Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→block Planetfck: new section
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
Line 1,324: Line 1,324:
:Blocked as a normal admin action for personal attacks. Discretionary sanctions may be forthcoming if they don't stop attacking other editors. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 16:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
:Blocked as a normal admin action for personal attacks. Discretionary sanctions may be forthcoming if they don't stop attacking other editors. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 16:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
::Thank you for the mopping Acroterion, appreciated as always.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 18:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
::Thank you for the mopping Acroterion, appreciated as always.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 18:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

== block Planetfck ==

he sucks! he keeps using wtf and lol. he doesn't even have a user page! [[Special:Contributions/206.84.143.69|206.84.143.69]] ([[User talk:206.84.143.69|talk]]) 19:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:09, 14 July 2021

Signpost

Apologies

just a statement for my wording on my recent edits to Raphael Warnock my statements were not intended to be an attack on any editor and were an evidently poorly worded explanation of my reasoning for reversion. I apologise for any lack of clarity and will attempt to avoid potential misunderstandings in the future. Apologies HalalSquad (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)HalalSquad[reply]

Don't ascribe intentions to other editors like that. Also, please review the comments made when the previous iterations were removed. In general if nobody was charged, it's usually regarded as undue emphasis. Acroterion (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine

I don't understand why the See Also section cannot be properly edited with additions which seem to me to be fully legitiment? Please explain.

highfly3442

Seealso sections are concise links to related topics not already covered in the article. They are not for things already linked, not are they dumping grounds for every possible link - if the are more than five or six see also, a navbox might be a better choice. Seelaso links should not be tangential. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Johnson

Hi, Re your recent message on my Talk page, I would add this:

It was he (Johnson) who attacked me! I made a perfectly acceptable amendment to the Rockall, simply rearranging (not changing) two sentences to make them read better. Shortly afterwards, David Johnson told me to stop “vandalising”the page and that I had “deliberately introduced incorrect information”. When I replied asking him why he had left that, as all I had done was to make existing content read better, he again attacked me and accused me of being “pompous”. He then insisted I should have checked the material and found it was incorrect, something I do not feel is my responsibility if it is existing copy and I am merely improving the syntax, not changing the facts. He may be too arrogant to apologise, but he’s the one who needs to be reprimanded for attacking editors, not me who was the victim of his unwarranted and unfounded allegations. Neilinabbey (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel entitled to escalate, use words like "cowardly" and repeatedly post after your comments have been acknowledged and removed? And no, you didn't just rearrange things, you introduced a specific change of meaning on a topic that has seen substantial disruption. This isn't a battle that editors must win for personal honor. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing of the sort. The word ‘claims’, which is the crux of this, was already in the article before ever I edited it - I merely changed the structure of the sentences to make them read better, which is a perfectly legitimate and constructive piece of editing which is still in place. A check of the edits will clearly show this. I do not deserve to be attacked by Johnson and now similarly accused by you. Neilinabbey (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also add that there us a huge difference between what s clearly a good faith edit and deliberate vandalism. Just check my record of editing over many years and you’ll see that I have a long record of constructive editing. The treatment I’ve had in recent days here is completely unwarranted and disgusting.Neilinabbey (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one final comment - if my edit was “vandalism”, how come the accepted revision was based on mine? This confirms that my edit was constructive and that the offending word/s has been introduced in an earlier edit by someone else.Neilinabbey (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 18:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for blocking that IP address. Could you please Revdel its edits to my talk page? NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, once I’ve finished with revoking talkpage access.Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1010:B141:63C8:827:D90:96ED:4E96

Can user: 2600:1010:B141:63C8:827:D90:96ED:4E96 please be blocked ASAP. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, now that I've finished up with an Nazi IP. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

My IP changed because I'm on a hotspot and I made the edit on cellular. The block passed as it was a 31 hour block and it's been more than 31 hours since I was blocked. Why was I blocked? Also my IP was 2600:1003:B00D:7948:8056:F218:9D7D:468D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.249.59 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked on your previous IP for obvious vandalism. If it resumes it will be a longer block. Acroterion (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steveengel

I just filed a WP:SPI [1] related to this. Talk:Gab is known to be targeted for brigading, per notification placed by GorillaWarfare [2], but the confluence of at least two of the WP:SPAs seemed to warrant it. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex2021 at Right Side Broadcasting Network

He's told me he's paid and asked me how to handle an image copyright problem. I'm telling him on his talk page what he needs to do about COI and PAID. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured they needed to know about COI and WMF policy sooner than later. Acroterion (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page misconduct - need guidance

In this RM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Requested_move_16_January_2021, Chrisahn is striking through RM comments in the form of "Support per x", citing WP:RMCOMMENT which doesn't support this action, and counter to WP:TPO. What shoud I or anyone do? Can you help? Thank you. Alalch Emis (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia discussions like WP:RM are not votes. Comments like Support, per x clearly go against WP:RMCOMMENT: The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments. When a comment violates a policy, there has to be some kind of sanction — otherwise, the policy is toothless. I've seen such comments being struck in previous WP:AfD and WP:RM discussions, and I thought it was common practice, so that's what I did. But I can't find an actual policy supporting this, so I may have been mistaken. Another editor already reverted my changes, and I won't strike these comments again. I'll simply add a comment pointing out that they go against WP:RMCOMMENT. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like Support, per x don't go against WP:RMCOMMENT. They are shorthand for the same arguments which they point to, avoiding repetition. All is good, since another editor reverted these changes and you don't object. You are entitled to state your view on WP:RMCOMMENT naturally, but crossing them out unavoidably looks like the authors changed their position. Cheers Alalch Emis (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisahn: Strikethroughs are only done for blocked editors who've been editing around sanctions or who have been otherwise disruptive - and you're wrong about the way support or oppose !votes are registered. Editors are not required to create wholly new arguments when they agree with someone else's statement. You are not the arbiter of who gets a voice. It is up to the closing administrator to evaluate the discussion and to give appropriate weight after reviewing the comments. Acroterion (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"You are not the arbiter of who gets a voice" — I never intended to. WP:AGF. This RM discussion is super long anyway, and such spammy comments (no matter whether they support or oppose) only make it less readable. I think it would make sense to have a policy to somehow sanction such comments, e.g. striking them, to discourage other users from adding even more of them. But alas, there is no such policy. Well, so be it. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to the closing administrator to evaluate the comments, in context. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Them edits

Do you use a script? You block faster than I can blink. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, you must be: you are outgunning my poor fat fingers. Have fun with it! :-) Drmies (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I've developed a rhythm - check filter log, block if it's the standard phat ass stuff, leave single tries alone. I need a break, going to go read. Have at it, the filters are doing their job pretty well. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoever wrote up that filter should be put on payroll. It's hard to imagine how much damage would have been done. I have a new novel, the first novel in Yoruba, and I'm getting back to that later tonight. What you got? Drmies (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • At 3 or 4 edits a minute, it would be impossible to manually revert. There are a few leakers.
        • You read Yoruba, or a Dutch translation? I have nothing so exotic, my wife the English+computer science major, bought stacks of detective novels at the used bookstore for distraction, so I'm reading Michael Connelly's books about Harry/Hieronymus Bosch (come to think of it, there's a Dutch connection) for the Los Angeles atmosphere, which is definitely not like here, where it's 20 degrees and windy. She's reading three things at once - Donna Leon's Brunetti books for the Venice atmosphere, which isn't like here either, something for her book club, and Patrick O'Brian. I have a couple of Terry Kay books on the waiting pile for Georgia atmosphere. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pannal

Hi. Thanks for blocking the current vandal on the above page. They have just done it again under another IP address. I've reverted the edit, and I'm happy to keep on doing so, but I am not able to block. If you could keep an eye on this and block when you see fit, I should be most grateful. I think it's just a bored kid - we currently have lockdown here until 6 March, the schools are closed, and kids are stuck indoors because it's winter. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've had widespread vandalism based on a TikTok meme to add your name to the "notable people" sections of articles. They were happening at a rate of about 4 per minute across the entire encyclopedia before an edit filter was instituted, but there are still some leakers. Acroterion (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thank you - I guess I was out of the loop. So it was probably not a little kid, then. And thank you for the block and protection. That will save us all a lot of work. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Frederick/24.233.208.230

Still continuing to evade scrutiny with the IP despite several warnings after yours. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP. Looking at the account now. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing from the account since December. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I'll keep an eye on the articles to see if new edits spring up. Nate • (chatter) 02:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nazi Germany

Would check my edit to see if I correctly interpreted your intention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, damn Sinebot. I see the IP has vindicated my block. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's forgive, I won't be wrong

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, I am very sorry about my work, hope you forgive me ^^.Luân777 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor continues to make unsourced edits despite the warnings. A block may be in order. Vikram Vincent 07:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was just about to say the same thing, continued reverting after multiple warnings. They have been changing dates aroundand it does look rather like wikifiddling. WCMemail 09:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I get a sanity check. [3] It seems once his block expired our friend went back to editing the same articles and once again has started changing dates, names, dynasties and people links. It seems to me he is changing sourced material and replacing it with his own unsourced edits. I don't know if this is just incompetence or wikifiddling. I haven't reverted anything as I didn't want this to look like a revert war on my part and so I would appreciate your opinion. WCMemail 13:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

"Conspiracy theories" is a perjorative term. "Allegations" is neutral. Why the undo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.184.26 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is defined by a preponderance of sources, not by watering down sourced content. If a preponderance of sources call something a conspiracy theory, that's what Wikipedia calls it. No reliable source calls the claims "allegations," they're patent falsehoods in service of a conspiracy theory. Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilhan Omar

How dare you delete my edition to talk page: Ilhan Omar. The reason why added to talk page is to engage on a discussion to possibly add or not add to main article whether she should be reported as far-left. Her anti Semitic comments are deeply upsetting and by you deleting my words show you appease her words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.41 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages are for concrete suggestions concerning article improvement, not for complaints about a lack of perceived symmetry between politicians. Green is a radical who calls for executions. Omar is on the left side of her party, but nowhere near the extent of Green. There is no inherent symmetry as you appear to demand. Articles do not exist to normalize radical views by pointing at other people on the other side of the aisle as false equivalents. Acroterion (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the change not relevant? I've thought the guy is in art world and would be nice to point out some artists he knows. Hhm. Is something not alright?

I've added blog earlier but later just added site of artist because blogs are supposedly not good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelvervoordt (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Do you see lists of friends in other biographies? No. There must be a point, whiich is plainly stated, which indicates that the relationship is of primary significance. Stop edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why I was censored

I read everything, when creating a new section, it said to have reliable sources and not your own research, and I didn't request an edit, I made that clear in the title, so why did you censor me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:200:7AE0:B1CF:9F66:B68B:778 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You weren’t censored, read the FAQ. Editors long ago got tired of cluttering up the talkpage with mistaken assumptions made by people who haven’t bothered to read the article. Acroterion (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please block a user

Please block Davidilich, LTA and an abusive email. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 05:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page watcher) @NASCARfan0548: If you like, you can prevent new users from sending abusive email. Go to your preferences, under "User profile", untick the box that says "Allow emails from brand-new users". Sro23 (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sro23, That's what I did. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail access

Hi, thanks for the block of Branigins. Would you mind revoking email access there? It's being abused. Thanks, Blablubbs|talk 01:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I stepped away for a minute. L235 got it. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. :) For what it's worth, it was nothing too bad – I just got to read some decent song lyrics. Blablubbs|talk 02:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversion

How exactly is the reason given in the summary not valid? The information in the citations is heavily biased and unverified and the article content in general does not present an impartial analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredwsavage (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an entire section with several references, including the New York Times and the Irish Times, claiming that they were "biased sources." Use the article talkpage to explain your objections and to gain consensus for any changes before you do anything else on this subject, bearing in mind that those two references, at least, are considered solid, reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, as a regular reader of the Irish Times, I can confirm that it is considered very biased in this area and not a reliable source. Second, most of the content is related to the David Gorski article which is essentially a personal blog. Would this be considered reliable if it were promoting a counter perspective? I think not. Jaredwsavage (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the sole judge of whether the Irish Times is reliable. For the third time, you are required to find consensus on the article's talkpage - I am dealing with your disruptive blanking as an administrator, not with the content. Make your case and await responses from other editors. Acroterion (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waldbaum's supermarket fire

Is posted, and has a surprise ending, it was an arson. I appreciate your comments. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refdesk revert?

Hi Acroterion, was this revert intentional? [4] If so, what is the reason? --Amble (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misclick, sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I figured. --Amble (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informed amalysis

You should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to take the role of deciding when to block someone then you should read all the relevant information very carefully and verify the accuracy of all persons claims. Obviously, it is human nature (but not mine) to “pile on” when someone who has slightly irritated them is “on trial”, and to give incomplete information on what they did and that it was occurred.

Administrators do not arbitrate content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


One main point – the fact is the leads on music articles are VASTLY differential. Ritchie333 clearly admits “he likes short”. I never say what I like – I state I am trying to make them somewhat uniform and to present an non-American centric view of things. Oh, if it’s a British band then the UK is allowed to be mentioned too, or so its seems. People should not have flip to pages on the discography or the specific album or song to get even some sense of whether the artist is only a US (Or North American success). The Eagles lead suggested they were one of the biggest bands in the world, when in fact they only had 1 top 10 hit in the UK, Australia and most of Europe. By contrast, it should be made clear the Who (and others) are a truly worldwide band It should not take “agreement” on 100 different communities for 100 different artists (or in some cases one person may be involved with 2 or 3 or 4 artists) to get the articles to be somewhat uniform and to reflect a worldwide perspective. Presenting only the US point of view, is in itself, a contravention of Wikipedia’s POV policies.

Further, on the changes I made which caused you to block me someone explicitly said:

In the lead at the Who – through your contributions and those of an IP user, admittedly – we currently say that "My Generation" "went to number two in the UK and Australia, number three in Canada and the top ten in parts of Europe"; there's no source for these details, and they don't appear in the main body, sourced or otherwise. Same situation for "Substitute" and "I'm a Boy" being top-five hits in the Netherlands, "Pictures of Lily" and "Happy Jack" going top five in "several countries", "Jack" hitting number one in Canada; and for "I Can See for Miles" being a top-ten hit in Canada. It continues in the lead – Tommy as "the first of nine straight top ten albums in the US and Canada", inclusion of Canadian chart success of "Pinball Wizard" and "See Me, Feel Me", The Who by Numbers being "their fifth straight top five album in France". Nowhere in the 1964–1978 section of the article is any of this non-UK and -US chart success discussed. A lead section is supposed to summarise main points from the article. The lead's therefore been compromised by the inclusion of unsourced information, which amounts to original research; and it means that the article fails the Good Article criteria, specifically: 1b it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections ..., 2c it contains no original research ... After Ritchie333 reverted your first batch of changes, in January, none of this original research was there. Just because your additions are "accurate" and the information can be found at the artist's discography doesn't mean they belong, and it certainly doesn't get around the WP:NOR and GA criteria issues.

So much of what he is saying was that the detailed info needs to be in the body. That is exactly what I did (because the editor said the above), including with the exact chart sources/references, before you blocked me. Further which Rictchee333 – in the talk page for Genesis he lists 8 or 9 things wrong with the Genesis’s article lead AFTER I had revised it BUT all those errors were there before. He completely misrepresented the situation. Obviously, the other people who go to that talk page are going to think he is right and I am wrong, unless they actually verify what he is saying is true. He then said the below: I have seen this user charge into GAs and FAs and rewrite bits of them, introducing errors or going against consensus. To try and forestall this happening on Genesis (band), I decided to rewrite the entire lead from scratch this afternoon and left a talk thread here to try and resolve the dispute and a constructive note here, only to get reverted with "I do not care if it is FA if is is wrong." (which misses the point I was trying to make that charging in full pelt to a GA or FA where other editors have done lots of work, means you might get blowback and have to discuss changes) and putting grammatical errors in. I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring. Elsewhere I see him edit-warring on Katharine Hepburn, saying "Leave this alone. No one else object months last year or weeks now. Leave it alone." and on Aerosmith, saying "I do not understand why the other editor appears to have no concise writing skills and insists on re-adding repetitive and obvious text. Do not do again." which suggests an ownership problem, and his talk page has a bunch of warnings for edit warring and generally being disruptive. Further, if he is allowed to aggressively block my changes, why am I not allow to block the changes to Katherine Hepburn? The old version had been there for months. I won’t even touch the Aersmith lead – did you bother to look at it?? On the item of using talk pages beforehand, the Pat Benetar article had not had any not entries on talk page for previous 2 years, so why would I post on it? I added over weeks various amounts of text, and the Binksternet just reverted it all weeks later – I proposed a middle ground and he refused it. He did the same with Alanis Morissette 3 or 4 weeks after I had gradually added material.

As someone else said on another talk page it is Wikipedia advice to “Be Bold.”

Lastly, the below is some reversion text that I used on the Bette Davis page - Rictchie333 and Binksternet do not use this style at all: 

10:24, 18 January 2021‎ Informed analysis talk contribs‎  93,754 bytes −391‎  I do not mean to irrritate anyone, but it seems to be adding so many second tier films has made the lead too long compared to other actors of similar stature - Grant, Stewart, K. Hepburn; so I deleted a few. Her getting nom for Baby Jane and Crawford not is legendary and should be in, in my opinion.

Informed analysis (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're wasting your time making content arguments (I'm being polite about the way you've gone after everybody who crosses your path) here or at ANI - you're doing it everywhere but where you're supposed to, as you've been told several times now. Aggressive denunciations of other editors are unlikely to result in the changes you're demanding. Acroterion (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing that you hold the position you do. Did you not read the way I made a reversion (politely)?? Did you not read how I explained Ritchie333 and Binksternet and the Aeorsmith guy made rude reversions and would not meet half way or that I explained I was just making the additions to the Who article that one editor suggested? You do not read actual occurrneces that occurred and just take the word of people piling on (they were making denunciations) then you are not doing your job. You should be ashamed. 05:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
For at least the fourth time, administrators don't arbitrate content. Content is discussed on talkpages, not appealed to admins. Behavior is what admins deal with, and your behavior is at issue, since you are unwilling to follow Wikipedia content discussion norms. That's why so many people find your behavior objectionable - you seem to want administrators to impose your preferred edits by fiat. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been totally off Wikipedia for 4 days due to massive depression caused by your improper pile. You did not look at the behaviour of Ritchiee333 and Binksternet. You do not listen. ALL the additions I made to Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Eagles, Journey, Styx, Foreigner, Abba, Bryan Adams, Beach Boys, and Rod Stewart are still there - no one had any concerns. It is only Binksternet and Ritchie33 that impose their will, a will which means the articles they control (Genesis, The Who, Alanis Morrisette) do not correspond to all the other articles and their leads.

Administrators do not arbitrate content. Use the talkpages as intended. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informed Analysis, I left a well-worded and constructive piece of advice at User talk:Informed analysis#Advice, and you ignored it and personally attacked me anyway. I'm sorry you've got depression like me and many other people I know whose lives have been destroyed by COVID-19, but that doesn't make it acceptable. I need to remind you that the current leads for The Who and Genesis were put in place largely by JG66 and MetalDiablo666 respectively, and I mentioned at the latter's talk page that I found one of your comments in the edit summary offensive. I'm going to get off Acroterion's talk page as it's not the place for third parties to argue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Acroterion, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Acroterion, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abusive reverts on talk page

Regarding Wikipedia_talk:No_Nazis

MY comments are the ones being reverted on spurious grounds, when the talk page, if any, should be given far more leniency than an article page. Yet funny how after you started deleting my comment, other random people immediately jump in to revert my restorations. So now *I* am the one being threatened for edit warring, and not the ones removing content against policy. Also, as I said, you are an admin in a dispute, so if you decide to ban me that will be against policy. Regardless, this situation is clearly not resolving itself, and has become entirely abusive, and I will be raising it to higher levels. 73.159.229.5 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve reverted at least four times to forum-chat griping. Make civil, concrete suggestions, or stop reverting. I’m not going to be the admin who blocks you in any case. Acroterion (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not reverting any longer, so if any admin decides to block me, they are doing so for abusive punishment reasons, not to stop edit warring. Also, by DELETING my ON-TOPIC (not "forum-chat") comments in the TALK page, you have REMOVED my ability to make "civil, concrete suggestions". This is a particularly abusive and censorious tactic by an long-term administrator, but perhaps that's the way Wikipedia rolls now. And while me comment was blunt, it was directed at the article, not the users, so you completely misrepresented my comment in your revert, and you continue to misrepresent my comment as a "forum-chat", even after I repeatedly pointed out it was discussing the content of the article. Obviously this is going nowhere with you, so I will have to involve outside editors (and possibly admins). 73.159.229.5 (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Knock yourself out. Another admin has already warned you for talkpage abuse. Acroterion (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:No_Nazis".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:No Nazis.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--73.159.229.5 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator action - Reconsider censoring discussion about ivermectin, which *does* stop covid-19.

With respect: Are you taking this action as an administrator based on policy? : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.201.195.170&diff=1007194144&oldid=1006610441. If so, which one? You seem to by saying that I'm giving medical advice. If that's your claim, I'll take it to arbcom if I must. Are you saying each sentence you removed is medical advice? Every sentence? I can't find one that does.

Let's see where we have common ground. There is tons of "Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19".

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.643369/abstract for example. Agreed?

Did you look at the history of the content you cut?

Did you see that Alexbrn added info about using ivermectin when treating covid with [5] and do you think that should be censored too?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no discussion going on, and user talkpages aren't alternate hosts for material that doesn't make it into an article. Userpages aren't suitable for promoting unproven medical claims, and WIkipedia in general isn't a place for you to tout ivermectin. Acroterion (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. True. True.
(What unproven medical claim did I make/you remove? None. Seems like you're kinda casting aspersions with that one and with "tout"; I'm not selling anything. Please strike. \Perhaps I should restore the discussion to the talk page it was on originally. Nah.)
I see you didn't address any of my questions. Could you reconsider answering the last one? Bolding it. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't at issue. Don't use userspace to promote medical treatments. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a net negative for the project and is taking up lots of editor resources to deal with. If they are not able to move on perhaps best just cut our losses sooner rather then later.--Moxy 00:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Protection

Hi Acroterion hope all is well

I noticed you name for the page protection on another editors talk page. Could you do the same for mine? I don’t want to be bothered by IP users and new throw away accounts. It would be very much appreciated! CheersOyMosby (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are people too. Talkpage protecttion is normally applied for short periods in instances of sustained abuse. I don't see any abuse from IPs on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cavity wall insulation

The source of my updates for your page is fro city and guilds brickwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soviet99999 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need a published source, and you need to clearly distinguish between masonry cavity walls and framed cavity walls, and between all masonry and veneer. Recommended clear air gaps are at least 1” in North America (per BIA), and fiberglass or polyester are never used in masonry cavities in North America. Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a new section at Talk:Cavity wall, where you can discuss. Please don't post lots of comments in every section, it makes it difficult to have a conversation. Use the newest section. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImoutoCompAlex

I saw your name on the recently active admins list and was wondering if you could help. Special:Contributions/ImoutoCompAlex and their IP {67.169.83.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been disruptive and incivil over at the Cusper article. Let me know if you need diffs but I believe their contribution histories pretty much speak for themselves. Thanks, Some1 (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a final note for all the reverts and drama via edit summaries. They'll be blocked if they start up again. That's a lot of bathos from somebody who's almost 30. Acroterion (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImOutoCompAlex had another outburst about 40m ago on the talk page of cuspers. This user isn’t acting civilly nor constructively with their dialogue. It is more of the user complaining about how they don’t agree with the approved published resources have to say Centennial357 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leting me know. I've blocked for 48 hours, we'll see if they get the message. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After revioewing some other recent edits, I've changed iot to indefinite. I'll put the page on my watchist. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cavity wall insulation

There is a lot of vastly incorrect information on your cavity wall insulation page. The page needs radical reforming. at present it is misleading the general public .My edit contributions are true and correct. My edit contributions are CITY AND GUILDS BRICKWORK Actualities. Please look into changing Page to a correct version.I can send you correct drafts by email. Which. Email address shall i use. Please reply by email etcSoviet99999 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide published sources on the relevant article talkpages. You have not done so, so far. Please post the references you're using. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting on AIV

I have no idea why you reverted, here... but the reported IP has engaged in vandalism and is suitable for AIV reporting. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 04:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Browser jump misclick, sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responded

Not that it merited a response, but you have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnes VQ (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NapoleonX

Do you mind helping deal with this recurring issue? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, real-world deadlines intervened. I've left them a note [6]. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morton H. Meyerson citations added on February 22

I revised my February 11 contribution to include citations throughout and resubmitted it for review on February 22. Please let me know if it is acceptable or requires further work. Thank you. Jusannaz Jusannaz (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rev Del question

This is a copyvio issue, so no Streisand effect issues in publicly asking this.

I have a cryptocurrency promotor who made a user page edit in which the edit summary itself is the copyvio. Do we bother revdel'ing edit summaries in cases like this, and if so is there any better way than contacting an admin on the rev del list (such as you)? I can't find any archived discussion of this issue in Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, maybe because it wasn't likely to be an issue before summary lengths were recently increased.

Edit is [7]. Source is https://freecoin.technology/ Copyright © Free coin 2019

Thanks. Meters (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the page as spam. We occasionally get vandals and promoters who think that they can use edit summaries in that way. Most mornings I delete a half dozen userpages belonging to spambots and spammers and block most of them, and they never come back to the accounts. I've not blocked this one, just warned. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

Are you available to do a RevDel? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:35 on March 2, 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Email me if it's sensitive. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: message on my talk page

Ok, thanks for the swift response and action. I'll pass forward any further correspondence from any user of a similar nature to you privately if such ever occurs. Cheers. Yousou (Complain) 00:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the best course - the person has been doing this for years. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I find your comments completely unhelpful to the situation. You are refusing to acknowledge that several other people involved in the edit war have got off without even a warning. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You posted at the admin's noticeboard, at least four administrators have told you that you're far out of bounds. Accept that and drop the complaints about everybody that's not you. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive editing"

The editing I did was factual there was no source for that claim and its non factual.

First of all the KKK does not even elect leaders they appoint them, second of all he was not in the KKK ever however he did allegedly support them at one time.


7Prefix7 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep removing well-referenced material, you will be blocked. There's a reference right there. Acroterion (talk)' 01:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


There is no citation for the part I removed. It was a false claim lying about a man with no citation. I have no idea why you are claiming this is cited. The citation is for the separate claim below. This myth comes from the Forest Gump movie and its an untrue statement. There is no citation in the page for him being involved in the KKK at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Prefix7 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’re seriously asserting that Nathan Bedford Forrest had nothing to do with the Ku Klux Klan? There are 29 references to Forrest's activities with the Klan in that article. Acroterion (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops?

Hi there. I'm assuming that this was an error, unless you really think I'm an evil vandal or something? Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evil detected anywhere but in my Chromebook and my connection to Comcast. There's a lot of evil at Comcast. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And on the television. Lots of evil there too. And have I mentioned children's literature? Tsk. Have a good day, cheers DBaK (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kimball War Memorial

Hey! I'm editing the page as part of a project at WVU to amplify previously silenced Appalachian voices. Someone else was also editing it (I don't know who), and I think you and I agreed that we disagreed with them.

Anyway, could you take a look over the page's latest edits? I'm a Wiki newbie and would love your input/corrections. Thanks! YouHadMeAtMeow (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AttackTheMoonNow

Another AttackTheMoonNow sock: User:The Cat That Got The Weasel. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recaptioning pictures isn't reframing events

No opinion for or against the suggestion you deleted at 02:30 UTC today, but image captions are article content and (by their nature) more based on editorial consensus for interpretation than reliable sources. They also could (in theory) be improved upon via a talk page discussion, and that's arguably how they should be amended when the alternative routes are edit war or private messaging. Plus, it shows up as a bold red 666 in the history, and that's a bit chilling, not the best look for an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Kindly reconsider? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood their comment, restored. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. There are now three bright green 666s, should cancel out the big red one, at least by my reckoning of historical superstition. Good luck with those actual trolls and vandals in the future! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I had a couple of actual trolls going on at the time, thanks for flagging my mistake. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

diff 1 (reverted by you) diff 2 (error corrected again by me). Narky Blert (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Tulsa Police Department

Before I embark on an edit war, I would value your thoughts on the goings-on at this article. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute that he said it and that it was reported, which doesn't make it defamatory, regardless of what the IP from Mississippi thinks. Comments like that from a major in the department, whether on or off duty, that have been widely reported, seem noteworthy, the only issue would be whether they represent undue weight to a single individual's comments. Acroterion (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Van Sciver

Given the most recent edits--I trust that what you rev/deleted was fairly serious--perhaps this merits page protection. And probably the edit I just reverted ought to be rev/deleted as well. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed was more of a medical diagnosis, but the one you caught qualifies as well. I’m going to do a little protection. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good use of a light hand

Thank you for the light hand you used in the recent NPA block. While the editor may choose not to moderate their behaviour, there is always a chance that they will. This is a genuinely preventative block. Fiddle Faddle 18:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I would have used a 24 hour term if there hadn't been a couple of preceding blocks, and I'm open to reducing the term. This seems like somebody who can be redeemed if they can check their temper. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be intent on making us both look like starry-eyed optimists. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who knew that we were super-editors?
While it's tempting to remove talk page access, I think WP:ROPE is now in acton and they should have relatively unhampered reign on their talk page... for now. I half expected this behaviour, but am disappointed to see it Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite their complaints about "super users," the people who've been here for 14 or 15 years have seen it all, and are less likely to be goaded. I usually have the sense to walk away from the keyboard when I'm feeling irritable, but it's a learned skill. Acroterion (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, so do I. I almost overstepped my own mark yesterday (as you can see from my talk page) with a self identified paid editor. I allowed myself to become frustrated that they appeared to be unable to listen. I called in a colleague and stepped away overnight. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually" is the key word. On becoming an administrator, I was startled to see the format of each diff's attribution change to "Timtrent (talk | contribs | block)" for everybody from Jimmy Wales on down. It is and should be sobering. Acroterion (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are all allowed lapses. I think, hope, I set myself a higher bar than the 'standard' here, so that any lapse will be below my own standards bt still above the community's.Seems to me that you do, too.
I didn't realise that "block" appeared suddenly on being granted a mop and bucket. I will never be an admin. This tells you why. I considered this very carefully over the years. I was pre-sobered by the bizarrely great power that arrives suddenly. Most admins make the grade fast. Probably I would, too. Probably. Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Hello why have you deleted my profile that I created just yesterday? DiscoveryFiles (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for promotion of external websites. Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No dude lock as told by ginger

So when we're allowed to edit on there again it don't start again cause I know it is he's like that he's going to go right back and start reverting stuff and il have to revert to so pls lock as told by ginger Theshavia29912 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi, thanks for guiding that editor on how to behave here at Wikipedia. I believe I should report them to ANI next time they make threats and to AN3 if they try edit warring.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They didn't directly threaten legal action, which is why they're not blocked, they just quoted Indian law. It happens a lot. Acroterion (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, felt like it except it was not explicit like "I'm gonna sue you". They made personal attacks though. Also their edits in the article and here reek of uncivility and WP:OWN. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has generally been to warn editors like this first as long as they're not going "I'm going to sue you," and we warn for incivilities. They've stopped for now (it's nighttime in India), we'll see if they pick up where they left off. Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks . I hope they engage in the talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An older account tried to replace "Festival of Love" with "Festival of Justice" here. The other user tried to remove exactly the "Festival of Love" part [8]. Not sure, but felt like sock/meat. I'll keep a close eye. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fayez Banihammad

Hi, I was just wondering if you are having a trouble finding info about the guy himself too Eliyah17 (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Shaheen Hassan (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Italian IPs

Hi. When you get a moment, could you take a look at this. It's a list of disruptive IPs from Brescia Province in Italy who have been active on a number of articles, on all of which they have been disruptive. I came across them on Anton Drexler and German Workers' Party. I believe you ran into them on Nathan Bedford Forrest. I'm fairly sure this is one editor using multiple IPs, but it could be a group of editors working in concert.

I really don't have a clue how to deal with them. Multiple range blocks? Edit filters? Any ideas you might have would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They've been active for a couple of years - while it's been toned down a bit, their early edits were very much fascist-adjacent. They've put in a lot of time on subjects concerning Nathan Bedford Forrest too. I've been applying RBI. I'll have a look through the list in more detail and see if there's more we can do. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I first noticed them in late 2019, I'll have to check my logs - I think I used the summary "Northern Italy Nazi" for early blocks. There might be some rangeblock targets in there, but last time I tried, they were too big and too rapidly changing. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the extent you want to keep being involved, but this by 87.4.31.172 is clearly block-evasion. Let me know if I'm bugging you with this stuff, Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to keep after this individual, they have no business editing WP. Blocked. I'll take a look at some rangeblocks this weekend. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm updating the list on my subpage as I come across new IP numbers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And again by 5.170.4.160. I;m going to RFPP Brian Pearce. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the blocks, but I think you accidentally blocked 86.20.76.53 which is a UK IP who reverted one of the vandalizing edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I'll fix., Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked by User:Crazycomputers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

I notice you removed these edits as "trolling". The renewed interest in Cullors' Marxism is because conservative media have been discussing the optics of Cullors purchasing a expensive home in an overwhelmingly white neighborhood. Yahoo Finance also reported that the right-leaning National Legal and Policy Center stated "Whenever a figure in the nonprofit sector acquires significant assets in a short period of time, scrutiny is inevitable". Yesterday I added details about her new home purchase (see Patrisse Cullors#Personal life), though I avoided any commentary about the optics of this purchase, per WP:BLPBALANCE. I'm not sure I would have deleted this so quickly as "trolling". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below - they've been using talkpages as platforms for screeds on "leftists" there and on a couple of fascism-related topics with at least two IPs If they can bring themselves to stop soapboxing, they are free to make their argument. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And see below - I appear to have done something I didn't mean to do with fat fingers. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What trolling?

You removed section from Talk page of Patrisse Cullors because of trolling - what trolling and by whom? It is a practice do discuss between editors some topics so what is you reason to remove it? Loesorion (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages aren't fora for denunciations of "leftists." The editor is free to discuss the subject without shrill attacks on other editors. The editor has been doing this on several subjects with several IPs and will be blocked if they don't change their behavior. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what happened, I only meant to deal with the IP, not the whole thread. Sorry about that! Acroterion (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hi Acroterion, I noticed your revert of my reply in a talk page discussion between me and another user, ScottishFinnishRadish. This is the kind of thing explicitly discouraged by wp:tpo, which mentions a number of exceptions which don't apply in this case. Self-revert. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be messing around with archive dates, and not explaining what you did - it certainly wasn't just a "reply to ScottishFinnishRadish." If you want to make a change to archiving, explain what you did, and don't use a misleading edit summary. Feel free to reinstate your comment at the very end without all of the archive edits. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, in my experience on enwiki, an edit summary which you suggest is "misleading" has not been considered a sufficient reason to remove a talk page comment that is pertinent to the corresponding article's subject or to an ongoing talk discussion. You could have selectively reverted the lines you objected to while still complying with wp:tpo, or failing that, you could have reinstated only the lines in the discussion when I requested you to. It is strange for you to suggest that I should reinstate my comments there, projecting a sort of undue eagerness to talk to ScottishFinnishRadish in the process, all because you decided a wholesale revert was appropriate in a situation where it clearly wasn't. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, I just saw your most recent edit to that talk page. No further action is needed - thanks! 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this as you've warned him recently.

[9]. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Fastest I've seen yet. Nice work. - wolf 02:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the Evlekis socks are proliferating tonight. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

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) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

Please read wp:talk and wp:npov.Pyromilke (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Putting pictures of lanterns in Wikipedia

Acroterion‬, for removing all the pictures from History of Street Lighting in the United States, I have no choice to erase the links to my website and lighting gallery.net and galleryoflights.org from the External Links area. I'm sorry, but you've given me no choice. I don't want people to go to my website using the external link. I want people to find the Frangioso's Street Lighting Gallery website on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpirman1982 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, you have a conflict of interest in any case and have no business posting links to your own websites. Don't use WIkipedia for spamming your personal projects, and please remove links to those endeavors - we're not here to drive traffic to external websites.Acroterion (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this good for?

Why your revert?

Why are you cluttering the category list with tangential comments that have nothing to do with your edit summary? Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do I clutter?
I deleted one cat which obviously is incorrect by now, as object in question had been found, crushed, sadly. Was my edit. I saw a comment added by so else there, added one myself, was meant only for those who will sort the cats of this article later.
I left that comment for those in charge not to create a certain cat with only one entry, and prob no real use for the future. There are lots of cats with single or only two to three entries, and they receive 'merger' requests, stay for ever, nb cares to clean afterwards.
I did not create that specific cat, not my job to delete it - but others might think it be not useful. Therefore my comment.
And bc you are quick to accuse sb of wrong-doing:
Do you read twice before changing ath back? Do you realise the intention of those who add sth may be positive, or are you just in the mood to create havoc along your way?
The wp will eventually run out of contributors, and lack most prob importance. With the german wp it is already at that point. Friendly ppl like you are the reason.
How does it feel being on the receiving end?? Feels bad?? Congrats. Hope you just learnt sth.
Nonetheless, greetings. 185.16.53.224 (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I removed the other comment line as well, the category can be changed to =make it "Indonesian" instead of "Indonesia" if there is sentiment to do so, but adding comment lines doesn't accomplish much. The gtalkpage or the cateogy would be the place to do so. You are as much in charge as anyone else on WP. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jerry Zipkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:NapoleonX

Hi, could you have a quick look through the contribution history of NapoleonX (talk), who's been blocked before, please? Their talk page (which they keep blanking) contains stacks of notices, the latest being unexplained blanking at Greta Thunberg and many changes to subjects' names (eg Jr., Snr). Sorry, I haven't the time to pull out edit diffs. Thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You saw my note - since they've been forthcoming with us about things they need help with, we've tried to work with them, but it consumes a lot of volunteer time and patience. Acroterion (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many thanks for the explanatory note. Much appreciated. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okavango without citations

Hi there sorry it took a while I would like to put back a part of what I wrote with citations two news articles which directly reference this area and possibly one document/ company report. I will add it to the latest version with two citations New to this so apologise. If the formatting is wrong please feel free to alter Thank you Citizen for the Planet (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Citizen for the Planet[reply]

User:Palaeo Wiki

Could you please revoke TPA from them? They keep blanking the block notices. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from AdmiralAkira

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at AdmiralAkira's talk page.
Message added 18:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

thank you for your message AdmiralAkira 18:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AdmiralAkira

Hi, I just noticed you had posted a warning to their talk page. Despite that, and my 2nd request that they stay off my talk page, (after abusing it), they again posted there. This is repetitive behavior; the misuse of notices and the personal attacks, all from an editor with a total of 12 disruptive edits to project space. I would post an ANI, but I'll await your response. Thanks - wolf 19:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reinforce my request that they stay away. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is appreciated, but my concern is not just for my talk page, but their overall behavior, from parroting warnings and requests, abusing notices, abusing edit summaries, and a general confrontational attitude, with no apparent willingness to discuss matters collegially. This isn't even a content dispute, but stems from a message left on their talk page to address their disruptive project space edits, the somewhat bizarre response to that of which is so far lacking in any rational explanation. But if you're keeping an eye on the situation, I'm satisfied with that. Thanks again - wolf 21:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but since they're presently focused on you, and they haven't visited the article talkpage, I figured I'd start there. I try not to do the mean administrator thing unless somebody's obviously up to something, rather than just misinformed or troublesome. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from AdmiralAkira

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at AdmiralAkira's talk page.
Message added 19:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please tell TWC to stop posting at my talk page. i will comply with your request AdmiralAkira 19:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

, Titles

Dear Acroterion, Thank you for comment to my (improper) revision of honorifics for the "Menachem Mendel Schneerson" artile. In which manner does WP (Wikipedia? or something else?) allow using titles. FYI: this is not some "Schneerson" we are talking about, this was a very renown rabbi. Besides, I am pretty sure that major style and grammar guides require titles. Plus, Chabad.org uses his title explicitly. So it seems that the title should be there. How do we overcome this discrepancy? Please advise. Truly, MS

See WP:HONORIFIC - we use their name, no more. No "sir," "reverend," "general," or "rabbi" out in front, in nearly all cases I'm aware of Schneerson's status, but it makes no difference to the policy. And it certainly clutters the article to put it in anywhere somebody's name appears. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:50.52.21.250

User 50.52.21.250 did replace another nationality with "Jewish" today. (I reverted it.) --152.7.255.228 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with that sockpuppet of Cruizir! JavaHurricane 12:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

It's always a pleasure to run into you when we are both dealing with a problematic user. You do very excellent work here and Wikipedia is measurably better because of all your effort. :) --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the assistance! One of the best things about Wikipedia is the collective work by many editors to deal with trouble. That sometimes gets lost in all of the arguments about things like The/the Beatles. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REVDEL request

Since you are willing to handle REVDEL requests, would you mind deleting this revision? Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the IP was certainly trying hard to be irritating, there's no revdel for obnoxious pedantry and mild cussing. It's reserved for things that really shouldn't be publicly viewable. If we did revision deletions for tiresome pedants, we wouldn't have much encyclopedia left after a while. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm not sure most people should see this. Bneu2013 (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Really shouldn't be publicly viewable" is usually reserved for gross personal abuse, accusations of criminal activity, detailed observations on one's mother's character, things like that. This is a more everyday sort of abuse. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments of the Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands.

The information I had added comes from a reliable source because it is an academic book, whose work is based solely on existing historical documents and, therefore, verifiable. And that information was removed incorrectly. Also, I added a jurisprudential quote from the International Court of Justice, which it was removed too!!! Isn't that International Court a reliable source???!!! You, Wi-ki-pe-dians, should put back what I added to the page in honor of the truth.Sergio Pelayes (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make your case on the article's talkpage. The fact of being published doesn't necessarily mean that its addition is permanent. Additionally, quotes from judicial proceedings are explicitly discouraged, as they are primary sources and subject to interpretation. You need to use secondary sources to establish how judicial proceedings are to be interpreted. And you need to adopt a less confrontational attitude toward other editors when they advise you about problems with sourcing, removal of other cited material, and interpretation of primary sources. Acroterion (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. You warned me for a "personal attack" on someone else. Could you please explain to me what it is you are referring to? Thank you. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're harassing BMK and the word "liars" is occurring far too frequently in your comments. You may not skirt PA policy by omitting usernames from your accusations. You were warned at ANI by Black Kite, and now you're warned by me. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone deliberately misrepresents what a scholar actually wrote, and uses an entirely false quote as the foundation of an entire article , then what would you call the person who did that? If someone simply makes up "facts" out of their own imagination, what would you call such a person? If exposing that means I was "harassing" someone, then I honestly don't know what to make of it. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Stop rationalizing your behavior. Stop now, or be siteblocked, not just topic blocked. Final warning. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked for a single rational explanation. And now I'm getting warned with siteblocking? Thanks for confirming my worst fears about humanity. 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

You might also want to redact the edit summary of the revert, since it unfortunately also mentions the troll's username? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one of the more annoying features of reversion is the perpetuation of that sort of thing. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh. It's possible (but slightly more time consuming) to undo manually and add an edit summary which doesn't mention the username. Thanks, I think there's still a couple other edits and reverts which might need action... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look through Special:Contributions/Praxidicae (and thank Praxidicae for their quick reverts) and redact the relevant ones... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's an LTA we're playing whackamole with the last few hours. YODADICAE👽 17:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Most people don't manually revert, though. I think I got everything for that sock, there's at least one other that was active that I want to catch. Acroterion (talk)

Inshallah

@Acroterion: Hi there, this message is to inform you regarding your edit to Inshallah for unexplained content removal however I believe there is an error as user Prince1917 was the one removing it without providing an explanation in the edit summary. I was patrolling on Recent Changes and came upon the article which was why I undo it. If you think, I make an mistake, please free feel to undo it again. Thanks you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, early morning. Carry on! Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DDT

Why did you revert my changes to the terrible spelling on the DDT page spelling colour without a u is shocking English and should not be allowed on an important page. Thank you

I left a message explaining why. Don't change national varieties of English spelling and usage without consensus and clear justification. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy

I was in the process of writing an ANI thread when you blocked, while I think 24 hours is...rather light given his history and our extensive use of kid gloves but I came here to ask if I should still file the ANI thread or if there will be a more formal warning issued that if this behavior continues, the next block/restriction will not be so generous? YODADICAE👽 01:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely made it light - it's either that or a term of several months. There's no bar to further discussion at ANI to see if a community sanction is needed, or a modification of the terms of their topic restriction. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll see if Florida chills out or doubles down and then proceed. YODADICAE👽 01:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what they'll do - my suggestion of a walk outside hasn't been accepted yet, but there's hope. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on their talk page, my hope in intervening by removing the original personal attacks on the talk page was that he would take a step back and rethink his approach because I think he's partially right (about Wikipedia's bias which tends to be geared toward Western "white" notability) but screaming racism and bigotry at every disagreement is not the right way and it's disruptive and does a disservice to actual anti-bias and anti-racism efforts on Wikipedia, but now of course, I am the bad guy. I've accepted dozens of his drafts and even improved some as I find the subjects interesting but alas, here we are. YODADICAE👽 01:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FA has a point, I don't think anybody seriously disagrees with them on that. But he's hurting the cause he's trying to promote by behaving that way. I'm aware of the arguments against being all nice and cooperative and going with the flow, and there are settings where being the stick in the spokes is right and good. This isn't one of those places. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Were Turkic

I have a request from you, please edit the "Ottoman Empire" page on Wikipedia and please state that the Ottomans are a Turkish state and a Turkish dynasty.Thanks in advance History of MONGOL EMPRİE , BRİTİSH EMPRİE AND OTTOMAN EMPRİE (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already asked at the talkpage, which is where such requests belong. You will need to be more specific about what you want, anbd you'll need to indicate sources, either new or already in the article. The article already covers the fact that the official language was Oghuz Turkic, and there are several other discussions of the Turkic nature of the central empire. What, specifically, are you asking for? State that on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

I think this qualifies. I noticed that the IP apparently belongs to a school, and has only just had a two year block expire. – 2.O.Boxing 13:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, and the IP is now blocked for three years. Thanks for spotting it. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violence Against Men change

Casting men as perpetrators in the Violence Against Men article first paragraph de-legitimizes the rest of the article. Both men and women perpetuate crimes and violence and each of the Violence Against Men or Violence Against Women articles could also have a "(Gender X) are both victims and perpetrators of violence" in the article first paragraph. Perpetrator should not be included in the Violence Against Men article for the same reason it is not included in the first paragraph of the Violence Against Women article. Some examples of Women committing violence: female genital mutilation - included the Female Genital Mutilation article on who does the cutting and also by the number of persons committing child abuse by genders - link added to the Violence Against Men talk page.

Wikipedia articles on men and men's issues should not always lead back to men are bad, men are broken, men are the aggressor, men are toxic in each article. The women's articles do not do this. The men's articles should be about men and not an acknowledgement of men's topic with a sprinkling of negatives about men leading back to men are bad/toxic and women are the victims.

Wikipedia is broader than prefixing favored groups with positive adjectives whenever they are mentioned and prefixing unfavored groups with a negative adjective every time they are mentioned.

Consider the use of "distinguished senior senator" versus "senator" where neither is negative yet the first one casts the senator in a positive light. Wikipedia should avoid this and avoid salting negatives into articles that are not in agreement with the author's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:780b:869:9a8a:517f (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works with verifiable references, not personal opinions. Men are by far the largest perpetrators of violence against both men and wormen. You do not appear to be making any kind of coherent argument, and in any case, Wikipedia isn't a forum for your personal views. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid point that including “as both perpetrators and victims” delegitimizes the article. The Violence Against Men article is about male victims. Important that such a statement could be included in the Violence Against Woman article based on the Wikipedia article on FGM and this is not an attempt to get that included. There are verifiable sources that both males and females commit large numbers of violent acts. Defaulting to men much more than females does not justify salting Violence Against Men with up front negatives. This is a push piece to mislead readers by including men perpetrators in the article head.
Would the article be considered fair if the first sentence is “Violence against men consists of violent acts committed exclusively or proportionally against men and boys; and men are the largest perpetrators of violence against men and women.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:DD15:294B:FF22:DBBF (talk • contribs)
Go to the article talkpage and find consensus for your changes. The lead paragraph of the article (or any other article on Wikipedia) summarizes the sourced content of the body of the article. It isn't changeable according to the views of individual editors, you need to show that it doesn't reflect the sourced content. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're trying to start an argument about circumcision, you need to re-think your approach. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s well known that a summary of reliable sources can tilt the summary towards or away from on viewpoint. What is your recommendation on how many Wikipedia users are needed for a consensus?
The reason for asking is that suggestions for article changes in even non political articles follow a path of:
  1. Propose a change with more than one reliable citation
  2. Editor - Multiple requests for more citations
  3. Clarification of the change
  4. Editor - Mischaracterization of the change as a large one
  5. Followed by one of
    1. Editor saying this is not productive and shutting it down
    2. Editor saying it is a personal opinion and not allowed. Even when directly quoted from more than one reliable source.
    3. Editor 2 joining in and asking for clarification and then calling it an opinion
    4. Editor claiming addition is inconsequential and not worthy of inclusion
    5. Editor claiming inclusion changes the view of the article
    6. Editor probing the user to get an argumentative response, name calling response or foul language response
  6. Then shutting down the change

This is when the sources are mainstream academic journals or direct quotes from well researched Wikipedia articles.

By this tHousand cuts treatment, fewer new users will be able to add to Wikipedia. The net loss is that Wikipedia gets frozen in an aging mindset.

Think if Wikipedia was largely written in the 1950s with bigoted articles and rarely able to be edited to remove the bigotry.

And none of these are arguing, they are regular discourse.

Your point being? The lead summarizes the sourced body of the article. It can’t depart from that requirement because one editor objects. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potato houses

Hi, apologies for inserting potatoes where they weren't wanted. I was confused by Category:Potato houses, which is a sub-category of Potatoes. Perhaps you could help make it less confusing? I'm clearly not an expert! --Ranveig (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thanks for bringing it up - there are indeed potato houses in Maine, but the lead sentence had them all mixed up by product and geography - I've tried to disentangle it. Your edit brought that issue to my attention. No apologies needed. Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Englsih terms are a bit hard to specify - "plain old potatoes" versus sweet potatoes? Maybe you can figure out how to categorize the ambiguity? Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think both vegetables are ambiguously named all over the world! I've added the potato house-category to the category for sweet potatoes. --Ranveig (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "pommes de terre" and "pommes" is certainly ambiguous in another direction. I'm expanding a little to separate Maine and Delaware and to elaborate on the Acadian potato barns. Thank you for flagging the confusion in that article. 13:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine

Our friend is ploughing ahead with their changes, without reference to the talk page or their own talk page. Would you take a look? I've probably got myself involved by writing that stuff up on talk. GirthSummit (blether) 15:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them from Vaccine for disruptive editing. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear

Hello. I think your would be interested in reading This heading. Thanks. ScholarM (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Russian School of Mathematics

My attention was drawn to this organization when I got an email saying I would be ideal as an administrator. I tagged the article for multiple issues. The editor list is quite thin. What is your first impression as to notability and so on? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems kind of marginal in WP terms, and it's almost entirely self-sourced, which is definitely not on. I'm interested in why they think you'd be a good candidate - my initial impression is that they're selling franchises. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made this mistake of signing up for some online employment service. As a result, I receive acres of enticing emails every day. I now someplace between amused and annoyed. I am or may not take an interest in this page.--PaulinSaudi (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a favor

Hi, Acroterion. I'm not confident operating in the realm of range blocks. It would help me out if you could check into the feasibility for blocking the range including 167.98.65.68 (talk · contribs) and 167.98.65.69 (talk · contribs). If you could respond here with any results, I'd appreciate it. If you need to email any info that's fine too. Thanks. Tiderolls 14:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tide rolls: Since they're right next to each other that would be a /31 block, using this tool [10]
Checking the 167.98.65.0/24 range [11] I see a lot of stuff like this [12]. Legitimate edits are few and far between [13]. Clearly this is a range used by schools. As far as I'm concerned the /24 range can be blocked, and for a long time. We can start with a month - do you want to do the honors?
CUs have told me not to do hard blocks on ranges - shutting out registered users, as it causes grief on their end when they have to investigate.
I still don't understand IPv6 to be terribly confident beyond/64 ranges. I'm working on that. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel confident in executing the block; I know it's irrational because it's not that terribly complicated. Apologies. Tiderolls 15:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I would hesitate about a /16 block and would probably talk to a CU first for anything but a very short block. A /24 block covers only 256 addresses. I can apparently think in 32-bit terms, but have trouble with the 128-bit addressing in IPv6. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bombing of Dresden and my point

2 years ago you decided to send me a note about what I introduced for discussion and correction regarding the bombing of Dresden. Instead of taking the notes I suggested as reference to further comment on the subject. You in your Wiki Glory decided to instead not take what I had written as conjecture and a means to open a discussion but rather you decided to comment on my comment and tell me I was using the Talk aspect of Wikipedia incorrectly. I can only hope that since then you have found other ways to fill your time. You see.........Wikipedia is not necessarily factual. Many subjects or topics are biased by opinion and/or ignorance among other things. So rather than editing the content of the page regarding the bombing of Dresden I chose to offer my 2 cents worth and if someone deemed it relevant or worthy then someone might be inspire to add my ideas to the main page. That era of history is very touchy and horrible. I feel your comment was both unwarranted and short sighted. I wish I had noticed your comment on the day instead of 2 years later. If I had I would have told you then what I'm going to say now. Find a pretty girl that shares your interests and values and work up the nerve to kiss her. If you do I think you'll find much more gratifying ways of filling your time than policing Wikipedia. Should it further serve your ego to anonymously engage users of Wikipedia then feel free to lash out at me in response to this message. I would be happy to berate you if only to make obvious your meak and likely lonely existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMCS231 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not necessarily factual." Uh-huh. NEXT! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo many things wrong with your post IMCS231 starting with the fact that you don't know how to spell the word "meek" Facepalm Facepalm Acroterion you are a marvelous editor. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 15:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reported at AN/I as "NOTHERE". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are biased, towards serious historians and academic sources and against false moral equivalences and dubious points of views. Nothing to see here, already reported to ANI, move on. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bless your heart. I've marked my 2023 calendar, anticipating your very polite reply. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even understand what their original monologue was about because its not as if that article is doing some kind of coverup. The bombings are well analyzed and I do not see any evidence that those that were critical of these bombings have had their prominent views suppressed. But, hey they get a brownie point for registering a username at least!--MONGO (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I keep the article on my watchlist because it occasionally gets hit by drive-by fascism enthusiasts; it's one of HarveyCarter's favorites. There are frequent arguments about death tolls, apparently under the premise that everything is knowable if one is willing to argue about it long enough to win. So it tends to attract a lot of hostile pedantry. Given the length and jumble, I'm guessing this is one is a both-sides-were-repugnant advocate. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Notice

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.

Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AOC

I AGF'd as hard as I could to see the possibility that that post was genuine in intent. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I broke my AGF. I did give them the links that you posted. Crikey. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the best. Now to find where I left my brain bleach. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saving me from having to research that. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu - so much for AGF [14]. I'm probably being too kind with only a week. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FFS. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Thanks for doing the necessary, I expected that, but was called away by domestic matters. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that that's over, but sorry to have experienced it in the first place. I really can't tell if it's ignorance or a deliberate strategy. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably both, spiked with prurient curiosity. We're going to see more of this kind of thing (figuratively, I hope I mean) Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed speedy deletion of User:Iporosh

Hi, Acroterion. Thank you for blocking Iporosh for advertising or promotion. I've nominated Iporosh's user page for speedy deletion under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion since it is a page that advertises or promotes something. Would you consider deleting this page? Hayleez (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it's advertising, which is why I didn't delete it. I suggest moving it to draft space. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, Fastily deleted User:Iporosh under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I thanked Fastily. Hayleez (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like advertising to me, or at least an attempt at improving SEO for a non-notable service/business. -FASTILY 04:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine.At first glance it was above the usual run of spam and SEO stuff. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Farfisa2000 Farfisa2000 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

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

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request at Talk:Harry Styles

Hi Acroterion, could you RevDel this BLP violating edit: [15] made by now blocked user Nonsensestopper, please? Thanks! Some1 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense stopped. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

24.228.152.76

Thanks for the partial block regarding Preston Sturges. I doubt 24 hours is going to be enough, though. The IP has refused to post on the article talk page, but posted on mine and another editor's talk page. They appear to be unable to take the information in the article anything but literally. Perhaps you can keep an eye on the article and the editor for a couple of days? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much expect the same thing. We'll see if it sinks in. Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jaiden's Channel

Hey Acroterion. I spotted the above account having a right old vandalism party over at the Eurovision article, a similar-looking account name did the same Philippines editing attempt this morning, which means I'm on 2-reverts in 24 hours, so I have to be careful. I'm not an admin so my powers are limited. I've left a message at the Eurovision project page to make them aware. Good luck in dealing with JC. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've partially blocked them. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 24.228.152.76

I see that you've blocked the IP address 24.228.152.76 for 24 hours subsequent to their argument with myself and User:Beyond My Ken on Preston Sturges. Prior to being blocked, however, they left a long and thought-out message on my talk page explaining their rationale for the edit; in light of this, I think that they were at best justified in making it, and at worst they're willing to engage in discussion about it. I realize that blocking policy does not smile fondly on people requesting unblocks on behalf of other editors, but I think there's a chance this block was in error. jp×g 22:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A "long and thought out rationale", but not justified, as the editor does not recognize the difference between literalness and figurativeness.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And edit-warring doesn't have an "I'm right" exemption. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand

I'd like an explanation of how my behavior warrants random administrator action, but someone else's does not. I'm well aware that the removal of a comment on someone's talk page is an acknowledgment of the comment, but clearly, the edit summary in the removal shows it was not understood. Someone broke an article, clearly on accident, and their error was fixed, and for that, I get a warning template and told I was disrupting the article. I offer to explain why my edit was made, and in exchange, it's called harassment. Where is an administrator to tell someone that their behavior is uncalled for? How is that not obnoxious to have to deal with? The359 (Talk) 03:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who remove comments from their talkpages are assumed to have read and understood the comment. Continuing to repost after something's been removed is frequently seen as harassment. Please practice de-escalation. Both of you have said what you said. That's enough. Demanding apologies never works. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what is calling an editor a harasser, troll, or disruptor when they clearly are making correct edits seen as? Just something to ignore? Do you not see that in doing this reversion and nothing else, it shows that his behavior is seen as okay by an administrator? The359 (Talk) 04:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could have warned you both. I didn't, because you both already know better. I expect you both to stop picking at each other. Please oblige me. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was the only one warned. What else is there to warn me for? Correcting someone's mistake? Then trying to tell them they were wrong to misinterpret my edits as vandalism? At what point in any of this did I suddenly become someone worthy of a warning? I'd argue that the edit summaries and actions of the other user show a clear case of not knowing better. The359 (Talk) 04:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your comment and explained why I did it in the edit summary. That’s all. Nobody was warned. Please stop trying to find something to argue about, I’m not playing along. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you explained it as stating that I was being obnoxious. In other words, don't continue to do it. If I were to revert his talk page again, I'm 99% sure some action would be taken. I'm pretty certain that makes it a warning. And I sure as hell wasn't looking for something to argue about, I fixed an article and now I have to deal with an administrator who doesn't want to take the time to explain his inaction toward someone clearly being inappropriate in his behaviour toward other editors. I'd appreciate an explanation of where in the span of my edits I became someone that needed my comment removed and explained (but not warned). The359 (Talk) 04:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this here as a neutral place, and because Acroterion is already involved as an admin. First, I totally misunderstood why the short description was being deleted. I was solely viewing the diff, and not looking at the whole page, and the edit summaries of the reverts gave no clue to what was actually wrong. Once I saw the broken infobox, I immediately fixed it. After that, I reacted badly to User:The359's post on my page, and for that, I apologize. In the future, I will try to make sure I'm not reverting to a bad version of a page. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this disruptive editor seem familiar to you?

This might interest you Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcelite - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never encountered Mcelite, but the two new editors are up to something. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoosaGA1, were 2 of the socks were also caught. BilCat (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that settles it, and they're all blocked. I'll hat that discussion. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They aren’t silly names.

They are actual nicknames. They aren’t silly names. I don’t understand why you can’t grasp this. Landonsch22 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many messages have been left on your talkpage about inappropriate unsourced edits to this encyclopedia? Acroterion (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

So if I correctly source them. Are they allowed? Because they are accurate. Landonsch22 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have enduring significance in the person's life, suitable for inclusion in a worldwide biography, on a scale similar to, say, Babe Ruth? As opposed to sports chat fanboy silliness? Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Thank you for inviting me. Jsopaaōd (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if I can talk with you. Jsopaaōd (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do one edit if you can be able to edit it horror film the 1970s–1980s section I think it would be better if you split it into a 1970s section and a 1980s section like this
1890s–1910s
1920s
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
on horror film the reason for it to make it look modern and even. Jsopaaōd (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Talk:Horror film and make your case there. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I can't edit on it's somehow protected could you be able to do it? Jsopaaōd (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Forgive the intrusion: your talk page is on my watch list.) Looking at this edit, I see why the article's talk page is protected. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just caught onto what's going on - thanks. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>:That's probably because a series of abusive sockpuppets were disrupting the talkpage to propose the same thing this account is trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re H.

I see that the edit history at Huldra's page still contains the threat. Shouldn't that also be deleted? regards Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good catch. Revdel before breakfast is not always complete. Acroterion (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: #@$%&! Sinebot. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JpSears12345 disruptive edits

Hi. JpSears12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked after he repeatedly removed sourced content. Now the user is unblocked, but started to remove sourced content again with no adequate explanation. Could you please block the user? Thank you in advance. --Renat 16:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Let's see what they do. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Jordan

Hello, I did add a note to explain where I got the information from, but I did offer to upload the document so that you can see that the information is genuine (although a little of it is from my personal knowledge).

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usage of IPA templates‎

Hi, just letting you know that this revert of Xcalivyr at Template:Usage of IPA templates‎ doesn't seem to have been well motivated. At the time of their edit, {{IPAc-fr|j|@|-|s|U|i|s_|a|m|é|r|i|c|ain}} yielded [jə sɥi.z‿ameʁikɛ̃], which was clearly unwanted since the whole point of {{IPAc-fr}} is to convert orthographic representations of French to IPA and j in French usually represents [ʒ] and rarely [j]. But instead of reverting your revert, I edited the responsible template, {{C-fr}}, so {{IPAc-fr|j}} now yields [ʒ]. j was already specified to be converted to [ʒ], and it was converted to [j] only because it was doubly specified to be converted to [j] and that preceded [ʒ]. So it was basically a syntax error. Xcalivyr spotted it, even if the way they fixed it may not have been ideal. Nardog (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was motivated by another edit that was equally unexplained, which screwed up formatting. A subsequent check indicated that most of that editor's changes were beneficial, but it was unclear that the edit I reverted was useful. Thank you for fixing the edit, but please avoid making assumptions concerning other peoples' motivations. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying (nor did I think) that you had any ill intent. You reverted an edit without knowing whether it was useful, and it turned out it was. I was just leaving a note that you could have been more cautious, though it's an error anyone (myself included) is capable of and by no means do I accuse you of any kind of ineptitude, let alone bad faith. Nardog (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brescia LTA

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ping :)

Hi Acroterion, I tried to ping you in Special:Diff/1031305635. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it and meant to get back to you, but things intervened. I think I got the paperwork wrong, but if any article ever needed page-level sanctions for BLP and AP, that one's it. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Hm. I have now had a closer look and fixed the talk page notice to match the current situation. Regarding the content dispute about the word "debunked", I'm afraid neither 1RR nor "consensus required" nor WP:ONUS would have any different effect than removing the disputed term until a clear consensus for inclusion is found. I can't see a talk page discussion about the issue either, and the most recent edit war about the topic was between an extended-confirmed user and an administrator. 😐 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

70.161.8.90

Once again IP editor 70.161.8.90 is involved in edit warring and personal attacks, this time in the article about the Pleasant Valley War. Maybe you should block him again.216.128.232.11 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the personal attacks? I'm just seeing grumpiness and two reverts. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

protected edit request

Regarding your protection of Sara Jacobs here. Could you also take a look at Scott Peters (politician)? The same sockpuppet is disrupting that page as well. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About possibility of self-reviewing and restoring some removed content due to impartiallity

Hello Acroterion:

Thanks for your help about my recent additions and the message left in my talk page. I am replying in your talk page as you suggested.

I agree with you with the reason to remove my last edit in Olive_oil_regulation_and_adulteration and noted is a fair decision.

I see also that previous editions in Jamon iberico and Jamón Serrano have been removed as well. Is is possible for me to rework those two editions to comply with Wikipedia rules and guidelines and contribute again a few weeks later? Even this reply is now flagged as "potential vandalism" by automated filters, so not sure if I should try to edit anything again regarding those matters.

I don't want to give the impression I am retaliating or trying to make reviewers lose more time. You don't need to reply about the following lines and I won't raise any further discussion. Just wanted to point in good faith that Jamon iberico includes a caveat: "buyer should beware and not fall victim of retail or wholesale bait-and-switch or fraud", should a caveat like that be included in other luxury product entries susceptible of fraud/counterfeit? Caviar, French wine, Rolex for example doesn't mention any caveat (and I think is right not to do that when is common sense that any expensive product can be subject to fraud).

The caveat is just before another section called "Availability in the United States" which informs about when US started to reimport Iberico ham after being banned and then includes reference to "The Guardian" newspaper article talking about new US based Iberico pork producers in Texas and Georgia[1]. I agree encyclopaedias are to avoid any commercial talk. But after reading those last paragraphs I wasn't careful enough and left myself drive into confusion. Sorry about that.

Many thanks again. Francisco Fernandez Rodriguez (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The olive oil edit was the one that concerned me the most. I think your edits to jamon-related topics could easily be edited with the right sourcing and subject knowledge to be fully-referenced and neutral. There was just a little too much editorializing, which was hard for me to pick through on an iPad in the middle of the night. I recommend that you try again, being extremely careful to reference everything, and to attribute statements that are judgments to a source in the text, rather than making statements in Wikipedia's voice. The discussions of hog genetics seem to me to be relevant. I was tempted to remove the discussion of olive oil (which is what must have led you there) in the jamon article as a tangent. The Canadian syrup was a similar tangent - all of that would be better suited to an article on counterfeiting in food, which I've not looked at. Acroterion (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate much the quick reply and the kind advice. Also I discovered the sandbox, will use it to practice and self-review before publishing again. Honestly I have read again the reverted editions and should not have published them so carelessly, I see a bit ashamed some parts I thought I had removed before publishing. I remember I was frantically browsing to find reliable references and ended with several tabs open editing the same page, plus dozens of tabs with references I wanted to link and just published to close the laptop and go to bed. Will rework them with time and hope I can trim all the fat off the ham :) Francisco Fernandez Rodriguez (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/15/fury-in-spain-at-us-plans-to-produce-iberian-ham-in-texas-and-georgia
No problem, take your time, and remember that any format issues can be … cured. Let me know if you have any questions. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks and USTHEM and SOAPBOX over at Talk:Ivermectin

See these diffs: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Thanks for any help you can provide. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a normal admin action for personal attacks. Discretionary sanctions may be forthcoming if they don't stop attacking other editors. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the mopping Acroterion, appreciated as always.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

block Planetfck

he sucks! he keeps using wtf and lol. he doesn't even have a user page! 206.84.143.69 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion&oldid=1033611358"