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
Line 1,453: Line 1,453:
:Then you should easily be able to find reliable secondary sources that say so. You may ''not'' [[WP:SYNTH|synthesize]] a conclusion based on your own reading. That violates sourcing policy, and since it's a biographical assertion, it violates the biographies of living persons policy to do as you're trying to do. '''<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>''' 21:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
:Then you should easily be able to find reliable secondary sources that say so. You may ''not'' [[WP:SYNTH|synthesize]] a conclusion based on your own reading. That violates sourcing policy, and since it's a biographical assertion, it violates the biographies of living persons policy to do as you're trying to do. '''<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>''' 21:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


Then how comes all the other personalities are on the list, as they fail those criterias as well ?
:;Then how comes all the other personalities are on the list, as they fail those criterias as well ? [[Special:Contributions/86.163.132.20|86.163.132.20]] ([[User talk:86.163.132.20|talk]]) 21:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:51, 8 December 2019

Signpost


Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Not Addressed, I will Contact Wikipedia.

The revision is based on the source provided by the Author reading "Page Not Found" when followed. This is not objective writing, this is simply claiming a fact with a non existing source. If you do not remove the false claim before providing a source further action will be taken.

"Page Not Found" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.24.220 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reference was provided. It doesn't have to be online, and your inability to review the source doesn't justify removal, far less your declarations that there is something actionable about it. Bring it up on the article talkpage in an appropriate manner - i.e., not as an accusation - and discuss. Bluster is not a justification for removal. By the way, you have contacted Wikipedia already - here and through your edits, which other editors have noticed and reverted. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, your claim of a hate crime - does that mean Wikipedia can be sued by Thomas of Monmouth after 850 years? Just asking. Otherwise, you seem to be reading the account of the libel as a true account. Acroterion (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive behavior

Hi! You have blocked Jazz1972 for one month for "continued personal attacks after previous block for same, nationalist POV warring" [1] in February 2019. The user was absent from WP since then, only to re-appear yesterday to repeat his personal attacks against me and IamNotU [2]. His edits were reverted by a third user, TU-nor [3]. Previous discussion at ANI here. I thought I should let you know. Thanks. Cinadon36 20:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you possibly have a friendly word with Eibln (talk · contribs). He keeps creating categories with just one entry [Here[4] and here[5] for just two examples] or NAVBOX with just one or two. Even though around 20 of his NAVBOX are currently at TFD[6], and I tried having a friendly word with him[7], he went ahead and created two more NAVBOX (here[8] and here[9]) like all those at TFD. If you don't know, NAVBOX with zero to two links are routinely deleted at TFD. BTW, Smithtown New York one of the sportspeople categories I linked to is very close to where I lived till I was 15 and due to my father owned two businesses in that town. Smithtown was also home to cousins of mine, so I spent alot of time there. Thanks for the help....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to run out on errands, I'll look at it when I get back. I agree that navboxes should have at least have half a dozen links, preferably live, to justify their existence. It's not exactly disruptive, but it is something of a time-waster for all concerned. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We agree. It isn't disruptive, just time wasting. When you have time some gentle words from you might help. The editor does otherwise very good work on softball related artices....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 World Trade Center

Hello Acroterion, Could I just call your attention to the activities of 181.127.141.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), based in Asuncion, Paraguay; who has now changed dates on 2 World Trade Center three times without any supporting sources. I have left two notes on their Talk page to no avail and they are still reverting to their unsourced version. Can I leave with you please? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your question from the Acroterion article space (an understandable mistake) to here. I've semi-protected the article for a week or so. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all your help and my apologies, but life has been difficult recently. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block of SparmSperm

You may also want to block SpermSparm. S0091 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe Ted Katschyński MISZCZklanausran. S0091 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from WilliamJE

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at WilliamJE's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Editor Eibln (The one I wrote about who was creating categories and NAVBOX) came to my talk page. You might want to read it and comment. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

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) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi Acroterion. Could you take a look at these edits which I think warrant being revdel'ed per WP:BLP etc. Many thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do - revisions deleted. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Railfan23 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another duck quacking

Libbycoifs (talk · contribs). A recently created account and every edit of theirs is related to Mercy College in New York....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Favor

Would it be at all possible if I could ask your assistance to have an IP blocked, for a while? 139.195.53.91 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is the latest IP being used by a long term, block-evading, IP-hopping vandal who, when haunting the IP ranges of 139.XXX.XX.XX and 140.xxx.xx.xx constantly spams pages with inappropriate, nonexistent, and or inappropriate and nonexistent categories, as well as insert poorly written original research opinions. And, if not blocked, the vandal will continue with its unhelpful edits until it moves onto another IP or is blocked. I would give it warnings, but, years of dealing with it show that it never bothers using its (IPs') talkpages beyond misusing them as sandboxes.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional squamates"? Crikey. Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arigato gyoza Christmas--Mr Fink (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could we renew the block you gave 139.195.53.91? It's active again. THank you in advance.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel again

Hi Acroterion. Sorry to bother you again. Coule you take a look at the contributions of 118.104.114.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They are unsourced and appear to be defamatory. I believe they should be revdel'ed. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're all identical musings on connections with Alibaba and airdrops and stuff and things. I don't see that it's really a BLP issue, so I don't think it qualifies for revdel. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dealing with this sock for the last few of days. Although I've tagged the protections as BLP, I also did not feel they needed to be actually revdel'd. El_C 18:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. I'd thought of it more in the "smear" category of WP:REVDEL, but more than happy to be guided by you on this. Railfan23 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MEOWCAT™️

Hello, would you like a prototype of the new and improved, MEOWCAT™️? We are handing out a cat for you.

Anyways, careful with the cat.

DIEHARD PET STORE

Over 200,000 branches in Wikipedia alone!

DIEHARD PET NO: 2018-002-A

Diehard Pet Store sends cats to various Wikipedians around the world. We use special WikiLove technology to give out cats. Please return cats to A diehard editor, and please send us the DIEHARD PET NO. so we can get the pet back.

A diehard editor (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding My Miley Cyrus contentKillingKiddo (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I respect your feelings but why should her page be unrealistic with facts than other people's pages?

Not wanting a fight, just an open and honest discussion.

Thanks! Kiddo KillingKiddo (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a while to disentangle the mangled syntax in your comment above, but I eventually figured it out. Your Miley Cyrus edit was unsourced - you were out in front of the news cycle, and you provided no substantiation. Everything requires sources, particularly statements that somebody got married. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 93

On the flight 93 page, you will see that three articles are together as part of the same reference, and I was simply making them separate; they have been on the same reference for quite a while now; the references pertain to Leroy Homer’s widow and her belief that her husband was alive after the hijackers took over the plane. I was trying to make them be on separate references. You will see what I mean when you look at reference number 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.19.142.61 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to use an edit summary so we can easily see what you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese people

I just read the body of the article and it is full of affirmations without any source. It cannot be accepted that almost an entire article is devoid of sources. It is true that some parts do have and carry sources together with scientific studies, but many others do not.

I think it is necessary to review it, because it has a great subjective component that is far from reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.222.202.7 (talk • contribs)

I see at least seven references. While the referencing is not optimal, it's far from unsourced. Please use the article talkpage to discusss specific concerns and to propose sources to back up proposed changes. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not say that there are no references, but there are many phrases that do not have any type of source or reference. I will not delete parts with sources or references, it would be appropriate to delete opinions and phrases without source of the article.

If you look at the body of the article there are many unsubstantiated statements, which seem subjective opinions like that Portugal led the entire Age of Discoveries among many others.

Are there references in the article? Yes of course. At least 7, but that does not eliminate the fact that many sentences are undocumented and lacking of sources. {unsigned|46.222.202.7}}

Check all of the references in detail, and don't make large changes without getting consensus on the talkpage first. Be specific, and always discuss on the talkpage. References aren't required for every phrase, but it's best to at least have every paragraph referenced. That doesn't mean that removal of unreferenced paragraphs is appropriate. The talkpage is where discussions belong, not here. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the references further. And I'll start a Talk on Wikipedia.

However, the fact that a paragraph has a source does not allow you to post any opinion or phrase without foundation in that paragraph.

I will not eliminate large parts, but small details that are clearly opinions and agenda, and the rest I will do once I start a Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.222.202.7 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Don't forget to provide sources for your own proposed edits, and remember that talkpage discussions can unfold over days and weeks. You can place {{cn}} tags at places where you think citations are needed in the article. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me

I have as much right to post to talk pages about disputing content in articles as anyone else. No article was changed, but i protest and demand a moderator look into the anti conservative bias in several articles linked to Russia collusion investigation as well as presidency of donald Trump or the lack of mentions of hillary Clinton campaign involvement in the Russia fusion gps scandal Markvrb (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are subject to the same rules as any other editor. You may not post defamation anywhere on Wikipedia, and you may not abuse talkpages as a forum for your personal views. Acroterion (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted notification/tone left on my user page.

You left a threatening note suggesting I had engaged in "disruptive editing" on the page for Might is Right. You threatened me with a block if I "persisted", as it were. What are you talking about? Can you list the "disruptive edits" you're referring to? Notanipokay (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be this nonsense [10],. but you already know that. Whatever the document is, it's not a "communist manifesto," and it has nothing to do with anti-fascism. If you keep making up nonsense like that you'll lose editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also wasn't 'my' edit. For all of the sixty-odd edits to that page in the past 48 hours, you're awfully belligerent over a single revert. You need a break. Notanipokay (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You took ownership of the vandalism when you reverted its removal. You're warned for that. Don't do that kind of thing again. Bluster is a poor rsponse. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

No need to use the harsh words "isn't appropriate" or block me from editing.

Quite a shame, as the book is public and reveals truths about the institution advertised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marypowellcsw (talk • contribs)

I've warned you three times that adding one's own publication isn't appropriate and is in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. You've ignored those warnings. Please read and abide by the requirements I posted at your talkpage. You may also wish to read Wikipedia's advice on righting great wrongs. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What do you mean? As soon as I got your messages I refrained from further writing. I think it isn’t “appropriate” to be mean to people. I had no idea about these rules until you said them and I took no further action. Please be nicer and more appropriate. Marypowellcsw (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the COI notice on your talkpage after your initial edit, and warned you again when you reposted the same material. I warned you again after you added the book the third time, and I protected the article. Please refrain from using Wikipedia to publicize your own work.It's something that is very much frowned upon on Wikipedia - WP policy is very clear on COI editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

acroterion

Hey, for Bank of Andalusia, would you call it a "pseudo-pediment" like the NRHP document does, or can it properly just be called an acroterion? --Doncram (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) reads article Acroterion. Acroteria are very pretty! Bishonen | talk 11:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Think of them as Greek gargoyles, things perched up there to pretty up the corners, usually derived from a vegetable form. We don't get to do them very often nowadays.
@Doncram: I think the author of the NRHP doc was free-associating it a little. It looks to me like they are interpreting the very slightly sloping top of the front parapet as an allusion to a pediment, and the knob at the middle as a sort of acroterion form. Acroteria go on the ends and middle of a pediment, the terms are not interchangeable. Me, if I was describing it without reference to the NRHP narrative, would call it something like a "slightly sloping parapet resembling an attenuated pediment, with a central projection alluding to an acroterion." You can really get down in the weeds in Greek-derived design terminology, with guttae, triglyphs, metopes ... Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always thought it sounded a bit pretentious. User:Egg-and-Dart might be a good alternative, though it might be interpreted as a chain of breakfast restaurants offering activities that might not be wise first thing in the day. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better at 11 AM than 11PM; I've always though putting dartboards in pubs was simply asking for trouble  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 10:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alohaphone

I'm near 100% certain that this is an LTA sock; I've modified the block to be indefinite and with talk page access and email disabled. If you object, please let me know (ping me if you respond here so that I'm notified) and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I doubt you're going to care, but I figured that I'd let you know just in case. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: I meant to block indef - that tendency for Twinkle to reset block durations if you change the reason is irritating. All good. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet deal. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Church

What do you think of St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland) now? I plan to get some new pictures next week. TwoScars (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better, but I think the text is a bit tangential in places. I'll leave a few review comments on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate any help. Might be hard to believe, but I cut out much of the harassment of Catholics in Maryland content that was in a sandbox version—too off topic. Shamefully, I live in Maryland but knew little about its beginnings. Just about anybody from Maryland that goes to the MD-DE beaches is aware of the church, but few know anything about it. TwoScars (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion—you for your help with St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland). I have taken the advice and changed the very last citation from a web page (with the scroll down advice) to a book. The old web citation is still there, but commented out. The "trouble-maker" citation in the Info box is still there—hopefully that problem will be fixed everywhere soon, and I want to be consistent with other pages that discuss something in the National Register of Historic Places. The trouble with the National Register link is why I used the Maryland Historical Trust (the second citation) to link to a copy of the National Register Nomination Form. The church was fun to work on—a nice break from my usual American Civil War or glass making. I have two more (in Easton) that I might do next spring. Your time was appreciated. TwoScars (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

revert on my talk page

I believe I owe you a thank you for the revert on my talk page but I'm not entirely sure because the edit you reverted doesn't make sense and the edit summary was deleted. Was this something random or targeted specifically at me? Thanks, --В²C ☎ 17:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was random nonsense, and the edit summary included a couple of names and phone numbers, for no obvious reason. Nothing to do with you, specifically. Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

You missed this revision. Adam9007 (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for giving me clarification on the use of article talk pages, it was very helpful in creating a proper format for edit requests! I hope to help keep the platform professional and accurate, and can do so just a bit better thanks to your help!

DartKitten (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute Resolution

I have mentioned you as a participate in a dispute resolution here. Thank you for your time and I apologize if anything I have said comes off as rough. I'm only trying to resolve things amicably for everyone. --Emma (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in the dispute: I'm concerned about editor conduct and respect for BLP. Acroterion (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading edit summaries

You have left me some boilerplate text falsely accusing me of not explaining my edits, and you have undone the work I put in to improve an article. You need to read edit summaries before you go around making accusations like that. As you were apparently not able to read them in the article's history, here they are:

  • fixed really basic style errors
  • this whole section has nothing to do with the topic of the article
  • likewise, this has nothing to do with the Darwin cemetery

You are welcome to offer your own rationale for restoring what I took out; you are not welcome to pretend that I didn't give reasons for my edits. 46.208.236.138 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article page have talkpages for a reason. Please make a case there for your removals. It was not immediately obvious that your edit summary backed up your edits, and significant changes should not be made with only an edit summary for justification. Acroterion (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained my edits; you did not bother to explain your undoing of my work. If you need reminding, your edit summary was this:
Reverted edits by 46.208.236.138 (talk) to last version by Wee Curry Monster
It seems to me that if I make a clearly explained edit, you revert it without explanation, and then accuse me of not explaining my edit, you're simply trolling. So how about you stop doing that and start editing constructively. 46.208.236.138 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a substantial amount of sourced content with minimal explanation. You are also behaving like the Best Known For IP. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to want an explanation that I already gave; meanwhile I want an explanation for why you reverted which you haven't given. I do not know what your second sentence means but it suggests again that improving articles is not really your concern here. 46.208.236.138 (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not know what your second sentence means..." Yes you do. Antandrus (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

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) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

GoldRingChip (talk · contribs) keeps insisting on putting redirects into Congressional articles that redirect right back to the very same article in violation of WP:SELFRED. I have found three recently created articles by him full of these violations. Here is a link to the discussion at my talk page[11] and the post[12] I made at his page today. This is WP:DISRUPT in my opinion. Remember Neelix and all his bad redirects or goofy pages?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example- 1913 United States House of Representatives elections which GRC created last June or 10 months after the discussion at my talk page. Click on any of the links 'elected' and you get sent right back to the same page. He's made a 100 (At least since August 2018) of these bad redirects even though they know it violates SELFRED. If that isn't a violation of WP:DISRUPT, I don't know what is....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

They seem to be responding now. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Calling Green New Deal legislation rather than economic stimulus or spending package - good edit. BattleshipGray (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought of it shortly after I saved that first edit. Can you do better than the NY Post for a reference on that other edit? Acroterion (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit LTA block?

Looks like another IP and those two pages with same edit counts from yesterday [[13]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An El Salvador IP, so blocked as a proxy too. Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oath Keepers

I don't have time to fight with you on Wikipedia, or research the legal maze of ridiculous clauses you're sure to pull on me from the Wiki rules. Suffice it to say, the fact of the matter with the Oath Keepers is that the *facts* in the matter are that their opponents make a claim about them being anti-government. That is fact. What is not fact is that they "are" anti-government. If they were to say they are anti-Government, then it would be a fact.

Similarly, you are asking me to prove a negative (prove they're not anti-government). As a computer scientist working for NASA, I'm well versed in logic, and I can tell you this, proving a negative is virtually impossible, and is an unfair bar to set for anything, even on Wikipedia. We've been trying for decades to prove that NP complete problems are in fact unsolvable with traditional computation in polynomial time. It's likely something that will never happen.

You're not asking me to do something that daunting, but it's a fairly simple assessment. No member of Oath Keepers would describe the *organization* as anti-government. Individuals may be, but then again, individuals of your high school graduating class were probably racist, that doesn't mean your high school graduating class was racist, nor you.

I suggest we stick to facts. My edits on the page are more factually correct than the previous version, and they should be retained.

Barwick (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't use self-description for politically-oriented organizations, it relies on third-party sourcing in major media for sourcing. Few organizations' self-description can be taken at face value, and Wikipedia relies on secondary sourcing to provide the necessary at-a-distance context. You've found no consensus for your changes so far, and you've presented no independent sources that describe OK in the manner that you present. As I noted, there are nine separate sourced - the Guardian, the ADL, the New York Times, Politico, the Chicago Tribune,the Independent and the Washington Post, apart from perhaps more partisan sources like Salon and Fox News. In al there are 70 references. Attacking the SPLC doesn't change that. Please read WP:RS. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of them quoted nearly verbatum from the SPLC. You are unfairly requiring me to prove a negative. This is why conservatives like me with real lives and a passing interest in Wikipedia don't bother with jumping through these hoops. I'm basing this on fact, I've made a factual statement, and you're saying I can't say those facts. This is absurd. If someone wrote an article about you that was factually incorrect, and nobody else in the world cared about it but you, you are going to find *ZERO* "articles" in existence disproving that "fact" that someone claimed about you. It is an utterly absurd requirement. Barwick (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your evidence for saying that all those cited sources merely "quoted verbatim" from the SPLC? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Find independent sources that support your assertion that everybody else is wrong. That's the basis of the encyclopedia. There are 70 references, and the SPLC is well-established on Wikipedia as a reliable source on its own (as opposed to infallible, which no source is). If the only thing you can provide is a personal assertion that all of those media outlets have it wrong, or are blind uncritical followers of the SPLC, then you'll have trouble getting any change. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up if you want to take part, discussing this via dispute resolution, link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Oath_Keepers Barwick (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion, I feel that I should apologize because it was my suggestion to Barwick that they proceed to dispute resolution. I tried to paraphrase what I thought their concerns were, but it's apparent their issues went deeper than that, and they possibly wanted to change how the entire article was describing the group. (Although I still think that anti-government is not very descriptive in that groups like Oath Keepers become pro-government during Republican administrations, and that saying what a group is against may not describe very well what they're for.) In any event, I thank you for your time spent on this. Warm regards,  Spintendo  06:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. We occasionally get people who really just want to have an argument - I'm reminded of the Monty Python Argument Clinic sometimes. The whole discussion is doomed from the start. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US Military Ratings

After the Mogadishu Mile the US military started a higher rating system for powerful threats.

  • MIL-IV: 7.62x54mm AP, 7.62x51mm M61, 5.45x39mm 7N22
  • MIL-V: 5.45x39mm 7N24, .338 Ball, 9.3x64mm Brenneke
  • MIL-VI: .338 AP, 7.62x54mm 7N33, 7.62x54mm 7N37, 5.45x39mm 7N39
  • MIL-VII: .338 SLAP
  • MIL-VIII: 12.7x108mm Ball
  • MIL-IX: 12.7x108mm APDS, 14.5x114mm Ball
  • MIL-X: 14.5x114mm AP

My name is not anywhere (I hope not) the video is a YouTuber who shot the only Mil-VIII I can find online (loPSYWJyGjY) LeanZambia (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You copied your username into the article. A YouTube video is not a suitable source, please find a published source for your additions. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Platform Management Interface

Hi, if you have time, can you protect the above from unexplained deletions. Many thanks Denisarona (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I see the latest IP is already blocked. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Many thanks. Denisarona (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP at Talk:Antifa

I blocked them before I saw that, they'd had a number of warnings for various edits and their repeated edit at Code Pink was the last straw for me. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're an IP sockpuppet of a banned user in any case. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) Page

Hello Acroterion,

I am trying to edit and wrote the page to be a factual representation of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). You have said I’m having copyright problems; you have now protected the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) page and hidden content. The page was not written by a UDC member, and I would like to factual update the page and truthfully represent the organization. By your actions, I most be doing something wrong. If you could assist me in resolving these issues, it would be appreciated.

99MJM1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99MJM1 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're removing all of the references and copying in something from the UDC website, so you're removing sources and content and violating copyright. There's a talkpage available for you to discuss your edits first. Please review the extensive discussions there, it will give you a better understanding about how the article got to its present form and why it says what it says. Wikipedia relies on what mainstream sources say about organizations, not what they say about themselves. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi I'm writing different articles on wikipedia on different celebrities , my english is ok but it may have some grammar mistakes. this is an article i've created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_Shabaz but someone has put deletion because he think its a promotional stuff. but if you read it you will understand it is not. Shahid shabaz is a winner of voice of uae and he has performed in an event which was organized by 'peace for harmony' for victims of easter church bombing. an event was witnessed by me. i request you to help me creating this.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LA political vandal

Hello! Thanks for banning Dingleberry dropper. Just FYI, I think it is probably the same person as 2600:100D:B12F:A7B2:2DF8:6E26:ED25:777F, who made a similar sort of vandal edit at Charles Philippe Aubry. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got them, added the image to the bad images filter and hard-rangeblocked the IP. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! One more to add, Farctum seems to be part of the same cluster. Since all the vandalised pages are ones that link to my user page, I'm guessing I may have pissed someone off. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and revdel'd. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q

[14] Doug Weller talk 12:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the ,,, erm ... phenomenon. I just wasn't sure which editor they were attacking. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frye Gaillard

Hey, sorry to hear that, about your folks. Anyway, here's a guy who really needs an article. I'm watching a program honoring him on TV, for an award for his book A Hard Rain. I'd get on it but I have a roast in the oven. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he needs an article. Not tonight, though, but I'm willing to give it a shot tomorrow.
Even on central time you're running kind of late with dinner. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Truth's been trying to reset my password. Acroterion (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start at User:Acroterion/Frye Gaillard. There are a lot of basic biographical facts needed. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forced conversion: Hinduism

Just letting you know that disruption on that article continues, this time from another new user who removed the disputed tag saying there is no dispute, but at the same time, failed to engage me on the article talk page — where my comments remain sadly in total solitude. El_C 03:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death

I saw you reverted my edit on Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. If you dispute this edit I urge you to discuss the topic at Talk:Conspiracy_theories_about_Adolf_Hitler's_death#Bariloche_nazi-guía_turística_and_Abel_Basti where I have explained the rationale on why mention Abel Basti and his work in the article. Dentren | Talk 12:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have talkpage consensus for your change. Wait for consensus, don't just insert you preferred version. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the talk have refuted the reasons to not include the content as not being valid. I have waited three weeks for an answer on my objections. That seems enought time considering AfDs just tend to last about that time, if not less. If people oppose an legitimate edit and do not engage in the talk page, there is no need to "wait for consensus". 13:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)13:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Dentren | Talk 13:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it works. Just because people are tired of discussing the same thing with you over again doesn't entitle you to claim that you can go ahead with the disputed change. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because people are tired of discussing the same thing with you" is just you opinion, talk for your self. Wikipedia does not work by obstructing each others contribution and refuse to discuss by claiming "people are tired", clearly the discussion is not overly long. If you are tired you should take a rest before you come back and edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Dentren | Talk 14:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and so that is why wikipedia is losing popularity ...and if kkk is a hate group so is African centralism , and left groups ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SERGIO GAUCI (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Cccxrfyh1joel

Seriously considering an indef block here. They’ll likely continue this behaviour after their block is done. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I indeffed them before I saw your message - there's no indication that they have the slightest inbterest in the project as an encyclopedia, only as a free forum for their personal point of view. Next step will probably be talkpage revocation. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Acroterion,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the article 2b2t

The 2b2t article has the following notes:

This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

03:27, 19 August 2017 Acroterion talk contribs protected 2b2t [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated) (hist) 03:27, 19 August 2017 Acroterion talk contribs deleted page 2b2t (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) 00:07, 16 August 2017 Metropolitan90 talk contribs deleted page 2b2t (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) 22:59, 4 September 2016 RHaworth talk contribs deleted page 2b2t (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, A7)

If you do a quick search on '2b2t' you will see it has significance. The subreddit is the second most popular after /r/minecraft and has had over 350,000 players join. It has been featured in articles from The Independent, Newsweek, VICE Motherboard, Kotaku, IGN. It definitely has more significance than many other articles on Wikipedia. What can be done to reopen the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.121.181 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Register an account and create a sourced article in draftspace or userspace, then request that the name be unprotected. The deleted content was trivial and unsourced, and isn't going to be any help in writing a useful article. Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

This is just an unrelated coincidence, right? Drmies (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol. That's him. Some days he spends six or seven hours straight doing nothing but harassing us. Literally nothing else. Antandrus (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I got some obscenely poorly written emails, something about meeting me on the field of honor. Is it Nate Speed, with his dumb all-caps insults and this fetishistic chatter about his fist? That person has been here so long they must be an adult even if they started at age 9. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not Nate but another guy -- this one. I'm thinking it's time to write a new LTA page. I don't really like writing those, i.e. DENY and all, but sometimes you need a link for the really persistent nutters so those newly blindsided know what they are dealing with. And for the last couple months he's been relentless. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I wasn't familiar with this one. Then again, in the end, what does it matter--they're really all the same. They all think they're right and unique and OH NO IM NOT LIKE A TYPICAL VANDAL AT ALL, but they're wrong. As for DENY, I don't know. Maybe some of these fools get a kick out of being talked about ("there's no such thing as bad publicity") but I don't really care what they think; so yes, I'd be for that. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you think the same way I do -- I remember writing somewhere "all vandals are the same vandal; differentiating them is pointless" or something similar. I'm going to do it. He's currently one of the most prolific xwiki pests. Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

Every year the same shows about it...to the point where it makes me numb almost. I think I said this before but we aren't too far yet from having 18 year olds fighting in Afghanistan that were not even born when the attacks happened. OBLs goal of causing considerable expenditure in lives and money was a success. The same money could have allowed us to generate nearly half our electrical needs with green energy by now.--MONGO (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(tps comment)... yeah, I'm torn about watching anything tonight. Usually every year I do. This day makes me so sad, every year. It's hard to get my head around everything that changed that day. I still remember that feeling of dread when I watched the second plane hit. This changes everything, I thought. Everything. And not for the better. Antandrus (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That second plane definitely just made me mad as hell. That first week after, hoping some survivors could be found at the WTC was so disappointing for wveryone.--MONGO (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a personal level, it has taken some of the joy out of a beautiful early fall day - I remember thinking that morning as I went to my 8:30 jobsite meeting that it was a particularly fine day. And later in the day, there was the silent, empty sky. In the Baltimore/Washington area, the sky is never empty. Eventually there were circular contrails high up from the AWACS, combat air patrol and tankers. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup...Bush came to Omaha on 9/11 and I saw Air Force One briefly and it looked like 4 fighter jets nearby. Otherwise, the airspace was all quiet save a few AF jets.--MONGO (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Quinn

All I attempted to do was to ask a question on a talk page--a question which I revised three times to try and please the special Zoe Quinn standards--which Jorn badly misconstrued, and apparently that's my fault. 

-Phone Charger (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were spitballing insinuations of murder. If you do anything of the sort again, I will block you. Acroterion (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not. Any implication that I did is ridiculous. I can see that the Zoe Quinn special treatment effects even people's reading comprehension and amps up their unfounded defensiveness to toxic levels. I have donated annually to Wikipedia for over a decade, but I will not donate this year, and possibly never again. I will leave it to others to pay.
That is all. Thank you and goodbye.
-Phone Charger (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself. If you'd made the same insinuation on any other biography of a living person on Wikipedia, you'd receive the same warning. It's a direct violation of the biographies of living persons policy, whether it's Zoe Quinn or Theresa May. Acroterion (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Suit myself" with what? I meant I thought we were done talking. Perhaps in your head, but I made no insinuations. Bottom line, I'm not going to give this site money ever again. Others can pay for my use (mostly for looking up things) in perpetuity. You deserve no money. You're too hooked on the power you get as a mod for the site you allegedly represent for it to get money.
Thank you.
- Phone Charger (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

Thx for protecting Del Bigtree. In the same light, could you look at Informed Consent Action Network and consider protecting it for the same reasons? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they wee both getting hit yesterday, it was only a matter of time before today's attention was transferred to ICAN. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi, can you please delete the redirects of 2019–20 SC Paderborn 07 season and 2019–20 SC Freiburg season? Thanks--Sakiv (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit reflects the citations.

My edit reflects the citations already in the article. The previous version before my edits was unclear about who did the considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the citation - it's a lot broader than that. Use the talkpage to explain why it should be so narrowly framed to just two communities. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly considers minors to be "incapable of meaningfully consenting to sexual activity until they reach a certain age" according to the citations in your view? --2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Donovan/Guttmacher, "law enforcement officials, reproductive health care providers, women's rights activists and policy analysts" and the W&M journal mentions among others the California Alliance for Statutory Rape Enforcement and welfare officials in its analysis, apart from the legal analysis. Neither source restricts itself to the views of legal and psychological experts, even the W&M Journal of Women and the Law. Sourcing to a law review article doesn't mean that only legal experts hold a particular point of view. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Interviews conducted with law enforcement officials, reproductive health care providers, women's rights activists and policy analysts in the summer and fall of 1996 found advocates of tougher enforcement of statutory rape laws suggesting that such an approach is a worthwhile strategy to consider, even if it turns out to have little or no effect on adolescent pregnancy and birth rates." Is this what you're referring to? This doesn't actually indicate their opinion on whether minors are "incapable of meaningfully consenting to sexual activity until they reach a certain age". It indicates their opinion on enforcing statutory rape laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see explicit support for your preferred text? The article is about pederasty, not about more legally contentious activity between minors or people of relatively adjacent ages. I'm still not seeing that there is an explicit reason to limit the declaration to two fields and only to them - it introduces doubt by omission. The richest sources are obviously in law and psychology: however, this is a sensitive topic, and attempts to narrow the focus to certain segments of society and scholarship need to be carefully considered, as this topic has seen occasional disruption from advocates for other points of view. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP has now found himself blocked for 24 hours. [15] As I explained there, this is almost certainly someone who did this before recently. I would have preferred a longer block this time. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that earlier IP once I started looking around. Given that this general topic has sen attempts at inappropriate advocacy in the past, I expect editors who pose questions like that to be more forthcoming about why such narrowing is vital. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Should it be protected? That will at the very least keep this person from hopping to another IP and coming back. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I don't think it needs to be protected. If the IP starts up again a /64 block for a longer term would take care of the problem. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens should I let you know? At the 'quick action' noticeboards I've had inconsistent results that make me think they didn't even read my brief comment. As just one example, I put Vorarephilia on RPP because of an IP hopper, and they issued blocks. The person promptly got a new IP yet again and did the same vandalism. Actual protection would have saved time. And this latest time where they got a shorter block for an apparently repeat offense. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For my part as sort-of-involved, I would prefer semi-protection if I was to take action, to force discussion - I wasn't going to do anything administrative in this evening's matter in any case. Keep in mind that it's not high-level disruption, it's nuance, and it isn't terrible if the IP's preferred language is there for a while - it's not wrong, it's just narrow and oddly focused. Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source

MeForum.org is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources 46.212.241.21 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? Take it up at WP:RSN and don't remove it until you've gotten feedback supporting your contention. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, "MEF promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats." Perhaps not the best introduction to a neutral source, there, so I tend to agree with your assessment. You might want to remember to explain things like that rather than the rather flat "unreliable source" assertion. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Acroterion,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made by an LTA

You may want to revdel the other edits made by an LTA on Jimbo Wales's talk page. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 09:40, 22 September 2019 (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 18:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on sight, no need to read it as I know the answer! Doug Weller talk 18:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


List of United States Air Force squadrons

Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Air Force squadrons. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was constructive because it removed speculative, obfuscating material from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:100:CD84:692F:3E3D:4920:DB4E (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Wow, you guys really move quickly to ban any editors whom you disagree with. You should take a page (no pun intended) out of Fahrenheit 451! https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:100:CD84:692F:3E3D:4920:DB4E (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a forum for you to promote racist conspiracy theories as "phenomena" [16]. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Laxalt revdel request

Hi Acroterion, can you please revdel these edits: [[17]] and [[18]]. Looks like they are still at it and probably need to be blocked as well. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel'd and blocked. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message

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.

--Sakiv (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Aresimowicz copyvio

Hey Acroterion, hope all is well. Looks like there are a few of remaining copyright violations in the page history, see [19] and [20]. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got them. The editor couldn't take a hint, I guess - but any username with "truth," "balanced," or "integrity" is a red flag. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea frog images were not allowed in Wiki Talk. Is there a link explaining all Talk page rules?

How would I know using a frog image after asking my questions on Wikipedia Talk would get anyone upset? I would never think that would be judged inappropriate but know I know. While you explained that I should not do use frog images in the Talk sections, you did not answer any of the questions I asked on those Talk pages today. I used the frog image on 3 Talk pages I think, that were related to Kekistan, to show that I am serious and not joking. I get accused of being insincere but I am not. Do you know the answers to any of the questions I asked? Why isn’t Kekistan listed as a micronation? How is a conceptual country different from a fictional country? I am trying to be helpful and I am learning Wiki as I go. Obviously Wiki admin can bounce me for rule violations but I would not be breaking rules intentionally. The whole reason I used the Talk sections was to stay out of trouble. And to learn how to go about making proper edits so I do not get in trouble from admin. If there is a link to a Wiki Rules page that explains how I broke a rule by adding a frog image, then I would much appreciate having the link. I would like to learn all the rules for the Talk sections. I am learning the rules for the Article sections. I figured the Talk sections were for asking questions when you did not know the rules and protocols. DErnestWachter (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been extensive trolling with Kekistan and Pepe-related edits. We have no sense of humor about it, don't waste our time or yours. Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Headaches at MOS:CHINA

Hi there Acroterion,

A certain editor has been making repeated problematic edits over at MOS:CHINA, and a few of us have had to regularly revert him. I recently learned that this is part of an ongoing saga, and that the editor in question (Geographyinitiative (talk · contribs)) is recently returned from a block you gave him for this very behavior, or at least something closely related to it. He has deleted this material from his talk page, and so I only learned about this when another editor mentioned it in passing.

Here is a list of said edits from the past 36 hours:

Each of these was reverted (the last one was self-reverted at another's urging). A small section on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Historical and alternative transliterations) clearly showed no consensus for the changes. We'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at the situation. I can post this elsewhere if required. Thanks in advance!  White Whirlwind  咨  21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Acroterion,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear abuse of editing privileges to promote racism.

The only clear and logical reason to deny a person's identity or to proclaim they are "partly" indigenous when they have clearly identified as being Indigenous Australian is racism. It's also not a matter of what part of you is indigenous or how much. It also promotes the Barack Obama argument... Which part of me is "black" is it my left or right arm? There is no qualifier to indigeneity in Australia other than being accepted as such by your community and self-identifying. Ash Barty has done both. She is a noted indigenous community member, removing these details clearly has severely racialised problems that are common among right-leaning people in Australia and elsewhere in the world. There is also no need for an RFC over commonly accepted terms either. There is no dispute that the correct term for describing her in Australia is Indigenous Australian from any widely accepted perspective. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people racists for daring to disagree with you is unlikely to win any arguments. Step back and reconsider your approach. Calling people who disagree with you racists at ANI isn't productive or wise. I have no views on what the content should be, nor is ANI a place to resolve that. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not name-calling when I have clearly explain the case why it is in front of you and the problem with the logic in at least one of those arguments. If you want to just smack me down for name-calling for using the term racist then you become part of the problem and it's exactly why I have no faith in Wikipedia nor any active or previously active account. In coming to your decision you have only submitted that racism is perfectly OK on Wikipedia. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ANI addresses behavioral matters. You have a content dispute that you've personalized, calling other editors racists. The ANI report was closed because your denuciations were becoming steadily more shrill. Take a walk or something, and come back when you aren't editing from a point of outrage. As a suggestion, we generally characterize people by how they personally identify - Barack Obama and Kamala Harris being examples. We don't use a logical deconstruction from an outsider's point of view. Use that in a polite discussion. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection ~ AT&T Stadium

Hi Acroterion! I edited User talk:El C's talk page about an hour ago ~ see below ~ but I guess she has a life also ~ there has been at least 5 more afterwards~

Hi El C! can you protect this page please ~ seems to me that a user is creating more than one account and vandalizing from more than one computer ~ [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], Thanks ~

thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not even playoff season yet. 24 hours should do it. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

ATT Stadium ~
~Thank you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About time for a block...

on that IP at Talk:Comet Ping Pong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

check email NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt National Park

That's a beautiful image on your page. I love that place. Some years ago I visited, and we had a most strange experience on a long, narrow, dead-end road: coming out, right at sunset, a herd of bison had blocked the road so I could not get by. They wouldn't move. Got out, said -- hey you. Get up. They were most unimpressed. I backed up and drove at them fast, hitting the brakes, multiple times. Took more than an hour, but eventually the two or three lying on the roadway got up and ambled away. We laughed, but the buffalo may have laughed more. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly before that picture we spent half an hour easing through a crowd of bison dozing in the road. At least we were on the loop and could have turned around if we had wanted to. They are well aware of who's the boss in that place. We were deeply impressed with TRNP, it surpassed our expectations. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was out there years back. A buddy and I did a long hike which included some offtrail rock hopping. He was in front and pissed off a rattle snake, just in time for me to come along and step where he had been, next to the angry snake. I leapt, we ran a bit. We said "Whew!" and laughed and finished the hike. Back at the campground I realized the snake was only pretending to be mad and it was really a ploy to get my wallet to fall out of my pocket. So all I can say is watch out for that place, because the rattlers are crooks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And people wonder why I prefer to enjoy the great outdoors from the comfort and safety of my living room while watching the National Geographic channel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

email

Please check email NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My attempted edit to Blood Libel

I objected to the word "allegedly" to qualify the statement that the earliest blood libels had no mention of Jews using blood to bake Passover matzos. In the case of William of Norwich this is not disputed. See details in 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. RPSM (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In removing the "allegedly" the rest of the sentence deteriorated. You might want to review whether the William of Monmouth portion of your edit belongs there. That was the interjection I mentioned in my edit summary. Acroterion (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: William of Norwich was the victim found in Thorpe Wood with head wounds. Thomas of Monmouth was the monk who wrote the account in Latin. I admit I found myself dragging extra details in. 

RPSM (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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.— Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

IP:62.172.166.201

Hello Acroterion, Could I please draw your attention to the activities of 62.172.166.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is again adding the host of unsourced material to many BBC articles. They have been blocked at least three times by admins, who no longer seem very active, but are making exactly the same unsourced changes as before. Can I please leave this with you for some action? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments on the Alfred Waterhouse article, Architon

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 12:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that was fast

Was your reversion of Cold War automated? I reached for "undo" immediately after the test edit, but you beat me to it... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just popped up and I reverted - see my note. Obviously, your edits are in good faith. Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - good advice ..

I appreciate your recommendation. I'll work on that.

I have a TON to learn about how to format replies; where can I read more about the means by which to reply in 'talk' pages ... how to critique the remarks of others?

Especially in the event that someone has assumed the role of a 'page's dictator' ..?

(example of someone who acted as though their comments were beyond reproach and their opinions were "superior & final" ...

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrumanLA (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTC

I understand your efforts to moderate the talk page at the WTC collapse, so I thought I'd just offer a suggestion. I think it looks strange that we all give our opinions on the request and then remove the conversation from the talk page. If we're going to delete any mention of controlled demolition from the talk page, I think we need to establish that as a consensus, and then do it in a polite manner when it happens. That is: we delete it, and explain our actions on the user's talk page. I think engaging with his arguments and calling his ideas "claptrap" (I know that wasn't you) during this process is needlessly combative, and is only likely to prolong the conflict. The consensus against mentioning controlled demolition or any other conspiracy in the article is already in place and being observed by everyone. I think we can explain it without insulting anyone. The idea of collapsing any suggestion like this seems pretty good to me. But the message we put in the box could be a bit more helpful.--Thomas B (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it some thought - I have a fair amount of experience with perennial discussions and FAQs from dealing with fascism-related topics, where mixed in with the holocaust deniers and genuine bigots we get a lot of politically-motivated people who take Dinesh D'Souza or Jonathan Goldberg seriously and want to rewrite the article to make fascism, National Socialism (because it says Socialism in the name, rather like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea makes North Korea a democracy), or related matters appear to be products of the Left. It makes people tired and cranky, and sometimes tempers get short. I generally remove abuse and hat rehashes of settled discussion after a decent interval, but those topics have seen much greater disruption and the talkpages of some are permanently semi-protected as a result, as a last resort. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I work a little on the hat you made? You can always revert it, but I think I have an idea for how we can use that tool constructively. (I think we should leave it to you to do it going forward, since you're an administrator.)--Thomas B (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be clear Thomas...in no way, fashion or form would I support any section on "alternative" storyline on that article in question.--MONGO (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)😊[reply]
I totally agree. Once again this is a ploy that I have previously warned about. David J Johnson (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking about different things. I'm not proposing any change to the article. I want to propose a sustainable (administrative) way to reject the familiar attempt to introduce controlled demolition talk into the article. In my opinion, we can't both tell these people that this isn't a CT forum and engage with their suggestions on a point-by-point basis (explaining what those "squibs" really are, etc.) The point is that we don't take those ideas seriously at all. We are familiar with the arguments (and the supposedly "scientific" sources), we have considered them, and we're not hearing anything new. We should just say that and hat the suggestion every time it comes up.--Thomas B (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I had something like this [31] in mind. Only, it could have been applied to the first request, and everything else could have happened on the user's talk page. (The first few follow up comments, if they came, could have been hatted as well, or perhaps just deleted.)--Thomas B (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experience, an FAQ would help a little, but one should not have high expectations. What it mostly does is to give responders to perennial questions an easy, neutral response, like "Please see Q3 in the FAQ at the top of the page." The FAQ should not expend more space than is needed to address the broadest standard answers, and should not go into extensive point-by-point refutations. It won't solve all problems - some fascism-related talkpages ended up perpetually semi-protected. I'd suggest that a subpage be created for the FAQ, with a goal of concision, and avoiding restatement of CT talking points any more than necessary.
Thomas, keep in mind that I consider myself involved on this topic, and won't act in any administrative capacity unless it's plain vandalism or gross BLP violations that would be addressed similarly by any other administrator. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given how rare this actually is these days, I don't think we need a FAQ. But I'm not sure I understand the line you're drawing. In this case you did intervene with the hat. I thought it was a good idea. I believe it should have been done before any of us responded, using a text something like what I proposed,[32] which really just summarizes all of our responses in a civil and informative way. Since both the suggestion and our responses to it are rehashes, there's no need for an original response, nor any charged language. I guess we could agree that any one of us could do this. But hatting (or deleting) a topic seems like an administrative act.--Thomas B (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion is arguably one of the website's most astute administrators, so it's doubtful anything he does is merit less or an abuse of position. Without fully condemning the poster of those threads in question, a brief glance of their short edit history indicates they are, so far at least, not here to do much more than promote fringe theories. In the past, posting like those were summarily reverted and after a few extra attempts to push the issue, the poster got topic banned. So we've evolved perhaps, not sure that's best, but maybe we're all just getting old.--MONGO (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative acts are those undertaken with the toolset given to administrators - blocks, protections and deletions, and by extension, topic bans and other enforcement actions. By deletion, I mean full deletion, rather than just blanking. Blanking, along with hatting, can be done by any editor, including me. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

Hi Acroterion,

Thanks for your message.

I have cited three scientific articles, two from peer-reviewed journals (one article uses data from the US EPA), and one from a scientific magazine Europhysics News) which was also cited to me by a Wikipedia editor to dispute the article I cited.

Can you please advise how these do not fall within the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, because my understanding is that they do.

If you say any source which disagrees with the Wikipedia article is by definition not reliable then you are stuck in a logical loop which would prevent the article from ever being updated in light of advancing knowledge.

Please advise

Dr Realidad (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The journal items aren't peer-reviewed - the Open Chemical Physics Journal has no editorial oversight and has been rejected as a source for Wikipedia content for years, and the European Physics Journal content was a letter, not an article, and was immediately disowned by the journal with a pledge to better review content of all kinds. I don't see that you've mentioned anything from the EPA. You appear to be repeating old talking points that have been repeatedly discredited - there is noting new in what you've posted, which have mostly been attempts over the years by conspiracy theory enthusiasts to manipulate sources to give the appearance that somebody takes them seriously. We're not interested in your personal analysis. Wikipedia reflects mainstream views by design, and describes minority or fringe views explicitly as out-of-the-mainstream. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion please...

On December 13, 2007 you and Deepfriedokra each speedy deleted the article on Carolyn Bothwell Doran. I'd never heard of her, until yesterday, and I had some questions. I had questions about what how she came to be hired, what fallout there was from her hiring, and, well, whether she measured up to our inclusion standards.

I can't remember ever hearing of administrators emailing anyone the source to any deleted article that could be described as a genuine attack page. I am going to request you answer a couple of questions about the article, and I am going to ask you to cut the references it used, and paste them into an email to me.

  1. When was the article first started?
  2. How many edits had it had made to it?
  3. Not counting metadata, like references, was it more than a couple of hundred bytes?
  4. A wikinews article was started the day after your speedy deletions. Ignoring the minor differences due to it being a wikinews article, if this had been published on the wikipedia, would you have speedy deleted it as an attack page?
  5. Do you know of any reason why the wikipedia can't neutrally cover Ms Doran (see below)?

In September 2005 I had my first experience with AFD, and with wikipedia administrators. I was so inexperienced I did not know the wikipedia had administrators, or an AFD process. Starting with Omar Khadr and Murat Kurnaz I had started a handful of articles on individuals held in Guantanamo, and, on a single day, four of them were nominated for deletion.

It was very confusing. One laconic nominator's nomination was two letters long "NN", and he couldn't be bothered to return to explain what that meant.

Another individual, an administrator, asserted that the wikipedia should not cover ANY topic related to Guantanamo, because Guantanamo was an "inherently biased topic", and could only serve as a venue for "POV America-bashing".

I genuinely thought she mis-spoke, and couldn't possibly mean what she said. I suggested that topics were neither biased or non-biased, that it was how we covered topics that could be biased or non-biased. I suggested that there weren't any topics we couldn't cover using a neutral voice if good faith contributors made enough effort.


I still feel that way. The only thing I would add would be "provided we have good references", because September 2005 predates our current system of references.

Normally, I'd assume that, provided there were sufficient good references, there would be no reason why a neutrally written article couldn't be written about Ms Doran. Are either of you aware of a reason why a neutrally written article couldn't be written about Ms. Doran? Geo Swan (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a little research, I actually sort of remember that deletion from 13 years ago. What I deleted (twice) was an attack page and a copyvio (from The Register), which pretty much repeats the content in the AP ref found in the Wikimedia Foundation. Since the content was copied by an account with no other activity, with an apparent intent to disparage, I deleted it as an attack page. Today I would delete it as non-notable and BLPCRIME/BLP1E, ignoring the copy/paste copyvio part and leaving what appeared to be trolling aside as well. Unless there's been something published since then, I see no reason why that would change - Ms. Doran's problems and the WMF's sloppy hiring practices during its infancy aren't matters of even transitory notability, if she hadn't very briefly been a WMF employee, she would never have received what coverage she had.
All edits occurred on 14-15 December 2007. There were a grand total of 10 edits, mostly deletion and copyvio notices or redirects. The effective content, all copied, was 722 bytes, some of that a link to the Register article from which it was copied.
As for the news article, it's not an attack, but it's in no way a basis for a biographical article in a global encyclopedia, any more than when my company hired a person to help out our office manager, who turned out to have a sketchy background (which we learned of when a sheriff showed up with a warrant for her arrest). Needless to say, we check for that sort of thing now too. Unless she's done something else that got coverage, the apparent fact that nothing else has happened in 13 years is a strong argument to leave her alone, as BLP policy expects - articles aren't a means of permanently shaming people or memorializing otherwise non-notable people's problems. The WMF's early HR problems are already covered in the article on the WMF, and a separate biography does nothing to amplify that. This is a good example of BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.
I'm not going to get into a 2005 run-in with what was a very different deletion debate process, when WP was four years old and when our extremely voluminous processes hadn't been formalized. WP:BLP wasn't even created until December 2005. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the prompt reply.
If the article was also a copyvio it unquestionably merited speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: Looking at the deleted versions, it was an attack page and a copyvio. One of the edit summaries from the creator was "reverting censorship". That said, if the subject meets all our polices and guidelines, then we could have an article if one could be written in a neutral manner. If the only content were to be, "this horrid person is horrid and look, the WMF hired her," then not so much. What Acroterion says as well.
Are you aware of any neutral sourcing sufficient to notability requirements and which would provide enough information for a separate article? As for how she came to be hired, you should check and see what reliable sources say on the matter. I don't think that Wikinews article meets inclusion requirements for an encyclopedia, but then it doesn't need to-- it's Wikinews. The Encyclopedia Dramatica has an article with sourcing. It does not show her to meet our inclusion guidelines. Wikipedia Review (of course) has a piece. A cursory search for sources only showed rehashes of "look, (eyeroll or sneer) this former Wikimedia employee is/was horrid." Did not see anything that would pass BLP1E/BLPCRIME.-- Deepfriedokra 08:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deepfriedokra, Thanks for the reply. As I said above, if it were a copyvio then it clearly merited speedy deletion.
  • I did some google searches, and didn't find anything substantive about Ms Doran, from later than 2007.
  • On the other hand, I don't think the coverage of that 2007 incident, in the article on WMF is anywhere near adequate.
  • My google search took me to some of those pages that exist to criticize the wikipedia. Some of the people on those sites are former wikipedia contributors who are under indefinite blocks, and they can be very mean-spirited and unfair. But, in this particular case, I think they made a very valid point.

    People at the WMF were very embarrassed that a felon held a position of trust at what was then a million dollar organization. Jimbo Wales said that, once an audit was completed, if it showed a shortfall, he would pay for the shortfall, from his own pocket. Well, the critics said that no audit results were made public.

    No audit will be adequate, or even meaningful, if proper financial records aren't being maintained.

  • Do you know the story of the final (and only) audit of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), that administered occupied Iraq in 2003 and early 2004? The CPA was supposed to conduct month-end internal audits - and never did any. KPMG did an external, (late) year-end audit, in the CPA's final month, and reported no meaningful audit could be completed because the US officials appointed to administer Iraq did not keep adequate records. They did not use double-entry book-keeping - standard bookkeeping practice for the last 600 years. Rather, I forget the exact term they used, they treated the tens of billions they spent as if it were in a single huge petty-cash fund. KPMG couldn't even get the senior CPA officials to meet with them. KPMG found the CPA had entrusted a single US contractor to keep track of all the tens of billions in funds in an Excel spreadsheet. No, I am not making this up. $8 billion that the CPA spent could not be accounted for.
  • It is possible that, in spite of her past, Ms Doran didn't purloin any WMF funds, but that the financial records weren't robust enough to establish whether she had or hadn't.
  • The wikipedia has had scandals, some get covered, like Essjay, others don't. Like that embittered once-promising writer. Do you remember his case? He was regarded as a promising writer. There are these prestigious writer's workshops, lead by altruistic established writers, where promising aspiring writers do exercises where they rapidly write and then read their work to their peers, for peer criticism. Our hero reacted very badly to the peer criticism. He started writing about the other writers whose criticism had hurt him, and whose careers he was jealous of. He had or acquired enough experience that his trashing of their work, their character, was not detected. He made stuff up, supplying what looked to a surface examination, like adequate references, which apparently no one checked, or no one checked seriously. He targetted dozens of rivals, and got away with his calculated character assassination, for over five years. When caught he was not apologetic. He described his character assassination as not malicious vandalism but rather a whole new kind of literature. No, I am not making this up. I can't tell you where to look for this story, as I can't remember his name. This story was not adequately covered.
  • The WMF, administering donations for the fifth most popular site on the internet, is in the rare position of being a not-for-profit that would be cash-rich. It would be a very attractive target for embezzlers, unless very strict financial controls were kept. If any element of "ignore all rules" crept into the administration of WMF funds, there would be hell to pay.
  • With regard to the idea that Jimbo Wales offered to cover any shortfalls... That doesn't sound right to me. If his offer was that he would cover a shortfall in return for not making the audit public, out of sympathy for Ms Doran's struggles, that particularly doesn't sound right to me. Do you know the story behind the final concert tour elderly Leonard Cohen made? Cohen musical career had been a success. He had more than enough funds to live in luxury, and provide a handsome inheritance to his children. He didn't choose to live in luxury. After picking a friend to administer his fortune for him he lived as a simple buddhist monk for over a decade, until a disgruntled ex-lover of his funds manager told his daughter that she had embezzled everything, and he was broke. She had not only embezzled all his cash and investments, she had sold all the rights to his songs.

    Cohen is a buddhist, and so very forgiving, he did not want to sue her. He could live out the rest of his life on a pittance. But, his lawyers informed him, he was not just broke, she had incurred substantial debt, in his name. So, if he didn't sue her, his creditors would think he was in cahoots with her, and sue him. So, he did sue her, and she turned out to be completely broke herself. So, he had to go on a final concert tour, in is 70s, after hanging up his guitar decades ago.

    The comparison I am drawing here is between Cohen and Mr Wales. Mr Cohen did not have the option of forgiving his embezzler, because of his creditors. Because the WMF is a public institution I don't think forgiveness should have been a choice Mr Wales thought was open to him. If the audit wasn't made public out of concern for Ms Doran, then I think that was questionable. The WMF is not a family business. Members of the public made donations. Volunteers, like me, contributed thousands of our hours of time. I think we were entitled to see the audit, even if it was embarrassing.

  • It is possible that those wikipedia criticism sites were premature in their criticism, and the audit was finally made public. Even so, the coverage on the WMF article would still be inadequate. Geo Swan (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?????

Why are you erasing the corrections to the Meyers article I edited? Your joking right?

Are you seriously going to twist the scientific patent interpretation to align it with your screwed up understanding. .no wonder no one takes Wikipedia articles as a credible repository for science. .

Go back to school . .you have a child's understanding ; all you do is hold up progress. .your science is really , really off. . You reminded me why I never donate to your group!


Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear [Yahwah] God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc 12:13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.17.37 (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a place to promote hoaxes. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3nrg web page

How do we close this web page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomad67b (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "close"? If you mean deleting it, you would need to review the notability guidelines to establish whether the topic i notable enough for inclusion. If you want it to be protected so nobody else can edit it, that's not going to be possible - you cannot be the sole arbiter of content on a topic with which you're associated - or any other topic, for that matter. Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Kentucky

My edits were in response to local news outlets and some national media outlets calling the election for Beshear. This was before Bevin refused to concede, and I am now aware that the election is still not officially called. Cwagungood (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bevin's refusal to concede is not really relevant; he can refuse to concede all day, but the Kentucky Secretary of State has declared Beshear the winner, per CNN and the Courier-Journal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's more like what we need to support the inclusion. The item in the list should be referenced. I would still like to see it either called, or the SoS's statement widely reported. Acroterion (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ponte Morandi; The repair option

what about your mission to read the italian wiki on the ponte morandi repair option?

at now there is some guys less correct than you, looking for delete these arguments from Ponte Morandi article without care about this. --5.170.44.131 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

..."thank you for reply". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.44.201 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evo Morales

Hi! I was wondering if you intentionally un did my edit on the current president of bolivia Iscm.02 (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Don't insert your personal opinions into articles. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a personal opinion. Is there any way I can prove it was not? Iscm.02 (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I’ve noticed you’ve un done my recent edit on the current president of Bolivia. I believe it was a mistake. Everything edited was true according to the current constitution of Bolivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscm.02 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a mistake. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow you to insert your personal opinion or analysis into articles. Articles need concurrent independent sourcing in recognized scholarship and journalism. Please read the no original research policy, reliable sourcing policy and the neutral point of view policy. We go with the consensus of reliable sources, not your analysis. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source for the section.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xjhsq (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User account problem

Sir, I already have an account "Goutamkumar Oinam" But it's not working, so I recreate another "Goutamkumar Oinam 2", please help me to regain the lost one! Goutamkumar Oinam 2 (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Also, Roadside Attractions. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for helping o8ut with the latest Nate Speed ... event. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Substantiation of content

And what is it exactly that you expect me to provide to substantiate the statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaels First Son 6 6 7 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires multiple mentions in independent sources, preferably national publications with a reputation for fact checking or academic sources, included with the edit. Please read the biographies of living persons policy, since living people are involved, and the reliable sourcing policy - the BLP policy demands strict sourcing, and is non-negotiable. You may not make unsupported assertions about peoples' parentage. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

crosswiki abuse

Please protect the article Peter Handke and block vandal User:HelmutQualle and IP socks--WikiBayer (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. wumbolo ^^^ 13:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Drmies salting and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 16:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Geometry

That's Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm having a big morning - see above. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm surprised he only got a one week block. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I see was heading for a community ban before he was given an Oversight block. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Keep up the good work! Cheers! CentralTime301 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your abuse of administrative privileges WP:TOOLMISUSE

Your administrative abuse has been reported: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TOOLMISUSE by user:acroterion and user:huon --83.29.48.82 (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal

Attention needed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Mubgoshu got there first. We'll have to account for common misspellings. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Julian Assange

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Snooganssnoogans_edits_on_Julian_Assange Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I despair

The unrecognized persistence of vandal edits is one of the reasons I think (IP) vandalism it is so much more important than the common perception. Okay, sneaky vandalism. But then restored once twice thrice four times in 3+ weeks. (That last restore was yours) When will the rusting of articles become understood? As it is, I seldom get away from my watchlist, and never stop being nervous. Shenme (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mea culpa, I didn't notice the "hh:hhhññbhhhhh" etc. We do what we can, and sometimes we get it wrong. A few garbled character strings slipping through aren't as bad as a lot of other things. Don't let it get to you, Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Hello, Acroterion. My name is MrThunderbolt1000T. I'm here making a request because I honestly don't know where else I could bring this issue.

The issue is with a user, Snooganssnoogans. Snoogans has continually engaged in edit warring with other users, has reverted my edits on multiple articles, sometimes without merit, and has so reverted the edits of another user (Apeholder) when they restored my edit and pointed out Soogans's hypocrisy. Snoogans then made a personal attack on this user's talk page.

Now, I'm not aware if saying this would constitute a violation of the good faith rule, but I believe Snoogans has been watching my contributions just to revert my edits on any politically-related articles, and I believe he may be biased, according to his prior conduct. I can't say whether the aforementioned is true for sure, but I'm honestly distressed by his interference with my attempts to improve Wikipedia.

If you could please take a look, I'd appreciate it. I'm sorry if bringing this to you is unnecessary because there's a help desk or some other resource to bring this to. If so, I would be 100% open to guidance on that. I would still like your assistance, though. Thank you very much, and have a great day (or night).--MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update the latest complaint on this person on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents . I am personally pretty fed up of this user, they constantly revert edits with no basis in fact, promote their own biases and rather than picking out the text they have an issue with, they make huge edits to sneakily take out other information too. If you want to remove one line - great, but don't remove the entire paragraph by default. Please raise a complaint on the above page and tag any other users that have had an issue with them in recent weeks - there's quite a lot. This person is counter-productive to the principles of WP Apeholder (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited precisely two pages that you've edited: Brian Kemp and Concealed carry in the United States. My edits on those pages precede yours. Unless you have other undisclosed accounts, why would you claim that I'm following you and that I'm doing so to multiple pages? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a complete lie. You reverted my edits on those articles, so no, your edits did not precede mine. Yeah, "multiple articles" may be slightly exaggeration, but you revert my edits and those of others without merit. The fact you even responded to this without notification is borderline confirmation of my theory that you're watching my contributions just so you can revert my edits. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to ANI where there are more eyes. It's 11:30 here and I'm not going to take admin action when I should be asleep. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Acroterion here. This is a bit too complex for one admin to resolve especially when its past many folks bedtime!--MONGO (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cranky admin bad. My "aspersions" comment is a symptom, cure is sleep. Acroterion (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I initially posted this to Snoogan's talk page rather than here as I intended. I've reverted the Snoogan talk page edit. The summary Snoogan's has added is problematic since it claims a causal relationship vs a correlation. It is unlikely the any cited study makes that claim. I'm not going to claim all of Snoogan's edits were wrong but it's problematic that so many back and forth edits were made with no talk page discussion. I do think Snoogan has a long pattern of problematic editing. No one case crosses the line but on the whole they are of questionable benefit to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to AN/I...Acroterion is tired.--MONGO (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

Hi, the same sock puppetry in Bernardo Espinosa now again in Hernanes. Please, protected the page.--Fcbjuvenil (talk) 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but again, with other IP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.147.92.241--Fcbjuvenil (talk) 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Please, again: User:86.157.236.126. This guy has been doing this for over a year. If you can put protection on the page solves it. Thanks--Fcbjuvenil (talk) 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Acroterion, Fcbjuvenil edits are completely incorrect, I am not sure why you are blocking those IPs for correcting bad edits of Fbc, also please see WP:ANI#User:Fcbjuvenil regards, Govvy (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppetry at an AFD

Jack McAdoo is at AFD. The article was created by Darcel2268 (talk · contribs) whose only edits have been to this article or the AFD. Since the AFD started, we've a IP and Aglobalwriter (talk · contribs) have popped up at the AFD. Both of who have no other edits. AGW edited but then reverted everything. I think this AFD needs watching....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC) This person works in our office and is trying to help the article meet the standards of Wikipedia. There is no sockpuppetry going on. We are an office of first-time users to Wikipedia trying to edit an article in the best way. Help would be bennificial to all of us her, not assumptions that would hurt us from becomming great writers in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcel2268 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice. I made the edit that was suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcel2268 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers, to Correct Erroneous Statement about Oath Keepers on Wikipedia Page

Greetings, this is Stewart Rhodes, the Founder of Oath Keepers. The opening line of the Wikipedia entry on Oath Keepers makes several erroneous statements, but the most egregious is the false assertion that Oath Keepers is "associated with the white supremacy ... movement[s]"

"Oath Keepers is an anti-government[1][2][3][4][6] American far-right[5] organization associated with the white supremacy and militia movements.[7][8]"

The article that citation 7 links to doesn't even assert that Oath Keepers is associated with the white supremacy movement.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oath-keepers-at-ferguson-protests-who-are-they-and-why-are-they-allowed-to-carry-guns-10449395.html

That article merely describes us as white (even though we have black and Hispanic members and leaders, such as Greg McWhirter, who is a current serving sheriff deputy who is on our national Board of Directors). Here is what the article says:

"Oath Keepers: Who are white militia at Ferguson protests and why are they allowed to carry guns? At least three white members of the group were seen carrying assault rifles among protesters during demonstrations overnight. A group of white men armed with assault rifles have been filmed “patrolling” the streets of Ferguson during a fourth night of protests marking the anniversary of Michael Brown’s death."

The article doesn't assert that we are a white supremacist group, or associated with the white supremacy movement. And yet it is being cited as a reference for the entry describing Oath Keepers as "associated with the white supremacy ... movements."

That needs to be corrected ASAP. This is very damaging as well as false. We are overtly, strongly anti-racist, and do not allow anyone to be a member who discriminates against anyone for their race. Can you help get that edit done? I can be reached at <redacted>

Thank you very much!

Stewart Rhodes Founder of Oath Keepers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:50B0:4780:2838:B365:2DFA:D5CE (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place to present this is at the article talkpage - Talk:Oath Keepers, where it can be discussed, and where you can provide or contest sources. Please go there, rather than contacting individual editors, it will be more productive and less effort. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing that specific reference, I don't see that it supports the "white supremacist" statement either, so I think you can make a reasonable case on the talkpage concerning the use of that reference with that term. Keep in mind that self-sourced statements are not given much weight - an example would be referencing Madge the manicurist that Palmolive dish soap is a skin care product because Madge claimed that "it softens hands while you do the dishes." The best could be said of that is the Colgate-Palmolive makes that claim, rather than a flat statement without attribution. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied this conversation over to Talk:Oath Keepers for you, together with my view on that source's application. I've removed the email address on both places for your privacy. Acroterion (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "white supermacist" statement, as I don't find support for it in either reference - the Washington Post reference actually contradicts the claim fairly explicitly. I haven't done a comprehensive review of all sources in the article. If you have further concerns it would be most productive to express them on the article talkpage.. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 11 article

I have been trying to remove a false bit of information from the Flight 11 article; the supposed myth that one of the pilots pressed the radio so that controllers could hear Atta’s voice. Unfortunately, I was the one who put it on this article all those years ago, as I wanted to keep the myth of some of the heroism of 9/11, especially the flight crew. Flight 11’s pilot’s didn’t keep an open mic so that the hijacker’s voice could be heard. From what I have gathered, that was just early news articles misinterpreting why hijacker pilot Atta mistakenly transmitted to ATC when telling the passengers to stay in their seats. I’m not impeaching or downplaying the bravery of the Flight 11 crew, but that doesn’t seems to have been what happened. Regardless, I’m sure the pilots tried to fight back, but it would have been over quickly. We never know if they were killed or incapacitated, but we hope it was over quick. These sources must be treated with a great deal of caution and we should instead rely on primary sources of information as often as we possibly can. If this cautionary advice is not acted upon, it is quite possible for well-meaning researchers to expend a great deal of time and energy discussing the fine points of historical events that never occurred in the first place.

(talk page watcher) With reference to the above. Firstly, you are not signing any contribution you may make. Secondly, you are stating "From what I have gathered", which is just WP:OR and is not acceptable. Third, you are "edit warring" in the article, which also is not acceptable and could lead to a block. The correct place to discuss a difference of opinion is the article Talk page. No-one knows for sure what happened on the flight deck on that awful day, but you should not use your personal opinion, as a reason for changing the article. The secondary sources on the text you want to delete are reliable, even if they cannot be finally proved beyond all doubt. Finally, if you are going to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, you should consider opening an account, rather than using a IP address. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hi! Can I request the removal of the protection of 2b2t as the sources in the draft Draft:2b2t clearly indicate a WP:GNG pass. You have protected the page and this doesn't fall to A7 anymore, so it can be properly accepted in AfC. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you've convinced anybody at AfC of that quite yet. Let me know when it's accepted. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm an AFC reviewer who wants to accept it, but can't because of the page protection. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that wasn't obvious to me. Prptection removed. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Vandalism

Hi! I've been patrolling the Recent Feeds just now, and I looked at a edit that you reverted because I didn't see you reverted it, and I noticed you didn't leave a warning on the vandal's talk page. I'm sure you have a reason for that, but I did just go ahead and put a warning on the talk page. You can look at the diff here: [33]. Anyways, just wanted to let you know. Thanks: Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 04:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - sometimes I get tired of warning vandals or am busy with more pressing matters. Acroterion (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir

Dear Acroterion, if you do not agree about what I write on my User Page, please do not delete it but instead, let's have a debate about it on my Talk Page. Works for you? Best regards, looking forward to hearing from you. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy isn't open to debate. Don't use Wikipedia to make accusations of criminal conduct. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reality, swastika

I just edited FACT, what you did is wrong, i also gave proof of my claim. No one should blame hindus for something that done by Christian extremists. Kindly put my edit back and let the world know the reality. James surfer (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis weren't exactly Christians, you know. I've replied on your talkpage. Let's keep the discussion there, or better yet, on the article talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to block IPvandal

Hi Acriterion, I’ve noticed you’ve blocked one of SEVERAL vandalism IPs and users on the Portuguese people page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people

I’ve requested the blocking of 2 users (each who go by different profile names, apart from displaying an IP address) but am not sure whether I’ve done it properly as one of the administrators told me to use the report template differently.

I wish to have this and others as they continue popping up from time to time, for vandalism on several pages. Can you help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.127.171.128

ThanksMelroross (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melroross, thank you very much for the report. A tutorial for requesting such blocks can now be found at User_talk:ToBeFree#Trying_to_request_IPvandal_block. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EU

The law "Loi du 24 février 1984 sur le régime des langues" at http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/1984/02/24/n1/jo say luxembourgish is official language of the E.U. It's a conter-exemple.92.188.16.151 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should be in the article, which right now lacks any sources, so anything you can provide would be of great assistance. If you have trouble with formatting the sources, post them on the article's talkpage and I'll see if I can work them in. The body of the article should be sourced first, rather than the infobox. Acroterion (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

trying to revise James Fenimore Cooper website

This is my first attempt to update a Wikipedia page. I am editor in chief of the standard scholarly edition of James Fenimore Cooper, and am working closely with Wayne Franklin, who in 2017 finished the two volume biography of Cooper.

some of my edits are being rejected, with no reasons given, and by an anonymous person. They are accurate; that cannot be the issue. Please tell me what i need to do to update the site correctly. Doubtless I have format issues as the site is new to me.

If you don't want the leading scholars to do this work, well, we have other projects too.

Lance Schachterle (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic page is monitored by biased people

The “admins” or whomever is undoing all edits to the page are ignoring cited changes to the wildly incorrect page that has 20+ year old information and uses “sources” like Forbes.com as legitimate factual points of reference. This violates Wikipedias own guidelines As they are taking personal opinions and displaying them as factual evidence and actively ignoring, discouraging and hiding modern factual and empirical changes based on newly found research. These page administrators or editors or whoever has the ability or power to ban or grossly remove edits are those which give Wikipedia a bad name and are why It is never acceptable to cite Wikipedia in any medical journal. In my several decade experience as a physician it is disheartening to see someone who is clearly uneducated on the topic but yet are in a position of power to spread misinformation and discredit any sort of validity Wikipedia tries to continuously establish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B106:50A:B88E:2769:C850:ECBC (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're making disruptive edits by removing the entirely correct statement that chiropractors are not doctors of medicine, any more than dentists are. However, I've found a more comprehensive reference to replace the Forbes reference. The source goes into considerable detail concerning the differences between MDs, DOs and DCs, as well as DDSs and so on. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked IPs and new editors from improving the article. This edit was damaging to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See above. I agree with the IP/new account that was industriously edit-warring to remove the entirely factual statement that DCs are not medical doctors that the Forbes reference was something of a hit piece, and found a better source. I'm happy to unprotect as long as the edit-warring doesn't resume. Acroterion (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given edit summaries by the recent edit warrior like "The original page was made by biased non-expert persons who clearly have a vendetta against chiropractors and should not be allowed to post boarder line hate speech," I have a little trouble seeing how, apart from needing a better reference, the IP/account was planning on improving the article. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the same content? You want to block me from improving the article? QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're not edit-warring with an IP and an account. However, for the sake of my own curiosity, what is your objection to making it clear that DCs aren't medical doctors? Wht is that not an improvement, and why would anyone object to the California reference? Acroterion (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Medical doctors are not DCs." Would you add that to the article about medical doctors?
The CA ref is a blog. If I added that ref people would think my account is compromised. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is - an official blog with the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Not all blogs are disallowed, just those that have no editorial oversight or credentialing. If it hadn't said "blog" in the header, it would just be a page on the website of the state regulator. And again, while I really don't have a strongly held view in this matter - I'm not the one making pointy comments about getting blocked for improving the article or ignoring 3RR problems - why is a mention that DCs aren't medical doctors problematic? Acroterion (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a journal and I don't understand the significance of the content. It looks like someone just wanted to make chiropractors look bad. The lede is a bit long and this content and a few others don't add anything important to the lede. No reader is going to confuse a DC for a medical doctor. QuackGuru (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a regulator and a consumer affairs agency, who are concerned with medical practitioner qualifications: pretty much the horse's mouth. You'd want a medical journal for discussion of conditions, treatments, medications and other rigorously-scrutinized MEDRS matters. I agree the lede's long. However, there are plenty of people out there who have no real idea of the differences between chiropractors and medical doctors, and the history of chiropractic has at times sought to obfuscate the distinctions.Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The content does not explain the history of chiropractic has at times sought to obfuscate the distinctions. That means this is irrelevant content. The edit warring will continue as long as the content remains in the lede. Readers believe the content is a problem and will continue to delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some want to edit-war, and I don't get the impression that the account/IP plan to stop with the end of the lede. And the article goes into considerable, sourced depth about the discipline's tendency to claim broad health benefits through manipulation - certainly Daniel D. Palmer promoted some very aggressive ideas about what chiropractic could treat. Not germane to the content, but having myself worked with a practitioner, who helped me with a herniated disc until it could be surgically corrected, I'm familiar with their practice and not poorly disposed to chiropractors, nor to acupuncturists, for instance, where I found the experience remarkably relaxing and calming. In any case, because article content on Wikipedia has a tendency to be siloed into specific topics, it appears to me that the relationship to other medical disciplines is poorly summarized, particularly with respect to osteopathy. Perhaps interested editors could address that? Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote about the osteopathy controversy in the Chiropractic controversy and criticism. I can't squeeze everything into the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look there. Since you've got your eye on the article, please let me know if trouble starts up again - I don't have it on my watchlist and stumbled across the edit war by happenstance - from your perspective it looks like I semi-protected The Wrong Version, which is inevitable in such cases, and at least to me, consensus on the matter was not immediately apparent. Please have a little more faith in the process - not everything involves a hidden POV. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also wrote about it in the history article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deedeedee Monkeyass

User:Deedeedee Monkeyass is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How unexpected. TP access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a power user, so unsure of how it works.


Thunberg=

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism#List_of_eco-socialists

How come NONE of the members in the list have sources (Like Mélenchon being here despite being not even a member of the french green party) yet Greta Thunberg, an ecologist militant (do you want source on that ?) that advocate for "After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all." is NOT an eco-socialist ?

86.163.132.20 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should easily be able to find reliable secondary sources that say so. You may not synthesize a conclusion based on your own reading. That violates sourcing policy, and since it's a biographical assertion, it violates the biographies of living persons policy to do as you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then how comes all the other personalities are on the list, as they fail those criterias as well ? 86.163.132.20 (talk) 21
51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion&oldid=929885755"