User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q1 2018

YGM

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment

When in time could have made reference, you undo and then tell me to make reference? You cannot make google? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.214.11.70 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's up to you to support the assertion - don't make work for other editors to reference your edits. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NRHP in Crater Lake NP

Template:NRHP in Crater Lake NP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

To keep you warm. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it's starting to warm up - it got above 20 today. Freezing rain tomorrow, then 50s by the end of the week! Acroterion (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet

Hi, some time ago I had contacted you about the case of user Red Emperor, a potential sockpuppet or meatpuppet of long blocked user Vrahomarinaner. At the time you told me that you had no time, so I wanted to know if there was any proper place, where I could make a demand about actions to be taken for the case of this user, especially since he still shows the same attitude, with just blind reverts, no talking etc. in a typical Vrahomarinaner style. --Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! ^talk 09:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

At WP:SPI you can make a request for help. In any case I'll see what I can do once I've taken care of a few real-life obligations. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if I had lots of good faith with the case of the mentioned above potential sockpuppet or meatpuppet account, how is it possible for me to even cooperate when I have to face just blind reverts and childish arguments like "Change as many times as you want. I will be there to correct you. 23 is !!!" (Google Translation of his edit summary in the given above link which is written in greek, so I don't get accused of falsifying his words) ? --Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! ^talk 12:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless I've contacted them on their talkpage. As I said before, I think there's an 80% chance, but it's best to at lest try to get them to communicate: if they don't they're disruptive anyway. 12:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Hi there,

I was browsing some images of NYC on Commons just now and noticed you uploaded many of the QIs uploaded in the past year. I'm not sure if you're based in the area, but if so you should come by the Wikipedia Day event next Sunday at the Ace Hotel. More info here: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2018. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I live in the Baltimore-Washington area, and work takes me to New York on a regular basis. Those pictures were from a working holiday where my wife came along for a few days off in the city after some meetings. I won't be able to make it to the event, thanks for letting me know. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Threat

I don't appreciate threats. The assertion of criminality is mentioned in the article as written (not by me). It is very well sourced, probably to the Bloomberg piece concerning the individual in question. That Russian oligarchs generally have ties to organized crime is not a controversial viewpoint. Badiacrushed (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Badiacrushed: Can you please point to the threat you're referring to ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This, is the threat referred to by OP above. Or, at least, that's what I'm assuming; feel free to correct me on that. SkyWarrior 00:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My comment was in response to this [1] by the OP, who seems startled that administrators enforce Wikipedia policy. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You must provide explicit sourcing in multiple reliable independent media, not vague allegations of criminality attributed "probably to the Bloomberg piece concerning the individual in question." Please read WP:BLP, which discusses how to deal with biographies in extensive depth. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' Notice Board

I've just posted something there. I wish to be left alone by Acroterion. Badiacrushed (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that I review your contributions and talkpage in a little more depth, I too am interested in why you claimed to be a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user [2]. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Let the record show that the underlying IPs used by Badiacrushed led back to numerous articles that were the focus of Calamitybrook. Those IPs edit more target articles as an anon and not under this account. There is IP persistence which goes back years.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Brian Brown (athlete)

Hi there. I see you deleted the above article - would you be able to share the deleted content with me? I'm looking to recreate the article with better sourcing and was wondering if anything useful was there (as an American national champion and World Championship representative, his notability isn't in doubt). Thanks SFB 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The Brian Brown I deleted was a hockey player. It sounds like you're talking about an athlete who is in an individual sport? Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

OK no problem. FYI – completed this at Brian Brown (high jumper) as Brian Brown (athlete) was ambiguous title given football payers, etc. SFB 02:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice job. This kind of thing happens more often than you'd think. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:69.47.251.172

I hope you don't mind, but I hit an edit conflict declining this user's unblock request, and I thought that my custom close response was appropriate here - so I went ahead and overwrote the templated decline you made with mine. If you object, please feel free to revert my edit without asking me - it's all yours ;-). I just wanted to let you know tat I did that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That was fine, I was i the process of altering my inadvertent templated response to something a lot stronger. Acroterion (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

IP:86.8.33.92

Hello Acroterion, Could I bring to your attention the activities of the IP 86.8.33.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is again making a host of unsourced, unreferenced and in some cases inaccurate edits on many BBC television and news articles. They have previously been blocked many times, on this and other IPs,by admin. Ponyo, who is currently out of action. All their alterations have been reverted by various editors and they don't seem to respond to any warnings on the various Talk pages they have used. Perhaps another intermediate block might make them use Wikipedia in a more responsible way? Thanks and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What about this?

Well You need to be done. --2601:205:C100:424D:CD06:B0C0:11B2:9238 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop adding nonsense to Beverly Center. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Picture

About that picture in Boeing 747 you did not allow to be changed, is there any way I can change it? If yes, how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googoogootoo (talk • contribs) 02:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to obtain agreement of other editors on the article talkpage. In my personal opinion, the most appropriate image for the infobox is the one that's there, a 747-100 for the launch customer, Pan Am. Replacing that with an image of the 747-8 is recentism and not the iconic model that launched the 747 line. Pretty clouds are not a consideration. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Refspam

So, you are wondering why some Wikipedia pages do not have adequate references? Look at my edit history to find out why. The references were added, but they were promptly removed by a couple of sick individuals. - Ed 850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop attacking other editors who have pointed out what looks like a pattern of promotional editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe promotional editing is not bad after all for some pages that have very few references or no references at all! For your information, I am not contributing anything to Wikipedia in the future. I ask that my account be deleted, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ed 850: Promotional editing is advertising outside products or services. Don't defend it anymore. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"advertising outside products or services" is NOT what I did. I posted very solid and valid scientific references. Frankly, Wikipedia, at this point at least, is just an amateurish website. Very few scientists will take it seriously. If you look at a topic like the "Pressure Sensor" for example, this topic should have hundreds of references, due to its importance in the industry. Yet it has only two. Why? Again because a sick individual decided to delete the few relevant references that I added. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Unprotect Airbus A380

Please unprotect Airbus A380: The vandalizing IP was blocked AND the page protected.

If you look at the last blocks, its always the "supersonic" fanboy.

I don't like the idea, that a single IP succeeds in page protection for years!

Thanks, 87.150.113.247 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The "supersonic" vandal has been active for more than a year over dozens of IPs and was active two days ago, so the article should remain semi-protected for an indefinite time. If you're interested in editing the article, you can register an account, which after a short while will be eligible to edit past semi-protection. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But how do you know that this guy is active? Any supersonic edits? Probably a test? Page can be easily reverted and protected again, if necessary. 87.150.123.232 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

He vandalized a page that came off protection as soon as it was editable. It was reverted and re-protected. Get an account if you want to edit, pages that he frequents won't be unprotected anytime soon. Acroterion (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison

With regard to an IP you recently actioned for block evasion, there seems to be a lot of similarity between this and this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The rangeblock for evasion was for a totally unrelated reason - the range is frequented by a long-term abuser who inserts musings about Orion into articles on ancient Egypt. The IP you noted was collateral damage. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for explaining. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My talk page

is under siege again from a IP. Can you please protect it for six months which was the duration of the last protection?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk)

Sam Hyde

Hi Acroterian. We seem to be crossing paths lately; first at Wing Bowl and now at Sam Hyde. Anyway, this IP has already gone past 3RR and they will probably continue to edit war each time the content is removed. The latest source provided seems a bit questionable per WP:RS and something which probably should be further discussed. Not sure how to best proceed here, WP:PP or WP:AN3, but these IP battles are a bit draining so any suggestions you might have would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked them, both for the attitude issue and for the edit-warring. Perhaps we should emphasize reliable secondary sourcing more - I see no evidence that departmentofmemes.com is more than an aggregator of, well, memes. It's certainly not a Wikipedia-eligible reliable source, and in any case, I don't see that the content is of vital concern for a global encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in and also thanks to Majora as well. I agree that more emphasis should be placed upon what is reliable when it comes to secondary sources. I tried to do this on the IP's user talk, so perhaps they will take the time to reconsider. Unfortunately, I also have a feeling that they will be back (just like the Wing Bowl IP) to try and keep adding this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of difficult to educate some people about this kind of thing without seeming bitey, but sometimes people launch themselves on a mission to get some factiod in at all costs, and you can't talk them out of it. In the inclusion debate, we must establish consensus that it's 1) significant, 2) not undue emphasis on a singular event or thing, 3) that it's reliably sourced. All three criteria have to be met, and a consensus must exist, not "I did the thing you told me to do, now leave it in." Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Be active

All I did was put the edit of https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Long_and_short_scales

Can you undo it? Be active! 124.106.131.35 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? Your edit appears to serve no useful purpose. Acroterion (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Shitholegate

Hi, Acroterion. I noticed that you deleted Shitholegate on the ground of "R3: Recently created, implausible redirect". But "Shitholegate" is listed in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. I think it's acceptable to create Shitholegate as a redirect page to Racial views of Donald Trump#"Shithole countries", and I have re-created it. If you still think that it should be deleted, could you please nominate it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for more discussion? Many thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What a world. As far as I can see it has no currency outside partisan internet fora, and it's just plain silly, but I really can't be arsed. The version I deleted appeared to have been created as a pointy comment, but if there's a good-faith reason for it to exist, so be it. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent block for EW of Thedamneditor

See also Special:Contributions/TiasLehar. Quack, quack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center

From a professional opinion, how far off is Collapse of the World Trade Center from being a Good Article? I have 2 other things lined up before even tackling it, but now that the CTers seem to have permanently abandoned the article, perhaps now is the time to move it forward up the food chain.--MONGO 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

How am I attacking anyone?

Stop abusing your power! An attack is when someone insults or says something offensive to another user or admin. Your behavior is foolish. PaulG524 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary "I take it you are a government agent trying to cover up the truth. Are you not?" is inappropriate. Stop making allegations of that kind, and stop edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"Stop abusing your power!" would be another example of of a personal attack.

Acroterion you may want to take a look through this editor's contributions. There's some vandalism in there, some pretty bad BLP vios, edit warring (with Sandstein no less) and plenty of content removal based on personal feelings/OR. I was planning on starting an ANI thread about this editor today, but since we're already here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm about to leave for work, I'll take a more detailed look at lunchtime or this evening. You can start an ANI thread if you want, but I don't think it's an urgent matter unless they start up again. They're not a very prolific editor - there was a preview of last night's Alex Jones edits in October. As for me being foolish and abusing my power, that's a weekly accusation, one gets used to it. Acroterion (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think there's any rush, either. I'll let you have a look in your own time and see what you think.

As for me being foolish and abusing my power, that's a weekly accusation, one gets used to it. Same thing with the "government agent" bit, oddly enough. I guess I wear cheap suits and sunglasses a little too well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Will Smith made the government suit work. As for PaulG524, some of their edits to Harvey Weinstein have been gross BLP violations, and I don't see any reason to give them any breaks if they cause problems in the future. For right now, there's no pressing reason to take any particular action. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I ain't no Will Smith, that's for sure. More like Donal Logue, to be honest. Of course our shared broken-spirited, slightly scumbaggy looks probably just adds to the whole gub'mint agent vibe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hellraiser: Judgment

The IP vandal has reappeared under a new IP address (unless it is a copycat which seems unlikely). Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, protected. If they keep coming back we might have enough data for an effective rangeblock. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Kinloch, Missouri

Given your interest in ghost towns. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sally Yates

I see you reverted me today. Please join me in a discussion here: Talk:Sally_Yates#Tag-team_reversions_to_lede? Thank you. Xerton (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I did. Stop reverting. "Tag team reverting" is an epithet that editors who've not bothered to obtain consensus try to use while edit-warring: it never works. Acroterion (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no comments from you in the talk page section I invited you to. Xerton (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

That's because you removed my comment with your own edit. Slow down. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate admonition?

I have not violated 3RR - why are you admonishing me on my talk page? Xerton (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You get warned before you hit 3RR so you don't step over the boundary. That's why we do warnings, to keep editors out of trouble. 4RR is blockable, but it's best practice to warn before you get there. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification. Xerton (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor + Snarky edit summaries

Hi Acroterion, A few days ago you warned Thedamneditor to drop the snark, Unfortunately you've been ignored entirely[3], I've not warned or spoke with them as I feel whatever I say won't help so figured I'd let you know instead, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit [4] is a version for the Internet age of "See this chip on my shoulder? I dare ya ta knock it off! Dare ya!!" But it's not blockable, and really not worth warning about unless they continue in this mode for a while. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi - one to watch is IP editor 117.1.94.52 - a few fairly mundane edits, but also re-inserting radio listings to CINF, BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 1Xtra. Probably definitely the same guy, hiding behind an IP address to avoid sanction. Perhaps you know how this should be handled correctly? There's only so much anyone can do before becoming caught up in the 3RR edit war nonsense, so I'm hesitant to do very much. Cnbrb (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw that, will keep an eye on it. It doesn't quite fit the overall pattern, though. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Fifty years since the Mickelberry Sausage Company plant explosion

I have created a new page and am quite pleased with myself.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Boom! Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your messages on my talk page re: Traci Bingham

Hi. Just to clarify, were these messages you left on my talk page intended for me, or for Litbreeze?

Also, I'm sorry that I didn't know that Jc37 wasn't active, but in what way were my assertions "problematic"? Didn't you block Litbreeze precisely because they were true? Nightscream (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The comments were most definitely not meant for you - thank you for spotting the problem and for soliciting help. My only concern was that you repeated the allegations in your requests, which I've removed. While I have no reason to believe the allegations aren't true, they're still obvious BLP violations sourced from court documents, which present significant problems, and from a gossip site, and they represent undue emphasis, the more so since they haven't been covered in any significant way by the sources we normally rely upon. Additionally, the account that posted all that appears to be grinding an axe and has no business editing BLPs. If they hadn't before, they lost me at the "white knighting," one of the MRA/alt-right's more obnoxious terms of doublespeak. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The specific link is here. Yamla (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent block of User_talk:De wae with Ebola - continued vandalism?

Hello, thanks for blocking De wae with Ebola (talk · contribs). I noticed that an IP address started some WP:SNEAKY vandalism on the same page soon afterwards. 73.89.181.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Could that be the same editor? It has been a while since I've been active on Wikipedia so I forget most of these policies. I figured I should let you know. Best, ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Could be, might be coincidence. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Gardendale City Schools

In Alabama this city wanted to form its own breakaway school district. I am pretty sure I edited the article cited above. Now it seems to be gone. (There was a court ruling earlier this week that went against them.) Is there any way to see if the article was deleted? If so, I suspect it was done in a bold edit. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a deleted article at that title. I'll look around and see where it might be. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't found any evidence that the article existed. I'll look around under possible capitalizations. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"Reminiscing"?

I was not "reminiscing", I was curious what light bulb the Guiness Book was talking about and why it wasn't mentioned on the page Longest lasting light bulbs. My intent was to portray that I very clearly remember reading about a very old light bulb at a church, likley in England, and if anyone knew anything else about it, I would like to know. As for Light pollution they'd probably complain just as much if were to just delete the stupid claim about "5 million barrels of oil wasted each day" and revert my edit regardless, so why not? After all "reality has a liberal bias" and therefore it is only to be expected. AnnaGoFast (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please try to keep it concise and stick to the point. The goal is to help other editors to improve the encyclopedia, not to offer general observations or lengthy digressions. Your edit removing the tangent about bicycle paths was spot on, but the edit concerning light pollution introduced a conversation into the article that was inappropriate. When you got to the talkpage it was hard to tell what you wanted to do with the article with all of the digressions into oil and such. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

IP:86.8.33.92

Hello Acroterion, The IP 86.8.33.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) you blocked for a month recently has now re-surfaced with the same unsourced/unreferenced changes to the BBC articles. It does seem that they do not want to learn any lessons. Can I leave this with you please ? David J Johnson (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I was tardy in looking at this, it looks like Oshwah got them. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My thanks anyway. Best, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Politics

Thank you. I'm a 67 year old tea partier. We have no party or leader, but it's ok if some of us try to lead or form a party. "Where liberty dwells, there is my country"said Ben Franklin. I hate being called Fascist, because I am so into individuals being as free as possible and against controlling people any more than necessary, I know who hitler and mussolini were and I know that nazi stands for national socialism72.92.143.40 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC). there is more, but I will spare you.

You're not a fascist, any more than a Labour voter is a communist. You're more of a libertarian, which can be all over the oversimplified political map. Please stop assuming that the extremes define the moderates, and please drop the notion that "socialist" means the same thing in every context, or that words define miovements. The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", is neither democratic nor of the people. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

nazi party talk page FAQ

regarding the nazi party talk page FAQ, you undid my changes citing the non aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and said that changes should not be made without consensus. consensus with who? Dsteakley (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You might also look into why User:Asmell19, User:ETSU BUC, User: Johnstevenson1996, User:Macaroniking, and User: Dsteakley all seem to be making the same edit in the last month, found in the history of the Nazi Party article. Carptrash (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am in no way linked to those accounts. I edited it because the previous night I was talking about how National Socialist policies were more left wing than right wing, and how left and right is an economic thing, and is nothing to do with politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaroniking (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see much similarity between these accounts apart from attempts at changing the political alignment - they have significantly different editing foci otherwise. This is mainly a matter of leakage of partisan American politics into the wider world. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

probably because the FAQs recitation of reasons to think the Nazi party was a right party is so hilariously one sided. the most casual student of history would immediately raise this point as a refutation to the simplistic and moronic view that the nazis were a party of the right. Dsteakley (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Carptrash: I don't think they are all sockpuppets although I agree that the line they take is very similar. One difference is that some of them stay and argue while others just vanish. That suggests that they are not all the same person. I think the problem is that some American right wing media sources are pushing this line hard enough that quite a few people are actually falling for it. Things like PragerU (which takes exactly this line) can look like frighteningly similar to genuine educational content and can easily fool people who lack contextual background knowledge. If there is some group coordinating people to send them to Wikipedia then that would be a massive problem but we can't assume that this is the case. So, it makes sense to keep an eye out for anything underhand like that but lets not jump to conclusions unless some evidence comes to light. It could just be a stream of confused people who all have the same misconceptions after consuming the same media. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And this guy is,to quote him "the most casual student of history" I've seen since the last one did this a few months ago. Perhaps if he were less casual . . .... ........? Carptrash (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to gain a consensus of editors on the talkpage to make significant changes on that or any other Wikipedia page. Right now you have no consensus, only opposition.

Articles relating to fascism get a lot of traffic from new editors who've read Jonah Goldberg or one of his followers and think they've stumbled on something significant. Goldberg has been quite successful in offering a revisionist view of fascism that blames the left for a variety of hazy reasons that have more to do with Goldberg's status as a partisan conservative polemicist who wants to take pot shots at his political opponents than anything to do with the last 80 years of academic political science scholarship. Goldberg has been particularly adept at convincing some conservatives that fascism isn't a form of right-wing extremism, and that it's being somehow used as a way for the left to scapegoat conservatism. This all ignores the fact that we're talking about extremism, and that the extremes at either end of the political spectrum are more akin to each other than to the broad simplistic labels of left and right. My very conservative uncle is in no way a fascist or any kind of fellow traveler, he's just conservative, just like my aunt isn't a follower of Pol Pot just because she favors a more leftish agenda.

Wikipedia's not going to ditch 80 years of scholarship in order to accommodate partisan axe-grinding. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Florida

Wholesale blanking of a highly sources article is not appropriate. Please do not defend those who undertake such inappropriate actions. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please spare us the dudgeon. Blanking is one of many possible outcomes, as is deletion, and neither is necessarily inappropriate. Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no dudgeon. There is only policy, which you have violated. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please show me the policy you claim was violated - we redirect and delete material all the time. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot: No policy was violated by Acroterian and redirecting is and acceptable alternative to outright deletion. Regardless, the article has been moved back to the draft namespace by another editor and is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Republic of Florida (group). You're free to comment there, but you might want to take a look at WP:AFDFORMAT if you're not very familiar with how deletion discussions work. You might also want to take a look at WP:AADD as well for reference.

Finally, you might want to reconsider your choice of username since it is a bit long and confusing per WP:UNCONF, and probably explains the "scolding" referred to in this post Acroterion left on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Blanking an article is a violation of policy. Doing so under the guise of "redirection" is still a violation of policy. I think it is fair to say Acroterion avoided a block by only the narrowist of margins. With regards to your comments about my username there is nothing there which violates any policy or is confusing to anyone. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What a remarkable statement. I've not actually done anything with the article at all, I've merely pointed out that you don't understand policy, and that your denunciations of other editors are wearing a bit thin. By all means, go to ANI if you have a complaint to make, and I'll be fascinated to see what policies you can quote. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion to you then would be to start a dicussion at WP:ANI if you really believe what happened was a violation of policy. You should clearly cite which policy was violated, clarify who violated it and how it was violated; you should also provide WP:DIFFs to support your claim. Otherwise, going around accusing others of violating policy is eventually going to be seen as WP:ASPERSIONS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hamill House

Thanks for stepping in at Hamill House. I noticed it while patrolling recent changes and was about to notify an admin. Just a note, the Parker controversy content was all copied from the link (in case it needs to be redv). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it was already hidden. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV and I found it at the same time. I revdel'd BLP violations and the disruptive inside joke that kept reappearing to keep it from being added back. Sarah took care of protection. Just some standard late adolescent vandalism with a little added defamation. Acroterion (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Would really appreciate if I could chime in here. The events described in the Parker section are factual and not intended as any kind of "adolescent vandalism." What can I do to make this section fit for Wikipedia? Would it be helpful if I found more sources or wrote a more concise passage?

Block evasion taken care of. Wikipedia isn't a forum where you can defame your roommates. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have a question

Do you forgive me for all the wrong things I've done here? VeenM64 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh FFS, just let it go, VeenM64. If you keep holding on to this, it's not going to get better. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I really don't give a crap. We don't keep score. Please go edit the encyclopedia or something. Acroterion (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I was editing away

and came across Draft:Bill Jennings (guitarist), looked it over and it was fine. i had been working on the same article myself so was very familiar with the content. So I just moved it to Bill Jennings (guitarist). However there is all the "Request" type stuff at the bottom categories and more, that news to be removed and it appears that an admin is needed. Yopu were the first one that came up on my watch list, so could you take a quick look at it. Should be pretty cut and dry. Thanks, Carptrash (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I've tidied it up. Not sure what an hCard is or some of those other hidden categories are. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks fine. Thanks a lot. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion on Cameron Kasky

Hi Acroterion, can you make a revision deletion of my edit here on Cameron Kasky per WP:BLPPRIMARY / WP:DOB, as you did with the talk page of David Hogg (activist)? Thank you. CookieMonster755✉ 04:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have requested discussion of your uncivil behaviour incident on the Su-25 Talk page Santamoly (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Winter Hill air disaster

Could you please protect this page? We're having a problem with an IP listing the victims of the crash. Consensus at the Aviation WikiProject is against this unless the victim is notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like MelanieN got there first. Acroterion (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

An apology

Hello. I know that I am the last person you would talk to right now, and you have every justified reason to ban me upon hearing or seeing me. I have insulted you, despised you, and criticised you, at every turn. I have been a spoiled brat and a shame to everyone on this place. I have, over the past few months, as I grow into adulthood, looked back on myself, and my actions, and have realised the horrificness of my actions. I am ashamed of myself, and can’t forgive myself for it, and take full responsibility.

I am sorry to you, for my taunts to you, and others. I don’t expect automatic forgiveness, and I expect that I will be blocked again, and I accept that. I am trying to make up for my behaviour by pointing out misleading paragraphs in articles on certain subjects, and provide them with more reliable information. I am not saying I am right in what I present, but I am simply urging you to look at the sources I present, rather then cancelling them out right away.

Like I said, I don’t expect to be allies, nor do I expect forgiveness. Just to let you know, that I apologise, and point out that some sources I present in some edits may have a valid point.

Hopefully, I can invent myself anew, and be a different type of person, I have been all these years.

Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.78 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

All we expect from you is that you edit in conformance with Wikipedia policies, which by now you should know perfectly well. You do make some good edits, but they have to be picked out from the ones that aren't helpful. You should have noticed that many editors revert your edits without knowing who made them, which should be a sign that they're not always improvementsl. We're all volunteers, and it's a lot of effort to pick out the helpful, properly sourced edits from the less helpful, so the good tends to go out with the bad.

I carry no grudges. Edit productively, stay away from conspiracy theories, source your edits and always think before you edit "is this really an improvement to the encyclopedia?" Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you please review Alex Ferrari (MTV) and William F.X. Maughan

for speedy deletion? Both these articles have been at AFD. Note that the Ferrari article has an IP who keeps taking off the speedy deletion tag. Based on this edit[5] summary and the fact that this editor has come out of nowhere I believe sockpuppetry may be at work. Both these people are Mercy College alumni and the notable people of that article (And a alumni list that was deleted after AFD) has been the sight of dubious postings....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, both obvious G4s. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect the IP is a experienced wikipedia editor. He knew way too much lingo and goings on around here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for removing revisions that contain Purely disruptive material!

Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Talk to me) 01:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

IP hopper

Hey!

It appears the disruptive IP hopper whose been bothering this page might have jumped ship to my talk page. Would you, or a talk page stalker, mind redvl and blocking this? [6]. It's purely disruptive material. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Revdel question

Is the stuff you revdelled on David Hogg (activist) the same stuff that is on the dispute resolution noticeboard? I don't know, but perhaps you should check. Thanks, -Roxy, the dog. barcus 04:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not quite the same thing. The RSN discussion doesn't quite edge over the line to my way of thinking. The two diffs I revdel'd were more extensive and included verbatim accusations, and to me represented edti-warring to push boundaries. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I just thought it worth pointing out, just in case. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 21:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Sanfourche block

Hi just wanted to thank you for the block on User:88.138.207.170 it's a bit of an uphill battle with this chap. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It is, and they're not so good with sourcing their other edits either At least they have a distinctive style and focus. Let me know if you see more. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Acroterion. Dom, myself, and others have spent much effort over the last few months cleaning up after this editor. To try and prevent this editor from continuing his unsourced edits, I have compiled a list of his edits here and started an SPI (here) based on his most recent (2018) edits on English Wikipedia. He was originally a registered editor on French Wikipedia as User:De la lombertie, but was indefinitely banned in 2015 for copyvios, unsourced and promotional editing, and personal attacks. If we can get his sock puppetry recognized as a sockfarm of a banned user rather than just another annoying IP, then perhaps we will have more success blocking him in the future. Any assistance or advice that you could suggest would be appreciated. Thanks again, Loopy30 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

170.24.150.20

May I please have an immediate block on user:170.24.150.20? CLCStudent (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Kumquats

It is better to classify kumquats as fortunella and not as citrus. Many yaers ago they were classified only as citrus. Aniway the claasification as fortunella is more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.185.76 (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You are mistaken. See Citrus taxonomy#Kumquats, which explains why. General Ization ^Talk 13:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

<ec>As the kumquat article describes, fortunella is a historical term, and at least right now it is generally placed in citrus. The article discusses the taxonomy at length, and the change is fairly recent. Please feel free to bring recent sources, it looks like this happened after 2014. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Scientific racism

Hi, Acroterion. I thought that - since the idea of race-realism has been debated amongst anthropologists - it'd be actually more comforting to Wikipedia policy to leave out the claim that it is psuedoscientific. I'd rather have people deciding that for themselves, you know? But if you wish to keep the article as-is; that is not at all a problem.

And just to clarify, I am not doing this because I subscribe to the marginal hypothesis. I just like to push the neutrality a bit farther. Of course, not to the point were facts are left out, but avoiding to lean towards one side is certainly desireable. AltHypeFan (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You must use the talkpage to propose substantial changes to the article, under whatever preferred euphemism you wish to employ. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I haven't read the entirle article. But I suppose my two proposals would be to edit out the claim that race-realism is psuedoscientific for reasons stipulated in the initial post. And that the term "race-realism" is more respectable since racism has ties to racial immorality. So branding it as "scientific racism" could result into not-needed infamy. The focal purpose of the theory itself is to argue for the existence of race, whether or not racist people will use it to aid their apologetics is another matter. AltHypeFan (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

So read the entire article, including the sources. You will probably have to refute the majority of the 129 references to carry your point, or at least to make a distinction between your preferred euphemism and the historically-used term. Use the article talkpage to make specific, concrete proposals based in mainstream scholarship to gain a consensus for your changes. If a consensus of reliable sources call something pseudoscience, Wikipedia does as well. We don't give undue weight to fringe points of view, and we don't leave matters of broad consensus up to the reader to parse. I'm not going to discuss it here except to advise you on Wikipedia practice. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, I forgot about this. Just returning to note that not wanting to consider 'fringe' points of view is in fact going against neutrality, as it's taking a stance on the matter. Also, whether or not something is reliable is up for debate. Again, not living up to the neutrality thing. AltHypeFan (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So read WP:NEUTRAL and WP:FRINGE carefully. Neutrality does not demand equal treatment of all points of view. It demands treatment of points of view in proportion to their acceptance in mainstream scholarship, and it demands that fringe points of view, if mentioned at all, be described as such. Then read WP:RS, which addresses how sources are selected and reviewed. Reliability of sources is a matter of constant debate and scrutiny on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI#Acroterion_has_abused_admin_powers_and_they_should_be_revoked regarding your abuse of redacting powers. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not revert without reading content.

Hello, Acroterion. I came here because you have left some message to my talk page. As for the comfort women article, you and other guy kept reverting my edits WITHOUT READING AT ALL, understood by your later comments, and labeled me as disruptive editor. That behaviour is apparently against one of the fundamental principles, or five pillars, of Wikipedia, WP:5P4.

Please respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks as the Wikipedia pillar recommends.

I am aware that you have strong opinion on the article and sticking to it, but the TOPIC IS CONTROVERSIAL. In addition, the FIRMEST EVIDENCE published by third party, IWG in 2007, disagreed with the current description. Note that IWG is the investigation group in order to the demand of US Government, so very firm and reliable. I would not discuss here the reliability compared with the interview based papers.

What I emphasize is that the description with citation should be added in the first paragraph, unless you have will to hide unfavorable evidences to you.

Thank you. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to add the content that you want to use. We've explained that to you extensively. You appear to have an agenda to insert a specific point of view based on incomplete and fragmentary data from primary sources. You've made no attempt to listen to objections. The topic isn't especially controversial outside Japanese nationalist circles. You appear to be trying to abuse the IWG report to make a point via omission. Nobody's hiding anything, you're the one who seems to think that the notion of comfort women is a myth to be obfuscated. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you have reverted twice immediately without explanation. I did not feel like I was respected at all by that. Another pillar of Wikipedia tells be bold, and I merely did that way. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You've been watering down content based on unreliable reports, you've adopted a non-neutral stance in watering down reliable sourcing to reflect a POV, you're not bothering to listen to anybody that's tried to explain that to you, you're editing tendentiously, and boldness doe not license recklessness, which is what you're advocating. We're not obliged to assume good faith in the face of selective interpretation of sources (or ignoring the mass of scholarship) to support a personal agenda. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Frugahore

Thanks for applying that civility block against Frugahore just a bit ago. It was clearly needed given the... editorial comment (lol) the user left on their own talk page after I left that final warning ;-). I also agree with your follow-up message stating that the user will be blocked indefinitely next time they make personal attacks or uncivil comments toward others. The level of incivility and the amount of time that user allocated into messaging those other editors and over the small edits made to Vessel will make his/her contributions a net-negative as a whole if they don't figure out how to interact in a civil manner with others. Thanks again :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I extended the block to be indefinite due to his continued editorial comments (ha) on his user talk page. Just leaving you an FYI that I modified your original block. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I appreciate your efforts to salvage that editor before they proved that they couldn't edit productively. Acroterion (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I need help. Please!

You just commented on my page. Can you please help me out?

I am the furthest thing from a digital native. And I am in way over my head when it comes to Wikipedia regulations. I make edits on occasion - if I see something that cries out for one.

Over the last two days, I have been banging my head against the wall re the actions of a Wikipedia editor using the handle Volunteer Marek.

Two days ago, I made what I felt were a few basic improvements to the Dinesh D'Souza page. Volunteer Marek swooped in and reversed all of them. And I'm sorry, his action was unjustified. I've since bent over backwards to try to edit the article in a most non-offensive way, but Volunteer Marek repeatedly undoes everything, including a simple English language usage edit.

Making the situation even more ridiculous, a different editor, NorthBySouthBaranof, has also been involved, and he has been very professional and fair. He also reversed a couple of my edits, BUT HE EXPLAINED WHY he did so.

And when I made a new edit as per NorthBySouthBaranof's concern, the latter thanked me for it. And along came Volunteer Marek, and undid that edit as well!

What does one do with an entirely unreasonable and unfair and abusive editor like Volunteer Marek? (May I note that his Talk Page opens with him calling Wikipedia "cubic zirconia"? Why is he an editor to begin with?)

I have no idea how to fight for the Wikipedia ideal. Part of me wants to quit Wikipedia forever.

Thank you.

Vcuttolo (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC) Vcuttolo (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Different editors have different ways of interacting. While VM has been a bit curt at times, he hasn't done anything that I can see to merit the vituperation you've been posting. You appear to be editing mainly to insert characterizations like"anti-conservative" and "left-wing." That's usually something to be avoided, along with their corollaries in the other direction, and always requires consensus. I would prefer it if VM communicated in more detail like NBSB, but the fact remains that you haven't found consensus yet. Your edits aren't the problem here, it's your reaction to your edits being questioned. In most cases WP tries to avoid "left" and "right," as such labels provoke endless partisan ping-pong. If it's not there, it's generally best to avoid placing such a label, and you should seek consensus first. The polarized atmosphere that exists in the US and Europe has a way of leaking into WP in a way that does nobody much good. Acroterion (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 10:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

Hello. Saw your name on the list of the willing. I was wondering if you'd think it appropriate to revdel this user name from her contribs as I feel it's disruptive, but wanted to ask someone else instead of acting unilaterally. Cheers, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a sunlight-is-the-best-disinfectant situation. It is disruptive, but not so much that I think revdel is needed. I only (usually) redact usernames if they attack a specific individual, and even then it has to be pretty gross. "Babe Ruth is a bum" wouldn't get a redaction from me, but "person X is a fucking Nazi" would. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

reliable sources saved to Internet Archive

• Talk:Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse#Internet Archive

69.181.23.220 (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Air India flight 855 editing

Okay. I fixed the grammar. However, if you think the box about the article needing to be updated needs to be removed, then remove it. Also, I can't find a passenger list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerdude9 (talk • contribs)

It's not up to me to fix your problems or to find you sources. We don't include passenger lists in this kind of article. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

See my comment at User talk:Sandstein#Recreation of article deleted at AfD. This is a recreation of an article deleted at AfD and created by a sock. Neither of which we normally allow of course. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Lovely. Sandstein G4'd it, 4 minutes later the editor restored it with yet another source that doesn't mention the subject. Sandstein deleted and protected. The editor also found the AfD and voted, which of course I removed. I think there's a competence issue here as well as the clear pov. This editor has absolutely no clue about original research or reliable sources. Among other things. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Enough

Can you please unblock Krupps3? He is a good person and did not mean to commit vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B11D:A7D4:117F:DCBE:D3AC:606A (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No. There's no such user to unblock. Should I block you for evasion? Acroterion (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI on your conspiracy theory with time travelling Russians (as per talk page on Su-25)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Nothing suspicious here, no. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a little known fact that the "Russkies" invented time travel in 2117.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's all in here because every conspiracy leaves clues on purpose for the clued-in to find so they can blow the lid off the whole sham. I've seen it on TV so it must be true. I don't know if it's me, but I seem to be running across agenda pushers at every turn. I can't wait until WP is entrusted by Google with refuting conspiracy theories - it'll be a three-ring circus. Acroterion (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Send In the Clowns --Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Scary! Acroterion (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

revdel request

Looks like you are the first on the list of revdel admins that is currently active. Could you revdel these edits? Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and the other, worse diff. Indeffed. Anybody who makes allegations like that needs to grow up some more. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Veebase

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Veebase, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hello, someone is consistently reverting edits I am making. Can you please take a look into it? Cheers --2001:8003:5448:9700:CAD:2A73:3C40:C77F (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It was more than likely removed because all your edits are vandalism plain and simple.185.9.19.144 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course you would say that; you are the one reverting my edits! Let's leave it to an admin to decide. --2001:8003:5448:9700:CAD:2A73:3C40:C77F (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This [7] edit doesn't look like a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. You appear to have an agenda concerning South Asians [8] that shouldn't be added without full discussion and consensus. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I was gonna undo that page! as for that, have this barnstar. Thewinrat (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

adjusting biases

"HAARP is a target of theorists, who claim that it is capable of "weaponizing" weather. Some scientists say that advocates of this theory are uninformed, as claims made fall well outside the abilities of the facility, if not the scope of natural science.[5][6] There is truth on both sides. Weather can be weaponized in multiple ways. One of the simplest is to heat clouds through the use microwaves. This can cause rain to fall sooner or later which can be used to create droughts which can decrease the food supply of an enemy nation. While HAARP isn't likely to be capable of accomplishing this to a significant effect on its own, radio/cellular towers and satellites equipped with powerful transmitters may. These are owned by governments and large corporations. HAARP may have been a step towards accomplishing this. You can also change affect the ions in the atmosphere which can change the shape and control the amount of radiation that passes through or affect radio signals that were relying on that shape."

I saw how you were in confilct with other parties over this. This edit should resolve the dispute since it is both informative of the technology and accurate that HAARP is probably isn't the cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.93.14 (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for your thoughts on conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Tatars

You recently reverted an edit to this article as if that edit constituted vandalism. Do you have any further explanation of the shortcomings of that edit? It looked all right to me, and the editor has no negative history that I can see.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

While not vandalism, it was an undiscussed removal of a substantial amount of text and references, with no edit summary to clarify what was intended. If somebody wants to tighten text, I'm all for it, but they shouldn't just remove text with no indication of what they're trying to accomplish. Acroterion (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

HAARP

"HAARP is a target of conspiracy theorists, who claim that it is capable of "weaponizing" weather. Commentators and scientists say that advocates of this theory are uninformed, as claims made fall well outside the abilities of the facility, if not the scope of natural science."

"HAARP is a target of theorists, who claim that it is capable of "weaponizing" weather. Some scientists say that advocates of this theory are uninformed, as claims made fall well outside the abilities of the facility.[5][6]"

I removed the part about the scope of natural science since it was wrong and left the rest of the changes the same. This keeps original informative text of the references the same while removing biases that may slant viewers. (This should clean up the reference over all)

"Weather can be weaponized in multiple ways. One of the simplest is to heat clouds through the use microwaves. This can cause rain to fall sooner or later which can be used to create droughts which can decrease the food supply of an enemy nation. While HAARP isn't likely to be capable of accomplishing this to a significant effect on its own, radio/cellular towers and satellites equipped with powerful transmitters may. These are owned by governments and large corporations. HAARP might have been a step towards accomplishing this. You can also change affect the ions in the atmosphere which can change the shape and control the amount of radiation that passes through or affect radio signals that were relying on that shape."

I moved this portion to the conspiracy theorist segment.

These changes aren't made as a commentary on biases. I am removing them and adding informative factual data.

I hope these adjustments fit your criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8101:2005:ADA0:4607:1F3A:B424 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted your changes, as you appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:73.11.251.162 and WP:NOTHERE

Hi, this user you blocked and then extended appears to be trying to right great wrongs and not here to build an encyclopaedia. See latest edits on User talk:73.11.251.162. NZFC^(talk) 07:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably so. The IP's blocked and the article's protected for a while. I'll watch for trouble. Acroterion (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia block

Hi, my I.p. address was 2001:8003:5448:9700:4c51:4f16:806c:e73a and I was blocked according to user:Nick-D for "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy". I don't see any problem with my edit - it was on the talk page, and while the topic I was addressing has been broached on the talk page before, my take on it had new information and should have been addressed instead of being reverted. --2001:8003:5448:9700:F45B:4022:AFB0:3F61 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the /64 range for the poster above as they are a sock. They used 1.136.106.39 to edit war along with using their IPv6 also. They are also a sock in the traditional sense editing as an IP.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A request

Could you (or any administrator who stalks this page) please take care of this[9]. His article here[] is like similar to articles Alex Ferrari (MTV) and William F.X. Maughan now deleted that have many references put on just a few sentences. (Like 5 or more)...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting that one. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

They also committed 'following and reverting' against me in their edits here[10] and here[11]. Firstly, the one person removed from the Pittsburgh list is clearly not from there and the other information taken out 'Allegheny' isn't needed because a person from Pittsburgh is from Allegheny county. What I took out of the Airline crash article was something that wasn't verified by the source provided. Unreferenced, and there is consensus[12] at the WP for Aviation accident articles not to have that type of info in the articles, sourced or not.

The banned editor has a clear obsession with Mercy College. Just recently I reverted entries to Liza Minneli[13] and Lynda Byrd Johnson[14] who were both put in the notable notable alumni section with bogus references that didn't verify them as former alumni. Since when is someone with the initals LBJ a LSJ and a online graduate in 1972. The last part had me thinking I had time traveled. As for Minnelli the provided reference only said she had gotten a honorary degree not that she had graduated or gone to school there....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The banned editor has an obsession with a whole bunch of colleges. Every IP that's edited the Mercy page recently has been from the New York area, so I don't get the "other continent" business, and as I said, imitating a disruptive user isn't a free pass if they aren't that abusive user. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

24.24.155.95

• 24.24.155.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They're still adding disruptive reports to WP:AIV. Block is probably now in order. Also pinging @Dlohcierekim:. 69.136.112.161 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Final final warned. Not that I think a block is unwarranted. Just being thorough.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you took care of the matter - I had to run out and do some errands with my wife, and she wouldn't be interested in waiting around to see what Mr. 24.X was going to do. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No prob. I enjoyed making that block.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)