User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q4 2019

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

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

Forced conversion: Hinduism

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

Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death

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

You don't have talkpage consensus for your change. Wait for consensus, don't just insert you preferred version. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

In the talk have refuted the reasons to not include the content as not being valid. I have waited three weeks for an answer on my objections. That seems enought time considering AfDs just tend to last about that time, if not less. If people oppose an legitimate edit and do not engage in the talk page, there is no need to "wait for consensus". 13:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)13:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Dentren | ^Talk 13:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. Just because people are tired of discussing the same thing with you over again doesn't entitle you to claim that you can go ahead with the disputed change. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"Just because people are tired of discussing the same thing with you" is just you opinion, talk for your self. Wikipedia does not work by obstructing each others contribution and refuse to discuss by claiming "people are tired", clearly the discussion is not overly long. If you are tired you should take a rest before you come back and edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Dentren | ^Talk 14:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

User talk:Cccxrfyh1joel

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

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

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Acroterion/Archive Q4 2019,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Please review the article 2b2t

The 2b2t article has the following notes:

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

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

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

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

Hey

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

lol. That's him. Some days he spends six or seven hours straight doing nothing but harassing us. Literally nothing else. Antandrus (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I got some obscenely poorly written emails, something about meeting me on the field of honor. Is it Nate Speed, with his dumb all-caps insults and this fetishistic chatter about his fist? That person has been here so long they must be an adult even if they started at age 9. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not Nate but another guy -- this one. I'm thinking it's time to write a new LTA page. I don't really like writing those, i.e. DENY and all, but sometimes you need a link for the really persistent nutters so those newly blindsided know what they are dealing with. And for the last couple months he's been relentless. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. I wasn't familiar with this one. Then again, in the end, what does it matter--they're really all the same. They all think they're right and unique and OH NO IM NOT LIKE A TYPICAL VANDAL AT ALL, but they're wrong. As for DENY, I don't know. Maybe some of these fools get a kick out of being talked about ("there's no such thing as bad publicity") but I don't really care what they think; so yes, I'd be for that. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you think the same way I do -- I remember writing somewhere "all vandals are the same vandal; differentiating them is pointless" or something similar. I'm going to do it. He's currently one of the most prolific xwiki pests. Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

9/11

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

(tps comment)... yeah, I'm torn about watching anything tonight. Usually every year I do. This day makes me so sad, every year. It's hard to get my head around everything that changed that day. I still remember that feeling of dread when I watched the second plane hit. This changes everything, I thought. Everything. And not for the better. Antandrus (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That second plane definitely just made me mad as hell. That first week after, hoping some survivors could be found at the WTC was so disappointing for wveryone.--MONGO (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

On a personal level, it has taken some of the joy out of a beautiful early fall day - I remember thinking that morning as I went to my 8:30 jobsite meeting that it was a particularly fine day. And later in the day, there was the silent, empty sky. In the Baltimore/Washington area, the sky is never empty. Eventually there were circular contrails high up from the AWACS, combat air patrol and tankers. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup...Bush came to Omaha on 9/11 and I saw Air Force One briefly and it looked like 4 fighter jets nearby. Otherwise, the airspace was all quiet save a few AF jets.--MONGO (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn

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

-Phone Charger (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You were spitballing insinuations of murder. If you do anything of the sort again, I will block you. Acroterion (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I was not. Any implication that I did is ridiculous. I can see that the Zoe Quinn special treatment effects even people's reading comprehension and amps up their unfounded defensiveness to toxic levels. I have donated annually to Wikipedia for over a decade, but I will not donate this year, and possibly never again. I will leave it to others to pay.

That is all. Thank you and goodbye.

-Phone Charger (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Suit yourself. If you'd made the same insinuation on any other biography of a living person on Wikipedia, you'd receive the same warning. It's a direct violation of the biographies of living persons policy, whether it's Zoe Quinn or Theresa May. Acroterion (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"Suit myself" with what? I meant I thought we were done talking. Perhaps in your head, but I made no insinuations. Bottom line, I'm not going to give this site money ever again. Others can pay for my use (mostly for looking up things) in perpetuity. You deserve no money. You're too hooked on the power you get as a mod for the site you allegedly represent for it to get money.

Thank you.

- Phone Charger (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Page Protection

Thx for protecting Del Bigtree. In the same light, could you look at Informed Consent Action Network and consider protecting it for the same reasons? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they wee both getting hit yesterday, it was only a matter of time before today's attention was transferred to ICAN. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, can you please delete the redirects of 2019–20 SC Paderborn 07 season and 2019–20 SC Freiburg season? Thanks--Sakiv (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

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 legacy of World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My edit reflects the citations.

My edit reflects the citations already in the article. The previous version before my edits was unclear about who did the considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I read the citation - it's a lot broader than that. Use the talkpage to explain why it should be so narrowly framed to just two communities. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Who exactly considers minors to be "incapable of meaningfully consenting to sexual activity until they reach a certain age" according to the citations in your view? --2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Per Donovan/Guttmacher, "law enforcement officials, reproductive health care providers, women's rights activists and policy analysts" and the W&M journal mentions among others the California Alliance for Statutory Rape Enforcement and welfare officials in its analysis, apart from the legal analysis. Neither source restricts itself to the views of legal and psychological experts, even the W&M Journal of Women and the Law. Sourcing to a law review article doesn't mean that only legal experts hold a particular point of view. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Interviews conducted with law enforcement officials, reproductive health care providers, women's rights activists and policy analysts in the summer and fall of 1996 found advocates of tougher enforcement of statutory rape laws suggesting that such an approach is a worthwhile strategy to consider, even if it turns out to have little or no effect on adolescent pregnancy and birth rates." Is this what you're referring to? This doesn't actually indicate their opinion on whether minors are "incapable of meaningfully consenting to sexual activity until they reach a certain age". It indicates their opinion on enforcing statutory rape laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you see explicit support for your preferred text? The article is about pederasty, not about more legally contentious activity between minors or people of relatively adjacent ages. I'm still not seeing that there is an explicit reason to limit the declaration to two fields and only to them - it introduces doubt by omission. The richest sources are obviously in law and psychology: however, this is a sensitive topic, and attempts to narrow the focus to certain segments of society and scholarship need to be carefully considered, as this topic has seen occasional disruption from advocates for other points of view. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

IP has now found himself blocked for 24 hours. [1] As I explained there, this is almost certainly someone who did this before recently. I would have preferred a longer block this time. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw that earlier IP once I started looking around. Given that this general topic has sen attempts at inappropriate advocacy in the past, I expect editors who pose questions like that to be more forthcoming about why such narrowing is vital. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Should it be protected? That will at the very least keep this person from hopping to another IP and coming back. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

At the moment I don't think it needs to be protected. If the IP starts up again a /64 block for a longer term would take care of the problem. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If that happens should I let you know? At the 'quick action' noticeboards I've had inconsistent results that make me think they didn't even read my brief comment. As just one example, I put Vorarephilia on RPP because of an IP hopper, and they issued blocks. The person promptly got a new IP yet again and did the same vandalism. Actual protection would have saved time. And this latest time where they got a shorter block for an apparently repeat offense. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. For my part as sort-of-involved, I would prefer semi-protection if I was to take action, to force discussion - I wasn't going to do anything administrative in this evening's matter in any case. Keep in mind that it's not high-level disruption, it's nuance, and it isn't terrible if the IP's preferred language is there for a while - it's not wrong, it's just narrow and oddly focused. Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable source

MeForum.org is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources 46.212.241.21 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

According to whom? Take it up at WP:RSN and don't remove it until you've gotten feedback supporting your contention. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, "MEF promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats." Perhaps not the best introduction to a neutral source, there, so I tend to agree with your assessment. You might want to remember to explain things like that rather than the rather flat "unreliable source" assertion. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Acroterion/Archive Q4 2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits made by an LTA

You may want to revdel the other edits made by an LTA on Jimbo Wales's talk page. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 09:40, 22 September 2019 (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.Doug Weller talk 18:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete on sight, no need to read it as I know the answer! Doug Weller talk 18:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

List of United States Air Force squadrons

Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Air Force squadrons. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

My edit was constructive because it removed speculative, obfuscating material from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:100:CD84:692F:3E3D:4920:DB4E (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Censorship

Wow, you guys really move quickly to ban any editors whom you disagree with. You should take a page (no pun intended) out of Fahrenheit 451! https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:100:CD84:692F:3E3D:4920:DB4E (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for you to promote racist conspiracy theories as "phenomena" [2]. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Robert Laxalt revdel request

Hi Acroterion, can you please revdel these edits: [[3]] and [[4]]. Looks like they are still at it and probably need to be blocked as well. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel'd and blocked. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Message

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.

--Sakiv (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Aresimowicz copyvio

Hey Acroterion, hope all is well. Looks like there are a few of remaining copyright violations in the page history, see [5] and [6]. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, got them. The editor couldn't take a hint, I guess - but any username with "truth," "balanced," or "integrity" is a red flag. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I had no idea frog images were not allowed in Wiki Talk. Is there a link explaining all Talk page rules?

How would I know using a frog image after asking my questions on Wikipedia Talk would get anyone upset? I would never think that would be judged inappropriate but know I know. While you explained that I should not do use frog images in the Talk sections, you did not answer any of the questions I asked on those Talk pages today. I used the frog image on 3 Talk pages I think, that were related to Kekistan, to show that I am serious and not joking. I get accused of being insincere but I am not. Do you know the answers to any of the questions I asked? Why isn’t Kekistan listed as a micronation? How is a conceptual country different from a fictional country? I am trying to be helpful and I am learning Wiki as I go. Obviously Wiki admin can bounce me for rule violations but I would not be breaking rules intentionally. The whole reason I used the Talk sections was to stay out of trouble. And to learn how to go about making proper edits so I do not get in trouble from admin. If there is a link to a Wiki Rules page that explains how I broke a rule by adding a frog image, then I would much appreciate having the link. I would like to learn all the rules for the Talk sections. I am learning the rules for the Article sections. I figured the Talk sections were for asking questions when you did not know the rules and protocols. DErnestWachter (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There has been extensive trolling with Kekistan and Pepe-related edits. We have no sense of humor about it, don't waste our time or yours. Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Continuing Headaches at MOS:CHINA

Hi there Acroterion,

A certain editor has been making repeated problematic edits over at MOS:CHINA, and a few of us have had to regularly revert him. I recently learned that this is part of an ongoing saga, and that the editor in question (Geographyinitiative (talk · contribs)) is recently returned from a block you gave him for this very behavior, or at least something closely related to it. He has deleted this material from his talk page, and so I only learned about this when another editor mentioned it in passing.

Here is a list of said edits from the past 36 hours:

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Each of these was reverted (the last one was self-reverted at another's urging). A small section on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Historical and alternative transliterations) clearly showed no consensus for the changes. We'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at the situation. I can post this elsewhere if required. Thanks in advance!  White Whirlwind  咨  21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I've left a note. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Acroterion/Archive Q4 2019,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear abuse of editing privileges to promote racism.

The only clear and logical reason to deny a person's identity or to proclaim they are "partly" indigenous when they have clearly identified as being Indigenous Australian is racism. It's also not a matter of what part of you is indigenous or how much. It also promotes the Barack Obama argument... Which part of me is "black" is it my left or right arm? There is no qualifier to indigeneity in Australia other than being accepted as such by your community and self-identifying. Ash Barty has done both. She is a noted indigenous community member, removing these details clearly has severely racialised problems that are common among right-leaning people in Australia and elsewhere in the world. There is also no need for an RFC over commonly accepted terms either. There is no dispute that the correct term for describing her in Australia is Indigenous Australian from any widely accepted perspective. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Calling people racists for daring to disagree with you is unlikely to win any arguments. Step back and reconsider your approach. Calling people who disagree with you racists at ANI isn't productive or wise. I have no views on what the content should be, nor is ANI a place to resolve that. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not name-calling when I have clearly explain the case why it is in front of you and the problem with the logic in at least one of those arguments. If you want to just smack me down for name-calling for using the term racist then you become part of the problem and it's exactly why I have no faith in Wikipedia nor any active or previously active account. In coming to your decision you have only submitted that racism is perfectly OK on Wikipedia. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI addresses behavioral matters. You have a content dispute that you've personalized, calling other editors racists. The ANI report was closed because your denuciations were becoming steadily more shrill. Take a walk or something, and come back when you aren't editing from a point of outrage. As a suggestion, we generally characterize people by how they personally identify - Barack Obama and Kamala Harris being examples. We don't use a logical deconstruction from an outsider's point of view. Use that in a polite discussion. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Page protection ~ AT&T Stadium

Hi Acroterion! I edited User talk:El C's talk page about an hour ago ~ see below ~ but I guess she has a life also ~ there has been at least 5 more afterwards~

Hi El C! can you protect this page please ~ seems to me that a user is creating more than one account and vandalizing from more than one computer ~ [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], Thanks ~

thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

And it's not even playoff season yet. 24 hours should do it. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

	ATT Stadium ~
	~Thank you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

About time for a block...

on that IP at Talk:Comet Ping Pong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI

check email NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt National Park

That's a beautiful image on your page. I love that place. Some years ago I visited, and we had a most strange experience on a long, narrow, dead-end road: coming out, right at sunset, a herd of bison had blocked the road so I could not get by. They wouldn't move. Got out, said -- hey you. Get up. They were most unimpressed. I backed up and drove at them fast, hitting the brakes, multiple times. Took more than an hour, but eventually the two or three lying on the roadway got up and ambled away. We laughed, but the buffalo may have laughed more. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Shortly before that picture we spent half an hour easing through a crowd of bison dozing in the road. At least we were on the loop and could have turned around if we had wanted to. They are well aware of who's the boss in that place. We were deeply impressed with TRNP, it surpassed our expectations. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I was out there years back. A buddy and I did a long hike which included some offtrail rock hopping. He was in front and pissed off a rattle snake, just in time for me to come along and step where he had been, next to the angry snake. I leapt, we ran a bit. We said "Whew!" and laughed and finished the hike. Back at the campground I realized the snake was only pretending to be mad and it was really a ploy to get my wallet to fall out of my pocket. So all I can say is watch out for that place, because the rattlers are crooks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

And people wonder why I prefer to enjoy the great outdoors from the comfort and safety of my living room while watching the National Geographic channel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

email

Please check email NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

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 three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My attempted edit to Blood Libel

I objected to the word "allegedly" to qualify the statement that the earliest blood libels had no mention of Jews using blood to bake Passover matzos. In the case of William of Norwich this is not disputed. See details in 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. RPSM (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

In removing the "allegedly" the rest of the sentence deteriorated. You might want to review whether the William of Monmouth portion of your edit belongs there. That was the interjection I mentioned in my edit summary. Acroterion (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Correction: William of Norwich was the victim found in Thorpe Wood with head wounds. Thomas of Monmouth was the monk who wrote the account in Latin. I admit I found myself dragging extra details in.

RPSM (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2019 (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.

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.— Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

IP:62.172.166.201

Hello Acroterion, Could I please draw your attention to the activities of 62.172.166.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is again adding the host of unsourced material to many BBC articles. They have been blocked at least three times by admins, who no longer seem very active, but are making exactly the same unsourced changes as before. Can I please leave this with you for some action? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments on the Alfred Waterhouse article, Architon

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.Doug Weller talk 12:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

that was fast

Was your reversion of Cold War automated? I reached for "undo" immediately after the test edit, but you beat me to it... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it just popped up and I reverted - see my note. Obviously, your edits are in good faith. Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - good advice ..

I appreciate your recommendation. I'll work on that.

I have a TON to learn about how to format replies; where can I read more about the means by which to reply in 'talk' pages ... how to critique the remarks of others?

Especially in the event that someone has assumed the role of a 'page's dictator' ..?

(example of someone who acted as though their comments were beyond reproach and their opinions were "superior & final" ...

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrumanLA (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

WTC

I understand your efforts to moderate the talk page at the WTC collapse, so I thought I'd just offer a suggestion. I think it looks strange that we all give our opinions on the request and then remove the conversation from the talk page. If we're going to delete any mention of controlled demolition from the talk page, I think we need to establish that as a consensus, and then do it in a polite manner when it happens. That is: we delete it, and explain our actions on the user's talk page. I think engaging with his arguments and calling his ideas "claptrap" (I know that wasn't you) during this process is needlessly combative, and is only likely to prolong the conflict. The consensus against mentioning controlled demolition or any other conspiracy in the article is already in place and being observed by everyone. I think we can explain it without insulting anyone. The idea of collapsing any suggestion like this seems pretty good to me. But the message we put in the box could be a bit more helpful.--Thomas B (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought - I have a fair amount of experience with perennial discussions and FAQs from dealing with fascism-related topics, where mixed in with the holocaust deniers and genuine bigots we get a lot of politically-motivated people who take Dinesh D'Souza or Jonathan Goldberg seriously and want to rewrite the article to make fascism, National Socialism (because it says Socialism in the name, rather like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea makes North Korea a democracy), or related matters appear to be products of the Left. It makes people tired and cranky, and sometimes tempers get short. I generally remove abuse and hat rehashes of settled discussion after a decent interval, but those topics have seen much greater disruption and the talkpages of some are permanently semi-protected as a result, as a last resort. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you mind if I work a little on the hat you made? You can always revert it, but I think I have an idea for how we can use that tool constructively. (I think we should leave it to you to do it going forward, since you're an administrator.)--Thomas B (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Lets be clear Thomas...in no way, fashion or form would I support any section on "alternative" storyline on that article in question.--MONGO (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)😊

I totally agree. Once again this is a ploy that I have previously warned about. David J Johnson (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different things. I'm not proposing any change to the article. I want to propose a sustainable (administrative) way to reject the familiar attempt to introduce controlled demolition talk into the article. In my opinion, we can't both tell these people that this isn't a CT forum and engage with their suggestions on a point-by-point basis (explaining what those "squibs" really are, etc.) The point is that we don't take those ideas seriously at all. We are familiar with the arguments (and the supposedly "scientific" sources), we have considered them, and we're not hearing anything new. We should just say that and hat the suggestion every time it comes up.--Thomas B (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

PS. I had something like this [17] in mind. Only, it could have been applied to the first request, and everything else could have happened on the user's talk page. (The first few follow up comments, if they came, could have been hatted as well, or perhaps just deleted.)--Thomas B (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on my experience, an FAQ would help a little, but one should not have high expectations. What it mostly does is to give responders to perennial questions an easy, neutral response, like "Please see Q3 in the FAQ at the top of the page." The FAQ should not expend more space than is needed to address the broadest standard answers, and should not go into extensive point-by-point refutations. It won't solve all problems - some fascism-related talkpages ended up perpetually semi-protected. I'd suggest that a subpage be created for the FAQ, with a goal of concision, and avoiding restatement of CT talking points any more than necessary.

Thomas, keep in mind that I consider myself involved on this topic, and won't act in any administrative capacity unless it's plain vandalism or gross BLP violations that would be addressed similarly by any other administrator. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Given how rare this actually is these days, I don't think we need a FAQ. But I'm not sure I understand the line you're drawing. In this case you did intervene with the hat. I thought it was a good idea. I believe it should have been done before any of us responded, using a text something like what I proposed,[18] which really just summarizes all of our responses in a civil and informative way. Since both the suggestion and our responses to it are rehashes, there's no need for an original response, nor any charged language. I guess we could agree that any one of us could do this. But hatting (or deleting) a topic seems like an administrative act.--Thomas B (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Acroterion is arguably one of the website's most astute administrators, so it's doubtful anything he does is merit less or an abuse of position. Without fully condemning the poster of those threads in question, a brief glance of their short edit history indicates they are, so far at least, not here to do much more than promote fringe theories. In the past, posting like those were summarily reverted and after a few extra attempts to push the issue, the poster got topic banned. So we've evolved perhaps, not sure that's best, but maybe we're all just getting old.--MONGO (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrative acts are those undertaken with the toolset given to administrators - blocks, protections and deletions, and by extension, topic bans and other enforcement actions. By deletion, I mean full deletion, rather than just blanking. Blanking, along with hatting, can be done by any editor, including me. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hi Acroterion,

Thanks for your message.

I have cited three scientific articles, two from peer-reviewed journals (one article uses data from the US EPA), and one from a scientific magazine Europhysics News) which was also cited to me by a Wikipedia editor to dispute the article I cited.

Can you please advise how these do not fall within the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, because my understanding is that they do.

If you say any source which disagrees with the Wikipedia article is by definition not reliable then you are stuck in a logical loop which would prevent the article from ever being updated in light of advancing knowledge.

Please advise

Dr Realidad (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The journal items aren't peer-reviewed - the Open Chemical Physics Journal has no editorial oversight and has been rejected as a source for Wikipedia content for years, and the European Physics Journal content was a letter, not an article, and was immediately disowned by the journal with a pledge to better review content of all kinds. I don't see that you've mentioned anything from the EPA. You appear to be repeating old talking points that have been repeatedly discredited - there is noting new in what you've posted, which have mostly been attempts over the years by conspiracy theory enthusiasts to manipulate sources to give the appearance that somebody takes them seriously. We're not interested in your personal analysis. Wikipedia reflects mainstream views by design, and describes minority or fringe views explicitly as out-of-the-mainstream. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

your opinion please...

On December 13, 2007 you and Deepfriedokra each speedy deleted the article on Carolyn Bothwell Doran. I'd never heard of her, until yesterday, and I had some questions. I had questions about what how she came to be hired, what fallout there was from her hiring, and, well, whether she measured up to our inclusion standards.

I can't remember ever hearing of administrators emailing anyone the source to any deleted article that could be described as a genuine attack page. I am going to request you answer a couple of questions about the article, and I am going to ask you to cut the references it used, and paste them into an email to me.

1. When was the article first started?
2. How many edits had it had made to it?
3. Not counting metadata, like references, was it more than a couple of hundred bytes?
4. A wikinews article was started the day after your speedy deletions. Ignoring the minor differences due to it being a wikinews article, if this had been published on the wikipedia, would you have speedy deleted it as an attack page?
5. Do you know of any reason why the wikipedia can't neutrally cover Ms Doran (see below)?

In September 2005 I had my first experience with AFD, and with wikipedia administrators. I was so inexperienced I did not know the wikipedia had administrators, or an AFD process. Starting with Omar Khadr and Murat Kurnaz I had started a handful of articles on individuals held in Guantanamo, and, on a single day, four of them were nominated for deletion.

It was very confusing. One laconic nominator's nomination was two letters long "NN", and he couldn't be bothered to return to explain what that meant.

Another individual, an administrator, asserted that the wikipedia should not cover ANY topic related to Guantanamo, because Guantanamo was an "inherently biased topic", and could only serve as a venue for "POV America-bashing".

I genuinely thought she mis-spoke, and couldn't possibly mean what she said. I suggested that topics were neither biased or non-biased, that it was how we covered topics that could be biased or non-biased. I suggested that there weren't any topics we couldn't cover using a neutral voice if good faith contributors made enough effort.

I still feel that way. The only thing I would add would be "provided we have good references", because September 2005 predates our current system of references.

Normally, I'd assume that, provided there were sufficient good references, there would be no reason why a neutrally written article couldn't be written about Ms Doran. Are either of you aware of a reason why a neutrally written article couldn't be written about Ms. Doran? Geo Swan (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

After a little research, I actually sort of remember that deletion from 13 years ago. What I deleted (twice) was an attack page and a copyvio (from The Register), which pretty much repeats the content in the AP ref found in the Wikimedia Foundation. Since the content was copied by an account with no other activity, with an apparent intent to disparage, I deleted it as an attack page. Today I would delete it as non-notable and BLPCRIME/BLP1E, ignoring the copy/paste copyvio part and leaving what appeared to be trolling aside as well. Unless there's been something published since then, I see no reason why that would change - Ms. Doran's problems and the WMF's sloppy hiring practices during its infancy aren't matters of even transitory notability, if she hadn't very briefly been a WMF employee, she would never have received what coverage she had.

All edits occurred on 14-15 December 2007. There were a grand total of 10 edits, mostly deletion and copyvio notices or redirects. The effective content, all copied, was 722 bytes, some of that a link to the Register article from which it was copied.

As for the news article, it's not an attack, but it's in no way a basis for a biographical article in a global encyclopedia, any more than when my company hired a person to help out our office manager, who turned out to have a sketchy background (which we learned of when a sheriff showed up with a warrant for her arrest). Needless to say, we check for that sort of thing now too. Unless she's done something else that got coverage, the apparent fact that nothing else has happened in 13 years is a strong argument to leave her alone, as BLP policy expects - articles aren't a means of permanently shaming people or memorializing otherwise non-notable people's problems. The WMF's early HR problems are already covered in the article on the WMF, and a separate biography does nothing to amplify that. This is a good example of BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

I'm not going to get into a 2005 run-in with what was a very different deletion debate process, when WP was four years old and when our extremely voluminous processes hadn't been formalized. WP:BLP wasn't even created until December 2005. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the prompt reply.

If the article was also a copyvio it unquestionably merited speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Looking at the deleted versions, it was an attack page and a copyvio. One of the edit summaries from the creator was "reverting censorship". That said, if the subject meets all our polices and guidelines, then we could have an article if one could be written in a neutral manner. If the only content were to be, "this horrid person is horrid and look, the WMF hired her," then not so much. What Acroterion says as well.

Are you aware of any neutral sourcing sufficient to notability requirements and which would provide enough information for a separate article? As for how she came to be hired, you should check and see what reliable sources say on the matter. I don't think that Wikinews article meets inclusion requirements for an encyclopedia, but then it doesn't need to-- it's Wikinews. The Encyclopedia Dramatica has an article with sourcing. It does not show her to meet our inclusion guidelines. Wikipedia Review (of course) has a piece. A cursory search for sources only showed rehashes of "look, (eyeroll or sneer) this former Wikimedia employee is/was horrid." Did not see anything that would pass BLP1E/BLPCRIME.-- Deepfriedokra 08:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deepfriedokra, Thanks for the reply. As I said above, if it were a copyvio then it clearly merited speedy deletion.

• I did some google searches, and didn't find anything substantive about Ms Doran, from later than 2007.

• On the other hand, I don't think the coverage of that 2007 incident, in the article on WMF is anywhere near adequate.

• My google search took me to some of those pages that exist to criticize the wikipedia. Some of the people on those sites are former wikipedia contributors who are under indefinite blocks, and they can be very mean-spirited and unfair. But, in this particular case, I think they made a very valid point.

  People at the WMF were very embarrassed that a felon held a position of trust at what was then a million dollar organization. Jimbo Wales said that, once an audit was completed, if it showed a shortfall, he would pay for the shortfall, from his own pocket. Well, the critics said that no audit results were made public.

  No audit will be adequate, or even meaningful, if proper financial records aren't being maintained.

• Do you know the story of the final (and only) audit of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), that administered occupied Iraq in 2003 and early 2004? The CPA was supposed to conduct month-end internal audits - and never did any. KPMG did an external, (late) year-end audit, in the CPA's final month, and reported no meaningful audit could be completed because the US officials appointed to administer Iraq did not keep adequate records. They did not use double-entry book-keeping - standard bookkeeping practice for the last 600 years. Rather, I forget the exact term they used, they treated the tens of billions they spent as if it were in a single huge petty-cash fund. KPMG couldn't even get the senior CPA officials to meet with them. KPMG found the CPA had entrusted a single US contractor to keep track of all the tens of billions in funds in an Excel spreadsheet. No, I am not making this up. $8 billion that the CPA spent could not be accounted for.

• It is possible that, in spite of her past, Ms Doran didn't purloin any WMF funds, but that the financial records weren't robust enough to establish whether she had or hadn't.

• The wikipedia has had scandals, some get covered, like Essjay, others don't. Like that embittered once-promising writer. Do you remember his case? He was regarded as a promising writer. There are these prestigious writer's workshops, lead by altruistic established writers, where promising aspiring writers do exercises where they rapidly write and then read their work to their peers, for peer criticism. Our hero reacted very badly to the peer criticism. He started writing about the other writers whose criticism had hurt him, and whose careers he was jealous of. He had or acquired enough experience that his trashing of their work, their character, was not detected. He made stuff up, supplying what looked to a surface examination, like adequate references, which apparently no one checked, or no one checked seriously. He targetted dozens of rivals, and got away with his calculated character assassination, for over five years. When caught he was not apologetic. He described his character assassination as not malicious vandalism but rather a whole new kind of literature. No, I am not making this up. I can't tell you where to look for this story, as I can't remember his name. This story was not adequately covered.

• The WMF, administering donations for the fifth most popular site on the internet, is in the rare position of being a not-for-profit that would be cash-rich. It would be a very attractive target for embezzlers, unless very strict financial controls were kept. If any element of "ignore all rules" crept into the administration of WMF funds, there would be hell to pay.

• With regard to the idea that Jimbo Wales offered to cover any shortfalls... That doesn't sound right to me. If his offer was that he would cover a shortfall in return for not making the audit public, out of sympathy for Ms Doran's struggles, that particularly doesn't sound right to me. Do you know the story behind the final concert tour elderly Leonard Cohen made? Cohen musical career had been a success. He had more than enough funds to live in luxury, and provide a handsome inheritance to his children. He didn't choose to live in luxury. After picking a friend to administer his fortune for him he lived as a simple buddhist monk for over a decade, until a disgruntled ex-lover of his funds manager told his daughter that she had embezzled everything, and he was broke. She had not only embezzled all his cash and investments, she had sold all the rights to his songs.

  Cohen is a buddhist, and so very forgiving, he did not want to sue her. He could live out the rest of his life on a pittance. But, his lawyers informed him, he was not just broke, she had incurred substantial debt, in his name. So, if he didn't sue her, his creditors would think he was in cahoots with her, and sue him. So, he did sue her, and she turned out to be completely broke herself. So, he had to go on a final concert tour, in is 70s, after hanging up his guitar decades ago.

  The comparison I am drawing here is between Cohen and Mr Wales. Mr Cohen did not have the option of forgiving his embezzler, because of his creditors. Because the WMF is a public institution I don't think forgiveness should have been a choice Mr Wales thought was open to him. If the audit wasn't made public out of concern for Ms Doran, then I think that was questionable. The WMF is not a family business. Members of the public made donations. Volunteers, like me, contributed thousands of our hours of time. I think we were entitled to see the audit, even if it was embarrassing.

• It is possible that those wikipedia criticism sites were premature in their criticism, and the audit was finally made public. Even so, the coverage on the WMF article would still be inadequate. Geo Swan (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

What are you doing?????

Why are you erasing the corrections to the Meyers article I edited? Your joking right?

Are you seriously going to twist the scientific patent interpretation to align it with your screwed up understanding. .no wonder no one takes Wikipedia articles as a credible repository for science. .

Go back to school . .you have a child's understanding ; all you do is hold up progress. .your science is really , really off. . You reminded me why I never donate to your group!

---

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear [Yahwah] God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc 12:13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.17.37 (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to promote hoaxes. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

3nrg web page

How do we close this web page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomad67b (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "close"? If you mean deleting it, you would need to review the notability guidelines to establish whether the topic i notable enough for inclusion. If you want it to be protected so nobody else can edit it, that's not going to be possible - you cannot be the sole arbiter of content on a topic with which you're associated - or any other topic, for that matter. Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Re:Kentucky

My edits were in response to local news outlets and some national media outlets calling the election for Beshear. This was before Bevin refused to concede, and I am now aware that the election is still not officially called. Cwagungood (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Bevin's refusal to concede is not really relevant; he can refuse to concede all day, but the Kentucky Secretary of State has declared Beshear the winner, per CNN and the Courier-Journal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That's more like what we need to support the inclusion. The item in the list should be referenced. I would still like to see it either called, or the SoS's statement widely reported. Acroterion (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ponte Morandi; The repair option

what about your mission to read the italian wiki on the ponte morandi repair option?

at now there is some guys less correct than you, looking for delete these arguments from Ponte Morandi article without care about this. --5.170.44.131 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

..."thank you for reply". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.44.201 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Evo Morales

Hi! I was wondering if you intentionally un did my edit on the current president of bolivia Iscm.02 (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Don't insert your personal opinions into articles. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It was not a personal opinion. Is there any way I can prove it was not? Iscm.02 (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve noticed you’ve un done my recent edit on the current president of Bolivia. I believe it was a mistake. Everything edited was true according to the current constitution of Bolivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscm.02 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not a mistake. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow you to insert your personal opinion or analysis into articles. Articles need concurrent independent sourcing in recognized scholarship and journalism. Please read the no original research policy, reliable sourcing policy and the neutral point of view policy. We go with the consensus of reliable sources, not your analysis. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I added a source for the section.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xjhsq (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

User account problem

Sir, I already have an account "Goutamkumar Oinam" But it's not working, so I recreate another "Goutamkumar Oinam 2", please help me to regain the lost one! Goutamkumar Oinam 2 (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Also, Roadside Attractions. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for helping o8ut with the latest Nate Speed ... event. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Substantiation of content

And what is it exactly that you expect me to provide to substantiate the statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaels First Son 6 6 7 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires multiple mentions in independent sources, preferably national publications with a reputation for fact checking or academic sources, included with the edit. Please read the biographies of living persons policy, since living people are involved, and the reliable sourcing policy - the BLP policy demands strict sourcing, and is non-negotiable. You may not make unsupported assertions about peoples' parentage. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

crosswiki abuse

Please protect the article Peter Handke and block vandal User:HelmutQualle and IP socks--WikiBayer (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. wumbolo ^^^ 13:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

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

Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 16:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sacred Geometry

That's Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm having a big morning - see above. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised he only got a one week block. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And I see was heading for a community ban before he was given an Oversight block. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Keep up the good work! Cheers! CentralTime301 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Your abuse of administrative privileges WP:TOOLMISUSE

Your administrative abuse has been reported: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TOOLMISUSE by user:acroterion and user:huon --83.29.48.82 (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal

Attention needed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Mubgoshu got there first. We'll have to account for common misspellings. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

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: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI Julian Assange

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Snooganssnoogans_edits_on_Julian_Assange Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I despair

The unrecognized persistence of vandal edits is one of the reasons I think (IP) vandalism it is so much more important than the common perception. Okay, sneaky vandalism. But then restored once twice thrice four times in 3+ weeks. (That last restore was yours) When will the rusting of articles become understood? As it is, I seldom get away from my watchlist, and never stop being nervous. Shenme (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, mea culpa, I didn't notice the "hh:hhhññbhhhhh" etc. We do what we can, and sometimes we get it wrong. A few garbled character strings slipping through aren't as bad as a lot of other things. Don't let it get to you, Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello, Acroterion. My name is MrThunderbolt1000T. I'm here making a request because I honestly don't know where else I could bring this issue.

The issue is with a user, Snooganssnoogans. Snoogans has continually engaged in edit warring with other users, has reverted my edits on multiple articles, sometimes without merit, and has so reverted the edits of another user (Apeholder) when they restored my edit and pointed out Soogans's hypocrisy. Snoogans then made a personal attack on this user's talk page.

Now, I'm not aware if saying this would constitute a violation of the good faith rule, but I believe Snoogans has been watching my contributions just to revert my edits on any politically-related articles, and I believe he may be biased, according to his prior conduct. I can't say whether the aforementioned is true for sure, but I'm honestly distressed by his interference with my attempts to improve Wikipedia.

If you could please take a look, I'd appreciate it. I'm sorry if bringing this to you is unnecessary because there's a help desk or some other resource to bring this to. If so, I would be 100% open to guidance on that. I would still like your assistance, though. Thank you very much, and have a great day (or night).--MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Update the latest complaint on this person on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents . I am personally pretty fed up of this user, they constantly revert edits with no basis in fact, promote their own biases and rather than picking out the text they have an issue with, they make huge edits to sneakily take out other information too. If you want to remove one line - great, but don't remove the entire paragraph by default. Please raise a complaint on the above page and tag any other users that have had an issue with them in recent weeks - there's quite a lot. This person is counter-productive to the principles of WP Apeholder (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've edited precisely two pages that you've edited: Brian Kemp and Concealed carry in the United States. My edits on those pages precede yours. Unless you have other undisclosed accounts, why would you claim that I'm following you and that I'm doing so to multiple pages? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a complete lie. You reverted my edits on those articles, so no, your edits did not precede mine. Yeah, "multiple articles" may be slightly exaggeration, but you revert my edits and those of others without merit. The fact you even responded to this without notification is borderline confirmation of my theory that you're watching my contributions just so you can revert my edits. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Take it to ANI where there are more eyes. It's 11:30 here and I'm not going to take admin action when I should be asleep. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion here. This is a bit too complex for one admin to resolve especially when its past many folks bedtime!--MONGO (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Cranky admin bad. My "aspersions" comment is a symptom, cure is sleep. Acroterion (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I initially posted this to Snoogan's talk page rather than here as I intended. I've reverted the Snoogan talk page edit. The summary Snoogan's has added is problematic since it claims a causal relationship vs a correlation. It is unlikely the any cited study makes that claim. I'm not going to claim all of Snoogan's edits were wrong but it's problematic that so many back and forth edits were made with no talk page discussion. I do think Snoogan has a long pattern of problematic editing. No one case crosses the line but on the whole they are of questionable benefit to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Take it to AN/I...Acroterion is tired.--MONGO (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hi, the same sock puppetry in Bernardo Espinosa now again in Hernanes. Please, protected the page.--Fcbjuvenil (talk) 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but again, with other IP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.147.92.241--Fcbjuvenil (talk) 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Please, again: User:86.157.236.126. This guy has been doing this for over a year. If you can put protection on the page solves it. Thanks--Fcbjuvenil (talk) 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Acroterion, Fcbjuvenil edits are completely incorrect, I am not sure why you are blocking those IPs for correcting bad edits of Fbc, also please see WP:ANI#User:Fcbjuvenil regards, Govvy (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry at an AFD

Jack McAdoo is at AFD. The article was created by Darcel2268 (talk · contribs) whose only edits have been to this article or the AFD. Since the AFD started, we've a IP and Aglobalwriter (talk · contribs) have popped up at the AFD. Both of who have no other edits. AGW edited but then reverted everything. I think this AFD needs watching....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC) This person works in our office and is trying to help the article meet the standards of Wikipedia. There is no sockpuppetry going on. We are an office of first-time users to Wikipedia trying to edit an article in the best way. Help would be bennificial to all of us her, not assumptions that would hurt us from becomming great writers in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcel2268 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice. I made the edit that was suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcel2268 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Request from Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers, to Correct Erroneous Statement about Oath Keepers on Wikipedia Page

Greetings, this is Stewart Rhodes, the Founder of Oath Keepers. The opening line of the Wikipedia entry on Oath Keepers makes several erroneous statements, but the most egregious is the false assertion that Oath Keepers is "associated with the white supremacy ... movement[s]"

"Oath Keepers is an anti-government[1][2][3][4][6] American far-right[5] organization associated with the white supremacy and militia movements.[7][8]"

The article that citation 7 links to doesn't even assert that Oath Keepers is associated with the white supremacy movement.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oath-keepers-at-ferguson-protests-who-are-they-and-why-are-they-allowed-to-carry-guns-10449395.html

That article merely describes us as white (even though we have black and Hispanic members and leaders, such as Greg McWhirter, who is a current serving sheriff deputy who is on our national Board of Directors). Here is what the article says:

"Oath Keepers: Who are white militia at Ferguson protests and why are they allowed to carry guns? At least three white members of the group were seen carrying assault rifles among protesters during demonstrations overnight. A group of white men armed with assault rifles have been filmed “patrolling” the streets of Ferguson during a fourth night of protests marking the anniversary of Michael Brown’s death."

The article doesn't assert that we are a white supremacist group, or associated with the white supremacy movement. And yet it is being cited as a reference for the entry describing Oath Keepers as "associated with the white supremacy ... movements."

That needs to be corrected ASAP. This is very damaging as well as false. We are overtly, strongly anti-racist, and do not allow anyone to be a member who discriminates against anyone for their race. Can you help get that edit done? I can be reached at <redacted>

Thank you very much!

Stewart Rhodes Founder of Oath Keepers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:50B0:4780:2838:B365:2DFA:D5CE (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The appropriate place to present this is at the article talkpage - Talk:Oath Keepers, where it can be discussed, and where you can provide or contest sources. Please go there, rather than contacting individual editors, it will be more productive and less effort. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing that specific reference, I don't see that it supports the "white supremacist" statement either, so I think you can make a reasonable case on the talkpage concerning the use of that reference with that term. Keep in mind that self-sourced statements are not given much weight - an example would be referencing Madge the manicurist that Palmolive dish soap is a skin care product because Madge claimed that "it softens hands while you do the dishes." The best could be said of that is the Colgate-Palmolive makes that claim, rather than a flat statement without attribution. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've copied this conversation over to Talk:Oath Keepers for you, together with my view on that source's application. I've removed the email address on both places for your privacy. Acroterion (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the "white supermacist" statement, as I don't find support for it in either reference - the Washington Post reference actually contradicts the claim fairly explicitly. I haven't done a comprehensive review of all sources in the article. If you have further concerns it would be most productive to express them on the article talkpage.. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Flight 11 article

I have been trying to remove a false bit of information from the Flight 11 article; the supposed myth that one of the pilots pressed the radio so that controllers could hear Atta’s voice. Unfortunately, I was the one who put it on this article all those years ago, as I wanted to keep the myth of some of the heroism of 9/11, especially the flight crew. Flight 11’s pilot’s didn’t keep an open mic so that the hijacker’s voice could be heard. From what I have gathered, that was just early news articles misinterpreting why hijacker pilot Atta mistakenly transmitted to ATC when telling the passengers to stay in their seats. I’m not impeaching or downplaying the bravery of the Flight 11 crew, but that doesn’t seems to have been what happened. Regardless, I’m sure the pilots tried to fight back, but it would have been over quickly. We never know if they were killed or incapacitated, but we hope it was over quick. These sources must be treated with a great deal of caution and we should instead rely on primary sources of information as often as we possibly can. If this cautionary advice is not acted upon, it is quite possible for well-meaning researchers to expend a great deal of time and energy discussing the fine points of historical events that never occurred in the first place.

(talk page watcher) With reference to the above. Firstly, you are not signing any contribution you may make. Secondly, you are stating "From what I have gathered", which is just WP:OR and is not acceptable. Third, you are "edit warring" in the article, which also is not acceptable and could lead to a block. The correct place to discuss a difference of opinion is the article Talk page. No-one knows for sure what happened on the flight deck on that awful day, but you should not use your personal opinion, as a reason for changing the article. The secondary sources on the text you want to delete are reliable, even if they cannot be finally proved beyond all doubt. Finally, if you are going to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, you should consider opening an account, rather than using a IP address. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

A request

Hi! Can I request the removal of the protection of 2b2t as the sources in the draft Draft:2b2t clearly indicate a WP:GNG pass. You have protected the page and this doesn't fall to A7 anymore, so it can be properly accepted in AfC. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've convinced anybody at AfC of that quite yet. Let me know when it's accepted. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

But I'm an AFC reviewer who wants to accept it, but can't because of the page protection. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, that wasn't obvious to me. Prptection removed. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism

Hi! I've been patrolling the Recent Feeds just now, and I looked at a edit that you reverted because I didn't see you reverted it, and I noticed you didn't leave a warning on the vandal's talk page. I'm sure you have a reason for that, but I did just go ahead and put a warning on the talk page. You can look at the diff here: [19]. Anyways, just wanted to let you know. Thanks: Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 04:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Noted - sometimes I get tired of warning vandals or am busy with more pressing matters. Acroterion (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Dear Acroterion, if you do not agree about what I write on my User Page, please do not delete it but instead, let's have a debate about it on my Talk Page. Works for you? Best regards, looking forward to hearing from you. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The BLP policy isn't open to debate. Don't use Wikipedia to make accusations of criminal conduct. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Reality, swastika

I just edited FACT, what you did is wrong, i also gave proof of my claim. No one should blame hindus for something that done by Christian extremists. Kindly put my edit back and let the world know the reality. James surfer (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The Nazis weren't exactly Christians, you know. I've replied on your talkpage. Let's keep the discussion there, or better yet, on the article talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to block IPvandal

Hi Acriterion, I’ve noticed you’ve blocked one of SEVERAL vandalism IPs and users on the Portuguese people page

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

I’ve requested the blocking of 2 users (each who go by different profile names, apart from displaying an IP address) but am not sure whether I’ve done it properly as one of the administrators told me to use the report template differently.

I wish to have this and others as they continue popping up from time to time, for vandalism on several pages. Can you help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.127.171.128

ThanksMelroross (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Melroross, thank you very much for the report. A tutorial for requesting such blocks can now be found at User_talk:ToBeFree#Trying_to_request_IPvandal_block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

EU

The law "Loi du 24 février 1984 sur le régime des langues" at http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/1984/02/24/n1/jo say luxembourgish is official language of the E.U. It's a conter-exemple.92.188.16.151 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources should be in the article, which right now lacks any sources, so anything you can provide would be of great assistance. If you have trouble with formatting the sources, post them on the article's talkpage and I'll see if I can work them in. The body of the article should be sourced first, rather than the infobox. Acroterion (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

trying to revise James Fenimore Cooper website

This is my first attempt to update a Wikipedia page. I am editor in chief of the standard scholarly edition of James Fenimore Cooper, and am working closely with Wayne Franklin, who in 2017 finished the two volume biography of Cooper.

some of my edits are being rejected, with no reasons given, and by an anonymous person. They are accurate; that cannot be the issue. Please tell me what i need to do to update the site correctly. Doubtless I have format issues as the site is new to me.

If you don't want the leading scholars to do this work, well, we have other projects too.

Lance Schachterle (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Chiropractic page is monitored by biased people

The “admins” or whomever is undoing all edits to the page are ignoring cited changes to the wildly incorrect page that has 20+ year old information and uses “sources” like Forbes.com as legitimate factual points of reference. This violates Wikipedias own guidelines As they are taking personal opinions and displaying them as factual evidence and actively ignoring, discouraging and hiding modern factual and empirical changes based on newly found research. These page administrators or editors or whoever has the ability or power to ban or grossly remove edits are those which give Wikipedia a bad name and are why It is never acceptable to cite Wikipedia in any medical journal. In my several decade experience as a physician it is disheartening to see someone who is clearly uneducated on the topic but yet are in a position of power to spread misinformation and discredit any sort of validity Wikipedia tries to continuously establish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B106:50A:B88E:2769:C850:ECBC (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You're making disruptive edits by removing the entirely correct statement that chiropractors are not doctors of medicine, any more than dentists are. However, I've found a more comprehensive reference to replace the Forbes reference. The source goes into considerable detail concerning the differences between MDs, DOs and DCs, as well as DDSs and so on. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You blocked IPs and new editors from improving the article. This edit was damaging to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

See above. I agree with the IP/new account that was industriously edit-warring to remove the entirely factual statement that DCs are not medical doctors that the Forbes reference was something of a hit piece, and found a better source. I'm happy to unprotect as long as the edit-warring doesn't resume. Acroterion (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Given edit summaries by the recent edit warrior like "The original page was made by biased non-expert persons who clearly have a vendetta against chiropractors and should not be allowed to post boarder line hate speech," I have a little trouble seeing how, apart from needing a better reference, the IP/account was planning on improving the article. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the same content? You want to block me from improving the article? QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You're not edit-warring with an IP and an account. However, for the sake of my own curiosity, what is your objection to making it clear that DCs aren't medical doctors? Wht is that not an improvement, and why would anyone object to the California reference? Acroterion (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Medical doctors are not DCs." Would you add that to the article about medical doctors?

The CA ref is a blog. If I added that ref people would think my account is compromised. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is - an official blog with the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Not all blogs are disallowed, just those that have no editorial oversight or credentialing. If it hadn't said "blog" in the header, it would just be a page on the website of the state regulator. And again, while I really don't have a strongly held view in this matter - I'm not the one making pointy comments about getting blocked for improving the article or ignoring 3RR problems - why is a mention that DCs aren't medical doctors problematic? Acroterion (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not a journal and I don't understand the significance of the content. It looks like someone just wanted to make chiropractors look bad. The lede is a bit long and this content and a few others don't add anything important to the lede. No reader is going to confuse a DC for a medical doctor. QuackGuru (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it's a regulator and a consumer affairs agency, who are concerned with medical practitioner qualifications: pretty much the horse's mouth. You'd want a medical journal for discussion of conditions, treatments, medications and other rigorously-scrutinized MEDRS matters. I agree the lede's long. However, there are plenty of people out there who have no real idea of the differences between chiropractors and medical doctors, and the history of chiropractic has at times sought to obfuscate the distinctions.Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The content does not explain the history of chiropractic has at times sought to obfuscate the distinctions. That means this is irrelevant content. The edit warring will continue as long as the content remains in the lede. Readers believe the content is a problem and will continue to delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, some want to edit-war, and I don't get the impression that the account/IP plan to stop with the end of the lede. And the article goes into considerable, sourced depth about the discipline's tendency to claim broad health benefits through manipulation - certainly Daniel D. Palmer promoted some very aggressive ideas about what chiropractic could treat. Not germane to the content, but having myself worked with a practitioner, who helped me with a herniated disc until it could be surgically corrected, I'm familiar with their practice and not poorly disposed to chiropractors, nor to acupuncturists, for instance, where I found the experience remarkably relaxing and calming. In any case, because article content on Wikipedia has a tendency to be siloed into specific topics, it appears to me that the relationship to other medical disciplines is poorly summarized, particularly with respect to osteopathy. Perhaps interested editors could address that? Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I wrote about the osteopathy controversy in the Chiropractic controversy and criticism. I can't squeeze everything into the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look there. Since you've got your eye on the article, please let me know if trouble starts up again - I don't have it on my watchlist and stumbled across the edit war by happenstance - from your perspective it looks like I semi-protected The Wrong Version, which is inevitable in such cases, and at least to me, consensus on the matter was not immediately apparent. Please have a little more faith in the process - not everything involves a hidden POV. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I also wrote about it in the history article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Deedeedee Monkeyass

User:Deedeedee Monkeyass is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

How unexpected. TP access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a power user, so unsure of how it works.

Thunberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism#List_of_eco-socialists

How come NONE of the members in the list have sources (Like Mélenchon being here despite being not even a member of the french green party) yet Greta Thunberg, an ecologist militant (do you want source on that ?) that advocate for "After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all." is NOT an eco-socialist ?

86.163.132.20 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Then you should easily be able to find reliable secondary sources that say so. You may not synthesize a conclusion based on your own reading. That violates sourcing policy, and since it's a biographical assertion, it violates the biographies of living persons policy to do as you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Then how comes all the other personalities are on the list, as they fail those criterias as well ?

Moreover, saying that "wanting to dismantle Patriarchy" is not left wing is a highly biased statement.

86.163.132.20 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Find sources written by experts on the subject that say so. Personal opinion and interpretation isn't admissible on this encyclopedia project. If you don't understand that, you need to stop editing until you understand what Wikipedia requires. Acroterion (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) A quick look shows that some of the people on the list have clear mentions on their articles that they are eco-socialists, or a combination of socialists and ecologically concerned. There are some where the link is not that obvious—in which case, they should be removed from the list, rather than being a perceived justification to insert Thunberg. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

As below

"RE: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Trump–Ukraine scandal, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)"

A complaint

This article is ENTIRELY written in a BIAS narrative on the assumption of guilt against NON PROVEN accusations thus VIOLATES the NON BIAS "NEUTRAL" INTENT OF WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. My last edits changed some of the accusative wording to be NON BIAS such as adding "allegedly" in sentences that say "did" or "did not" in accordance with the NON BIAS and NEUTRAL INTENT OF WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. This article cites known and proven BIAS media sources, eg. CNN of which it is common knowledge and FACT that this media outlet is entirely the bias "mouthpiece" of the Democratic Party and the article is written entirely from the BIAS of the Democratic Party. This is like asking the Nazis to write a "neutral" or "non bias" article on the Jews. I am sadly forced into having to interpret you accusation of "disruptive editing" to be an effort on your part to OBSTRUCT genuine NON BIAS editing and therefore consciously further the BIAS of this article and thus VIOLATE WIKIPEDIA'S RULES OF NEUTRALITY. My edits were in NO WAY "disruptive editing." I have been editing Wikipedia articles successfully for MANY YEARS. Do I need to escalate this? What's your agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.190.87.225 (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're talking about my reversion of this edit [20] in which you inserted this commentary - "House Representatives of the The U.S Democratic party and it's politically-biased media ally CNN allege that" = accompanied by this edit summary - "wow! this is so biased. It reeks of CNN and Democratic spin. Minor edit." The parable of The Mote and the Beam comes to mind. And please learn to use "bias" correctly. Someone or some thing may exhibit "bias," in which case they may be "biased." Also, please learn the difference between it's and its. Stating that a thing is "bias narrative" is a symptom of too much time spent in political messageboards where this kind of shrill caps lock invective is commonplace. If you keep disrupting articles to insert your own analysis, you'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor creating hoax baseball player articles

It is GoBlackhawksGo (talk · contribs). There at least fpur, here[21], and three others at his sandbox #s 66, 67, and 68. All about players who never existed. He has more these in his sandbox but I haven't checked on them but based on these I would suspect more hoaxes. Could you please take care of them and have a word with this editor and Happy Holidays....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Fixphone23 and User:Realsales23

Hello. Recently you have blocked User:Realsales23 as a promotion-only account. Now, the user User:Fixphone23 has appeared. I suspect they are the same person because of related-ish usernames and account purposes and the following filter log record, where one of them seemingly accidentally used the old user's user page instead of the new one: Special:AbuseLog/25582717. Can you confirm if the text added by User:Realsales23 to their user talk page is the same as the text added by User:Fixphone23? If so, does this imply they are the same person? Edible Melon (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not, Realsales23 was flogging real estate instead of phones, but it could be a spam aggregator or something nevertheless. Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

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 works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well A. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Worth a checkuser?

Hi, I see you received a mention from an IP who's recently begun commenting across at the Greta Thunberg talk page. I wondered if this might be related to MartiniShaw (talk) whom you recently blocked for a couple of weeks and topic banned? Esowteric+Talk 17:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I had the same thought, but it's probably not worth bothering a checkuser - yet, anyway. I'm keeping an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Acroterion, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Donner60 (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas!

Hello Acroterion: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux ^(talk) 19:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

What do you mean by the G11 deletion

I dont get why my user page gets deleted again Albert Tanoni (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Albert Tanoni: We're not LinkedIn. We're not the place to promote your career. If you were notable, you would not need to write about yourself, someone else you don't even know would do it without your involvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't post your resume, or promote yourself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and you're not going to get hired anywhere through your userpage content. Userpages are for telling a little about your activities that relate to this encyclopedia project, not for promoting yourself. Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk page access revocation

Thisisafakeaccount13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hey Acroterion, hope all is well. You might need to revoke talk page access for the above account you blocked. I'm seeing they are trying to edit their talk page after the block. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

not able to create page for self

Hello

I'm not looking to use Wikipedia against policies. I'm a legitimate motorcycling coach and author. I see that others are listed on Wikipedia so I thought it would be okay to include myself. Just a simple listing like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ienatsch or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Code

If this is unacceptable, how did they get listed? Just curious. Does someone else have to build my page for me?

-Jon Jdelv1986 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You may not use your userpage for promotion of off-wiki activities. If you have received significant press coverage in major independent media, you may be eligible for an article (as opposed to userspace), but it's best that people not create autobiographies. See WP:BIO for more on biographies, who is eligible, and how they are to be sourced. Acroterion (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nitasha kaul LGBT protest students

Well documented proofs available how that getting deleted explain Boneyjv (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read the biographies of living persons policy. Wikipedia articles are not to be used as a means of shaming or attacking people, or for activism. If you can provide multiple sources in major publications, it can be discussed at the article's talkpage for possible inclusion, but simply linking to Twitter or YouTube isn't sufficient. Acroterion (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There well documented proofs available for protest against (news & video )her plz don't show vested interests!!! Explain why you keep deleted that added vandalism ??explain there are other administrators also plz don't show vested interests . Boneyjv (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Use the talkpage, and provide sources that comply with Wikipedia policy, remembering that BLP policy applies to talkpages too. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Asking for protection

For the 2020 LPGA Tour page. An IP user keeps putting information on there that we continuously undo, and they are not listening. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi,

The same cack on User talk:CLCStudent probably needs revdelling too. Adam9007 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Flushed. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup on my page too A. MarnetteD|Talk 01:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)