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
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1,807: Line 1,807:
::Is there a procedure for blocking or banning users on Commons, since you are saying that SR has been abusing Commons? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
::Is there a procedure for blocking or banning users on Commons, since you are saying that SR has been abusing Commons? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


Yes, thanks. I also thought it was worth nothing the potential finding noted here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/971156806). Not sure anything else needs done, just thought it was worth noting we all appeared to be missing the true extent of the user's interest in the subject. [[User:PAVA11|PAVA11]] ([[User talk:PAVA11|talk]]) 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I also thought it was worth nothing the potential finding noted here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/971156806). Not sure anything else needs done, just thought it was worth noting we all appeared to be missing the true extent of the user's interest in the subject. Maybe worth noting is response to any potential appeal. [[User:PAVA11|PAVA11]] ([[User talk:PAVA11|talk]]) 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:58, 4 August 2020

Signpost

RevDel

It looks like there is a revision on Jack's Big Music Show that looks like it should be revdeled. --Rlin8 (☎·✎·📧) 23:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the warning on "Tatwamayi News"

Dear Acroterion, Tatwamayi News is a well-established media company ( www.tatwamayinews.com ) from Kerala state, India and is owned by Amiya Multimedia Private Limitted. This article that I tried to post was only to give an information about the News TV channel (Tatwamayi News ) and nothing for promotion or advertising. Can you please provide me some guideline which I can adopt to publish a wiki page for Tatwamayi News ?

Kind regards RAtheesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratheeshvenu (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then write it without copying promotional content from an external source - you lifted it complete with copyright notices. And you'll need to proviode references substantiating the content and substantiating notability. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French Bank of California v. First National Bank of Louisville

An editor who created this article, The C of E (talk · contribs) keeps putting things into the article that aren't supported by their inline citations. As I said on his talk page-

1- Your source makes no mention of the movie The Rainmaker 2- You cite one case citing this decision as a precedent but the article says cases.

There is no mention of the Rainmaker at all.

On a side issue, the User's name may violate user name rules. The C of E I have heard as shorthand for The Church of England. I will let you handle all of this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, already dealt with. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about your username, but I didn't see anything in the sources provided to support your edits, and the reference to a primary-source legal document isn't appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E: Despite what you said above, C of E went back and reinserted[1] the reference that makes no mention of the Rainmaker....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He added it again[2] and now he's forum shopping[3] and totally disregarding what you wrote above. I am about to take this to ANI. Please weigh in again or tell me what else I should do if you want to step away from this. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked on his talkpage. I suggest that you disengage, it's getting more heated than it really warrants. For my part, I'm developing a cold and am cooking dinner for multiple people, so I'm trying to do some article writing while waiting for things to cook and not savage anybody while feeling cranky. Acroterion (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Run amok editor

Can you please take care of this[4]? Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this. I didn't check every edit. Just five and all were wrong. Other editors found 3 other edits to be wrong. I doubt even one was legit....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that there are that many typos in that particular part of our aviation articles. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My content was in draft it was not completed

Hello,

My article was in the draft it was not published. I did not add this code as written in wiki article link " ". SO why did you delete it?

Leo

92.41.191.183

Hi Acroterion! I'm just sending you a quick note to let you know that I updated the block reason for this IP user. This is definitely block evasion given the timeline between the abusive account and that IP's edits to the article. If you have questions or object for any reason, please let me know (ping me so that I get notified). Knowing you as well as I do, I doubt that you're going to mind - I just wanted to let you know nonetheless. Call it professional courtesy. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here, cheers! Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. Thank you for leaving a note about not adding inappropriate external link to wikipedia. I sought personal pages were okay since I have since other users doing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talgalili for example. Is this just an enforcement issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDRUVINI (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are a long-established user whose links relate to their activities on Wikipedia. In general, it's a poor idea to post links to external sites on Wikipedia when there's no obvious relationship to what they do on Wikipedia, and it's not obvious why you would need to post a link to an Ebay tech blog here. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake I made

I mistakenly uploaded an image for a golf tournament article. I meant to upload one for this year, but I accidently uploaded one from last year. So, this upload is not needed. Will you delete it for me? Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Women%27s_British_Open_logo.png Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consigned to the memory hole. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soros disagreement

I disagree with you. False is a loaded term and implies that it is absolute. Should it not be so strong in a biography?

  • Smears should not be tolerated. This is a BLP, and if you reinstate that without a consensus on the talk page you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, noted, I will use the talk area next time for BLP. Did not see this a controversial change, I thought it was more neutral- but will use talk area. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsparkwars1 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Drmies has noted, when something's false, we say so, we don't tiptoe around it, particularly when it concerns a living individual. Watering it down like you've done can become a violation of the biographies of living persons policy - it implies that maybe those Internet rumors are somehow true, or maybe not, wink, nudge. Don't do that. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

174.84.161.252

Hi,

It looks to me like wants his TPA revoked. Adam9007 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amend Protection for Page

Hi Acroterion,

Would it be possible to reduce the protection you placed on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak from WP:SEMI to WP:PCPP? The page is well patrolled by editors and there are quite a number of timely and valid updates by IP/ unregistered users from Asia. Several requests for help in editing have surfaced on the talk page since the WP:SEMI was imposed. Thanks. PenulisHantu (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I just noted at RFPP, I'd suggest that you ask other editors on the talkpage whether they're OK with the current protection, or whether it can be unprotected. Having been thanked for protecting, I'm not convinced that your impression is universally shared. Open a discussion on the talkpage. I protected because there was unsourced speculation creeping in among the rapid-fire editing, and such articles often turn into a frenzy of scorekeeping, sourced or not. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your message?

What are you talking about? I asked a perfectly reasonable question about article protection at the Talk page, and I'm now going to put it back. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article talkpages are for specific discussion of article improvements. They aren't fora for speculation or for asking "perfectly reasonable questions" about conspiracy rumors. Acroterion (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What!! Please read my edit. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for fixing it. Obviously a misunderstanding. Apologies for being a bit terse. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about protection is reasonable, and I'm happy to remove protection if there's general sentiment for its removal. I don't understand the politics sanction notice either and will look into it. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, let's see if there's a general view for unprotection. BTW, it was another editor who put in the forum chat stuff. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found the mistaken AP notice source, it was placed in his edit [5], probably by mistake. There are so many edit conflicts right now it's hard to tell which end is up. No worries. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan has a vaild reason to be listed on the Map of the US and reported cases of the Chinese coronavirus

@Acroterion: Hello, i was placing a source in it when i was editing the page. If you don't really believe me here is a link to info about it in Michigan. https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2020/01/24/michigan-health-officals-confirm-three-dealths-related-to-corona-virus/. --Godmanhalo (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talkpafge, keep it there, and don't jump to conclusions. Acroterion (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 77

Hi,

You rev del'd this page today and you removed all the editors names.

However, ClueBot NG had reverted the editors and their names were still visible in its edit summary?

I'm assuming this was an oversight/error so I've rev del'd ClueBot NG's edit summaries but thought I'd also drop you a line here to let you know -- 5 albert square (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly concerned with taking the fun out of UnderArmourKid's edits, I suppose we could delete the edit summaries, but mostly I was applying some DENY to UAK's actual edits. I'll go over and see if it's worth it, thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock?

Hi, there's a new entrant, SignorUgarte across at Greta Thunberg who has claimed they are "new to editing (less than 20 edits)" while showing much more familiarity with the topic and with editing. Also some "idiosyncrasies". Could this be a sock of MartiniShaw? Would you mind having a quick look, please? Esowteric+Talk 11:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter ran a CU on the 26th, so I would have expected somebody registered on the 23rd to appear, but I'll defer to his judgment. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Esowteric+Talk 12:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might you unblock a user you blocked?

Greetings, you recently blocked and deleted User:Aphrodite27. This is a legitimate user who is in a college class I am teaching. I'd love for her to be able to resume editing in good faith. Also, what was it that made her seem suspicious? I'd like to avoid whatever that is, in the future. Best, Stevenarntson (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked her. Her userpage was very similar to those created by some spammers that have been problematic - there's a format that tends to be repeated that hers kind of matched. Sorry about that! Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for unblocking her. Looking a little further into it, it seems some of my other students have been caught up in this sweep. This morning I found that User:MoAbbasi23 has been blocked as well. I am wondering if I should go through all 50 pages to see if any others are? What could I do to keep this sort of thing from happening in the future? Would a notification at the top of the pages be helpful, explaining that these are students? Thank you, Stevenarntson (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go back through the logs and look for other similar blocks. That was the problem - I think your class was copying the format of each other's userpage profiles, and it looked like a series of spambot posts. We get some doozies - "my hobbies are papier-mache and making chain mail and I'm trying to learn Portuguese" and so on, from spambots trying to look human. I saw a bunch with more plausible variations on the same theme and took them for automated edits. Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked User:Noecal2020 too - I think that's all. If you look at their userpage profiles, the similarity is rather striking, leading me to believe that an automated template was being used by a spambot. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me here. I just noticed your request that I respond to you on my own Talk page to keep things tidy here, and I apologize for not doing that! I haven't used Talk pages very much. I went through all of my students' accounts, and there are a few more that were blocked:
If in the future I added a notification to the tops of the pages that these are students, maybe including a link to my own Talk page, would that make them seem a little less spammy? Stevenarntson (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would help greatly - the appearance of seven or eight nearly identical userpages in short order, each with an external link, looks very much like a spambot attack - there have been concerns about external links to malicious downloads in the past weekor so after a story appeared in Wired, and adding sort of random links on userpages that are almost identical in format looks decidedly peculiar. Sorry for the trouble, there's no way you or they could have known that. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can see that the two redlinked userpages were caught (and all were flagged) by the spambot detection filter. The attempted edits on the redlinked userpages were the same format as the others. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you are welcome to discuss here, since the conversation started here and it's most convenient for us both - the notice just means that if I initiated the conversation on your talkpage, we should stay there - that wasn't the case in this instance. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information--in the future, I'll post a notice on all the student userpages linking back to my own page. W/r/t/ User:LL0801 and User:SanQuintana--could those two pages not be restored? Those students had posted some content on them before they were taken down. Stevenarntson (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both restored. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Stevenarntson (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [6]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of revert

Hello, what’s the purpose of this revert? If the image is a copyvio the old version, now a redirect, is involved anyway and it will (or should be) deleted, as well. So, your revert is quite useless. — Speravir (talk) – 02:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second revert took it off the page entirely. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I didn’t notice this. — Speravir (talk) – 02:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering why my revert didn't work the first time, then I figured it out. No worries. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Content.

Good day. Regarding the removal of content for not being a reliable source, the addition you removed was in the same paragraph having two citations to the Washington Post and The Guardian and was sourced to James Lyons-Weiler, PhD who is as qualified as the editors are to these two newspapers with particular political slants. Also, James Lyons-Weiler, PhD is very well known for the subject matter and is a subject matter expert. The citations he includes are also to reliable scientific institutions.

It is critical the public understand the origin of coronavirus outbreak as it implicates the Wuhan lab HAS NOT BEEN PROVED and the paragraph this was added to indicates matter is 100% closed, as it relates to the phrase "that there was no evidence that the virus was genetically engineered". When there is and from many reputable sources.

1. Can you tell me what constitutes a "reliable source." 2. The phrase "that there was no evidence that the virus was genetically engineered" should be omitted as well then as there is evidence to the contrary by equally authoritative sources to the contrary of the Washington Post and The Guardian entries.

Thank you for your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on major published sources with a reputation for fact-checking, such as the Washington Post and the Guardian. We do not accept the views of individuals published onb their own domains as reliable, unless they are widely recognized for expertise in major publications, still less if they're being cited for self-published promotion of conspiracy theories. See WP:RS, WP:V and WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. This is an entry about the Wahun Institute and the post I had probably was not contextually best here, as it would implicate the Institute. The cite phrase you have allowed to stay, "that there was no evidence that the virus was genetically engineered" is a supposition as a number of authoritative "non conspiracy theory" scientists have shown this to be true with as much as, if not more, evidence as the Washington Post and Guardian editors cites. Perhaps these citations would be best under the virus entry itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a congenial home for conspiracy theories or for speculation on fringe theories. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, it shouldn't be! I have defended Wikipedia as a credible source from the beginning because of "peer condemnation." Thank you for your service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.70.31 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the cited article from the Washington Post (#4), an individual has to be a paid subscriber to see that cited material and the link redirects to their home page, and The Guardian cites the same exact article. Is there a policy about citing sources where the individual has to pay to read it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.70.31 (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Paywalled sources are acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.70.31 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Tur

Hi Acroterian, can you help out with a user block and rev/deletion/ Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thanks for reverting that crap. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. MSNBC employees are getting noticed here tonight [7]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I'm close to signing off, so you may need to flag down some West Coast admins if it keeps on happening. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Or east coasters with insomnia. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block on 120.21.180.180

Hello Acroterian - IP Address 120.21.180.180 is same individual who was vandalizing "Battle of Saragarhi" article. And now he is vandalizing "Tirah campaign" and "Mohmand campaign of 1897–98" as well as "Afghan–Sikh Wars" with personal views, misusing references and removing content without discussion on talk page. Can you please have all pages protected from vandalism? Not sure if there is a way to ban this IP Address as he comes back with different one again and again. But 120 is the common beginning digit in all his IP addresses. Any help would be appreciated.

From Tirah Campaign, he is taunting: 13:07, 14 February 2020‎ 120.21.180.180 talk‎ 10,682 bytes 0‎ Personal opinions once again hahaha undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

From Mohmand campaign of 1897–98, same taunts: 13:06, 14 February 2020‎ 120.21.180.180 talk‎ 7,801 bytes -4‎ Personal opinion once again 😂 undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block on 120.21.57.81

Sorry to bother you time and again. IP Address 120.21.57.81 is same individual. Vandalising article "Afghan Sikh wars". I mentioned that his views do not justify this particular article and welcomed to talk page before making any changes but the user keeps adding his changes again and again. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and I agree. As long as valid reference is provided and the views are not source misrepresentation, I have no problem welcoming changes. Also we have talk page to discuss about it. But in the case of Afghan-Sikh wars where the IP provided this link as reference to state that the over all war was a stalemate. If you read Page 296, there no such mention of it. Please take a look if you have time. https://books.google.com/books?id=AzG5llo3YCMC&pg=PA296#v=onepage&q&f=false WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request some Admins to review the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

In good faith i been trying figure what going here on ANI. I like to speedy request some Admins to review the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for unusual activity from IPs on a ANI report that i inserted myself and other report that i started for a disruptive user. I do not want start like 100 ANI because of this. The last line of both reports. 1 2 Thanks. Regice2020 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if they are coming from other ANI reports. Regice2020 (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will not have time this morning before I go out to review the apparently lengthy discussion. I'll look in this evening if it's not resolved by then. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilhan Omar

Hi, I just nominated a redirect that implies that Ilhan Omar father name is the same as her husband father name. This name is based on the conspiracy theory made by right-wing and alt-right media. It is totally inappropriate. Could you remove the redirect? Thanks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Pot

Hi Acroterion. Would you mind taking a look at Pol Pot. This a bit of disruption going on with the infobox image, and there's a good chance it's probably the same person using multiple accounts. I thought about WP:RPP, but I suggested something similar at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030#Death threat and I'm not sure if this is another case where RPP wouldn't really be warranted. The file that keeps getting added is currently nominated for deletion at Commons, but it might be awhile before it ends up deleted. If RPP is OK for a case like this, please let me know and I'll make the request myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both the IP and the account for trolling, and I'll keep an eye on the article, since the IP was probably a proxy. Additionally, I've added the picture to the badimages list until it gets deleted. Thanks for your diligence in pursuing this. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look and stepping in. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The person doing this is just creating new accounts to keep re-adding the file. I guess accounts can keep being blokced as they show up, but maybe WP:PENDING would be better at least until the file is deleted from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, I'll do that now. I've added the current spelling of the image to the badimages list too. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are around

Hello A. There are some more edit summaries that need r/d. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article on asexuality

Regarding the removal of the Asexual Manifesto - This source is not actually about asexuality as it should be understood as a lack of sexual attraction. Instead it is a treatise on abstaining from sex as a feminist political movement and argued that women are compromising themselves and their time.

Regarding the removal of David Bowie - I have read the arrived article 3x and Bowie notes that others have referred to him as asexual but that they don't understand him and that he does not. As such it is false representation to not him as an Asexual figure.

Regarding the removal of the Off Our Backs article - It is an article concerning the lack of lesbian representation in the National Organization for Women, a custody hearing where a lesbian almost had her parental rights taken, and a general feminist meeting. The only mention of asexuality is the reference to the availability of the Asexual Manifesto which is not a good source.

I take a great deal of issue with a number of these sources. I don't think they are presenting asexuality in good faith. Stellarburst (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have some reasonable points. Use the talkpage to make your case, and please proofread your edit summaries. Acroterion (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus

I have a email from my work, it isn't in the news yet but is true. not sure how to source an internal email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.128.233 (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't source an internal email - it's not a published reliable source in major media. Don't post rumors, wait for reporting to take place that we can verify. Acroterion (talk) 04:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request

Hi Acroterion, I recently rewrote a section at Mandy Powers Norrell regarding some controversial remarks she made; in reviewing the page history, I saw that some of the edits between December 24 and 27 added language in this section that I think may be potentially libellous. I saw that you are willing to handle RevDel requests -- would you be willing to take a look at these edits and determine whether this needs to be done? Thank you, –Erakura(talk) 04:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely malicious, zapped. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NkassFourteen

Hi Acroterion.

You recently blocked User:NkassFourteen for advertising, but they are now using their talk page to carry on advertising [8]. I have reverted their latest, but may need TPA removal. Thanks. Agent00x (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hey you deleted my "SA Franchise" Page and i'm not sure why. I worked REALLY hard on it, could you please put it back? Or can you at least let me see it real quick so I can copy the coding? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a free webhost. Does the content have an application for an article? Did you mean to move the content to article space? Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this is Jm363490 again. I promise I will take it off but can you PLEASE put it back real quick so I can save the codes. I worked for hours on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please put it back I'm begging you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia but if that's what it tkaes to get it back then yes you can move it there. Thank you I would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move it to article space and is there any way you can get it back? I really need it it's for my final grade in school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jm363490: Does User:Jm363490 have what you're looking for? —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:C.Fred @C.Fred It has some, I managed to retrieve it, but there is a lot that's missing and I really need it to pass Graphic Writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will put it into your sandbox if you can explain what relevance it has to Wikipedia - personal projects for school or otherwise aren't an appropriate use of the encyclopedia. Otherwise, I can email it to you. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you email the link to the full coding of what you deleted. Thank you and I'm so sorry if i did anything against the terms, in the future I will seek confirmation before proceeding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Is there any way I can keep it on Wikipedia without going against the terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what relevance it has to the encyclopedia? Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. it isn't educational really. It is just basically a spreadsheet/table/description of a "Survivor" season I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, no, the encyclopedia isn't a free webhost for stuff like that. In any case, there has been a lot of abuse of reality/contest shows like that, people have been blocked for posting showcruft tables, so it's best kept somewhere else. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Well thank you for at least sending it to me and clarifying. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loycarmo

Hi there, just to inform you that cross-wiki-vandal Loycarmo has been blocked indefinite in deWP. Cheers --−Sargoth 09:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Discussions

Thank you for informing me of my imminent blocking, but can you please explain to me what, in my situation, constitutes "inappropriate discussions"? Because as far as I can see the descriptions on the page you linked me could just as easily apply to the posts left by your Wikipedia moderators responding to my post. I'm interested to hear your explanation as to why my posts in particular were deemed "inappropriate" but those left by the moderators and other users were not. I already know the answer - Wikipedia has a deep seated Leftist bias and agenda, and any user fighting the cause of Leftism will always be given a free pass to break the guidelines if it helps the cause of Leftism - but I'm curious to see how you would attempt to explain it without admitting to your agenda. Thanks. Des22z (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Des22z (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop abusing talkpages to soapbox about your dislike for people you perceive as leftists. If this recurs, you may expect to have your editing privileges revoked. Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does a topic ban for post 1932 American politics extend to discussion too, User:Doug Weller left them a notice about it[[9]]? It might be the best way to handle this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this user appears to be focused solely on fighting those they perceive as leftists and demanding that conspiracy theories be treated as fact, I doubt there's much point in all the paperwork associated with a topic ban. A topic ban is more useful if an editor is involved productively elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the trail of this editor has done to me. And no I’m not personally attacking anyone merely agreeing with you and thanking you for writing about basically the exact same experiences I’m having on here with a few bad apples who have editor exclusive control over the rest of us, which in my opine is sad to see because it’s ruined Wikipedia! Jpodesta1 (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also- I wasn’t siding with your post about leftist or rightism just I believe in a correctism. But wiki Edit does seem open to allowing us to collaborate and legally use what they’ve amassed to start our own site solely purposed to COMPETE with Wikipedia, at least the company itself allows for that so who is for a truthipedia.com? Is there a way to look up and group newer or banned or heavily censored or blocked editors like this- to find out if they’d like to help start and contribute to a non political truth based new website since Wikipedia does t even seem to make sense anymore like I said with a few bad apple editors who are the ones bullying threatening and then saying that we’re the ones making personal attacks not even on them but their internet troll pals? Then another editor- maybe the same person under different names I dunno comes out and does the same thing- and it’s all duplicitous at best dishonest at worse- with the same United cause which is disinformation and no freedoms of speech expression opinion anything even just on what we post on a “talk page.” I mean, my opinion only- but this seems like all banned censored newer editors are all saying the same thing to the only editors in control and there’s gotta be more than half the world who feels the same or is just apolitical and not eve. That interested aware of the current politics banned or inserted into my experience as an editor on this website... but please don’t get hurt or offended or threaten me as I’ve not threatened you I’m merely stating my opinions about my mostly negative to date experiences and have hopes with time the bad apple editors will just leave me alone I don’t even know whom they are what they’re talking about why they are threatening me or why/ how they’ve got all the power on this website- nor how I can at least block them from doing anything with my account or contacting me, nor why none of us can report them to higher up administrators... time for some www.truthipedia.com type website? Or can I work watching the parameters and restrictions of this website. I guess we will find out soon enough. Thanks for your post and bravado! Jpodesta1 (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To 'Anon' users @Dess2z and @Jpodesta: Hey... I remember you from earlier, 'J'!

A fellow junior 'Wikipedian' here, and Believe It Or Not( nothing to do with a certain popular IP whatsoever) — I'm primarily reaching out to 'D' out of sheer curiosity.

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let's get it all out. Since all of your contributions revolve around contesting the conclusive-consensus of[ senior] Wikipedians, I say that I deem myself left-of-centre or to put it in other words, centre-leftist.

Unlike your presuppositions about Democratic Party's political-considerations towards bringing-up "AOC" and "Bernie" in a clearly-charged yet civil( if not polite) discussion whilst responding to a fellow Wikipedian's attempt to make you understand the popular political-compass in the offline-universe of Murican electoral-/mainstream-politics, I seriously can't understand your grudge to fixate over( let's try to play the ideal of "neutrality" of bit..) ethnocentrists-to-xenophobic activist-groups. To be sure, I hardly did dabble myself in any directly political topics but even I feel I've been wronged by those users in the hierarchy( higher "user access levels") who "play rank" in reverting edit under the guise of most-vague to incomplete of explanations, and strictly referring to perfectly non-political policies: Sometimes even Wikipedia has an ambiguously worded policy-clauses which, being fellow H.S.S. after all: They'll choose to interptet it per their own predisposition at any given time. And even when I tried to engage in conversation on their user talk-pages, they frankly don't bother to reply at most. Overall, it's a WP:RUDE which I've found the only consistent-thing across every( whom-I-dub) 'superuser' in my overall personal-experience. As for politics, I fairly did contest some certain generous( "treating with kid's gloves") articles on domestic-political to some ethnogeopolitical hot-button subjects by reading about them in very same reliable sources which you mark "Leftist Marxist"( paraphrased) or “Far Leftist” and so on by tagging and explaining my reasoning clearly readable in editing-stage.. Forget about even trying to start a talk-page discussion, they simply removed my tags by giving simplest of excuses, even though I went as far as pointing out exact sections of Wikipedia® policies and they simply obfuscated or strawmanned my responses before suddenly stopping to engage after "warning"( read threatening) of repercussions. And I see you've gained some resembling experience as well, to an extent. A-gain.. Curbing my tempting-presuppositions about your zeal to soften the potential-blow over the moralistic-repute of 'ethno-populists' movements: May I know will your zeal for “correction” would apply to say.. Osama( no salutation!)'s articulations of Uncle Sam's hard power to even soft power, would you agree that PRC and DPRK's official status by not just official sources( need I remind why it's logically-comparable?), but even sympathetic sources as "people's republic" and "democratic republic", respectively: Must be deemed given "equal"-weight as their actual governance-systems? Contrary to not just "the Allies", but even other human-rights outfits based in Anglophonic "First World" to other parts of "First World" keep reporting? Should opinions expressed by far-left publications like CounterPunch® over how the noun "Terrorism" and its derivatives have been evolved to mere buzzwords being deployed in an information-warfare against[ geopolitical] opponents of status quo and foreign military-control be given "equal-weight" and every single article about "terror" acts be re-edited accordingly to reflect "neutrality", regardless of how the official/state and independently-reliable sources treat those "buzzwords"? Similarly, another far-left outlet AlterNet® must be considered valid for reporting that whilst "the vet" [Ms ]Gabbard might be a Russian proxy, but she's indubitably a Hindutva trojan-horse? Should a source reporting a hypothetical view of a certain indigenous people of Americas terming the U S of A[ by recounting historical-facts*] as "the most-glorified genocidal country in all of human-history" be given "equal-weight" as well? Or will you campaign as ferociously, if not more: When more than a single sources are pushing either of these narratives? And 'J', you might have already sensed: I clearly-agree with you mostly on sentiment but seriously.. I must remark that "Truthipedia" sounds a inevitably-ludicrous christening! Seriously, who came up with that? It's almost as if it's not a serious encyclopædic-project but yet-another daily political-howling. 🤭🤭🤭 And this has nothing to do with the fact that the noun "Truth" is extremely vulnerable to subjectivity! Don't believe me? Just ask the "Perp Walk"-pioneer Rudolph( a-gain, no salutation!). *Cursory/Rhetorical remark: Is History certainly a branch of "science", though? Because if it genuinely is, then Astronomy must be classified as ‘ultra-science’ to evade the stigma. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little hard to figure out where you're heading with all that. Talkpages aren't for political debate, so you mayt want to find a forum for that. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Inconclusive
Whom is this specifically addressed to, Mr 'talk-page owner'?( Not a snark, trust me on that.) I would try not to mind so you can be radically-honest with me on that, obviously civilly — and politeness is not radical, but a charade.
On your ambiguously short "text", I'm confused because on one-hand: I clearly do agree that your user talk-page shouldn't be a turned into a "battleground" for 'Wars of Ideologies'. But "the OP"( call it a ‘trap’, if you wanna) certainly piqued my interest ever from QAnon's talk-page and I just wanted to gauge the genuineness between her/his/their gripe with the norm. I know I may be deemed stupid( "naïve") but perhaps for the factors already described succinctly in my original-entry of this section, I just wanted to assume good-faith and try making her/him/then understand the wiki's policies BUT with nuances and presenting hypotheses with cases reversed in the paradigm so that it becomes more easily-comprehensible. Needless to add at last, this is the only latest/ongoing-conversation "the OP" was involved and frankly, the only one where he was not hung-up on "fudging" against any particular right-wing ethnocentrist element and hence.. Sorry for any inconveniences inadvertently caused. Albeit: Judging from that template, you must've gotten used to it by now. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m new not sure who’s replying to what here or if any was a reply to my postings. But I’d like to proudly say I’m perhaps one of the few on here, and we.need more, who’s apolitical. And who can bring that to just about all my edits while I do realize my earlier ones weren’t as appropriate as the ones after. And it seems saying any part of Wikipedia is not a place for politics is outright untrue so far all I’ve seen is politics. So other than pages or edits which clearly are supposed to be opinion only and express ones left of center or right of left or I’m right you’re wrong or whatever political orientation seems politics, and only ONE shared political leaning controls and dominates Wikipedia today, period. I think most would agree. One side silences what they think is the other side or not their side, and neutral arbiters of fact like myself get censored banned and threatened. So how’s about being honest about what all this is, who’s in charge, who’s. Not, and then trying to recruit more people like me, apolitical and even politically disinterested and more interested in sourcing to things such as actual FOIA publications, actual videos which evidence content, regardless of source, and NOT banning major news outlets like judicial watch for example, but allowing CNN for example, if you’re not sourcing to articles or only source to an article because that’s the only way to source to a video, like a source I recently made to just show the only in edited video of Joe Biden’s first campaign speech or virtual town hall, not the article, the video, or sources to a foil production, not to an article about it but the actual 120 page foia document, you people stop editing censoring banning and removing my work, thus stopping the utter waste of my time.

Keep your politics to yourself when it comes to edits and posts and let people say what they want on talk pages without being threatened by more powerful editors who claim they can threaten you because they think that so,done else whom neither of you know, thinks you threatened them. Don’t be absurd I mean come on it’s so obvious.. thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I created “truthipedia” so you can’t have it. And yes I do see a huge market for it, or some other derivation of it, for folks, like me, which comprise a vast majority of the country and world, that’d love to see it- it can base off all the work Wikipedia has done to date, apparently for free, and be a for profit company, because I truly doubt all these editors on here who’ve been here doing this for decades, are unpaid, and if they are, in my opine, the editors who remove my posts within a few minutes, need to get a life and a job, maybe if they were paid something than you could actually get real JOURNALISTS who don’t do what all the powerful EDITORS do here, and enact strict policies which guarantee that what everyone who’s a minority newer smaller editor here says, that they’re powerless, but feel this is a political website, and that it’s politics seem to exclusively be “far left” (modern day far left that is) not whatever far left was 30, 50 or 100 years ago- to create not a far right or far left or center left right square website- but a facts only website where there’s separate places for just about anyone’s unedited opinion and separate places for only FACTS with paid moderators and neutral journalists. Can’t be hard and sounds like it’s a great business model long overdue and maybe people wouldn’t care about seeing a couple ads st the end of pages or soemthing- a price well worth paying for just getting a totally neutral turthipedia and then having a separate almost u edited section for anyone political to make their contributions and that’s lefties righties dems socialists conservatives green parties libertarians or whomever else to have their FREE SPEECH. all on one encyclopedia brittanics based website. Sound good? I think so... Wikipedia could’ve been that but every minority here who’s banned censored d Removed edited I’m seeing seems to feel the same way about the few editors who feel the same way and are in control of this, perhaps, sinking ship in the modern age... just my thoughts on what this site has devolved into... Jpodesta1 (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for the quick rangeblock. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hit the easy pitches - when the first four hex groupings are the same, it's a /64 block assigned to a single router. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Ah, the amazing refreshing rollback link doesn't just hit me? :-) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did it load? Did it load? Ye ... aw crap, accidental rollback. Drives me crazy. Acroterion (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely edit on my phone because I hit the link to look at an edit and it rolls it back instead. I've given out my share of apologies and I don't edit on the phone much any more! Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I was an interface designer, I'd complain about it. I just cuss instead. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I don’t know why I can’t just keep my stuff on my own Wikipedia page Jm363490 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn’t a free web host for personal projects, and the user page belongs t9 the encyclopedia, not to individual users. Please do not reinstate the content. Acroterion (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it bothering anything? Jm363490 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) As concisely explained to you above, Wikipedia is not a free web host for personal projects, it is a encyclopedia. Please do not reinstate personal content, or you may face further action. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

where else could i put it Jm363490 (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i just don’t understand how it’s bothering anything. I’m not vandalizing wikipedia or sending false links. I just like having it here Jm363490 (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the fifth time, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web hosting service for everybody to use as they please. The system is a finite resource whose servers are solely for improvement of the encyclopedia. Find somewhere else, and stop looking for a way around the terms of use and site policy. The answer is no. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

anywaysss... k Jm363490 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a spot

In your recent revdels, you missed this. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mapsfly

Hello, Acroterion,

While I think this editor made some disruptive edits and lacks a certain amount of clue, there was edit warring going on at Josh Norman both yesterday and today by a number of editors. I think indefinite is very severe for a first block and I was wondering if you would be amenable if I changed it to a 1-2 weeks or a month. Here is their contribution history if you want to check it out although it looks like the most damaging edits were posted on the ANI complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By all means - I was not encouraged by the absence of clue from somebody who had been around for so long, but I would regard this block as indefinite in the literal sense, not the infinite sense. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering this block. I hope they make a more clueful unblock request. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by user Ash Salvatore in Enrique Iglesias articles

Hi Acroterion,

Since March 4, 2020 an user called Salvatore appeared here in Wikipedia and inflate Enrique Iglesias's albums sales and revert sourced edits by some members, including myself. I tried to talk to him many times in his talk page and even in the Talk:Enrique Iglesias, but he doesn't care to anything and change all other members edits in the articles and warnings in his Talk page. He even includes fake certifications in the table of some of Iglesias's articles like Quizás (album), and changed sourced sales like here Enrique Iglesias (album) without providing any source, only to keep the Enrique's sales very high and inflated. I would like to ask you to do something with this user, I think he's gone too far.--88marcus (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's using a new IP to post 196.246.194.16.--88marcus (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing living former representatives from US Congressional District pages

Hi Acroterion,

The edits to remove living former reps came about as a result of a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Congress#Lists_of_living_former_members

I will wait a few days then reattempt.

Thoughts?

Benawu2 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to remove if there is consensus, just remember to reference that discussion in the edit summary - it's hard to tell what you're doing otherwise. Feel free to carry on. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loycarmo socking again

Hello Loycarmo's socks have continued to destroy other versions of wikipedia. I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into his case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Loycarmo

Since you have blocked him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Loycarmo) if you wish to provide comments on the spi investigation, please do.

Thanks so much for your time! Hefty hyde (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Acroterion, I have blocked Hefty hyde as a sock in an unrelated matter. The report they filed is a mess. At the moment, I've put it on hold. I would appreciate your commenting about the merits of the report, either here or at the SPI, when you have time. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

My understanding was refactoring was discouraged except in cases on vandalism or BLP-violations. When I was 6 or 7 years old I took a Matchbox car and rolled it up and down the hood of my father’s recently purchased truck, scratching the paint. When he arrived home I literally couldn’t sit down for three days and was out of school for a week. My father later told me “I am not proud of what I done but I am not ashamed”. Bottom line, bad things happen to good people and vice versa. It wasn’t a backhanded compliment or insult or passive aggressiveness. It was a genuine comment to a valued contributor.

Then phrase it as such - there's no reason to tell a stranger who suffered a heart attack that they've learned a lesson. That just looks like trolling. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stock reference in Ski Pole page

Any comments regarding the reason for reverting my edit? Is there another method that should be used to include the commonly used alternative term? Samuraiwombat (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a reference to show that it's in widespread use in Australia, and not remove the reference to British usage. Acroterion (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from 45 years of personal experience skiing in Aus :-) would this be an acceptable reference... "Downhill Downunder" by Peter Oliver, an article in Skiing Magazine Mar-Apr 1993 refer page 42. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X5hdl0E43UIC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=skiing+are+they+called+%22stocks%22+sticks+or+poles?&source=bl&ots=YVn-HxZDWB&sig=ACfU3U0uLCNOhqJwXozeYJ73KOr0cA8kng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG2ezV-5noAhXyTBUIHTO_D4wQ6AEwAHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=skiing%20are%20they%20called%20%22stocks%22%20sticks%20or%20poles%3F&f=false Note: I did not remove the British usage reference, I only added the Australian usage (after the British usage) and changed the "or" to a comma before the British usage so it made gramatical sense. Hope this helps - if you think this is ok then I will redo the edit and add in the reference. Samuraiwombat (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, I'll see if I can format it for you. Personal experience, no matter how extensive, is never eligible for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. What format is needed? I can have a go if you like. Samuraiwombat (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see how to reference in WP:REFERENCE. When I get a chance I'll see if I can format it so you can see how it'sdone. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions

On peacemaker67s page, another user wiped my and peacemakers conversation m. Please look at the edit history and you will see I was returning what a nother user deleted from the owner’s pge. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you restored it, took it off, put it back, and seem to think it's something worth arguing about. Stop, and do something helpful to the encyclopedia. Peacemaker made it clear that you shouldn't be doing that, and I've protected the p[age to ensure that their wishes are respected. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but can you please restore what was wiped without peacemaker67’s permission? The other user deleted it and insulted me in the edit comment.74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker can put it back if they want, it's up to them, not you. Stop harassing them. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So an external user can wipe Peacemakers page without his permission but I cannot put it back? What? Especially as the extern editor did so to sensor what I said and keep what they said? 74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're edit-warring on another user's talkpage. You were both asked to stop. You didn't. Peacemaker has thanked me for protecting their talkpage - give it a rest, and stop looking for things to argue about. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the timeline you would see that when Peacemaker asked for the bicker to stop, I said “Understood”. After that the other editor came and deleted everything and insulted me. Thereby ignoring Peacemakers wished. This is ludicrous. I have contributed much to Wikipedia. I’m not some rogue IP looking to troll. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep trying to argue. Stop, go do something else. Acroterion (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Jpodesta1

Doug Weller talk 19:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why. I was on the edge of blocking for the username. Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)

You have page protected this article before. Well, the IP is back. Could you please indefinitely protect? The page has been protected three times in 3 years and every time the page protection ends, the IP shows up not too long afterwards....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a remarkable example of persistence in a lame attempt to trivialize trivia. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking care of it. This IP reminds me of a quotation[10] from the James Bond film Moonraker. The video I link to is short and safe for viewing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to put the lock symbol at the top of that page. Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to know the reason for deleting my page?

On my user page it is written that my page is deleted because I have copied my own data and write it on user page. Can you explain me out the reason for this? And how can I get my content back on user page. Kanishk1901 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate question, answered here -FASTILY 00:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article

Hi. I saw that you deleted the article that I posted, to which you commented "This is not a place to post your resume". This post was not a resume but an assignment for one of my college classes, so if you could please tell me how to fix it to where to does not look like a resume that would be great. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenkortney (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the deleted content into User:Allenkortney/sandbox. Userpages aren't for developing article content. Additionally, the article needs substantial editing to not look like somebody's promotional resume. You need to provide only the facts and show why the subject is suitable for an encyclopedia article, not who they are best frinds with and whether they're a prodigy, and you can't copy things in. When you think it's ready, you should move it to Draft:Sam Dameshek so other editors can review it. Acroterion (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block not working?

Hi - can you take a quick look at Special:Contributions/2405:204:3488:C7A9:7520:740:B0EB:AF9A? I just reverted some petty vandalism from there, but when I look at their contribs I see a red banner saying the account is currently blocked by you. IP ranges aren't something I really understand, so I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but either the banner is in the wrong place or the block is somehow now working? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Girth Summit: The IP range is only partially blocked from a list of articles that doesn't include Fiscal policy. Favonian (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The block notice interface is confusing, it would be nice if it changed color or something for a partial block. This is one reason why I've never given out a partial block, and the continued problems from this IP circumventing the partial block bear this out. I extended Ohnoitsjamie's partial block, I'm inclined to make it a full block if they're skirting it. Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both - sorry, should have read the block notice more carefully, I see now this was a partial block. I'm not sure whether it's the same user skirting round their block - they were just inserting a name at random points in the article, looked like a typical kid messing about to me. Agree that a different colour of banner for a partial block would be a good thing BTW. GirthSummit (blether) 12:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting a lot of bored kids at home doing vandalism, and I've been giving them a very short rope. What will be really confusing is overlapping partial blocks for different ranges. I've never given out more than a /64 block on an IPv6 range, so I can't say how big a /37 block might be. In this case, it's a single address that could be blocked if it keeps up, or /64 blocked of you want to be sure. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to create a page for software company

I'm trying to create a Wiki page for a software company. I thought I'd followed all the right steps... but it looks like I may have goofed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobaTeaGood (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use userspace for what amount to spam links - advertising is prohibited, including inappropriate links. A one-year-old company is unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please read [[WP:COI|the requirements for editors with a conflict of interest. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Got it! Can I ask for a favor then? Can you create it for me? I can check for accuracy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BobaTeaGood (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No.
You need multiple independent sources in major media, indicating that the subject is suitable for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. You're also required do disclose whether you have a relationship with the organization. Mere existence doesn't qualify for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

anxiety disorder in Electromagnetic hypersensitivity page

What do you mean saying " isn't understandable"? Do you want the sentence to be reformulated or do you contest article POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.34.80 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be written so that it is intelligible. "It was suggested a cognitive approach in which Electromagnetic hypersensitivity was considered as an anxiety disorder" makes no sense, and is a good example of why we avoid the passive voice. Perhaps you mean "**Somebody** has proposed that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is an anxiety disorder which may be treated through cognitive behavioral therapy." You'll need to specify whose idea that was, so it isn't stated in Wikipedia's voice. I would also look for a source that more closely satisfies WP:MEDRS - Skeptical Inquirer isn't close to a reliable source for medical topics. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.34.80 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

Hi, you have reversed a change I made to the Bombing of Dresden page and called it "vandalism". If you are referring to the change of the American English spelling 'center' to the English spelling 'centre', this was to fall in line with an earlier spelling of this word which was using the English version. I would certainly not agree that this falls under a "vandalism" label, more maintaining the consistency of the article. Would you have called it vandalism if I had changed the English spelling to the American English one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.147.216 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the number without attribution, that is the problem. We get a lot of that these days, and we're not keen on subtle changes like that which aren't backed up by sourcing. Those look like potential vandalism, and users get warned. As for the other issue, we also get a lot of changes from people who don't know that there are different national spellings, and it needs to be explained in an edit summary, rather than just changed without explanation. You were not being warned for that, since the article is tagged as using British English, but please use edit summaries when you make any edit. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User with a conflict of interest

It is Broncobehn. He admits to the COI here[11]. I suspect he has a connection to this candidate. Broncobehn at the moment is clearly a SP account. I already informed[12] this editor what my thoughts were. Maybe you could also chime in about WP:COI at his talk page. The Florida 21st is my congressional district and I have opinions on its its serving congresswoman and likelihood of anyone beating her. So I have some involvement too. Stay healthy!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them a COI welcome and advice on candidate notability. Acroterion (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Rikkart

But it's true. <redacted> However, he is NOT dead, and he should recover. Someone tried to claim that he was dead, when I didn't see a valid source say that.

https://www.instagram.com/gregrikaart/--2600:6C50:700C:200:B052:A56C:6712:CC97 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you were correcting vandalism. However, never, ever insert discussions of anyone's health without ironclad sourcing to major published media. Social media won't cut it. I've already blocked several people who've added rumors of this type - they don't belong in an encyclopedia. Thanks for fixing the vandalism, but it's better to take it out entirely than to insert something else. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re James.Shields.shieldie page

I wasn't trying to promote anything; I was only trying to show a (very) little about me after setting up my account.

No problem though.

I'll have a look around to see what is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Shields.shieldie (talk • contribs) 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big issue, but it's bad form to link to one's personal business right from the start. We get a lot - a lot - of spam from people who are trying to promote themselves. Acroterion (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cristian pirvulescu

hello, you erased my paragraph about the person. here is a reference. It is in romanian, but than again, so is the person. https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/pirvulescu-cei-care-parasesc-carantina-sunt-considerati-infractori-medicii-care-nu-si-fac-datoria-nu-sunt-in-situatie-asemanatoare-1285453

You must provide references in articles, particularly if it's about something controversial, and it should show that the topic is significant and has received widespread coverage, not just a single source that somebody said something that reflects badly on them. Ideally, if it's used on the English Wikipedia, it should have received English language coverage, but that's not essential, just preferred. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, he just sad it. The reference webpage has a video in which he has just said that. 99.9% of all statements on wiki are not sourced. And than again, we both know it is not that

"99.9% of all statements on wiki are not sourced" Absolutely false. Everything must be sourced, most things are (I reckon that the majority of content is well-sourced, and in core articles it's probably over 80%), and we insist on it when writing about living persons. Find references that document that this is a significant controversy, not just "he said it." Read the policy on biographies of living persons. Acroterion (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

why did you remove my edit 949141556 from covid-19? Feelthhis (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Must've been a misclick or a browser jump, sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acroterion, I am responding about my contribution to the Naomi Klein page. The source I'd like to cite is an Op-Ed from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/why-israel-is-nothing-like-apartheid-south-africa.html

I can't figure out how to link it. Could you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addieezersky (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, op-ed pieces are not suitable sources, as they're clearly labeled as opinion. At most, if they;re used, they should have in-text attribution, but in no case should expressions of opinion be inserted in Wikipedia's voice. You should avoid drawing conclusions like that. Acroterion (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What?

What did I do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.178.148 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you were using that IP on March 16, you put scare quotes around "human beings" where the article referred to black people, with the edit summary "fixed a small mistake." That's not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

upcoming student editors

Hello Acroterion, we'd talked awhile back about some students in my classes whose userpages looked a lot like bots. Spring quarter is starting up next week at my college, and I was wondering if you had a moment to take a look at the template I'm planning to add to their pages this time around. It's here: User:Stevenarntson/student_template. Secondary question: do you think any alarm bells will go off on me when I start pasting this onto 50 recently created userpages from my own account? I hope you are well, and thanks. Best, Stevenarntson (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. I don't think it would cause a stir of you placed the templates, it should be obvious what you're doing, especially if you state it in an edit summary. I'm about to join a work conference from home in a few minutes, I won't be able to look right away. Acroterion (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Stevenarntson (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me. Assuming your students are at Everett Community College, you might want to mention that too. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note

For sure! Perhaps you could check the follow-up commit that I made. Where I apologized for missing the drop-down link on the table. (This issue I thought was that drop-down table had been removed maliciously instead of just being turned into a drop-down table. Had nothing to do with your edit. Sorry for misunderstanding!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesh0 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most malicious edits involve the word "poop," rather than technical adjustments to drop-down tables. I have no opinion on the propriety of the table o its functioning. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Stop to helping partisan people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nqkoi si bulgarin (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use the article talkpage to politely describe why you think the content is incorrect, and provide sources. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP continues disruptive editing

If you have a chance would you take a look at IP range 2600:1700:D281:27D0:0:0:0:0/64 which you blocked "00:35, 2 April 2020".. They are continuing the same behavior: "18:11, 8 April 2020".,  "18:19, 8 April 2020‎"., "18:42, 8 April 2020".. Regards, CBS527Talk 13:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be good if, having made their points, everybody would lay off the tagging/untagging. Acroterion (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be. Thanks for checking it out. CBS527Talk 16:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"are we really going to tag everybody this way?"

Hi.

It's my intention to cat about 10 to 20 and then leave it.

Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic's got a lot of entries. I figured those with and who survived would be as relevant.

DMBFFF (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on your talkpage. Let's stick to truly notable cases, just because the deaths category is unfortunately huge, we don't need to tag everybody who's been sick. Acroterion (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Pseudoscience and fringe science

Hi, I received a notice that I'd been flagged as showing an interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. I wanted to check what this meant and whether it will affect my ability to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

The notice was sent shortly after my edits to NoFap, so I assume that was the cause, since many of the claims associated with that movement are indeed pseudoscientific. However, the three sources I added to the article were from reputable peer-reviewed journals: Archives of Sexual Behavior and Journal of Sexual Medicine. My intent was to improve the neutrality of the opening section.

Anyway, thanks for your time and the work you do. Eeskildsen (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't affect anything, except to notify you that you're working in an area that has seen enough disruption to merit additional scrutiny to avoid a recurrence, and that editors will be reviewing your contributions ion that area with extra diligence. Acroterion (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black kite

I did not attack Black Kite. I simply called him out on deleting my edits, and then claiming they were unsourced, when they were clearly sourced with a reliable source. I think they are probably the one attacking me, if anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajarondacespedes (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sell that somewhere else, BK's warning was clearly warranted, and now you're blocked. If this happens again, there's a good chance it'll be permanent. Acroterion (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So much for telling people not to make personal attacks.

See [13]. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

940

So, any idea who this is? Not for a single minute do I believe they are a brand new editor. Unfortunately after the Bbb23 debacle I am afraid to ask a CU for a check on suspected socks unless I have a damned good idea who they are. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but given the low level of clue and impulse control I think it's somebody very young who needs some time to gain a better level of self-awareness. If they don't self revert that BLP edit in six minutes, I'm going to place a short block. I thought they said they were going to bed. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to extend a massive amount of AGF and assume I am wrong (for the moment) about their being a sock. Let's see what they do with some ROPE. I have closed the ANI discussion. That was a giant waste of cyber ink. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, I do not believe they have any other previous accounts on Wikipedia besides the main one and the two Good Article socks from last week. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. And I don't like to pick on young editors - I've encountered several editors like this, and some of them have worked through their stubborn phase and been productive editors. But we do need to let them know we're serious. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This guy has enough admins breathing down his neck. I am going to step back and let you both take the lead on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey. So much for that, if anything we've been excessively patient. Somebody else can deal with the silly unblock request. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request declined. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we all AGF'd until it hurt. Some people want an argument. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. I need a drink. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I lost count, but I think it was a dozen admins, possibly a record outside of an arbitration proceeding. I'm going to go sit with the dogs and tell them about the Three Bears - there has been a bear in the neighborhood, and I think it's nearby tonight, they're stirred up. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to call it a night as well. This whole thing has been simply bizarre. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also curious how many admins have been involved with this guy in the past couple days. Just for the hell of it, I tried to find them all. 18, by my count, but I could be missing one or two. —{ CrypticCanadian } 05:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18 admins involved with 940
Might've not been the most productive thing you could've done Cryptic Canadian but it was certainly entertaining to read . Now just wait for the emails to flood in. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI this. He sent me a couple of emails asking to have the block lifted or an expiration date to replace the indef. I am standing by six months before considering a WP:SO but thought I'd let you know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AMK Ranch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Signal Mountain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China Section Reverts advice needed and help - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_xenophobia_and_racism_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic

Hello Acroterion, could you do me a big favour?

I am new to Wikipedia editing, the learning curve is steep, I am trying to follow the instructions on the Talk Page.

I really want to balance out this article by including what is happening in China to foreigners and especially the African community right now. Anyone reading this article will be extremely surprised top find virtually no mention of what is happening in China to foreigners and especially the African Community.

I know that before I can get the article section edited properly to Wikipedia's taste, I will probably be dead as it will constantly be reverted due to copyright, not constructive, wrong format or whatever other reason may be.

Could someone else kindly take the work that I have done over days and tailor it so that it can be added to the section in the appropriate wikipedia fashion? That would be a fantastic help for someone new to Wikipedia and by observing the editing process of my contribution I will surely learn to edit better in the future.

Here it is:

<removed per copyright policy>

Recent incidents of extreme racism towards the African community are highlighted in an official Protest Letter of African Ambassadors in Beijing published on April 13th 2020 by frontpageafricaonline, in which they: “strongly protest the ongoing forceful testing and quarantine and maltreatment of African Nationals in China in general and in Guangdong Province in particular” The African Ambassadors reported that they had received disquieting reports of inhuman treatments meted out to Africans particularly in Guangdong Province and enumerate some of them, as follows: ● African nationals ejected including Togolese, Nigerians, and Benenois from their hotels in the middle of the night only because they are Africans; ● A group of African students studying in Sun-Yat Sen University in Guangzhou were made to undergo the Nucleic Acid Test, in spite of the fact that they had no travel history within the stated period. ● Selective testing of African students while their non African colleagues are left out. ● There were cases of African men married to Chinese ladies and they were demanded to take the COVID-19 test and their Chinese families left out. In some cases the men were pulled out of their families and quarantined in hotels alone. ● Forced evictions of Africans from their various apartments and thrown into the streets even those with infant children. ● Seizure of passports of African nationals in violation of international practices and conventions ● Persistent harassment and humiliation of African nationals by subjecting them to unwarranted medical examinations after testing negative for the COVID-19, and forced into quarantine, irrespective of their negative status; ● Threats of revocation of visas, arrest, detention and deportation of African legal migrants for no cogent reason which infringes on their human rights” Source: [1] Billybostickson (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://frontpageafricaonline.com/opinion/letters-comments/protest-letter-of-african-ambassadors-in-beijing/
(talk page stalker) @Billybostickson: just so you're aware, only a fraction of that text could/would be added to the article. I can try to add some, but I don't want you to be disappointed if it's only a small amount. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, {User: EvergreenFir| ] thank you very much for whatever you can do, it is very much appreciated. I understand the issues regarding copyright more clearly now but I am not well enough to spend so much time and energy to complete this daunting task currently. Billybostickson (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Confused

Hey, Thanks for being so kind as to archive my page. I've found some punctuation errors and have made the realization that it would've been smarter to put the citation on "is featured" rather than "The Triflers". But even with that, I have questions when it comes to the rules of citations and notability.

I don't get the claim that using The Triflers as a source for a section specifically about the portrayal and Fate of York Community Highschool, in The Triflers is an unreliable source. To me, It sounds like a very reliable because you're getting the juicy information you want right from the source of the river. I think that's a primary source.

Also, I'm confused at the need for there to be a 3rd party/independent source since the book refers to the school by name (page 273, word row 10) and refers to it being set in Elmhurst. If the book (specifically Mario) tells the reader that it specifically takes place at York Community High School and It's a part of the story, is there really a need for a 3rd party to verify it? Wouldn't citing the book just do the job? I mean on the Wikipedia page for Benard Werber's Empire of the Ants there's no citation from a third party saying his book takes place in Paris, besides from the fact that it says it in the book.

On the topic of notability, my blurb about York High in The Triflers is worthy of notice/notable because it is the only instance York Community High School ever being featured in a piece of entertainment media.

With Thanks, LillyoftheBracken

(talk page stalker) Your statement that You're getting the juicy information you want right from the source of the river is precisely the issue. Wikipedia does not want "juicy information." We want to publish only what is verifiable in reliable sources. A self-published novel is not a reliable source. If an external reliable source has commented on the fact that the novel is set at the high school, that would potentially be includable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What NBSB says. Wikipedia sets notability through the use of secondary sourcing to major academic and journalistic media, not by personal analysis of self published books to mention what amounts to trivia. Acroterion (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (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 10:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

Hi Acroterion,

You deleted my page on Trilion Quality Systems almost a year ago. I was hoping to give it another shot I have gotten more reference links and also stated I am an employee of the company. Do you think I will have a better shot now? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Many Thanks, Ben Eisdorfer Beneisdorfer (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could restore it to draft space so you can work on it, providing you strictly observe WP:COI and undertake to avoid anything that even looks like advertising. Was any of it copied from an external source, which would preclude my doing that? Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell County Rockpile Museum

Hello Acroterion,

I see that you have begun, edited, or did substantial work on many wikis for Wyoming museums. I believe there should be one for the Campbell County Rockpile Museum in Gillette, Wyoming. Do you have any interest in starting this page? I can not as I have a conflict of interest. Thank you.

AshtrayRobert

I'll take a look at it and see if it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Do you have any independent sources to support notability? We can't just work with simple existence, it has to have received some coverage in independent media. Can you show that it has been covered beyond the Gillette newspaper? I 've found a few sources, but they don't make a great case for notability. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devolv89

Feel like an LTA or someone's sock. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra20:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they were fishy too. Monketorn's had their problems, but they've learned and persevered, and a sample of their edits looks reasonable. Acroterion (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for an explanation of an edit summary I found particularly interesting. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That one got my attention, I found it interesting. If they're not a native English speaker, the distinction between active and passive forms might be elusive - "I will do" versus "I will have somebody do." Acroterion (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the UTRS appeal. I would like to think that if I was operating good and bad hand accounts I'd be better at it. At least there are few admins more patient than I - I guess you're referring to the 18-admin convergence from earlier this week. I thought I'd used up all my charity on that one. Acroterion (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Riverlisp might be a candidate. Acroterion (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same style. I thought you were very patient in dealing with this user. Oh. That user name screams out at me. Missed the convergence. Been busy, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hello. Please share your thoughts on this. With regards. Bionic (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is NOT defametory

In regards to your revizing my edit on Yamiche. Nothing I said was false or defametory. I admit it wasn't the nicest but everyone should be aware of the risks of not taking care of your personal health. Those risks are hieghtened during this pandemic. Most, not all, of those at higher risk CAN take steps to correct their health issues. Be healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.68.43 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do anything of the sort again, and I will block this IP for a long time. No trolling.. Acroterion (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Request

write an article about Indian Blogger Jayasurya Mayilsamy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.51.240.147 (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to try an article using the WP:AFC process. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about this block

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:BF52:2DF0:DC3D:EDE7:27EE:851 Why indefinite this IP for just 1 edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsla1337 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake - I would normally block that sort of obvious anti-Semitic Jew-tagging for 48 hours. Now unblocked, thanks for noticing. Acroterion (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake I put information about my company deals instead of keeping it nor mal information of the history and trajectory it was a mistake I didn’t know I couldn’t do please unblock Hollywood Pictures Films Alejandro D Carlo (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!

thank you!
thanks for giving a well-earned warning to an IP User 37.30.17.49. Holaholahulahop (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roxy the dog

Hi. I disagree with your closing the discussion about User:Roxy the dog. Will you reconsider? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disagree with my decision, but it won't alter my view that re-opening the topic did nothing to help the encyclopedia, and in the context of Roxy's present circumstances was especially badly judged. Attempting to extract a pound of flesh at all costs is reprehensible. Acroterion (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Acroterion should accede to your request and reopen the discussion, then I will reclose it, and I will not reconsider. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 El_C 08:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+2 GirthSummit (blether) 15:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
look, 15 May Mary Monteverdi (just adding music to the flowers) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garden City National Forest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackberry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller

Please take time to read the wikipedia sites as well as other outside sources about the geodesic dome, We are responsible for portraying history accurately and not popularized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_dome

Please check your references and YOU will see that fuller was an intelligence agent during WWI where he first came across the german patent from 26 years earlier. Fuller stole this and falsely claimed it has his own. Please do not change this acurate edit without sources. Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeNice (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller

By virtue the Buckminster Fuller was granted a US patent he claimed to have been the original inventor. He was not. This was a false claim and should be stated as such giving actual credit to Walther Bauersfeld

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to act laws relating to patents, in Article I, section 8, which reads "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Fuller falsely claimed and was falsely awarded a patent for a design that had been in existance for 26 years.. he lied.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeNice (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it clear that he didn't invent it and that he didn't credit the concept properly. See WP:RGW - you don't need to apply your own color to his sin of omission. You can help the article by assisting us in referencing the paragraph I quoted. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

source

You have to claim to be the original inventor'designer to apply for and receive a US patent, this is not opinion. Fuller's claim to be the designer was indeed false. I.m a little lost as to why you think this is opinion as every source, including Wikipedia, clearly states the geodome was designed and built prior to Fuller's patent, or any of his designs.

https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents

Patent Laws The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to enact laws relating to patents, in Article I, section 8, which reads "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Under this power Congress has from time to time enacted various laws relating to patents. The first patent law was enacted in 1790. The patent laws underwent a general revision which was enacted July 19, 1952, and which came into effect January 1, 1953. It is codified in Title 35, United States Code. Additionally, on November 29, 1999, Congress enacted the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA), which further revised the patent laws. See Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999). The patent law specifies the subject matter for which a patent may be obtained and the conditions for patentability. The law establishes the United States Patent and Trademark Office to administer the law relating to the granting of patents and contains various other provisions relating to patents.

The company that actually paid for the first dome is still operating in germany today....:ong before Fuller's patent and design. https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/int/about-zeiss/history/technological-milestones/planetariums.html

You have the right to lock people out but you seem misinformed on how patents work.. Perhaps you should read up.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeNice (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how patents work: please understand how Wikipedia works . You need a specific reference that states what you are writing, not your personal interpretation of patent law, however obvious it is to you. Somebody must already have stated, in print, what you're deriving from legal interpretation. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Everything must be sourced. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I need to request you that please delete the revision [14] as RD3 as that revision was purely disruptive or delete as the reason WP:RD2 as it also violates a biography of a living person or delete as the reason "Vandalism" because that revision is not supposed to be visible. Thanks. 2405:204:1406:C440:0:0:2A9F:F8A0 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's obnoxious vandalism, but it isn't really eligible for revision deletion. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

That was premature and dismissive. A few participants raised serious concerns about Drmies' behavior and you disregarded all of us. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to extend this, but I agree to an extent. Drmies threatened a user with a block while he was involved in a content dispute. As an admin that is unacceptable and should not happen. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are not prohibited from warning people with whom they disagree, and are not immune to confusion or exasperation. Demands that someone be skinned are over the top, and again, no admin tools were used against the IP. Acroterion (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the warning on his talkpage, that is a template. I'm talking about the warning on the article talkpage where Drmies says, "I will be happy to block you for trolling..." that is not the same thing as issuing a warning. Further, your close says the IP is extremely argumentative, I think it's very wrong to call someone argumentative based on having to explain themselves at AN. Looking at the article's talkpage, if I had to weigh behavior, it would not be 50/50, and Drmies is an admin. Your close should have reflected that. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As several participants noted, that was not ideal, and Drmies has been amply aware of it. The complaint was made at great length, with increasing levels of shrillness, and wasn't leading anywhere helpful for the complainant, who was starting to face demands for a boomerang block. The kindest thing for all concerned was to close. The IP has been editing in contentious areas for long enough that they can't declare that they're subject to WP:BITE, and this all happened two weeks ago. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for three things:

1. I asked for Drmies to be censured for his behavior, so as to discourage him from repeating it. You prematurely closed the discussion, preventing this. In essence, you told him it's ok to bite noobs.

2. I asked that he apologize, again so that he is less likely to repeat his bad behavior. Instead, he made excuses and blamed me for what he did. This means he's just going to keep it up.

3. I asked that he remove the protection from his talk page, which is what the policy requires. I have no idea why you're permitting him to continue violating that rule.

That's why I'm unhappy. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy, heated demands for censure and apologies two weeks after the fact don't create much in the way of an actionable complaint. You were getting an increasing amount of blowback, and you were starting to repeat yourself. No admin tools were being abused. Is anything going on now? I don't see it. Talkpage protection was imposed by another admin, it could probably be removed, but I'm aware of the reasons why it was done, and of the detailed threats that were being made by a long-term abuser who is still active. Having seen the content that was oversighted, and knowing who made the threats, Drmies' reluctance to change protection is completely understandable. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to find any place where I claimed he abused "admin tools". Good luck with that. You're fighting a straw man and that means you've already lost. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're trying to prosecute something that's not actionable, and you should not have used that AN header, but "an admin was mean to me two weeks ago" might have had less force. Please read the advice at User talk:Ezhao02 from experienced editors. Arguing with everybody who disagrees with you or who tries to counsel you generally doesn't help your case. Acroterion (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies wasn't "mean"; they were abusive. They falsely accused me of vandalism and threatened to block me for it.
I don't really care whether they agree with me. I do care when they slander and threaten me. The fact that you don't says a lot about you, none of it good. You people stick together, protecting the guilty. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
You have the patience of a saint. You always take a breath and give a little more. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Agree. Well deserved. Antandrus (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. In real life, I'm not feeling very patient, with proposals and deadlines and little time for much else, apart from trying to ensure that our people are worrying about deadlines six months hence. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

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) 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving

BYE BYECoal town guy (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


O'Connor Plating Works Disaster

A new page that might interest you. I note I ought not to have capitalized the final word. Is there an easy fix? --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to O'Connor Plating Works disaster and cleaned up a couple of things. Acroterion (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit stacking vandal

Hey Acroterion, hope you are well. I saw you partially blocked CanGoodSailorsForgetHow124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You might need to extend that to a full block. This is most likely a well-known LTA who has been vandalizing WP:TFA. They edit stack until they have extended confirmed and then vandalize different articles. In addition, they are abusing their talk page access as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, and I have a good idea who they are and where they want to go. Acroterion (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Appreciate your fast response. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore I-70 edit

I want to revert that, but it would be so pedantic to do so. Technically I-70 DOES extend into the city limits, BARELY. The Park and Ride where I-70 ends/starts is just inside the city/county line (and is managed by Baltimore DOT). It's literally about 500-600 feet of highway though so while it technically goes into the city proper it's so little that I don't know if it matters. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've driven that section past Social Security, you're right, the vestige sticks a little bit into the city, I'd forgotten that. I think there's a city limits sign just before it turns into a street. Functionally, I would argue it's not in the city, but I could argue it either way. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are trying to be exact to the nth degree it is, but like I said it's the end of a park and ride lot and the very very beginning of the highway itself. On a map it is, but functionally, no it isn't you are right. Like I said, it's pedantic to revert it, and you could easily say it ends at the city/county line. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have to leave the city to get out of the parking lot/stub, and the Security Boulevard/Cooks Lane exit is 100 yards into Baltimore County. I believe the thing I reverted was in the infobox, where people try to load the summaries up with too much nuance. Given that the article is about the city, not the interstate, I think we should leave I-70 out of it. I think I must have seen the city limits sign on Forest Park Ave - the last time I was there was in January.
There wouldn't have been much left of the park once the interstate had pushed through. One of these days the city needs to figure out what to do about the freeway gulch farther on.Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh yes the Highway to Nowhere. A different story for a different day. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only the Highway to Nowhere, but it's nowhere at either end, no small accomplishment. There are also those alarming ramps on the elevated section of 95 south of the harbor that go nowhere Acroterion (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All part of the proposed highway plan in the 60s that got shut down, partially to Barbara Mikulski fighting in Fells Point. There's more north of the harbor just past Eastern Avenue as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Kagan

Hi, thanks for your help on Elena Kagan. However, I noticed you semi-protected the page for only three days when the page was previously protected for one year and was vandalized almost immediately after that protection expired. Shouldn't the protection be longer than a year, if not indefinite? Sutfeld (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is to get it protected now from the IP hopping vandal. I'll review the length once I've dealt with a couple of other things that are going on - I agree that another year is inevitable. Acroterion (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you want to go with another year instead of something longer? One year didn't work last time. Sutfeld (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely use a term beyond a year, we should revisit these things from time to time. This will at least get us to the next term. Acroterion (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

202.93.153.* on children's TV

Hello. I see that you recently removed several contributions by 202.93.153.247, including article hijacking and unsourced edits to children's TV series. I've just done a similar job on 202.93.153.240. Nearby addresses such as .225 and .227 have similar recent contributions. Should we be doing something more to deter this editor? Certes (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I live in north ossetia. that's what we called it- the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the North Ossetian Union under the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the People's Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.82.90 (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please don't start edit wars across multiple articles. If you have sources to back up your claims please present them on talk. -174.225.135.250 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use articles for editorial comment, and don't commingle ethnicity with nationality - Jewish and Marxist aren't nationalities. This kind of edit is generally considered disruptive, and unless Urban was a Maoist, "far-left" isn't appropriate either. As far as other articles are concerned, as an administrator I check your other contributions and had concerns about them too. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

external link

I put a link to a website that I run to help people the world over (average 250,000 views per year) and it was probably with good reason taken out but you have the foliage network in there that serves a similar purpose. I've been on CBS Sunday Morning, the BBC and PBS, being interviewed for helping people explore New England... I would ask that this be looked at again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Foliage (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as the COI notice says, please don't add external links to sites where you're involved. I've removed the others, since they don't really add anything or meet the standard of encyclopedic content required for external links - they're more like tourism promotional sites. Acroterion (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion request

I request that you please remove this edit, as a IP hopping anon hurled a personal attack at me on Han Chinese. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a steward. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:182.1.60.106

I wonder if this person were trying to vandalise my semiprotected userpage and ended up being sent to my talk page? Thank you :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP: 107.242.117.5‎]

You had to rev del an edit by this IP on Atomwaffen Division. Looking at their talk page (lots'o warnings) and their contribs, this looks like a vandalism-only IP that might need a longish time out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're not doing well, and they managed to defame Andy Ngo in the revdel'd edit. I'm keeping an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bro

I need a move, Cedric Doumbe to Cédric Doumbé, with French diacritics. Thanks!

Just do {{displaytitle:Cédric Doumbé}} on the page. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing happens unfortunately. I must move it to Cédric Doumbé. .karellian-24 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TSC, diacritics in titles are generally discouraged, but it's not an ironclad rule. I've swapped the redirects. Acroterion (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, mate! I appreciate. .karellian-24 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific racism and racial policies in Brazil

Hello Acroterion. First of all I acknowledge your zeal in keeping wikipedia a good and serious tool for the diffusion of knowledge. I think you and Mr Olly are acting without making the effort of reviewing the contents that you are deleting! I AM NOT JUST CITING MYSELF BUT I AM ADDING A LOT OF HISTORICAL SOURCES WRITTEN BY OTHER AUTHORS. IN ADDITION, I AM SORRY BUT IF YOU GO TO PLACES SUCH AS GOOGLE SCHOLAR AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC LIBRARIES , YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES WRITTEN IN ENGLISH AND DEALING EXPLICITLY WITH "SCIENTIFIC RACISM IN BRAZIL" In this sense, I cannot understand how come you just deleted the section on scientific racism in Brazil that I added to the wikipedia without checking that THE WHOLE SECTION was entirely based on a doubled blind checked paper in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the History of Biology such as the Journal of the History of Biology, AND QUOTING MANY WORKS WHICH ARE NOT MY OWN WORK!. All the content in the section I included and the references I quoted were product of serious research and were published in prestigious scientific journals, all these contents had been reviewed by experts before publication. My interest was not self citing but just supply wikipedia with good scientific contents in an aspect that had not received any attention within the entry "scientific racism",. i.e. scientific racism in Brazil and its ideological consequences in this south-american country. I hope that you reconsider your attitude. I apologize if I have mistaken the way or the appropriate forum to answer to you but I didn't find any other way. Best regards. Juan M.S. Arteaga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing yourself, adding <nowiki> Sánchez Arteaga, Juanma (2017). "Biological Discourses on Human Races and Scientific Racism in Brazil (1832-1911)". J Hist Biol. 50 (2): 267–314. doi:10.1007/s10739-016-9445-8. PMID 27216739.</nowiki}} Your next stop should be the talkpage, where you can make a case for inclusion - other editors should have the opportunity to review your edits and your sources, including your paper, before you insert it. Self-cites should only be used through consensus, and when your edits are contested, you must always use the talkpage to develop a consensus for inclusion. Please do that, instead of edit-warring, which is what you're doing right now. Acroterion (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles over redirect

Hey, Acroterion! In Talk:Operation Mockingbird, we are beginning a discussion of possibly changing the name of the article to Project Mockingbird; however, Project Mockingbird redirects to Operation Mockingbird. My recollection is that we cannot just copy and past the information from one to the other because of some Wikipedia rules regarding attribution. If there is consensus to do this, are you able to help with that? Thanks! - Location (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy material from one article to another, as long as you note it appropriately in the edit summary and maybe leave an explanation of what you did on the respective talkpages. In other words, it has to be attributed when you do it. See WP:MERGE for more. I'm tied up right now in RL, but can help later if you need it. Acroterion (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You falsely removed my edit

You removed my edit without reason, in Alpo Marttinen page about his sons death. While findagrave isnt in itself reliable, in the wiki page of afore mentioned site it says it can be used. And there is concrete evidence in the findagrave site, so next time maybe dont jump to conclusions but check the source cited. Amisderbi (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the consensus on Findagrave is that it's not a satisfactory source. [15] It's a crowdsourced site with no editorial control or fact-checking, and such sources are rarely seen as acceptable. If there is an obituary or other published source on Findagrave, that's what should be cited, not the Findagrave entry. Acroterion (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the Finnish Air Force flag reference you added looks reasonable to me, although some editors might not entirely agree, and it's an interesting bit of information. Acroterion (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need another help

Hello again,

Can you please restore this page into my Sandbox? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Ostrovanu I will keep it here until it will pass the rules. I need to have it since it is valuable information and this kickboxer is turning into a beast since 2018. .karellian-24 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, it's here [16]. Make sure you've got sufficient notability, and that you've addressed the deletion discussion before you try for article space. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

I think this qualifies for a revdel. – 2.O.Boxing 16:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done,and warned. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying and Wikipedia

Your actions will be reported. As i said journalists ask questions about moderation of Wikipedia. They report activity of firms on Wikipedia for their clients. Ask a question to a user to know if he is paid to modify an article on wikipedia is not a personal attack. It is a reality. https://www.numerama.com/business/626945-comment-des-agences-de-e-reputation-ont-modifie-des-articles-wikipedia-pour-leurs-clients.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca jones (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a personal attack when you make unsupported accusations against other editors because you disagree with them, or because they don't agree with your agenda. You're about to be indefinitely blocked. if you don't stop that behavior. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:: Acroterion : It is not a personal attack. Each time i reported news from famous european newspapers about Assange, same users drop them. I am surprised the first time because Le Monde is very famous in France. But when i reported decision of a UK judge in famous newspapers about Assange again same users drop it. Same things for the questions of a dutch senator about Assange, again they drop it. So I ask me why these same users drop all european reactions about Assange. And I saw these users spend all their times on wikipedia like you.

Journalists have reported the lack of neutrality of Wikipedia administrator because these administrators are paid by firms to drop or add informations (https://www.numerama.com/business/626945-comment-des-agences-de-e-reputation-ont-modifie-des-articles-wikipedia-pour-leurs-clients.html)

So I ask question to Wikipedia, why do you drop all europeans reactions and decision of justice in Europe about Assange published in famous newspaper ? You cannot drop them and report only reactions of United States. Assange is in Europe and the decision of an indicment depends only of Europe, not United States.

I am very shocked that Wikipedia accept you as administrator because you do not respect neutrality rules of Wikipedia, and you do not respect laws in Europe.

Again, journalists will be very interested by your last action because you drop these informations whereas they are published during several months on wikipedia.


« Reactions to the US indictment Several jurists, politicians, associations, academics and campaigners viewed the arrest of Assange as an attack on freedom of the press and international law.[378][379][380] The Reporters Without Borders said Assange's arrest could "set a dangerous precedent for journalists, whistle-blowers, and other journalistic sources that the US may wish to pursue in the future."[381] Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote that Assange's prosecution for publishing leaked documents is "a major threat to global media freedom".[382] Independent United Nations rights experts such as Agnes Callamard said "the arrest of Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange by police in the United Kingdom, after the Ecuadorian Government decided to stop granting him asylum in their London embassy, exposed him to the risk of serious human rights violations, if extradited to the United States".[383] Reactions in the UK and the European Union WikiLeaks was recognised as a media organisation in 2017 by a UK tribunal, contradicting public assertions to the contrary by some US officials, and possibly supporting Assange's efforts to oppose his extradition to the United States.[384][385][386][387] This is why the Dutch senator Tiny Kox asked the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, Dunja Mijatovic, whether the arrest of Assange and his possible extradition to the US are in line with the criteria of the European Convention on Human Rights, because Assange can benefit from the protection of the right to freedom of expression and information according the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[388] In 2019, British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said that Assange had revealed "evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan" and his extradition to the United States "should be opposed by the British government".[381] In February 2020 Corbyn again praised Assange, demanding a halt to the extradition. Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded vaguely with "it’s obvious that the rights of journalists and whistleblowers should be upheld and this government will continue to do that.”[389][390] Eva Joly, magistrate and MEP, said that "the arrest of Julian Assange is an attack on freedom of expression, international law and right to asylum".[391] Sevim Dagdelen, a German Bundestag MP who specialises in international law and press law, describes Assange's arrest as "an attack on independent journalism" and says that he "is today seriously endangered".[392][393] Dick Marty, a former state prosecutor of Ticino and rapporteur on the CIA's secret prisons for the Council of Europe, considers the arrest of whistleblowers "very shocking".[394][395] Several well-known Swiss jurists have asked the Federal Council to grant asylum to the founder of Wikileaks because he is threatened with extradition to the United States, which in the past "silenced whistleblowers".[396][397] The French Union of Journalists (Syndicat national des journalistes (CGT) [fr]), said that "the dissemination of documents or information of public interest" could not be considered a legal offence. The union called on Britain "to refuse the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States and to release him."[398] In a letter, several French Union of Journalists (Syndicat national des journalistes (CGT) [fr]) and (Syndicat national des journalistes (CFDT) [fr]) asked Emmanuel Macron to enforce Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According them, "Faced with threats to Julian Assange's health and at the risk of seeing him sentenced to life imprisonment, we are saying loud and clear, with the IFJ (Fédération internationale des journalistes) that 'journalism is not a crime'". They add: Julian Assange denounced in his publications war crimes condemned by the Geneva Convention. Today, he is the one we would like to imprison, we would like to silence. ... We consider this case one of the most serious attacks on the freedom of the press, against public freedoms within the EU. The IFJ, the French unions and their Australian counterparts have launched a motion to seize this serious case the UN Human Rights Council and the European Parliament and the Council of Europe.[399] The yellow vests movement called for Assange's release.[400][401][402]

Other reactions Former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa condemned Assange's arrest.[406] Bolivian President Evo Morales also condemned it.[333] Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the indictment.[413][333] In January 2020, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted to oppose Assange’s extradition to the US.[414] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca jones (talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename request.

I will use "offroader" as my username and will delete all info involving me personally. Thanks I will try my best to edit the page as necessary. MarocAtlas Gibraltar 4x4 Club (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plwease do that at the link I provided - check to see if it's already used first. Don't keep copying the unblock template - you're unlocked now. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Sorry to bother you again, could you please send to my sandbox Cristian Ristea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristian_Ristea ? It was deleted in 2014 but since then fought for a world title, was a runner-up of an important heavyweight tournament. So he passes. I might recreate his page, thanks! You are a helpful admin, I appreciate. .karellian-24 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, you can find it here: [17]] Acroterion (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk page access by LTA

Please remove talk page access from User talk:125.165.56.205‎. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

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) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

I think this diff may justify a RevDel. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes. Acroterion (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! DonIago (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gu64rk g

Hi, Acroterion. Although I was mistaken when I said that Gu64rk g was the same person who had posted the previous RFAM nonsense, I think that was a righteous block. This is a brand new user, just created today yesterday, who immediately became a SPA targeting that article only and that one point. If he isn’t the same person as the named user who originally posted the conspiracy theory (and he probably isn’t), he may very well be one of the IPs who agreed with it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to warn them again, but the way they're trying to obfuscate their earlier edits convinced me that they're not editing in good faith, and it was time to get it over with. Their unblock request is more of the same. Acroterion (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Killer whale attacks

I will get back to you in the morning but I have found something that cites a source, I believe I missourced something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.55.96.89 (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you get the sourcing put it on the talkpage with a discussion of what you want to change and why. That's always best anyway. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP

Not sure if you received my ping on the IP's talk page, but since you are the blocking admin who's familiar with the IP's edits, thought I should let you know that after my post, they are continuing with the same disruptive behavior on another BLP article just an hour ago: [18][19] then reverted by another editor [20] telling them to cite sources and left them yet another talk page warning. Thanks, Some1 (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the range for a couple of weeks. They're mixing OK edits with unsourced assertions. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LTA: UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP

You have blocked a bunch of IPs over the years labeling them "LTA:UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP".

I'm looking at the recent contributions of 80.47.46.213 and 80.2.20.67, thinking the person may be active again. April saw the actions of Special:Contributions/2.97.27.181. And last December it was Special:Contributions/78.146.96.103.

You may well be the person most familiar with this vandal's style. What do you think of these IPs? Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They fit the geographical pattern, interests and style of that LTA. I thought I'd seen them recently too. They appear to have matured in recent years and are better at staying under the radar than before, they had been less visible or quiet for a couple of years. They seems to be associated with the Southend area and had edited from South Essex College IPs. The Halloween movie franchise and Victor Hugo-related topics were big too., along with Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I'll look more closely. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some repeated attempts by this person to add material to a few articles including stuff about Midway, Flight 93 and Dunkirk have involved the IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's taken a little while to get to this, with a couple of deadlines and work emergencies. Rangeblocks don't look very likely, there's a lot of collateral damage. I'll try to keep an eye on some of their targets. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's hard to put a rangeblock together without collateral damage. New IP Special:Contributions/79.69.243.22 is doing the same stuff. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Racist Action

Please 'undo' your removal of my edit to the Anti Racist Action page. The naming of people in that page, without a public citation of their alleged involvement, is a dogwhistle that could lead to the targeting of people for violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Number2Ghost (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

Hi Acroterion, regarding DIORCHRISTIANDIORALEXANDRIAFROMDADBL (talk · contribs): maybe just childish vandalism, but their writing is characteristic of the word salad found in thought disorders like schizophrenia. It's easy to dismiss such behavior as disruptive or asinine - I've done it myself, and it took a long time, and seeing several friends afflicted, to learn better. It seemed necessary to give a vandalism warning to this user, but I also wanted to be sensitive to the possibility, hence my comment: If you are deliberately adding nonsense to Wikipedia, please stop. If not, please try to get psychiatric help from a doctor or hospital. Thanks. I was disheartened to see that you removed what I wrote from the talk page, with the summary "rv nonsense". I don't imagine my words would have much impact either way, but it seemed like the right thing to do anyway.

It's not the only example on Wikipedia. Just a week before, there was another user writing in a way that looked, as likely as not, to result from a person struggling with psychosis. A group of admins were having a laugh about it, and talking about memorializing it on a joke page. It could be a troll, but it could be someone suffering and in need of help. I didn't say anything, but maybe I should have. I don't mean to condemn or point fingers, and I don't want to be the political correctness police. Last month was Mental Health Awareness month, and I think we all could stand to be more informed and conscious about it. Would you consider this? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment certainly wasn't nonsense, and I agree with your assessment that the person was having a psychiatric crisis. However, Wikipedia isn't therapy, and we can't be in the business of offering mental health advice. It's been my experience that it's hard, verging on futile to do in person, much less via a text-based medium between complete strangers who may be at opposite ends of the earth, and leaving it on the talkpage just provides a target for those who might make fun of it. A vandalism warning isn't going to affect the person's perception in the slightest, it's better to quietly block, clear the scrambled text, and move on. My edit summary could probably have been "rv" and left it at that. In this I tend to treat it as I might when I encounter someone who is clearly a child who is offering too much information, who will not listen to someone typing over the internet trying to tell them not to - just quietly clear it and move on. From the point of view of a publisher or newspaper, that's material for the slushpile. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I gave the warning because WP:AIV normally requires four warnings before blocking. It's also my experience that it can be very difficult to get someone to accept the need for help, but I felt bad about making an accusation of malicious damage & vandalism, when it probably wasn't that way. I'm not quite sure what you mean by it being a target for those who might make fun of it, though I do understand the concept of quietly clearing things without comment. Maybe I should have gone straight to an admin instead. I'll keep you in mind if I see something like that again... -IamNotU (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general, never hesitate from contacting WP:EMERGENCY, if there's even any doubt that acute distress may lead to self-harm. Not sure that's the case here, though. El_C 13:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: blanking the text - I don't like to leave something posted by someone who is apparently in distress, it seems intrusive. I agree that AIV is not set up to handle that kind of thing, and ANI is too public. I'd just quietly contact an active admin and ask them to do a block and removal. If you see a genuinely troubling situation (I don't think this one falls into that category, in terms of the possibility of harm, at least), El C's advice is correct. I've dealt with the WMF's emergency folks on several occasions, and they've been helpful. They won't be able to tell you what they did, but I can assure you it's much better than the bad old days when we had to make up our minds what to do as individuals and take action into our own hands. Having talked to the police on three occasions before the emergency procedure was adopted, this is better. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I am ok with your edits. Opinions are ruining Wikipedia, I have been using it for over 20 years and shocked how it has become a political propaganda tool. As someone who works In one of the most cutting edge technical industries (spacecraft), I cringe every time I use Wikipedia for anything non-technical where millennials have corrupted all the pages with their opinions. If you don’t mind, search on “alt-right,” “right wing,” “fascist,” and “conspiracy theorist,” to see how many mainstream entities have been characterized by mental midgets citing opinion pieces, unrelated articles, or with no citations at all. If you were to correct those articles, that would be a service to Wikipedia and possibly bring its reputation back as a credible encyclopedia. The type of BS I see now is going to cause the collapse of Wikipedia, which would be a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelscott40 (talk • contribs)

The answer isn't to put back something that says the same thing in an opposite direction, and anybody who wants to look up OANN can do so via the link. As far as Brennan is concerned, a broad investigation, one of many ongoing legal maneuvers in an election year, doesn't warrant mention or such specificity unless something actually comes of it. Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, stop with the accusations in BLPs in wikivoice, you're doing exactly what you were just complaining about. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are NY Times, CNN and NY Post “news” articles that have been broadly reported with accurate citations of the news? Why are you not stating the unmasking which is a public record of a very high level person? John Brennan was the CIA Director, one of the most powerful positions in the world. He was caught lying. The NY Times carries it but not Wikipedia?

You are drawing a conclusion that isn't plainly, explicitly stated in either source. "The Times reported that Durham is also looking into whether Brennan privately contradicted his public comments" is very far from your accusation. And an account in the New York Post (!) of a discussion on Tucker Carlson's show is not close to satisfactory sources, far less since it doesn't say what you're asserting either.You can't complain about propaganda when you're drawing conclusions not present in sources. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted

Hi, Why my page has been removed. Please explain how to present the article in wikipedia

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we suppressing information on a suspected Israels agent when it's backed by neutral and reliable sources

You mentioned on my page the following "Apart from the strange emphasis your edit places on the Mossad in a biography of a person who hasn't been asserted to have had anything to do with intelligence, the incorporation of rumors about her father is a further stretch. Given your history of edits concerning Israel, you are editing in an area that is subject to sanctions, in addition to the BLP discretionary sanction regime. Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)". I will give you benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read the biography of Robert_Maxwell. So kindly please stop now and read it then continue. I knew you are not going to read it so here is a cut and paste from there to answer why I am saying he is a suspected Israeli agent on Ghislaine_Maxwell "The Foreign Office suspected that Maxwell was a secret agent of a foreign government, possibly a double agent or a triple agent, and "a thoroughly bad character and almost certainly financed by Russia." Maxwell had known links to the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), to the Soviet KGB, and to the Israeli intelligence service Mossad.[1] Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended Maxwell's funeral in Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized him and stated: “He has done more for Israel than can today be said."[2]

Shortly before Maxwell's death, a former employee of Israel's Military Intelligence Directorate, Ari Ben-Menashe, approached a number of news organisations in Britain and the US with the allegation that Maxwell and the Daily Mirror's foreign editor, Nicholas Davies, were both long-time agents for Mossad. "

When you have the assertion from a former mossad agent that he is one of them, then you have president and six head of Mossads attending his funeral why wouldn't you want to say "suspected Israeli agent"? Would you have done this if it was Putin and six KGB heads attending his funeral with a testimonial of a former KGB agent. Why not Israel then? It's reliable and neutral info that deserves to be published. MYS1979 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Telegraph, 2 Nov. 2003 "FO Suspected Maxwell Was a Russian Agent, Papers Reveal"
  2. ^ Gordon Thomas, Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), p. 23)
You weren't editing Robert Maxwell's biography, you were editing Ghislaine Maxwell's biography to insert speculation about her father. It's in inappropriate linkage, and a violation of BLP. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite right Acroterion(talk). While I agree I wasn't editing her father's biography as the information that he is a suspected Israeli spy is already mentioned there and no need to edit anything this piece of information about Ghislaine_Maxwell father is pivotal to her biography. There are already large sections about her father there! Did you not notice that? Are you suggesting to delete them because it's her biography. How about we remove Epstein references from her biography while we are at it and see what's left! Why are you specifically interested in removing the info about her father's connection to Mossad. I presented this topic in a very neutral way with reliable sources, I didn't state he is one, I said "suspected agent" to be extra careful and neutral.

MYS1979 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are abusing a secondary article as a coattrack for accusations against the father, and appear to be trying to imply guilt by association for the daughter. You've been warned before about your edits concerning Israel in general.There are enough conspiracy theories concerning Epstein, Maxwell and Maxwell, youn must provide direct referencing to show that this is relevant to the daughter. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight Acroterion(talk), someone who has been arrested on six counts related to child sex and trafficking who has a partner with at least one fake passport and was found dead/(killed according to his brother) in his jail who traveled to Israel regularly, and where both had video and pictures of their VIP guests in not optimal situations, and you think saying her father a "supected mossad agent" is coattrack? Let me tell you what coattrack, her father was a florist who enjoys tea and biscuits after dinner that would be coattrack.
Yes, and since you have made it plain that you are promoting an unsourced personal theory, you are warned for synthesis too. Acroterion (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we are chasing our tails here? let's agree to disagree on this one and let the readers decide for themselves if mentioning that someones father is a spy is relevant or not to their biography especially when both share a life of action, crime, arrests, dignitaries, and even possible murders. I know where 99% of people out there stand on this one.
No, you are directly warned for inappropriate synthesis in a biography, as an administrator action. You will be blocked if you continue. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Page

The statement is materially incorrect and needs to be modified. Similar errors have NOT been found in other FISA warrants. The reporting has been debunked and the citation is improper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D33pState2020 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talkpage to describe why you think it should be changed, and why you should prefer a generally deprecated source, the Washington Times, over a generally reliable source, the New York Times. Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, I think this account is WP:NOTHERE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The username and editing focus is certainly suggestive of that. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the account as NOTHERE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles's population density

Hi, you undid my edit on British Isles changing the population density from 216 to 228 under the reason "not sourced", which I don't really understand since the reason of my edit is based on a simple calculus based on the informations which are already in the article.

Grab a calculator and see yourself: 71,891,524 inhabitants on 315,159 square kilometers gives 228 inhabitants per square kilometer, not 216. Whether or not the 71,891,524 number is correct, which I don't know since I don't really understand where the guy who added it found it in the source indicated, keeping the mathematical incoherence would be bizarre.

I did search for reliable sources for the British Isles population, and it's complicated. Adding up Ireland's and United Kingdom's UN estimates is bad since their UK estimates probably incorporate the British Overseas Territories which aren't part of the British Isles, and are generally too broad and less accurate than estimates of the national government. So I looked up the UK official mid-2019 estimate. Adding up England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I get 66,796,807.

But the Crown dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernesey and Jersey, the last two being incorporated in the 315,159 total area number in the British Isles article) don't seem to be included in those data, and after quick search I can't find any reliable source for their population in 2019.

Moreover, the official Irish data closest to the UK ones are from April 2019, so adding them to the aforementioned UK mid-2019 estimate would be a somewhat inaccurate. And the Crown dependencies would be missing.

To sum up, I can't come up with a reliably sourced population number for the British Isles in 2019. Ergo the population density cannot either be reliably sourced since it's calculated based on this number. However, having nothing better, I'm not going to change the current potentially false & unsourced population number, and it's going to stay there for a while because virtually no one cares about those demographic trifles.

Should we not therefore rather have a potentially false & unsourced population number and a mathematically coherent 228 density number than a potentially false & unsourced population number and a mathematically incoherent 216 density number?

I think we should. But edit warring over this would be childish, so I won't insist. Your call. 90.8.221.223 (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go find a source for your change, especially since you indicate that the subject is open to interpretation. It's that easy. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, I've searched and I don't have one, because as far as I know no official source gives an estimate for the British Isles's population or population density as a whole, and the official estimates from each components are not coordinated. So I can't come up with a correct sourced estimate. Maybe someone else will be able to in the future, I don't know. Maybe the currently displayed number 71,891,524 is correct, but the guy just didn't add his source. I just wanted it at least to be coherent mathematically with the density number regarding the total area. But I guess it will have to remain mathematically false until someone better or luckier than me at searching for sources does the job then. 90.8.221.223 (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a try. The CIA Factbook is usually regarded as a reliable source of statistical information of that kind. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't located on for the British Isles overall, and calculating from separate sets of statistics will run into the definitional issue you've encountered. I'll keep looking. Acroterion (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Mountain

There is an editor, 96.252.95.115 editing at Stone Mountain who has been reverted three times and has reverted back three times. His edits carry subjects such as, "Fixed this. Language was too vague. This is a white supremacist monument. I don’t want to read any of the bullshit “Southern pride .” Fuck that" Could you pleae keep an eye on them. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, it's been endemic to some degree across the encyclopedia.
I lived for a couple of years within a couple of miles of Stone Mountain. It's a bizarre window into the Lost Cause movement at its most extravagant. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do so enjoy editing without politics, and editing sculpture used to be so safe. Now I'm caught up with Gutzon Borglum (an article I started in on about 15 years ago) and now he is front page news and . . ......... and you know how that goes. Thanks, Carptrash (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions to my contribution

You reverted my edit to the Tube Bar prank calls page - why? I was correcting the faux names used on the calls, specifically "Phil my ass" and "Phil Lucio" etc. Instead of throwing around baseless accusations of disruptive editing with a copy-paste template, explain the issue you have with the edits or move along. 81.154.114.201 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use sources, and stop reverting to you preferred version at NONAZIs. Your behavior is borderline trolling. Acroterion (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of trolling is an odd one. And the Tube Bar article's existing sources already point out the names. 81.154.114.201 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach to other editors is an odd one. I've protected the article so you can explain what you're doing on the talkpage, as we expect, rather than deeclaring that you'll just keep reverting. Between your first edit to a noticeboard and a pronounced resemblance to BKFIP, I don't think you're a Wikipedia novice. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'm no novice - but I'm not BKFIP. I just don't understand why I've got to jump through hoops to improve an article by correcting an erroneous name used in it? In the Tube Bar Tapes, they goad the bartender into saying "Phil Lucio" (fellatio) and "Phil Myacsz" (fill my ass)). Whoever curated it originally was incorrect.81.154.114.201 (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on being au courant on our names for long-term abuse cases. You do a good impression of BKFIP's attitude. And BKFIP's attitude is why his otherwise helpful edits tend to get thrown out with the obnoxious ones. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who BKFIP is - I just made an assumption he was a user (presumably blocked?) that you were referring to. And my attitude stems from dealing with obstructive admins (to the point that one particular senior admin's presence is enough to aggravate) more interested in enforcing the letter of the law than the spirit and throwing sock accusations at every corner and randomly reverting edits on that basis regardless of the quality of contribution, so I decided I'd give the account angle a break and do things on my terms. 81.154.114.201 (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2020 (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 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Hey there Acroterion,

Thanks or writing and for your opinion, I appreciate it a lot. Yes, you are right, Google does not craw wikipedia that easily. Since I did my reg to Wikipedia yesterday, I'm still getting used to the platform. It's not that user-friendly, but it's indeed important. I decided to write a page about myself in general to see how it works. It took me 2 hours :)) I would appreciate your input and help on some things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steffanvs (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to restore it so you can scale it back and make it un-spammy. We tend to regard editors who start out talking about SEO with concern. Acroterion (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia (TV series)

Hello, I saw that you engaged a user for potential edit warring on Britannia (TV series). The user started a talk discussion. Myself and several editors explained the problems with the content in question but the discussion appears to be deadlocked. I'm not really sure what the "next step" is but would appreciate any guidance you may have. Thanks,

It looks they've failed to gain policy-based consensus on the talkpage, so there is no further step other than "no." I attempted to explain to them the issues that they should address, and it looks like you got the same response, only at greater length. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. We seem to be back to the same issues including an edit warring IP (may or may not be the same user.) PAVA11 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. There appears to be a brand new user piling on, added a NPOV tag, and whose user page seems to indicate a WP:NOTHERE concern. Not sure whether it's actually a new user. PAVA11 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Indentured servants - changes not cited

Okay, my apologies, I will ensure that I highlight my citations before publishing in future. I will cite these changes tonight and re-publish. Many thanks. StephenDedalus2020 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss the sources and edits as proposals on the talkpage first. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great, I'll spend some time putting a a proposal for a number of changes and communicate them to you here. I have saved the page to a word document and will get to it over the weekend. Thanks again.

18:39 17/07/2020 The five links I have listed below do not work. I have tested them on Internet Explorer and Chrome. In relation to the academia links, I have an academia account and user access is not the problem. I propose removing these links from the "External Links" section. Thank you. 1. https://ibs.colorado.edu/alston/econ8534/SectionIII/Galenson,_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Indentured_Servitude_in_the_Americas.pdf 2. https://plymouth.rl.talis.com/items/50DBECD4-0395-BE9B-1689-460E944F3724.html 3. http://www.theflightoftheearls.net/SlaveryReview.pdf 4. https://www.academia.edu/24907710/Irish_Indentured_Servants_Papists_and_Colonists_in_Spanish_Colonial_Puerto_Rico_ca._1650-1800 5. https://www.academia.edu/25013836/The_Irish_in_the_Anglo-Caribbean_servants_or_slaves

Go ahead and propose those changes on the talkpage. Keep in mind that dead links are not grounds for removal of references (they should be updated instead), but I agree that dead external links in the external link section should be removed. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will propose the edit. In relation to citation 27 the link no longer works -http://www.historyireland.com/volume-24/the-rish-in-the-anglo-caribbean-servants-or-slaves/

I have googled the article and found the appropriate link, I will go ahead and propose these edits too. - https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/18th-19th-century-social-perspectives/the-irish-in-the-anglo-caribbean-servants-or-slaves/

http://www.historyireland.com/volume-24/the-rish-in-the-anglo-caribbean-servants-or-slaves/

Animal Rights - Wikipedia

Euro - Centric characters are still in control of distorting history on Animal Rights.

What are the lessons Euro - Centric people have learnt from the Black Lives Matter movement?

The section on Animal Rights completely leaves out the major contribution by Humanist movements outside Europe.

it is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.209.251 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your edits is that they're not sourced. Please provide sourcing, per policy. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50.204.198.17

Perhaps you can revoke talk page privileges as well. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:75D4:48D4:757F:B45F (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

false claims of attacking editors

Hello Acroterion, please stop attacking editors with whom you dont agree by making false accusations of attacking editors. If you cant deal with your bias then maybe its time to take a step outside and get some fresh air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrindMocha (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Could you possibly chime in over here[21]. It concerns overcategorization of election article. Another editor plus myself have been trying to inform this editor. You may want to read this too[22]. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:02, 19 July 2020 (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.

JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your assistance please...

You speedy deleted an article entitled Limbik, under WP:CSD#A7.

I'd like to request userification, as I started an article on the firm's founder. If there is nothing worth cannibalizing I'll speedy the userified version.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's a Draft:Limbik. Acroterion (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for responding so quickly!
  • The article says the firm was founded by Zach Schwitzky and Josh Levin - and the sole contributor was Joshuaelevin, a clue the article's creation may not have been compliant with WP:COI. If a new article on this topic was to be started it would be best if it were a complete rewrite, and did not re-use any passages from the first version.
  • I am finished with my review. Thanks.
  • I will note one further minor point. Reddogsix reverted five good faith edits Joshuaelevin made after it had been tagged for deletion. I see this as unnecessary, and a lapse from WP:BITE. When an article is up at AFD good faith contributors are encouraged to make edits to address the concerns raised by those who favor deletion, right up until an administrator closes the review. I've never read anything to suggest good faith edits are not allowed after an article has been tagged for speedy deletion.

    I said I would tag it for speedy deletion, when I didn't need it any more. I'll do that in a couple of days, as I'd like to give Reddogsix a chance to review their revision, and decide for themselves as to whether my BITE observation holds any merit.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Reddogsix had their competency challenged at WPANI, for too many bad speedy nominations, and announced their retirement, in 2018. So I will tag it now. Thanks again for your help. Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Years on Wikipedia!

Hey, Acroterion. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Collin block evader

He emailed me from his account complaining about my reversion - with his phone number. Nice of him to make the block evasion so clear. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory Blues Brothers reference. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Alapaha blue blood bulldog

You have a completely wrong history description and overview of this breed. It is a recognized breed by several registry. Including the American Rare Breed Association. I also run a registry and I am a breed historian. Can we actively fix your entry if I have documents from the original registry the Animal Research Foundation and the breed founder Lana Lou Lane. Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have legit documents you have the entire article wrong Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited the article at all, but you are welcome to correct the article, using published sources as references.Personal knowledge isn't admissible, because it must be capable of independent verification. In any case, you may not replace sourced information with different information without replacing the reference, and ideally you should have done that after mentioning your proposed edits and sources on the article talkpage so other editors can see the proposed changes. Additionally, you must respect the best practices in WP:COI and avoid self-sourcing and self-promotion. Small-population animal breeds tend to be poorly documented, but that isn't an occasion to add material that can't be found in published sources. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not self sourcing how do I get the proper information to you Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has completely false information regarding every aspect of the breed Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the talk page is or who to submit the documents to for sourcing Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you contesting the source that is cited? Every article has a talkpage - there's a "talk" tab next to the article's tab at the upper left of the window. The talkpage is where you can propose edits and sources. It's just like college, everything must be referenced. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of observation, general references tend to be spotty in their research on small-population breeds, so it's not surprising. However, you will still need published sources, which means that Ms. Lane needs to be mentioned in a book or reliable web publication that can be verified. Reliable means that the source has a reputation for fact-checking - breed fancy websites are often unreliable or represent narrow factions within a set of breed enthusiasts. Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, i thought it is bad

I am sorry for doing wrong thing on this article Greta Thunberg. I thought that redlinks are bad, but it is not bad. I will not do this again soon. Rdp060707 (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for reversion of improvements to the tables of the COVID-19 vaccine article

Hello,

You reverted some of my edits without providing an explanation. May I ask what was the problem? The reversion discarded proper sorting of the Phase of trial column by the number of participants, and it also restored the Notes column which does not contain tabular data and is more suitable for a group of footnotes. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I misclicked.Sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your message (2nd August 2020)

You just left me a message. Accidentally I resaved my edit thinking it hadn't gone through.

But you're wrong to say it was "disruptive editing". It was just removing the contradiction of saying national socialists were far-right, but retaining the description of far right as a modern label for fascism. Surely that was needed to avoid "cognitive dissonance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiKeith (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National socialism is far right according to the consensus of political science since the 1930s. Naive editors keep disruptively claiming that Nazis were left wing because "National Socialist." The cognitive dissonance was a feature, not a bug, so it's not up to you to rectify it. The "socialism" part of national socialism is about as descriptive as the "democratic" in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiKeith, you said "the Nazis were fascists", and that's deceptive. Nazism falls under the broader heading of fascism, but it's more than that, and fascism is a far-right way of thinking, and so is Nazism, by way of deduction. If one disagrees with that, one either doesn't know what "far-right" (or "right-wing") means, or one is just repeating weird talking points derived from almost-far-right thinkers who are trying to sweep their stoop, as the Dutch might say. There might be one other option: one doesn't know what Nazism or fascism is, in which case one certainly shouldn't be editing that article. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't re-edit the page but it disappoints me that Wikipedia has become a political playground when I'm trying to make it neutral and accurate. There are plenty of historical scholars who discuss fascism also as a left-wing methodology. Eg Hugh Seton-Watson, Fascism, Right and Left", Journal of Contemporary History, 1966, Vol 1, 183-197. Or Coupland P.M. (2005) ‘Left-Wing Fascism’ in Theory and Practice. In: Copsey N., Renton D. (eds) British Fascism, the Labour Movement and the State. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522763_6

It's effectively Orwellian to now edit the present to pretend that, in the past, fascism was solely a far-right methodology. You should read 1984 and reflect.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a forum for historical; revisionism. And in point of fact, there is an article on left-wing fascism - it has been applied to aspects of the German Democratic Republic and Peronism, but it is a niche concept. The NAtional Socialist party is consistently described as a right-wing party - they adopted the "socialist" tag as our article puts it "out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism." The Nazis were the original Orwellian speakers of Doublespeak. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

offensive material

Hi, you reverted and hided this once, but it was restored so if you could hide this too [23] --Zache (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia (TV series) controversy

First, thank you for dealing with the controversy. Second, as you may have noticed, it has been disposed of. The two editors who were arguing in favor of the plagiarism claim were blocked for sockpuppetry. You had warned the first of them that they were close to a site block on English Wikipedia for conduct. Right after that, they got the site block for a different conduct issue. It is disposed of unless any more sockpuppets cause trouble, and, if so, sockpuppets usually get blocked quickly enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll, keep an eye on them. I expect they'll appeal at great length, and they've been using Commons as a dump for intelligence on editors who they disagree with. Thank you for your patient work at DR - I think by the fourth statement you'd exhausted all possible ways of getting them to produce a usable source. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by the fourth statement I had gotten them to coloring inside the lines, but I was also asking to have their crayons taken away. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a procedure for blocking or banning users on Commons, since you are saying that SR has been abusing Commons? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I also thought it was worth nothing the potential finding noted here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/971156806). Not sure anything else needs done, just thought it was worth noting we all appeared to be missing the true extent of the user's interest in the subject. Maybe worth noting is response to any potential appeal. PAVA11 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion&oldid=971219539"