Jump to content

User talk:Acdixon

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Niko Seksi (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 8 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Kentucky Alerts have been posted:
Auto-generated alerts follow:

Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 16 Nov 2024 – B & H Tool Works (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hog Farm (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
  • 12 Nov 2024 – Family of JD Vance (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Muboshgu (t · c); see discussion (8 participants)
  • 05 Nov 2024 – August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Tails Wx (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted)
  • 04 Nov 2024 – July 2023 Western Kentucky floods (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Tails Wx (t · c) was closed as merge by Voorts (t · c) on 11 Nov 2024; see discussion (2 participants)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be split

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)

IP vandalized my User Page

This Anon had vandalized my User Talk page, please either warn or block the IP, that's a IP that this account is on, I didn't do it, but someone else in my family did it. If you are going to block that IP, be careful, I have nothing to do with this except reverting the change. Thanks! Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gary "Roach" Sanderson: I've left the warning, as you requested. A block, especially on an IP account that might be used by multiple editors, would be extreme overkill for a single instance of minor vandalism. If the issue persists, we can talk about escalation. BTW, you (or anyone, for that matter) can add those user warnings. They aren't the exclusive domain of admins. See the documentation for {{uw-test1}} for details. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to place my Youtube channel external link on my User page? Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gary "Roach" Sanderson: I can't cite an exact policy, but given the existence of {{User YouTube}}, I'm guessing it would be fine. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate government of Kentucky

This article has quite the long list of repeated citations to the same works. Would you oppose my introduction of {{rp}} to consolidate these references without losing the page numbers? Please visit White Site to see it in use if you're not familiar with how it works. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: My primary concern with references is usually with people wanting to consolidate them in a way that leaves citations dissociated from individual sentences (e.g. citing a whole paragraph with one footnote). If sentences are later moved, it is no longer clear to which source they are cited. To me, this doesn't appear as though it would do that, so I suppose I'm fine with it if you think it would make the references easier to follow. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GermanGamer77's question

Why can't I be administrator? I want special powers, and I want to be able to help even more. And I like special powers. But, why not? GermanGamer77 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanGamer77: In order to become an administrator, you have to be nominated at WP:RFA. Last I checked – which was admittedly a while ago – self-nominations are allowed. Your editing history will be reviewed, and other editors will either support or oppose your nomination. Having briefly looked at your editing history, you seem to have only started editing this month and have fewer than 500 edits. In my opinion, the chances of your nomination passing would be infinitesimally small, to the point that I would encourage you not to waste your own time and everyone else's. Plus, I suspect your expressed desire for "special powers" wouldn't play too well in any such nomination. I was asked twice before I agreed to be a candidate for adminship, and I haven't used the tools that often – mostly just rollbacks and hiding edits that violate policy, with a couple of short-term IP blocks or page protections. It's not all you seem to think it is. Hang around a while (like, a year or two), get the lay of the land, and if you still want to submit to the root canal that is RFA, then by my guest. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. How do I sign up? GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions here. Have fun storming the castle. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ham honorary PhD.

Hello Acdixon, are you able to find any reliable source stating that Ham recently received an honorary degree from Bryan College? [1] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1990'sguy: I think this press release from the college would be fine. They should be a reliable source for who they gave a degree to. I don't see this as a particularly controversial fact requiring exceptional sourcing. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." There's no interpretation going on here, just a statement of fact. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just added it to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I asked you. I think the situation here has been sorted out, as I was able to find another source. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@1990'sguy: I disagree with the other editor's reasoning. If this were Politician X, the university's web site would have been a good enough source for an honorary degree. It's essentially an award. This shouldn't have required a third-party source, but I'm glad you found one. I did look, by the way, in Newsbank and HighBeam, in addition to a quick Google search yesterday morning. Given the date on your source, I probably searched a few hours too early. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Your comment here is a ) inappropriate for an article talk page, as it has nothing to do with improving the associated article; b) pointless because the issue is resolved, and c) Incorrect in any case. DUE/UNDUE is about content. It is unfortunate that you add badly sourced promotional content to Wikipedia. I have not encountered your doing that in any article I watch; if you did I would challenge it in exactly the same fashion, and under PROMO/UNDUE/BLP you would not have a leg to stand on. I see the discussion above. The other editor had noted on their talk page that someone had advised them that the poor edit they made would be OK. Your advice was not good. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: The comment was none of these things. It absolutely has relevance to improving the article, as I suspect this may not be the last honorary degree Ham receives, and we could be right back at the same place again. Had your claim that 1990'sguy (talk · contribs) violated WP:UNDUE stood unchallenged, it might be viewed as consensus per WP:SILENCE. I intended to make it clear that consensus does not exist regarding the necessity of a third-party source for honorary degrees, unless it has been reached somewhere else that I am not aware of. I find your comment that "you would not have a leg to stand on" presumptuous (again, unless there is a previously reached consensus on the issue of which I am not aware), but until and unless the issue arises again, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was already resolved - how could it be possibly be about improving the article? Just drama, and advocating an incorrect reading of policy at that. If the issue arises again we will deal with it then. Please be mindful of WP:YESPOV, WP:ADVOCACY, and the ds on pseudoscience topics btw. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How does adding the fact that Ham received an honorary degree from a Christian university count at "advocacy," and how in the world does it violate WP:YESPOV? The Bryan College source was only used to show that Ham received an honorary degree. There is no inperpretation, opinion, judgmental language, opposing views, or "seriously contested assertions." There is no promotion involved in mentioning this. Bryan College is a notable Christian university. It seems over-the-top to continute listing Ham as having received four honorary degrees when he earned a fifth from another college.
BTW, while it may not be any surprise, I do agree with Acdixon on this, and I don't see how any of his views on WP policy are incorrect. It is likely that Ham will receive a sixth honorary degree, and this dispute could start all over. It's not like The New York Times will publish an article about Ham's honorary degrees. It's reasonable to use a primary source for a noncontrovsersial, simple fact and it does not appear to violate WP:PRIMARY. And, there's a difference between citing Bryan's website to Ham's AiG blog. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Well, 1990'sguy (talk · contribs) beat me to the punch on much of what I was going to say. Warnings about POV, advocacy, and discretionary sanctions over an honorary degree? Preparing to report someone on the edit war noticeboard over a single reversion? Over-react much? Also, its appropriate for you to issue a template warning in anticipation of another revert from 1990'sguy, but my comment in anticipation of a potential future dispute over honorary degrees and sourcing was out-of-line? Methinks thou doest protest too much. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot see the difference between a 3RR notice in the midst of an ongoing edit warring episode, and you making drama over a resolved issue on an article talk page, you should hand in your bit. Nothing relevant to building an encyclopedia is happening here, so I will not be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a IP

This IP want's to try to edit war when im undoing their vandalism, can you block this IP Address? Thanks! Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gary "Roach" Sanderson: Given that this IP has no other edits besides the disputed ones, he or she may not be aware that their edits potentially violate policy. I'm not seeing any good reason for the section blanking, at least. The best first step is to issue a warning, like {{uw-editwar}}, on the IP's talk page. I have done this, and I would encourage you to do the same in the future before asking for an editor to be blocked. I subscribe to WP:DTR, as seen in the discussion above, so let this serve as my admonition to you in lieu of a template warning. In the future, please don't make that third revert without some attempt at discussion, as you have done here.
If the problematic behavior continues, let me know. I would consider some temporary page protection preferable to blocking an editor as a first step. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking about disruptive IP users, is there anything you can do about a user(s) who is constantly making unexplained, potentially POV changes to Bruce Rauner? They make their change with a slightly different IP address each time. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this looks like a very similar situation. Even if the editor is IP-hopping, you should leave a warning on each IP talk page used. It appears that you eventually tried to do that here, although the warning issued is about genres, when I think you intended it to be about genders. Again, it looks like the issue has died down for the nonce, but if it persists, a short period of semi-protection to prompt talk page discussion would probably be in order. As to the actual content of the dispute, you might be able to take some guidance from Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Gendered nouns and adjectives, which says, in part, "Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman")." This supports your position favoring "chairman" over "chair" in this case because the Governor is male, non-controversially, I assume. WP:GNL is an essay, not a policy, but it reflects some degree of consideration of the issue by another editor. Also, you might check the talk archives to see if a previous consensus is at play on either side of the issue. In the absence of that, you might start a talk page discussion to see how other editors who watch the page feel. A consensus either way would trump an essay. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the 50,000 United States edit challenge.

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

Since you seek improvement to the Kentucky article I invite you to the challenge. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP block request

This IP who recently added POV material on several articles was blocked but can still edit their talk page. As you can see, they have been constantly removing a template stating that they removed discussions off their talk page (vandalism warnings -- an apparent attempt to whitewash the talk page). Would you please remove their ability to edit their talk page so the template can be re-added? --1990'sguy (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1990'sguy: My understanding is that removing these notices from one's own talk page is allowed. The page history will show that they were added, and their removal constitutes acknowledgement (I think) on the part of the user that they have seen the notice, should further sanctions be warranted. I try to be very cautious on my use of the admin tools. As seen recently, some folks resent my having them. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair. But, would disruptive talk page editing be a good reason to remove the talk page editing ability? The user reverted the template several times. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@1990'sguy: Per WP:BLANKING, that behavior is allowed (although I find it annoying) and not considered by policy to be disruptive. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then I'll defer to you on this. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you edit this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_by_country

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acdixon&oldid=784547319"