Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Archives

Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 4 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4_2016 Q1_2017 Q2_2017 Q3_2017 Q4_2017 Q1_2018 Q2_2018 Q3 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2019 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2020 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2021

I must do a CU on that tomorrow. Any chance you can remind of the other accounts. I’ve seen them but can’t recall them. Thanks Doug Weller talk 19:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a common thread that will be apparent:

• Saxsd12 (talk · contribs)
• Asax547 (talk · contribs)
• Ksax1245 (talk · contribs) Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Very useful. Asax547 is the sockmaster, all blocked and tagged now and SPI filled out. Thanks for the help. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A token of thanks Hi Acroterion! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dealing with the tantrum quickly. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add protection to this page so only administrators can edit it

User:Person12100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonFan9879 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So that people cant vandalize it WashingtonFan9879 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)User:WashingtonFan9879[reply]

It’s not being vandalized, there’s no reason to protect it. At most we would semi-protect it. Your focus on protections and blocks is less than helpful to the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am transferring control of Person12100 that means protecting the page for infinite to administrators to you guys. I am doing this because I dont want that page to be vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonFan9879 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”Transferring control?” What’s that supposed to mean? Acroterion (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Person12100 for infinite so that only admins can edit it--04:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)WashingtonFan9879 (talk)User:WashingtonFan9879[reply]

No. Acroterion (talk)

It appears that WashingtonFan created the page User:Person12100 though the account exists and was created a day ago EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - they seem to be awfully interested in playing with block templates and such. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103 Interface administrator changes Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes Opabinia regalis Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy Oversighter changes Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes Opabinia regalis Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.69.229 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point? Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

2600:387:F:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs) continues spamming several talk pages. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured they'd catch on. I have an edit filter request in that should deal with it. Acroterion (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit filter is up and running. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this have any obvious use? Inspired of course by the recent tragedy. Oddly, the City of Brotherly Love has never suffered a "great fire." I suppose the wide streets help. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We've got List of nightclub fires, List of hotel fires in the United States, and List of town and city fires. The only city lists are List of fires in Kyoto and Fires in Edo. I would call such an article List of notable fires in Philadelphia. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am stuck on the title as many or most of the entries do not meet the standard of notability. Maybe Fires in Philadelphia? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would like to get attention at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer and there are many other requests thanks! Yodas henchman (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff I removed was all unnecessary conspiracy theory garbage that was only there to push a very specific agenda, either stuff about Epstein wedged into the "citation" parts of other people's entries or unnecessary links to CFR and Bilderberg to insinuate a conspiracy (these are favored targets of people like Alex Jones). I think that it is constructive to remove stuff like that, not vandalism. 2601:647:C981:4D0:2DF8:6EB3:A3EE:EF00 (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the removals have now been challenged by two editors, you should discuss them on the article talk page and get consensus before removing the material again. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I didn't realize how important it was to you that people know that "David Rubenstein building is just west of the Les Wexner#Jeffrey Epstein association|Leslie Wexner building". My bad. Definitely my removing this was vandalism. Good catch. 2601:647:C981:4D0:2DF8:6EB3:A3EE:EF00 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And drop the snark. Yes, that article is a conspiracy-magnet, but you can work with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just removing big blocks of text with no explanation isn't productive. Please use the talkpage to gain consensus for targeted revisions. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'll just leave it, since it's clear that at least two editors are willing to fight to keep it in. I'll just take my snark elsewhere and you deal with cleaning up after the tinfoil hatters (or, not, whatever). 2601:647:C981:4D0:2DF8:6EB3:A3EE:EF00 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting that text. People are dipping in and adding material that doesn't belong in the article. At one point a user, totally in good faith added a lengthy description of responding fire units, taken from a blog. Since you seem interested in fire-related subjects. I've proposed a name change to Skyscraper fire and would value your input. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an architect, it's a matter of professional interest for me. I wrote the Winecoff Hotel fire article (since cluttered with poorly sourced lists of victims) and discussed the impact it had on building codes. I'm not so sure about "skyscraper" as a defining term - my personal definition would be for something to be at least 30 stories before it becomes a "skyscraper." A 19-story building in New York is rather stumpy.

Interestingly, the Winecoff ended up adding a fire escape after the fire to supplement the single stairway through which the fire spread..

The Dupont Plaza Hotel arson (~17 stories) and MGM Grand fire (26-stories) articles provide context on smoke-related fire disasters in tall buildings. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to take a look at recent logs of 1125 (hist · log). The recent active range might be a good target for a rangeblock, although there are (presumably) good contributions even on the /64 which is confusing. It could be dynamic, but given how active it is on Wikipedia (and the subject interest, and some other factors) I'm not sure that's the case. Not entirely sure what's going on there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2600:387:F::/48 is a fairly active range, with at least a decent proportion of good edits [2], and I think it would take a /48 block to cover the range they're using, though we could cover what they've used so far with 2600:387:f:5610::8/51 [3]. I would be reluctant to block the range if the edit filter is doing what it needs to do. The disruption is so specific that I think the filter is the best solution, and I think they'll get tired after a while. Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion. You closed one of the ANIs involving Invasive Spices awhile back[4], so I'm seeing if you could be of any help with additional issues? I asked El_C who closed this ANI[5], but they're too busy right now. In short, same message I sent to El C would apply to you. I see you're busy too though, but I was hoping someone uninvolved might be able to turn them away from the cliff they're heading towards with battleground behavior directed towards editors who are generally being friendly to them. I've tried a little bit at User_talk:Invasive_Spices#Tone_on_talk_pages to little progress. Thanks either way. KoA (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep an eye out for trouble. I see a continuation of their assumptions, or at least implications of bad faith under circumstances that would normally be worked out without so much resentment. I agree, a block is not what we want, but taking potshots at everybody they encounter is not a good trend. Their response at ANI where they tried to make my effort to keep them out of trouble as its own problem was not a good way for them to behave. It's hard to respond to someone who behaves like that. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.Wgullyn (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to request revdel of this diff [6] per RD3, made by Gobbsession (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Thank you. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a little marginal, but talkpage s aren’t meant to be fora for peoples’ paraphilia. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't quite sure if it met the criteria, but I went ahead and asked anyway just in case; no harm, no foul, right? xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this [7] quite meets the revdel criteria, as it's a copyvio but the image didn't actually end up displaying. Mind taking a look? xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, simply trying to use an image via an external link wouldn't be a copyvio. It's a common error. Even if they'd copied it into Commons, we'd generally just revert it and go over to Commons to ask for speedy deletion there. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thank you. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion. Could you please revoke talk page access for Fast Cocon? You blocked them last year but they are continuing to spam on their user talk page. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting me know. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hey, so i posted a couple topics on the Nihilism talk page, a couple weeks ago, maybe, and there are no responses. i think the majority of that page is either wrong or largely irrelevant to nihilism (and most of it is sourced regarding the topic in question, like Buddhism or Kierkegaard, but there are no sources or explanation for how it relates to nihilism, to which i'd say...it doesn't), but don't know how to "get consensus" to make major edits if no one's responding. so...what can i do? Sera Toxin (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your talkpage notes are sourceless general discussions of your views on the subject, while you removed sourced material from the article. You will need to provide suggested references that support your assertions, and you will need to show, via sources, why the referenced material that you want to remove is wrongly attributed or incorrect. Acroterion (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, that's almost entirely untrue. i referenced specific essays and books, writers, and insurgents...and most of what i tried to remove was unsourced regarding any connection to nihilism. it's "sourced" in the sense that there are sources confirming that what's said is accurate, but no attempt is made in many cases to show how it relates to nihilism. furthermore, some of the sources (like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) are dubious secondary sources that really shouldn't be accepted as sources in the first place (especially considering the errors that went into the Nihilism page referenced on wikipedia, like a large portion of that page being centered on the attribution of Will to Power to Nietzsche, when it's well-known now that it wasn't actually him who wrote it).

so, i'll assume by "sourceless" what you mean is that i didn't provide links to the essays and other material i referenced? i've been pretty busy lately, i hardly have time for this, but i'll look into collecting some links when i can, if that's what you're asking for. Sera Toxin (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide very specific references to accomplish much, and detailed suggestions for edits, not just broad mentions of authors and essays. Other editors will need to have a basis for evaluating your suggestions; if you have the references, you should be able to be more specific than "so-and-so says this." It's certainly possible that earlier editors made assertions that aren't supported in the article, but you'll need to make a case to support your removals, rather than broad statements. I am aware of the difficulty of proving a negative, but since you were making wholesale removals, you'll need to make an effort. I am not a subject matter expert, I have been responding to your removals, which will need to find consensus among editors who can properly evaluate your changes before they will stick. This is not a highly-trafficked article, and a request for comment may be needed to attract interest once you've made your case, with specifics. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you blocked Assyria730BC last month and wanted to say that they have returned to removing well-sourced information (which mostly have been reverted by me now). --Semsûrî (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Widr took care of it. I wasn't able to do a proper investigation at the time, but I agree with his action. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must not believe supply/demand is a real thing. You must have also not seen the warning before reading the page regarding Hispanic stereotypes: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This section contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (August 2017) This section may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (August 2017) This article possibly contains original research. (August 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CincoMayoBurger (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a platform for your personal analysis. And this edit [8] is a very bad look. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you agree that supply and demand is a theory that doesn't hold water? You should really alert the economists! We all know the only workable economic system is to have an untethered capitalist world economy where national boundaries don't matter. Only then will we see a median rise in wages for the working class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CincoMayoBurger (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia still isn't a platform for your personal analyses. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello. In May 2013 you caused the speedy deletion of the article Battle for Dream Island under criterion A7. In future, if you feel that an article is missing something, please consider adding it instead of unceremoniously destroying other people’s work. You are the reason nobody I know bothers contributing to Wikipedia anymore because “what’s the point, it gets deleted anyway”. Consider fostering a more productive environment. Thank you for your time. Timwi (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're here to make personal attacks about a speedy deletion request from nine years ago, for something that was plainly short of notability standards at that time? How nice. And I didn't delete it, another administrator did, because I don't self-delete speedy nominations. Don't berate editors who nominate articles for deletion. And you're an administrator yourself, and expected to know better. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies — I’m trying to be constructive. Obviously there are plenty of “contributions” that warrant a speedy deletion. I’m trying to highlight that this was a case where, even if it fits a speedy-deletion criterion, the more sensible thing to do would have been to make the small change necessary to honor the work and effort someone put into writing it. I apologize for the overly personal tone of my prior message, but it captures my frustration. Literally all of my friends are in the “why bother, it gets deleted anyway” camp and that should worry us. We are losing valuable contributions on a global scale this way and this is not in the spirit of a wiki. Timwi (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons why draft space was created - in December 2013, in fact. One purpose was to cut down the number of A7 deletions, giving them space to mature if it could be accomplished. It has worked pretty well, and though I don't have any statistics at hand, I believe the number of speedy deletions and specifically speedies based on notability have dramatically declined. At least, I rarely see them for much other than spam or vandalism, since the non-notable or marginally notable articles get moved by non-admins into draftspace rather than tagged for deletion. So, in the context of articles getting deleted, the complaint voiced by your friends has been addressed for the past eight years. If they're adding poorly-sourced material, that's a different issue, since the sourcing standards and overall level of sourcing are dramatically better than they were ten years ago. Acroterion (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I made a request to move page name on Talk:Thai Airways International.. would you mind take a look and comment if you'll support or oppose. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not participating in that sort of discussion. Acroterion (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

But I never in my life even visitied the page Im told I edited (https://i.imgur.com/VO3bIfI.png). Now I think Im being told that "You have been blocked from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy." So im completly confused.

The only thing I remember editing some time ago (I think) it was the Germanic New Medicine page. Changes that were reverted almost immediately. If this was you, let me tell you... there's a lot of harm being made to humanity by lying so much and by being functional to the systems methods of confusion. People need to know that the germ theory is a lie and the territory is everything. The GNM explains this perfectly. Anyway, I don't care about being blocked here, it does not surprise me tbh. Sorry for my poor english. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.115.74 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to guess about what this IP did and didn't edit, since all the edits made from it are listed here. You should consider the possibility that the IP number you have now is not the IP number you had in the past - that your account was re-assigned to another IP number in the meantime. Many providers do that frequently. If that's the case, ask your Internet provider about it, or create a Wikipedia account for yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you're planning on making edits to the point that "germ theory is a lie", you probably shouldn't even bother, because you wouldn't last very long as an editor here. We don't exist to promote WP:FRINGE theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did something bad in 2020 using the IP that was eventually reassigned to you by your ISP. You can disregard the warning. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh 28bytes Bureaucrat changes 28bytes

Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

I know you blocked the user a fairly long time ago, but do you think that NapoleonX = Chesapeake77? I'm looking at the moves, the detailed similar edit summaries associated with the moves, and the edits to the Al Gore Talk page (political articles). I don't have as much to go on with Chesapeake77 as they started editing only a week ago (and they certainly don't act like a new editor).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeling it very strongly. NapoleonX is excessively concerned with what they think are correct names, and spends a lot of time fussing with titles and intros. Sooner or later they come back to Mount Rainier and try to take out Tacoma/Tahoma with a lengthy edit summary. I think Chesapeake77 is somebody's sock, but I don't think it's NapoleonX. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They both edited dog articles; does that count? Thanks for your thoughts.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rule them out. Diagnostic edit summaries for me are things like this, focusing on naming: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] The Holly Williams edits are the closest things I see to NapoleonX's naming focus. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I even found NapoleonX was because of the intersection of the two editors at Holly Williams (American singer-songwriter) with NapoleonX and Chesapeake77.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These edits complicate things.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's keep an eye on them, and if it is NapoleonX they'll show their hand sooner or later. Acroterion (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I will not do that anymore. Hi I am 1000 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three minutes after this timestamp, new user made this edit. BusterD (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oliver tractors has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hoosier Slide, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Hoosier Slide was a popular tourist attraction until it was turned into glass? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hoosier Slide. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hoosier Slide), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

saw your actions, you might also want to have a look at 2A00:1FA0:4469:1975:0:63:8FCF:2501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits this morning. Fram reverted but I don't think anyone took admin action. I didn't as I'm only tangentially familiar with the editor Star Mississippi 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we'll all get familiar with this sock, at least until some edit filters slow them down. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please block 149.57.28.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), it is a new Windscribe VPN range. wizzito | say hello! 03:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap that, please block this range instead: 149.57.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The whole /16 is the VPN. wizzito | say hello! 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a busy range, but Nate will have to find somewhere else to play for a while. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion, This is just to let you know that I have requested the unprotection of C.S. Lewis at WP:RFPP. I had already filled out the form there before noticing the "take it to the original protecting admin" clause. According to the protection log, that is you; accordingly, I have left this note on your talk page. ChromaNebula (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hopefully the national partisans have given up. Acroterion (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've also filed a request for this task to be done by a bot (i.e., notifying admins about old indef-protected pages). ChromaNebula (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wowza. Thanks for that. I'm getting a feeling he doesn't like me much. Sniff. Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion. I was wondering if you could have a look at this edit by Mbsyl (talk · contribs) and their response to the warning they received? I was going to give them a DS notice for BLP and FRINGE (in the course of a larger warning for edit warring, egregious personal attacks, and GENSEX violations), and then saw that you've already sanctioned them for BLP issues in the past. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey. I see you've warned them, so I'll hold off and see what happens, but it's going to mean a block if it recurs. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see GeneralNotability indeffed them - I did not check the Andraka edit. I concur with the block. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It only belatedly occurred to me what their username is if you try to say it aloud. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page was Peter Phillips. I fell asleep and didn't realize until now. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioooaoaoap (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [15] certainly wasn't "accidental," but Cluebot reverted it. So my answer would be to never do that again. Acroterion (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion, you have flagged that my recent edit of the British isles is interpreted as my own personal view. However this is not the case, the term 'the British isles' has not been used for many years in any official capacity by either the Irish or the British government and it is advice is not to use the terminology anymore. The term 'the British isles' is entirely subjective, and its consistent use is no longer apt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.202.225 (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles are not soapboxes for complaints or personal analysis about perceived imperialism through naming, or the legacy of imperialism, and this has been discussed may times before. Until a consensus term is adopted and in wide use throughout the English-speaking world, the name will remain as it is on Wikipedia. See WP:COMMONNAME for the guideline, which applies to many such nationalistic disputes. And we have an article on the topic, British Isles naming dispute, which covers it in some depth, with sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if you wish the British Isles to no longer be the commonly used name, I suggest you start with the Irish government and get them to stop using it. While the government of Ireland uses it internally, the argument can't really go any further. Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can someone please answer me here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here? Anyone? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in the matter, and you should not forum-shop like that. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gone cross-eyed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you smited my friend. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a less smitey mood today than yesterday, at least. If Comcast hadn't been down at lunchtime there would have been more that got smote. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think you were both amazingly mild-mannered in your smiting. Bishonen (smitten) | tålk 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Unlike the biblical Deity, I need a functioning internet connection to exercise my wroth. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Ukraine troll is back with a new IP [16]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Can I ask you to delete history from my userpage? I saw your name on the list of administrators dealing with this kind of issue.

Thank you!

--Governor Sheng (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to delete it entirely, or just up to the present? Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Up to the latest change. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

Why did you revert? Fleisher was Jewish. The Poles did not consider him Polish, and he did not consider himself Polish. It is more accurate to characterize him as a Jewish-American, or alternatively as a Jewish immigrant from Poland. Palindromeami (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSETHNICITY, we don't conflate ethnicity with nationality. It is also abused by editors who think they ought to tag Jews. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I email you for RevDeletion? SoapDispenser94 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes Modussiccandi BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes Callanecc Oversighter changes Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

I am not being disruptive, and you don't get to lecture me on such matters! Stop jumping to conclusions and actually do your job! Thecleanerand (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do get to lecture you. That's why the community made me an administrator. Stop posting vexatious reports. Acroterion (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Acroterion. Thanks for your notices. I couldn't understand why you have sent me a notice stating that I have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan. Are you sure I have done so? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meurglys8 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure. Tunceli Province is part of Turkish Kurdistan. Also, if I see you accuse another editor of vandalism like this [17] I will block you. Acroterion (talk)

I see your point of view. Although I've written nothing about the Kurds (I have Kurdish, Armenian, Turkish, Greek roots. I am an avid rival of any kind of nationalism.), you have such a claim.

1. By following your logic of calling Tunceli Province as Kurdistan, Eupen is Belgian Germany, Kardzhali is Bulgarian Turkey, Memphis is African USA. Would you also agree with these?

2. What is wrong with accusing someone as a vandal a. who claims the official army of a country is an invader of its own land, b. who deletes official statistical "real" data (please see the above percentage of Armenian-speaking community) for no reason, c. who adds a biased death toll (see: Dersim Rebellion for neutral sources of the death toll), and engaging in many more manipulation?

Poor Wikipedia. I thought it was a serious, neutral source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meurglys8 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're trying to say in your first statement. If your'e trying to obscure or remove the existence of a geographical area called Kurdistan from Wikipedia, I am convinced that you should avoid that topic.You appear to be trying to denigrate people as vandals who dispute your edits. Disagreement with you does not make someone a vandal. If this kind of behavior continues, I will not hesitate to restrict or block your editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding article claims the following "The Armenians lived quietly in their mountain villages until 1938, when Turkish Armed Forces soldiers invaded the region to put down a Dersim rebellion, and in the process blew up St Karapet's Monastery and killed around 60,000-70,000."

As it is not possible for the official army of a country to invade its own lands, the article is biased, misleading, and provides a perfect example of Hate speech and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. By having a stance against removing this phrase you are violating Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

Regarding the first argument: If geographical areas should be called by names of the dominant ethnical groups residing there, Eupen should be called as Belgian Germany, Kardzhali should be called as Bulgarian Turkey, Memphis should be called as African USA or a similar term.

Hope we find constructive consensus. All the best! Meurglys8 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your arguments at extensive length on the relevant talkpage. My concern is your behavior, not the content of your arguments.When you posted your complaint at ANI, you asked for the attention of administrators, who concern themselves with editor behavior. You are presenting yourself as a textbook example of a tendentious editor. Your addendum above is not helping your case. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I edited a phrase having Hate speech, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing or similar acts of violating Wikipedia's policies, Armenian nationalists persistently reverted my edits. Do neutral people need consensus with nationalist manipulators who resist on keeping phrases such as "The Armenians lived quietly in their mountain villages until 1938, when Turkish Armed Forces soldiers invaded the region to put down a Dersim rebellion, and in the process blew up St Karapet's Monastery and killed around 60,000-70,000."?

I see that Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Good reasons to revert supports my intention to contribute to Wikipedia by removing Hate speech and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Am I wrong? Should we keep phrases such as the ones in Tunceli Province#Demographics?

I really want to minimize your and my time to spend on this issue. My intention is to clear Wikipedia from hate speech and misleading claims. Meurglys8 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject. I must defend myself here because I feel Meurglys8 has made some serious accusations directed towards me. Claiming that editors are using "hate speech" against you or your edits is malicious in it of itself. None of the editors who have restored content have directed hate speech towards you or have acted "hatefull" in their edits. I myself have continued to maintain courteous dialogue with you. Your strong words against myself/others are completely unwarranted. You have also now bypassed our on-going conversation on Talk:List of European countries by population and started a new thread about the exact same topic we were discussing previously. This confirms that you are not genuinely interested in hearing the opinions of others. I apologize, Acroterion, for discussing this on your talk page but I am uneasy reading the negative comments above. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have blocked them for personal attacks on those who dare to disagree with them. Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Acroterion. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You read my mind. :) That sockpuppet investigation you just deleted: I was just wondering if that should be closed or outright deleted.... —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was clearly meant as retaliation and in bad faith, I deleted it. I wonder how an editor who was new today knew how to go there in the first place. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given Special:AbuseLog/32259383, it seems to me that the IP you just blocked, 66.165.1.180, was being used by an LTA. I don't know if that changes how long you want to block it for, or if you were already aware; just thought I should give you a heads-up. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Hitler as a military leader

There was an extra space on the Lex Luger page to the sentence stuck out a bit so I (me not you) removed it. Not a vandal edit not one with no sources so why did you revert it. Probably just jealous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consider using a other than your real name (talk • contribs) 09:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You took out a space entirely, so that words ran together, and advising you of that is not “abuse.” Acroterion (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your help with this situation. The user you just blocked, VonJarred (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), is the latest sock puppet account of Jinnifer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), a banned editor who constantly makes sock puppet accounts in order to harass other editors into restoring Jinnifer's original research opinions to Horror film.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Jinnifer before, at least by name. I'll adjust accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much again.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A user you blocked two days ago for two days for edit warring, The.Barbaryan, just returned to engage in the same behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how are you? I am not an experienced user, to start with, but I would like to know what your response means (without cluttering up the website, to confuse others, which is why I'm posting this here). I know a lot of speech goes around that refers to "trolling" which I interpret to mean "vandalism" but I have never seen any speech that refers to the term "sealining?" Can you either explain that terminology or point out a place that this is explained? Thanks in advance, keep up the good work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_trolling_at_Talk:Bucha_massacre 69.112.128.218 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Sealioning. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That link was very helpful. Now I can see more of what that meant. It means that we are assuming that a user is being cordial under false pretences? The user is creating a false aura of politeness in order to create trust in order to sow seeds of conflict? If so, I have another question. Without being a mindreader, seriously, how is one to know the level of another person's/user's voracity or "sincerity" - wouldn't it seem to a reasonable person, if you are "assuming good faith" that there is no way to really assess this? How do we even know if such a thing exists, and even if it definitely did exist, how would anyone know that it occurred? Additionally, if we are to "assume good faith" wouldn't that prevail against 99% of the suspicions that such a thing is happening? Even so, assuming that it is happening, shouldn't we encourage others whom we disagree with to be polite, sincere, and cordial, whether it's sincere or not? What if a user simply doesn't agree with the other user, cannot see the other user's point, and refuses to be rude? Is that seriously the issue? Sorry to bombard you with all these queries. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. You are bordering on Sealioning right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make the same observation, it's pretty much what you've been doing. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add the questions to the Teahouse, my talk page, here, and I'm trying to figure out why I haven't blocked them yet. I guess they think we are stupid. Never confuse patience with stupidity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're volunteers writing an encyclopedia. We're not some kind of quasi-judicial debating society. That's the good-faith response. The alternate response is that this is the latest in a series of IPs to waste our time with Russian disinformation, or general FUD-sowing. Acroterion (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes Firefly • Sdrqaz Ad Orientem Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

I couldn't help but notice Your reverting my edit at 88. I believe you might have acted in ignorance or negligence.

The edit concerned a ban on the use of the number 88 for, quote, "its association with Hitler’s initials". To my knowledge, Adolf Hitler's initials were A H, thus yielding "18", so certainly the article's claim must be mistaken. I altered the line to suggest that the ban was due to an association with the phrase Heil Hitler. Such use is well-documented and described in detail in the very article. I am personally unfamiliar with the use of 88 in reference to Hitler's initials and have to request a source for the claim. For the time being, I have unreverted the edit.

Brittletheories (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. The 88 references HH, which is stated plainly. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and therefore the paragraph was mistaken. Well, good thing it got fixed. I'm sorry you got so agitated. Brittletheories (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to remove material concerning fascists based on your own opinions and then come here to complain that you've been reverted, in tones of dudgeon, I'm not able to assist you. In point of fact, I agreed that it refers to HH, but your approach was fell considerably short of cordiality - please feel free to avoid using words like "ignorance" or "negligence" about simple misunderstandings, and please correct things like this, using references, rather than taking them out several times. Please reconsider your approach to interacting with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can we state that it was a suicide after all the info and facts we have now about his death? Why not just say he died. Period. You seem like an intelligent person and if you look at what Tom Grant has said and proved and what his own attorney has said it looks like he didn't do this. I work with addicts and I've asked every one since 2000 if what he did was possible. Not 1 has said yes, or maybe. That's alot of addicts who have had a habit decades longer than his saying it's impossible. Jaskim06 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Your addition broke the citation, and didn't help the article. You are wanting to add your opinion to an article, based on someone else's opinion. We follow the sources, which say it was suicide, as did the police dept. We aren't interested in your personal opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for reaching out. I was immediately going to assume that you were a person that doesn't even reads the justifications and reverts any changes that has been done on one of your notification links. If you think I haven't been adequately explaining myself, I'll gladly try to do that here and now. I have attempted to delete one of the many problematic sentences on the "NoFap" page which is "NoFap is part of the "manosphere", online groups credited with disseminating misogynist discourses.[12]". Let me clearly, and without dragging too much I hope, explain the points why I think this sentence should not be there. First reason would be your objection to my changes which is "objection to clearly sourced statement", I think graduating from GeorgiaTech, you %100 know better than me that a piece of knowledge being sourced clearly doesn't at all relate to the validity of that statement. I've read at least the abstraction of the sourced material - because of the obvious barrier to knowledge being lots of money - I can deduce that it's a research material that is done by Xiaoting Han & Chenjun Yin to define and fill the concept of "Manosphere". This piece alone does not puts this sentence up in the page where generally objective definitions take place, they do, for 3-4 sentences but putting this sentence up there with is subjectivity to personal bias doesn't reflect the spirit of Wiki. It just seems like a biased person's opinion piece up there with the definitions.

Second reason is actually an expansion of my reasoning: if it should exist in the page, why it shouldn't be the defining sentences. It is because putting this sentence aside with the definitions assumes that the (1) term Manosphere is universally/academically accepted and used whereas its literature is just being created, (2) the explanation next to Manosphere defines the NoFap. My 2nd point is the most important one, I don't think anyone can nonchalantly claim the NoFap disseminating misogynist discourses. The rule number two on the subreddit is even against that. More evident thing is, if you'd scroll through the top posts and comments you'd see that those kind of misogynistic behaviour is downvoted to hell and are not tolerated. Because most of those people know what actually misogyny is, they've actually witnessed misogyny firsthand. They were the ones watching violent pornographic scenes, heartless men carelessly hurting woman just for the sake of entertainment. How can someone claim this movement to be misogynist, I think there is a confusion what NoFap defines and defends. There will obviously be people that will spread misogyny, racism etc. But they are not inherent to movement as you can clearly see in Reddit and other forums, even in the most wholesome pages such as Puppies, there will be someone spreading hate among us.

I simply request you to edit the page to remove that sentence relating to Manosphere. I encourage you to check my claims on the subreddit to find DEFINING PROPERTIES that is evident to "disseminating misogynist discourses". If you find that piece of knowledge useful, I'd propose you to change the start of the sentence with: "A researcher from Beijing thinks that/claims that...". I don't believe any other way is justifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthmaulethuitpapillons (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia uses references to appropriate research in academic and journalistic sources with reputations for expertise and fact-checking. Reddit is neither.
• Your opinion does not override the consensus developed over time on the talkpage.
• Discussion takes place on the article talkpage where it can be seen by other editors, not here
• Please be aware that pseudoscience and gender issues are subject to special scrutiny
• Abusing multiple accounts and IPs is grounds for summary blocking. Likewise meatpuppetry or brigadiing from off-wiki canvassing. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits the links didn't go anywhere! Return to Monkey Island (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with redlinks, they may encourage an article to be written. Stop removing them. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! It makes the pages look unprofessional. It's like you want people to go on wiki and think "oh wow these link go nowhere I guess no one proof reads this". Return to Monkey Island (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user-generated encyclopedia. We want to flag things that need an article written about them. Feel free to help. Acroterion (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with th logic (but won't remove them if that's the rule) but I shouldn't have said that it was rude. Sorry. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you'll understand better after a little while here. The encyclopedia is a work in progress. We used to have a lot of redlinks. Now they're unusual, precisely because people have seen the need and addressed it with an article that turns the link blue. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, it makes people go "Wow, I can't believe there isn't an article on that. I will start one.", which is the whole point. Redlinking plausible articles is encouraged as a way to expand the encyclopedia by letting people know what we need to work on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be at all possible if you could rev-delete the vandalism edits made by the user CuddleKing1993 at Talk:Suchomimus and Acrocanthosaurus? The editor in question started a thread in the former, and made an edit summary in the latter, both being incoherent rants about how the perceived incorrect data in both articles are sexually assaulting him.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it's just over-the-top nonsense, and I don't think it warrants a revdel. I've warned them on their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You put a 1 week range block on 2A02:214C:8719:7D00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. They're back at it on 2A02:214C:8734:DC00:79A8:191E:2BA0:AB89 (talk · contribs). – ².O.^Boxing 09:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be bouncing around some very large ranges. I'll see what can be done beyond just /64s, but it may not be easy. 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

217.180.232.83, which you have blocked, is personally attacking us. Please revoke access to their talk page for the duration of the block as they don't really understand about the rules. Wesoree (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended and talkpage access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

Hi Acroterion, thanks for blocking 63.155.49.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – she might need a talk page block as well. --bonadea contributions talk 06:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding WP:BLOCKNO. The thread is Inappropriate use of "block" threat from administrator. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you.

Per requirement to notify editor in question upon opening noticeboard thread. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes Colin M David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g

CheckUser changes Ks0stm Oversighter changes Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

I wanted to thank you for your helpful intervention on Talk:Cessna 310#Cockpit image and your request that the editor withdraw the personal attack against me there. Unfortunately he has not only not withdrawn it, but doubled down on it here and again had it pointed out by another admin there that it was probably another personal attack. That was after you posted your request for him to withdraw the original one. Two more days have passed with no action on the editor's part, so it is clear he is not going to withdraw or or apologize. As described in WP:CIVIL his behavior is obviously unacceptable. I should point out that I request some action to close this, not from any sense of personal hurt (frankly it is clear that his personal attack was just an embarrassed lashing out in response to several editors pointing out that the photograph in question was obviously not a real Cessna 310) but because, as the policy describes, poor behavior like that drives editors away from Wikipedia, is detrimental to the project overall and needs to be deterred. I would like to see this individual matter concluded quickly, so I was wondering if I could prevail upon you, as the intervening admin, to take whatever action you deem appropriate in the circumstances to resolve it? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Serial Number 54129's comments were over the top, and I would appreciate it if they retracted them and apologized to you. I don't think that JG Howes would be happy about things like that said in his name. I've worked with some of his images, because he and I both used a Canon AE-1 film camera on the old days and have extensive slide archives created with that equipment that we've uploaded, and I see his work a lot in areas where I've been working on Commons. We overlapped geographically, and I would have liked to have met him. I don't think the level of umbrage that SN took honors JGH's memory, especially when we're talking about an objectively poor image. We all have them, it's not a slight on the creator, and it seems to me that it was meant more as a portrait of JGH rather than a documentation of an instrument panel, regardless of how it was used, and given the paucity of images of any kind associated with C310 interiors. And I say that as someone with an FP on Commons of an aircraft instrument panel. That said, it won't do any good for me to appear on CBW's talkpage after they've already admonished SN and called out their behavior, and demand an apology. I've rarely seen that accomplish much on WP, and there are no sanctions that can realistically be applied, except to see that it doesn't happen again, or that if it does, it's called out. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts on this. I actually laughed out loud when I first saw the image, as its intention is quite humourous. The fact that the sky-and-clouds background was added to make it look like it was in flight, while the photographer holding the camera was obviously standing outside the aircraft, where the right-hand engine would have been if it was a real aircraft, just added to the humourous nature of it. As user portraits go I thought it was a fun image for a user page, obviously not intended for any serious use in an article, though. As I indicated above I trust your judgement that if you feel the editor in question has been "sufficiently debriefed", then that is fine by me. I had never encountered that editor before and hopefully won't again, as they seem to have "some issues", but if things escalate I will drop you a note. Thanks again for your work on this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, thanks for adding that Ford Trimotor panel. Now if we had something like that of a C-310 that would be a useful addition to the article. It is a failing of mine that in my three decades as an active pilot and also photographer, that I did not foresee my future at WikiProject Aircraft and take more instrument panel photos than I did! Hindsight bias! - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a Jewish family (related to the Noether family) we find your comments about the edits outrageous. "othering" what are you even talking about? Its people like you who are taking away our proud history. How dare you lecture us about how we should identify by nationality. What does that even mean? Disgraceful. I need to report you, how do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontodecide (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may complain at WP:ANI.Please read MOS:ETHNICITY first, and bear in mind that 9 out of 10 times, when a nationality is replaced with "Jewish" in an article, it's being done by anti--Semitic trolls as vandalism and, as I mentioned, a way of setting Jews apart as non-citizens or un-persons. See triple parentheses for another way that this is accomplished by those with malign intent. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under no circumstances did I attack another user. The allegation is egregious, I was forced to delete it from my talk page in embarassment at your aggression and I allege you are abusing your position as admin to accuse me of such when I am contributing to the site in good faith. Removal of well cited, rule following, good faith, relevant contributions with no explanation or rationale is indeed "vandalism"--you ought to know the rules, but clearly you do not. Shame on you. ~ Gkoogz (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluster is not an appropriate response. Stop treating other editors as opponents to be overcome. Acroterion (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Doug Mastriano is not "far right". Please do not continue to call him as such. Else, we open the flood gates to Wikipedia simply becoming an outlet for mainstream media regurgitation. I can just as easily cite Fox News and call every single Democrat a far left socialist if we can use ridiculous, theatric titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineer-005 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiopedia is reliant on mainstream academic and journalistic assessment, in intention and design. Your expectations are misplaced. And please stop labeling anyone and anything you disagree with as "far-left." Unless there's a Pol Pot party, hardly anybody in politics is far-left in the U.S., not even Bernie Sanders. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making your bias known. Nobody in the US is far left, but plenty of people are far right? Haha. You guys crack me up. You're not even hiding your bias, but you genuinely think you have none. Too funny! Engineer-005 (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, everybody who doesn't agree with you is biased. That's not very enlightening. We're all biased, including you. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has now stated twice on Talk:Doug Mastriano that Being a Q Anon believer is not "far right" [18], [19]. In my opinion, anyone making that kind of statement has earned a CIR block. Those people never go on to become productive editors. Wikipedia should take a zero-tolerance approach to QAnon. Just my two cents. I am aware of WP:ROPE and will not be pressing that issue further. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the page for the peanuts special To Mom And Dad(With Love) it is stated that some critisism is "homophobic". but the two sources used are in fact not homophobic. i edited the page assuming someone majorly misinterpreted the articles but you edited them back.

why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.115.161 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the entire passage, since there doesn't seem to have been much discussion in secondary sources. In the meantime, please acquaint yourself with taxonomy. Your edits at crush fetish were inappropriate, and your lecturing of other editors who repaired the article was misguided. Birds are indeed reptiles in some special taxonomic senses, but an article on a paraphilia is not an appropriate place to make such technical distinctions, or to garble the overarching term vertebrate. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I overreacted with that I agree, but what about the Peanuts special page. I am being genuine, as I truly see nothing homophobic about it, and if it was homophobic then I would be siding with you there 24.210.115.161 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 on a World War II summit and the American space program

Hello! Thanks for engaging with me about my edits. How exciting, someone must really care about that page.

I believe that the term, "gang stalking," is a verb. It is used on this page as a noun, which is incorrect. A verb cannot technically be a set of beliefs.

The language on the page seems a bit skewed towards the controversial, instead of addressing the topic at large. I'd love to be able to contribute to making this page more neutral. That is always my goal.

If your opinion is in line with that of specific medical professionals, I hope that you will allow others to contribute alternative viewpoints, as well as allow people in the wikipedia community who are interested in neutrality itself to make edits that serve that purpose.

Thank you so much for interacting with my edits! And please excuse any appearance of pushing for a "cause," or "belief," on my part. I assure you that people have all kinds of opinions about things like ghosts, technology, outer space, and just about everything that should be allowed to exist online - while we also state that these are the opinions of some - not all - people.

And of course the algorithms keep changing the title to this note I am sending to you. It should say "an edit," not "and edit." OH internet. How imperfect it all is.

Actually, depending on context, it can be a noun, verb, gerund or adjective. In this case is is a noun, a term used for what is generally regarded as a delusion of persecution by organized groups, often treatable by medication. Wikipedia reflects mainstream sourcing, with particular emphasis on clinical research. Please read WP:FRINGE for how Wikipedia covers other aspects in proportion to their credibility, as granted by mainstream journalistic and academic sources. The article has seen much disruption from editors who have pushed the notion of genuine persecution by gangs, with no actual supporting references. If you have sources that can be used to improve the article, please use the article's talkpage to present them and suggested edits. I have protected the article for a little while to ensure that you follow that protocol, which is required for significant alterations to sourced content. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion,

I saw that you protected the Seth Rich article and I wanted to provide you with updated information. I am contemplating rewriting at-least sections of the article but wanted to get your opinion first. As part of the FOIA, the FBI has recently released redacted documents that make clear the DNC email leak is at the very-least empirically related to Seth Rich. https://vault.fbi.gov/seth-rich/seth-rich-part-01-of-03/view

With access to this information, I humbly believe that it is only respectful for Mr. Rich and our search to find the truth - to make proper edits to the article. This may include removing fact-finder data that was not available at the time of initial publication, among other things. Additionally, although mostly redacted the FBI seems to have uncovered a "hit" plot for Mr. Rich prior to his death. I do not wish to get involved in the politics of this article (as I mostly work on disaster and emergency management), but I do believe significant revisions and/or removal of content on the Seth Rich article (as it stands today 5/31/22) is necessary. Given its magnitude and the work therein, and depending on what response this comment receives, I would like to work in tandem with you to correct the article as a whole.

TLDR: The FBI documents seem to show that there is more of a connection between the leak and Mr. Rich than the media, fact finders, ad other sources were aware of at the time. Access to this new information should call for major revision of the current article.

Sincerely, Thebeast613123 (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. Your interpretation of what FOIA material “seems to show” is not usable on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I will change what I said to "does show" because as per the FBI documents, it does. The FBI makes it clear that there is a connection between the DNC leak and Mr. Rich. I simply said "seems to show" to be polite. Thebeast613123 (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY, and leave the sleuthing to the secondary sources that Wikipedia relies upon for reliable sourcing. The encyclopedia reports on what professionals describe as the truth, we are not searching for it ourselves. Acroterion (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand what you are saying and the guidelines involved. It does appear that FBI released documents - from themselves is as primary as it would seem to get. In fact, a case could potentially be made that in this case, specifically, the fact-finder sources discussed in the article are secondary sources. I think that internal documents, such as these would be a better source than someone else reporting on their release.

Additionally, even in the realm of speculation, wouldn't FOIA internal FBI documents related to this case be proper to bring up. I do not quite understand the hesitation here. The FBI documents admit that Mr. Rich has connections to the DNC leak. I would say that that source is about as good as it gets. Thebeast613123 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Washington Post or the New York Times or a similar publication take notice, then it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to rely on what they say to establish that the material is suitable for inclusion. If nobody takes notice, then it is not Wikipedia’s purpose to reveal it or to draw conclusions in the absence of reporting in secondary sources. Wikipedia follows the news, it doesn’t create, which is plainly stated in the NOR and primary sourcing policies that I have mentioned. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's role to sift through document dumps and draw conclusions. FOIA documents are by their nature contextless and incomplete. It is up to multiple reliable sources with reputations for solid research to make the effort and to publish context and conclusions which can then be cited, not individual Wikipedia editors.We don't allow court evidence to be cited in most cases for the same reasons. Rich's death has been used to promote the ends of people who couldn't care less about Rich himself, and the absence of reporting on the material you mention indicates that nobody so far thinks it is of any significance. If that changes, then it might be mentioned in the context of what is said about it in reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Administrator changes Tamzin Barek • Darkwind • Geometry guy • ProcseeBot • RoyBoy • Sean Whitton • Valereee • Visorstuff • WAvegetarian Sn0wflake → VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

I’m looking at the page history and it seems like Nick.mon and other accounts made various changes to the article without proving ANY scholarly citations to support their edits. I mean ZERO references whatsoever. They made those changes unchallenged despite not following Wiki protocol.

Meanwhile, I provided numerous reliable sources for my edit, most of them from the last two decades, and it got reverted instantly. It was not even a major change to the article. I was mostly reverting the aforementioned unsourced edits while providing many scholarly citations to back me up. And yes I read Italian and know the material well. The edit only looks lengthy because of all the citations I provided, not because the main article was changed substantially. CuttlefishJack (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We see a lot of edits changing “liberal” to “conservative” and vice versa, “left” to “right”, etc. Those are red flags when unaccompanied by a talkpage discussion. I don’t see that you’ve ever used a talkpage to open a discussion. Please do so now. It is not the references so much as the sudden shift in characterization without any discussion. References are good, but changes are not always self-evidently beneficial, which is why talkpage s are provided. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it’s not a “sudden shift in characterization” as much as it is a reversion to what the article said before editors like Nick.mon made their *completely unsourced changes* that went unnoticed and unchallenged at the time (except that I included more citations and more detail than what previously existed in the article). If other administrators had reverted Nick.mon’s edits back then on the basis that he ignored Wiki protocol by not providing any references, we would not be having this discussion. I don’t have infinite free time to debate, so can you see why it’s frustrating when other editors are allowed to make changes without providing any references and have those changes remain, while I go through the trouble of providing many different scholarly sources and get instantly reverted as reward for my efforts? CuttlefishJack (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of us are omniscient or universal specialty subject matter experts, and that's one reason why you and everybody else should explain what they're doing, otherwise it just looks arbitrary.You may want to discuss with Nick mon directly, or at least ping him about the talkpage discussion. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) -- this user appears to be threatening. Nythar (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked. Nythar (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) (talk page watcher)  User blocked and sent to the stewards. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acroterion. Please, I think you mistake by reverting the corrected phrase (15:49, 11 June 2022‎ Acroterion talk contribs‎ 99,962 bytes +4‎ Reverted 1 edit by 93.176.134.75 (talk): Rv, languages dpn't Try to replace" things or themselves undo Tags: Twinkle Undo).

I'm afraid you did not read the text referred to Spain, so you did not noticed that the phrase I corrected was because was in inverse sense to the article. Now, upon your reversion it says: the non-Spanish languages which over the last three hundred years have tried to replace Spanish with hundreds of laws and regulations. So:

- please notice that it is absolute opposite to the information of the rest of the article.

- please notice that it is the spanish government who mades the laws and regulations, not the speakers of no-spanish languages. So, as expressed before in the article, the spanish government improves the condition of spanish language (castilian, as is written in the Spanish constitution) in front other spanish-no castilian languages.

So, in order the information be accurate and real, I think you would have to revert your previous reversion. Of course is your decission that the information fits or not, but readers would agree. Anway, thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.134.75 (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you inserted makes no sense in English. From your note above it doesn't appear that your proficiency in English is sufficient to edit the way you want to. My edits have responded to the mangled grammar you've been adding. Please use the article talkpage to make suggestions for edits so someone more proficient can make edits. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Right, my english could be much better, but the article about Spain still is wrong. Of course I don't want to made a bizantine discussion, but please, don't you mind that the sentence says exactly the opposite to the rest of the text? Not need to search far, just one sentence later: "The main workhorse of Spanish nationalism is the non-Spanish languages, which over the last three hundred years have tried to replace Spanish with hundreds of laws and regulations, but also with acts of great violence, such as during the civil war. For example, the statements of Queipo de Llano..." It is absolutely clear for anyone that know who was Queipo de Llano.

From my side I'll not insist anymore, thanks anyway for your patience and time. 93.176.134.75 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, I'll take a closer look, but I'm not very enlightened by the quoted content either, since it is trying to argue that languages are able to take actions. No need to apologize for your English - I understand French pretty well, for example, but don't edit the French Wikipedia because I would do the same things and not realize my errors. Acroterion (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I opened a talk page thread titled "Lead paragraphs", about the number of paragraphs of the Donald Trump page, which is under active arbitration remedies. I take great pride in researching for long periods of time the Manual of Style, guidelines and policies to try to improve articles, but to my dismay and demoralization, the discussion devolved in a series of attacks against me and my edits and other off-topic posts. I even requested an editor if they had accusations against me to follow relevant policy and take it to my talk page, but they continued with the off-topic situation. Another editor even said they was sick of the bickering and they was just mocked. Could you check the situation and if possible or if appropriate put a stop to the situation but leaving open the discussion about the paragraphs? Thanks in advance.--Thinker78 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get in trouble when Bishonen inappropriately blocked me? Is it because I am not an amdinsitrator and thus have less power? This is the same thing that keeps happening. I get accused, I defedn myself, and I get in trouble. Could you rescind the warning? I think that other people will use this warning to get me blocked or banned months from now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs)

I've replied on your talkpage. Please stop treating other editors as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone please. I don’t give you permission to reverse my edits and you’re incorrect for inferring I commited vandalism. 2404:E80:90EF:0:689C:5855:EDA6:EC49 (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not able to make demands that your edits stand. Stop trying to harass other editors. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Leba Chand Tudu can you delete all revisions prior to the page creation edit by Sudip Karmakar23? The full history (40 revisions) including the ones deleted per WP:Articles for deletion/Leba Chand Tudu were inadvertently restored by Justlettersandnumbers. The article is facing speedy delete per G4, and the version by Sudip Karmakar23 is different from what was deleted. Jay (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm not sold on the G4, since it's substantially different from the first version. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I agree, the speedy tagging may have been because the earlier history showed the original creator as current creator. I have removed the G4 tag now. Jay (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, that wasn't actually inadvertent – I'd mistakenly deleted the page as G5, for which it was not eligible, and chose to restore the history in its entirety. I'm open to correction here, but when a page is tagged as G4, isn't restoring the earlier revisions a reasonable way of allowing comparison between the deleted and the re-created versions? If I'm wrong about that I'm happy to re-delete those earlier revisions. In this case, the distinction between the original creator and the more recent one is pretty marginal, as the latter is a sock of the former. Acroterion, was revdeletion really the right choice here? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is wrong to restore deleted revisions to facilitate G4 evaluation to non-admins. Anyone may tag a G4, and anyone may decline it, but only an admin can accept it. Tagging and declining can be based on the AfD's rationale too, not necessarily on article content. For comparing content, non-admins use Wikipedia mirrors or Deletionpedia. See some archived discussions here: Only Admins Declining G4?, Questions about G4, G13, Verifying G4. Regarding, the sock angle, I was not aware, as the new creator was tagged as a sockpuppet 10 minutes after my above post. The page can now be speedied under the sock criteria then. Jay (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, Jay – the page has substantial edits by another user, so is not eligible; the G5 tag was removed for that reason by Ponyo. Any user can remove some or all of the sockpuppet content, of course. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was my feeling that the first version’s revisions were heavily influenced by a sock master and best deleted, and that G4 was not warranted. I meant to remove the G4 but was distracted by wife and dogs. I see no reason to keep the early revisions, but have no very strong conviction on the matter. Acroterion (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've re-deleted those revisions, per suggestions here. The article creator now shows as the sock rather than the master. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helllo, just wanted to thank you once again for blocking the Indonesia IP for harassment, just wanted to ask a question about it.

Did he leak any of my personal info? Or was it just something along the lines of "I will find you and kill you" or something. Thanks! Dinoz1 (chat?) 12:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. No personal information. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clearly NOTHERE, wouldn't you say? Doug Weller talk 15:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming that's him, I guess it could be someone else. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I give it 80% odds.My warning has it covered either way, and we'll see if they ever come back. The Truth in username rule continues to be remarkably accurate. 16:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Issues with the Operation of ANI and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Carter00000 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that this is a remarkably bad idea? Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer for the user: no. Welcome to the Wikipedia Circus.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's something wrong with my computer, but this isn't returning any results. hmm. Antandrus (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try: Special:Contributions/Carter00000. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I don’t care. Permanently Ban from the site DO IT!

The recent request for Arbitration to which you were listed as a party has been declined, as the Committee felt it was premature. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 15:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to bother you but a while back you placed a block on User:E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr – recently some issues have risen again with this editor, regarding edits I've made. The individual posted a bogus claim on the talk page stating I placed inaccurate content. As you can see my edits contradict the claim (I’ve pinged him, with no response) Also the editor maybe running 2 accounts as user:Tbx3571 & user: E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr seem to have a similar interest(s) and writing style(s) - Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated -cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - see[20]. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 and Nick-D look at four recent works

[21] All I see is adding unsourced and odd deletions and changes. A mess, but maybe nothing can be done. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also changing sourced text. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello 13:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 10:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it has come to your notice that you have deleted our page, that was our college assignment. We'd be glad if u could not delete it this time, atleast for the next 1 month.

Thankyou for your cooperation, I wish you'd understand.

Yours truly

Ehhdjv

Ehhdjv (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Administrator changes AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl Drilnoth → AFigureOfBlue Bureaucrat changes Lee Vilenski

Interface administrator changes Nihiltres

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

Your statement "There he married Felicidad Abadie, settling in the Abadie family residence in Felicidad's native Santa Barbara, which became an artists' colony" needs revision. It's a run on with three distinct ideas. Did Alex move with the family or just occupy the house? Did you fail to previously state where Alexander was born and thought you should just slap it in there? I hope you're able to correct this and choose to do so. In the meantime, I'll be keeping an eye on you. 67.1.117.212 (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your earlier, much snarkier complaint on your talkpage. I agree, it's in rough shape, as I'm working over and creating articles related to Harry Gesner, whose own article was deplorable and is still rough. Wikipedia's representation of the visual arts is consistently weak, and we have to stick to sources.

If you do any more Jew-tagging, though, you'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m the IP you responded to on mjRoots’ talk page. I’m attempting to add an architecture section to the page Lee Hall Depot, because its design is significant (many train station pages have this sort of section). It’s design was a standardized and prefabricated one used by the C&O Railroad on all Freight Stations and Cargo Houses for a period of time. I’ve made a start, but it’s small. I’m looking to expand it quite a bit, and while I can do research fairly easily, I’m not sure, how I would, write it out, and thought that someone with more experience would be helpful at achieving this. Thank you for your time and help, ˜˜˜˜ 108.48.97.70 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll track down the National Register nomination form, which should have a citeable and condensable descriptive summary. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; so something I should mention is that I edit from a phone, and because of that I can respond to edit messages after I send them. Thanks for trying to find that nomination, talk to you soon! ˜˜˜˜ 108.48.97.70 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go when I have a few moments - Real Life has thrown a few family emergencies my way.Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start and done some of the editing and referencing that's hard to do on a phone. The NRHP nomination is the go-to document for history and description up to 2009. Obviously anything after that would have to be sourced elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m finding that a lot of the stuff in the “Architectural history” section of the PDF you sent me is rather minor, but also seems important, like types of trim, an on-site well, and lighting fixtures. How do I determine what goes in and what doesn’t? And what goes into other sections? 108.48.97.70 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my view a lot of the descriptions are verbal detail better conveyed by pictures, but it's something of a convention in NRHP docs to turn the descriptions into hyper technical jargon. Unless it's crucial or a defining feature, I tend to avoid excessive descriptions of window types, detailing, etc. That's just me, though I was planning to come back and expand it a little more. That particular example isn't a very good account of the architectural design. I don't want to stray too far into my own interpretation, but I was going to sit with pictures and try to make it a little more intelligible to general readership. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as other sections go, there is a good bit of background and history in the nom. It is confusingly arranged, again by convention, with continuances farther back. I would say it goes into more detail than is warranted for a summary encyclopedia article, but that's why we link the NHRP nom, so somebody who wants to can go ahead and read it to get more detail. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a photo detailing several parts of the buildings design (overhangs, support brackets, windows, etc. Now, you said I should use images instead of describing small features with text. But where would such an image go in the architecture section? Link to photo: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lee_Hall_Station_(15883700568).jpg 108.48.97.70 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that the NRHP nominations contain a level of detail that isn't really needed for an encyclopedia article, and they the nominations rely on text to convey something better done via drawings and photos. I didn't mean that the encyclopedia article would use detail pictures (though it could if they're particularly significant). Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion, can you block and rev/delete the WP:BLP violations in several recent edits and summaries? ANI is protected, so I can't report there. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Spencer, thank you. Though not as egregious, several previous edits in the last week may also merit rev/deletion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure. You blocked a related IP here[22] and CUS 27 is asking me about it.[23] I blocked a couple of IPs also. I am not sure about using CU here or if I can do something else. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Gnhrfiufrhe897r4y, an obvious throwaway account, I don't see an IP that I blocked there. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See[24] which could be related to a couple of IPs I blocked or your block here.[25] I’m not sure I can use CU or if there’s another option. Thanks Doug Weller talk 17:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Acroterion. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you tend to block all the random trolls that appear on my talk page. Especially now that I'm around less, I really appreciate it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You must attract overnight trolls or something - I usually look around between 0700 and 0800 ET for trolls and spambots and block accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how one source can judge a page such as this as “far-right.” There are many people and organizations who should be labeled as “far-left,” but are not labeled as such. I’m not going to name names, but I think if we should be open-minded and not bias one way or the other, I think it would be best to those who read Wikipedia on a daily or recent basis to know the facts and not experience political bias while reading articles. If we disagree, we disagree. I have my beliefs, you may have yours. I just want to make this page better and more understandable. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources calling OK far-right, and we don't need to load up the lede with them. That they're there at all in the lede is because people stop reading after the first paragraph and don't read the additional sourced content in the article supporting the summary paragraph (which is normally uncited). The lede covers the cited content in the body of the article. This is a global encyclopedia, and what American conservatives label "far-left" is pretty centrist compared to most of the rest of the world. . And it's "biased," not "bias." Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with you, I respect your opinion. Thanks. Conservative Alabamian (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May you please explain to me how the "far-left" labeling is considered centrist to the rest of the world? Thanks. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The liberal wing of the Democratic party is pretty centrist compared to leftist parties in most of the rest of the world. A number of commentators compared the Obama administration's policies with the policies of the Eisenhower administration. Until we have administrations nationalizing companies and instituting collectivist policies, we're not even to leftist, much less far-leftism, which would be on the extremes of Marxist thought. Sanders is an extremely mild socialist, and that's about as spicy as it gets in U.S. politics. He'd be a middle-of-the-road Labour candidate in the UK. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being from the United States, I have always believed that Sanders was a communist. I didn't really care about what the rest of the world thinks. Do you believe that there is a far-left ideology? -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders is a declared democratic socialist, which is considerably short of Communist. "Being from the United States," (so am I) where politics tends toward the conservative, gives a skewed view of actual leftist radicalism, which is a lot more aggressive than anything seen in the United States. In the 1980s the French Socialist Mitterand administration was in power. It was halfway between the Gaullist Party and the actual French Communist Party, which was closely aligned with the Soviet Union. Mitterrand was considerably to the left of Sanders, and Mitterrand was considerably to the right of the Communists. This is a global encyclopedia, so it presents a worldwide view of political science, rather than the very narrow dose one gets in the U.S. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this is a global encyclopedia. I have a Bachelor's degree in history and want to grow the historical aspect of this encyclopedia. Do you think I am on the right track? -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you think Sanders is a Communist. But I recognize that in many parts of the United States, anybody more liberal than the local Chamber of Commerce is considered some kind of Communist. Acroterion (talk)

I'm not saying all liberals are communists. I was raised in the Deep South, where we are all about morals and conservatism. I have never denounced anyone's right to believe what they want to believe or vote for who they want to vote for. I'm just saying that I have never experienced anything but the United States, so I guess I am biased. I apologize for what I did on the Oath Keepers page. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apology, we're all here to learn something. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. Thank you. How can I join the WikiProject Military History? Thanks in advance. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the source is the BBC, mistakes happen, they have translated this wrong. Most other dictionaries will translate it as flash. Please believe a German and additionally maybe use this source instead: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Blitz#German https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/blitzkrieg It also says that Blitz can mean flash. To any German this is clear as day that it cannot refer to lightning but to the swiftness of the flash. 2003:F9:8701:DFA0:9982:4D69:CACE:FA79 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but you'll need sources, preferably sources that discuss that specific distinction. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work! Andrevan@ 00:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though the user Zarvonov has resorted to personal attacks on their talk page following the "allegedly" incident on Lee Harvey Oswald. Liliana ^(UwU) 01:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're having a meltdown. I'm going over to ANI now. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, an editor (now blocked) threatened my life, 'after' I reverted him at the Montreal Canadiens page. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a trolling Maple Leafs fan. I got off easy, I think, just a lot of cussing. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is, he'll be getting himself banned within a week. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he didn't last a full day. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he was on such a hair trigger that Skyring set him off, we're better off without him. Six years of steady cycling updates, and then ... snap. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

Hi Acroterion - Did you mean to only block this user for 31 hours? I would imagine that you'd block this user indefinitely per their self-admission on ANI... Let me know; I just wanted to message you in case this may have been accidental. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I switched reasons and Twinkle reset on me. I wish it wouldn't behave that way. Now indef. Acroterion (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to a recently closed AN thread, where the user in question said I usually update economic data … i want to reign as ECP… where I can do that I thought I’m going to assume you mean “regain” rather than “reign” for the moment. was commendably good faith given the rest of their behaviour! Nosebagbear (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that for a little while, because my first reading was less favorable, but it appeared to me that this was not a person whose first language is English,so I ought to give the benefit of the doubt, at least as far as the "reign.". On reviewing some of my own typos, I sometimes need the same grace. There was no way anybody was going to reinstate ECP for them, so the AGF cost little. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I edited the article on the Tunisian football team. The entire article was written like a non-native English speaker, and I fixed most of the grammar issues and removed junk that's not needed in the article. For example, the article's history section listed the score on every single game while every other national football team's article doesn't have that junk. There is this user with an Arabic username and they keep reverting my edits to theirs, which would require copyediting and many maintenance tags, such as too lengthy, grammar, and more. Could you please take care of this user? They've also written multiple articles that have been deleted. The World Cup is coming up (Tunisia made it) and I want readers to see an article that's been written properly, not by a non-native English speaker. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've reverted three times and haven't reverted since you warned them.I'll keep an eye on the article.Acroterion (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic user has came back; while they didn't really revert what I did, they reinstated a lot of the excessive content. The grammar improved but it still is not completely written in an encyclopedic style. I have reverted to my version for now. What should happen next? Nearly but not perfect (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Is anyone monitoring the DB Cooper page? There have been many changes in the past few weeks and it does not look like any admins are aware. KatDales (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is something going on that requires administrator action? Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is Akamaikai, whose edit you reverted on Boysen Dam, Wyoming.

The reason I added a climate section is because I like to add climate data to places where it exists so that people can see it and understand the climate of a particular area. NOAA has climate data on it and I thought it would be OK to add, if have any suggestions of a nearby town where I could put the climate data it would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

-Akamaikai Akamaikai (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I think it's fine to add the data to populated places, or places like Mount Washington that are noted for weather. I've been to to Boysen Dam, and I understand why they have a weather station there - the weather in Thermopolis, the nearest populated place, is often quite different from the weather on the other side of the Owl Creek Mountains. However, putitng a big gaudy climate box into an article that is about a dam, rather than a place, is in my opinion undue weight, and distracts from the article's focus. Acroterion (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So where should I put the data? Akamaikai (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, so absent a settlement with the usual settlement data, or some compelling reason to single out the dam as a unique location weather-wise, I don't see any reason for inclusion. Just because information exists, we're not compelled to apply it everywhere we can. If there is sourceable information that describes Boysen Dam as a notable weather location on its own (like, for example, Mount Washington), the best way is to write about that, and then add the data, preferably in collapsible format. The climate boxes are a bit huge. Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just wanted to thank you for removing that inflammatory comment from my talk page.

Also wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nameless_User, if you are not already aware. That IP removed the PROD tags on all the articles mentioned in that post. Possible sock I imagine. Skipple ☎ 15:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to that report and checking their edits.I was unsurprised to find that they had resorted to personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi,

My name is Tim, and I just wanted to let you know that recently, I accidentally made an edit on a page describing the Motion Picture Rating System page. The edit that I made is changing the location of the columns of Categories IIA and IIB in the row describing the age rating system for Hong Kong. I would like to have my I.P. address, which is located at the top of the website, to be deleted. Please send me back a message when you have time.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%9B%BB%E5%BD%B1%E5%88%86%E7%B4%9A%E5%88%B6%E5%BA%A6&action=history JigSAW43+ (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no administrative permissions on zh, and can't even read Chinese characters. Please contact a zh administrator. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

91.129.100.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

They’re now posting (pretty transparently) under a different sock IP address with the same grammatical and argument structure over at Talk:Psychiatry, attempting to create a “consensus” in favor of their WP:POLEMIC edits. Bonus: they also say you’re guilty of selective enforcement and should be banned. JK I think @C.Fred is taking care of it — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious sock situation/block evasion by IP hopping. My next step will be to semi-protect Talk:Psychiatry if this continues…and if no other admin does it before I do. —C.Fred (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with them. I also get the impression that they think that everybody who confronts them is the same person. It's a subject that attracts people with odd ideas. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to go through more of Laska666's edits, you'll find tons of unreferenced POV ramblings and essays in between the poorly paraphrased quotes from actual references.

For example, the last two sentences of this edit at Nam tiến are Laska666's own words. Other parts of that same edit are cited to pages of a book that don't support the content, e.g. page 126 of Sutherland's book does not say anything resembling

[Non-Kinh "ethnic minority" artifacts are] not being blocky parts of the Vietnamese 'mainstream historiography,' even though they had made enormous contributions or direct historical impacts in Vietnam and the Southeast Asia region as a whole.

They add a lot of valuable content, but also often sneak in their own perspective. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kevin003009] Doug Weller talk 14:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Submerged bridges has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I saw you blocked User talk:165.0.127.10 for a week.

Since they edited "Adolf Hitler is a legend" in Hitler's talk page, I believe they should receive an indefinite block under WP:NONAZIS. Also, they've been blocked before Stephanie921 (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. We don't block IPs indefinitely, but I'll look at a longer block. Acroterion (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this one. In general, for repeat blocks we block for about as long as the disruption has been taking place. This is about what I would set. It's probably a poorly-socialized adolescent, and they'll probably find other things to be horrible about. If not, they'll be blocked for longer. Acroterion (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. And could I ask what policy says IPs aren't blocked indefinitely? I'm not saying ur wrong of course but I've seen IPs indefinitely blocked loads of times, and am curious Stephanie921 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not supposed to be blocked indefinitely except in rare cases, and I haven't seen one indeffed in a long time. Generally IPs are blocked for three years at most, since the vast majority of IPs are dynamic and will be reassigned in a shorter or longer period, and users can change. This isn't a Telstra IP, but for example, Telstra IPs are notorious for being highly dynamic. I am curious about the "loads of times" you've seen IPs indeffed - it's not supposed to happen except in unusual instances of long-term abuse from a specific stable IP. Acroterion (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 on the Falklands War

You may wish to revoke TPA Cahk (talk) Cahk (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720 Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

Hi, Acroterion. You reverted my edit on ANI. Let me explain why my edit was correct.

• I made a comment on Nightscream discussion yesterday and then user Protonk replied to my edit about another topic.
• Protonk's reply was reverted by ToBeFree.
• Then Johnuniq reinstated all messages thinking they were okay.
• Then an IP user collapsed Protonk's comments with a provocative message (I warned them at their talk page).
• Arada Ar 196 collapsed all comments including my initial comment which was not removed by ToBeFree with a somewhat contemptous message.

That's why I wanted to change the template headers with a more neutral wording and de-collapse my initial comment. Now clarifying what actually happened, could you please de-revert my edits? Thank you.--Madame Necker (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be editing any templates or collapse headers in that discussion. Acroterion (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I won't from now on. Could you please de-revert my edit? Madame Necker (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the collapse header a little. Please don't hijack threads like that. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. Madame Necker (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP142.183.21.97 that you blocked for one week from Joan II of Navarre has returned under a different IP(142.183.31.129). I will let you decide what should be done, if anything. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked, sitewide this time, and semi-protected. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is is very rude that you come and delete what I have added. I would very much appreciate if you would not do that sir. 2600:1009:B168:436F:341E:654B:9A2D:2766 (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what was it that you added? It's flattering for you to think I'm psychic and can understand what you did on a different IP address or account, but I'm afraid I can't tell what you're complaining about. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created this account so many years ago. Now I want to change the name of my profile from "Cheposo" to Risantana . how can I make a change of name of my account or profile? help please. I hope you can help me with this.

--Cheposo (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing username is the place to start. Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:HD § Very Large Picture. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a honest question or it could be a WP:DUCK. Anyway, just letting you know as a courtesy because you removed the image as a copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that editor, but it's clearly an image that's been scraped from a copyrighted website and represented as own work. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Acroterion: I have a file that needs renamed. Could you possibly do it for me please. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 11:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? Is it on Commons? Acroterion (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winterlink Group.png I've put a rename template on it. scope_creep^Talk 11:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take a look at it once I get my day started, feed dogs, etc. Acroterion (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A possibly dumb question, but it's not something that comes up often - are file moves of that kind unavailable to non-admins? On Commons filemover is a specific right that must be granted, but image files on WP are pretty rare, so I haven't encountered the restriction. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Acroterion. I posted that redirect for deletion, as I went around and updated all the article. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect File:Winterlink Group.png and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#File:Winterlink Group.png until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. scope_creep^Talk 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at Txkk's talk page.
Message added 14:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Txkk (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE, do you have any objections if I lift your block of Theanonymity.de with a limited-duration WP:TOPICBAN? See User talk:Theanonymity.de. -- Yamla (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have little faith in a holocaust denier's ability to edit Wikipedia in any respect, but perhaps between strict guardrails they could be given rope. Acroterion (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me too. Still, they claim to have got over that. I'll unblock (with a topic ban) and monitor. --Yamla (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck; they're all yours now!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching them, and am chiefly concerned that they not aggravate Doug with that crap. I have no plans to do more than divert their nagging until it reaches a point where I turn off talkpage access, which I think is inevitable. Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TP access is gone as predicted. UTRS will probably get it until the UTRS regulars run out of patience. Acroterion (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over to you Deepfriedokra!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not compatible, so we employ a "three strikes law" over there. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

Hey Acroterion

Just a quick flag. You helped me a long time ago when my page was vandalized

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murtz_Jaffer

A user named Clourei made some edits to my page which were not accurate so I reverted the page back. Is there a way to flag that they made in accurate edits?

Please notify me if you respond. 142.126.211.244 (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leve them a note asking them to explain why they believe the material (referenced to a 2021 source) is outdated. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes ScottishFinnishRadish Staxringold Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes Cyberpower678 CheckUser changes GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Sorry, I meant to wikilink The Mote and the Beam on User_talk:Paullong22 but I accidentally removed a bunch of stuff. I'm not sure how that happened. Sorry about that. Andre🚐 01:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am probably wasting my time, but I figured I'd try to shift the editor's thinking a little bit from "I disagree, so it's wrong and I'm removing it dammit" Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what happened, I somehow had the old revision [26] loaded and then I edited that thinking it was the current version. My mistake - sorry for any confusion or inconvenience. By all means, I certainly appreciate your reasonableness even if he doesn't. Andre🚐 01:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators