Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
VeenM64 (talk | contribs)
298 edits
m Undid revision 827303399 by Acroterion (talk) Personal attack
Line 1,055: Line 1,055:
Do you forgive me for all the wrong things I've done here? [[User:VeenM64|VeenM64]] ([[User talk:VeenM64|talk]]) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you forgive me for all the wrong things I've done here? [[User:VeenM64|VeenM64]] ([[User talk:VeenM64|talk]]) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:Oh FFS, just let it go, VeenM64. If you keep holding on to this, it's not going to get better. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 19:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:Oh FFS, just let it go, VeenM64. If you keep holding on to this, it's not going to get better. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 19:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:I really don't give a crap. We don't keep score. Please go edit the encyclopedia or something. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 23:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:53, 24 February 2018

Signpost

Wrong Order

Who are you to make decision, Ah!

All I stated was facts, and theories.

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Mayo page deletion

Hello my friend, I noticed that the page Josh Mayo was deleted multiple times and was locked by an administrator indefinitely in 2009. Since then, Mayo had a successful career as a professional basketball player. As a leading player, he helped his current team Bonn qualify for the international Basketball Champions League. Many newspapers have written articles about him (check out e.g. http://www.general-anzeiger-bonn.de/sport/telekom-baskets/Josh-Mayo-ist-ein-Allstar-article3446893.html). He has a page in the German, Spanish and Italian wikipedia. Can you please unlock the site so that he can gain an English entry, too? Thank you very much .. Stephreef (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The Josh Mayo that was deleted was an entirely different person - this often happens. I've unprotected the title so you can write an article - there is no point in restoring the earlier content that doesn't relate to your subject. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy assassination source

Hi, I was in the process of adding the source. I will edit again in a couple of minutes. Review and tweak as you see fit. 47.196.80.109 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikunj3121994‎ copyvio 3rd strike

User:Nikunj3121994‎ is at it again. This edit in more clear English than he is capable of is straight from the section on "Crack Bowing" in this book with a few minor modifications. This user is just not learning despite recently claiming on his talk page to understand that he needs to improve, after I, with considerable patience, went into some detail about problems he is having. Communicating with him is nearly impossible. The previous warning at User talk:Nikunj3121994#August 2017 was that if the copyright violation happened again the block would be permanent. My only concern would be with him coming back under a different username and evading notice while damaging articles but I have watchlisted his favorites. I had thought it better to easily keep an eye on him rather than force the issue but I think it is past that. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, blocked idefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln/ Kennedy/Titanic IP

Hello Acroterion, Just to give you the "heads-up", it does look as though the LTA has started-up again, as 78.146.97.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with a series of obscene comments on various Talk pages, including my own. The location, and other "contributions" of this IP seems to indicate that the Lincoln/Kennedy/Titanic IP has surfaced again. Admin Widr has blocked the IP for a week, but I wonder if this is long enough, considering the history of this disruptive person? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an Opal mobile IP, so a week is about as long as can be justified. They probably already have a new IP. I see they were careful not to attack any administrators. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was told i was being disruptive

In reality i was editing a page with actual facts. I suppose that the moderators are centrist conservatives or something. Donald Trump's grandfathers birth name was Drumpf. This is fact. ive been donating to wikipedia for years and have always claimed its accuracy to naysayers, this is a big slap in the face.

Apologies

Dear Sir, Sorry kindly excuse me for using the talk page inappropriately. But the edit war involved the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Medical_College which is my Alma mater and i was merely updating the page for the recent updates about the college and about the new journal it has launched . My college is purely government funded college , and in India, it is a big achievement for a government college to start a journal. but the said user merely deleted my edits time and again with out even having any first hand knowledge about the institution and also i would like you to also note i added the appropriate references for all information. Hence the edit war.

United Daughters of the Confederacy

I am having a problem at that page. you made an edit, Revision as of 19:20, 19 August 2017 (edit) that returned "Kirk Savage, professor of history of art and architecture at the University of Pittsburgh, wrote in his book Monument Wars that the UDC has tried to legitimize Jim Crow rule in the American South.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Kirk Savage, Monument Wars: Washington, D.C., the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape, (University of California Press, 2011).

I recently removed that section after emailing Dr. Savage about it because I could not get a hold of the book. Here is the reply I got from him.

"Dear Einar, I think this is the first time I’ve been consulted on a fact check! It’s wrong btw — I did not discuss the UDC in Monument Wars. I did a little bit in Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves. p158 I talk about the UDC’s role in the faithful slave monument"

Needless to say the editor at the article was not willing to accept this. So what do I do? The author has told me that he did not write it and I am supposed to tell him, "Gee, sorry, but wikipedia policy says that you did. Sorry man."

This is really getting difficult. Because in a similar article List of Confederate monuments and memorials I had questioned using the SPLC as a source for something and was informed by the same editor as above that there was a 99.9% chance that anyone questioning the SPLC as a source was involved with some hate group. So what do I foo. I saw that you had marginally been involved already, I knew that you were an Admin, we had had some correspondence in the past, so hear I am.Carptrash (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not thrilled by the assumption of bad faith in their edit summary [1]. Can you provide a diff or the Confederate monuments comment? Acroterion (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I found the post at RSN. Morty's getting carried away with a personal POV. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I find it interesting that not long ago I used a definition of racism that proved I was a marxist, now I am a CSA lovi' hate grouper. That pretty much covers the spectrum. Thanks again, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 18:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delite

Hi Acroterian. Back earlier this year in April, you deleted Delite and apparently salted the page because it was repeatedly being recreated. Well, as you can see from the deletion log, the article was recreated again shorty after the protection ran out. The account that was used to create the article this time around (Famousvideomovies) only seems to have been editing for a few days, but it's quite possible that the editor is the same one who kept recreating the article earlier this year. Can you figure out who that was and whether they might have been blocked for doing so? If they are still currenlty blocked, then this might be a case of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's likely, but I don't have anything that I can definitely point to. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion

I have realised you just have blocked User:Генерал Радев, a sock of User:PavelStaykov. Immediately afterwards he has registered a new one sock called User:Генерал Радев. He is abusing me on the edit summary as usually here. Regards.

Precious three years

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter/False positives/Reports

Did you possible remove one too many edits there, you reverted two editors. The second editor seemed legit unless I missed something. TVGarfield (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, both were making mischief that was caught by the edit filter, both are blocked. About half the reports of false positives are vandals waving a big flag. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa Civil War

Excuse me, but you deleted the article Antifa Civil War, citing it as a blantant hoax which you would do a simle google search you would know it was not. Also, read some of the articles in the Google search. I'll be waiting for you to restore it, thanks.--Democratic Backsliding (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Democratic Backsliding: Yeah, right. Home Lander (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm right, so put it back.--Democratic Backsliding (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be waiting for you to provide evidence that it's not a hoax, using mainstream media for your sources. In the meantime I've warned you for wasting everybody's time with speculative articles that seem entirely unconnected with reality. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Page

I tried to create a page but it keep having draft: in front of page name. please how to solve that.

It can be moved into article space when it's ready. Right now it isn't - it needs sourcing to support the content and to provide that the subject is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. You will be able to move the material once you've had a set number of edits and your account has a few days on it. In the meantime, please find sources in major independent media. Personal knowledge is not sufficient. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my Account

Dear Acroterion,

You recently deleted my account and I am currently using my account for a class assignment. In this class, we are required to learn more about Wikipedia and get started on this website. I did not intend to plagiarize, I simply did not know enough about Wikipedia and its policies. I have learned the constraints and requirements now and ask you to reverse your deletion of my account. Again, I apologize and this will not happen again. I really need my account back for my class and would really appreciate your help. Thank you in advance, Victoria Rihm

Acroterion did not delete your account, because Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted. See Wikipedia:Username_policy#Deleting_and_merging_accounts. Your contributions still are listed here, for example. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I did delete was the copyrighted material you copied into Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia doesn't permit you to do that, I can't and won't restore it. You can't do that in class in any case (that's where the plagiarism warning comes into play) or here, and in addition Wikipedia doesn't host material that is under copyright elsewhere. You must use that material as a source and write your own prose in accordance with Wikipedia requirements, and probably in accordance with your school's policies as well. You account is not deleted as Boris (who is, by the way, a university professor) has noted. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, please sign the posts you make on Wikipedia by typing four tildes at the end of your post, like this ~~~~. That way talk page stalkers like me will be able to follow you to your talk page and offer more advice (if needed) regarding contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recover Sandbox

Thank you for your response. Could you possibly do me a huge favor and recover my sandbox since all of my information was posted in there. I had all of my sources in another document and simply did not add them yet. There will be no more issues with plagiarism, the sandbox was simply a draft and I need the information back for my project. Thank you. Victoria

Talk page stalker reply Please read the documentation at WP:AFTERDELETE. You will not be able to retrieve any material you submitted to wikipedia, which was deleted as a result of a copyright infringement. You will have to do the work again. Although this might be a bit of a sting this should serve as a decent lesson for a student performing research, not to publish material which you do not own - not to mention the all important lesson: keep regularly updated offline backups of all your course work. Edaham (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional - I have left a message on your talk page showing you how to generate a list of all existing subpages under your username, should you use this method to store material in the future. Edaham (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your sandbox was deleted because it was largely copyright infringement. Once again, you can't do that. It can't be restored to Wikipedia. I can email the deleted content to you - but I'm reluctant to do that because you don't appear to quite understand that you may not represent other people's work as your own. Not on Wikipedia, and not in school. That's what plagiarism is. Lightly paraphrasing or quotefarming other work doesn't fix it. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acroterion, Could you possibly recover my unpublished Sandbox article. I was not finished with it yet and had not been able to add the sources before it was deleted and would greatly appreciate being able to refine my article. Thank you in advance.

VictoriaR1997 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)VictoriaR1997VictoriaR1997 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above. We cannot restore a sandbox that consists mainly of copyright violations. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP:86.124.204.188

Hello Acroterion, Could I bring to your attention the activities of 86.124.204.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding edits to 2 World Trade Center and recently to 5 World Trade Center The IP is constantly changing the status of the building and has made 5 reversions to their view, without giving any detail and refusing to answer or discuss on their Talk page. The IP appears to be in Romania. Could I suggest a short block, as they don't seem to want to discuss their "edits". Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both topics protected rather than blocking, since the IP moves around a lot. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Acroterion.

I am actually User: Thechinesekid, but I am here to say sorry and please unblock me for my past mistakes. I now know that I am not supposed to argue with people that are trying to help me, as I am a beginner at this website. This is not meant to be a sock-puppetry attempt, but to let you know that I am good enough to join back to this online community.

Your block of 108.48.26.108

In view if their recent talk page edit, blocking them from editing their talk page is recommended. Might want to extend the block as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access removed and block extended - it doesn't seem to be a highly dynamic IP, some of those Fios IPs are fairly stable. Thanks for keeping an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just happened to catch that on the list of recent changes. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok then

SO what are you going to do to defend my work from editors who keep removing it without just cause? --Bojackh (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have four reverts. Stop reverting or expect a block. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not an answer to my question. Is it really so horrible he might have been atheist? Bojackh (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have passed three reverts. You are expected to gain consensus and not to revert if you don't have it. More than three reverts is a bright-line violation that is blockable. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that supposed to happen when it is materially evident the majority of editors have no interest in allowing relevant and well cited information due to a conflict of interest? Bojackh (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now is the time to remind you to assume good faith. Please remember that administrators address behavioral problems, not content, and that content is determined by community consensus for better or worse. 3RR and aspersions against other editors are dealt with by administrators. Please take a break from that subject - I'm sure that sources will address your concerns one way or another. These current events usually move around a lot at first, and 48 hours are usually needed for appropriate sourcing to become available. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"content is determined by community consensus for better or worse." There's no way wikipedia runs blindly on the will of the masses. If it did China would be running this place. Bojackh (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is Wikipedia run by consensus, the Chinese version is effectively banned in China. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for Chinese civilians. And no. Wikipedia does have people who's job it is to intervene when the majority of editors are clearly in the wrong. Bojackh (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of Chinese civilians. And no, there are no special users who intervene in content decisions, that is determined by consensus. Administrators do not have supervotes that permit them to adjudicate content. You may be interested in the consensus process - see WP:RFC and WP:DR. Acroterion (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - it's currently available without VPN (possibly subject to regional variations and other keyword filters). I was translating my CnWiki user page last night on a non VPN machine in Shanghai. Access via 4G is limited apparently by city district level ISPs as some areas of the city provide access while others don't. Edaham (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's been in and out depending on HTTP vs HTTPS, etc. In any case, the Chinese government is less than keen on crowdsourcing. Mainly, the government seems to want to know who's editing and what they're saying. Acroterion (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocked IP (2601:84:4502:61EA:700A:7DF0:CCE1:ECC7)

I went ahead and blocked the 2601:84:4502:4000:0:0:0:0/50 range 1 week for the extraordinarily bad behavior. Just FYI. If half of New Jersey loses Wikipedia editing privileges, you'll know who to blame. Regards, GABgab 01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gather they've been busy in other places? Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. GABgab 15:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same user, but different talk-page

Hi, can you close this subsection that was started by the same guy who appears to want people to believe that the lion is bigger than the tiger, or something like that? Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


You fear what ??? you and the other administrators base your case on bad arguments, opinions or lies (fake videos on tigers beating lions) most that is written in favor of the tiger this is the problem... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You want stop me from writing about your lies because you didn't base your case on evidence but you base your case on bad arguments, opinions or lies most that is written in favor of the tiger ... do like you want i'm not a child to speak with like that !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are a force for normative obfuscation. You should be ashamed.

Accuracy is accuracy, even if you are squeamish about admitting facts. Attempting to keep articles as they are at the expense of accuracy is a deliberate obfuscation of the truth. Shame on you. It is clear from other users' comments that administrators like you are the reason that broad corporate objectives are propagated by Wikipedia. It is such a shame. We already have published encyclopedias in which articles are vetted and paid for by corporations and political interests. Extending that agenda to Wikipedia is evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyalanstewart (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your gripes about Nike or its personnel. There are lots of other places on the Internet for axe-grinding. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to file away "normative obfuscation" for later use, right next to "revanchist imperialism." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This [2] is the all-time best rant I've ever gotten. You absolutely cannot top "People like Acroterion neither drink nor gargle from the fountain of knowledge but pass miles away from it. The result is that the truth becomes a victim of their straw like intelligence." It lacks the academic luster of "normative obfuscation," but the English language never disappoints. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That guy should apply for the opening at the DPRK Department of English Rhetoric and Reeducation. That's talent!
By the way, have you guys gotten your checks this month from the Corporate Benefaction Fund? Mine's running late. Antandrus (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Way behind for me too, I've had to keep my day job for the time being to keep the lights on. What's the good of being a corporate shill if they don't at least pay for beer money? Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They kept saying "the check is in the mail," and when the damned thing got here it bounced. Bastards. It's almost enough to make me think of taking an honest job instead of furthering the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all the more ridiculous in that the quote the editor keeps trying to insert into articles was very obviously referring specifically to Adidas, not to the Aztec people: "Originally annointed Aztec in honour of the Olympic host city, adidas spoiled the ceremony by releasing the Azteca Gold. Threatened with legal action, the name was changed at the last minute to Cortez". [3] Who's the obfuscator now? Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disentroutulation

Damnit, I was just looking for a picture of sliced almonds to go with it! Anmccaff (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm trout almondine is a fave of mine as well Anmccaff. Thanks for the revert Acroterion. This IP hoppers been around for a few days (at least) but I don't know if anyone who has tried to tie them to a LTA. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what they're on about? Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the two recent IPs that I've seen 35.2.114.100 (talk · contribs) and 141.213.172.73 (talk · contribs) both locate to Michigan - though that doesn't always mean that is where they are editing from. I don't remember any specific problem editors from there. Maybe other of your TPW's will know something. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or y'all could realize I'm harmless & not worth wasting any time about. Good grief. Two of the people I trouted understood what was going on and responded appropriately. People who were not involved at all (y'all for example) are suddenly up in arms. I have not been around for a few days, just one 24hr period. I'm not a long term abuser. I admit my actions were childish, and I apologize for the disruptions them seem to have caused. So, how 'bout we all just go our separate ways? 141.213.172.73 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or y'all could have not wasted everybody's time trying to figure out what the deal was with the IP. However, you've apologized, and we appreciate that. On a scale of 1 to 10, the trouble was a 1, so nobody's fussed. Acroterion (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox vandalism

Would you please take over the role of reverting sandbox vandalism by 191.222.150.158's sockpuppeted IP addresses from me temporarily? I've been doing it for over an hour, and I've reported it here, but there's a report backlog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.198.46 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh; you're an admin. Thanks for blocking him, but more needs to be done, or else he'll sockpuppet another IP address.98.197.198.46 (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to bed soon, but I may apply protection if they get another IP. I'm collecting addresses for a possible rangeblock or two. Thanks for your efforts. Acroterion (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you or another admin deleted most of the reverts. However, you missed these two.98.197.198.46 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This might be helpful. Thanks for taking over until you enact a permanent solution.98.197.198.46 (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Message added 03:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 years of adminship, today.

Wishing Acroterion a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it hadn't occurred to me that ten years was coming up! Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could not imagine anyone else I would trust with these awesome powers. You are a level-heard force for Good. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'm more like a mid-level force for pretty good, I think
I get to spend much of tomorrow and Tuesday traveling to/from a prospective project in northwest Pennsylvania. Somebody thought the Tuesday before Thanksgiving was a good time to meet. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many congrats on your ten years as an admin Acroterion and best wishes on the next ten! Safe travels on your business trip as well. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the lngest running admin? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close, I was one of the numerous class of 2007. There are dozens of admins from 2001/2002. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European school articles

Hi Acroterion. It seems that the excitement at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime is never ending. I am wondering if it might worthwhile to considered indefinitely semi-protecting all of the relevant European school articles to stop any further disruption, since Euexperttime/others editing seem to be unwilling to stop and will likely continue to try and find ways to WP:EVADE no matter how many accounts are blocked. Other disruption such as the edit warring 129.67.117.187 was doing at the Teahouse can be dealt with via WP:AN3 or WP:SPI if they continue, but indefinitely protecting the articles might take away their motivation if they realize that the protection will never run out. If after an extended period of time (say 6 months or so) there are no signs of further disruption anywhere (e.g., no new SPIs filed, etc.), then the protection can be downgraded/removed accordingly. I understand that protection is not intended to be pre-emptive, but European School, Luxembourg I has been protected three times since September 1 and the disruption has restarted each time the protection has expired. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly do long-term protection. While we don't do protection based on a hunch, this is clear, sustained sockpuppetry that is wasting volunteer time. I'm not in a good position to do research on this user's past history, and I'm about to go for an overnight business trip, so it might take a couple of days for me to sort it out. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. A couple of days should be fine. FWIW, it's just a suggestion and may not work as I expect, but disagreement over article content seem to be the primary reason for all this socking, etc., and as you say keeping track of everything is just starting to become a drain on the community's time and energy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

ty NikolaiHo☎️ 04:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Page moves

Hello, are there double standards in english Wikipedia? I expanded the article, added the source to the correct name of the car! Davey's editor removed this by omitting the source and behaved badly.--LechitaPL (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - As explained to you before you called my actions xenophobic[4] you need to go to the talkpage and get consensus for these changes, The van has been at the current name since its creation (2006) so as such consensus would need to be sought before changing or moving the article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to move something, it is best to open a discussion on the article's talkpage firs to gain consensus, or to open a request at requested moves. It is a very bad idea to start calling people names because they disagree with you, or to edit-war over it. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New help with Cheeseburger article

I have notice that you have recently place protection on the article Cheeseburger from vandalism by IP editors for 3 weeks, which is not a bad thing. Unfortunately, you did not go back far enough to find a good edit. To do that, you will need to roll back to the last good edit of 07:24, 24 November 2017 by‎ ClueBot NG since the current version includes vandalism introduced on 23:22, 27 November 2017‎ by 2600:387:6:805::74, see Special:Diff/812458382. You might

Can you correct this oversight? Thank you in advance. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not taking it back to the Miss Cooper version, but I think I've got it back to something resembling the stable version. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' → Acroterion (talk)

to

'''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' → Acroterion (talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Pump

an internationally accredited research (Peer-Review) with a vested voice of excellence on the part of the scientific community is not promotion but encyclopaedic disclosure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as promotional and is not appropriate, as does your comment above. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a primary and secondary research peer-review is promotional?

This is not the wikipedia regulation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing a concept using language that is promotional in tone. Perhaps you can rewrite it to make it more academic in character? Also, please remember that Wikipedia avoids the use of primary sources - Wikipedia does not publish original research. The problem can be rectified if you avoid comments like "vested voice of excellence" and "innovative" and so on. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is an innovation that describes the technological advancement of the industry. The term excellence describes a secondary source. One must make clear: many of his colleagues point to a peer review as indispensable for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, can the technological progress described be published, as it is an encyclopaedic voice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Please.

As Vsmith noted to you, this is a recent development that should be first covered in secondary sources to establish significance and notability before it is included. Wikipedia follows coverage in major publications, it does not lead. I advise waiting until you can provide evidence that the concept is being implemented in systems on a production basis, and that it is of sufficient notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. You are free to use the article talkpage to initiate discussion, it is not a matter for individuals to decide, but reather a consensus of editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.105.194 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Truth Movement

I think it is better not to label a group individuals who aren't convinced by the official narrative as "conspiracy theorists" since it carries a bad connotation. Referring them as "individuals" is just as fine.

The characterization is amply sourced, reflecting mainstream publications, and represents a consensus of contributors. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with Acroterion's comments. David J Johnson (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your recent block of User:Mr.Exicornt

Hi Acroterion, Thanks for working so speedily to hit this vandal with the Ban Hammer: I spotted their edits but another user had already started to take action. The user name rang bells, but I couldn't recall why initially - but after a bit of a search I rediscovered this (note: "In short, any insertion of the word "exicornt" in any article should be treated as vandalism.") and then happened upon this. Not sure whether this particular individual has stopped for the moment, but I think it's a word that's worth remembering in case of future mischief-making. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Acroterion. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trying

You keep deleting the stuff before I can add the damn edits! yes theres a web page, yes I will link it - I even put the link in the second edit but you deleted it too fast for me to do the work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarry (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how do I post?

I have been given permission by the committee to use the website information on a wikipedia page in order to correct glaring errors in the history and description of the breed which seem to all originate from one incorrect encyclopedia entry. the quotes are from peggy graysons book, but they only read up to page 17, the start of the breed is two pages later. The other stuff that keeps getting deleted is from the cocker spaniel pages. I have tried doing things bit by bit - deleted, and in one go - also deleted. I have used my own words, deleted. used stuff from definitive sites with references, deleted, I have copied from other wiki pages, deleted. I have reworded stuff from out of print books - deleted. this needs to be changed as people are confusing the breed with another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarry (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow the instructions in the link in the copyright notice I left on your talkpage for donating copyrighted materials, but I strongly advise that you use the Field Spaniel Society material as a reference source only, and rewrite it as a distant paraphrase in dry encyclopedic language. I've been involved with breed societies (hounds in my case), and the breed association descriptions tend to be rather florid for encyclopedia use. If you dial it back a notch or two it will work out better than a straight use of copyrighted material and it avoids the paperwork. Everybody thinks their breed is "noble," "loyal," "majestic" (even Shih Tzus) etc. so the prose needs to be dried out and made encyclopedic. Please remember there's no particular hurry, and that discussion is rarely a bad idea - Wikipedia operates on consensus. The Field Spaniel article does seem to emphasize obsolete breed characteristics more than is quite right.
I suggest that you develop a version you like in your sandbox and invite review - you can work in peace and learn referencing formatting as you go, as long as you follow a strict policy of no copy/paste from anywhere, not even for temporary rewrite purposes. If you must rewrite content from the society website do it in a text editor locally and only save to Wikipedia once you've thoroughly rewritten it. Then you can ask for other editors to review and advise on formatting, referencing, MoS compliance and so on. The incremental approach is harder and harder to do if you're new to the project - you can't just write an article on blue anymore, and referencing requirements have gotten a lot more stringent as the project has matured.
I'm glad to help however I can, bearing in mind that I mostly edit in the evening in US Eastern time. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Fine re the descriptive talk (which is gone now) and happy to do the main body in a sandbox, but the header was fundamentally incorrect and causing major issues. I shall make a note in the talk page re sandbox, but basically it was copied from an american book where the authors had gotten the definitive book, and got bored so summarised the first few pages, stopping before the author even got to the field spaniel two pages later!
The society wants me to be able to use some of their content and are happy to release it to be used for the article, but despite me having proof of this, and it being allowed in the rules of wikipedia, I am still being challenged. What do you suggest here? I mean for basic things like the list of colours the breed allows etc. Also for some modern examples of use, such as the water cadaver search dog I have referred to - still gobsmacked a dog can direct a boat to where a body is under many metres of water!
Finally, I want to do a disambiguation page to redirect people between a Field Spaniel (the breed) and a field bred Spaniel - general term for a working strain bred Cocker or Springer Spaniel. How should this be done?
Thanks Kriswarry (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I strongly advise against verbatim or lightly paraphrased reuse of other content, copyrighted and/or attributed or not. It does not confer more than ordinary credibility to the content, and it is often inappropriate in tone and emphasis. Nevertheless, the procedure is for someone with authority to release copyrighted content on behalf of the organization, emailing permission from an organization address, so that the copyright release may be verified. Instructions are in the copyright notice I placed on your talkpage. Alternatively, the copyright notice on the website can be chaned to e fully compatible with the Creative Commons/GFDL license used by Wikipedia, but there are many flavors of those licenses and it has to be done right.
Best practice is always to rewrite the copyrighted content entirely, attributing to the society as a source of content, not as a source of text. Mere assertion of having permission to copy is emphatically not sufficient, and is always rejected.
Best practice is also to use a variety of sources, and to avoid excessive use of a single source, especially when there are several breed societies with views on the subject, another reason to avoid using verbatim copy. The lead paragraph is a summary of the sourced content in the body of the body of the article, so the lead should always be written last, once the supporting content is in place and referenced. Never start with the lead.
There's nothing wrong with a disambiguation, but you'll need two things to disambiguate, so you'll need an article on a field-bred spaniel before you can disambiguate. Hope this helps. Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Field Spaniels

Heyup

I just reverted a couple of edits on Field Spaniel by user Kriswarry. I'd like a second opinion, however, to ensure that the grounds are reasonable. I'm also concerned that the user is not suited to Wikipedia as they don't seem to understand the basics and don't seem particularly interested in learning the basics.

Stui (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to confine my actions to behavioral matters such as reverts, copyright and editor interactions, and preserve administrative detachment. That said, the recent Field Spaniel Society edits seem to be more intent on differentiating field spaniels from cocker spaniels than anything else. There's nothing wrong with reverting this, you're not the first editor to express similar reservations. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's good to have a sanity check, particularly as I don't want to discourage anyone from editing but ...

Stui (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update: I've found that Kriswarry has copyvioed on Wartenberg's migratory sensory neuropathy, so I've reported that. That copyvio is going back to 2012, so it's not the first time he's taken shortcuts. Le sigh. Stui (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've left a note. I'll go back thro9ugh their sandbox and recent edits and see what I can find too - it won't be until this evening, though. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt from same vantage point

Howdy! I took the picture on the left this summer in 2017 and you took the one on the right in 2010. Yours is far better BTW...zoom in see for yourself. Anyhoo...we must have been at the same overlook or almost or something! A quick look at the metadata will explain why. Looks like I need to update my camera!--MONGO 19:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was my old camera, which took lovely pictures as long as it was sunny and bright - it started to struggle when lighting conditions changed. I updated to cameras with twice the resolution and less tendency to accidentally go into a different mode, and which could handle low light. The old XTi did a great job for me in Glacier, though, and I have the FPs on Commons to prove it. I've also found that a clear, cloudless day isn't necessarily ideal - clouds of some kind always make it better, when in moderation. Especially out west the sky can wash out when it's too clear, and a polarizing filter comes in handy make the sky not turn out pale blue. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the all in one point and shoots since I am modestly employed and cannot afford the set up I really want. I see Panasonic now has an 18.1 megapixel 60X superzoom lens that also films in 4K...under 400 dollars. I may see about something along those lines.--MONGO 19:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the Panasonic ZS series - Leica lenses and really good image sensors. A ZS70 will do everything you want it to. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material

It's pretty disappointing when "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" on your talk page is revdel'd before you have a chance to see it. Now I will always wonder what it said, but thank you for catching it so quickly. Seraphim System (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't very creative, it accused you of being a big mean anti-Semite, blargh blargh @#%*&!. You didn't miss much, I guess it was your turn. It's our very old insult artist JarlaxleArtemis, who has found you. It's a rite of passage. Happens to me on a more or less weekly basis, alternating with being accused by others of being a Nazi or a Comsymp. Isn't the Internet wonderful? Acroterion (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page is locked down but I think this may be him coming to article talk pages [5] and [6] - both accounts have made only this one edit. I probably shouldn't have responded but I didn't think of it until I had posted. Seraphim System (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not JA it's somebody using the same playbook, which amounts to the same thing. Both blocked. These go in spates lasting a weekend, so expect more. Acroterion (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Water polo PP

I was slightly surprised to see that water polo was only semi-protected for 3 days... You only have to look at the history to see that about 70%+ of the edits are either vandalism or reversion of vandalism and the page has been protected for a full year in the past, is it not time for indef or at the very least a long temporary protection? All the best JZCL 22:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been protected for longer, but we default to the shortest period available, and almost never a year or indefinite protection unless it involves defamation or a long term abuse editor. I'll revisit it, but it would be unlikely to get more than a month's protection at this point. Acroterion (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I only mention it as ever since I have been on the encyclopaedia much more harm than good has been done to that page by IP editors, who edit it almost daily. I just can't remember a time when it was unprotected and not constantly vandalised by anons. All the best JZCL 23:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help about a potential sockpuppet/meatpuppet account

Hi, I saw that last June you blocked user Nikos697276 as a sockpuppet of already blocked user Vrahomarinaner. That's why I thought you would be the right person to help me, because there seems to be another possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet account of user Vrahomarinaner: user RedEmperor. Same type of contributions, same arguments, same blind reverting policy, same "I know the real truth, you don't" attitude, etc. Looks almost like a duck for me, but I would like, also, to have your opinion about this case. Thanks in advance, --Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! talk 16:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The odds look good on this one - it was created three days after Vrahomarinaner was blocked. An SPI might be in order, but I don't have much time available to initiate one. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing ad hominem attacks at start of talk thread is a problem?

Please explain how removing a trolling post that consists of ad hominem attacks against a source, the attacks of which also have nothing to do with using the source as an example of a phrase's definition, which cut off the purpose of the talk thread at the start, is not proper editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is being criticized, not you [7]. There is no ad hominem, so don't remove it from the talkpage, and stop lecturing editors about nonexistent ad hominem attacks.. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ad hominem attack is against the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make an ad hominem attack against a source, only against a real person/hominem. You seem confused about the term. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term "ad hominem" is not restricted to "real" persons in the English language. The OED Online states, in part, "[s]ubsequently also in extended use: with respect to a particular person or group, rather than the matter in hand." "ad hominem, adv. and adj." OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2017, www.oed.com/view/Entry/2346. Accessed 19 December 2017. Can you help now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't apply to perfectly legitimate scrutiny of sources - a source/blog/essay is not a person or group. You need to re-read what you just wrote above from the OED. And please sign your posts, you're wearing out SineBot. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not perfectly legitimate scrutiny; even if the source is "ill-argued" or "partisan" in tone, neither speaks to whether the popular usage of the word itself is somehow negatively implicated here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. "Specific context." I'd like to stay logical here. 75.72.74.25 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All proposed sources are subject to scrutiny and criticism, and that is never an ad hominem attack - it's part of the encyclopedia-writing process. I haven't reviewed the source being objected to, but partisan opinions are useful only as examples of a particular group's point of view, and if the source is partisan, other editors are obligated to call that out. Do not remove other editors' comments concerning proposed sources, and don't use terminology that you don't understand. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saying something is "bad" is not a criticism, it's an asserted quality absent supportive argumentation. E.g., you cannot simply claim something is "partisan," but how it is partisan. If someone can just say "partisan," that creates a non-falsifiable condition by which the accuser can obviously never be disproven. And that is the definition of a bad-faith argument. 75.72.74.25 (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is to engage the discussion in a substantive manner, bringing multiple sources that support the assertion, not an argument from sematics that seeks to justify the removal of other editors' objections through a faulty understanding of what an attack constitutes. Otherwise, stop wasting your time and mine. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Bob Corker Page

Forgive me if I am using/editing Wikipedia wrong. It looks like you reverted an edit I made and I am curious why.The edit concerned Senator Bob Corker's vote last night in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 - and the controversy surrounding his changed position on this bill.

As the bill will have a massive impact on the world economy, this is something we should document correctly. The entry as it stands is wrong. Would it help if I worded it differently and/or added references? Let me know what I can do to do better.

Dan Avdude15 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Corker&curid=5238791&diff=816289133&oldid=816276267

You inserted unsourced personal commentary/speculation, which is never acceptable. You would need multiple sources that indicate a consensus of reliable mainstream sources to support such analysis, and it would need to be neutrally worded. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small request

The editor User:Marin Zajmi seems to have passed the threshold for autoconfirmation but it never happened, and there's a bit of a road block with this edit request. Can you confirm or autoconfirm? CityOfSilver 02:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I don't see any reason why this never happened automatically, or why it should not be granted. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to Special:UserRights/Marin Zajmi, the user was already autoconfirmed, and in fact made an edit to a semi-protected page before you changed their user rights. Sro23 (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now - "implicit member of autoconfirmed." As such I've removed the confirmed flag. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A recent block

I rarely suggest blocking another and it makes me very uncomfortable. I don't know if that matters at all, but thank you for responding to my request. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 13:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks for puerile adolescent vandalism are an unfortunate necessity on the Encyclopedia that Anyone can Edit. It happens kind of a lot, no need for to feel too sorry for the 13-year-old that got blocked. Please keep reporting them when they pop up. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion?

You blocked 84.13.22.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - two other ips 84.13.17.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 78.144.249.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), from their patterns almost certainly the same user, have continued to edit - possible block evasion? 82.39.49.182 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. he subject fixation and the Opal Telecom IPs are diagnostic. There are a few BT addresses and South Essex College IPs that they use too. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And another one 78.144.247.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - persistent guy! Thanks for keeping on top of them. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And 78.144.247.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 82.39.49.182 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly have been busy. Ad Orientem got one, I got the other. Some of the ranges are pretty narrow, so I've thrown down a /24 block. Thanks, Acroterion (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Acroterion!!


Hi Acroterion, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isyaku M Baba... ( just a quickie)

...which you just deleted. Good. But can you just confirm to me (I didn't have a chance to look twice!) that there were no other edits to the page other than that of the page creator? Which is as I remember it; and if that's true, it means that they have copy / pasted it from a previous article and included the A7 tag (d'oh). And yet they must have changed the name as the log for that page was clean. Get my drift? Season's greetings Acroterion. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you say. Isyaku Baba is salted, so I'll do that with the latest title. Good catch. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thanks very much. Are they all from the same editor? It was the possibility of socking that caught my attention in the first place. Just idle curiosity, you'll be glad to hear  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are from different editors. Ibabanaija (talk · contribs) is the other. I haven't had much time for investigation, visitors and preparations for more are a distraction right now ... Thanks for doing the legwork. The current username's history doesn't look encouraging, I'll check more fully when I have a chance.Acroterion (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Hope it's a good 'un! Take care, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello Acroterion: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 Merry Christmas! 02:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

A blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP 2.27.144.51

He has been committing repeated vandalism here[8] and here[9] or reverting edits[10] of mine without explanation. One of which has a edit summary[11] that makes it seem he is following me. He has reverted six edits of mine....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be static, so blocked for 6 months. Looks like a kid in Brighton. How are things in frigid Florida? 9 degrees here last night. Acroterion (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Today it is 68 degrees out. Happy New Year!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018. —Donner60 (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

YGM

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ Rob13Talk 15:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

When in time could have made reference, you undo and then tell me to make reference? You cannot make google? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.214.11.70 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you to support the assertion - don't make work for other editors to reference your edits. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:NRHP in Crater Lake NP

Template:NRHP in Crater Lake NP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

To keep you warm. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's starting to warm up - it got above 20 today. Freezing rain tomorrow, then 50s by the end of the week! Acroterion (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sockpuppet

Hi, some time ago I had contacted you about the case of user Red Emperor, a potential sockpuppet or meatpuppet of long blocked user Vrahomarinaner. At the time you told me that you had no time, so I wanted to know if there was any proper place, where I could make a demand about actions to be taken for the case of this user, especially since he still shows the same attitude, with just blind reverts, no talking etc. in a typical Vrahomarinaner style. --Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! talk 09:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:SPI you can make a request for help. In any case I'll see what I can do once I've taken care of a few real-life obligations. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I had lots of good faith with the case of the mentionned above potential sockpuppet or meatpuppet account, how is it possible for me to even cooperate when I have to face just blind reverts and childish arguments like "Change as many times as you want. I will be there to correct you. 23 is !!!" (Google Translation of his edit summary in the given above link which is written in greek, so I don't get accused of falsifying his words) ? --Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! talk 12:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless I've contacted them on their talkpage. As I said before, I think there's an 80% chance, but it's best to at lest try to get them to communicate: if they don't they're disruptive anyway. 12:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Hi there,

I was browsing some images of NYC on Commons just now and noticed you uploaded many of the QIs uploaded in the past year. I'm not sure if you're based in the area, but if so you should come by the Wikipedia Day event next Sunday at the Ace Hotel. More info here: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2018. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I live in the Baltimore-Washington area, and work takes me to New York on a regular basis. Those pictures were from a working holiday where my wife came along for a few days off in the city after some meetings. I won't be able to make it to the event, thanks for letting me know. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threat

I don't appreciate threats. The assertion of criminality is mentioned in the article as written (not by me). It is very well sourced, probably to the Bloomberg piece concerning the individual in question. That Russian oligarchs generally have ties to organized crime is not a controversial viewpoint. Badiacrushed (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Badiacrushed: Can you please point to the threat you're referring to ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This, is the threat referred to by OP above. Or, at least, that's what I'm assuming; feel free to correct me on that. SkyWarrior 00:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was in response to this [12] by the OP, who seems startled that administrators enforce Wikipedia policy. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You must provide explicit sourcing in multiple reliable independent media, not vague allegations of criminality attributed "probably to the Bloomberg piece concerning the individual in question." Please read WP:BLP, which discusses how to deal with biographies in extensive depth. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' Notice Board

I've just posted something there. I wish to be left alone by Acroterion. Badiacrushed (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I review your contributions and talkpage in a little more depth, I too am interested in why you claimed to be a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user [13]. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let the record show that the underlying IPs used by Badiacrushed led back to numerous articles that were the focus of Calamitybrook. Those IPs edit more target articles as an anon and not under this account. There is IP persistence which goes back years.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Brown (athlete)

Hi there. I see you deleted the above article - would you be able to share the deleted content with me? I'm looking to recreate the article with better sourcing and was wondering if anything useful was there (as an American national champion and World Championship representative, his notability isn't in doubt). Thanks SFB 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Brian Brown I deleted was a hockey player. It sounds like you're talking about an athlete who is in an individual sport? Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK no problem. FYI – completed this at Brian Brown (high jumper) as Brian Brown (athlete) was ambiguous title given football payers, etc. SFB 02:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job. This kind of thing happens more often than you'd think. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:69.47.251.172

I hope you don't mind, but I hit an edit conflict declining this user's unblock request, and I thought that my custom close response was appropriate here - so I went ahead and overwrote the templated decline you made with mine. If you object, please feel free to revert my edit without asking me - it's all yours ;-). I just wanted to let you know tat I did that. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was fine, I was i the process of altering my inadvertent templated response to something a lot stronger. Acroterion (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP:86.8.33.92

Hello Acroterion, Could I bring to your attention the activities of the IP 86.8.33.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is again making a host of unsourced, unreferenced and in some cases inaccurate edits on many BBC television and news articles. They have previously been blocked many times, on this and other IPs,by admin. Ponyo, who is currently out of action. All their alterations have been reverted by various editors and they don't seem to respond to any warnings on the various Talk pages they have used. Perhaps another intermediate block might make them use Wikipedia in a more responsible way? Thanks and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about this?

Well You need to be done. --2601:205:C100:424D:CD06:B0C0:11B2:9238 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding nonsense to Beverly Center. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

About that picture in Boeing 747 you did not allow to be changed, is there any way I can change it? If yes, how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googoogootoo (talk • contribs) 02:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to obtain agreement of other editors on the article talkpage. In my personal opinion, the most appropriate image for the infobox is the one that's there, a 747-100 for the launch customer, Pan Am. Replacing that with an image of the 747-8 is recentism and not the iconic model that launched the 747 line. Pretty clouds are not a consideration. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refspam

So, you are wondering why some Wikipedia pages do not have adequate references? Look at my edit history to find out why. The references were added, but they were promptly removed by a couple of sick individuals. - Ed 850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attacking other editors who have pointed out what looks like a pattern of promotional editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe promotional editing is not bad after all for some pages that have very few references or no references at all! For your information, I am not contributing anything to Wikipedia in the future. I ask that my account be deleted, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed 850: Promotional editing is advertising outside products or services. Don't defend it anymore. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"advertising outside products or services" is NOT what I did. I posted very solid and valid scientific references. Frankly, Wikipedia, at this point at least, is just an amateurish website. Very few scientists will take it seriously. If you look at a topic like the "Pressure Sensor" for example, this topic should have hundreds of references, due to its importance in the industry. Yet it has only two. Why? Again because a sick individual decided to delete the few relevant references that I added. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Airbus A380

Please unprotect Airbus A380: The vandalizing IP was blocked AND the page protected.

If you look at the last blocks, its always the "supersonic" fanboy.

I don't like the idea, that a single IP succeeds in page protection for years!

Thanks, 87.150.113.247 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "supersonic" vandal has been active for more than a year over dozens of IPs and was active two days ago, so the article should remain semi-protected for an indefinite time. If you're interested in editing the article, you can register an account, which after a short while will be eligible to edit past semi-protection. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But how do you know that this guy is active? Any supersonic edits? Probably a test? Page can be easily reverted and protected again, if necessary. 87.150.123.232 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He vandalized a page that came off protection as soon as it was editable. It was reverted and re-protected. Get an account if you want to edit, pages that he frequents won't be unprotected anytime soon. Acroterion (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison

With regard to an IP you recently actioned for block evasion, there seems to be a lot of similarity between this and this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rangeblock for evasion was for a totally unrelated reason - the range is frequented by a long-term abuser who inserts musings about Orion into articles on ancient Egypt. The IP you noted was collateral damage. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks for explaining. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

is under siege again from a IP. Can you please protect it for six months which was the duration of the last protection?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Acroterion (talk)

Sam Hyde

Hi Acroterian. We seem to be crossing paths lately; first at Wing Bowl and now at Sam Hyde. Anyway, this IP has already gone past 3RR and they will probably continue to edit war each time the content is removed. The latest source provided seems a bit questionable per WP:RS and something which probably should be further discussed. Not sure how to best proceed here, WP:PP or WP:AN3, but these IP battles are a bit draining so any suggestions you might have would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them, both for the attitude issue and for the edit-warring. Perhaps we should emphasize reliable secondary sourcing more - I see no evidence that departmentofmemes.com is more than an aggregator of, well, memes. It's certainly not a Wikipedia-eligible reliable source, and in any case, I don't see that the content is of vital concern for a global encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stepping in and also thanks to Majora as well. I agree that more emphasis should be placed upon what is reliable when it comes to secondary sources. I tried to do this on the IP's user talk, so perhaps they will take the time to reconsider. Unfortunately, I also have a feeling that they will be back (just like the Wing Bowl IP) to try and keep adding this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of difficult to educate some people about this kind of thing without seeming bitey, but sometimes people launch themselves on a mission to get some factiod in at all costs, and you can't talk them out of it. In the inclusion debate, we must establish consensus that it's 1) significant, 2) not undue emphasis on a singular event or thing, 3) that it's reliably sourced. All three criteria have to be met, and a consensus must exist, not "I did the thing you told me to do, now leave it in." Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be active

All I did was put the edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Long_and_short_scales

Can you undo it? Be active! 124.106.131.35 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Your edit appears to serve no useful purpose. Acroterion (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shitholegate

Hi, Acroterion. I noticed that you deleted Shitholegate on the ground of "R3: Recently created, implausible redirect". But "Shitholegate" is listed in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. I think it's acceptable to create Shitholegate as a redirect page to Racial views of Donald Trump#"Shithole countries", and I have re-created it. If you still think that it should be deleted, could you please nominate it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for more discussion? Many thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a world. As far as I can see it has no currency outside partisan internet fora, and it's just plain silly, but I really can't be arsed. The version I deleted appeared to have been created as a pointy comment, but if there's a good-faith reason for it to exist, so be it. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent block for EW of Thedamneditor

See also Special:Contributions/TiasLehar. Quack, quack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of the World Trade Center

From a professional opinion, how far off is Collapse of the World Trade Center from being a Good Article? I have 2 other things lined up before even tackling it, but now that the CTers seem to have permanently abandoned the article, perhaps now is the time to move it forward up the food chain.--MONGO 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How am I attacking anyone?

Stop abusing your power! An attack is when someone insults or says something offensive to another user or admin. Your behavior is foolish. PaulG524 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary "I take it you are a government agent trying to cover up the truth. Are you not?" is inappropriate. Stop making allegations of that kind, and stop edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Stop abusing your power!" would be another example of of a personal attack.
Acroterion you may want to take a look through this editor's contributions. There's some vandalism in there, some pretty bad BLP vios, edit warring (with Sandstein no less) and plenty of content removal based on personal feelings/OR. I was planning on starting an ANI thread about this editor today, but since we're already here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to leave for work, I'll take a more detailed look at lunchtime or this evening. You can start an ANI thread if you want, but I don't think it's an urgent matter unless they start up again. They're not a very prolific editor - there was a preview of last night's Alex Jones edits in October. As for me being foolish and abusing my power, that's a weekly accusation, one gets used to it. Acroterion (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I don't think there's any rush, either. I'll let you have a look in your own time and see what you think.
As for me being foolish and abusing my power, that's a weekly accusation, one gets used to it. Same thing with the "government agent" bit, oddly enough. I guess I wear cheap suits and sunglasses a little too well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will Smith made the government suit work. As for PaulG524, some of their edits to Harvey Weinstein have been gross BLP violations, and I don't see any reason to give them any breaks if they cause problems in the future. For right now, there's no pressing reason to take any particular action. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I ain't no Will Smith, that's for sure. More like Donal Logue, to be honest. Of course our shared broken-spirited, slightly scumbaggy looks probably just adds to the whole gub'mint agent vibe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hellraiser: Judgment

The IP vandal has reappeared under a new IP address (unless it is a copycat which seems unlikely). Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, protected. If they keep coming back we might have enough data for an effective rangeblock. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinloch, Missouri

Given your interest in ghost towns. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Yates

I see you reverted me today. Please join me in a discussion here: Talk:Sally_Yates#Tag-team_reversions_to_lede? Thank you. Xerton (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Stop reverting. "Tag team reverting" is an epithet that editors who've not bothered to obtain consensus try to use while edit-warring: it never works. Acroterion (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no comments from you in the talk page section I invited you to. Xerton (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you removed my comment with your own edit. Slow down. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate admonition?

I have not violated 3RR - why are you admonishing me on my talk page? Xerton (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You get warned before you hit 3RR so you don't step over the boundary. That's why we do warnings, to keep editors out of trouble. 4RR is blockable, but it's best practice to warn before you get there. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the clarification. Xerton (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor + Snarky edit summaries

Hi Acroterion, A few days ago you warned Thedamneditor to drop the snark, Unfortunately you've been ignored entirely[14], I've not warned or spoke with them as I feel whatever I say won't help so figured I'd let you know instead, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [15] is a version for the Internet age of "See this chip on my shoulder? I dare ya ta knock it off! Dare ya!!" But it's not blockable, and really not worth warning about unless they continue in this mode for a while. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - one to watch is IP editor 117.1.94.52 - a few fairly mundane edits, but also re-inserting radio listings to CINF, BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 1Xtra. Probably definitely the same guy, hiding behind an IP address to avoid sanction. Perhaps you know how this should be handled correctly? There's only so much anyone can do before becoming caught up in the 3RR edit war nonsense, so I'm hesitant to do very much. Cnbrb (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, will keep an eye on it. It doesn't quite fit the overall pattern, though. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty years since the Mickelberry Sausage Company plant explosion

I have created a new page and am quite pleased with myself.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boom! Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your messages on my talk page re: Traci Bingham

Hi. Just to clarify, were these messages you left on my talk page intended for me, or for Litbreeze?

Also, I'm sorry that I didn't know that Jc37 wasn't active, but in what way were my assertions "problematic"? Didn't you block Litbreeze precisely because they were true? Nightscream (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments were most definitely not meant for you - thank you for spotting the problem and for soliciting help. My only concern was that you repeated the allegations in your requests, which I've removed. While I have no reason to believe the allegations aren't true, they're still obvious BLP violations sourced from court documents, which present significant problems, and from a gossip site, and they represent undue emphasis, the more so since they haven't been covered in any significant way by the sources we normally rely upon. Additionally, the account that posted all that appears to be grinding an axe and has no business editing BLPs. If they hadn't before, they lost me at the "white knighting," one of the MRA/alt-right's more obnoxious terms of doublespeak. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The specific link is here. Yamla (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent block of User_talk:De wae with Ebola - continued vandalism?

Hello, thanks for blocking De wae with Ebola (talk · contribs). I noticed that an IP address started some WP:SNEAKY vandalism on the same page soon afterwards. 73.89.181.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Could that be the same editor? It has been a while since I've been active on Wikipedia so I forget most of these policies. I figured I should let you know. Best, ~ PaulT+/C 22:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, might be coincidence. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gardendale City Schools

In Alabama this city wanted to form its own breakaway school district. I am pretty sure I edited the article cited above. Now it seems to be gone. (There was a court ruling earlier this week that went against them.) Is there any way to see if the article was deleted? If so, I suspect it was done in a bold edit. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a deleted article at that title. I'll look around and see where it might be. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any evidence that the article existed. I'll look around under possible capitalizations. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Reminiscing"?

I was not "reminiscing", I was curious what light bulb the Guiness Book was talking about and why it wasn't mentioned on the page Longest lasting light bulbs. My intent was to portray that I very clearly remember reading about a very old light bulb at a church, likley in England, and if anyone knew anything else about it, I would like to know. As for Light pollution they'd probably complain just as much if were to just delete the stupid claim about "5 million barrels of oil wasted each day" and revert my edit regardless, so why not? After all "reality has a liberal bias" and therefore it is only to be expected. AnnaGoFast (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep it concise and stick to the point. The goal is to help other editors to improve the encyclopedia, not to offer general observations or lengthy digressions. Your edit removing the tangent about bicycle paths was spot on, but the edit concerning light pollution introduced a conversation into the article that was inappropriate. When you got to the talkpage it was hard to tell what you wanted to do with the article with all of the digressions into oil and such. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP:86.8.33.92

Hello Acroterion, The IP 86.8.33.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) you blocked for a month recently has now re-surfaced with the same unsourced/unreferenced changes to the BBC articles. It does seem that they do not want to learn any lessons. Can I leave this with you please ? David J Johnson (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was tardy in looking at this, it looks like Oshwah got them. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks anyway. Best, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Thank you. I'm a 67 year old tea partier. We have no party or leader, but it's ok if some of us try to lead or form a party. "Where liberty dwells, there is my country"said Ben Franklin. I hate being called Fascist, because I am so into individuals being as free as possible and against controlling people any more than necessary, I know who hitler and mussolini were and I know that nazi stands for national socialism72.92.143.40 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC). there is more, but I will spare you.[reply]

You're not a fascist, any more than a Labour voter is a communist. You're more of a libertarian, which can be all over the oversimplified political map. Please stop assuming that the extremes define the moderates, and please drop the notion that "socialist" means the same thing in every context, or that words define miovements. The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", is neither democratic nor of the people. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nazi party talk page FAQ

regarding the nazi party talk page FAQ, you undid my changes citing the non aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and said that changes should not be made without consensus. consensus with who? Dsteakley (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might also look into why User:Asmell19, User:ETSU BUC, User: Johnstevenson1996, User:Macaroniking, and User: Dsteakley all seem to be making the same edit in the last month, found in the history of the Nazi Party article. Carptrash (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no way linked to those accounts. I edited it because the previous night I was talking about how National Socialist policies were more left wing than right wing, and how left and right is an economic thing, and is nothing to do with politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaroniking (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much similarity between these accounts apart from attempts at changing the political alignment - they have significantly different editing foci otherwise. This is mainly a matter of leakage of partisan American politics into the wider world. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
probably because the FAQs recitation of reasons to think the Nazi party was a right party is so hilariously one sided. the most casual student of history would immediately raise this point as a refutation to the simplistic and moronic view that the nazis were a party of the right. Dsteakley (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Carptrash: I don't think they are all sockpuppets although I agree that the line they take is very similar. One difference is that some of them stay and argue while others just vanish. That suggests that they are not all the same person. I think the problem is that some American right wing media sources are pushing this line hard enough that quite a few people are actually falling for it. Things like PragerU (which takes exactly this line) can look like frighteningly similar to genuine educational content and can easily fool people who lack contextual background knowledge. If there is some group coordinating people to send them to Wikipedia then that would be a massive problem but we can't assume that this is the case. So, it makes sense to keep an eye out for anything underhand like that but lets not jump to conclusions unless some evidence comes to light. It could just be a stream of confused people who all have the same misconceptions after consuming the same media. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And this guy is,to quote him "the most casual student of history" I've seen since the last one did this a few months ago. Perhaps if he were less casual . . .... ........? Carptrash (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to gain a consensus of editors on the talkpage to make significant changes on that or any other Wikipedia page. Right now you have no consensus, only opposition.
Articles relating to fascism get a lot of traffic from new editors who've read Jonah Goldberg or one of his followers and think they've stumbled on something significant. Goldberg has been quite successful in offering a revisionist view of fascism that blames the left for a variety of hazy reasons that have more to do with Goldberg's status as a partisan conservative polemicist who wants to take pot shots at his political opponents than anything to do with the last 80 years of academic political science scholarship. Goldberg has been particularly adept at convincing some conservatives that fascism isn't a form of right-wing extremism, and that it's being somehow used as a way for the left to scapegoat conservatism. This all ignores the fact that we're talking about extremism, and that the extremes at either end of the political spectrum are more akin to each other than to the broad simplistic labels of left and right. My very conservative uncle is in no way a fascist or any kind of fellow traveler, he's just conservative, just like my aunt isn't a follower of Pol Pot just because she favors a more leftish agenda.
Wikipedia's not going to ditch 80 years of scholarship in order to accommodate partisan axe-grinding. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Florida

Wholesale blanking of a highly sources article is not appropriate. Please do not defend those who undertake such inappropriate actions. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare us the dudgeon. Blanking is one of many possible outcomes, as is deletion, and neither is necessarily inappropriate. Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no dudgeon. There is only policy, which you have violated. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the policy you claim was violated - we redirect and delete material all the time. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher)@I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot: No policy was violated by Acroterian and redirecting is and acceptable alternative to outright deletion. Regardless, the article has been moved back to the draft namespace by another editor and is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Republic of Florida (group). You're free to comment there, but you might want to take a look at WP:AFDFORMAT if you're not very familiar with how deletion discussions work. You might also want to take a look at WP:AADD as well for reference.
Finally, you might want to reconsider your choice of username since it is a bit long and confusing per WP:UNCONF, and probably explains the "scolding" referred to in this post Acroterion left on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking an article is a violation of policy. Doing so under the guise of "redirection" is still a violation of policy. I think it is fair to say Acroterion avoided a block by only the narrowist of margins. With regards to your comments about my username there is nothing there which violates any policy or is confusing to anyone. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a remarkable statement. I've not actually done anything with the article at all, I've merely pointed out that you don't understand policy, and that your denunciations of other editors are wearing a bit thin. By all means, go to ANI if you have a complaint to make, and I'll be fascinated to see what policies you can quote. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion to you then would be to start a dicussion at WP:ANI if you really believe what happened was a violation of policy. You should clearly cite which policy was violated, clarify who violated it and how it was violated; you should also provide WP:DIFFs to support your claim. Otherwise, going around accusing others of violating policy is eventually going to be seen as WP:ASPERSIONS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamill House

Thanks for stepping in at Hamill House. I noticed it while patrolling recent changes and was about to notify an admin. Just a note, the Parker controversy content was all copied from the link (in case it needs to be redv). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see it was already hidden. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV and I found it at the same time. I revdel'd BLP violations and the disruptive inside joke that kept reappearing to keep it from being added back. Sarah took care of protection. Just some standard late adolescent vandalism with a little added defamation. Acroterion (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would really appreciate if I could chime in here. The events described in the Parker section are factual and not intended as any kind of "adolescent vandalism." What can I do to make this section fit for Wikipedia? Would it be helpful if I found more sources or wrote a more concise passage?

Block evasion taken care of. Wikipedia isn't a forum where you can defame your roommates. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question

Do you forgive me for all the wrong things I've done here? VeenM64 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FFS, just let it go, VeenM64. If you keep holding on to this, it's not going to get better. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion&oldid=827331112"