User talk:Athanelar

Hey

I saw your post at WP:AINB, this was helpful and I will respond there later. I also saw your filing at ANI, two friendly comments.

It's almost always best to use diffs instead of page links in filings. For example neither of these discussions are on the original page anymore and may have been deleted [1][2]. You should probably edit your ANI post and replace those page links with diffs.
I saw your comment here. Totally fair point, and one I probably agree with. I think the community is getting close to proposing a ban on LLM use - hopefully it gets enough support to pass. But ANI isn't really the right place for that discussion, which is why I tried to redirect it to WT:AIC. You're newer here so nothing to be worried about at all, but it is somewhat unsavory to be seen as someone hanging out at ANI. Which I am probably guilty of but I try to keep my contributions tight and focused on LLM cases. I actually tried to delete my comment here and move it to Bogazicili's talk page, a more appropriate place for it, but was too late, as he had already responded to me.

Also - you should join WP:AIC! We really could use some people to help with cleanup. NicheSports (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've replaced the two page links you indicated, there's one still in the filing that I can't replace (the link to my initial COI warning, the mobile interface seemingly won't let me access that first diff since it's the one that created the talk page) but oh well; it's still there at least.

Re: hanging out at ANI, it's admittedly trawling ANI, teahouse etc for interesting debates which has spurred on my sudden activity today, so guilty as charged on that one.

Re: joining AIC, not sure how much I can really contribute to any kind of organised cleanup effort, but opposition to AI slop is a particular advocacy of mine so I'll continue to do what I can when time and interest allows. Athanelar (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I tried! Need to work on my pitch. If you ever have time please do drop by NicheSports (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Dropping in from AIC to say thanks for signing the participant sheet.

Ultimately no one Wikipedian is personally required to save the encyclopedia from slop, so any contribution you do (or have done) is more than sufficient!

Also, I think the project could use more people that are able to present the never-LLM perspective objectively in talk channels. There's a surprising amount of people in the project with a more agnostic perspective, which doesn't make them evil or anything but (as Niche mentioned) makes it harder to feel certain about a future ban on LLM usage, despite what one may suspect the readers of Wikipedia to want. Altoids0 (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think my single biggest wiki-mission is to contribute wherever possible to discussions advocating for a full ban of LLM usage for editing. It makes me cringe to see so many "it's fine if you only use it to help you copyedit" type takes. Athanelar (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dr Christopher Arnold

Thanks for your warning at User talk:Dr Christopher Arnold. I had actually spent some time composing my own warning, but then got an edit conflict with your post, so abandoned it - but thanks anyway. - Arjayay (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same happened in reverse for me while trying to rollback the original edit, haha. Hopefully the user engages on their talk page. Athanelar (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1-1 - let's agree to a draw! - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise me how to proceed please? The existing article about Denis Arnold is very limited and only cites one brief source. I have cited my sources in the article and referenced where the information was found. Yes it does include stuff from me, but I don't think that this promotes his work and certainly not mine.

Please advise.

Thank you,

Christopher Arnold (Dr) Dr Christopher Arnold (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you attempted to include sources, but you did not reference them correctly. The biography you attempted to add is also largely written in a prosaic and unencyclopedic tone which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Read through some other biography articles and familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV for guidance on those stylistic points, and sew WP:TUTORIAL for technical help with editing.

If you have questions, feel free to ask at WP:Teahouse Athanelar (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that referencing any of your own work in any way constitutes original research and is not allowed as per WP:OR Athanelar (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify where I referenced my own work please? I have only used information which is not published elsewhere. Is it not allowed to use personal information (e.g. memory) ?

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will revise the reference style.

Best wishes, Christopher Arnold (Dr) Dr Christopher Arnold (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not allowed to use personal information (e.g. memory)

It is not, no. That also falls under original research. For information to be included on Wikipedia it must be already published in a reliable, secondary source independent of the article subject. Athanelar (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

gnomes

you may be eligible for WP:GNOME 173.206.50.207 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks with helping getting my username changed! (This is the first barnstar I've given out) YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Athanelar why did you flag me as a spamuser

on what ground did you flag me becasue i dont think bots or ai can come to the talk page of the user that flagged them and ask why they flagged them so just asking on what grounds did you decide that iam a spam user. Mahdi-Yasser (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't 'flag you as a spam user.' I nominated your userpage for speedy deletion because you're using it to create a social media-like profile of yourself, which is not allowed.

As the notice at the top of your user page says, The use of one's userpage for advertising or publicity is considered spam and is not a legitimate use of one's userspace.

This is not some kind of flag about you as a user, it's just for your user page. Athanelar (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Mahdi-Yasser (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying discussion at Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment

Hello Athanelar! I saw that you took an interest in Anti-Hindu sentiment. There is a discussion going on Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment on moving the article to Hinduphobia. If you wish to take part, please do so! Birla Kashyap (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing at the Teahouse

Hi Athanelar. I see that you have begun to contribute regularly at the Teahouse, which I also do. You have been adding good message about COI editing but appear to be copy/pasting large volumes of text each time. I think it would be more efficient to create and use a template such as {{HD/WINI}} which would make things easier for you and cut down the archiving load. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am using a template, it's at User:Athanelar/teahousecoi, I've just been substiuting it. Would it be better for me to transclude rather than substitute? Athanelar (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you made your template into an essay, and posted a link to it in a short massage.

For one thing edits like this one produce malformed list markup (as explained at MOS:INDENTGAP), because your first few paragraphs are indented by one colon, then the rest are not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that, but I know well enough that these kinds of editors don't tend to thoroughly read essays they're linked, Is there a way I could format my template better? Athanelar (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on templates but you could ask at WP:VPT. My only concern was the volume of added repetition but there must be a decent solution for this. Your point that newbies may not read a linked essay is probably correct and we already have the essay WP:PSCOI, the guidance WP:COI, the policy WP:PAID and maybe others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was conscious of the sheer volume of text, that's why I collapsed most of it; if that's not a satisfying solution I'll happily take it back to the drawing board. I just know for sure that these editors do not read essays they've been linked, generally, so presenting them with that information right in front of them is more accessible I think. Athanelar (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your work fighting spam and AI-generated content. RandFreeman 18:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chilicave -- Chilicave (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy

Just wanted to let you know WP:G15 requires one of three criteria to be met (fake references, improbable references or communication meant for the reader). I've moved the page back to userspace instead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I close

Hi @Athanelar. I've reverted your close as they haven't yet received the CBAN. Even though consensus most likely means they will receive this, only an admin can apply this. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does an admin actually need to do anything separate to 'apply' the CBAN seeing as the editor's already been indeffed?

My mistake if so; I thought the mechanical action had already been carried out and the CBAN was just a formality. Athanelar (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was incorrect, they have received an indef already, a CBAN is essentially that but instead of being applied unilaterally by one admin, it's applied by the community at large. An admin will apply the CBAN and then close the AN/I discussion. 72 hours also needs to elapse to my knowledge, so it's too early to close at this time. 11WB (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

This isn't acceptable. You can't call another editor "scum", even if they have done something despicable. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Athanelar (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I close again

Hi @Athanelar! I saw you closed this AN/I discussion. After having a look at the edit history the filer linked, it appears to be category additions. I would really recommend leaving AN/I closures to admins, clerking is often frowned upon by the active administrators who work on there. You won't often see any non-admin closures on the administrator noticeboards. My advice would be to participate in discussions, but not close those discussions. This is of course advice from a fellow editor and you are welcome to disregard it, however you may find some of your closes reverted if they are incorrect like the one from yesterday. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been floating around ANI and closing discussions for a while and haven't had any remarks about it being inappropriate; I even got a recent thanks for a closure from an admin (Star Mississippi) after I closed a discussion after they took action on it, so I don't particularly plan to stop unless an admin tells me off or I get some consistent feedback that my judgement is bad. Is there any particular issue with this close? I also saw the reported user's edit history (as noted in my close) and I do think overall the report was premature and didn't need admin attention.

I'm trying to save some of the grunt work and let admins focus on doing the more important things; I know Cullen328 for example expressed frustration at AN about other admins not closing discussions when they'd taken action because it leads to wasted time reading through discussions that have already been actioned. Athanelar (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my time editing this year I witnessed an editor receive a topic ban from AN/I specifically for inappropriate clerking. Some admins won't have a problem with it, others will be less tolerant of it. My perception may be skewed based on what I've personally witnessed. I'm also not an administrator, so my perspective is for the most part, irrelevant. I just wanted to let you know, as the close yesterday should have been left for an admin (who eventually did close it, with the added administrative action of blanking the discussion). This would actually be a good opportunity for me to find out more about this, so I'll give a courtesy ping to @Rsjaffe, in the hopes they can provide an administrative point of view. 11WB (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also definitely take note of this. No matter the circumstances, we must remain neutral and civil. 11WB (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective and your anecdote, and I absolutely recognise that my close yesterday was inappropriate (because I didn't realise further administrator action was necessary to enact a CBAN after an indef had already been enacted). That said, I think my judgement on closes is largely good, given that I haven't had any of my other closes be reverted, challenged or commented on in any way (except for positively), and I mostly stick to closing foregone discussions anyway (i.e., where an indef has already been handed out and there's nothing more to discuss); and I'm a fairly prolific closer, so I'd think some admin would have told me off by now if I was overstepping their jurisdiction. If rsjaffe or any other admin tells me I shouldn't be doing it, then I won't; ditto if my closes get reverted too often/too numerously, of course. Other than that, I do intend to keep at it. Athanelar (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously won't name the editor I referred to here. Just wanted to make you aware of the dynamic, from a specific point of view. I was put off from even posting at AN/I based on what I saw, and it took me months to pluck up the courage to post there and literally be told I'm being silly by an admin! I haven't seen your other closes, but if you believe they are sensible and not inappropriate, I wish you the very best with it! 11WB (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins shouldn't be "closing" a discussion unless it has run to its conclusion--e.g., someone else taking an action or the OP withdrawing their complaint. Getting the last word in in a discussion then closing it with the atop/abot templates is a bridge too far. It prevents review of your last word. We're even having a discussion where admins are reluctant to close discussions in which they've taken action, so that review can occur. It's making me second-guess my closes of simple cases where I was the one taking action. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A plea to admins to increase efficiency.

In short, the combination of saying the complaint shouldn't be there and then closing the discussion should not occur.

Also, any close reversions should be a warning sign, as closes should only be done by a non-admin when it is completely clear and uncontroversial that something should be closed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BADNAC. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you. I'll reopen the thread in question and leave it to somebody else to close if they agree that the report is inappropriate for ANI. Athanelar (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies @Rsjaffe for overstepping. I only reverted @Athanelar's close yesterday as the community ban discussion hadn't run for 72 hours and could only be performed by an administrator. 11WB (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way @Athanelar, @Left guide highlighted something important in the discussion @rsjaffe linked above. Reports are colour coded at AN/I, see Template:ANI status. 11WB (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well... They can be. As far as I know, I'm the only one who's tried it out. Normally, you have to read an interpret the report to see whether it is done or not. That can be error-prone if you don't read carefully. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And one I marked as "done" was unmarked by another admin who disagreed with what I had done. Closing that report would have been an error, although a subtle one. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update for @Athanelar, that specific report turned out to be a sockpuppet reporting themself. 11WB (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured host

I see you are active at the Teahouse, so I put you in as a featured host (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/27). Feel free to customize the picture to your liking. Interstellarity (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Athanelar (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: AsureQuality

Hello Athanelar, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of AsureQuality, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]