User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q2 2023

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Talk:Jeggings

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

You've got mail

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

UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP

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

I agree the IPs at the Altgens bio are all the same long-term vandal. They keep trying to insert conspiracy ideas cited to the garbage book Prayer Man: The Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald by Stan Dane, published by the tin-foil peddlers Martian Publishing. Abso nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it's probably them. They've been quiet in recent years, or haven't haunted the places they used to frequent. They've also moved from the Southeast, if the geolocation is to be believed. I generally block their IPs for a month. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

1 Technical news

Arbitration

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

Readyville

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

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

Talk:Leo Frank

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

DeCausa, I've asked a CU. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC).
Thanks, I was in the middle of filling out an SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
DeCausa, Beyond My Ken: no technical connection. The question of who brought it to the new user's attention remains, of course. Bishonen | tålk 08:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC).
Thanks for that. I'm not surprised, I'm thinking MEATPUPPET. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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

i need help

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

NesimeD

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

They can take it up with HR. I am constantly astonished by the brazenness and self-importance of spammers. I spend a lot of time writing proposals and marketing materials, and have to consciously turn it on and off depending on where I'm writing. Some people have no awareness or interest in the context of what or where they write - everything is a promotional opportunity, and bluster substitutes for understanding of context. The whole world is social media, and anything goes. Acroterion (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
That seems to be their world-view. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

reverts on dubious 'peaceful' assertion

Go to the talkpage and find consensus for your changes like everybody else is expected to do
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How exactly is consensus building the issue when it's universally acknowledged that there's a factual dispute, and the question is whether i) to say in the text the facts are disputed or ii) to write an article which endorses as true one set of claims? This isn't an issue of characterization or opinion. Something either happened or did not happen. OckRaz talk 21:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your tireless reverting of edits flagged by Special:AbuseFilter/982. Considering how many of the additions are for anti-semitic reasons, it's good to see that stuff reverted. Galobtter (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Many of them are well-meaning, or expressions of pride, but a significant number are malicious. In any cae, singling out Jews to alter their nationalities to set them apart from their national compatriots is pernicious, whether intentional or not. Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

You've got mail

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

Natasha Bertrand wikipedia

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

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

PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE

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

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

@Risantana: That page is on Wikimedia Commons, this is English Wikipedia, two different projects. You'll need to get an administrator on Commons to delete the page. You can do so by adding the template {{speedydelete|author requests deletion}} to the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Risantana: please also note that it's frowned on to ask a whole clutch of individual admins for the same thing. Asking one admin, or asking at Wikipedia:Teahouse, is a better way. Bishonen | tålk 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

NOTHERE?

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

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

(talk page stalker) @Beyond My Ken I’ve blocked that account as there’s some socking going on with User:Philotrio. I think this might be more on the CIR side than NOTHERE, although the difference is probably academic… Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I forgot to mention their recent threat to sock if blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Seems like a convergence of compulsive trolling and CIR, based on all that socking across a spectrum of articles. I’ll add this one to my compendium of socks to watch out for. Which reminds me, have you seen the Lombardy Nazi IP recently? Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I was thinking about them just a day or so ago -- and, no, I haven't seen them, that I'm aware of, on any of their usual articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Considering this edit, it looks like new editor PhiloWise is another sock of Ehr1Ros2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Protect my talk page

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

I've already protected your talkpage for a while. I can't do much about Simple, though, you'll need to contact an admin over there. It's a common practice of that particular LTA, they should be familiar with him. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I know you can’t help with simple, just thought I’d let you know that it is cross wiki. I really appreciate it, I wish it was simpler to just write an encyclopedia without the socking, attacks, and threats. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Btw: This may be another one: User talk:103.70.86.130 - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I've emailed you with a little context. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I got the email, thanks for sharing and I will keep my open for the LTA in the future. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
If you’re curious anymore about the LTA, you may want to see my simple wiki talk page history. At first I thought it was 2 separate LTAs attacking me, but I guess it is the same one. Jeesh, you’d think they’d get tired and stop. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
That's optimistic in the short run. However, in the long run, they'll find another target, either here or on some Internet forum. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Could you protect my talk page again? It is receiving more vandalism, just different from before. Maybe 1 week semi-protect? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I just see that one IP today, which is different geographically and abuse-wise than before - if they use other IPs or there are other harassers, then I'll semi for a little while. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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

Why

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

As I said at ANI, you've returned to the same conduct that brought your last block, with no consensus and no changes. Get consensus from other editors,a nd stop treating them as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
what is it that's making you feel like like I'm seeing them as an opponent? I just want to move on. Isn't it the other user that has repeatedly and rudely referred to it as a "pissing contest"? I just want what's right for the page. PaUZz LYte (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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

Pointing out excessive Rollback

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

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

Your own behavior of Rollback Warning

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

You appear to be editing according to your own personal whim. Your last edit to Catalonia, where you changed the national anthem with a bizarre edit summary, led me to investigate your other recent edits., which all appear to be inappropriate. You will be blocked if you continue to edit without proper sourcing or justification. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
And since you reinstated your inappropriate change to the national anthem without any more convincing discussion, I've blocked you and returned the other articles to their condition before you started fooling around with them. If you continue to edit in this manner after the block expires, the next will be much longer. Bluster is not an alternative for sourcing or consensus. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Boeing 777X protection level.

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

I think I goofed and picked the wrong menu option. You're right, semi is correct. Thanks for pointing it out. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

TPA

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

Detail about a block

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks,

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

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

Geothermal

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

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

nvm

Help!

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

Your cross-namespace redirects were deleted (again). I think your article was draftified from article space, and something went wrong in the sequence. You can find it here: Draft:St Mark's CofE School, Southampton Acroterion (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't redirect anything but thank you for giving me my work back! Parabelleum (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

IP revdel

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

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

Update

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

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

Categorizing Fuentes as a neo-nazi

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

Yet you made no mention of that. Please read what the BLP policy requires. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I assumed that it was in the article somewhere, so I didn't need to debate adding the category. Firekong1 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
You assumed that in a BLP? I think you need to step away from biographies for a while. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
No, I mean that I thought an article from a source categorizing Fuentes as a neo-nazi due to his association with the alt-right movement was somewhere in the article. Fuentes has literally engaged in holocaust denial, has praised hitler, and denied nazi war crimes. Firekong1 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it's time for a topic ban for you, based on the way you keep making casual assumptions about living people. Acroterion (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
No need to ban, I’m not editing blps for a while until I educate myself. I did make a mistake, but I should at least be given another chance. I usually don’t edit political articles and blp articles. Firekong1 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I was going to recommend a voluntary restriction for six months or so to allow you to gain a better acquaintance with sourcing and BLP policy. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for the misunderstanding and my lack of awareness. Allow me the chance to educate myself on the topic first rather than immediately banning me. Not everyone who's on wikipedia for a long time is automatically an expert, and that includes me. I promise not to edit hastily again. I mostly just edit articles regarding animals, as that's where my expertise is.Firekong1 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read the talk Page on Heathenry before Blocking editors

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

Then find reliable academic sources for that, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and stop removing sourced content to substitute your own assertions or interpretations. I have protected the article to stop your disruptive edits. You're illustrating precisely why Wikipedia doesn't use primary sources - Wikipedia is not a scriptural debating society. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
And what is this "us"? Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The IP is a Holtj sockpuppet. I've opened an investigation over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holtj#Suspected sockpuppets. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

False titles of nobility fictitious references

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

Make your case on the talkpage, and wait for editors to respond. Edit-warring is not a productive strategy, nor is contacting individual editors on their talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the process. Yes, I have done this now. I am just concerned as to why the other editor would want to retain false information, unless they added it. 82.129.53.90 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Please do not assume bad faith - poorly explained or sourced removals of or changes to content are generally reverted, or at least challenged, and in general, the editors who patrol the recent changes queue did not create the content. As the encyclopedia has matured, editors who challenge existing content are expected to bring their concerns up on the talkpage first. Acroterion (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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

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

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

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

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

Walt Nauta

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

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

You've got mail

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

Regarding the recent reversion you made

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

Yeah, I looked at them more closely, since they seem to have an axe to grind. Not so much an appearance of paid, just opinionated, at least from where I sit. For now, I've warned them and will keep an eye on them. Thanks for letting me know that you're watching too. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, and no problem at all. Thank you. Top5a (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, not paid nor axe to grind but unlike yourself am in touch with reality. Please note that the most recent edit made was highlighting that the premier was a Marxist. On the Chinese translation of the page he is already listed as a Communist. Maybe you should edit the Chinese translation and remove the fact that the Premier within the Communist party is not according to you a Communist.
I suspect you are a paid CCP editor though so would not expect any adjustment. 103.249.33.10 (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
That must be it. Every second person in West Virginia is paid by China, you know. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Anyone who uses the term "Chinese Taipei" sure sounds like it. 103.249.33.10 (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q2_2023&oldid=1223796418"