Remember Allan Nonymous, this category is similar to Opposition to Viktor Orbán and Opposition to Vladimir Putin category, and these categories will stay, okay ? I understand you situtations, so, i respect you! Thank you for corporation, have nice day! KovZXad1970 (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be best for you to post your concerns on the CfD page for the article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous Thank you! This is perfect. KovZXad1970 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Afd Maan Abu Taleb

I come to show you this article with a single source, most likely Autobiography. the writer and novelist Maan Abu Taleb. I do not see relevance nor notoriety other than an autobiography that could be on another Internet page. Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Article in Spanish

Hello Allan, you could delete this information that does not go that way in Wikipedia in Spanish Acartonadooopo (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about little issues like that. I think it got fixed already. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it now solved, luckily.--Acartonadooopo (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Shefi Yishai

Hello, this article Shefi Yishai does not meet the notoriety to remain on Wikipedia nor can I find reliable and independent sources, it could be debated for your Afd. Acartonadooopo (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

About your edits

Hello. I have noticed that, having been in a disagreement with another editor in one AfD that you nominated, you shortly afterwards nominated an article created by that other editor for deletion. Could you please explain exactly why you did that? James500 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to which nom you're talking about. I make a lot of AfD noms. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to this, this and this. James500 (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this may be a case of not WP:AGF. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not assumed anything. I asked for an explanation. James500 (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The policy WP:HOUND says: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I ask that in future you take such care when tracking other users' edits, and that you explain what the good cause for that tracking is. I further ask that, if you are not in fact tracking another users' edits, you provide some explanation of how you found your way to edits made by that user, in cases where it would not be obvious to the other person that you are not in fact tracking his edits. James500 (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You're accusing me of hounding on one AfD nom? Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not accused you of anything. I have merely made a number of requests. James500 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The AfD nom in question was a week ago, I'm hazy on the specific details of it but I can try to answer your concerns to the best of my ability. I think when you commented on an AfD, I probably clicked on your userpage, which is normally what I do when I encounter a new user in any discussion I follow. The rather unusual state of your talkpage, attracted my attention, leading me to look a little more closely somewhere in that process (I don't remember exactly how) I found the article in question, which I thought (and still think) is has a pretty clear case for delete. I apologize if that may have appeared like retaliation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)