Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.58.40.242 (talk) at 05:19, 2 February 2017 (→142.40.135.244: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Signpost

Help please

Multiple incoming accounts likely from [1] at [2]. Can you get eyes on this? Anything else to help? Any advice? Sagecandor (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't around - I went to work, and I don't edit WP from there. Looks like you got some help, though. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah things have quieted down, thank you. Extra eyes would be helpful though. Sagecandor (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For fearlessly making it clear that the project's basic principles of fairness, accuracy and sensitivity toward living people must be respected. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second. Sagecandor (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved! Neutralitytalk 04:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzagate

Afternoon Acroterion, per something that popped up on my feed there seems to be an insistence on using the word "false" regarding any claims relating to Pizzagate, as if putting it in wikipedias voice is somehow a solution for the problem of unfounded allegations related to BLP. So rather than actually citing reputable sources to demonstrate the opinion of reliable sources who have investigated the claims, we are instead declaring without citation that it is false. I am not aware of any other conspiracy theory situation where we evidently describe them as 'false' outright, or declare things to be 'unfounded' without also citing such a source. The situation in question is available here where you will be able to see recent edits by NorthBySouth which seem to think putting "false" and "unfounded" in front of stuff absolves us of any BLP risk. I am of the opinion that it doesn't change the BLP risk if there is any (we're still repeating the information), and instead creates a non-neutral POV. I have a few main points of contention for this:

  • 1. I believe this sets a very slippery slope in allowing blanket "this is false" approaches to any contentious subject (BLP or not) where if suitably strong opinion editors decide something is 'false' then they can approach a subject without citation, source or otherwise, make blanket changes threaten to pull in administrators. Which, while fun, merely brings up more issues.
  • 2. If the claims are suitably BLP offending, then adding "false" and "unfounded" to the front doesn't actually make it any better. We're still repeating the claims, joining the dots and wiki-linking the content. I believe if the subject matter is contentious to that extent the policy is to remove it, rather than make our own op-ed about it.
  • 3. If approach 2 is taken, then this opens the door to serious BLP risks elsewhere on wikipedia where you can literally shit-post anything you like, so long as you say "falsely" first (with or without citation). I don't believe that is appropriate to any article, let alone anything people suggest is a BLP risk. Koncorde (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>:I have a few thoughts on this, which I don't claim are totally consistent with each other. Some have to do with short-term versus long-term encyclopedia-writing - i.e. managing a tide of editors determined to shit-post versus writing a review of events considered from a distance of time and perspective. Let me put them into some order and I'll try to respond this evening when I have a little time to compose a thoughtful reply that takes your observations into account. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I do not think it absolves us of BLP risk, Koncorde. But we're apparently at the point where some mention of this issue is going to have to be in Wikipedia; the battle to do otherwise is being lost. My feeling on the matter is summed up here - it's going to be a permanent honeypot for conspiracy theorists making wild, false and thoroughly-defamatory accusations about living people. If we're going to have to have this in the encyclopedia, we absolutely have to be able to state, clearly and unambiguously as the reliable sources have, that the claims are false. This is not us doing an op-ed; the reliable sources on this matter which our articles are based on all unambiguously state that the claims are false — see this Washington Post article and this New York Times article which both clearly and factually state that the allegations against the people in question are false, fabricated and without a shred of truth to them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what the sources say, then quote the sources. For instance "in the WaPo, Abby Olheiser said X" about the accusations or "In NYT Cecilia Kang said..." anything other than that is really shitty editing on our part. Merely saying 'falsely' and 'unfounded' in wikipedias voice is not the same thing as demonstrating the reliable sources the accusations are false. By the same token, we would not accept editors stating that something was 'true' without similar citation - and we must be consistent, fair and as neutral as possible with the sources.
In contrast if we have any allegations (here or elsewhere), with no refutation sources, then remove the allegations as a breach of BLP (if it is in fact breaching a guideline to say fringe theories exist). Koncorde (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article content reflects what is published in reliable sources. What is published in reliable sources unanimously states that the claims are false and fabricated. We are not required to give equal validity to such tripe. In other words, we should do both — yes, we should directly quote the sources, and we should also state in Wikipedia's voice that the claims are false. To do otherwise is to create a false equivalence between respected reliable journalistic sources and anonymous Internet trolls. "On the one hand, the NYT says it's a bunch of lies; on the other hand, RedditTroll293208 says it's true" is not encyclopedia writing, it's cowardice.
Removing it all would be the best choice. But I don't know if there's editorial support for that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who has asked for equal? What equality (or lack of) was achieved by introducing the word 'falsely'. All I am asking for is to do it correctly and not merely throw such claims in the middle of a sentence. I repeat, quote those reliable sources. Place that criticism with them and their editors. They are the ones raising the content, they are the source for the content being notable, they are the ones detailing the accusations. As such we should demonstrate through those sources the validity or invalidity of the claims and allegations that are only cited and supported by those same sources. What you have currently done is not that. This is not an argument wikipedia has a role in (and is exactly the reason crap articles like the Gamergate one continue to exist in their current form).
I really don't understand your point. it seems like you entirely agree with the principle, but insist Wikipedia should have a dog in this fight by making a statement of solidarity. Anyway, we are abusing Acroterion's Talk Page, please take further discussions to my or your talk page. Koncorde (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a statement of solidarity, Koncorde, it's a statement of fact. We do not include attribution for the fact that Alaska is a state; we simply say in the lede Alaska (Listeni/əˈlæskə/) is a U.S. state because it is a fact. Similarly, when faced with entirely-fabricated and viciously-defamatory claims about living people which have been debunked and rejected by the most reliable of sources, we can and must simply say that the claims are false, because that, too is a fact. (And I'll end it here.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I'm composing a potentially lengthy discussion at User:Acroterion/PG. Please bear with me, I'm using the occasion to try to sort out some ideas that I've been considering for some time. Few of them are new, but at least it might help me to answer questions of this kind more clearly in the future. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished for now, at greater length than I intended. If you're feeling patient you can look at the subpage [3]. I find that I agree with both of you. @Koncorde, it's best just gone, eliminating the whole argument. The issue is how it stays gone. @NBSB, the next best thing is a fig leaf to keep us from being complicit in the propagation of defamation. The worst solution is to keep the rumor and omit the disclaimer. This issue is at its worst in things like disambiguations that can't carry tall that baggage. A re-examination of the other pizzagate's need for a redirect may be useful, then it could just be a redirect to CPP, or for that matter they both could just be axed and create-protected. I'm not convinced there's any notability for the term in RS. Now that the disruption has settled down on the main topic that might be the best option. Anybody want to do an RFD?
In the long run a broad discussion of conflict between GNG and BLP is probably needed, with particular attention to the little one-line things that cause the most trouble, followed by some amendment to both. Acroterion (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Night Club Fire

I recently stumbled across the Rhythm Club fire of 1940 that killed over 200 people. I thought I ought to bring it to your attention. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one got less attention than the Cocoanut Grove fire because of where it was, when it was and who it killed, but the circumstances were similar: crowded club, few exits. locked exits and flammable decorations. There were a lot of really deadly fires in the 1940s. History repeats itself every so often: see current news and The Station nightclub fire. This is why we have to document everything concerning exiting, alarms and finishes for fire marshals when we design restaurants or clubs. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five Blues Lake National Park

Hi Acroterion – I think I've found a gem that, in the right hands, can make featured article status. I came by your name when you recently deleted Selfiefeet, a G7 proposal of mine. I've been busy reviewing new articles – some garbage, some with prospects, but mostly what I do is format refs and other minor stuff – I don't have much patience with actually scripting articles.

So I came upon Five Blues Lake National Park, in a very sorry state; copy by someone whose first language aint English, raw refs but excellent sources, zero graphics but I was able to pull 4 good images from one source, all of which are Fair Use, and as I worked through the stuff I began to realise I was working on a jewel in the heart of Belize hardwood rainforest. The subject is way above my paygrade, requiring immense input by more experienced editors than myself.

So I checked you out and saw what you did with Biscayne National Park – I went through the history and you clearly enjoyed the journey – so I thought you might like to take up Five Blues Lake National Park or, at the very least, you know the right people who would water at the mouth for the opportunity. The few existing refs are gold; they lead to endless others, and the subject matter will doubtless appeal to some you have met when you were helping bring Biscayne National Park to excellence.

Think about it – a 10 acre National Park maintained by a tiny indigenous population – gotta be worth a look. MarkDask 05:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to take a look. Biscayne was a fairly terrible article that had great possibilities when I started, but I had more time available then and I don't think I can take on an FA project right now, but I'll be happy to help out with expansion where I can. Acroterion (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate behavior

Hello Acroterion.

I am an administrator of the Wikipedia Lusofona and I am here to ask you for a help with the user Andre.levy.al (talk · contribs). I am creating a summary of the user's behavior so that, if necessary, I require infinite blocking in lusophony.

I realized by another user, that Andre has a similar behavior with the Lusophone Wikipedia. This one has been making questionable edits and then it shoots offensive words, summarizing a coarse behavior and without any respect to the other users. Requiring the blocking of users just by being reversed by these and calling them vandals and trolls.

In a small review on the user's talk page I see the similarity in behavior. Funny that this had only 3 issues in Lusophone up to 15 days ago. In a short time it has been giving problems. So if possible it would be very helpful to summarize you by reporting user behavior so that I can add in the evidence in the blocking request. Thanks for listening. Le Comte Edmond Dantès msg 05:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually behavior on one wikipedia has little effect on others, but a global block may be accomplished if it's consistent from one to another. The reason Andre.levy.al was blocked here was because he was using Wikipedia to promote a conspiracy theory, and was accusing those who disagreed with his abuse of the website of misconduct or even of complicity in the conspiracy he was promoting. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northen Cyprus

stop adding northen cyprus because in not recognized under any law or state ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.35.123 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blanking the content or I will block you. Nobody claims that it has wide recognition, but it certainly exists. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Bailie

Can you please re-instat Darren Bailie... you deleted this article by mistake a few years back as he is a recognised music artist thats responsible for several aliases including Darren Bailie https://www.discogs.com/artist/1428863-Darren-Bailie https://www.discogs.com/artist/2016491-Guru-Project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption after final warning

The disruption by Bitsnake420 was after a final warning. I note warnings from other users higher on the page. The user ignores WP:RS sources. Three of them. At this point can he be blocked for the WP:BLP violations? Sagecandor (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The extended protection is meant to deal with that sort of issue, rather than blocking people. They're being stubborn on talkpages, but at the moment I'm not inclined to issue a block. Probably sanctions first if they continue, blocking only if egregious. Acroterion (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that makes sense. I guess after your warning we can go from there, although hopefully not. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will be away from WP for a while. The latest response is unpromising, but not block-worthy, and I don't have time to fill out DS paperwork. You may want to check in at ANI or AE if they continue or escalate, but for now I think everybody should avoid the temptation to have the last word. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really do have to go, I've left a warning and an addendum. You may need to flag down an admin if they go on. Acroterion (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After your last warning [4]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions

Hi Acroterion,

I notice that you added the discretionary sanctions tag to Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). I don't think it falls under anything listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log, but maybe I'm wrong. Is the idea that this falls under Gamergate, broadly construed? That seems a little too broad for me.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The entire thing is a series of libelous claims about living people, so the BLP discretionary sanctions clearly apply. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) America Politics 2 would apply as well. Fake conspiracy theory during the US elections involving Democratic Party. — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Agreed, both. I looked at it yesterday and was wondering if things were bad enough to impose 1RR & consensus required. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted it has nothing at all to do with GamerGate (except that the hoax is popular in gaming circles). I set it based on the BLP and American Politics arbitration. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did say maybe I'm wrong! I didn't know that American Politics (post 1932) is subject to discretionary sanctions. Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. Yaris678 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It took a little research on my part too. I already knew about the BLP arbitration, but there are other options. I regret to say that the tree shaping arbitration doesn't appear to have spawned any DS regimes, nor has the The Beatles/the Beatles argument. Maybe we can find a link to the Shakespeare authorship question! Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Please be more careful in your Undo's. You thought I deleted something but I actually just moved it down. Please read more carefully before undoing. Sorry I didn't explain it in a comment. This kind of rapid undo discourages new contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.236.69 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, it happens some times. I was avoiding real-life after-hours work here on WP and was a bit distracted. Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Golffan1

who also edits not signed in as Ip 24.74.165.146 and 2600:1004:B02D:B1DE:E9AB:1CB8:AE66:548D. There are several issues involving this editor who created an article Lorcan Morris. The subject of the article seems to fail WP:NGOLF and had been up at AFD because an administrator userfied it.

1- Based on this[5], there is strong reason to believe User Golffan1 is Lorcan Morris. A selfie photo taken of Morris which Golffan1 claims to be his own work.
2- Golffan or the IP keeps adding a mention of Lorcan Morris to the article Boiling Springs, North Carolina. In his last edit there[6] he violated WP:NPA.

Additions to Notable people sections need either an article or references to back up their notability. The edits to Boiling Springs fail on both.

Maybe you can have a word with this editor....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the Boiling Springs page for a couple of weeks. It's probably an autobiography, and while it's not encouraged it's not positively prohibited to create an article about one's self, and it seems like they're verging on notability. I'll keep an eye on the draft. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Golffan1 is back at it again[7]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New coordinates= parameter for Infobox NRHP

Hi there. I have seen your constructive work adding information to NRHP articles. It looks like you are using the individual lat/long parameters that have traditionally been used in infoboxes. Those parameters are being replaced with the |coordinates= parameter, which can use the {{Coord}} template to pass coordinates to the infobox as well as any location maps that are used in the article. For more information about this simplification of the infobox templates, you can start at the (relatively technical) page Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes.

At some point in the near future, the individual lat/long parameters will be removed from infobox templates. Let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll work with the new format. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Duck family (Disney)

Your 6-month page protection of the page Duck family (Disney) expired yesterday at 16:29, and the IP returned today with three edits between 3:05 and 3:13 (less than 11 hours after the page protection expired) as if he had been expecting this day the whole time. It was his usual POV/original research edits (copied and pasted from his previous edits), with no discussion in the talk page and no edit summary. I reverted it, but I hope this won't start another edit war. --Newblackwhite (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Newblackwhite: I also just saw that on my watchlist. I've put it on PC1 for now, but it would be good if you could put something on the article talk page about why those changes are not helpful - I checked the archive and did not see anything that seemed to match the material in those edits. As far as discussion goes, I think it's generally a good idea to hold ourselves to the same or higher standards than those we revert - I recognise that defending the status quo is sometimes a stronger position than adding new material. So it would be great if you could just put a little description on the talk page of why those edits are not useful, and if the IP comes back again having ignored the discussion, I'm sure Acroterion or myself will be happy to put it back on semi. HTH, Samsara 09:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsara: Ok, I will add an explanation on the talk page. Although in the past I have explained why those edits don't improve the article, my comments were either in the edit summary, in the talk of the user/ip who added them (whom I tried to contact before reverting his edits), or in Acroterion's page when I was asking how to avoid edit wars. I think it would be a good idea to have a section on the article's talk page for future references. Thanks for your help. --Newblackwhite (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re supposed 'soapboxing' on Talk:September 11 attacks page

Kindly reinstate my comments on the September 11 Talk page. I was not 'soapboxing', I was not having a general discussion, and I was not expressing my own personal views. If someone claims that 1 + 1 = 5, then when I respond directly to that claim by saying that 1 + 1 = 2, and showing the reasoning which proves that fact, that is not 'soapboxing', it is not a general discussion, and it is not expressing a personal view. In the case of the September 11 Talk page, I responded directly to two separate, unsupported claims made by an anonymous user who wanted to include them on the September 11 Wiki page. The first part of my response proves that the twin towers did not fall at free fall speed, contrary to the claim I was directly responding to. That is a fact; it is not a personal view, it is not a general discussion, and it is not 'soapboxing'. My usage of the September 11 Talk page was perfectly legitimate and you have no reason, and no right, to remove my comments. Wikipedia does not belong to you, nor does the September 11 Talk page. By removing my comments, whilst 'allowing' other comments which actually are examples of 'soapboxing' and personal views - not to mention blanket statements which you and others, particularly David J Johnson, have no right whatsoever to make - you are introducing a bias which does not belong on Wikipedia, and potentially discouraging new editors from becoming involved in the project. Take, for example, your own response to the very same comments I was responding to:

"We're extremely familiar with this topic, and we're extremely familar with AE 911. You aren't the first conspiracy enthusiast to visit Wikipedia. No "serious scientific research" has ever emerged from that source and Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum for conspiracy theory promotion".

That is clearly an example of 'soapboxing' and is certainly not a statement of facts. It expresses your opinion; nothing more and nothing less. In response to the same anonymous user, I stated demonstrable facts - not personal views - and my response is clearly more legitimate than yours. For the sake of consistency, either reinstate my comments, or remove every comment that is an example of 'soapboxing' and the expression of personal views; which is every comment in the 'Terrorism' section attributed to both you and David J Johnson. Thanks and Regards, FillsHerTease (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) There is no "right" to write anything on an article talk page; they are not general discussion forums but spaces set aside for discussing improvements to the article in question. As there can be no improvement of an article without a reliable source (and no reliable source adheres to the absurd claim of controlled demolition), discussion of it on the article talk page for September 11 attacks is irrelevant and a waste of editors' time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using talkpages to promote your personal interpretations of conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research or personal analysis, and repeated behavior of this kind is disruptive. Cite reliable sources in accordance with policy, not your impression of what an appropriate building collapse would look like. 12:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Acroterion (talk)

revdel

Since you're in the CAT:RFRD, you may want to revdel this one. Insinuating a BLP is a child molester is not kosher. APK whisper in my ear 15:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done and blocked as not here to help out. There are a lot of intervening diffs and I'm reluctant to wipe them all as it's an indirect sort of hinting that probably doesn't warrant that kind of intervention. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Acroterion!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

your block of User:175.114.34.55

Latest IP is up [8] Meters (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whacked by User:Antandrus Meters (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JDKJDKJDK thanks you for your work, but sandbox and draft-article versions seem inaccessible now

Hi Acroterion

Thanks for looking over a draft article of mine, user JDKJDKJDK at 13:58 today.

I admit freely that the article is autobiography, and the reasons for that are that I am a notable academic (two professorships, both in the Russell Group universities (like the Ivy League), but unlikely to have someone write an article about me.

For example, I am the 42nd most cited computer scientist in the UK [9], and that list includes Turing.

I also freely admit that I tried to have my article published far too early. I had not added all inline references (or any!), and apologize for this.

I would now like to add those, please, but can't see my article anywhere, and did not keep a copy myself (assuming I could look at all the versions).

Please would you let me know whether you can reinstate my article in my sandbox please?

Many thanks for your kind consideration.

Joshua JDKJDKJDK (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

No Phone Numbers

It was the phone number for the PUBLIC, and easily accessible, DC metro police department as Wikipedia mods, like yourself, wanted physical proof of something. I now have no way of providing physical proof without submitting something like a phone number. Interesting how you guys will always find a way to win. SChalice 17:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in checking to see if it's the central switchboard or if it's the desk number of a detective or a cell number: don't post phone numbers or contact information for individuals. We're not here to investigate, we're here to report based on published sources. We are not in the business of providing "physical proof" on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Being outed off-wiki by Acroterion,Tagishsimon,and Widr. Submitted on behalf of an IP who did not notify you. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Question

Could you tell me how you were able to get this photo: File:Mt. Pleasant, Union Bridge 2009.jpg? It looks like the building isn't visible from the main public road. -- Veggies (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall (and as the metadata show) I got it from the side of the road with 225mm of zoom on a cropped sensor at the end of the lane - the geolocation is accurate. In summer it would be invisible, and it looks like I was shooting across a valley that set the intervening trees below the line of sight, sort of. Acroterion (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. I was looking on Google Street View (which only has summertime views) and was totally flummoxed. That makes sense. I'd like to photograph more of these NHRPs, but so many are privately-owned and secluded from view from public roads. Thanks for letting me know. -- Veggies (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trees, cars, street signs and overhead wires are my kryptonite. There are several places I'd like to get, but they're in dense trees at the end of a half-mile lane and invisible even in winter from public roads. Sometimes I've been able to get images on public tour days - Whitehall (Annapolis, Maryland) for instance is otherwise impossible to photograph except from a boat. Acroterion (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New account

Hello Acroterion I followed your suggestion and created a new account here so I won't effect my shared IP anymore. thanks. Eric Ramus (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Acroterion!

Happy New Year!

Acroterion,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Time for indef semi-protection

...on that page, I think. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected, but only for a week since the present activity only involves one Telstra user. Telstra IPs are highly dynamic so blocking is often ineffective. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds

Snap :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Dah pyramid of the most sacred roulette wheel--MONGO 16:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Acroterion (talk)

Question

Hello A. Thanks so much for removing the ref desk troll edit. Unfortunately, the grotesque name they chose is still visible in this edit summary. Is there anyway to remove it? If not I understand. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it. I tend to forget that rollback leaves an automatic edit summary, which can include an offensive username. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I'm glad that it could be done. The less that one gets fed is always better. Best wishes for your 2017! MarnetteD|Talk 02:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes to you too, and thanks for watching out at the refdesk. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit

on Huntington, New York when I was reverting vandalism

My mistake. However, you need to clearly state what you're doing and why in an edit summary, not just "Nope", which looks like vandalism. The edit filter log for your IP shows a lot of what looks like random changes to numbers that are highly suspicious, and you're liable to be blocked by somebody if you don't start clearly describing what you've done and why. Acroterion (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I tried creating an article about my vidoe series. Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middlearth6982 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it did not make a credible assertion of sufficient notability for inclusion in a global encyclopedia, and because you were using it to promote your video series. You may not use Wikipedia for advertising, and you have a conflict of interest. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Don't know what you're talking about. I commented on his page and it appeared differently when I saved it. Perhaps he did some changes on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicist5777 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You altered a message left by another editor - twice. New comments go at the bottom in a new section - there's a button at the top of the page to help with this. Don't alter other editors' comments. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Just go down the article and you'll find the source by yourself. So did you delete my comment on his page because you disliked it? If you did, you should be ashamed of yourself because censorship is common in undemocratic societies. You should never silence an opinion because you do not adhere to it. And do me a favor and just use your search function in your browser and you'll find what I was talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicist5777 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now, thank you for pointing it out. We're not omniscient, you know. However, the use of additional names should be discussed on the talkpage first, as purely religious names aren't necessarily appropriate for use in the lede, and have been abused before. You're not being censored. Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great.Physicist5777 (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a long-running kerfuffle over at List of drug-related deaths over the inclusion of Karen Carpenter. I have no dog in the fight but thought you might wish to take a look to see if you would like to take some action. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edi-warring and WP:NOR warnings placed, based on their note [10] to Freikorp. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am being right and you users should apologize to me talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrest Lesak (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i did not even do anything on that page today you guys just think i'm wrong but on some articles and me are right you should apologize to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrest Lesak (talk • contribs)

You've been edit-warring to insert your own personal analysis for a couple of months now. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

71.54.171.55

Can you keep an eye on them and/or possibly hand out a block? I gave them a final warning, and they've persisted... Aurato (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, you beat me to it! :-) Aurato (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked them as you were leaving your note. I think they're trying to improve the article, but removing references in favor of IMDb and changing dates isn't how to do it. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind

taking a look at this edit by User:Thephilosopher6, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sunmist&diff=758698100&oldid=756837383 and other recent stuff by that editor? Carptrash (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a ... ... ... person? Indeffed. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ramus

This recently-blocked User:Comet Egypt sock is claiming that you gave him permission to set up a block-evading sock. If that's really the case, I've no object to your unblocking him if you're willing to take responsibility for cleaning up the mess he's inevitably going to make (the reason he came to my attention in the first place is that within a week of creating this account, it was trolling on ANI). ‑ Iridescent 20:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) If you're taking the "the troll account was five years ago, and people change" approach, have a read of User talk:199.195.166.103 and this thread before you click "unblock". ‑ Iridescent 20:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no, he never had permission from me for anything, and I blocked several of his IPs. I don't buy the business about him being a pilot either. He left a message here a couple of days ago and I should have investigated then. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he's not a pilot—quite aside from the fact that he doesn't seem to remember which airline he claims to work for, it's only a couple of years since he was claiming he was blind. If I'm stretching AGF to the limit, his claim that you gave him permission is a just-about-plausible reading of your comments in this thread (You can request a new password, you know, or you can set up a new account); however, my AGF is severely lacking in this case. ‑ Iridescent 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I was stretching AGF as far as it would go, I see no reason to continue. YGM. Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Harvey J?

Why did you delete Harvey J after seeing that it is properly referenced with notable sources? I understand that it was deleted in the past as well but that was also prior to references being added? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hennygang (talk • contribs)

There was no significant change in the overall article to indicate that the subject had become notable. A few more references do not alter the outcome of the AfD, which does not hinge solely on notability or referencing. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has has over 20 references. The article was originally cited for not having notable sources, which were added thereafter. Billboard, Oxygen, and Uproxx are all reputable media sources and are commonly cited on Wiki. You are a trusted administrator. I expected you to review the contents of the article and if for some reason it still does not meet guidelines to make the proper notations so that it can be corrected. I am contesting the deletion with factual information that I believe is being overlooked. Hennygang (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take it deletion review. The content was not substantially changed, and made no new claim to notability. It appears to be a direct copy in all respects of the originally deleted content from November, except for a minor alteration to the last paragraph . Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added credible references before it was ultimately deleted. I did not agree with the original deletion which is why I reposted it with a slight revision. What I am asking you to do is to review the actual article instead of assuming the content is not properly cited or notable.Hennygang (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been advised, I suggest that you create a draft. Articles are subject to re-deletion if no significant change was made between the deleted version and the new version, which is the case here. The subject clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and someone is not automatically entitled to an article just because they've gotten some press. The sources you mention are pretty superficial and mainly support the claim that the subject promotes Hennessey. AfD is where marginally notable subjects are discussed to see if they can be retained. This one doesn't seem to me to be quite there. WP:DRV is your other option. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hennessy*. How does the subject clearly fail WP:MUSICBIO when he has 1.) "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" and 10.) a song on a "notable compilation album" described in the Billboard reference? <ref name="Billboard">"Skrillex Speaks On Charity Compilation". Billboard. 18 December 2014.</ref Hennygang (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to ask you to take it to DRV and make a case there? As far as I can tell it's someone who has achieved modest notice for videos about cooking with a specific product, who would not otherwise satisfy notability guidelines for musicians. You appear to be trying to promote a few marginal promotional mentions into something greater than it is by padding it out with fansites and trivial mentions or with self-promotional content. Your source above doesn't even mention the subject. If that's the best that can be done it's far short. That's a good way to undermine your argument, and Wikipedia is not a component of a viral marketing campaign. Since you reposted essentially the same content that was deleted by an AfD that is your avenue; I will not ordinarily override a deletion discussion process if the same material has been reposted, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case, it must be done with consensus in a formal discussion. Acroterion (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hello Acroterion, I saw that you blocked User:Jeemark indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion for the edits made on the Action camera article and I think the user might be back again as User:Tingfeng892930. The account is repeatedly adding the same content and images as the account you blocked. Thanks, Vistadan (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Acroterion, I see that you have blocked User:Tingfeng892930 and I think he/she is back once again as User:Kingmark2017. The account is adding the same content to Action camera as the other two accounts. Thanks, Vistadan (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got them. I'm traveling right now and have limited time on WP, I'll look into a blacklist for that URL when I get back. Thanks for watching out. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vistadan: @Acroterion: FYI, preparing an SPI for these socks at the moment. --JustBerry (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JustBerry: Hello JustBerry, Since the accounts keep adding one specific camera to the Action camera article, I guessing its probably an employee of the camera company. Vistadan (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vistadan: Looks like a COI duck. Created SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Camparkcamera. --JustBerry (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JustBerry: Hello JustBerry, I was just reading the Sockpuppet investigation, but, what's to stop he/she creating more accounts in the future? Vistadan (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vistadan: CheckUsers can find underlying the IPs of registered accounts and perform an IP/IP range block (by themselves or via another admin) if deemed appropriate. --JustBerry (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about the Original Wikipedia account of 12BET

Good day Acroterion,

I don't know if you will be able to help me about this inquiry, but 12BET lost its original account on wikipedia so we decided to create a new one. We are trying to edit the page of 12BET since it is outdated. I am hoping to get a feedback from you soon.


Thank you and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper-88 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHelper-88: Are you referring to Seo12bet (talk)? Are you Seo12bet (talk)? --JustBerry (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@justberry yes, I am talking about the original user that we have in Wiki.
@WikiHelper-88: Who is "we"? Are you affiliated with 12BET? --JustBerry (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@justberry yes I am associated with 12BET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper-88 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiHelper-88: Have you tried making a simple COI request using the guidelines Wikipedia:Simple_COI_request? Do you need help adding any information in particular to the article? Also, I noticed Acroterion reverted your edits here. The reasoning appears to be the fact that you had substituted a reference with two sentences that were unreferenced. Please see WP:Verifiability. Essentially, fellow editors and readers should be able to verify the information in articles through reliable sources. Links to the sources are formatted as inline citations within articles. Does this make sense? --JustBerry (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@justberry thanks for the feedback I will work with that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper-88 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dame Celia Johnson

Have added Blue Plague honoring actress, please do not remove images without consensus, this is a vandal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.173.32 (talk • contribs)

The plaque is fine, but stop adding unsourced content and placing images that break page layout. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures.

If you Do NOT LIKE the image where it is placed, put it somewhere else in article, also what is the consensus for honourifics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.173.32 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the manual of style for image placement guidelines. The burden is on you to make a case for the use and placement of the image. Wikipedia doesn't use honorifics. Cliff Richard is not Sir Cliff Richard, nor is Paul McCartney described as Sir Paul. Additionally, stop inserting unsourced material. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PHOTOS

photographs are fundamental to this project, They illustrate the Article. IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY, PLACE A PHOTO THAT IS MORE SUITABLE, PLEASE

Yes, I know - I have the featured pictures and featured articles to prove it. Please slow down and listen to what other editors are asking of you. You are expected to respect layout and content guidelines and to work collaboratively with other editors, so please work with us. And please stop making new sections for every comment. You are going a little faster than your level of experience on Wikipedia can sustain. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for undoing vandalism on my talk page Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plasco Building

I thought steel framed buildings never collapse from fires????--MONGO 15:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they don't, what were you thinking? While I think this is a steel-framed building (the lattice covering certainly is) I feel compelled to avoid speculating on what is going on based on my personal interpretation of a video in which I might project my view of what ought to be happening. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable...we may see "poofs" of smoke which would lead one to surmise that this must have been due to thermite charges detonating.--MONGO 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

I would like to request your input as to whether or not Pyrocynical is now notable of a Wikipedia page, seeing as I would need an admin to create it anyway and you were the one that create protected it. There's been a lot more coverage of him since the last time his article was deleted, to varying extent, in Forbes, Reporter Magazine (RIT), New Statesman, and Daily Dot. It seems that perhaps PewDiePie is the only YouTuber that is easily proven notable, I think that many others seem like a gray area. So, what do you think of Pyrocynical's notability today? Has it changed in your opinion? --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest reference is Daily Dot, who mention "noted commentarian and human meme Pyrocynical." However, they're all mentions in passing while discussing other subjects. As you say, it's a gray area. I think a case can be made for some level of notability, but it really needs more coverage than one or two lines in an article on something else to cross the bar into WP notability. Can you find a source that would back up the Daily Dot comment? Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

82.221.133.62 block evading as 193.107.85.241

193.107.85.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is probably the same editor as 82.221.133.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks. 172.56.39.178 (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Anybody who talks about "great adversaries" is up to no good. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... :-) 172.56.39.178 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also the IP that you blocked for disruptive editing on Kermit the Frog has returned from 2600:1000:B026:8B0F:6154:AB64:4E3E:B634 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 172.56.39.178 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasant person! Blocked. I guess I'll have to add Kermit to my very strange watchlist. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, at 2600:1000:B070:D36F:7099:59ED:4B3E:B855 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Perhaps a rangeblock is in order? 172.56.39.178 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Materialscientist beat you to the punch. 172.56.39.178 (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've only done /64 blocks on IPv6 addresses, I'll need to do some reading first. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people watch Sro's talkpage since he's such a vandal magnet. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic sensitivity article

Your comment that my recent edit seemed less than neutral is biased. I am stating the truth. Actually if you read the article, the Wikipedia article itself is biased toward making a person question whether there is such a condition by using the word claim, claims, and or claimed many times and other information presented. I do have a degree in Biomedical Electronics and have done research on the subject and find overall, the article is misleading. Wikipedia should not provide biased information.

Also, these links back up my assertion about EHS being recognized as a disability in a court of law here: https://en.geovital.com/electrohypersensitivity-ehs-recognised-as-disability/ and in other places. See also the link here concerning the ADA: https://www.access-board.gov/research/completed-research/indoor-environmental-quality/introduction where it says: "The Board recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual's major life activities. The Board plans to closely examine the needs of this population, and undertake activities that address accessibility issues for these individuals."

In the Wikipedia Electromagnetic sensitivity article, it states,"Some people who feel they are sensitive to electromagnetic fields may seek to reduce their exposure or use alternative medicine." The reference is to an abstract that says, "The most common measure was to avoid exposure if possible." At least in the abstract, alternative medicine wasn't mentioned. When I went to the link for "alternative medicine," I found a biased article where the writer(s) was highly biased against it and provides false information! Naturopathic doctors use therapies that are most certainly science based. The alternative medicine article also says, "Alternative medicine consists of a wide variety of practices, products, and therapies—ranging from those that are biologically plausible but not well tested, to those with known harmful and toxic effects." In Dr. Mercola's article at: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/26/prescription-drugs-number-one-cause-preventable-death-in-us.aspx, it says, "37,485 people died from drugs, a rate fueled by overdoses on prescription pain and anxiety medications." And, "An estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur in the U.S. every year." It's interesting how mainstream allopathic medicine killed 37,485 people in the United States in 2009 but it is hushed up and treated as if it were not a problem like it is! But alternative medicine is vilified! Also, see the article here: http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2004/3/awsi_death/Page-01, for reference.

Also, concerning your mentioning that the topic should be raised on the discussion page first, not dropped into the article lead, there was no Discussion link at the top or bottom of the page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WCarp (talk • contribs) 05:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page. It's linked at the top of every page, and please first read the sourcing requirements for medical topics and issues concerning fringe topics. Acroterion (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ferociouslettuce

Hi. If you look at this (now speedily deleted) and read the material which is supposed to provide "proof" at the link provided there, it appears that the editor who posted it, ZanaredousLB, is Ferocious Lettuce, and the entire thing is another case of attempted outing - that FL mixed in other editors into the report doesn't alleviate the attempt to connect a real-world name to a Wikipedia account. Given FL's behavior regarding Carlos Slim and the NYT, I wonder if you think this is sufficient to show that their unblock conditions have been violated, and that their indef block needs to be restored? If nothing else, I believe my request for a CU was a reasonable one, and it is not sufficient that ZLB was blocked as "an obvious sock", when the real question is "of whom"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the matter of CIR - see his attempt to add a death date to Robert A. Bernhard, when the death is clearly of a completely different person who was born in a different city in a different year and lived in a different place than the subject of the article. Add to that that the death of one of the Lehman Brothers family would rate a real obit in the Times, and not a paid notice in the Washington Post, and you've got an editor with absolutely no sense, and no business editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it. My time for the next few hours is somewhat fragmented, I'll try to look at it in some detail. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Icarus

As you no doubt know, there are continuing issues with Red Icarus of Jakarta and complete nonsense. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't checked recently, but given their history I almost blocked for the Carrie Reynolds redirect. Now that they're re-creating previously-deleted redirects with minor variations I see no reason to waste any more of our time, there have been many, many warnings. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Don't know how in the world to privately message you, but apologies for the Yates edit. I briefly lost my temper, made an irresponsible decision and it will not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirkh1 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note: it's an unusual evening. Email's the only way to PM people on WP. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:47.137.191.83

He's posting personal attacks at this talk page while blocked. I see you were just there. Home Lander (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said all that needs saying. Looks like Euryalus got there, and talkpage access is likely to be shut down soon. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Martyrs in the struggle against Donald Trump

Why didn't you move this to a Specialpage if that was more appropriate?

Yes the article may need edit or even a better title. How do I (or others) edit it for improvement if it's deleted?? Jamesdowallen (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was clearly a polemical article intended to make a political statement. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for discussions of political martyrdom or your views on Trump. When you use charged language as you did you're going to run into trouble, and it's way, way premature. Please read WP:NOTNEWS. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that writing opinion pieces or placing opinions in articles like you did here [11] is unacceptable. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

142.40.135.244

Would you mind disabling this IP's talkpage access? Thanks. 172.58.40.242 (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion&oldid=763258585"