Asclepius (treatise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, this results from [1]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you have time, can you please undo TatesTopG's moving of Ziad Jarrah's page? The page is still titled Ziyad Samir Jarrah. And can you undo their edit on Ayman Zawahiri's page? I can't do it because the page is locked and despite what TatesTopG said, the article did provide proof of Zawahiri's middle names. Thanks. 35.142.253.69 (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done per WP:EVADE. I'm going to undo more of this block-evading sockpuppet's edits later. In case I wouldn't be around next time it may be helpful to know that you can always request the undoing of page moves done by block-evading sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (be sure to read and specify WP:EVADE). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have new message at Talk:Badi' al-Din. 27.123.253.176 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that image change you reverted didn't seem to get the details quite right. The image is from a library, so not obviously user generated. I just wanted to make sure that you understood that, and weren't editing on the basis on a misunderstanding. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iskandar323! You're right that it's not quite user-generated. I addressed the problems with this image previously here (archive). In the existing English-language metadata its provenance is unclear, though if someone would translate the attribution and date in Persian found on the image itself and add it to the commons file, we might use the image in the article (though the UN statue probably still is more appropriate as a lead image). I should have repeated that in my edit summary and linked to the previous discussion about it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has a Hijri date at the bottom that translates to 1916-17, with a signature that reads: Mohammed K... - a mystery late 19th to early 20th-century Iranian artist. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I was hoping for something more. I think that the notability and long-term significance of the artist/work pales in comparison to almost every other image currently on Abu Bakr al-Razi, and so I think it should not be used. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323, This user is very problematic. He or she consider himself or herself as more smarter than our admins (but not really). You can see his or her bad behavior at Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam. I completely disagree with his or her attitude to control whole Wikipedia like his or her personal property . 27.123.253.83 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes. See also AN & RSN. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Until the article text actually mentions astronomy in any way, astronomy related templates should be avoided. I will do some work on the article, and if notable information about his astronomical work comes up, I'll include it and amend the categories accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amitchell125, thanks for coming here. It's always a good idea to work a bit on an article, but this is really just a general thing: every pre-modern astrologer will be correctly categorized as an astronomer, regardless of how notable their work in astronomy is. I suspect that Abu Ali al-Khayyat's work on astronomy is not notable, and if categorization is inappropriate (even if correct) for astronomers who are only notable for their astrological theories, then he should not be categorized as an astronomer.

I'm just unsure about what is appropriate here. My thinking was that to categorize him as an astronomer would be helpful (since after all, he was one), but if Wikipedia guidelines on categorization (which I'm unfamiliar with) would contradict that, please feel free to revert my edit. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the article text needs to mention he was an astronomer (and I agree with you, he almost certainly was one). The only policy to bear in mind here is that information needs to be verified, even for categories. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: just as a correction, information on Wikipedia needs to be Wikipedia:Verifiable, not verified. Depending on interpretation, wp:bluesky might apply. But of course, inline citations never hurt, nor does updating the article. Again, thanks for that! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thanks, also I've added a couple of sources to a Further reading section which provides more information, including that he was an astronomer. I'll add more in later. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking great! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, I wonder what you make of the following topic, linking the Nazarites with John the Baptist and the Mandaeans? In the Hebrew Bible, a permanent Nazarite is a vow usually taken on behalf of a child by the parent(s). There were three permanent Nazarites known, i.e. from birth; Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist. The vow requires the adherent to not cut their hair, not drink alcohol, not eat meat and to devote themselves to God. Similarly, Mandaeans, consider the cutting of the hair of the head or beard to be impious (to date a Mandaean priest does not cut any of the hair on their head or beard), they are forbidden from drinking alcohol and were originally vegetarians (reference E. S. Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran, 1937, page 166). The word Nazarite and the word Nasoraean also have the same meaning, "to keep". Thank you From a member of the Mandaean community 163.160.252.100 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have no expertise in this subject that would let me judge this hypothesis. I had always assumed that the term 'Nazarene'/'Nasorean' referred to Nazareth, as in 'holding Jesus of Nazareth in special regard'. I don't know whether 'Nazarene'/'Nasorean' might be related to the much earlier term Nazirite instead. I'm quite ignorant about this, and you may be entirely right. In the context of wholly anonymous wiki-communication, I would say ^{[citation needed]}. But thanks for letting me know about your hypothesis; it is interesting. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi and Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi for comments about the article, and Talk:Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Apaugasma, Congratulations on the new GA! I am really happy to see your works. I'd be more than happy if you take a look on this and suggest articles related to Muslim academia and scholarship that should be created or worked upon. I feel we can remove a lot of subjective gap if we collaborate on this. Thank you very much. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Aafi! I have stopped contributing content to Wikipedia in order to better focus on other things, and if I would work on articles they would be those that I'm personally most interested in anyway. This being my approach to Wikipedia, I don't really feel comfortable suggesting which articles others should create/improve either. I wish you much success with the article creation/improvement drive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		A small reward for your expert-level edits to the early Islamic topic area, and thoughtful, in-depth, engagements with other contributors to this space. Your initiative, guidance, and commitment to quality is greatly appreciated. Al Ameer (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Al Ameer! This means very much to me, especially coming from you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock? Perhaps someone you know of? [2] HistoryofIran (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the case [3]. Looks like your SPI inspired him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first impersonator! I feel kind of honored. Still, SPI filed. Thanks for letting me know, HistoryofIran, it's good to be aware of this kind of thing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are your personal thoughts on the varying prevalences of isms versus X Islams? Do you think the current regime of consistency between denominations is worthwhile? Honest Q, noting your comment on Shi'ism particularly. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that often the term most commonly used to refer to one and the same subject (it's important to note that this excludes terms in high usage but potentially referring to multiple subjects) also is the most 'natural' one, and that in the great majority of cases that means it's best to use that term for an article title. Based on the Ngram you cite, the GS results I cited here, and the GS results for "Ibadism" vs "Ibadi Islam", my normal take on these things means that I should be in favor of moving Shia Islam to Shi'ism and Ibadi Islam to Ibadism.

But maybe here we've got an exception. In this particular case, I feel that adding 'Islam' to the title makes it much easier for non-specialist readers to recognize that the subject is one of the major denominations within Islam. There are many Islamic currents commonly named with an Arabic word + ism, and adding 'Islam' helps the major divisions to stand out from the many smaller schools and subsects. In that sense, perhaps 'Ibadi Islam' does slightly differ in meaning from 'Ibadism', with the former referring to this Islamic current qua major denomination, while the latter rather refers to it qua subsect.

What I would be in favor of though is to streamline the three articles to each use the Arabic nisba + 'Islam', so like Sunni Islam and Ibadi Islam, also Shi'i Islam. But that really is a minor gripe.

I general I often feel that move discussions take up too much time and energy that would be better spent on improving (nay, rewriting from scratch) the article. One of the problems with these discussions is that once opened and having received a few reactions, they create a wp:consensus that makes it impossible to later move the article again without yet another discussion. Those participating in both discussions most often never worked on the article, will never work on it, and not seldomly argue for completely inappropriate titles. But why not let someone who actually read a large amount of sources while working on the article determine what term they've seen these sources most commonly use? Why not actually bring an article up to standards and then unilaterally move to the most appropriate title? When that editor's move gets challenged, that may be the right time to have an actual move discussion. Discussions eat up editors' time, attract clueless people, and create precedents necessitating even more discussions –for these reasons, they should be used much more sparingly than currently is the case. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I think it is a very valid point that particularly where Islam-related subjects are concerned there is a potential need to balance common name with the risk of devolving into a sea of isms. For the uninitiated, in an ism-strewn iteration of an encyclopedia, Sunnism, Hanafism and Deobandism might all sound like different subsects on a par, whereas when we use Sunni Islam, Hanafi school and Deobandi movement, the distinction (if not full meaning) become rapidly more available to all. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. I wholeheartedly agree. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to some Shi'i Muslim authors who wrote under the name of al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi, unbelievers will be reincarnated into animal, vegetable, or mineral bodies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty huge deletion got made at Sayyid on 2 April. The page is generally a bit of mess and needs a scrub down, but I'm struggling to tell if this deletion was constructive or something altogether less beneficial. What do you think? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iskandar323! Yes, I saw that and to be honest, I'm not sure whether these deletions –and MadRoyalist's edits to that page in general– are constructive or not. Some of it are true MoS-related improvements, and the images they added seem helpful, but with regard to the content I don't know enough about the subject to say. When I saw MadRoyalist's massive edits my reaction was to take the page off my watchlist. Sorry to disappoint, but I need to drastically cut down on the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia, and properly looking into this would accomplish the opposite.

I see that another account (Dragon819010) has now arrived alleging that MadRoyalist's edits are biased and promoting a specific family [4][5][6]. We've had similar stuff in the past (see, e.g., here), and I wouldn't be surprised if both MadRoyalist and Dragon819010 were editing this page for promotional reasons (not saying they are, just that I wouldn't be surprised). The only way to avoid this really is to get a proper grounding in the RS on this subject, but for the reason given above I'm not quite up for that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. Mass-monitoring can indeed be all-consuming. So far, I've just weighed in against the side most obviously causing disruption - deleting the lead and infobox etc.; I'll have to see if I can get around to greater scrutiny. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for watching the featured article today. Surprised it isn't protected, but I guess when you're on the job we're safe. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! The article was on my watchlist and I happened to be online during the major streak of vandalism, so it wasn't much of a special effort. I was delaying bed time to 00:00 (UTC) though, so I could keep on watching the article until it would be off the main page. Rather tired now, so I'll go to sleep and dream about that colorful star you gave me! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't know if this in your area of interest, but if you'd like to take a look at today's edits, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of this is based on primary sources (the last paragraph references a secondary source, but comments on it from an authorial point of view, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia), so I think your diagnosis of OR is correct. This IP editor may be an expert who just does not realize that we strictly report the content of secondary sources here, so please go easy on them.

I am currently studying the Vulgate and Septuagint versions of the Psalms, but this really is my first serious dip into Bible study, and I wouldn't say that anything else Bible-related is within my area of interest yet. I am planning to someday study the rest of the Bible, as well as to learn some basic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac to really get into the depths of it. At that point it will probably be possible to coax me into looking at some secondary literature for a Wikipedia article, although it will still not be my first choice. I also studied the whole Qur'an in Arabic, yet I never write on the Qur'an here. It would be hard too, since I read but very little secondary sources on the Qur'an (perusing Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān entries is mostly as far as I'd got).

This is because my real interest is history of philosophy, and any study of religion only serves as a background to aid my understanding of religious philosophy, i.e., ancient and medieval philosophy which takes pagan ritual or revealed scripture as a starting point rather than secular Aristotelian dogma. Having been derided as 'pseudo-philosophy' in most historiography of philosophy from that discipline's very beginnings in the 17th century until about thirty years ago, the huge and severely neglected field of religious philosophy is still full of surprises and exciting new discoveries for the modern researcher.

So that's what I'm at, which also means I shouldn't spend too much time on Wikipedia. The very wide field I'm trying to cover with my studies means that I don't have much room left for reading secondary sources anyway (I tend to limit my secondary readings to stuff that is directly about history of philosophy itself, but even that falls by the wayside when I'm studying languages or non-philosophical primary sources). For the time being I'm happy patrolling the 1,439 articles on my watchlist, and I really don't want to do much more than that. I will return to writing articles and to greater availability someday, but given what's on my plate that may well be in twenty years or so. Okay, it will probably be earlier, simply because I won't be able to resist... But for now, I'm only a patroller. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apaugasma. I refer to your reversion here: [7]. I'm not going to contest your reversion because I don't like or currently have the energy for ongoing disputes, though you seem genuinely interested in the discussion so I thought I'd answer your question. Yes, 'committed suicide' is currently the much more common term, however, like many old terms, it is becoming less and less acceptable to use. As well as being outdated, it's also technically inaccurate if we get a little pedantic about terminology and etymology. The term 'committed' is a vestige from the times when it was literally illegal to attempt suicide, so people who attempted suicide were said to have 'committed' this offence. Suicide is no longer a criminal offence, therefore in the strict definition of the term originally applied, people no longer 'commit' suicide, they 'suicide' or 'die by suicide'. See Suicide terminology, or this psychology article here [8]. And yes, I understand this is a historical case of suicide, though I feel updating to modern language is still important. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've since thought of a middle ground, something that doesn't sound like a euphemism but also doesn't have a stigma or inaccuracy concerns with it. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after I reverted I wondered whether that had really been necessary, and so I went looking for what has been said about this before on en.wiki, and found MOS:SUICIDE. Apparently there has already been a lot of discussion, perhaps even too much discussion, about this. The last RfC on the subject found no consensus to ban the expression 'to commit suicide' and advised against systematically changing it either way.

In my view, 'to commit suicide' is not necessarily more problematic than any other fossilized term: it's perfectly normal for words to become archaic as to their literal meaning but still remain in use as so-called fossil words. In addition, I think that 'to die by suicide' is ever so slightly different in meaning, emphasizing the result ('he died', 'he is dead now') rather than the act and the circumstances that led to it, or the general context in which it happened. Your alternative 'killed himself' avoids that, though this expression is perhaps too 'active' in meaning for the context here.

In any case I think it's fine, I'm going to go by the RfC's advice and not make too much of a fuss about it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

indeed im not native, but they feel more natural to me, can u explain how's that worse? also i didnt 'copy'. 捍粵者 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Copyedit in English doesn't mean someone copying something -- it's a term for editing spelling, grammar, or formatting, rather than changing the content. I won't speak for Apaugasma on the edits, though it can be tricky even as a native speaker to write clearly on these kinds of technical subjects -- but I did want to clarify that you weren't being accused of 'copying' anything. Vaticidalprophet 15:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 捍粵者! As Vaticidalprophet (hi there!) said, improving and revising a text is called copy editing, it has nothing to do with copying.

Most of your changes in that edit are either not an improvement or rendering the text slightly less idiomatic. Examples of making the text less idiomatic include changing "In the laboratory, nitric acid can be made" to "Laboratories can make nitric acid" (laboratories don't make anything), changing "the nature of the metal" to "metal's nature", or changing "The industrial production of nitric acid from atmospheric air began in 1905" to "The industry started making nitric acid from atmospheric air in 1905".

If you wish you can ask other editors what they think about your copy-editing skills, but my advise is to give up on copy-editing and to look for another Wikipedia task. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh maybe i was too high when editing those parts. the other parts are alrite then? if so maybe i can simply edit other parts and keep those alone. 捍粵者 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are other mistakes too. That's why I advise doing something else: if I or other editors needed to point out every error you made, you would create more work for others than you are yourself doing. If your goal is to correct errors, but you're actually introducing so many errors that other editors need to review every edit you make to catch out the mistakes, that would not be helpful. The most helpful thing you can do right now is to focus on something else. Thanks for taking this into consideration! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apaugasma! I can use your input here :) We had an exchange earlier about the correct capitalization of transliterated Arabic book titles (sentence case). My new question is about the capitalization of Arabic proper names in general. What's your advice here? One good example is 'Ghadir Khumm' (title case) vs. 'Ghadir khumm' (sentence case). Or perhaps one should follow the common usage in reliable sources which, in this case, might be 'Ghadir Khumm'. I can't seem to find a specific guideline on WP: and MOS: pages. Let me know what your thoughts are, please. Albertatiran (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albertatiran! Yes, by far the most common usage is to capitalize each word in the transliteration of Arabic proper names, with the notable exception of al-, which in the most common usage only gets capitalized when it is the first word of a full sentence (that is, a sentence containing a subject and verb).

Whereas the use of sentence case for book titles is only a majority-practice (i.e., you will find some sources using title case for book titles), capitalizing proper names like Ghadir Khumm is pretty much universal. This also borne out by the sources, e.g. [9][10][11][12].

As far as I know, the only use case where sources are really divided (as in approaching 50%/50%) is in the capitalization of religious titles and concepts (Imam or imam, Caliph or caliph, Companion or companion, Ahl al-Bayt or ahl al-bayt, Ahl al-Kitab or ahl al-kitab, etc.). This is pretty complex because sometimes some of these terms in specific contexts do get capitalized consistently in the sources (e.g., Imam when referring to the Shi'i concept). Because of this complexity, and partly to avoid it, I'm leaning to support the capitalization of all these terms on Wikipedia. But currently, we do not have a MOS about any of these things, and usage is thoroughly mixed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Hermetica § Fowden's hermetica book

 – ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apaugasma.I believe 205.164.155.147, 205.164.155.109 are SheryOfficial. Check the edit history of pages like Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Liaquat Ali Khan. I also believe that AlbaniaeDominus and MawlidistMan were both blocked without the connection to SheryOfficial being revealed. Look at the history of pages like Muhammad Ayub Khan, Yoweri Museveni, Ziaur Rahman, Iskandar Ali Mirza, 2002 Bali bombings. There are other examples but I think it's pretty conclusive. 2.103.229.41 (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, please go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and use the 'How to open an investigation' box to post a report there.

I think you're right that the IPs are SheryOfficial. It's immediately clear to me that the IPs edit on pages previously edited by SheryOfficial, but the clerks and admins at SPI generally need this to be specifically shown through diffs (one diff showing a suspected IP or account editing a page, another diff showing a known SheryOfficial sock editing the same page). Bonus points if the diffs show similar changes to the same content, such as [13] vs [14].

For the suspects accounts you can request a checkuser in the SPI report, provided that you also give some evidence for them in the form of diffs.

Last but not least, it's always a good idea to look into the archives of the existing SPI page (in this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial/Archive). There you can see that I already filed a report for this IP on 22 April 2023, as well as mention it on 27 May 2022. Be sure to link to the 22 April 2023 report in your own report, because it is an important piece of evidence that SheryOfficial is in fact using this IP range.

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]