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 Phone Charger (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 13 September 2019 (→Zoe Quinn: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Signpost



Personal attack?

Just to be clear, accusing someone of having a political POV or bias, is a personal attack? I ask so that I understand the rules. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way you're going about it, yes. Stop making judgments about other editors based on your feelings about the topic. If you can't edit neutrally and without attacking other editors, your editing privileges will be restricted or removed. Walk away from the keyboard for a while. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to take a Wiki Break. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Cardi B#Hennessy Doesn't Need a Page... Not Famous Enough

Siblings like the Jenner sisters are very high profile models and TV personalities and cause of that two separate pages were created.

But as for the case of a famous rapper, namely that of Cardi B has younger sister named Hennessy Carolina. (no really that's her given moniker, as it comes from the fact of her dad showing up boozed during her birth)

Since subject isn't a well known social media personality to the likes of the Paul Brothers, a page removal should be accepted. Yes page blanking is a giant no no but that HAS to happen.

Link to the desired page: en.wikipedia.org/w/Hennessy_Carolina.

Lights out,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion came to no consensus. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my correction

I am Walter Johnson’s Daughter. Why would you remove my correction ? Blasian99 (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a correction - generally children aren't named in biographies unless they're independently notable, with sources in major independent media to prove it, and we have no way of confirming who anybody is that makes an anonymous edit. Everything in a biography must be sourced to published mediaAcroterion (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reprisals for the death of Karl Hotz

Your Link to this article had started a translation of the French. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socking

Hi, Acroterion - I noticed in one of your discussions above there was an issues with an IP messing with filters, and I'm now wondering if 91.248.142.3 and 85.16.226.58 are one in the same with that IP. If so, is that considered sock activity? Atsme Talk 📧 14:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are clearly the same person, but since IPs can change, sometimes, we shouldn't be quick to say that it's socking just because the IP has changed. I'm not sure which discussion on this page you're referring to - neither of the IPs you've mentioned have triggered filters.
The various fascism-related pages have seen a steady stream of drive-by edits by folks who've taken Jonah Goldberg seriously, or who take the "socialism" in National Socialism literally, or people who think that a given political stance is defined by its extremes - which would make my socially-active stepmother a follower of Pol Pot by that definition. I've never thought that any particular person was doing that, it's just part of the background chatter. It's all a bit tedious, because most of those edits are motivated by name-calling in both directions, with a lack of understanding that extremists have more in common with each other than with the directions to which they're attributed. Acroterion (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a bit of trolling by a couple of socks who've advanced the novel idea of extremist centrism, which at least is a refreshing change - see the grandiosely-named ArcusLordOfGods and Stormcloak EthnoNationalist. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it really doesn't matter. I'm still in the learning process and obviously a slow learner. confused face icon Just curious...can CU tell if someone is masking their static IP address by using a VPN app? Atsme Talk 📧 21:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't say that, but it's admittedly easy to go into full Poirot mode and see sockpuppets everywhere. I've made a few mistakes, but over time I've almost always been right about a suspected sockpuppet, even if I don't know who it is. I'm not a CU, but a VPN app should look like an open proxy, which is often flagged by various WHOIS services, or as an unlikely geolocation. One of our most notorious abusive sockpuppets used to routinely use open proxies in Venezuela. I think he likes Belarus nowadays.
If you think there's something fishy about somebody or an IP, feel free to run it past me, I'll tell you if I see any red flags. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. butt-in-ski MONGO here...I've grown very tired of all politics especially lately...but were I to return I want everyone to know that I most closely align with the Rock 'n' Roll Loony Party based mainly on their primary platform of "free beer and sex for pensioners, and the construction of laughter clinics".--MONGO (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(orange butt icon Buttinsky) <-- here's the template, Mongo. OMG, you're not kidding about the Rock 'n' Roll Loony Party.

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's another edit war

Hi. The user Wizeone2 which you have blocked previously, is back with another edit war. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Italo-Ethiopian War (again) and [[1]]. Although I have tried to talk and reason with him in his talk page, he continues to undid my sourced revisions ([2], [3]), add unsourced content ([4], [5]), and remove issues ([6], [7]). His explanations (User talk:Wizeone2#Edit warring at First Italo-Ethiopian War) are not justifiable, but he does not seem to want to give up. I ask you for help because you have already intervened previously. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Van Badham and Sally McManus Pages

There are two users, "ChangeTheRulesComrade" and "Emuwren" who are engaged in an edit war on the entry pages for Australian writer Van Badham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Badham) and Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_McManus). Their edits relate to adding in a false reference that Van Badham co-authored a book with Sally McManus. This can be seen in the change logs. There is currently a Federal election in Australia, and obviously political activists are attempting to cause trouble by doing this edit. I'm happy to keep an eye on the pages, but would it be possible to have the pages locked? (I have left a copy of this on the page of fellow editor Primefac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac#Edit_war_on_Van_Badham_and_Sally_McManus_Pages) Thanks. Lymantriidae (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption at Badham;'s article was confronted and stopped a few days ago. I've left a strong warning on Emuwren's talkpage - their conduct is not acceptable. I haven't protected the article at this point - Emuwren is autoconfirmed, so semi-protection would not work, and I'd rather deal with the disruption at its source. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTC wide flange columns

Hi, can you tell me how the information that the impact zone core columns were wide-flange columns (supported by NIST report with citation)violates the rules of Wikipedia? Also, my picture was well referenced (citations to its size, density of thermite and its fire resistance). Also, it was clearly stated that it is a conspiracy claim and a forum can be a source of conspiracy claim - since it is not mentioned as a fact but as an example of conspiracy claim. Also, I do not support conspiracy theories (as evidenced by the text) but I though that the section deserved some more detailed info on that subject since it is rather small.ParallaxHunter (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have collectively amounted to original research, mainly sourced to conspiracy theory fora. That's not acceptable. Find better sources, and avoid speculation about theoretical locations for explosives. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly not true. My sources were mainly links to NIST (type of beam, cover, it's lack of e.g. HVAC duckts) and the fire resistance/weight of the specific beam. The only conspiracy link was to the idea that a charge (not explosive) could have been hidden in that cavity. Also, it was quite clear that it is a conspiracy speculation - as is the rest of the Truther nonsense. To be clear - as far as my motivation goes, I find the claims/works of National Geographic, et. al. insulting to the energetic materials research community. Thermite is clearly capable of attacking and destroying large columns - such as those used in WTC. I'd be happy if the article reflected that in some way.ParallaxHunter (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits amounted to original research. Conspiracy theory fora are not reliable sources under almost any circumstance - secondary sources that examine conspiracy theories in reliable independent media with a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking are needed. I don't know what the issue is with National Geographic - I didn't see anything about any reference to NG, and I'm completely indifferent to whether it's insulting to the "energetic materials research community." Wikipedia isn't a forum for presentation of research. Use the talkpage to present your proposed edits, their sources, and how their combination doesn't run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Acroterion (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Concepcion (politician)

Looks like the guy who made Gary Concepcion (politician) also has Draft:Gary Concepcion (politician). might want to delete and salt that also. Wgolf (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that there were two drafts of the same thing. One of them is going - the other should go when the AfD is closed, unless there's sentiment to put it back in draft space, which looks unlikely. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you take a look at Special:Permalink/892797963? It *may* qualify as rev del. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blockworthy, but since it's nonspecific, not revdel wortHy. Acroterion (talk) 23
49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A Misunderstanding

This isn't a disruptive edition,the people who they're recognized as Japs are a group of fascist group believe in fascism genetically,and this fascist group've killed about 38k Chinese people especially POWs and civilians in Nanjing December 13 1937,so the changing in anti-fascism isn't a disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.73.59.243 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

I see you might be currently active, can you p-lease consider actioning this request, Thanx - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of active, I'm busy cleaning out my car for a short trip. It doesn't look like things are too bad right now there, I'll lave it for somebody else if things pick up. Acroterion (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hi,

This probably needs revdelling too. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Singer

Hello, but he is a famous punjabi singer so how come thats inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saanzzz (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that that is so. Please stop re-creating the article under different names. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need a rev-del

Someone posted spammy content + a problematic URL. It's all been removed from the article itself but probably shouldn't be left in the edit-history of Hyde Park on Hudson here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give me the arbitration case page

Hey mate, you gave me the wrong notice page. The notice page you gave me is stuck to a case that was more than a decade ago. Seriously?? It hasn't been active for over a decade.

You gave me this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong

Please send me the correct link or if it is the current one, then give me details of when to expect to see the page be updated. Because I want to be fully involved in my case that you claim to be aware of.

IT is Incorrect. Case Opened on 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If its a real case then I want to know more about it Acroterion ~ both the time to expect it, who filed it and the correct page if you gave me the wrong one.

~

Also you exhibited you only got Double standards of deleting one pov ~ whilst allowing another person's actual soapboxing to be added freely in which I responded to directly after it was added.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/894442351

You showed clear bias and hypocricy. What was Marvin 2009 comments if not political irrelevant soapboxing added to the same





And what gives a person a right to close a discussion right after adding his own soapbox?

You ignored his soapbox about off topic going on politics but not when i replied directly to it using relevant arguments that Li talked about aliens which satisfies the simple definition of cult and ironically for the other person to not debate off topic politics, but instead focus only whether something are facts or not.

~ Also I want to know how to take my topic to arbitration. Because you abused your editor powers out of spite. Turning a blind eye to one soapbox added while deleting my reply. Clear double standards?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/894442351


Unicornblood2018 (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration sanctions have been active for the past twelve years, ever since the arbitration was closed. as and univinvolved administrator (I've never made any substantive edits to FG, and have no actual interest int he subject}, I'm enforcing the arbitration decision concerning user conduct. See WP:DSTOPICS. Note the word "current."
  • In 2014 the sanctions were modified to read "4) Clause (b) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Motions is amended to read as follows:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Falun Gong, broadly interpreted from " Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review."
  • Standard discretionary sanctions are found at WP:ACDS.
You've been posting long passages of personal analysis on talkpages, in violation of the original sanction and the current DS process.
If you have a complaint, go to WP:ANI. Arbitration is for disputes and conduct that can't be solved by other means, including by arbitration enforcement, discussion with administrators, and examination at the noticeboards. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

your deletion of my posts

I am making suggestions on the talk pages

In the case of BDS rightly point out that it is targeting Jews and is anti-Semetic and that should be equal weight to the apartheid lie. On Antifa, they can claim to be anti facists, but many regard them as facist removing anti facists makes it NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎American Zionist (talk • contribs)

You're posting complaints about things you don't like under a thin veneer of "suggestions." Talkpages are for specific discussions of sourced improvements, not for general griping. To quote from a recent noticeboard discussion "This is an admin conducting straightforward policy enforcement, specifically WP:TALKNO, WP:FORUM, ... Expressing personal views on talk pages is prohibited. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why the protection at Teapot Dome scandal?

Today's edit and revert were unrelated to the thrice reverted edit of several days ago. I don't see anything resembling persistent disruption going on there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a relatively sleepy article it's been getting a good bit of partisan editing over the past month, I felt that semi-protection for a few days would settle things down. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey uh it's been a while. I'm improving, but still have some issues. However today I discovered I made a major error with this image. File:Adam Air Boeing 737-400 PK-KKW at CGK in 2006.jpg. So on March 31 I uploaded this image and as it was in the report I thought it was the public domain. I knew the license for uploading images from the NTSC, so I uploaded it. However today I was just looking for other images when I noticed the REAL source:https://www.airliners.net/photo/AdamAir/Boeing-737-4Q8/1115292?qsp=eJwtjbEKAjEQRP9lay1EsLjubFN4hWC9bIYzEC9hs4LHcf/uGuyGN4%2BZjaQsho/d1woaqIFVnnSgysqvRsNGijk1U7ZUllHszdm9KRxDeLjXitp1dRLZMIqgGuKf3zRCfxWa9MnZL04eoFPPdL44j6nVzH0DxinTvn8BWDgyTQ%3D%3D I realized that the NTSC had removed the watermark in the image and edited its size. Unless this made the image entered the public domain, I've accidentally stolen an image! Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the government great? It's happened with images of historic buildings - we see that often. It's also possible that the original photographer granted the NTSC permission. Go ahead and nominate it for deletion on Commons as a good-faith misunderstanding, Thanks for being conscientious, and thanks for taking the time to learn how to do things right. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foul mouthed IP hopper has returned

(I’m asking because I think you’ve blocked one of his IP accounts he has used) The IP hopping vandal who has targeted my talk page and various pages has returned under a new IP address.

His original one is 68.197.237.168, which he abandoned after getting blocked. I can tell as he is acting the same as he has before, saying that all Admins and Non IP users on Wikipedia are jerks. He only said that on my talk page was because I demanded him to never talk to me again after he was last blocked through another IP and for bullying non-IP users.

The message below is what he sent me.

“Fully registered users are better than IP users any day”

I hope you know that this is statement is how you degrade people’s experiences on Wikipedia. If you ruminate on it, you will realize how much of an arrogant and ignorant prick you are, homes. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:C0 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link, just to show I’m being truthful. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LTPHarry&oldid=895868174

Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. I can't say that your comment does you much credit - IPs are people too, and registered users aren't "better." Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP 39.40.248.48,

Hi Acroterian. You blocked 39.40.248.48 and revoked TPA, but they seem to be back as 39.40.219.199, 39.40.248.160, 39.45.67.159, 39.45.75.28 and 39.40.199.196 to basically copy-and-paste 2020 ICC T20 World Cup onto various user talk pages. I've blanked the talk pages, but I suspect they'll be back to do it again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them and deleted the user talkpages so they can't be used. In composing the rangeblock I found a couple more. Thanks for the heads-up. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking on this. I only stumbled across these particular accounts because of the non-free logo used in the copied-and-pasted content was flagged for a WP:NFCC#9 review. Not sure how to catch them otherwise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll check for the logo use now and then, they seem to be pretty persistent. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AE 9/11 page

If you could do something about this Clip on username person on the A&E for Truth page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth), I'd appreciate it. You left a message on his page (already) to knock it of. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else already blocked him for 31 hours. Thanks for your attention in this matter.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just got home from work - I don't edit at the office. Looks like it's stopped for now with C.Fred's help. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AaronWikia

Previously you blocked this user for employing personal attacks, they have resumed. His behaviour is bizarre but it is not up to me what should be done. If you believe I should be going to an ANI and not troubling you, please just let me know. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's been warned, and right now his behavior doesn't rise to ANI or blocking territory. I'll keep an eye on him, he's having a bad evening, it seems. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He got caught trying to end-around the undeletion rules, which he has been blocked for before, and received no warning. Unless you count my clumsy intervention. He called me names, which he has been blocked for before, and received no warning. He persisted in behaviour that he is fully aware is not okay (removing a speedy deletion tag from an article that he created) and for that I guess he did receive a warning. So.... we are all afraid to give him more attention for bad behaviour then? Sorry I bothered you at all.18abruce (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for my opinion: I don't block people on demand. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zack milkovich

I wasn't done citing. What did you flag that needs citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katcafe (talk • contribs)

Everything you've added needs to be cited. Don't leave it to the end. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to file an SPI report but I mangled it...

You blocked Robinbanks12345 and an IP took up right where Robin left off so I filed an SPI but I seem to have mucked it up. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robinbanks12345 was originally Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User talk:Robinbanks12345 but now there's like a warning thingy on the new page that the new page might be wrong? Help.
Heh, it's been so long since I filed an SPI I followed the directions and it looked wrong so I changed it but now I'm not sure what to do. Thankeverso in advance - Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer article

Can you look a little closer at what C. Fred has just repeat and weigh it up against the Wikipedia's guidelines?

Note the summary I left.

If you wish to judge the specifics, please allow me to provide them. Thank you. --82.132.184.102 (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been doing this for some time now with an account and IPs, and it's been disruptive - I've read the reference and it supports the content that you kept removing before. Provide reliable sources for the individuals involved - the Times is a reliable source, and it's no less reliable because the reference is offline. I've protected the article - again - because of your removals. If you have a policy-based argument, take it up on the talkpage, remembering that Wikipedia isn't a showcase for fringe theories, or for the notion that a perpetual motion or free energy machine is real. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for courage!

Here, have a barnstar for helping to combat racist and anti-Semitic vandalism on highly contentious and divisive pages. You've earned this.

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For helping to combat vandalism on fascist and alt-right related topics such as triple parentheses and The Great Replacement. ELH.Peace (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ELH.Peace (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind

I want to indef [8] - with a statement that I'd accept an appeal with an indefinite topic ban. ??? Doug Weller talk 09:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I probably am, but given their prior history of uncontroversial Irish buscruft, I figured I'd warn first. It was a close decision. I expect to regret it. 12:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Kebman has been warnd as well. I expect more trouble there, given their history. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching that. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to his last Talk:Islamophobia edit which had been hatted and deleted the whole thing. He claims it's not a rant - despite ending it with "Resist! Resist it while you can!’ " It's hate speech. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's speaking through a Hitchens quote. It has no place on the talkpage though, and it has no bearing on article improvement. It's just an approving copy/paste of Hitchens' rant. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson manager

Regarding the part I put in and you removed due to sourcing, would these be be sufficient for the point's inclusion.

https://crooksandliars.com/matt-osborne/national-bloggers-club-and-their-supe https://www.facebook.com/TheCJPearson/posts/874762045892613

Habord (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. C&L is a partisan source, and Facebook is Facebook, not a reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

Thanks for the quick deletion, but you may also want to hide my edit summary, which includes the name of the user I reverted. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the revert! Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: No problem. I saw the user name and knew it was an LTA - if you take a look at Quarry:query/35462, it may make sense to put the phrase on the title blacklist? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nuh uh - I have no experience with that, haven't seen it before, and have no business editing it. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El C got him. There are more of us than there are of him. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I semi protected AN/ANI. Time for a break from that nonsense. El_C 02:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Thanks. Also, you may want to hide this revision. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go file a task on phab explaining that I can still see the username in this log entry, despite it having been deleted. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Anyway, looks like Acroterion got to it already. El_C 02:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: just to double check, the log entry I linked to, the user name is deleted, right? I shouldn't be able to see who it is? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't, at least without doing a special secret admin thing - have you refreshed? Acroterion (talk)
Refreshed, purged cache, restarted browser, the ~hack~ still works - does this qualify as a "security issue" for phab? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an architect, not a coder. You're miles ahead of me in anything phab-related. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: I'm not sure about that, but I filed it as security to be on the safe side --DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As in, I design buildings for a living, and can give a lively talk on building codes, but a coding class in graduate school led to my only C grade. We used terminals on a mainframe for class ... the terminals had bell keys. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: nice. Also, I can see past [9], and I didn't see anything about that user until I saw that you had reverted at talk:CU and went to investigate - guess the protection El_C applied wasn't enough... --DannyS712 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, you design buildings? How cool! Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As with most professions, once you've been doing it for a while you have a clearer picture of what the work entails - in architecture, a high proportion of time is spent arguing about money, rather than designing things, for instance, but it's still fun when we get back to the designing part. I mostly work on educational projects, from kindergarten up to university work. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vnkd and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21

See [10], (which is the most obvious) and basically the whole of the article history today. As you previously blocked this editor for making the same sort of pointy deletions on the same article, this may be of interest to you.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bunch of idiots. You, different admins should check for what reason we need to know about that Su-22 shot down over Syria and tons of other information, but we cannot really report incidents involving Indian MiG-21s. This is becoming a bunch of idiots fest. Keep your wikipedia for yourself and ban all other users at this point and your IP trick is very idiotic too and proves what a bunch of nuts you are. - Signed: vnkd

You are entitled to work to find consensus for inclusion. You are not entitled to disrupt articles to make a point, or for some sort of payback for being disagreed with. That is why you were blocked, and why this IP is now blocked, for doing exactly the same thing after being told not to. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sockpuppet of Unicornblood2018

See here.

Sigh... Rockstonetalk to me! 02:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. RBI. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

What is missing or should be culled from Collapse of the World Trade Center. I feel we have too many sections and some areas could be combined. I have a period of free time and may try and push this to peer review after I reread the NIST report. If you're inclined, feel free to post any suggestions to the article talkpage so we can get a dialogue started.--MONGO (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look in the next couple of days. I'm at a conference right now and have a fairly intense week. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

seriously

attacking? Im tired of his repeated and uncalled for revisions. Who is yalls bosses? who holds yall accountable? Questioning someones ability to be impartial is not the same as an attack

Seriously, yes, this [11] is an attack. However, could you tell me which article you're concerned with, so I can review? we're not clairvoyant, and Kuru isn't either, since there are no other edits to you IP's name. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you mean this edit [12].? As Kuru noted, the first reference is a circular reference to a Wikipedia mirror, and the second is a Facebook page, which isn't a reliable independent source. Pointing that out doesn't deserve abuse in response to a statement that the material has to be sourced correctly. Find a source, like we expect, and it will be fine. Until then, don't harass editors for enforcing the referencing policies. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done about BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest?

Hello there Acroterion, and thanks for backing me up with BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest. I am wondering if something should be done with them? This isn't a new user, they have done stuff like this before, and have been blocked on similar grounds. I am getting strong WP:NOTHERE vibes here. Should we give him one more chance? Thank you.

P.S: Can you please process my file mover right request, I've been waiting 2 weeks for a response. This isn't me demanding the right, I am very kindly asking for an admin to review my request. Thanks again. The Duke 15:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're perhaps a little young, and if they don't change it's likely that they'll be blocked, but I don't like to summarily block kids if they're not vandals.
As for the permission, can you give me a couple of examples of files you've renamed and files you'd like to rename? Acroterion (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aloofbobcat with his Daughter.jpg Renamed per WP:FNC#3.
  • File:Cover art of Wham's Music from the Edge of Heaven.jpg Renamed per [[WP:FNC#4].

There were a few other ones, that were deleted for other reasons.

I would rename files that are tagged, so that they can get addressed quickly, and are not left for days. I would also check Special:NewFiles regularly to check if there are files that need renaming per WP:FMV/W. Any other questions, I would happily answer them. Thank you. (Please ping me, so I can see it quickly. Thanks again.) The Duke 16:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though I tend to agree that it looks a lot like you're just collecting hats. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! However I can happily assure you I am not a hat collector. All my permissions were for a useful purpose, not for showing off. Like my page-mover for WP:RM, my Autopatrolled so that my articles don't need inspected, and my file-mover for Special:NewFiles. Stuff like that. I am not showing off with the permissions. I hope I've cleared up a few things up. Thanks again. The Duke 18:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP issues

Hello.

I'm not clear on where this belongs, and IPs and sock puppetry confuse me, especially ipv6, but here goes:

Back in March, you blocked a range which covered 2601:42:800:A9DB:* and I think some others. That editor was laser focused on race and intelligence articles, and also posted on some experienced editors' talk pages in a way that seems like borderline canvassing to me.

Strictly from behavior it's obvious that editor has moved and is now using a different range. The topics and content are mostly the same, but comparing this edit from the blocked range to this edit seems like a good demonstration.

I was hoping to avoid the headache, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Grayfell happened. This new IP changes very rapidly, but the massive quantity of these posts is disruptive. I would appreciate if you could take a look, or at least link me to the page that explains how to properly file an SPI for a IP range, or even how to identify a range, because after ten years I still don't really get it. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you've linked appears at first glance to be the blocked IP on a new range. They're still blocked, so that's evasion. You say there's a massive quantity of posts? Can you give me a few more?
SPIs on IPs are a waste of time in most cases. Give me a little more to work with and I'll see if another range needs to be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the conversation on DGG's talkpage that apparently was the motivation for Sinuthius' filing. I'll look around among those IPs. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The range I blocked was a Comcast range in the Philadelphia area. The latest IPs are Verizon IPs in the Knoxville area. The distance between doesn't mean it's not the same person, but it does complicate things a little, and it removes the new IP from the realm of an easy automatic block for evasion. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. It's hard to even know where to start, but Gerhard Meisenberg has a lot.

These were on Atsme's user page (where I think the blocked range also posted?)

Elsewhere:

Is it worth listing more? Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Don't bother with more right now. I'm about to pack up - I'm alternating between work emails and WP, and I'm about done for the evening on both fronts. I'll look into the IPs above over the next day or so - tomorrow is wall-to-wall meetings 60 miles apart. Acroterion (talk)
Thanks. Have fun and/or don't overexert yourself. For future reference, the ones I struck out are part of this :Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible to get these IPs in a range block, which I assume is separate. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think the (original) LA, Philadelphia and Tennessee IPs are related, based on what I see behaviorally, via DGG's talkpage. The Tennessee incarnation appears to have realized that they overdid it with the nonazis business. Admins at AE aren't terribly impressed with the complaint against you or the means by which it arrived. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ROYCE RELIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED/sandbox

was also a g12 --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for making those edits on behalf of me, revoked TPA for the account and blocked the IP. 211.26.200.179 (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism

I made four careful edits to an article, and they improved it. I described what I did in the edit summaries:

Someone came along and undid all those changes with the edit summary "Restore last good version". That is egregiously insulting and frankly moronic. It is not possible for it to be anything other than an act of bad faith. They sought to provoke, by undoing a 100% good and positive edit, for no reason at all, thus restoring the article to an inferior state. And you endorsed their action, protecting the article in addition, to prevent me or anyone from restoring these good and productive edits. Your deliberate effort to undermine the integrity of the encyclopaedia is vandalism. Why did you vandalise this article? Why did you encourage an act of bad faith trolling? 79.129.26.46 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can’t address other editors appropriately, you’ll be ignored. DIsagreement isn’t vandalism - vandalism often involves the word “poop.” Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. Mere disagreement is obviously not vandalism. Undoing good edits for no reason certainly is. If you are not able to say why you undid my edits, then you did it for no reason. So all you need to do here is explain why you undid my edits. Why are you not prepared to do that? 79.129.26.46 (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And angrily demanding that other editors treat with you as though you were the Emperor of Wikipedia furthers the project's purpose how?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: See also Wikipedia talk:Rollback#Reporting misuse --DannyS712 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were made in good faith, they were reverted in good faith, but your comments about other editors do not reflect good faith. Make your case (politely) on the talkpage for your changes, recognizing that consensus is required. You will get discussion when you approach other editors respectfully. Acroterion (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being naughty you big meanie administrator!!!--MONGO (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were made in good faith - yes
they were reverted in good faith - no. Leaving an insulting edit summary is not a good faith action. 79.129.26.46 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was your old account? You know, the one you used until you got blocked?--MONGO (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Behavior is similar to the BKFIP, now in Greece. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards that conclusion as well, looking at the previous 3 IPs. Antandrus (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Does Wikipedia Take Tom and Jerry Articles that Seriously?

I mean even children don't read them, do they? BTW Wikipedia should clear out all the Tom and Jerry articles. PS It was just ridiculous of how I got blocked just because I was experimenting on a Tom and Jerry article. 70.49.8.250 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinions and bitter grapes about getting blocked for repeated vandalism are noted. Having said that, neither are valid justifications to invalidate the inclusion of Tom and Jerry themed articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of conspiracy theories and Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - Help please.

Looking for some advice. I note you chose to become involved in the "discussion" I began on the above on the Talk page of User:Sumanuil. There is no way I want to become involved in an edit war at List of conspiracy theories, but I see a problem with an article, and a somewhat rude editor defending it, with what I see as not logical, just angry comments. I see no point in discussing it further with him. Where do I go and what do I do next? HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the response to my comment an apology, but at least they acknowledged that there's a problem. The most that can be said is what the article says, that it was shot down by a missile fired from Russian-controlled territory. I don't have a lot of patience for the use of peripheral articles to advance a point of view that's at odds with the main article - Kennedy assassination articles are notorious for that kind of thing, and I think your edits and comments are appropriate. Contesting their edits doesn't make you a forum-style commentator, and I would leave it alone unless they keep trying to put it back in.. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But it's back in right now. That's the problem. I am trying to remain polite through this, and as I said above, I don't want to be accused of edit warring. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it with a rather long edit summary. That could be construed as becoming involved, but I have little patience for nibbling around the edges of subjects like that, obnoxious edit summary and all. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopping

Hi. Wikiaus98's talk page has had offensive posts on it made by some IP's again. The posts are very similar to how they originally if not the same. I think that those other IP's are block evasion by the previous IP(s). You may wish to therefore semi it for some time. Thanks.211.26.200.179 (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IPs are dynamic, I've semi-protected the talkpage for a while. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe block the range?211.26.200.179 (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really worth the trouble, they're focused on the one page/user, and we don't rangeblock for minor stuff like that, given collateral damage. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that someone's been IP hopping. PS it's confusing as to when the page protection will expire. I thought it said 03:48 10 June 2019, not 03:48 10 July 2019 :).211.26.200.179 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, everytime I've removed effensive posts from talk pages (probably of indeffed users - I don't remember finding offensive posts from IP's talk pages - who have been for variety of reasons. I've seen nothere, sockpuppetry and vandalism only accounts so far), this case was the lastest and among at least a few where the page has been edited afterwards. In this case, very similar if not the same things were posted, as if being restored from page history.211.26.200.179 (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We need more data points to properly rangeblock, since they appear to be using two ranges, and for three IPs who are just being silly a rangeblock is a bit extreme - the economical approach is to keep them away from their target. In any case, it's late here, and I'm not feeling smart enough to do a proper rangeblock. Acroterion (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.211.26.200.179 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 175

Hello Acroterion, to inform you that the above which you protected last week is again subject to the same alterations made by:

62.74.25.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 103.223.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 79.129.26.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are now operating on:-

193.106.252.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Still in the same part of Greece, although according to another editor, they are subject to world-wide abuse with WP:BKFIP. I have made a request for page protection. Perhaps this should be for a longer period? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian got it. Acroterion (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/2019 New York City helicopter crash

We may have someone taking part in the AFD both through their registered account and unsigned. Both made unsigned edits to the AFD, one was the creator of the article and the other an IP who made edits there within minutes of the article being created. Both are using RAPID as an argument too. I hear a duck quacking. Can you please check this out?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: and @Acroterion: How dare you accuse me of something like that. I ran WHOIS on that IP and it is located in Arizona. I am currently working in New York close to the crash site and I also live in Connecticut. The timing of that IP is purely a coincidence. I have been on encyclopedia for two years and would never violate a policy. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As AmericanAir88 says, it looks coincidental. Acroterion (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Rainier.

Mt. Rainier has one name, the official name. It’s not disruptive to remove the non-existent other names, Mt. Tacoma or Mt. Tahoma. You’re a douche. NapoleonX (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Do anything like that again and I'll block you. This is an encyclopedia, not your private world where things may only have the name you designate. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duck quacking

Dino Moro (talk · contribs) has been doing many edits to Mercy College (New York). This article was protected by you due to the history of socking there. I have strong reason to believe Dino is a sock of another account, User:Psychonot, who you indefinitely blocked. Besides Mercy College, both these accounts have edited here[13]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoeater1000, blocked. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Roachmoan (talk · contribs) also looks suspicious. Mercy college related edits and stuff like here[14] and here[15]. What do you think?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing- Dino added James Reitz to Mercy College's notable alumni only minutes after Roach created the article. If you decide this is another sock, can you deep six the Reitz article (Mango's socks have a long history of creating articles on Mercy College alumni of dubious notability) per WP:DENY?. Reitz is only a local judge and fails notability guidelines BTW....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Roachmoan too, it's pretty obvious. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doilyminis (talk · contribs) is also slightly suspicious....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but they haven't edited in two weeks, so we'll see what they do. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Karperfish (talk · contribs) after years of not editing (and after those other accounts were blocked) has come active and came to Mercy College....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
lol I didn't know all this was going on. I don't have any other account. BTW, William's edit looked like a massive vandalism to me, as explained on edit summary. I am not related to Mercy College in any way, but I believe we should help build Wikipedia, and not act like vandals based on personal vendetta.--Karperfish (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an edit[16] to Mercy College's talk page by an editor with no prior edits....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a Karperfish/Mangoeater1000 sock, I'd like to see what else they do before I block. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this follow up edit[17] confirms it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Am I your sock or are you my sock? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JGaines2017

Thank you for blocking User:JGaines2017. I just wanted to let you know know that he's not just a vandal, but also an obvious sock of User:Angela Criss. He has an extremely similar name to several of the socks, such as User:JGaines1997 as well as making the same bro-country edits. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hopscootchica

He's had the DS alerts and I'm about to tell him he needs to change his attitude and be civil if he wants to avoid sanctions. See this. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation roleback

Hey, can I ask why you rolled back my edit on the list of micronations? I am just curious and I would like to improve what I did so that I may be correct going forward. (sorry if this doesn't make any sense I am tired af right now and just got off work). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Emperson (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Mr E. There are several problems with this edit. First, it creates a WP:EGG as there is no article for the "tsardom" readers will have no idea why the link leads to the Clipperton Island island article. Second, wikis cannot be used as a ref as they are WP:USERGENERATED. Third, and most importantly, there is no mention whatsoever of the tsardom at the CI article. While this article exists on another wiki it has nothing to do with CI and it still cannot be used as a ref. MarnetteD|Talk 19:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no indication that the experiment undertaken by two teenagers meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability: see WP:NOTE for the general criteria. It needs to have received significant coverage in major independent media with a reputation for fact-checking. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Acroterion. I just found this User:Mr. Emperson/sandbox. I get a sense that this is a pet project of Mr E. It also looks like it is getting into WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. You may feel differently but I did want you to see it. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but hadn't done anything about it. I will blank it for now, and if it comes back it can be MfD'd or speedy-deleted. The editor seems to be otherwise good. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. MarnetteD|Talk 02:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

If Not Addressed, I will Contact Wikipedia.

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

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

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

Repetitive behavior

Hi! You have blocked Jazz1972 for one month for "continued personal attacks after previous block for same, nationalist POV warring" [18] in February 2019. The user was absent from WP since then, only to re-appear yesterday to repeat his personal attacks against me and IamNotU [19]. His edits were reverted by a third user, TU-nor [20]. Previous discussion at ANI here. I thought I should let you know. Thanks. Cinadon36 20:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you possibly have a friendly word with Eibln (talk · contribs). He keeps creating categories with just one entry [Here[21] and here[22] for just two examples] or NAVBOX with just one or two. Even though around 20 of his NAVBOX are currently at TFD[23], and I tried having a friendly word with him[24], he went ahead and created two more NAVBOX (here[25] and here[26]) like all those at TFD. If you don't know, NAVBOX with zero to two links are routinely deleted at TFD. BTW, Smithtown New York one of the sportspeople categories I linked to is very close to where I lived till I was 15 and due to my father owned two businesses in that town. Smithtown was also home to cousins of mine, so I spent alot of time there. Thanks for the help....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 World Trade Center

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

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

Block of SparmSperm

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

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

New message from WilliamJE

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

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

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

Another duck quacking

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

Another Favor

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

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

RevDel again

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

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

MEOWCAT™️

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

Anyways, careful with the cat.

DIEHARD PET STORE

Over 200,000 branches in Wikipedia alone!

DIEHARD PET NO: 2018-002-A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flight 93

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

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

Portuguese people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't threaten me

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

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

Unwarranted notification/tone left on my user page.

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

It would be this nonsense [27],. but you already know that. Whatever the document is, it's not a "communist manifesto," and it has nothing to do with anti-fascism. If you keep making up nonsense like that you'll lose editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also wasn't 'my' edit. For all of the sixty-odd edits to that page in the past 48 hours, you're awfully belligerent over a single revert. You need a break. Notanipokay (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You took ownership of the vandalism when you reverted its removal. You're warned for that. Don't do that kind of thing again. Bluster is a poor rsponse. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

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

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

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


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

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

acroterion

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

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

Alohaphone

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

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

St. Peter's Church

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

revert on my talk page

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

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

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

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

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

Notice of Dispute Resolution

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

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

Try reading edit summaries

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

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

GoldRingChip (talk · contribs) keeps insisting on putting redirects into Congressional articles that redirect right back to the very same article in violation of WP:SELFRED. I have found three recently created articles by him full of these violations. Here is a link to the discussion at my talk page[28] and the post[29] I made at his page today. This is WP:DISRUPT in my opinion. Remember Neelix and all his bad redirects or goofy pages?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Some baklava for you!

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

Revisit LTA block?

Looks like another IP and those two pages with same edit counts from yesterday [[30]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oath Keepers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Military Ratings

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

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

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

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

Intelligent Platform Management Interface

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

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

A beer for you!

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

IP at Talk:Antifa

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

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

Backlog Banzai

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

The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) Page

Hello Acroterion,

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

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

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

Request

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

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

LA political vandal

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

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

Q

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

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

Frye Gaillard

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

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

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

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

Forced conversion: Hinduism

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

Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

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

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

User talk:Cccxrfyh1joel

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

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

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Acroterion,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Please review the article 2b2t

The 2b2t article has the following notes:

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

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

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

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

Hey

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

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

9/11

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

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

Zoe Quinn

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

-Phone Charger (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion&oldid=915555451"