User talk:Acroterion

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hi Acroterion!

Can you pleaase protect all Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:608:F500:2880:B536:8517:5D79 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> if only... - wolf 21:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, 6,387,400 articles X 15 seconds each to fill out the paperwork = 95,811,000 seconds/1,596,850 minutes/26,614 hours/1,109 days. I'll get right on it. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're only counting the articles. I think the IP requested all 54,304,029 pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess I'd better pack a lunch. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would solve a lot of problems. (Would it create others? Oh my. Guess we could find out. :) ) Antandrus (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drum Corps articles

Would you support creating List of DCI Open Class corps and List of defunct DCI corps as WP:Stand-alone lists, merging some of the various articles you've nominated at AFD? I'm not sure there's enough about "all-age" DCA corps to justify a similar article for those groups but a similar option may work there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think these can be sourced enough for a list and consolidated. I'd like to preserve some of the content and lose the cruft. Honestly, only the World-class units that have seen competitive success seem to be notable, the lower echelon outfits probably need to go too, but I don't want to do that all at once. A well-structured list would be a good home. Acroterion (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the process at List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. I am dropping the performance songlists and some obvious cruft but merging most of the rest; there is still a lot of cruft and unsourced material being merged but I want to minimize interleaving Copying within Wikipedia with my own editorial changes. Going to wait at least 36 hours to see if any DCI people notice/comment before doing more merges. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The DCI people have been rather quiet. I really don't want to rain on anybody's parade (ahem), but most of those articles shouldn't exist on their own. A list is a good solution, but independent sourcing remains an issue. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One merge got reverted (for reasonable-enough reasons), the others seem to have stuck. I'll merge another batch to the defunct article now, and start the "Open Class" (aka division 2) article tomorrow or the next day. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have at it. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I mostly frequent Wikipedia for articles in the scientific and technical fields I work in and don't look at the drum corps pages much, but I visited recently and found that there are omissions that I find very surprising (as someone formerly involved in the activity and fairly knowledgeable about it), with some very noteworthy corps now missing pages while other corps with much less history/relevance/success have pages. I see that you have been pushing several of these deletions. While I understand your motivation -- most of these pages are actually pretty terrible and in need of serious cleanup to meet Wikipedia's standards -- in the the deletion discussions I see several objections that I simply don't think anyone familiar with the drum corps activity or marching music in general would think are relevant. For instance, placement in the top 3 as a criterion of success is arbitrary and not appropriate in the context of the activity (I can explain why elsewhere), and some of the dismissals of citations from what are actually independent publications simply because they are focused on marching music seem entirely inconsistent with the standards used on Wikipedia: I work in computational mathematics, for instance, and no one is proposing that all of those pages be deleted because they heavily cite computational mathematics journals. But, I'm not here to argue these, but instead to ask is there an appropriate place where a high-level discussion of what the appropriate measures of relevance, what are legitimate sources for citation, what the general guidelines are for what should go into pages for individual drum corps, etc. could take place? What I've seen in the piecemeal deletion discussions is pretty inconsistent, and I think that the entire body of drum corps pages could be improved by having a high-level discussion in a central place. I've never waded into this sort of controversy for a collection of Wikipedia articles before, so I don't know and am therefore asking an admin. Thanks. Dr.RMills (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to contest individual deletions, deletion review WP:DRV is the place. You will need to address how the organization complies with broad Wikipedia notability guidelines, such as the general notability guidelines WP:GNG and the specific guidelines for musical performers WP:BAND, with specific sources The nominations were based on those criteria for inclusion. The top-three placement in competition is based on criterion #9 in WP:BAND, which appeared to be the sole valid reason for inclusion in many cases, according to widely-accepted guidelines. If you think that should be changed, the talkpage associated with that guideline would be the best place to open a discussion.

In general, the articles I and others nominated for deletion failed both GNG and BAND. General notability is a widespread problem with many of these articles, since there is scant coverage of the organizations in broader media that would confer notability, and mere membership in one of the umbrella organizations doesn't confer notability. Worse, there were cases where junior or feeder corps had stand-alone articles, which I would argue are a disservice to the reader, as they fragment information that might otherwise be relevant across two or more articles, when the parent meets BAND.

Beyond that, the drum corps articles exhibit an extreme level of unsourced detail, with setlists, detailed travelogues, and in some cases chatty editorializing. This is at odds with Wikipedia's summary style, and is best suited to a specialty wiki at Fandom, where such material is not subject to sourcing requirements. Deletion is not a means to address the very poor sourcing that still prevails throughout this category of article, that must be tended to as well in the long run for the remaining articles that meet the letter of the guidelines. Few of these articles could sustain more than a short paragraph if strict referencing requirements (which are policy) are applied. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Acroterion. In your opinion as an admin, do political pundits and talking heads (think Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, etc.) fall under the AP2 topic (and potentially discretionary measures)? If so, does that only apply if they specifically address explicitly political topics, or does the umbrella also include cultural topics that have become politicized ("wokeness", vaccines, the "war on Christmas", etc.)? Grandpallama (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is: it depends on context and who is interpreting the context.

In my view, since everything that can possibly be politicized is politicized, it would fall under AP2 if the overall trend of editing behavior appears to be politically motivated. I am not in favor or extending broad-brush sanctions or warnings simply because someone passes through a topic like those, and vaccines, for example, would be a hard sell unless there's a distinct political tone to a given set of edits. Since you are discussing specifically political pundits, their statements would be covered by AP2 - but they're not the ones editing Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how you think it would be applied. As an admin, I am leery of prejudging things like that, or judging them at all unless some editor is following a pattern that would clearly invite sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True--everything is dependent upon context. Thank you for the very thoughtful answer, which makes a great deal of sense. (And I know it's difficult to address stuff like that in the abstract!) For clarification, I was thinking of the BLP articles about political pundits, and therefore comments they might make about politicized issues that are not inherently political topics (such as vaccines), and criticisms they receive in the wake of those comments. There are often attempts to scrub well-sourced material from articles that is critical of their subjects (both on the left and on the right), and when someone digs in their heels and edit wars to keep it in/out (without discussion, etc.), it seems to me that a discretionary sanctions warning might be merited, especially when there are clues that the editor might not be on the up-and-up. Thanks again! Grandpallama (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robjwev - continues

At the end of our previous discussion, you wrote unless it continues, I don't see a need for uintervention. Sorry to say, my problem with Robjwev (talk · contribs) continues. In a long discussion at Talk:Racism against Black Americans they were WP:STONEWALLING, in the end they reverted without taking my objections into account[1]. In order not to escalate, I refrained from giving them a warning on their talk page. During said discussion, they wrote "it seems that you disagree only to be disagreeable, unwilling to compromise." When I saw that they reverted another editor at African Americans with an edit summary that made no sense to me[2], I reverted them[3], adding "Don't revert just for the sake of reverting". They responded with uw-agf1 on my talk page[4]. I feel a bit silly taking this to you again, but if I (as the attacked person) placed a uw-tempabuse2 on their talk page, that would be even more silly.

Pinging @Robjwev: --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't a situation that an individual admin can or should arbitrate or adjudicate. There is no egregious misconduct of the kind that would warrant admin intervention. I suggest taking this to DR. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2601:644:8D80:AB10:75E6:B782:FF8D:6866

Frankly, when they come off their block they will start up again...cuck, LOL, I think edit summary nicely sums up why I do not think a show block will work, it's clear they are just a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other activity on that /64 is interesting, and I want to see what they do. Reblocking for a long term is easy. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GregRendon469

In a kind of edit conflict, I blocked GregRendon469 just as you were giving a warning of a possible block if they continued in the same way. If you think it better to give them another chance, feel free to unblock. My expectation is that it will probably make no difference either way, because it looks like a genuine spammer, rather than a good faith editor who simply doesn't realise that promotional editing isn't acceptable, and experience over the years is that the true spammers almost never edit again anyway, whether blocked or not. JBW (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I xould have gone wither way, indef is fine, it was obvious spam. Acroterion (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening abusive power for disagreeing viewpoints

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This user threatened to ban me for disagreeing on a serious topic regarding life and death for people trying to survive covid 19 in regards to ivermectin:talk. Instead of taking any kind of rational balanced view, he/she threatened to ban me for simply arguing passionately about a serious topic. Clearly this is not appropriate for a page spreading disinformation to begin with, only to then threaten anyone pointing out the lies with a ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asailum (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like you ever made it to ANI. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

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) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ouvrage La Ferté

Hello, first of all, I wanted to let you know that I have crossed your way several times on a lot of articles about France, châteaux and the Maginot Line, and clearly, your level of French language is much more than "un niveau élémentaire" (as on your user page), congratulations. I am a French user, learning English, which is a much easier language, but it's not always easy for me.

Today, my question is about Ouvrage La Ferté, which is a good article where you contributed a lot, but this article is not written in British English as it should be, according to the MOS, because the main article (Maginot Line) is in British English. I have already corrected some articles about the Maginot Line, a lot of them mixed several English, but as this one is a good article, I want to be sure that I can do it before doing something wrong. Thank you very much in advance for your help. Have a nice day. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. My proficiency in French has declined since I was an architecture student in Paris 40 years ago, but I can still read French with reasonable ease. Writing it is another matter.

I wrote in American usage because I'm American, and unless there's an obvious reason, like the subject being directly related to the UK, there's no policy to prefer an English variant for a subject concerning France. I'm not aware of any preference that a given set of articles reflect the general article topic either - where do you see that in the Manual of Style? For me, writing significant content in another variant is a distraction and remembering to use colour, humour, spelt, storey, bonnet, boot, etc. detracts from from getting the subject matter right, so I have not tried, except, of course, where the topic demands it. GA didn't and doesn't require it, and WP:ENGVAR applies only within individual articles, not broad topics. For instance, most articles on colors use American spelling, but Orange (colour), does not, and it's not a matter for concern - the article was first written by someone using British variant English, and it's stayed that way ever since. I like it that way because it's an opportunity to educate people who may not realize that there are national English varieties at all.

Alf that said, I have no profound objection to adjusting usage in those articles to UK usage, and definitely have no concerns about adjusting for consistency where there are mixed orthographies. I just think you're setting yourself up for a lot of work that the MoS doesn't demand. WP:RETAIN probably applies best. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. You have good remains in 40 years.

I strongly agree with you about everything you said. My point is only for consistency because a lot of articles are using mixed orthographies and sometimes it's not easy to define which one was the first or the most present in the page. Otherwise, I don't mind if it's British or American English, as you said, it's better to avoid nationalism when it's possible.

You are right, I can't find it again, but I'm pretty sure that I read something about the consistency of broad topics, that's strange. Thank you again. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere somebody may have expressed a preference, but as far as I know there's no actual policy. In any case, I appreciate your help and attention to those articles. I've tried to avoid interpreting French sources where there is a matter of tone or nuance, because I don't trust my interpretation skills in matters that aren't plain facts. I appreciate your help and your attention to the subject - please feel free to expand on them.

Your level of English proficiency does you credit - working within national language variations in a second language is no easy task! Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I find it again, I would let you know.

Thank you for your help. I will try to expand them as much as possible, and editing Wikipedia helps me to practise in English, even if I make some mistakes sometimes. English is still easier than French, even for a French. Switching between American and British English is easy too; my girlfriend is Scottish, that's much more complicated. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have enough on your mind, dealing with Scottish dialect. If you want to, you can fill in missing diacritics in the French text I've referenced.I don't have the right keyboard, and at times I was too lazy to find them in the little editing window and put them in. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it's not easy without the right keyboard. I will check that ;) L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I replying to you correctly?

Hi Acroterion,

I need a lot of help. Is it possible to hire someone for Administrative management purposes?FactCheckOntario (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. What is your reason for asking? Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above user posed a similar question at my talk page, but then deleted it, so I'm not sure what is going on here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Kinu ^t/_c 18:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Eurie Martin

I started a new article. So far not a single person has edited it. Want to take a look? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find sources outside of Georgia? Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‘Unnecessary contributions’

Thank you. I promise, I had no intention of making any unnecessary contributions. I sincerely apologise, if I’ve caused any harm. Electromagnetic induction (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you know that we don't appreciate editors who game the system to try to disrupt articles, you can turn your attention to constructive edits, preferably using straightforward language. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, Acroterion. Electromagnetic induction (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Accusation to myself of biasm and vandalism'

I am quite upset, as there is a section on the page for Albert Speer that seems very clearly in my opinion to advertise a book, and make the assertion that Speers declaration of regret for partaking in the nazi party was a lie. Which, legally, is slander. It also seems amiss to me that my reversion of the reversion of my edit was literally immediately, to the minute, reverted. May you please explain why my removal of this section was consider persistent vandalism, and why the section, which in addition to being slander and advertising also makes the introductory segment of the page very long indeed, is a defensible part of the article. Suspending me from editing the article after my second edit on the basis of 'persistent vandalism', in of itself seems to be a misuse of power. I would be OK with the paragraph being moved from the introduction and worded in such a way that presents it clearly as subjective speculation rather than objective fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terran 5998 (talk • contribs)

The lead sections summarize the sourced content in the body of the article. You need to find consensus before removing things you disagree with. Please read the entire article and discuss what you believe to be problematic on the talkpage, preferably without the complaints that Speer's being posthumously slandered - he was a Nazi, that's plenty already. Please understand that this is a featured article, which has been reviewed by many editors, so you will need to find consensus, backed by sources, to support your suggestions. You've been doing this sort of thing on a variety of pages, please take the time to understand the editing process and how Wikipedia works. As for the Speer page, it has seen extensive recent vandalism, and I was responding to the request that the article be protect in view of the problems appearing in the last couple of days. That will give you an opportunity to use the talkpage to make your case, as you are supposed to. It's not all about you. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using wikipedia for over two years although I lost the details to my last account and generally make edits without one. I have read the article, and don't beleive anything to be problematic except the slander and advertising that is clearly evident in the introductory segment. You say "He was a nazi, that's plenty already", although sir, as a Jewish man, I share your dislike of Nazis, I believe integrity to be one of the highest virtues, and as such, slandering a man based on the testimony of a single authour, is not only wrong in the legal sense, but is in contradiction to the wikipedia guidelines sir, and I will pursue this matter further. Could you please explain how I am to have a source, for stating that saying someone is a liar without evidence is immoral and un-encyclopedic? But I think your banning of my account based on a harmless comment on your talk page proves my case, and will be instrumental in my appeal. Hopefully concluding with your removal from wikipedia

Your cross-post in the section looked like the continuation of editing by a problematic editor I was dealing with a few minutes ago - I apologize for the error, and you're unblocked. We multi-task, and sometimes edit conflicts look peculiar, especially when you've switched from using an IP to an account in the middle of the discussion. Stop calling people liars, and make your case on the talkpage as you are supposed to. Are you acquainted with an account named HarveyCarter? Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Ester 9002 (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of LemonJuice78

If it doesn't inconvenience you at this time, I'd like to inform you that, as stated in a recent report of mine, that LemonJuice has been edit blocked before on Commons for consistent downloads of non-free images with the CC-BY-SA 4.0. license (or mislabelling free images with this license). Even after that block, LemonJuice78 continued to upload images the same way as if the block didn't happen. As such, I'm unsure whether the site-wide block here will get his attention, as he may or may not seem unaware that he has talk pages on both these sites. I don't like to assume, but the lack of communication is implying that. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Commons isn't our direct concern, a pattern of non-communication is developing, and refusal to respond in any way is concerning.This isn't like the known problem with mobile IP users not being able to see notifications, it's not hard to see the orange bar of death at the top of the page of an account and to click on it. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the block, it seems LemonJuice has gone straight back to his usual disruptive editing on William Westmoreland, A Very Stable Genius, and I Alone Can Fix It, unnecessarily adding the details of Mark Milley's selection as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in particular. SuperWIKI (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked now for two weeks. I'll compose a note, patience for that kind of thing is scant. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gjspring page deleted - why?

Hello,

I am artist Gary Springer and created an autobiographical Wikipedia page for myself. I've been excitedly awaiting publication of this page.

I was disappointed to see that it was deleted by you in March 2021.

Please let me know what I need to do to recreate/restore this page without it being deleted.

Thank you,

Gary Springer

<redact email> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjspring (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Please and thank you. – ².O.^Boxing 10:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Done Girth Summit _(blether) 10:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove aspersions from own Talk Page

Hi Acroterion,

I have a problem and I do not know who to ask, as apparently AN is not the place. Before coming to AN I had edited Concubinage (law), where I removed the imprecision that concubinage is a 14th century revival. Immediately my edit was reverted and the same editor who reverted it left this message on my talk page. But since I was not wrong after all, my edit was kept in the end. I don't want anything else than be left in peace, so I would like that this message be removed from my Talk page, as it is not based on facts. I have tried to ask the user who left the message to remove it twice, but my first request has been ignored and my second request has been reverted by another user who mysteriously watches other people's talk pages (their edit summary was even “remove trolling”). How can I do to have WP:ASPERSIONS removed from my Talk Page? Thank you for your help. --Grufo (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that your block has expired, you can clear your talkpage as you wish.. if you want to be left in peace, leave others in peace, and don’t revive old arguments. I think you misunderstand what an aspersion is, though. In any case, do it yourself. Acroterion (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“you can clear your talkpage as you wish”

I believe doing it would go against WP:TPO.

“if you want to be left in peace, leave others in peace”

If I wanted not to leave Iskandar323 in peace I would hardly search for third party comments at A3N or like I am doing right now, but I would proceed the way they did.

“don’t revive old arguments”

An argument that never received a single answer is not old, it never started.

“I think you misunderstand what an aspersion is, though”

That is interesting. At WP:ASPERSIONS a series of rules are listed. Maybe you can help me understand how this message does not constitute an example of

An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

and this edit summary does not constitute an example of

It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

You don't have to answer my questions, I can try to ask another admin if you prefer. --Grufo (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TPO applies to article talkpages. WP:UOWN applies to user talkpages. You are free to remove everything but active block declines, and since you're not blocked you can remove whatever you want to, as long as you remove the entire thread.. I'm not going to debate you about anything else - my advice to you is to stop looking for reasons to argue about things, and to take the time tio listen to what other people are telling you rather than interpreting what you think they're saying.Your problems have been brought about by this failure to carefully listen.. Acroterion (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been called troll by a user who reverted a message of mine from another user's Talk Page (the whole thing already is quite odd). I want you to be honest, Acroterion, imagine that happened to you: what would you do? Thank you for the explanation about user talk pages by the way. --Grufo (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators get that on a weekly basis, and lots worse, up to and including death threats. Ignore it, that's what we do, and don't post on those users' talkpages to badger them about perceived injustices. Acroterion (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the wise suggestion. --Grufo (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:UserABCXYZ

Hello, Acroterion,

I saw your patient comments on this blocked editor's talk page and I thought I'd add a comment. This editor is now confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA "TARA". This editor and all of their sockpuppets' primary goal has been to have an article on themselves on Wikipedia. These articles have been deleted in both main space and draft space and the pages have extended protection. Hence, their frantic level of activity to reach extended confirmed status. They even expressed their desire to become confirmed on their talk page so they could write more articles. Their sockpuppets have also visited WP:REFUND 7 or 8 times asking for their deleted bio to be restored despite repeated explanations of why that was not going to happen.

Another strange tell is an interest in Queen Elizabeth as they wrote a book on QE2 and have tried to get a Wikipedia article about their book as well as a biography of themselves. So, if you see these signs again in an overly eager new editor, please report them at SPI. Many thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had not encountered this particular LTA before, I'll keep them in mind.I saw that they'd been CU blocked, and the ensuing drama. As we are both aware, it's often hard to know if you're really being patient with a new user, or just feeding a troll.Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

help

at the Template:Fascism sidebar and Template:Nazism sidebar, it mentions authoritarian democracy which i added a while ago, but now am unsure since it does not seem to be mentioned in mainstream sources, does fascism and nazism support a form of democracy or is this article and its inclusion in other articles inaccurate? Gooduserdude (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to be a serious student of political science - the article on authoritarian democracy is interesting, but I'm in no position to comment on the sources. If you take the article at face value, there appears to be a relationship between the two. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic sensitivity as a real condition.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32289567/ Above link confirms electromagnetic sensitivity as a real condition, caused by over exposure to electromagnetic radiation. 188.65.190.74 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We present the consensus of reliable medical and scientific research, not the conclusions of single studies. Take it to the talkpage, and read WP:MEDRS, which applies,and WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis1864

Howdy. The editor-in-question is gonna be trouble, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take their blanking to indicate that they've read what we've written. It's an interesting legal thesis to insist that the ADA protects products rather than people, and that they're being singled out because of their features for the vision-impaired - that was scarcely mentioned in the article. Let's see if they settle down some. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New request for help

Hi Acroterion,

Once again I need advice. The same editor who reverted my comment on another user's Talk Page and called me a troll is doing something similar in Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam. There is a bullet list written by another user, which, among other things, mentions my words. However a bullet point got mixed with my words, so I split it, leaving a message in the Talk Page and pinging the original author to make them aware of my changes. However, the editor who called me a troll keeps reverting my edits without leaving any motivation in the Talk Page (#1, #2). What should I do? Do you think I should go to WP:ANI? --Grufo (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You edited another user's comments - you should not do that, and they were correct to revert, and they explained why in their edit summary. Make your own comment in a new section below the comments you're responding to. Never change someone else's talkpage comments. Acroterion (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. What about WP:TPO?

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[potential libel removed by ~~~~]".

Which is exactly what I did, given that there were words I never pronounced involved. --Grufo (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's best practice to never alter anybody else's posts to make them appear to have said something different from what the actually did say, not even spelling corrections. There are exceptions, but they are few ,and I don't think what you did was a good way to approach your concerns. When in doubt, just add your own comment, separately. Acroterion (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We might discuss about what could be best, but the fact that another editor keeps touching other people's comments without leaving any explanatory message remains. And given that it looks like a trend, it is quite likely that they will do it again in the future. In the meanwhile, what should I do with the unrelated bullet point that got mixed with my words? --Grufo (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make a section below and explain what you propose, and don't concern yourself with the actions of other editors - you must focus on content, not other editors. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Below here in your talk page you mean, or below in Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam? As for the second, I have created § A reverse approach with the intention of defining what the current scope is according to each single editor, so that eventually it becomes possible to criticize it. Until we define what the current scope is it is impossible to criticize the current scope. That is at least what I believe. After all a page already exists and it does not talk about French fries. --Grufo (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the article talkpage. Please allow other editors to comment, and see if they agree - that is essential. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thank you. --Grufo (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Vegan Society

Sorry. Must have stepped on your undo of the IP/sock. If you want the edit to remain I'll undo myself. Meters (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead. I'm looking through the IPs, and want to appropriately attribute the ANI posts to the IP. Acroterion (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confused.. do you want the IP's contribution, correctly attributed to the IP, to be restored to that talk page? Meters (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That too. Especially since their behavior is intended to be confusing. Acroterion (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're asking now - I don't care either way, their behavior is plain enough, and continues the pattern of blind refusal to heed anything other than their own voice. It can go as far as I'm concerned, but if it says up, it should have the additional attribution. Acroterion (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already put it back, and it has now been tagged as the IP's edit. Somehow I overwrote your edit without noticing it. What a mess. Meters (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll see if I can disentangle thr series and probably just do away wi5h it. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

Hi there. You removed an edit I made. Can I know the reason for this? Thanks. Portalplop (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Portalplop: It was explained by Acroterion on your talk page in his/her message of 15:44, 13 November 2021 at User talk:Portalplop#November 2021.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide sources, as I advised. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I will try to find sources however it may have not been documented as it happened between bandmates and members. Also I did include a source in the form of a video and this was still removed. Why was this? Portalplop (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept Youtube videos as sources under almost all conditions. They're hard to source and tend to be unreliable, speaking as a whole, and demand more effort to verify than printed documentation. Acroterion (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coahuiltecan page edits

Hi there you stated my facts about Coahuiltecan people existing to this day were not reliably sourced-my reliable source is my existence and the existence of the tap pilam Coahuiltecan nation and other non federally recognized Coahuiltecan tribes Cuervo411 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't take other editors' personal assurances as references. Please provide appropriate references based in academic ethnography. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macrobiotic talk-page

Iyo-farm is still evading his block on many mobile IPs on the macrobiotic talk-page [5]. Is there any chance the page could be temporally locked? Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked them. I don't recommend that you engage them, it will waste time and encourage them. Just report them to AIV or SPI - you'll have to show the chain of IPs in either case. RBI. If they return to the talkpage they can be blocked, and the talkpage can be a honeypot. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

After this I think it might be in order to revoke talk page access. DuncanHill (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No more deffamtion. Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deffamtion is a terrible thing. Nobody should ever be deffamted. Thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email..

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.

Cinematic Maniac (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Acroterion a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Bobherry Talk Edits 00:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Acroterion a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assalamu'alaikum Wr.Wb

Maaf saya baru di wikipedia dan tidak ada maksud untuk memberi kesan promosi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ade Nader (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Kyle Rittenhouse Page?

Wayback seems to show one! I did a wayback and it seems there was a Kyle Rittenhouse page, why was it deleted? I think I know why! https://web.archive.org/web/changes/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse 66.68.178.180 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Kenosha unrest shooting? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spare us your insinuations, the content concerning Rittenhouse is at Kenosha unrest shooting, in accordance with Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons who are notable for a single event. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does wayback show a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse from 2020 until just 2 days ago? And why so much deleting in the last two days at Kenosha Unrest to correct all the lies that liberal wiki editors would not allow to be placed in the last year under Kyle_Rittenhouse, just like CNN is doing as of today. Wonder if fear of lawsuits could be what makes liberals actually tell the truth, amazing all of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" got it wrong and all the sources liberal wiki won't allow as sources got it right! I know this makes you mad, but too bad, be truthful.66.68.178.180 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a redirect all along. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Your comment[reply]

The history is here: [6]. I have no interest in the subject, and haven't participated in any of the content. Take your suspicions and insinuations elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User name that may need attention

It is WorldGolfHOF (talk · contribs). HOF is Hall of Fame and there is the World Golf Hall of Fame....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring the word "censorship" a talk title

The title of a discussion (about censorship and privacy) that I started has been repeatedly altered by the users advocating for censorship in that instance here and here.

In particular, they always removed the word "censorship" from the title without any comment.

Now, that that discussion is hopefully concluded, it has been mainly been about censorship, editing and the Wikipedia consensus process. So I decided to re-add the word "censorship" into the title here, because that was the point of contention.

You then promptly reverted that edit along with a stupid Futurama reference joke with the comment "Not helpful". Now, I assume the "Not helpful" comment relates to the dumb joke part and not the "the title of a discussion about censorship is allowed to use the word 'censorship'"-part, but at this point I don't want to assume.

So, can I have "censorship" in the title of my complaining about censorship or does that have to be censored? (And if so, why?)

Kind regards. Dufaer (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Stop using the article talkpage as a soapbox for your views - consensus has long since been established, please respect it. You are closing on on a block for disruptive behavior if you continue. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then! I shall drop it. Have a good day. Dufaer (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I've never watched Futurama. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hello! Just wondering, did you mean to revert my edit or the one before mine? Thought I'd ask before restoring my report. :) –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry about that. My browser lag is unusually bad today. Acroterion (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I'll re-report then. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hey i'm sorry i should of requested a page move first, I will now do that going forward if I have concerns about a name. about the titles changed I didn't have the page added to my watchlist so when I saw the page go back to 2001 I was editing a redirect and I thought it was because of that. My apologies --Aaron106 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just advise that you slow down until you understand how to edit effectively and to work with other editors. I have no concern about your good faith, but you need to think before you do - dozens of small edits that you end up undoing do not help the encyclopedia, and they don't make it easy to see what you're doing. Moving high-profile pages without discussion is a very poor idea too. Acroterion (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete this page

Hey some user named Liz reverted my db-author edits on World Trade Center (2005–present) ‎and Talk:World Trade Center (2005–present) ‎can you delete these pages? --Aaron106 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Liz was correct in her reasoning that the tag was incorrect. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron106, you were not the page creator. That's why I advised you to review CSD so you'd understand the criteria better. Some user named Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did create the page. --Aaron106 (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you didn't - I did, as a result of the cleanup from your ill-advised page moves. So Liz was correct to decline. I could delete it as page creator, or as clean-up, which is what I ended up doing. Again, please slow down, and take time to understand what you're doing - it's causing problems and wasting the time of other editors to fix. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3rd message

I'm reading this page, is there any other pages I should be reading too? So i understand the full permission :User_access_levels#Extended_confirmed_users --Aaron106 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And i'm taking a week long break from Wikipedia later :) --Aaron106 (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed permission was introduced to allow selected articles, usually controversial in character, a greater measure of protection against inexperienced or agenda-driven editors. It is assumed that by 500 edits an editor has acquired enough experience of the workings of Wikipedia to be reasonably proficient in policy and conduct. In your case, with all of the corrections, false starts and undos, your edit count has outrun your proficiency, and your edits and conduct are not of the expected standard to have EC status. You may have about 100 useful edits in all.That's why I removed the EC permission. An EC editor would probably have known better than to move the WTC article without asking, and would be expected to take the views of other editors under advisement. Wikipedia is built on consensus,not on "I think it's best so I'm going to do it." Please read WP:BRD for more advice. Acroterion (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: in case you haven't seen it already, [7] (not sure if you watch that page or not). Thought you'd like to know after your messages on their talk page from a few days ago. :) stwalkerster (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had not seen it. I've left a note. I would be open to a reasonable request early next year, after a history of constructive edits of a reasonable scope. Right now they're headed in the wrong direction. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss first

I have discussed this. I obtained a copy of the reference and read it. Have you? If you have not, then why are you reverting it? Alan B. Samuels (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you've received no consensus for your suggestion from the discussion. That means it will stay out unless you can politely convince other editors that your suggested edits are appropriate. Given that this subject is the sole focus of your editing history on Wikipedia, you should consider gaining broader experience with other topics to learn how the process of finding consensus operates. Right now you're acting as a single-purpose account. Acroterion (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling me that without reading the relevant source editors can simply vote about what it says? Alan B. Samuels (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that other editors haven't read it? It's a good source, and it's a shame to see its content twisted for an agenda. –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Projection. The source is clear there is no consensus and debate continues, the quote is cherry picked. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that after reviewing the source they don't agree with your view on how it's to be used. Until you obtain consensus, you may not simply revert until everybody gets tired. Acroterion (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Austronesier raise their position on the talk page where we can both go through the source. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

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) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:LSOsucka

Thank you for blocking this user. I can see through the [8] edit filter log (refer to link before) that LSOSucka is attempting to edit the page in a disruptive manner (but is failing). Can you please revoke LSOSucka's talk page access before he succeeds in abusing it? Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only place they can do that is their talkpage, a low-traffic location that I wold notice if it happens. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia required?

Howdy. I think Wikimedia might soon have to step in, as I suspect it's the same individual behind all those IPs that have recently been vandalising the talkpages of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, among others. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF can't really accomplish more than a checkuser can.

I've succeeded in getting the WMF to ban a user before, but it was for a blatant breach of the ToU in which threats of physical harm were being aimed at another editor on the basis of their real-life identity. Puerile poop vandalism of politicians' articles isn't something that the WMF will pursue. Acroterion (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email

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.

DH85868993 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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.Nick Levine (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (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.

TornadoLGS (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey about History on Wikipedia

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not falsely accuse me of anything

All I was doing was tidying up an incorrect page before somebody, not necessarily a PR firm, edited the corrected page to its pseudoscientific former-self. I thought wikipedia was meant to be about improvement and getting to the truth (crowd-sourcing). The existing citations (references) were blatently false, if you looked into them. Phrases from e.g. wiley.com were taken out of context, and misrepresented. Am I missing something here. I'm just an ordinary citizen trying to make a difference. You've taken the truth, and reduced it to falsehood.

I think you'll find my 'edit' was far more accurate and scientific than the former version. Please justify you actions. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.32.235 (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were disruptive and amounted to falsification of sources.You may be blocked if this recurs. If you think the article deviates from the sources, take it up on the talkpage, with specifics. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 A. MarnetteD\|Talk 19:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Lighting wiki?

Hi! In your edit here, you suggest a lighting wiki. How or what do you propose? Thanks much! Hanyou23 (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Huggums537 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Huggums537 (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

white genocide and “muslims”

Hello, I noticed that you have repeated what you have modified. I have modified the word "Muslims" because there are many white Muslims such as Albanians, Russians, Chechens and Bosnians. Islam is a global religion and not an ethno-religious one like Jews and Hindus has nothing to do with any race but the immigration from afghanstan and iraq consird asians Whatever their religion, I hope you can explain to me why you returned what you modified🌹🌹 Saxsd12 (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saxsd12: first, if it's in the source you shouldn't change it. And of course at white supremacism I see ". Different groups of white supremacists identify various racial, ethnic and religious enemies," which includes Muslims. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming there's some sort of actual logic in the prejudices of the people who promote these smears. That's assigning too much credit to them, and we should not attempt to impose a missing rational basis to them. Acroterion (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a difference between race and religion. There are many white Muslims, such as Russians, Albanians, Bosnians and Chechens, as well native white muslims in Germany. Even native British, some of them convert to Islam. White people can enter Islam. I know there is a source, but how can I correct or modify it? Do I have to bring another source? Or should I just explain? Saxsd12 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's a difference between race and religion. However, the bigoted conspiracy theory draws no such distinction. The article is about that, not about any logical distinction. There might be a better way of wording it, but you should not make the topic appear to have more internal consistency than it actually does. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He’s made other edits pushing the same agenda. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the conspiracy theory sees Afghans and Iraqis as not being white, but their religion, no one cares about it Saxsd12 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bigotry is applied to people who are either non-white, Muslim, or both. We aren't here to make sense of a prejudice that has no rational basis, we just report on it. Acroterion (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2021 (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) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra

The crazy vandal whose edits you redacted on Deepfriedokra's talk page returned after you left. I just thought I'd give you a heads up to give you the chance to delete all of the revisions if you wish. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it, thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (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 09:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign
Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

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) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ksax1245

I must do a CU on that tomorrow. Any chance you can remind of the other accounts. I’ve seen them but can’t recall them. Thanks Doug Weller talk 19:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a common thread that will be apparent:

Saxsd12 (talk · contribs)
Asax547 (talk · contribs)
Ksax1245 (talk · contribs) Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful. Asax547 is the sockmaster, all blocked and tagged now and SPI filled out. Thanks for the help. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks

Hi Acroterion! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Nobleman Naming Controversy

Thank you for dealing with the tantrum quickly. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Can you add protection to this page so only administrators can edit it

User:Person12100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonFan9879 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So that people cant vandalize it WashingtonFan9879 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)User:WashingtonFan9879[reply]

It’s not being vandalized, there’s no reason to protect it. At most we would semi-protect it. Your focus on protections and blocks is less than helpful to the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I was saying earlier in new words

I am transferring control of Person12100 that means protecting the page for infinite to administrators to you guys. I am doing this because I dont want that page to be vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonFan9879 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”Transferring control?” What’s that supposed to mean? Acroterion (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I was saying

Protect Person12100 for infinite so that only admins can edit it--04:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)WashingtonFan9879 (talk)User:WashingtonFan9879[reply]

No. Acroterion (talk)

It appears that WashingtonFan created the page User:Person12100 though the account exists and was created a day ago EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - they seem to be awfully interested in playing with block templates and such. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory?

[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.69.229 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point? Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

2600:387:F:0:0:0:0:0/48

2600:387:F:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs) continues spamming several talk pages. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured they'd catch on. I have an edit filter request in that should deal with it. Acroterion (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit filter is up and running. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another list I am Playing with

Does this have any obvious use? Inspired of course by the recent tragedy. Oddly, the City of Brotherly Love has never suffered a "great fire." I suppose the wide streets help. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We've got List of nightclub fires, List of hotel fires in the United States, and List of town and city fires. The only city lists are List of fires in Kyoto and Fires in Edo. I would call such an article List of notable fires in Philadelphia. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am stuck on the title as many or most of the entries do not meet the standard of notability. Maybe Fires in Philadelphia? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attention

Hi I would like to get attention at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer and there are many other requests thanks! Yodas henchman (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit was not vandalism

The stuff I removed was all unnecessary conspiracy theory garbage that was only there to push a very specific agenda, either stuff about Epstein wedged into the "citation" parts of other people's entries or unnecessary links to CFR and Bilderberg to insinuate a conspiracy (these are favored targets of people like Alex Jones). I think that it is constructive to remove stuff like that, not vandalism. 2601:647:C981:4D0:2DF8:6EB3:A3EE:EF00 (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the removals have now been challenged by two editors, you should discuss them on the article talk page and get consensus before removing the material again. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I didn't realize how important it was to you that people know that "David Rubenstein building is just west of the Les Wexner#Jeffrey Epstein association|Leslie Wexner building". My bad. Definitely my removing this was vandalism. Good catch. 2601:647:C981:4D0:2DF8:6EB3:A3EE:EF00 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And drop the snark. Yes, that article is a conspiracy-magnet, but you can work with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just removing big blocks of text with no explanation isn't productive. Please use the talkpage to gain consensus for targeted revisions. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'll just leave it, since it's clear that at least two editors are willing to fight to keep it in. I'll just take my snark elsewhere and you deal with cleaning up after the tinfoil hatters (or, not, whatever). 2601:647:C981:4D0:2DF8:6EB3:A3EE:EF00 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fire!

Thanks for highlighting that text. People are dipping in and adding material that doesn't belong in the article. At one point a user, totally in good faith added a lengthy description of responding fire units, taken from a blog. Since you seem interested in fire-related subjects. I've proposed a name change to Skyscraper fire and would value your input. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an architect, it's a matter of professional interest for me. I wrote the Winecoff Hotel fire article (since cluttered with poorly sourced lists of victims) and discussed the impact it had on building codes. I'm not so sure about "skyscraper" as a defining term - my personal definition would be for something to be at least 30 stories before it becomes a "skyscraper." A 19-story building in New York is rather stumpy.

Interestingly, the Winecoff ended up adding a fire escape after the fire to supplement the single stairway through which the fire spread..

The Dupont Plaza Hotel arson (~17 stories) and MGM Grand fire (26-stories) articles provide context on smoke-related fire disasters in tall buildings. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLP trolling filter

Might want to take a look at recent logs of 1125 (hist · log). The recent active range might be a good target for a rangeblock, although there are (presumably) good contributions even on the /64 which is confusing. It could be dynamic, but given how active it is on Wikipedia (and the subject interest, and some other factors) I'm not sure that's the case. Not entirely sure what's going on there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2600:387:F::/48 is a fairly active range, with at least a decent proportion of good edits [10], and I think it would take a /48 block to cover the range they're using, though we could cover what they've used so far with 2600:387:f:5610::8/51 [11]. I would be reluctant to block the range if the edit filter is doing what it needs to do. The disruption is so specific that I think the filter is the best solution, and I think they'll get tired after a while. Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a new(ish) editor

Hi Acroterion. You closed one of the ANIs involving Invasive Spices awhile back[12], so I'm seeing if you could be of any help with additional issues? I asked El_C who closed this ANI[13], but they're too busy right now. In short, same message I sent to El C would apply to you. I see you're busy too though, but I was hoping someone uninvolved might be able to turn them away from the cliff they're heading towards with battleground behavior directed towards editors who are generally being friendly to them. I've tried a little bit at User_talk:Invasive_Spices#Tone_on_talk_pages to little progress. Thanks either way. KoA (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep an eye out for trouble. I see a continuation of their assumptions, or at least implications of bad faith under circumstances that would normally be worked out without so much resentment. I agree, a block is not what we want, but taking potshots at everybody they encounter is not a good trend. Their response at ANI where they tried to make my effort to keep them out of trouble as its own problem was not a good way for them to behave. It's hard to respond to someone who behaves like that. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2022 (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.Wgullyn (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello, I would like to request revdel of this diff [14] per RD3, made by Gobbsession (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Thank you. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a little marginal, but talkpage s aren’t meant to be fora for peoples’ paraphilia. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't quite sure if it met the criteria, but I went ahead and asked anyway just in case; no harm, no foul, right? xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I'm not sure if this [15] quite meets the revdel criteria, as it's a copyvio but the image didn't actually end up displaying. Mind taking a look? xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, simply trying to use an image via an external link wouldn't be a copyvio. It's a common error. Even if they'd copied it into Commons, we'd generally just revert it and go over to Commons to ask for speedy deletion there. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thank you. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

Hi Acroterion. Could you please revoke talk page access for Fast Cocon? You blocked them last year but they are continuing to spam on their user talk page. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting me know. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilism

hey, so i posted a couple topics on the Nihilism talk page, a couple weeks ago, maybe, and there are no responses. i think the majority of that page is either wrong or largely irrelevant to nihilism (and most of it is sourced regarding the topic in question, like Buddhism or Kierkegaard, but there are no sources or explanation for how it relates to nihilism, to which i'd say...it doesn't), but don't know how to "get consensus" to make major edits if no one's responding. so...what can i do? Sera Toxin (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your talkpage notes are sourceless general discussions of your views on the subject, while you removed sourced material from the article. You will need to provide suggested references that support your assertions, and you will need to show, via sources, why the referenced material that you want to remove is wrongly attributed or incorrect. Acroterion (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, that's almost entirely untrue. i referenced specific essays and books, writers, and insurgents...and most of what i tried to remove was unsourced regarding any connection to nihilism. it's "sourced" in the sense that there are sources confirming that what's said is accurate, but no attempt is made in many cases to show how it relates to nihilism. furthermore, some of the sources (like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) are dubious secondary sources that really shouldn't be accepted as sources in the first place (especially considering the errors that went into the Nihilism page referenced on wikipedia, like a large portion of that page being centered on the attribution of Will to Power to Nietzsche, when it's well-known now that it wasn't actually him who wrote it).

so, i'll assume by "sourceless" what you mean is that i didn't provide links to the essays and other material i referenced? i've been pretty busy lately, i hardly have time for this, but i'll look into collecting some links when i can, if that's what you're asking for. Sera Toxin (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide very specific references to accomplish much, and detailed suggestions for edits, not just broad mentions of authors and essays. Other editors will need to have a basis for evaluating your suggestions; if you have the references, you should be able to be more specific than "so-and-so says this." It's certainly possible that earlier editors made assertions that aren't supported in the article, but you'll need to make a case to support your removals, rather than broad statements. I am aware of the difficulty of proving a negative, but since you were making wholesale removals, you'll need to make an effort. I am not a subject matter expert, I have been responding to your removals, which will need to find consensus among editors who can properly evaluate your changes before they will stick. This is not a highly-trafficked article, and a request for comment may be needed to attract interest once you've made your case, with specifics. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assyria730BC

I saw that you blocked Assyria730BC last month and wanted to say that they have returned to removing well-sourced information (which mostly have been reverted by me now). --Semsûrî (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Widr took care of it. I wasn't able to do a proper investigation at the time, but I agree with his action. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

You must not believe supply/demand is a real thing. You must have also not seen the warning before reading the page regarding Hispanic stereotypes: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This section contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (August 2017) This section may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (August 2017) This article possibly contains original research. (August 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CincoMayoBurger (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a platform for your personal analysis. And this edit [16] is a very bad look. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supply & Demand is Made Up

So, you agree that supply and demand is a theory that doesn't hold water? You should really alert the economists! We all know the only workable economic system is to have an untethered capitalist world economy where national boundaries don't matter. Only then will we see a median rise in wages for the working class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CincoMayoBurger (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia still isn't a platform for your personal analyses. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Email inquiry

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.

Battle for Dream Island

Hello. In May 2013 you caused the speedy deletion of the article Battle for Dream Island under criterion A7. In future, if you feel that an article is missing something, please consider adding it instead of unceremoniously destroying other people’s work. You are the reason nobody I know bothers contributing to Wikipedia anymore because “what’s the point, it gets deleted anyway”. Consider fostering a more productive environment. Thank you for your time. Timwi (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're here to make personal attacks about a speedy deletion request from nine years ago, for something that was plainly short of notability standards at that time? How nice. And I didn't delete it, another administrator did, because I don't self-delete speedy nominations. Don't berate editors who nominate articles for deletion. And you're an administrator yourself, and expected to know better. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies — I’m trying to be constructive. Obviously there are plenty of “contributions” that warrant a speedy deletion. I’m trying to highlight that this was a case where, even if it fits a speedy-deletion criterion, the more sensible thing to do would have been to make the small change necessary to honor the work and effort someone put into writing it. I apologize for the overly personal tone of my prior message, but it captures my frustration. Literally all of my friends are in the “why bother, it gets deleted anyway” camp and that should worry us. We are losing valuable contributions on a global scale this way and this is not in the spirit of a wiki. Timwi (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons why draft space was created - in December 2013, in fact. One purpose was to cut down the number of A7 deletions, giving them space to mature if it could be accomplished. It has worked pretty well, and though I don't have any statistics at hand, I believe the number of speedy deletions and specifically speedies based on notability have dramatically declined. At least, I rarely see them for much other than spam or vandalism, since the non-notable or marginally notable articles get moved by non-admins into draftspace rather than tagged for deletion. So, in the context of articles getting deleted, the complaint voiced by your friends has been addressed for the past eight years. If they're adding poorly-sourced material, that's a different issue, since the sourcing standards and overall level of sourcing are dramatically better than they were ten years ago. Acroterion (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Airways

Hi there! I made a request to move page name on Talk:Thai Airways International.. would you mind take a look and comment if you'll support or oppose. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not participating in that sort of discussion. Acroterion (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia
Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand much about Wikipedia's editing functionalities but...

But I never in my life even visitied the page Im told I edited (https://i.imgur.com/VO3bIfI.png). Now I think Im being told that "You have been blocked from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy." So im completly confused.

The only thing I remember editing some time ago (I think) it was the Germanic New Medicine page. Changes that were reverted almost immediately. If this was you, let me tell you... there's a lot of harm being made to humanity by lying so much and by being functional to the systems methods of confusion. People need to know that the germ theory is a lie and the territory is everything. The GNM explains this perfectly. Anyway, I don't care about being blocked here, it does not surprise me tbh. Sorry for my poor english. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.115.74 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to guess about what this IP did and didn't edit, since all the edits made from it are listed here. You should consider the possibility that the IP number you have now is not the IP number you had in the past - that your account was re-assigned to another IP number in the meantime. Many providers do that frequently. If that's the case, ask your Internet provider about it, or create a Wikipedia account for yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you're planning on making edits to the point that "germ theory is a lie", you probably shouldn't even bother, because you wouldn't last very long as an editor here. We don't exist to promote WP:FRINGE theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did something bad in 2020 using the IP that was eventually reassigned to you by your ISP. You can disregard the warning. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock question

I know you blocked the user a fairly long time ago, but do you think that NapoleonX = Chesapeake77? I'm looking at the moves, the detailed similar edit summaries associated with the moves, and the edits to the Al Gore Talk page (political articles). I don't have as much to go on with Chesapeake77 as they started editing only a week ago (and they certainly don't act like a new editor).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeling it very strongly. NapoleonX is excessively concerned with what they think are correct names, and spends a lot of time fussing with titles and intros. Sooner or later they come back to Mount Rainier and try to take out Tacoma/Tahoma with a lengthy edit summary. I think Chesapeake77 is somebody's sock, but I don't think it's NapoleonX. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They both edited dog articles; does that count? Thanks for your thoughts.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rule them out. Diagnostic edit summaries for me are things like this, focusing on naming: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] The Holly Williams edits are the closest things I see to NapoleonX's naming focus. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I even found NapoleonX was because of the intersection of the two editors at Holly Williams (American singer-songwriter) with NapoleonX and Chesapeake77.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These edits complicate things.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's keep an eye on them, and if it is NapoleonX they'll show their hand sooner or later. Acroterion (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I am sorry I will not do that anymore. Hi I am 1000 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three minutes after this timestamp, new user made this edit. BusterD (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Oliver tractors

Template:Oliver tractors has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hoosier Slide

On 10 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hoosier Slide, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Hoosier Slide was a popular tourist attraction until it was turned into glass? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hoosier Slide. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hoosier Slide), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGG

saw your actions, you might also want to have a look at 2A00:1FA0:4469:1975:0:63:8FCF:2501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits this morning. Fram reverted but I don't think anyone took admin action. I didn't as I'm only tangentially familiar with the editor Star Mississippi 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we'll all get familiar with this sock, at least until some edit filters slow them down. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

149.57.28.205

Please block 149.57.28.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), it is a new Windscribe VPN range. wizzito | say hello! 03:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap that, please block this range instead: 149.57.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The whole /16 is the VPN. wizzito | say hello! 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a busy range, but Nate will have to find somewhere else to play for a while. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Page Unprotection

Hi Acroterion, This is just to let you know that I have requested the unprotection of C.S. Lewis at WP:RFPP. I had already filled out the form there before noticing the "take it to the original protecting admin" clause. According to the protection log, that is you; accordingly, I have left this note on your talk page. ChromaNebula (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hopefully the national partisans have given up. Acroterion (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've also filed a request for this task to be done by a bot (i.e., notifying admins about old indef-protected pages). ChromaNebula (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feelin' the love

wowza. Thanks for that. I'm getting a feeling he doesn't like me much. Sniff. Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLPvio recidivism

Hi Acroterion. I was wondering if you could have a look at this edit by Mbsyl (talk · contribs) and their response to the warning they received? I was going to give them a DS notice for BLP and FRINGE (in the course of a larger warning for edit warring, egregious personal attacks, and GENSEX violations), and then saw that you've already sanctioned them for BLP issues in the past. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey. I see you've warned them, so I'll hold off and see what happens, but it's going to mean a block if it recurs. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see GeneralNotability indeffed them - I did not check the Andraka edit. I concur with the block. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It only belatedly occurred to me what their username is if you try to say it aloud. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I accidentally vandalized a page

The page was Peter Phillips. I fell asleep and didn't realize until now. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioooaoaoap (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [23] certainly wasn't "accidental," but Cluebot reverted it. So my answer would be to never do that again. Acroterion (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles naming.

Hi Acroterion, you have flagged that my recent edit of the British isles is interpreted as my own personal view. However this is not the case, the term 'the British isles' has not been used for many years in any official capacity by either the Irish or the British government and it is advice is not to use the terminology anymore. The term 'the British isles' is entirely subjective, and its consistent use is no longer apt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.202.225 (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles are not soapboxes for complaints or personal analysis about perceived imperialism through naming, or the legacy of imperialism, and this has been discussed may times before. Until a consensus term is adopted and in wide use throughout the English-speaking world, the name will remain as it is on Wikipedia. See WP:COMMONNAME for the guideline, which applies to many such nationalistic disputes. And we have an article on the topic, British Isles naming dispute, which covers it in some depth, with sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if you wish the British Isles to no longer be the commonly used name, I suggest you start with the Irish government and get them to stop using it. While the government of Ireland uses it internally, the argument can't really go any further. Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer me

Hi. Can someone please answer me here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here? Anyone? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in the matter, and you should not forum-shop like that. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gone cross-eyed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smited

I see you smited my friend. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a less smitey mood today than yesterday, at least. If Comcast hadn't been down at lunchtime there would have been more that got smote. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think you were both amazingly mild-mannered in your smiting. Bishonen (smitten) | tålk 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Unlike the biblical Deity, I need a functioning internet connection to exercise my wroth. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hi. The Ukraine troll is back with a new IP [24]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete history

Hello!

Can I ask you to delete history from my userpage? I saw your name on the list of administrators dealing with this kind of issue.

Thank you!

--Governor Sheng (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to delete it entirely, or just up to the present? Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Up to the latest change. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

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) 22:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Fleisher to Polish in Rotoscope

Why did you revert? Fleisher was Jewish. The Poles did not consider him Polish, and he did not consider himself Polish. It is more accurate to characterize him as a Jewish-American, or alternatively as a Jewish immigrant from Poland. Palindromeami (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSETHNICITY, we don't conflate ethnicity with nationality. It is also abused by editors who think they ought to tag Jews. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Can I email you for RevDeletion? SoapDispenser94 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes

Modussiccandi

BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. U.

I am not being disruptive, and you don't get to lecture me on such matters! Stop jumping to conclusions and actually do your job! Thecleanerand (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do get to lecture you. That's why the community made me an administrator. Stop posting vexatious reports. Acroterion (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have left an unrelated notice in my talk

Hi User:Acroterion. Thanks for your notices. I couldn't understand why you have sent me a notice stating that I have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan. Are you sure I have done so? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meurglys8 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure. Tunceli Province is part of Turkish Kurdistan. Also, if I see you accuse another editor of vandalism like this [25] I will block you. Acroterion (talk)

I see your point of view. Although I've written nothing about the Kurds (I have Kurdish, Armenian, Turkish, Greek roots. I am an avid rival of any kind of nationalism.), you have such a claim.

1. By following your logic of calling Tunceli Province as Kurdistan, Eupen is Belgian Germany, Kardzhali is Bulgarian Turkey, Memphis is African USA. Would you also agree with these?

2. What is wrong with accusing someone as a vandal a. who claims the official army of a country is an invader of its own land, b. who deletes official statistical "real" data (please see the above percentage of Armenian-speaking community) for no reason, c. who adds a biased death toll (see: Dersim Rebellion for neutral sources of the death toll), and engaging in many more manipulation?

Poor Wikipedia. I thought it was a serious, neutral source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meurglys8 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're trying to say in your first statement. If your'e trying to obscure or remove the existence of a geographical area called Kurdistan from Wikipedia, I am convinced that you should avoid that topic.You appear to be trying to denigrate people as vandals who dispute your edits. Disagreement with you does not make someone a vandal. If this kind of behavior continues, I will not hesitate to restrict or block your editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding article claims the following "The Armenians lived quietly in their mountain villages until 1938, when Turkish Armed Forces soldiers invaded the region to put down a Dersim rebellion, and in the process blew up St Karapet's Monastery and killed around 60,000-70,000."

As it is not possible for the official army of a country to invade its own lands, the article is biased, misleading, and provides a perfect example of Hate speech and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. By having a stance against removing this phrase you are violating Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

Regarding the first argument: If geographical areas should be called by names of the dominant ethnical groups residing there, Eupen should be called as Belgian Germany, Kardzhali should be called as Bulgarian Turkey, Memphis should be called as African USA or a similar term.

Hope we find constructive consensus. All the best! Meurglys8 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your arguments at extensive length on the relevant talkpage. My concern is your behavior, not the content of your arguments.When you posted your complaint at ANI, you asked for the attention of administrators, who concern themselves with editor behavior. You are presenting yourself as a textbook example of a tendentious editor. Your addendum above is not helping your case. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I edited a phrase having Hate speech, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing or similar acts of violating Wikipedia's policies, Armenian nationalists persistently reverted my edits. Do neutral people need consensus with nationalist manipulators who resist on keeping phrases such as "The Armenians lived quietly in their mountain villages until 1938, when Turkish Armed Forces soldiers invaded the region to put down a Dersim rebellion, and in the process blew up St Karapet's Monastery and killed around 60,000-70,000."?

I see that Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Good reasons to revert supports my intention to contribute to Wikipedia by removing Hate speech and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Am I wrong? Should we keep phrases such as the ones in Tunceli Province#Demographics?

I really want to minimize your and my time to spend on this issue. My intention is to clear Wikipedia from hate speech and misleading claims. Meurglys8 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject. I must defend myself here because I feel Meurglys8 has made some serious accusations directed towards me. Claiming that editors are using "hate speech" against you or your edits is malicious in it of itself. None of the editors who have restored content have directed hate speech towards you or have acted "hatefull" in their edits. I myself have continued to maintain courteous dialogue with you. Your strong words against myself/others are completely unwarranted. You have also now bypassed our on-going conversation on Talk:List of European countries by population and started a new thread about the exact same topic we were discussing previously. This confirms that you are not genuinely interested in hearing the opinions of others. I apologize, Acroterion, for discussing this on your talk page but I am uneasy reading the negative comments above. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have blocked them for personal attacks on those who dare to disagree with them. Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Acroterion. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted sockpuppet invistigation

You read my mind. :) That sockpuppet investigation you just deleted: I was just wondering if that should be closed or outright deleted.... —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was clearly meant as retaliation and in bad faith, I deleted it. I wonder how an editor who was new today knew how to go there in the first place. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked

Given Special:AbuseLog/32259383, it seems to me that the IP you just blocked, 66.165.1.180, was being used by an LTA. I don't know if that changes how long you want to block it for, or if you were already aware; just thought I should give you a heads-up. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why

There was an extra space on the Lex Luger page to the sentence stuck out a bit so I (me not you) removed it. Not a vandal edit not one with no sources so why did you revert it. Probably just jealous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consider using a other than your real name (talk • contribs) 09:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You took out a space entirely, so that words ran together, and advising you of that is not “abuse.” Acroterion (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just To Let You Know

Thank you again for your help with this situation. The user you just blocked, VonJarred (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), is the latest sock puppet account of Jinnifer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), a banned editor who constantly makes sock puppet accounts in order to harass other editors into restoring Jinnifer's original research opinions to Horror film.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Jinnifer before, at least by name. I'll adjust accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much again.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

A user you blocked two days ago for two days for edit warring, The.Barbaryan, just returned to engage in the same behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2022 (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.Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Response on the ANI - What is 'Sealining'?

Hello, how are you? I am not an experienced user, to start with, but I would like to know what your response means (without cluttering up the website, to confuse others, which is why I'm posting this here). I know a lot of speech goes around that refers to "trolling" which I interpret to mean "vandalism" but I have never seen any speech that refers to the term "sealining?" Can you either explain that terminology or point out a place that this is explained? Thanks in advance, keep up the good work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_trolling_at_Talk:Bucha_massacre 69.112.128.218 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Sealioning. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That link was very helpful. Now I can see more of what that meant. It means that we are assuming that a user is being cordial under false pretences? The user is creating a false aura of politeness in order to create trust in order to sow seeds of conflict? If so, I have another question. Without being a mindreader, seriously, how is one to know the level of another person's/user's voracity or "sincerity" - wouldn't it seem to a reasonable person, if you are "assuming good faith" that there is no way to really assess this? How do we even know if such a thing exists, and even if it definitely did exist, how would anyone know that it occurred? Additionally, if we are to "assume good faith" wouldn't that prevail against 99% of the suspicions that such a thing is happening? Even so, assuming that it is happening, shouldn't we encourage others whom we disagree with to be polite, sincere, and cordial, whether it's sincere or not? What if a user simply doesn't agree with the other user, cannot see the other user's point, and refuses to be rude? Is that seriously the issue? Sorry to bombard you with all these queries. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. You are bordering on WP:Sealioning right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make the same observation, it's pretty much what you've been doing. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add the questions to the Teahouse, my talk page, here, and I'm trying to figure out why I haven't blocked them yet. I guess they think we are stupid. Never confuse patience with stupidity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're volunteers writing an encyclopedia. We're not some kind of quasi-judicial debating society. That's the good-faith response. The alternate response is that this is the latest in a series of IPs to waste our time with Russian disinformation, or general FUD-sowing. Acroterion (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes

Firefly • Sdrqaz

Ad Orientem

Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reversion

I couldn't help but notice Your reverting my edit at 88. I believe you might have acted in ignorance or negligence.

The edit concerned a ban on the use of the number 88 for, quote, "its association with Hitler’s initials". To my knowledge, Adolf Hitler's initials were A H, thus yielding "18", so certainly the article's claim must be mistaken. I altered the line to suggest that the ban was due to an association with the phrase Heil Hitler. Such use is well-documented and described in detail in the very article. I am personally unfamiliar with the use of 88 in reference to Hitler's initials and have to request a source for the claim. For the time being, I have unreverted the edit.

Brittletheories (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. The 88 references HH, which is stated plainly. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and therefore the paragraph was mistaken. Well, good thing it got fixed. I'm sorry you got so agitated. Brittletheories (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to remove material concerning fascists based on your own opinions and then come here to complain that you've been reverted, in tones of dudgeon, I'm not able to assist you. In point of fact, I agreed that it refers to HH, but your approach was fell considerably short of cordiality - please feel free to avoid using words like "ignorance" or "negligence" about simple misunderstandings, and please correct things like this, using references, rather than taking them out several times. Please reconsider your approach to interacting with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt

How can we state that it was a suicide after all the info and facts we have now about his death? Why not just say he died. Period. You seem like an intelligent person and if you look at what Tom Grant has said and proved and what his own attorney has said it looks like he didn't do this. I work with addicts and I've asked every one since 2000 if what he did was possible. Not 1 has said yes, or maybe. That's alot of addicts who have had a habit decades longer than his saying it's impossible. Jaskim06 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition broke the citation, and didn't help the article. You are wanting to add your opinion to an article, based on someone else's opinion. We follow the sources, which say it was suicide, as did the police dept. We aren't interested in your personal opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

Hi, thank you for reaching out. I was immediately going to assume that you were a person that doesn't even reads the justifications and reverts any changes that has been done on one of your notification links. If you think I haven't been adequately explaining myself, I'll gladly try to do that here and now. I have attempted to delete one of the many problematic sentences on the "NoFap" page which is "NoFap is part of the "manosphere", online groups credited with disseminating misogynist discourses.[12]". Let me clearly, and without dragging too much I hope, explain the points why I think this sentence should not be there. First reason would be your objection to my changes which is "objection to clearly sourced statement", I think graduating from GeorgiaTech, you %100 know better than me that a piece of knowledge being sourced clearly doesn't at all relate to the validity of that statement. I've read at least the abstraction of the sourced material - because of the obvious barrier to knowledge being lots of money - I can deduce that it's a research material that is done by Xiaoting Han & Chenjun Yin to define and fill the concept of "Manosphere". This piece alone does not puts this sentence up in the page where generally objective definitions take place, they do, for 3-4 sentences but putting this sentence up there with is subjectivity to personal bias doesn't reflect the spirit of Wiki. It just seems like a biased person's opinion piece up there with the definitions.

Second reason is actually an expansion of my reasoning: if it should exist in the page, why it shouldn't be the defining sentences. It is because putting this sentence aside with the definitions assumes that the (1) term Manosphere is universally/academically accepted and used whereas its literature is just being created, (2) the explanation next to Manosphere defines the NoFap. My 2nd point is the most important one, I don't think anyone can nonchalantly claim the NoFap disseminating misogynist discourses. The rule number two on the subreddit is even against that. More evident thing is, if you'd scroll through the top posts and comments you'd see that those kind of misogynistic behaviour is downvoted to hell and are not tolerated. Because most of those people know what actually misogyny is, they've actually witnessed misogyny firsthand. They were the ones watching violent pornographic scenes, heartless men carelessly hurting woman just for the sake of entertainment. How can someone claim this movement to be misogynist, I think there is a confusion what NoFap defines and defends. There will obviously be people that will spread misogyny, racism etc. But they are not inherent to movement as you can clearly see in Reddit and other forums, even in the most wholesome pages such as Puppies, there will be someone spreading hate among us.

I simply request you to edit the page to remove that sentence relating to Manosphere. I encourage you to check my claims on the subreddit to find DEFINING PROPERTIES that is evident to "disseminating misogynist discourses". If you find that piece of knowledge useful, I'd propose you to change the start of the sentence with: "A researcher from Beijing thinks that/claims that...". I don't believe any other way is justifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthmaulethuitpapillons (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses references to appropriate research in academic and journalistic sources with reputations for expertise and fact-checking. Reddit is neither.
Your opinion does not override the consensus developed over time on the talkpage.
Discussion takes place on the article talkpage where it can be seen by other editors, not here
Please be aware that pseudoscience and gender issues are subject to special scrutiny
Abusing multiple accounts and IPs is grounds for summary blocking. Likewise meatpuppetry or brigadiing from off-wiki canvassing. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Why did you revert my edits the links didn't go anywhere! Return to Monkey Island (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with redlinks, they may encourage an article to be written. Stop removing them. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! It makes the pages look unprofessional. It's like you want people to go on wiki and think "oh wow these link go nowhere I guess no one proof reads this". Return to Monkey Island (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user-generated encyclopedia. We want to flag things that need an article written about them. Feel free to help. Acroterion (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with th logic (but won't remove them if that's the rule) but I shouldn't have said that it was rude. Sorry. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you'll understand better after a little while here. The encyclopedia is a work in progress. We used to have a lot of redlinks. Now they're unusual, precisely because people have seen the need and addressed it with an article that turns the link blue. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, it makes people go "Wow, I can't believe there isn't an article on that. I will start one.", which is the whole point. Redlinking plausible articles is encouraged as a way to expand the encyclopedia by letting people know what we need to work on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Favor

Would it be at all possible if you could rev-delete the vandalism edits made by the user CuddleKing1993 at Talk:Suchomimus and Acrocanthosaurus? The editor in question started a thread in the former, and made an edit summary in the latter, both being incoherent rants about how the perceived incorrect data in both articles are sexually assaulting him.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it's just over-the-top nonsense, and I don't think it warrants a revdel. I've warned them on their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

You put a 1 week range block on 2A02:214C:8719:7D00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. They're back at it on 2A02:214C:8734:DC00:79A8:191E:2BA0:AB89 (talk · contribs). – ².O.^Boxing 09:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be bouncing around some very large ranges. I'll see what can be done beyond just /64s, but it may not be easy. 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Revoke to talk page access for 217.180.232.83

217.180.232.83, which you have blocked, is personally attacking us. Please revoke access to their talk page for the duration of the block as they don't really understand about the rules. Wesoree (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended and talkpage access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

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) 22:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

63.155.49.159

Hi Acroterion, thanks for blocking 63.155.49.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – she might need a talk page block as well. --bonadea contributions talk 06:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard notification

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding WP:BLOCKNO. The thread is Inappropriate use of "block" threat from administrator. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you.

Per requirement to notify editor in question upon opening noticeboard thread. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2022 (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 07:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes

Colin M

David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversighter changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your helpful intervention on Talk:Cessna 310#Cockpit image and your request that the editor withdraw the personal attack against me there. Unfortunately he has not only not withdrawn it, but doubled down on it here and again had it pointed out by another admin there that it was probably another personal attack. That was after you posted your request for him to withdraw the original one. Two more days have passed with no action on the editor's part, so it is clear he is not going to withdraw or or apologize. As described in WP:CIVIL his behavior is obviously unacceptable. I should point out that I request some action to close this, not from any sense of personal hurt (frankly it is clear that his personal attack was just an embarrassed lashing out in response to several editors pointing out that the photograph in question was obviously not a real Cessna 310) but because, as the policy describes, poor behavior like that drives editors away from Wikipedia, is detrimental to the project overall and needs to be deterred. I would like to see this individual matter concluded quickly, so I was wondering if I could prevail upon you, as the intervening admin, to take whatever action you deem appropriate in the circumstances to resolve it? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Serial Number 54129's comments were over the top, and I would appreciate it if they retracted them and apologized to you. I don't think that JG Howes would be happy about things like that said in his name. I've worked with some of his images, because he and I both used a Canon AE-1 film camera on the old days and have extensive slide archives created with that equipment that we've uploaded, and I see his work a lot in areas where I've been working on Commons. We overlapped geographically, and I would have liked to have met him. I don't think the level of umbrage that SN took honors JGH's memory, especially when we're talking about an objectively poor image. We all have them, it's not a slight on the creator, and it seems to me that it was meant more as a portrait of JGH rather than a documentation of an instrument panel, regardless of how it was used, and given the paucity of images of any kind associated with C310 interiors. And I say that as someone with an FP on Commons of an aircraft instrument panel. That said, it won't do any good for me to appear on CBW's talkpage after they've already admonished SN and called out their behavior, and demand an apology. I've rarely seen that accomplish much on WP, and there are no sanctions that can realistically be applied, except to see that it doesn't happen again, or that if it does, it's called out. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts on this. I actually laughed out loud when I first saw the image, as its intention is quite humourous. The fact that the sky-and-clouds background was added to make it look like it was in flight, while the photographer holding the camera was obviously standing outside the aircraft, where the right-hand engine would have been if it was a real aircraft, just added to the humourous nature of it. As user portraits go I thought it was a fun image for a user page, obviously not intended for any serious use in an article, though. As I indicated above I trust your judgement that if you feel the editor in question has been "sufficiently debriefed", then that is fine by me. I had never encountered that editor before and hopefully won't again, as they seem to have "some issues", but if things escalate I will drop you a note. Thanks again for your work on this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, thanks for adding that Ford Trimotor panel. Now if we had something like that of a C-310 that would be a useful addition to the article. It is a failing of mine that in my three decades as an active pilot and also photographer, that I did not foresee my future at WikiProject Aircraft and take more instrument panel photos than I did! Hindsight bias! - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found what your wrote highly offensive

As a Jewish family (related to the Noether family) we find your comments about the edits outrageous. "othering" what are you even talking about? Its people like you who are taking away our proud history. How dare you lecture us about how we should identify by nationality. What does that even mean? Disgraceful. I need to report you, how do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontodecide (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may complain at WP:ANI.Please read MOS:ETHNICITY first, and bear in mind that 9 out of 10 times, when a nationality is replaced with "Jewish" in an article, it's being done by anti--Semitic trolls as vandalism and, as I mentioned, a way of setting Jews apart as non-citizens or un-persons. See triple parentheses for another way that this is accomplished by those with malign intent. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you

Under no circumstances did I attack another user. The allegation is egregious, I was forced to delete it from my talk page in embarassment at your aggression and I allege you are abusing your position as admin to accuse me of such when I am contributing to the site in good faith. Removal of well cited, rule following, good faith, relevant contributions with no explanation or rationale is indeed "vandalism"--you ought to know the rules, but clearly you do not. Shame on you. ~ Gkoogz (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluster is not an appropriate response. Stop treating other editors as opponents to be overcome. Acroterion (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comment on my page

Hello.

Doug Mastriano is not "far right". Please do not continue to call him as such. Else, we open the flood gates to Wikipedia simply becoming an outlet for mainstream media regurgitation. I can just as easily cite Fox News and call every single Democrat a far left socialist if we can use ridiculous, theatric titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineer-005 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiopedia is reliant on mainstream academic and journalistic assessment, in intention and design. Your expectations are misplaced. And please stop labeling anyone and anything you disagree with as "far-left." Unless there's a Pol Pot party, hardly anybody in politics is far-left in the U.S., not even Bernie Sanders. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making your bias known. Nobody in the US is far left, but plenty of people are far right? Haha. You guys crack me up. You're not even hiding your bias, but you genuinely think you have none. Too funny! Engineer-005 (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]