Acroterion

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

Talk:Jeggings

You protected this page in July 2017 due to persistent disruptive editing. There has been only one edit since. Do you believe that continued protection of the talk page is warranted? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP

In Ike Altgens, I noticed that there have been various IPs that have attempted to add material cited to one particular conspiracy book, and I noticed that ScottishFinnishRadish has blocked most of those IPs for disruptive editing. I followed one of the not-blocked IPs to this discussion and saw another discussion a few sections down in which Binksternet pointed out that we were dealing with another manifestation of "UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP". Due to the similarity of the edits in Ike Altgens, I suspect that the IP I reverted with this edit is also "UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP". I'm not sure if anything needs to be done, but I thought I would bring it to your attention. Cheers! -Location (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree the IPs at the Altgens bio are all the same long-term vandal. They keep trying to insert conspiracy ideas cited to the garbage book Prayer Man: The Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald by Stan Dane, published by the tin-foil peddlers Martian Publishing. Abso nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's probably them. They've been quiet in recent years, or haven't haunted the places they used to frequent. They've also moved from the Southeast, if the geolocation is to be believed. I generally block their IPs for a month. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes

Aoidh

KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes

Ferret

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

1 Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Readyville

I linked four different sources from local media, including videos and published reports, along a photo that I myself took, that the mill was destroyed and not simply damaged. I suggest taking a look at those sources in the previous edit. Jasonlong1212 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I know that, but the concerns go farther into general commentary and extensive detail not suitable for encyclopedia summary style. It's only 24 hours and limited to the articles noted, please work with other editors to work out an appropriate level of sourcing and detail. Acroterion (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Leo Frank

Following the indef you gave and Bishonen's page block, a brand new user has just turned up making the same arguments. Seems WP:DUCK to me, but do I need to do an SPI? DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa, I've asked a CU. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC).

Thanks, I was in the middle of filling out an SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa, Beyond My Ken: no technical connection. The question of who brought it to the new user's attention remains, of course. Bishonen | tålk 08:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I'm not surprised, I'm thinking MEATPUPPET. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

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 War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

i need help

Please help me in contributing constructively to Wikipedia on the subject in view of our discussion here. RsEkanayake 05:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

NesimeD

Seems to think we are LinkedIn-- did not like the message from customer service. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

They can take it up with HR. I am constantly astonished by the brazenness and self-importance of spammers. I spend a lot of time writing proposals and marketing materials, and have to consciously turn it on and off depending on where I'm writing. Some people have no awareness or interest in the context of what or where they write - everything is a promotional opportunity, and bluster substitutes for understanding of context. The whole world is social media, and anything goes. Acroterion (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be their world-view. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

reverts on dubious 'peaceful' assertion

Go to the talkpage and find consensus for your changes like everybody else is expected to do
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How exactly is consensus building the issue when it's universally acknowledged that there's a factual dispute, and the question is whether i) to say in the text the facts are disputed or ii) to write an article which endorses as true one set of claims? This isn't an issue of characterization or opinion. Something either happened or did not happen. OckRaz talk 21:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC) I see no attempt on your part to visit the article talkpage since January, when your changes did not find consensus. You need to convince other editors, not edit-war. Acroterion (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC) with all due respect, this makes no sense. all this talk of consensus misses the point. it's just silly to say consensus is always necessary for all disagreements. that really is just a bunch of rigamarole (by definition). many noteworthy events boil down to a form of ‘he said, she said.‘ when that happens, the proper function of a reference work is to reflect that there's a dispute over the facts. it's not our role to form a conclave and vote on whether to endorse his story or her story. if that's the way that an article has been handled up until now, then you're correct to say that changing the status quo would be disruptive. however, it's a case where disruption is needed because we've gotten off course and must right the ship. OckRaz talk 22:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC) All of Wikipedia is subject to consensus. No exceptions. Otherwise, individual editors would just fight it out to impose their individual views, which is effectively what you're trying to do by claiming that consensus is not necessary. If your recommendations are convincing, then they'll find consensus. So far, you've not been able to convince anybody that what's apparently obvious to you is universally apparent. You're claiming special pleading because you're convinced you're right, and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong. How do you think that would work on the other 6,641,047 articles on Wikipedia? Acroterion (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC) this is absurd. I'm not claiming special pleading: you are. it's not something that is "obvious to me." it's in the bleeding text of the article. U.S. Park Police issued a statement claiming that "at approximately 6:33 p.m., violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles, and caustic liquids." The claim was disputed by multiple reporters and video taken at the scene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John%27s_Church#Clearing_Lafayette_Square_and_St._John's OckRaz talk 01:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC) as for your contention: "All of Wikipedia is subject to consensus. No exceptions." that is pure nonsense. just imagine if that were true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation could the lede for this be rewritten to state that the alleged assault happened, (with the denial merely treated as an afterthought four graphs in) if enough editors preferred that? give me a break. OckRaz talk 01:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC) I don't see where you've convinced any other editors that that Park Police statement constitutes the sole reliable report on the event, and that everything else should be ignored or watered down because you insist that it's the only reliable report on the matter. You are moving into tendentious editing, and I'm not going to repeat myself, so is the last I have to say on the subject, unless you resume edit-warring or attacking other editors, keeping in mind that you've been previously notified of enhanced community expectations for conduct in matters concerning American politics. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC) good lord! you've been borderline before now, but this really takes the cake. i can't even call that an egregious misrepresentation. that is just plain dishonest. OckRaz talk 01:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC) . you're pretending this is an argument about having an intro that says "nonviolent" vs one that says "violent," and in the imaginary world where that was the case, i'd be on your side. based on secondary sources, you would have to prefer the former to the latter. however, that's NOT what we're dealing with here. my alternative to the description as "nonviolent" (which you reverted) was not a description saying it was violent, but merely a description that says it's alleged to have been nonviolent. OckRaz talk 02:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Suit yourself. We would all appreciate it if you stopped accusing other editors of vandalism or dishonesty, though. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC) well, i'd appreciate if you wouldn't accuse me of being disruptive for correcting errors and wouldn't misrepresent my words. so, there's that. OckRaz talk 02:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC) . peaceful protesters vs protesters, who according to some accounts may have been peaceful NOT violent protesters OckRaz talk 02:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, I know what you want. You don't have consensus for watering it down in that manner to imply something other than what all sources but the one you like assert. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC) oh, so now we're at "watering down" - which is apparently what you call acknowledging that there are two sides disagreeing IF you don't trust one side. just a moment ago the dispute was about whether Park Police statement constitutes the sole reliable report. OckRaz talk 02:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC) . not to mention that your sources are of dubious value just because there's no way for an individual person to see everything that was happening. it's not like having (biased) observers say that a police officer hit a person he was arresting without that person physically provoking him. it's about hundreds of people and whether a portion of them were violent. OckRaz talk 02:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC) I've been talking about the lack of consensus for watering-down the whole time. I advise you to stop treating everybody as an adversary, it might work better. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC) alright, maybe you were talking about "watering down" the whole time, just in an incoherent/contradictory way that simultaneously portrayed my position as being that the police statement should be treated as true and the people supporting the protests as being liars (even though that's a complete inversion of the actual positions - ie, status quo is that the police are treated as lying and the protest supporter statements treated as the truth) you also have said in effect that "one source" is not enough. with reference to the other article i cited, how many witnesses are there that actually dispute tara reade's account? one, or more than one? more importantly, "the police" isn't one person. so if it's a question of witnesses, there's actually quite a few. if sources doesn't refer to witness accounts but merely reporting, then there's no question of imbalance at all. every mainstream news story included the allegations of the police. also, if you don't mind, i'd rather you not give me old honey or vinegar thing. it's silly to pretend this isn't an adversarial situation. there's just no way around it. it's all just an extension of the partisan conflict about political violence (eg, "mostly peaceful" vs "hundreds of riots" or "Capitol riot" vs "insurrection). except that the status quo here isn't a question of which narrative of two narratives to accept but of whether to "water down" one narrative or keep it undiluted (and guarding purity seems to be the order of the day). all of this fuss is just about whether the introduction can even acknowledge that the protesters are alleged to have been violent. if there were real concerns about bias in how wikipedia is organized, then the debate would be over whether to have the subject of the article be the violent attacks on the white house on the 29th, with the questions about the photo op on the 1st relegated to a subheading about the aftermath from the riot. OckRaz talk 03:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your tireless reverting of edits flagged by Special:AbuseFilter/982. Considering how many of the additions are for anti-semitic reasons, it's good to see that stuff reverted. Galobtter (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Many of them are well-meaning, or expressions of pride, but a significant number are malicious. In any cae, singling out Jews to alter their nationalities to set them apart from their national compatriots is pernicious, whether intentional or not. Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Natasha Bertrand wikipedia

The edits being made about Bertrand " being the first to report that the hunter biden emails were a disinformation campaign" are incorrect and fraudulent. Bertrand reported on a letter written by former CIA officials, she herself did not assert that as an opinion or truth, the CIA did. Her job was to report on the CIA and their letter. This is false and libel. I have tried numerous times to edit this, but very biased and corrupt administrators keep changing it back. This is slander and the writer is libel. Please stop reverting it to the incorrect, slanderous paragraph. 67.87.101.25 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No doubt you can provide sources to support your assertions? Your first edit introduced unsourced commentary, and the second introduced a level of precision that is not present in the source,. In any case, your assertion that somehow the article is libelous and slanderous (which are two different things) is hard to understand. Against whom? Bertrand? Unnamed CIA people? Hunter Biden? Russians? And stop accusing people of "corruption" when they're enforcing Wikipedia's policies on sourcing. You may not use articles for commentary or unsourced speculation, or what you think her job was supposed to be. I've edited your latest edit to agree with the reference, and I've protected the article based on your uncivil comments above. You will need to find consensus on the article talkpage for any further changes, and we'd appreciate it if you stop using hyperbole to express disagreement with simple statements. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE

I created THIS PAGE to organize my upload gallery long time ago, but now it has no use. this is a duplicated page. can you please delete it?

Please help me to delete it. Risantana (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Risantana: That page is on Wikimedia Commons, this is English Wikipedia, two different projects. You'll need to get an administrator on Commons to delete the page. You can do so by adding the template {{speedydelete|author requests deletion}} to the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Risantana: please also note that it's frowned on to ask a whole clutch of individual admins for the same thing. Asking one admin, or asking at Wikipedia:Teahouse, is a better way. Bishonen | tålk 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes

Spicy

• Ale jrb
• Dbachmann
• DGG (deceased)
• Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes

Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes

Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

NOTHERE?

Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Odenwald Monkey? This person's article edits have all been reverted, and they now spend their time promoting their pet conspiracy theory that Hitler didn't write Mein Kampf, because he was too stupid or uneducated to do so, so it must have been written by university professors, industrialists, and so on. It started with comments on Talk:Adolf Hitler and Talk:Mein Kampf and has most recently resulted in an attempt to add it to Mein Kampf with a (probably deliberately) false reference. The editor is very coy on their user page, to the point where I can't tell if I'm being played by a troll, or if I'm dealing with someone with an idee fixe.

In either case, though, they don't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. I'd appreciate your evaluation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Beyond My Ken I’ve blocked that account as there’s some socking going on with User:Philotrio. I think this might be more on the CIR side than NOTHERE, although the difference is probably academic… Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to mention their recent threat to sock if blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a convergence of compulsive trolling and CIR, based on all that socking across a spectrum of articles. I’ll add this one to my compendium of socks to watch out for. Which reminds me, have you seen the Lombardy Nazi IP recently? Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I was thinking about them just a day or so ago -- and, no, I haven't seen them, that I'm aware of, on any of their usual articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Considering this edit, it looks like new editor PhiloWise is another sock of Ehr1Ros2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Protect my talk page

Hello and thank you for helping me with that LTA on my talk page. I was wondering if temporary semi-protection could be added because I have received many attacks towards me here and on simple wiki. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've already protected your talkpage for a while. I can't do much about Simple, though, you'll need to contact an admin over there. It's a common practice of that particular LTA, they should be familiar with him. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I know you can’t help with simple, just thought I’d let you know that it is cross wiki. I really appreciate it, I wish it was simpler to just write an encyclopedia without the socking, attacks, and threats. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Btw: This may be another one: User talk:103.70.86.130 - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've emailed you with a little context. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I got the email, thanks for sharing and I will keep my open for the LTA in the future. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

If you’re curious anymore about the LTA, you may want to see my simple wiki talk page history. At first I thought it was 2 separate LTAs attacking me, but I guess it is the same one. Jeesh, you’d think they’d get tired and stop. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That's optimistic in the short run. However, in the long run, they'll find another target, either here or on some Internet forum. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you protect my talk page again? It is receiving more vandalism, just different from before. Maybe 1 week semi-protect? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I just see that one IP today, which is different geographically and abuse-wise than before - if they use other IPs or there are other harassers, then I'll semi for a little while. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

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 Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Why

why PaUZz LYte (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, you've returned to the same conduct that brought your last block, with no consensus and no changes. Get consensus from other editors,a nd stop treating them as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

what is it that's making you feel like like I'm seeing them as an opponent? I just want to move on. Isn't it the other user that has repeatedly and rudely referred to it as a "pissing contest"? I just want what's right for the page. PaUZz LYte (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

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 Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out excessive Rollback

Now that I think about it for a second, there's something I don't understand about the edits you just made. In particular, there's nothing wrong with my contribution, and most of it's from the document, but you know what's so great about the groundless return that you didn't run a program like Huggle. I think it's a rollback that crosses the line and goes over the line. If you're online, please look at this and reflect on yourself. --220.77.173.83 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

And for your information, the documents I contributed must be summarized, and the sources must be reviewed by many people, and unless individuals have experienced them, you might think this is a great edit? So rollback is such a big deal? If I have an account, I can do that, right? I have a lot of thoughts, but if it's too much, whether it's twinkle or rollback, it's honestly impossible for documents to develop, and it's an act of chasing new recruits and eating only people. This is not an act of torture like the Japanese colonial period. (日帝強占期) --220.77.173.83 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Your own behavior of Rollback Warning

Come to think of it, what did you say when you first came to my discussion? Do you behave in your own way? You know that's prohibited, right? And when I edit a document, I start by leaving a summary in the summary, if not the source. If you leave a summary, you don't get rolled back or reversed very often. Or maybe there is. However, a little excessive rollback like Nim is enough to get bad criticism. Can you think about it before you do it? Why on earth did you do that? And please refrain from rolling back without any problems. Or you'll keep an eye on the blocker. --220.77.173.83 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be editing according to your own personal whim. Your last edit to Catalonia, where you changed the national anthem with a bizarre edit summary, led me to investigate your other recent edits., which all appear to be inappropriate. You will be blocked if you continue to edit without proper sourcing or justification. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

And since you reinstated your inappropriate change to the national anthem without any more convincing discussion, I've blocked you and returned the other articles to their condition before you started fooling around with them. If you continue to edit in this manner after the block expires, the next will be much longer. Bluster is not an alternative for sourcing or consensus. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Boeing 777X protection level.

Hello, it seems the article Boeing 777X seems to have a protection level a bit too high. It is stated that many IP editors are negatively contributing to the stated page, but there is no statement regarding the fault of autoconfirmed users. If very few to no autoconfirmed users have negatively edited the page, can you please reduce protection to semi-protected? Thanks for your understanding. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I goofed and picked the wrong menu option. You're right, semi is correct. Thanks for pointing it out. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

TPA

Please revoke from User:2001:8004:1330:4D49:151:D665:F697:7DBE. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Detail about a block

• User:2001:8004:1330:4D49:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

is not just a vandal in its own right, but evasion by Gay people suck dick. DMacks (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

About your revert of my edits on George Soros' talk page

Good morning Acroterion. Thank you for your edits removing the content I'd left on the talk page of the George Soros article, which I won't repeat here. I understand my edits were a violation of the rules on Biographies of Living People.

I apologise for breaking this rule and will ensure that I don't break this again. As I don't edit EN very often, if you have to remove my work or edits, or warn me, could you please leave something on my talk page to let me know what I've done wrong and where to find the rules to read up on it please?

It would help me to read the rules surrounding whatever I do wrong, so I understand for the future.

Many thanks,

Dane|Geld 00:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not a big problem, but please be very careful about repeating something you see that reports someone's death, even on the talkpage. We expect to see multiple concordant sources for that sort of thing, the more so for someone who has some notoriety. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Geothermal

That's creative predictive text you've got there? Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, yes. It’s an iPad, combined with bad German spelling on my part. I use the iPad when I don’t want to be in front of a screen, but … Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

nvm

Help!

Someone deleted my page even though I was still editing it I did nothing wrong and if I did please explain to me. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mark%27s_CofE_School%2C_Southampton?wprov=sfla1 Parabelleum (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Your cross-namespace redirects were deleted (again). I think your article was draftified from article space, and something went wrong in the sequence. You can find it here: Draft:St Mark's CofE School, Southampton Acroterion (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't redirect anything but thank you for giving me my work back! Parabelleum (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

IP revdel

Hi Acroterion, I noticed you blocked a harassing IP. It has been partially revdelled, but thought worth noting there are also instances here and here if a full revdel is needed. Best, CMD (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I missed those, thanks. I suspect we'll see them again shortly, when Singapore wakes up. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Update

Acroterion, you should be aware of a discussion from two days ago here: User_talk:Herreshoffian. Thanks for your excellent work. Amigao (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, I thought I'd revdel'd all of that. They're indeffed, and like EditQ, have some explaining to do if they wish to be unblocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Categorizing Fuentes as a neo-nazi

When I asked this question and labelled him as such, it wasn't because of speculation or personal views, it's because some outlets (mostly jewish civil rights advocacy groups) have labelled him as a neo-nazi, and his rhetoric and actions also fit his categorization as well. Firekong1 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yet you made no mention of that. Please read what the BLP policy requires. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I assumed that it was in the article somewhere, so I didn't need to debate adding the category. Firekong1 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

You assumed that in a BLP? I think you need to step away from biographies for a while. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean that I thought an article from a source categorizing Fuentes as a neo-nazi due to his association with the alt-right movement was somewhere in the article. Fuentes has literally engaged in holocaust denial, has praised hitler, and denied nazi war crimes. Firekong1 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's time for a topic ban for you, based on the way you keep making casual assumptions about living people. Acroterion (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No need to ban, I’m not editing blps for a while until I educate myself. I did make a mistake, but I should at least be given another chance. I usually don’t edit political articles and blp articles. Firekong1 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I was going to recommend a voluntary restriction for six months or so to allow you to gain a better acquaintance with sourcing and BLP policy. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding and my lack of awareness. Allow me the chance to educate myself on the topic first rather than immediately banning me. Not everyone who's on wikipedia for a long time is automatically an expert, and that includes me. I promise not to edit hastily again. I mostly just edit articles regarding animals, as that's where my expertise is.Firekong1 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read the talk Page on Heathenry before Blocking editors

I suggested a compromise. If you do not want to use primary sources to achieve accuracy (to be consistent, you should also delete biblical sources in the Christianity article and Poetic Edda sources in the Baldr article, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth), then let us DELETE the misleading passage. The truth: Norse deities can be killed, but they are not annihilated. Baldur will exist in Helheim and will lead the pantheon after Ragnarok. The passage you restored is misleading. 45.53.207.255 (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Then find reliable academic sources for that, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and stop removing sourced content to substitute your own assertions or interpretations. I have protected the article to stop your disruptive edits. You're illustrating precisely why Wikipedia doesn't use primary sources - Wikipedia is not a scriptural debating society. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

And what is this "us"? Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The IP is a Holtj sockpuppet. I've opened an investigation over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holtj#Suspected sockpuppets. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the reported incident on the False titles of nobility page, which you have protected. There is a false claim on the page through use of Wikipedia:Fictitious references. A simple check of what I have stated will show this to be true. Someone has corrupted the page to make a false claim. 82.129.53.90 (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, this last comment was meant to be in a new thread which I have just started. I am new to wikipedia so am just getting to grips with it. 82.129.53.90 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

False titles of nobility fictitious references

Please see the reported incident on the talk page of False titles of nobility page, which you have protected. There is a false claim on the page through use of Wikipedia:Fictitious references. A simple check of what I have stated will show this to be true. Someone has corrupted the page to make a false claim. 82.129.53.90 (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Make your case on the talkpage, and wait for editors to respond. Edit-warring is not a productive strategy, nor is contacting individual editors on their talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the process. Yes, I have done this now. I am just concerned as to why the other editor would want to retain false information, unless they added it. 82.129.53.90 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not assume bad faith - poorly explained or sourced removals of or changes to content are generally reverted, or at least challenged, and in general, the editors who patrol the recent changes queue did not create the content. As the encyclopedia has matured, editors who challenge existing content are expected to bring their concerns up on the talkpage first. Acroterion (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes

Ingenuity

• Ddstretch
• Prodego
• Resolute

CheckUser changes

Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

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 review three recent works

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

About 2001:448a:20e0:6e0b:94f6:7f8a:8342:c80f

I suggest that the blocked range should be adjusted Into 2001:448a:20e0::/49, the blockade of 2001:448a:20e0:6e0b::/64 might be no effect.You can check [1] to confirm why I would say there might be no effect.

PS:The 2001:448a:20e0::/49 range was calculated from the records of IP activity in pages Talk:Yang (surname) and Yang (surname) by using a tool from ftools.toolforge.org(ip-range-calc). Rastinition (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It's worth a try. Range is blocked for a month. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Walt Nauta

Thanks for supressing those edits. Did you want to hit this one too that has a presumption of guilt? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walt_Nauta&diff=prev&oldid=1159617113 Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked at it and it didn't get to the same level of shrillness. However, on second reading, I think I'll get that one too. Acroterion (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the recent reversion you made

That Hong Kong based user 103.249.33.10 appears to be adding tags such as Marxist and other statements in a unidirectional and similar manner to several articles (check their contribution log), often without sourcing. Might be something to look into. Thank you for reverting it. They have also made politically charged statements regarding Chinese Taipei / Taiwan, as well, which have been reverted. Perhaps a paid editor? But one with strong unidirectional bias. Top5a (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at them more closely, since they seem to have an axe to grind. Not so much an appearance of paid, just opinionated, at least from where I sit. For now, I've warned them and will keep an eye on them. Thanks for letting me know that you're watching too. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and no problem at all. Thank you. Top5a (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, not paid nor axe to grind but unlike yourself am in touch with reality. Please note that the most recent edit made was highlighting that the premier was a Marxist. On the Chinese translation of the page he is already listed as a Communist. Maybe you should edit the Chinese translation and remove the fact that the Premier within the Communist party is not according to you a Communist.

I suspect you are a paid CCP editor though so would not expect any adjustment. 103.249.33.10 (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That must be it. Every second person in West Virginia is paid by China, you know. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who uses the term "Chinese Taipei" sure sounds like it. 103.249.33.10 (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Drafting article for post-finasteride syndrome

Hi,

I was looking to take a stab at drafting a new article for post-finasteride syndrome that (I hope) will address the concerns raised about the original article. The page for PFS currently redirects to the article for Finasteride, and is also protected; is it possible for me to draft an article while this protection applies? If not, would it be possible to lift the protection on the article?

Best, Xardwen (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The indefinite protection came about because of a community discussion at ANI. You are welcome to create a draft, and then we can figure out the paperwork. Acroterion (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply-

Sounds good! user:Graeme Bartlett was able to help me out re: submitting a new draft; will see where things go from there.

Thanks, Xardwen (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, hope you are well-

I drafted a new article and attempted to submit it for review, but it was declined with a note that I should first attempt to seek consensus on the Talk:Finasteride page to establish that editors following the page were okay with changing the redirect for PFS to a new article. I made a post on the Talk page asking for people's thoughts, but I'm unsure what to do in the event that no one comments. I figured I should reach out to you given your history with the page; do you have any thoughts on the draft, or how best to proceed?

Best, Xardwen (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

RM

Placed the requested move in queue. NYC is the largest city in the US; saying there was one solitary crash in the city is not specific. I guess if the word major is added, that could change the discussion.Knocksocksoff (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Then open a move discussion on the talkpage. Don't state that the move is uncontested when it's clearly not. You've been warned by two administrators now to dial it back. Please stop treating other editors as opponents to be defeated. Acroterion (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy comment note

Greetings, I saw that you reverted this edit, desiring to keep the note there. That was my first instinct as well and I was in the process of reverting it, but my brain had me do some extra digging because I was going to state that editors needed the reminder because of previous activity. Well, looking through the latest edits, it seems the comment note is causing more edits and not less. I point you to this and this. I think the IP has the right idea considering the latest edits might have been unnecessary if not for the note. I would love to know what you think. Inomyabcs (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I could argue either way, I can't say that I feel strongly. Feel free to remove the note,and we'll see how things go. Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't feel strongly either way. I think it is still a good idea. Maybe I can modify the message and make it a little clearer. Inomyabcs (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Essay critique

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Help and Block User

Hello mr Acroterion. I want you to block the user's NebY account for several reasons. First he always deleting any of my adding informations on pages from Wikipedia like zuijin, agathodaemon and others. Second even if I am asking him to help me with my adding more reliable informations and contents and pages he instead of helping me he keeps deleting any of my messages plus my informations. I ask you to block his account because he is not fair with me. 2A02:587:1F0A:AD00:D181:E7FE:B2E9:1F08 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Who? Why? What? Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Block-evading IP blocked. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Lake Van

If I recall correctly, there was a series of socks a while ago who kept removing mentions of Armenian Highlands from the article. Can't remember the details, but if you look back for my contributions to the article you should find them. DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, I'll take a look.They're under a /20 global block for a while, and a longer rangeblock on en.Acroterion (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Re: MOS:GENDERID

I don't want to poke any bees nest (particularly because, on a personal note, I have very little interest in curbing a possibly too-strong interpretation of MOS:GENDERID), but I don't think MOS:GENDERID has ever been held to apply to talk pages. On some level, I think that's a matter of practicality: even as to living persons, MOS:GENDERID has an exception for persons who were notable under there prior name, and, in close cases, it'd be hard to have the discussion if you were afraid saying the prior name might be against policy. (There's also always the possibility of someone applying IAR, which I think ... depending on your interpretation of the guideline, is currently applied to at least one page I can think of.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, we've seen aggressive editors using article talkpages as fora in which to vent - there have been several targets, Elliot Page being one of the more prominent. Editor talkpages are perhaps a little different, but I don't see much daylight in "any page." Here we have an editor who seems to be testing boundaries, they've already touched on two contentious topic areas. I would like to make them understand that talkpages are not fora for gripes about politics or cultural wars. I would probably overlook a single instance if there was no prior issue of that kind. Acroterion (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! I hadn't seen someone enforce that before, and I saw the lack of talk pages referenced in the parenthetical "(including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc."), so I figured it was worth flagging, but again I have no real desire to discourage too-strong enforcement :) Apologies for flagging an issue you were already aware of!--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries, it's a minefield, and you are perfectly entitled to question how it is enforced or interpreted. I do not claim to be a complete authority on how to apply it, and I would not block or sanction anyone for anything short of egregious misbehavior. In this case, it's (hopefully) heading off trouble. Perhaps my views have been influenced by people who have intentionally been disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That said,the MoS applies primarily to article space and related areas - I am concerned with BLP as well, which I think is an overriding principle. Acroterion (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Scientific Racism

Uses the term "Modern Scientific Concensus". This is an obvious oxymoron. Further, it is of the three word type (i.e. all 2 word combinations of the 3 words are oxymorons). Is there a word for this?

You reverted this comment in the "talk" page almost faster than I created it. This makes me suspicious. If you are some kind of expert, you don't behave as one. If you are not, you have abused whatever power some process has emboldened you with.

For shame. WithGLEE (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Slavery

Hi where do you get that Spain used natives forced labor to conquest the indigenous peoples in the Americas ? JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore please note that the references for "It was argued by some contemporary writers to be intrinsically immoral" this statement has nothing to do with what is expressed in the previous paragraph and has nothing to do with the references provided. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please let me know why are you undoing my work if I have given you the reasons why I am doing it= JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Note

2022–23 Indian State Leagues

I added sources but another problem happens when even local users dont mind, please fix format with leagues sorted by alphabet/region, if can 93.140.193.65 (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Fascism

This article was semi-protected a while back, but it appears that the pending changes put in place was never reset. Since you were the last (active) admin to protect the page, could you please fix it? Thanks, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, PC is pointless with indefinite semi. Thanks for letting me know. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

How to contact sumerians.?

Hello.!

Im Lucas and im new here. I just wanted to know, how to contact sumerians, ive got few questions to them and was just wondering how you talk ti them. 2A02:C7F:3E5F:B600:1C32:6853:786B:F9E0 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't edit Wikipedia while drunk or high. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Nuclear warfare

Please explain why MOS:PREFIXDASH does not apply in this case, like "Post–Cold War era". 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Damned if I know, but that looks funny. I have limited patience for pedantic arguments over the length of dashes in text, I was just answering your question as I saw it. Feel free to argue over hyphens, emdashes and endashes elsewhere. It's one of the least rewarding pursuits that can be imagined on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I interpreted your reply as an admission that you had no valid objection to my edit. 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation <immediately above of my statement> is wrong. I told you how I saw it. Don't edit-war. We are getting into WP:LAME. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked at your edit counter and am surprised to see that you are an administrator on enwiki. Seriously? I thought you were just a regular editor with a few years of editing experience. It seems that enwiki has a pretty low standard for who gets to be an administrator... just saying. This is unthinkable on my home wiki (jawiki). 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what the "this" is that you're talking about - disagreeing on punctuation? - or being reverted once and being mildly disagreed with by an editor who happens to be an administrator. Whatever your objection is, I'm not interested in a debate. You may like to argue about the length of dashes, but do it somewhere else. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Great admin! 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

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 alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Alchetron

Hello. Your user name reminds me of the Alchetron online encyclopedia project. Any etymological similarity? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Never heard of it. An acroterion is a Greek architectural corner thingum, sort of a botanical gargoyle ornament. The name sounds a lot more grandiose than it really is. Acroterion (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Anything in the Greek language sounds grandiose. Lol. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Nyck de Vries

Hello, you may remember me from the Boeing 777X protection reduction thing. I have noticed that the page Nyck de Vries has been vandalized pretty frequently lately by IP editors. Should we change protection to WP:SEMI? Super yoshi013021 (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Aggressive wikilawyer defending spammy links

Hello, Recently Active Admin Acroterion! New user User:RealReel5 is adding links to dubious certification websites ([2], [3]) and then pedantically arguing with the likes of Zefr and Oknazevad about why the spammy links are okay. Please take a look. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my talk page posts

Its my talk page, not yours. Bestarmy (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia’s talkpage, provided for you to use in your work on the encyclopedia. It is not a free webhost for nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Dairy Queen

Great image. I hope you'll use it elsewhere on Wikipedia.

The Nighthawks of Gaston County.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That was exactly the same idea I had in mind when we drove by there and stopped for the picture - my wife insisted too. We've always liked Hopper and couldn't pass it up. At the time I was disappointed that the neon wasn't on, but in hindsight I think its absence adds a darker emphasis and the picture is better for it. Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert on Wikipedia talk:No Nazis

Hi, I reverted your edit because in fact I was not editing others comments; I was editing my old comment from a while ago so I can update it to match my current views and my current username (I was "Shadow of the Starlit Sky" from March-May 2023). Sorry I forgot to put an edit summary for that - that must've been the source of the confusion. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 23:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't very obvious. No problem, as long as nobody has responded to the old comment. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:AHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Hi You may have already done this by the time you read this but the user you just blocked is now abusing their TPA. Would you mind revoking it? Thanks. TLJ7863 (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Project Chariot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomic Energy Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

TY

Thanks for this warning. The over-the-top attack came as a bit of a shock when I awoke to find it. Not only was it uncalled for, it revealed some serious reading comprehension issues and a failure to understand why AGF is so important. Thanks again. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I was a little startled too. We'll see if I get through. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to please comment

Per Extraordinary Writ's talk page header announcing a few weeks off-project, I randomly selected you as an active admin who might be able to take action on editing restriction violations. EW was the notifying admin on the restriction, so I posted the matter to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Achar Sva editing restriction violation but did not receive any admin action in a day. If you are not able to or do not wish to respond to this discussion, please let me know and I'll pick another name out of the admin hat. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

With no immediate response, I'll try elsewhere. Sorry to bother, and thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

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: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please dont delete my article

Hello, im sure u are looking to hear literally anybody but me, but i have come here to ask, why have u threatened my article because of the reason: Unremarkable shipwreck? Ultimateyeetus (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't "threatened" it, it's just proposed for deletion as something that lacks sources to show it meets WP:GNG. Simple existence isn't enough for inclusion. Also, please stop uploading tmages you've found on the Internet. There's no indication that you have the rights to the images. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Revdel

Can you also revdel Special:Diff/1170492196 by the same user and delete the user talk page? Jonteemil (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. I was thinking of leaving it there as a concise example of gross bigotry, but probably better gone. I'm taking out the username too. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

no bias

Stop adding bias to the Noah’s ark Wikipedia page Brennan1111 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Omission

Why do you want to omit that BAP is Jewish? I mean he has spoke about it a dozen times and regards it as an influence, but it's also a biographical detail. 92.20.135.52 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Then you should be able to provide reliable third-party sources and discussions in the article body concerning those influences. Per MOS:ETHNICITY we don't mix ethnicity and nationality in the lead sentence, or even the lead paragraph, because it is oft ten abused by editors who want to try to set the subject apart from others of their nationality. The practice in the case of Jews is called Jew-tagging, and is strongly discouraged. Otherwise, we don't highlight anybody's religion in that manner - we don't go around and call someone Presbyterian-American, for instance, and we don't tag ethnicity that way either - Barack Obama is American, period, not African-American.Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Presbyterian-American is not the same as highlighting Jewishness, since the latter is an ethnoreligion. You’re right about Obama but it does mention his African American father. This biographical detail, which even influences his views, should be noted imo

The infamous Varg Vikernes asked him on Twitter if he was and he said yes. Can’t say I have a source though, perhaps someone else can find it. 92.20.135.52 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY. We don't mix nationality with either ethnicity or religion. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Not encouraging

Maybe you can give better advice.User talk:Livius Plinius#August 2023. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

It’s ridiculous firstly that there was a “warning” placed when I just removed relatively new content from a page with disputed neutrality. Then my pointing that out is an attack? Where’s the fairness here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.16.115.131 (talk • contribs)

You went after someone who had the nerve to disagree with you. Stop treating other editors that way. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI, IMO behavioral evidence suggests there is a high probability this is a sock or meatpuppet of a previously indeffed user. I went ahead and opened an SPI so that it could be documented, as there is a pattern of not only disruptive editing, but also PAs. That info alone may be enough to warrant blocking, or not - that's up to you or any other admin. But since I have been the target of numerous previous attacks by the suspected sock in the past, I didn't want to wait for additional evidence as I don't want another user to have to deal with their nonsense. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Project Ketch

On 23 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Project Ketch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Project Ketch proposed the detonation of a 24-kiloton nuclear device in Pennsylvania to create a natural-gas storage reservoir? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Project Ketch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Project Ketch), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Request rev/del please

[4] and [5]. Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

BE IP sock

Are you happy to block this BE sock of User:208.127.197.117? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed I am. Three months this time, and they've been bad from other parts of the /64 range too, so the range is blocked. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

They're now at User:208.127.197.12. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Project Carryall

On 31 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Project Carryall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Project Carryall proposed the detonation of 23 nuclear devices in California to build a road? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Project Carryall. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Project Carryall), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes

• Pppery
• Theleekycauldron

• Dwheeler
• G.A.S
• Royalbroil
• Ssd

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

173.66.105.21

173.66.105.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

You may want to revoke talkpage access. Thanks. 2601:601:51C:811:E15D:3D87:821D:CE85 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

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: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Prove you can be fair for a change

Instead of protecting your friends that wantonly edit with no regard to their actions why don't you get them to pay attention to what they're doing? You're clearly biased in favor of him becuase you didn't say jack squat to him. Now go prove you'll be fair by posting some warning on his talk page. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

How about proving that you can stop being snarky to everybody? Acroterion (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

How about you do your job as an admin which is to be fair to all sides? I'm only snarky when they do BS edits like SundayClose. This is by no means the first time he's paid no attention to the reverts he's doing. Now go rally some of your admin buddies for help. BTW, thanks for proving my point. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, you deleted my personal sandbox page (spongiformidae) that I was using to learn how to edit Wikipedia - I put quite a lot of effort in and you've just deleted it as a 'hoax' Can you please restore the info as I'm not done. Clearly it's not "true" info, I didn't want to risk someone finding it in a real search by accident. It's not linked from any outside sources whatsoever, you've missed the mark here Spongiformidae (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, don't copy within Wikipedia without attribution. And second, don't use any part of Wikipedia to create hoaxes. You can learn to edit Wikipedia without doing that. Userpages are for telling other editors a little about your activities on Wikipedia, not for creating jokes or hoaxes. Acroterion (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Unselfstudier

Hi. Re: User talk:Unselfstudier , I believe this is the same person who was impersonating you at User talk:Actoreon1. They edit the same talk pages i.e. BDS/UNHRC, both pushing the claim that BDS is based on Kristallnacht [6][7] , neither use indenting & both follow @Selfstudier around. Also User talk:JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael - User talk:204.9.220.42. & Special:Contributions/98.186.29.6. No idea if this is any use, being as they're now blocked, but I figured I'd best tell you anyway. 🙂 DSQ (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

At least they're consistent ... you might be on to something. Thanks for letting me know. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to alarm you

But I am starting to feel WoW may be back. I found this edit (which may not shout out WoW to you) but said vandal called himself the “Phuerdai vandal on Wheels”, which raised my eyebrows. It could be an imposter, or the vandal admires Willy, but just let me know if he’s really returning to plague us all. Brachy08 _(Talk) 10:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s a different silly child. The WoW theme has become a vandal meme, and the real WoW is probably a grandfather by now. RBI, like all the rest. Acroterion (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank god. Brachy08 _(Talk) 23:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/BMX On WheeIs. WoW is long gone, and was easily dealt with even before we had edit filters and counter-vandal bots.. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Keep on editing!! You are GREAT!!! :) Babysharkboss2 was here!! 20:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes

Hey man im josh

• Alex Bakharev
• CorbieVreccan
• Cyphoidbomb
• Davodd
• Hog Farm
• JamesR
• KnightLago
• Mark Ironie
• Nosebagbear (deceased)
• Rschen7754
• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

DatGuy

• Ferret
• RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Oversighter changes

RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

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 an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Honeycomb.io

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Honeycomb.io. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lizthegrey (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled about how to proceed, since it was created by a banned user, and you've declared a COI. How do you expect to approach this? Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The outcome of DRV was to undelete it as a draft and have me put it through AfC. lizthegrey (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can do that later - I'm getting dinner ready right now and have painting to do after that. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's all been sorted by Spartaz, no need to worry about it. lizthegrey (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your rev/delete

My lord, after looking at the delete, it just dawned on me, the offensive username. Not very quick on the uptake this morning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It does you credit that you don't automatically think in those terms. But yeah, there are a lot of people behind keyboards who find glee in being horrible. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators opinion

Hello! About a year ago I made the Luxembourg Rebellion, Luxembourg Communist Rebellion , and Luxembourg Rebellions. The Luxembourg Rebellion faced a Contested deletion and was kept, the Luxembourg Rebellion was revised and the review said it was within wikipila policy. The articles are up for merging and I want to know what you think because they have all been “reviewed”, the person merging them has also proposed the merging of many other articles I have made so I would not be surprised if he comes to this talk page. With all that said I hope you can take a look at this situation. Thanks! LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Sarahmcneil44

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Editor keeps deleting material despite the lack of consensus from talk page.

Greetings Acroterion, Ihikky deleted a paragraph on the Kingdom of Dagbon page that is reliably sourced. These sources have different arguments. 5 of these sources speak about the subject matter at hand which is the Ashanti invasion of Dagbon in the mid 18th century. The 6th source, which is a journal, is skeptical about this invasion. The paragraph provides the arguments of both sides including the historians for the invasion as well as the journal which criticized this invasion for being overexaggerated. Ihikky on the other hand deleted everything without proper explanation as to why. I shared this on the talk page, Talk:Kingdom of Dagbon#Ashanti Empire., so we can meet consensus, but he keeps deleting the entire paragraph without addressing on the talk page why everything must be deleted. Please can you have a look at this?Kwesi Yema (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Kwesi Yema for engaging an admin. Hopefully we settle this matter once and for all. Again, I urge you to read all materials, not just cherry-pick. The claim you are advancing is disputed by researchers as, you have alluded to. Locally, in Ghana, that's not even a discussion.

I understand you are a heavy editor and promoter of the Ashanti Empire, however, do not let that cloud your judgement. Try to gain go through: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

It's our job to provide accurate information without bias. Let debate academically, and not resort to disruptive behaviours.

Thank you for bringing the matter here@Kwesi Yema, hopefully@Acroterion, help us finish this. Ihikky (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Calling me a promoter is serious accusation. You call peer reviewed sources cherry picked just because you do not like it. If this claim is disputed why don't you share all the peer reviewed legitimate sources that say so? I tasked you do to such on the talk page but you have failed to do so. The statement you deleted is well sourced by historians for and against the subject matter. You still haven't explained how this paragraph lacks verifiability, goes against neutrality or is original research.Kwesi Yema (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talkpage. Administrators are not arbitrators of content, so you both need to engage other editors with subject matter familiarity to help you to come to a resolution. In the meantim,e, stop reverting each other and work it out. Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Clyde _{[trout needed]} 14:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Another one. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 15:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Lewiston shootings

Don't you think you went overboard with WP:BLP on 2023 Lewiston shootings? When police name anybody in relation to a mass tragedy like that, he becomes a public figure almost immediately (news spreads extremely fast in this day and age), and our ability to protect the innocent is basically non-existent, even if there is evidence that he was falsely named. Going back and removing his name from previous discussions is simply ridiculous, especially when his name was added, what, 24 hours later? Esszet (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Editors need to be aware of the irreparable real-world harm they can do to innocent people in situations where they are reading rumors and posting them on Wikipedia. We can't control the rest of the world, but we can here, and it is plain that consensus supported that policy, until there are sufficient reports in concordant reliable sources that eliminated doubt. The rush to name someone, no matter how flimsily sourced, is at best unseemly and at worst ghoulish. My position was supported by other administrators, and ultimately, by a consensus of other editors. At the time this was happening, there were no RS reporting the name, quite the opposite - the media outlets were being extremely careful not to do so, and we reflected that caution. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

1) Can you point me to a discussion where consensus was established? It was not established on the talk page 2) The police themselves named him as a POI on Wednesday night, so yes, there were RS's publishing his name 3) My main point is that when the police do that in a case like this – rightfully or otherwise – there is no hope – and I mean no hope – of protecting anyone's reputation. It gets plastered all over the place, and, eveni if the accusations turn out to be false, his reputation is ruined – temporarily, at least. Your actions were hastily taken and ill-considered, and I hope you refrain from doing the same thing in the future. Esszet (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's all right there on the talkpage, or in an archive. You are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't reflect policy or consensus, and again, you are cautioned that the BLP policy is non-negotiable, whaterver you think concerning matters outside Wikipedia. If you want to complain, take it to ANI.Acroterion (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on what you said above, one does not become a public figure because they were covered in media. A public figure makes themselves a target of public attention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There was clearly no consensus if you had to repeatedly go back and remove his name, even from the talk page (the archive says nothing at all about his name, by the way). WP:LPI is not policy, "public figure" is actually not defined in WP:WELLKNOWN, and I.m taking this to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, this is ridiculous. You should really read these things more carefully before jumping to conclusions. Esszet (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"There was clearly no consensus if you had to repeatedly go back and remove his name" is a very backwards way of putting it, and editors not knowing any better than to follow BLP does not override policy. You appear to mistake a rush to put a name into the article, no matter the consequences, as confirmation of its propriety. This is a perennial problem with events of this kind, and it's up top administrators to remind editors that it's not acceptable without multiple, concordant sources, that use specific terminology. Once the issue became moot as confirmed "suspect" named in major media, there was no longer any point, but unless and until major news outlets publish the person's name as more than a "person of interest", nobody has any business adding it, or leaving it in history. And you appear to have missed the extensive discussions involving myself, Fuzheado and Ad Orientem on the talkpage, with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it appears you're trying to force your reading of BLP on other editors (without actually protecting the innocent, obviously). '[U]nless and until major news outlets publish the person's name as more than a "person of interest"' – where's the consensus behind that? It wasn't established on the talk page (I'd really appreciate ir if you could point to a specific discussion – these two do not establish anything). It wouldn't be established on one article. Either way, the discussion is here now – we'll see what other people have to say. Esszet (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the archives: as I asked you to: Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings/Archive 1#Suspect, Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings/Archive 1#Person of interst named, Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings/Archive 1##Suspecthas been identified by NYT, CNN, and NBC et seq. Multiple administrators took an active role in enforcing the community's consensus concerning BLP. If you don't likle it, get the policy changed. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll further note that Fuzheado placed the article under AE sanctions at about the same time for BLP, and I think you should read those policies, not to mention the header at the top of the article talkpage that Fuzheado placed, which is till there and is applicable. I am concerned about your understanding of that policy. Wikipedia exists in the real world, it is not a game or a competition, and we must get it right, so that we, at least, are not responsible for harming people in the midst of a tragedy. I am not going to apologize for holding editors to that standard, as the community demands. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

User:BeingObjective

He's doing it again. I think this is clearly WP:NOTHERE and indefinite block is warranted. --WikiLinuz (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to go straight to indef. Iv'e blocked for a longer term to make the point that you can't just do what they're doing. They believe they're editing in good faith, but from a very pedantic point of view. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

edit summary deletion

Hello Acroterion, I did not think of modifying my edit summary in the reversion of an edit you just hid, same for another editor reverting at Talk:Free Palestine Movement, may want to hide those edit summaries as well. Thanks, nableezy - 13:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

that was quick, ty very much. nableezy - 13:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem, I've gone through and taken care of all of them, it's pretty much standard procedure.I wish there was a script that would do that if the previous revdel was for a disruptive username. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC

Me too, maybe then I wouldn't have screwed up what you fixed...and then I realized what I'd done and reinstated your fix.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Its not a different conspiracy.

Burned memo- https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/alien.ufo/majestic_12/Burned%20Memo,%20pages%201-2%20burnedmemo-s1-pgs1-2.pdf

Magic Eyes Only-https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/alien.ufo/majestic_12/Flying%20Saucer%20Analytical%20Report%20rdlab_analyticalrpt2sept47.pdf 66.244.71.70 (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a messageboard for conspiracy theory mashups. Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Justyouraveragewikieditor (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding - Deletion of user sandbox Aparna DS/sandbox dated 11 Nov 2023

Hello Acroterion,

I had used my user Sandbox for creating a draft of the article i intended to contribute to wikipedia. Could you please indicate how the use of sandbox to create a draft is violating the wikipedia's goals ? Thank you, Aparna

Aparna DS (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read the notice I left on your talkpage. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for your CV or a platform for self promotion. Acroterion (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion, thank you for your feedback. I do not intend to use wikipedia as a self promotion tool and neither it is a CV of mine or anybody that i was intending to post about. I used the wikipages Nirupama Rajendra and Maya Rao as reference and added few more sections that was relevant. I am working to cut it short as this was only a draft.. Aparna DS (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Neither of the articles you cite appear to have been written by their subjects, and both avoid the promotional tone that the deleted draft uses. This is one reason why auutobiographies are generally not considered appropriate. Please see the comments on the draft the you submitted, you must use that process to submit content. Please read WP:AUTOBIO. Acroterion (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

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 looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Just to know :"Not usual usage" what is meant by that? So I know how to deal with it,thank you. Labicanense (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know of anywhere in the encyclopedia that we abbreviate George Washington to "G, Washington." Either Washington or George Washington. Acroterion (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Labicanense (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

195.244.166.33

Can you ban this ip for longer? This isn’t the first instance of them being disruptive and pushing an agenda. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I could, but a week is what most admins would do for tiresome widely-spaced griping. If they do it again, it will be a month, then three or six months. They're on my watchlist for the next few months. Acroterion (talk)

Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter

You closed this after 28 hours of discussion on that page. One admin suggested I go to that page. I did. The first person to reply on that page was 28 hours ago. Please revert your closing. This discussion is not a repetition of the other talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And you kept on with the same forum presentation that I closed, that has not done any better over there, except that it was tempting other editors to a forum debate on pathology. Please find somewhere else on the Internet for such debates. 331dot told you, in his capacity as an ordinary editor, to review those discussions, not to go there and start over. Acroterion (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

331dot's last 2 comments:

That's an issue for the article about the assassination itself, and you might want to review that talk page and its archive carefully before proposing it there, as it sounds like this general issue(if not the sources you use here) might have been brought up before now. As to this article, I agree that you probably could mention these claims in the context of theories, if it isn't already mentioned. Then the only thing you can do is attempt to gain a consensus on the talk page of the assassination article, but you will need to do more than just repeat prior arguments to have any chance at succeeding. Personally I don't think you are likely to succeed, and it will likely be a long, hard effort, but that's what you can do.

I did not just repeat prior arguments. There is much new info in the documentary. But you cut off discussion after 28 hours.

I noticed that there was only 34 hours of discussion at the other talk page you closed. If you don't count my note at the end of it pointing to the other discussion 17 days later. Most talk pages let discussions roll naturally off the page.

That first discussion was based solely on the trailer for the doc, and reviews. The trailer by itself was pretty extraordinary due to all the eyewitnesses. But for the 2nd discussion I had seen the full documentary. And it is much more extraordinary than the trailer. Many more eyewitnesses covering much more. We were having a good discussion on the 2nd talk page. I don't think your reasons for cutting it off are justified. Why not just let it go on as at most talk pages? That's what talk pages are for. I have edited many controversial topics on Wikipedia over 18 years, and have seen nothing like what you are doing. We were having a good discussion without insulting each other. Please revert your close. What's the worst that could happen? More talk? That's what talk pages are for. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are for concise discussions of specific improvements to articles, based on a consensus of reliable sources. You are not doing that, nor are you following @331dot:'s suggestion (which I think was an unfortunate idea, given the walls of text and analysis you are generating). You are baiting other editors into tangential debates on talkpages that are plagued by that sort of thing. You are treating a single source as definitive against the opposition of everyone who's responded, tendentiously. Please take a step and and look at your discussions through the lens of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SYNTH. You've been around long enough to know all this, and your editing history is otherwise productive as far as I have looked, so I am trying to keep it that way. You have run away with enthusiasm for an idea, as people sometimes do, and you're not listening to other editors. We're running an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. If the TV show has finally cracked the JFK assassination, then it will be endorsed in reliable sources and will influence academic thought. That is what you must bring to a talkpage, not paragraphs of enthusiastic pathology discussion built on a single show. That is why I closed it in both locations. It's not actionable, other editors have told you so, you haven't gotten any consensus at all, and it's getting disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Having a discussion is not "baiting", nor "tendentious". Nor am I having a forum or synthesizing anything. I am listening and responding to all the editors. The documentary has not cracked the JFK assassination, and I never said so. It's easily actionable by pointing out what the 7 Parkland doctors said in the documentary, which is that they all thought the neck wound was an entrance wound. There are more reliable sources for this than just the documentary. Some of the doctors have been saying this openly for awhile. In reliable sources. I am in no hurry though. I will wait a few days and go to WP:AN as Ad Orientem said in answer to my question on where to appeal the close. I suggest you view the documentary. Paramount Plus gives you one week free. That's how I watched it. It is hard to have a good discussion if the parties involved in the discussion haven't seen the proposed reliable source in full. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You are free to go to AN. I don't think it will be seen there the way you want it to be seen, but that's up to you, which both 331dot and Ad Orientem have tried to tell you in other ways. Acroterion (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

RD2 and the files you just speedy nominated on Commons

Hey.

I'm not going to contest this, either here or on Commons, in no small part because copyright laws are hella complex. But, I think those images might actually have been uploaded properly. I took a look at the masthead of the paper through the Newspapers.com access in WP:LIB, and there's no copyright notice in it. I also couldn't spot one anywhere else on the first or last pages of the issue. You might want to take a closer look at the issue through the copy accessible via the library.

I do agree though that it was an entirely inappropriate pair of images. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Entirely possible, newspapers were less rigorous about that in the past. Commons can make up their mind about it, I'll append a note to the deletion rationales. My Newspapers.com subscription seems to have lapsed. However, I foresee the pictures being abused if they stay on Commons. I think the editor who uploaded them was acting in good faith, but they seem to have a rather expansive idea of what's appropriate in a biography and what might go on Commons. I note for comparison that there aren't any pictures of Ted Kennedy's infamous Oldsmobile posted on Commons or used in any articles. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Mmmm, yeah. Though I could also see someone else uploading the same, or similar clippings from around that time period even if they are deleted. The upcoming election will no doubt bring more attention to Biden and his family. Even if it is PD because of the lack of copyright in the masthead, it seems overly gratuitous to use them as images any article to me. As for Newspapers.com, even if your individual subscription to it has lapsed, you should be able to access it through WP:LIB. It's in their standard collection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

93.216.109.46

• Special:contributions/93.216.109.46

After all the headache I've had at WP:AIV with this IP and an experienced user, who is the IP a sock of? Reminded me a little of BKFIP, but the location is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a clue. It looks like they're using a bunch of European proxies for harassment. The business about taking too much interest in children was out of bounds for me. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me

Why did you revert my edits? The maps were biased (claiming Suriname controls the disputed territories and violates WP:NPOV. BoomGoesTheTrinitrotoluene (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Where have you discussed this with the editor who added them? Politely? Edit summaries tell us nothing, wxcept that you disagree. Acroterion (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Sock confession

Can you please look at this ? [8]Ratnahastin (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

They are back [9] Ratnahastin (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Soupackage

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk:JWBallz

Given their prior (if sporadic) editing history of POV pushing regardless of the citations attached, I might have indeffed this editor per WP:NOTHERE. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The thought crossed my mind, but then I really needed to wind up lunch and get back to work. We'll see what use, if any, they make of my tolerance. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Stylondecors

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Three-Revert Rule Warning

Hi sir,

I am curious where this three-revert rule applies to me. Please provide evidence. I have actually not reverted a single page. I am not even on one, yet you flagged my account as three. Why is this?DivineReality (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right that you've donne it once in a given article (I thought you'd done it twice in the Biden article, I was mistaken). However, you're bouncing from place to place adding lengthy digressions about a lawsuit that has a long way to go before it reaches a threshold of due emphasis. Warnings do not mean that you've breached a threshold, they are just reminders not to. I recommend that you wait until any court action becomes a significant feature of someone's life. Mere existence is not notable. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind cease reverting the positive changes I make to the page

The statement I made was a highly neutral statement, that is pure fact, that is so embedded in Christianity- can it be more "neutral"? Or how would you define "neutral" It is not personal commentary, it is neutral explanation that is designed to make the text less ambiguous than it already is - as it seems biased towards the religion. The sentence "19th century priests - including Donders - showed no respect towards existing beliefs (including Winti) is by any standard not neutral, since: 1. Is authos's presonal opionion not covered in bibliography 2. Contains only half of the truth: most (if not all) missionaries does not show respect towards existing beliefs, becuase it does not go on par with Christianity 91.189.141.116 (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a messageboard for your personal views or analysis. I have no particular issue with the removal of that statement, but amplifying or explaining it strays into personal analysis. ff you persist in editorializing you will lose editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

71.65.65.144

Less than 2 weeks after the last 6-month block expires, somehow trouble finds them again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, more like 18 months, if I'm reading the block log right, but we can find comfort that they've at least moved on from Matthew Garrett. Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I replied on my talk page and on the administrators' noticeboard

By mistake, I pinged a different editor. I edit it back, to your username, but I don't know for sure if it notified you or not. Dante4786 (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I replied at AN. I think you probably need to take a step back. I'll reply at greater length on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent block

You recently blocked[10] a disruptive IP. I suspect this account[11] is the same person. They left a comment defending the IP's edit and then made the same disruptive edit at Ronald Acuña Jr.. Nemov (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd been waiting to see what else they'd do, there's no doubt that they're a logged-in version of the IP. Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rev/delete of defamatory content

Hi Acroterion, can you rev/delete the latest BLP violation at Gary Allen (runner)? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Materialscientist got there first. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Xwpis ONOMA

Thank you for blocking User:Xwpis ONOMA. I think you may want to just go ahead and remove TPA, I missed this horribly antisemitic comment on another page until I went looking through their previous contributions. This person definitely doesn't need to be allowed back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy, I didn't see that either. I won't remove TPA unless they abuse it, but I will amend my comment, I see no redemption available to them. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Block Followup

You recently blocked this IP range for personal attacks, but I'm seeing very similar IPs (like this one and this one) continuing to post on the talk page in question. Maybe not making personal attacks, but it feels like block evasion. Asking here because you did the original block and it's honestly not clear whether this is something that needs to be reported/where that would even happen/whether a block expansion is even warranted. Can't wrap my head around rangeblocks, but when I tried to look at contributions over a larger range the edit history seemed to line up. Paris1127 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Want to be clear I'm not requesting that you expand the block, just asking what the protocol is here... Wikipedia policies can be positively oracular at times. Paris1127 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Rangeblocks take some getting used to, especially with IPv6. I think it bears a closer look, because blocked is blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

On inspection of their edits, the first edit from that range was probably the most telling. I guess they've learned from the first block to tone down the personal attacks, but not quite enough. Iv'e blocked the new range. I suspect they'll find another /64 range, though. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. A new block was more than I was expecting. If he does find a new /64 I'm not sure we can continue this game of Whac-A-Mole. Paris1127 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

They should be tolerably obvious, for reasons I won't go into in public. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Comicsgate

Hi Acroterion. I know you keep an eye on Comicsgate, which is frequently targeted by irate editors. If you have some time, it would be appreciated if you could keep an admin eye on Ethan Van Sciver for a while, too; I anticipate some talkpage sealioning. Grandpallama (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, watchlisted. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert question at September 11 attacks

Why did you revert this IP editor? I don't see it mentioned in the summary. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the edit? It wasn't a question, it was a garbled test edit at best, and was not an edit request or a suggestion for article improvement. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I just thought maybe the new IP doesn't know the rules yet. I put a welcome banner that has the rules and hopefully they will learn the ropes here. :) --David Tornheim (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

By all means. I interpreted it as a child who had a slightly garbled idea of what had happened who was trying out editing. We see that fairly often, though less than we used to, unfortunately. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Persistent removal of well-sourced content - Canada convoy protest

Would it be possible to help? A convoy supporter is removing well-sourced content. It appears that the edits are politically motivated - they wish to remove any content that is critical of the convoy occupation (e.g. anything referring to the class action lawsuit). They are also adding inaccurate content. Thanks! Helikon (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the issue is, you have both wildly exceeded 3RR. I’ll look it over and figure out what to do, but reverting like that is never a good idea - it should be reported at AIV or AN3 before it ever goes that far. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

I'm not going to have the time to sort this out before I go to work, I'm going to leave a message at WP:ANI for other admins to look at. You should expect to be scolded for simply reverting instead of soliciting admin help from the beginning. I realize you didn't necessarily know that, but it leaves you open to sanctions too. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Someone has protected the article. I contacted info-en@wikipedia.org to ask for help, but received a reply 9 hours later. Sorry, I didn't know who to contact - I haven't encountered these issues before. Helikon (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anybody expects you to know, from limited experience. In general, editors are limited to three reverts, at most, for anything short of really obvious vandalism or defamation, which this was not. In general, if you encounter this kind of thing again, I would advise reporting it at WP:AIV for simple vandalism, or WP:ANI for more complicated issues, and resigning yourself to the understanding that the article may have the wrong version until it can be dealt with. For flat-out edit-warring, like you saw, WP:AN3, but it's best to go there without having done it yourself,and formatting it can be tricky. WP:RAA is a good resource. It can be hard to find help in the North American nighttime hours. Acroterion (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the detailed info. I will definitely seek help if I spot any similar issues in the future. In this situation, it looks like a former protester/occupier is really keen to remove or counter any negative coverage. In response, we can talk about the use of reliable sources, and the importance of maintaining a balanced, neutral point of view.

On the contact page: it could be helpful to add some more details there.

"3. For vandalism, it is best just to fix it directly yourself; however, if you cannot fix it, you can email info-en-v@wikimedia.org and include the address or title of the article and a description of the vandalism."

Wikipedia:Contact us/Readers Helikon (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen a mechanism via email, at least Iv'e never participated in such a mailing list. I'll figure out where such emails actually go, I'm not optimistic that it's very closely monitored I'd avoid email response and just contact somebody on-wiki. Nighttime requests would be very unlikely to get attention via email in any case. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Lower protection of United Airlines Flight 93 to semi

Hello. Extended confirmed did make sense on the 20th anniversary, but it’s been 2 and a half years and the page is still extended. It could potentially be lowered to even pending changes or no protection, but extended confirmed is overkill as of now. CharlieEdited (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed protection entirely, as the specific disruption has been dealt with. There are a couple of LTAs that might cause trouble, but they can be dealt with by semi-protection if needed. Acroterion (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes

• Sdkb
• The Night Watch

• East718
• Isabelle Belato
• Mzajac
• Staecker
• Stan Shebs
• Sugarfish
• Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Violence against men

Hello Acroterion, I see that you've protected the violence against men article. I personally disagree with your move and request the move to be reversed, however I am happy to hear your thought process as I'm not up to code with page protection. You cite an IP persistently removing material without explanation. There was an explanation for the move on the talk page. This user has also only removed this content once before, which was a day ago so is that considered "persistent"? Further, this user has added well-sourced content, so I've assumed that the editor is acting in good faith. From what I see, it didn't need to be protected. —Panamitsu (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I take a less benign view. The IP appears to be trying to turn around the article's discussion on domestic partner violence, flipping the statements on women vs. men (i.e., persistently removing content not to their POV). They added a source that at least on its face appears to support their apparent POV, and then removed the reference that supported the original statement, with a talkpage comment that effectively stated that they just didn't like the reference. This particular statement has seen disruption in the past. The IP can clearly find the talkpage, and is welcome to discuss why they think such a significant reversal should be made, with a consensus of sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

However, since I have commitments for the rest of the day and won't be available to respond, I've removed the semi-protection, since the IP appears to be able to present talkpage discussion. Please keep an eye on things, the article has been a battleground in the past for this very statement. Any admin is welcome to reinstate or modify if needed. Acroterion (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Diatribe

is such an interesting word. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"1. An abusive, bitter verbal or written attack, criticism or denunciation. 2. A prolonged discourse; a long-winded speech." Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Why shouldn’t I edit the talk page for Far Right?

I was trying to polish and refine the comments on the talk page for the Far Right, but you undid my revision. Why? Julkhamil (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't alter other peoples' comments. Period. And why are you using two accounts? Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Julkhamil, I removed your recent post, which was not on-topic for the article talk page. I second Acroterion's advice that you not edit other people's comments. You cited Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, but none of your changes were of the types suggested at that how-to page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I am close to blocking both accounts for general lack of clue and abuse of multiple accounts. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help, don't know what to do.

Hello @Acroterion! There is an ongoing discussion in the Amhara people talk page. This discussion began after a disagreement on when the Christianization of Amhara began, with me believing it started in the 4th century during the reign of Emperor Ezana and the other user "Socialwave597" believing it happened "in the late Aksumite period, as hinted in the missionary activities of King Degna Djan." Throughout the discussion I gave a lot of reliable sources, however to no avail. He (I don't kow if it is on purpose or not) misinterprets them and/or gives some excuse not to accept them as valid. He also provided some sources, however when you look at them they don't state what he said, on the contrary, some even prove my point. I saw that It was a waste of time and asked for a third opinion. Thankfully it was answered and the Administrator gave his opinion, which seemed to me that he wasn't certain or just tried to be as neutral as possible. Me and Socialwave597 made our proposals and have yet to been answered, it's been more than 2 weeks. I have no idea whether Admins respond back when giving third opinions but we really need a concrete answer so we can reach a consensus as fast as possible. Would you be able, if possible of course, to check the situation and possibly resolve this? Please let me know if I need to contact someone else or do something as I really have no clue of what to do, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia and I am just trying to solve this issue. Thanks! Javext (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

On superficial reading, it looks like Ilywrch (who is not an administrator) did a very thorough review, more than I could do. But , at least while acting as an administrator, I can't arbitrate content, and I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic, so I would need to do a lot of homework to be of much use in any case. I would suggest WP:DR for a moderated discussion if you think the issues are intractable. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

All right. I believed Llywrch was an administrator as it was stated in his profile page but in any case I'll see what I can do, thanks for the response. Javext (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right, they are, but they aren't commenting from an administrator's point of view. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Back in Black (song)

See WP:ANI#Copyvio revdel requested for Back in Black. I've boldly deleted the passage based on that dodgy Guitar Player "citation". We need a solid RS for gushing fanpuffery, and I've seen unusable anonymous reviews in Allmusic and reaction videos which were better than that. I don't have the stomach to go over the rest of the article. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The Internet has plenty of other places to post glowing odes. Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Uniquely" triggered one of my alarms. OP at ANI (Binksternet) thanked my edit, so that's three in agreement. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

31 hour block for the Talk:Leo Frank editor?

I think it's warranted. Good close to that discussion. I got caught up in an edit conflict with you, wrote: Quick response before I block you for personal attacks. Source1mag[12] is a conspiracy theory site. Eg "Shocking Mini Hidden Camera Shows – Corporate, Big Pharma Plot to Fire Tucker Carlson" and "Bizarre Oddities: Oh My, Obama’s Brother Says Barack Sold His Soul to Satan To Join the Illuminati" The American Chronicle is no better.[13] Doug Weller talk 12:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No objection, they're headed for an indef one way or another for POV pushing. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Semiprotection – thanks!

Hi Acroterion, it's been a while and I hope you are doing well. I decided a few days ago that I would see if I could make a low-key return to Wikipedia editing without too much anxiety, and the first thing I found was that Nsmutte had returned while I was gone... I came here to ask if you could help me with a renewed semi-protection of my user talk page, but I just noticed that you already did while I was typing the previous, so I'll change to a thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I considered making it indefinite protection, in fact, I think I will, if you don't mind. I'm happy to help. Acroterion (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks again! --bonadea contributions talk 13:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin Acroterion will not let me refactor talk pages and is not engaging in an open way. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You are abusing your power to block, are not providing transparent justification for your editorial decisions, are asserting rules that are not present in Wikipedia policy pages, and are reverting edits citing principles that contradict Wikipedia policy pages.

I am contesting your conduct as an admin. You have threatened to block me 3 times, which I find to be an unacceptable way to wield your ability to ban users. If you ban me for contesting your conduct, I only take it as further evidence that you have been given too much power as an admin because you are apparently able to overrule anyone who questions your conduct.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding You are threatening to block me on unjust grounds, and this is not ok conduct for an admin. The thread is Admin Acroterion will not let me refactor talk pages and is not engaging in an open way. Thank you. — Julkhamil (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

And I have replied. Good luck with that. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

deletion of my wiki page

You:

---

Subject: Inquiry Regarding Deletion of User Page

Hi there,

I recently noticed that my Wikipedia user page, which was dedicated to well-known saints with followers worldwide, has been deleted. I'm writing to inquire about the reason behind this deletion. I've observed similar pages for saints from various countries, including the USA, China, Japan, and India. like similar content what my page was so if similar content with other page can work what is issue for my page..?

Given this precedent, I'm curious as to what specific issue led to the removal of my page.

Could you please provide me with more information regarding the deletion and any guidelines or policies I may have inadvertently violated? I'm eager to ensure that any necessary adjustments are made to comply with Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you for your assistance.

Warm regards,

Yatharthgeeta24 Yatharthgeeta24 (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As noted in my notice to you, userpages are not workspaces for drafts, or alternate hosts for articles. Additionally, the content included repeated links to what I take to be your personal website, yatharthgeeta.com. Wikipedia does not permit that kind of spamming. Please do not use Wikipedia as a free webhost. Acroterion (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok… thanks for your kind reply

You mean if I do not use links of websites so I can Create a page for famous india saint..??

I was new on Wikipedia just started contributing here I will keep in these points in mind for my future page if any. 103.87.31.236 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You could start at Draft:Adgadanand, and build an article there, using independent sources (not your website), and avoiding anything directly copy/pasted from anywhere, printed or on the Internet. Acroterion (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

173.206.254.88

Some people just need to stick to decaf. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It was a little on the shrill and manic side. Acroterion (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverts on flight 93 passengers

There is no actual way of knowing that the claims of the four men being the ‘ones who organised a revolt’ are true. The only evidence is from reports of what happened which have changed over time, and their accuracy has been questions. There is no way of knowing that the four men actually were the only four who decided initially. That is just what is reported through popular media and what was reported as being said in unrecorded telephone conversations. Tge use of names when referring to the 9/11 commission report is also wrong as the simply says ‘native English’ or ‘native Arabic’ speaker. The voice recordings have never been made public just a transcript, so any attributions to individuals is not confirmed. The definitive claims of ‘these four men did x’ or ‘x said this’ when not a recorded call in wikivoice is a misuse of wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Your language implies far more doubt than actually exists. Reliable sources are reasonably concordant on these matters. There is room for modification, but I don't think the may-or-may-not tone is helpful. We follow the conclusions of reliable sources rather than introducing our own analysis of primary sources. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You are saying ‘primary’ sources here where in fact you are using secondary sources.

also you have omitted that I have pointed out inconsistencies from official reports, to the non-official media reports. Also the primary source of the voice recorder has not been released.

the claim of ‘implies far more doubt than actually exists’ is not true as doubt as to who did and said what does exist. There is no way to know who ‘we’ or ‘they’ are when this is reported as quotes in media sources. It is unlikely the passengers all formally introduced themselves to each other.

The issue here is with flight 93 a lot of what is reported in the media is written as being factual and accurate, when it is speculation and conclusion creation on behalf of those organisations who wrote and published those. There is no way of knowing who was and was not involved in the passenger revolt. There is no way of knowing fair was just these four men or others unnamed were involved. It has to be written media and popular narratives attribute the events to be that this is what occurred. The official 9/11 commission report is not definitive but somehow popular media is. Remember popular media uses licence to create a story to sell the medium it is being published in. Stating things as definitive because it is in sources usually considered reliable negates that the accounts are not verified as what happened. Reliable and verified sources must be used, but just reliable. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses "the media" for sources. If you have wording that you think more accurately reflects the 9/11 report and reliable sourcing, describe it on the relevant talkpages. Again, your wording is more vague than I think is warranted. I think there are better ways to approach the issue of what is knowable and unknowable than inserting a bunch of waffle. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I reject the phrase ‘a bunch of waffle’ it’s not in good faith. Also attributions to who has said an individual thing is common on Wikipedia. It is more than common to go ‘according to newspaper’ or ‘publication stated about subject’.

what is being missed here is assumption bias of this is what has been reported for a long time by lots so it’s correct. Which is a form of bias to avoid. Lots of people saying something over a long period is not verifiability in and of itself. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Please be careful with the "not in good faith" accusations - I am responding to you in good faith.

Attributions are typically used when there are other widely discussed views. Take it up on the article talkpage - the onus is on you to find consensus for your changes. At the very least, they're awkwardly phrased and convey waffling rather than attribution. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I want to add my complete support for Acroterion's comments above. To repeat, the onus is on you to find consensus for your proposed changes. You do appear to waffle and find objections to other Wikipedia pages. David J Johnson (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

I saw your message to 49.185.208.16. (Thanks for the backup, btw. It's good to know that someone else found that edit sketchy) Do you know if there's a discussion/policy that specifically addresses the issue of "Jew-tagging"? Or is it something that is enveloped by wp:rs and wp:undue? Joyous! Noise! 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It comes up at ANI from time to time, and it's condemned each time. In the MoS it's specifically deprecated - see MOS:ETHNICITY. We get two kinds of editors that do that - proud promoters of Jewish accomplishments, and bigots. Before edit filters prevented it, we'd get Triple parentheses instead. I'll look around for a discussion, I know one exists, and I've probably quoted it at some point. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There's this [14] and here [15]. I haven't gone and looked for the AN and Jimbo discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your time and trouble. Joyous! Noise! 01:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ships

In this edit you said that consensus was to refer to ships without gender. I tried to find the consensus myself but failed to do so. Is it possible that you can share with me the link to the consensus? Thanks. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've found this list but all appear to have closed with no consensus. Am I missing something? —Panamitsu (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just noticed someone mentioning MOS:SHIP which says that either feminine or neutral gender pronouns may be used with ships. Sorry for the mass of messages! —Panamitsu (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

<ec>Strictly speaking, consensus is not to change from one to another per MOS:SHIP, so I misspoke somewhat in the edit summary. It's sort of like sticking to one language variant once it's established. Personally, I think it's kind of anachronistic to use gendered language for ships.Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Missed revdel

Hi – thanks for those blocks, looks like potentially a missed revdel over at Special:Contributions/SmBby. Tollens (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, there appears to have been a group of accounts doing the same things there. I’m still looking at some earlier edits to see if they’re worth reveling. Acroterion (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Fracture Critical Bridge

I read your article.....and while I appreciate you asking me, I am not sure how much help I can be with it. (Although if you have specific questions from specific references, I might be able to help.) First off, I am not a bridge guy (I do mainly industrial buildings). AASHTO is kind of a world unto itself. Bridge design is a specialty area in structural (kind of like precast/prestressed). We use to gripe about the fact the SE exam was 20% bridge questions.....and we (i.e. building guys) were clueless. (I had to get AASTO's 16th/17th ed. and try to pick off the easy questions.....but I digress.)

All that being said, here is a good thread (with some references) on this topic on Eng-tips.com: [16]. Like some of the posters said: we tend to think more in terms of "redundancy" than "Fracture Critical". I am not sure if I've even heard that term before.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm an architect, so I'm worse off than you - my competency is in building structures, and as you observe, we generally think in terms of redundancy - there are few non-redundant tension-loaded elements in a building. Thanks for the clue, I'm going to try to stick to generalities and avoid getting down into the engineering weeds, and hope somebody in the AASHTO world looks at it. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I came across another paper on this [17]. I am kind of fascinated by the history of this.....mainly because I haven't heard of it. It appears this has been a focus in more recent decades. (After most of the references I am familiar with were written.) Of course, fatigue checks have always been a part of AASHTO.....but I didn't know this was part of their intent (i.e. a overall failure of the whole system).Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Assume good faith

  On 29 March 2024 you stated I don't see this as a matter for arbitration, this looks like extended forum-shopping. The Arbitration Committee is part of the dispute resolution process. I had legitimate reasons why I went to the ArbCom, which I will explain in the case if my request for extension is approved. You may even think I may have used a mistaken venue. But you stating that it looks like it is forum-shopping is an ill-considered accusation of impropriety and is not assuming good faith. You are an administrator, please follow Wikipedia guidance. The Assume Good Faith guideline clearly states,

Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. [...]

When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all around.

According to the Administrator conduct policy,

Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should follow Wikipedia policies and perform their duties to the best of their abilities.

Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

AGF doesn't immunize you against criticism for your behavior. Acroterion (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is directly addressed in what I posted above. I am not seeking to be "immunized from criticism". But if you fail to understand the difference between constructive criticism and unfounded accusations and not assuming good faith, then I do criticize you. In fact, my track record can show that I do seek objective feedback for my actions out of my own volition. And I do accept and recognize objective criticism and even when I make mistakes. But I don't like when people make unfounded and false accusations or rumours against me, much more administrators, who should know better. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're acting in good faith. That doesn't mean that everybody is compelled to agree with you, or never to criticize you. The tendency to filibuster the slightest criticism is another characteristic that I'm seeing on this page. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear

Yeah... so... let's just ignore that – Potato/potahto! Hope you see what I was trying to do! I think my logic is sound, even if the geography isn't!!! MIDI (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, you got to within 400 miles or so the cities began with B and the states with M. However, I take your point, see my discussion on the talkpage about a pedantic insistence that the bridge ran from Dundalk to Baltimore, which may make sense in a legal sense, but is otherwise nonsensical, and I did say "outside Baltimore" or "to the east of Baltimore" would be fine. Acroterion (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Huntingdon Valley Chupacabra

This is not a hoax this is culturally significant local legend back by reputable news source. It also helps to further display the cultural impact the Chupacabra cryptid legend has stretched to other area of the world outside of mexico. Dancmaster (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Then I'm sure that you can provide several references in reliable sources that actually describe the alleged appearance in Huntingdon Valley. The reference you used made no such mention. Acroterion (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

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, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

An IP range you blocked

...a couple times for "Jew tagging" and in general bad editing practices has picked up where they left off after the latest 3-month block expired: 2601:883:C201:8590:0:0:0:0/64 A good number of their recent edits involve some form of apparent anti-Jewish animus (e.g. [18][19][20]) or whitewash well-known antisemitic conspiracy theorists (e.g. [21][22]), while others have simply been reverted for being unsourced or undue. As the most recent blocking admin, I thought I'd bring this to you first rather than give this person a platform at ANI. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If this was their first rodeo I’d warn or give them more rope, but they seem to be trying to skirt on just the edge of what they were doing before. 1 year this time. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

VisualDiff crashes on pages with complex/manual HTML changes

Can you please restore my user page until after phabricator.wikimedia.org/T363024 is resolved? The example links for reproducing the bug are no longer working. Otherwise, could you please recommend where/how I might post the exact same history so there's a working example the MediaWiki/Wikipedia devs can reference? Thank you! RDuckDev (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

What on earth does a copied course syllabus have to do with that? User pages aren’t hosts for copyright violations or HTML debugging or whatever you’re trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's the delta (change) between the revisions that's relevant to the bug report. Wikimedia asks for "clear [steps in] how to reproduce the situation" (How_to_report_a_bug). Unfortunately, I only know the contents that trigger the bug in Parsoid and/or the VisualEditor/VisualDiff, not the root cause that I would need for crafting an example from scratch. There-in, the relevance is to provide Wikipedia's software developers with a working example of the bug to help make visual diffing work more reliably for us all!

All that in mind, I understand that user pages aren't the intended place for providing Wikipedia's developers with such an example for debugging the underlying MediaWiki software, my apologies for that oversight. Could you recommend where I should post a working example (solely for the lifetime of the bug report)? Please disregard. I've attached the information directly to the bug report. Thanks, again, for the guidance. RDuckDev (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's what you would do. Putting a course syllabus, code source or not, in Wikipedia itself is a copyright violation from what I saw, and Wikipedia itself isn't a Mediawiki or coding forum. You might want to try the Mediawiki wiki for that sort of thing: [23]. Acroterion (talk)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Pouvez fermer mon compte Sur le Wikipédia de langue anglaise

Monsieur le ministre@heures, je ne veux pas vous faire perdre votre temps comme vous me le dites sur ma page de discussion. Je ne veux pas perdre mon temps. Vous pouvez fermer mon compte sur le Wikipédia de langue anglaise. Cordialement Laurange Jolicœur Héron du fleuve (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Email

Hey, I have written you an email. Ryan kh (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Partial blocks

So I just partial-blocked my alt account from Wikipedia community and the template namespace (but disabled autoblock), and logged into it and visited https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%20community&action=edit. If I'd fully blocked the account, this would trigger an autoblock on my IP and this account; I'd like to try this, but this has caused me problems in the past. What happens if a partially blocked user attempts to edit one of these pages, and then logs out: is an autoblock applied, and if so, is it a full block, or is it limited to the scope of the original partial block? Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well ... damned if I know, to be honest. I'm not sure if the autoblock would apply only to the partial block topic, I hadn't considered that. I would think so, but it's outside my experience/understanding. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Zzuzz or another checkuser would probably have better insight on that topic, since they'd see the consequences. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a pretty niche subject, but do consult Wikipedia:Partial_blocks#Technical_considerations where it mentions it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)