User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q4 2023
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Deletion review for Honeycomb.io
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Honeycomb.io. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lizthegrey (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm a little puzzled about how to proceed, since it was created by a banned user, and you've declared a COI. How do you expect to approach this? Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The outcome of DRV was to undelete it as a draft and have me put it through AfC. lizthegrey (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I'll see if I can do that later - I'm getting dinner ready right now and have painting to do after that. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's all been sorted by Spartaz, no need to worry about it. lizthegrey (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I'll see if I can do that later - I'm getting dinner ready right now and have painting to do after that. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The outcome of DRV was to undelete it as a draft and have me put it through AfC. lizthegrey (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Your rev/delete
My lord, after looking at the delete, it just dawned on me, the offensive username. Not very quick on the uptake this morning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It does you credit that you don't automatically think in those terms. But yeah, there are a lot of people behind keyboards who find glee in being horrible. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Administrators opinion
Hello! About a year ago I made the Luxembourg Rebellion, Luxembourg Communist Rebellion , and Luxembourg Rebellions. The Luxembourg Rebellion faced a Contested deletion and was kept, the Luxembourg Rebellion was revised and the review said it was within wikipila policy. The articles are up for merging and I want to know what you think because they have all been “reviewed”, the person merging them has also proposed the merging of many other articles I have made so I would not be surprised if he comes to this talk page. With all that said I hope you can take a look at this situation. Thanks! LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Editor keeps deleting material despite the lack of consensus from talk page.
Greetings Acroterion, Ihikky deleted a paragraph on the Kingdom of Dagbon page that is reliably sourced. These sources have different arguments. 5 of these sources speak about the subject matter at hand which is the Ashanti invasion of Dagbon in the mid 18th century. The 6th source, which is a journal, is skeptical about this invasion. The paragraph provides the arguments of both sides including the historians for the invasion as well as the journal which criticized this invasion for being overexaggerated. Ihikky on the other hand deleted everything without proper explanation as to why. I shared this on the talk page, Talk:Kingdom of Dagbon#Ashanti Empire., so we can meet consensus, but he keeps deleting the entire paragraph without addressing on the talk page why everything must be deleted. Please can you have a look at this?Kwesi Yema (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Kwesi Yema for engaging an admin. Hopefully we settle this matter once and for all. Again, I urge you to read all materials, not just cherry-pick. The claim you are advancing is disputed by researchers as, you have alluded to. Locally, in Ghana, that's not even a discussion.
- I understand you are a heavy editor and promoter of the Ashanti Empire, however, do not let that cloud your judgement. Try to gain go through: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- It's our job to provide accurate information without bias. Let debate academically, and not resort to disruptive behaviours.
- Thank you for bringing the matter here@Kwesi Yema, hopefully@Acroterion, help us finish this. Ihikky (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Calling me a promoter is serious accusation. You call peer reviewed sources cherry picked just because you do not like it. If this claim is disputed why don't you share all the peer reviewed legitimate sources that say so? I tasked you do to such on the talk page but you have failed to do so. The statement you deleted is well sourced by historians for and against the subject matter. You still haven't explained how this paragraph lacks verifiability, goes against neutrality or is original research.Kwesi Yema (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've responded on the article's talkpage. Administrators are not arbitrators of content, so you both need to engage other editors with subject matter familiarity to help you to come to a resolution. In the meantim,e, stop reverting each other and work it out. Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Calling me a promoter is serious accusation. You call peer reviewed sources cherry picked just because you do not like it. If this claim is disputed why don't you share all the peer reviewed legitimate sources that say so? I tasked you do to such on the talk page but you have failed to do so. The statement you deleted is well sourced by historians for and against the subject matter. You still haven't explained how this paragraph lacks verifiability, goes against neutrality or is original research.Kwesi Yema (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Nine years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 14:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Clyde [trout needed] 14:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Another one. Clyde [trout needed] 15:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2023 Lewiston shootings
Don't you think you went overboard with WP:BLP on 2023 Lewiston shootings? When police name anybody in relation to a mass tragedy like that, he becomes a public figure almost immediately (news spreads extremely fast in this day and age), and our ability to protect the innocent is basically non-existent, even if there is evidence that he was falsely named. Going back and removing his name from previous discussions is simply ridiculous, especially when his name was added, what, 24 hours later? Esszet (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. Editors need to be aware of the irreparable real-world harm they can do to innocent people in situations where they are reading rumors and posting them on Wikipedia. We can't control the rest of the world, but we can here, and it is plain that consensus supported that policy, until there are sufficient reports in concordant reliable sources that eliminated doubt. The rush to name someone, no matter how flimsily sourced, is at best unseemly and at worst ghoulish. My position was supported by other administrators, and ultimately, by a consensus of other editors. At the time this was happening, there were no RS reporting the name, quite the opposite - the media outlets were being extremely careful not to do so, and we reflected that caution. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- 1) Can you point me to a discussion where consensus was established? It was not established on the talk page 2) The police themselves named him as a POI on Wednesday night, so yes, there were RS's publishing his name 3) My main point is that when the police do that in a case like this – rightfully or otherwise – there is no hope – and I mean no hope – of protecting anyone's reputation. It gets plastered all over the place, and, eveni if the accusations turn out to be false, his reputation is ruined – temporarily, at least. Your actions were hastily taken and ill-considered, and I hope you refrain from doing the same thing in the future. Esszet (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's all right there on the talkpage, or in an archive. You are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't reflect policy or consensus, and again, you are cautioned that the BLP policy is non-negotiable, whaterver you think concerning matters outside Wikipedia. If you want to complain, take it to ANI.Acroterion (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just a note on what you said above, one does not become a public figure because they were covered in media. A public figure makes themselves a target of public attention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- There was clearly no consensus if you had to repeatedly go back and remove his name, even from the talk page (the archive says nothing at all about his name, by the way). WP:LPI is not policy, "public figure" is actually not defined in WP:WELLKNOWN, and I.m taking this to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, this is ridiculous. You should really read these things more carefully before jumping to conclusions. Esszet (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- "There was clearly no consensus if you had to repeatedly go back and remove his name" is a very backwards way of putting it, and editors not knowing any better than to follow BLP does not override policy. You appear to mistake a rush to put a name into the article, no matter the consequences, as confirmation of its propriety. This is a perennial problem with events of this kind, and it's up top administrators to remind editors that it's not acceptable without multiple, concordant sources, that use specific terminology. Once the issue became moot as confirmed "suspect" named in major media, there was no longer any point, but unless and until major news outlets publish the person's name as more than a "person of interest", nobody has any business adding it, or leaving it in history. And you appear to have missed the extensive discussions involving myself, Fuzheado and Ad Orientem on the talkpage, with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but it appears you're trying to force your reading of BLP on other editors (without actually protecting the innocent, obviously). '[U]nless and until major news outlets publish the person's name as more than a "person of interest"' – where's the consensus behind that? It wasn't established on the talk page (I'd really appreciate ir if you could point to a specific discussion – these two do not establish anything). It wouldn't be established on one article. Either way, the discussion is here now – we'll see what other people have to say. Esszet (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please read the archives: as I asked you to: Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings/Archive 1#Suspect, Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings/Archive 1#Person of interst named, Talk:2023 Lewiston shootings/Archive 1##Suspecthas been identified by NYT, CNN, and NBC et seq. Multiple administrators took an active role in enforcing the community's consensus concerning BLP. If you don't likle it, get the policy changed. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'll further note that Fuzheado placed the article under AE sanctions at about the same time for BLP, and I think you should read those policies, not to mention the header at the top of the article talkpage that Fuzheado placed, which is till there and is applicable. I am concerned about your understanding of that policy. Wikipedia exists in the real world, it is not a game or a competition, and we must get it right, so that we, at least, are not responsible for harming people in the midst of a tragedy. I am not going to apologize for holding editors to that standard, as the community demands. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but it appears you're trying to force your reading of BLP on other editors (without actually protecting the innocent, obviously). '[U]nless and until major news outlets publish the person's name as more than a "person of interest"' – where's the consensus behind that? It wasn't established on the talk page (I'd really appreciate ir if you could point to a specific discussion – these two do not establish anything). It wouldn't be established on one article. Either way, the discussion is here now – we'll see what other people have to say. Esszet (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- "There was clearly no consensus if you had to repeatedly go back and remove his name" is a very backwards way of putting it, and editors not knowing any better than to follow BLP does not override policy. You appear to mistake a rush to put a name into the article, no matter the consequences, as confirmation of its propriety. This is a perennial problem with events of this kind, and it's up top administrators to remind editors that it's not acceptable without multiple, concordant sources, that use specific terminology. Once the issue became moot as confirmed "suspect" named in major media, there was no longer any point, but unless and until major news outlets publish the person's name as more than a "person of interest", nobody has any business adding it, or leaving it in history. And you appear to have missed the extensive discussions involving myself, Fuzheado and Ad Orientem on the talkpage, with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- There was clearly no consensus if you had to repeatedly go back and remove his name, even from the talk page (the archive says nothing at all about his name, by the way). WP:LPI is not policy, "public figure" is actually not defined in WP:WELLKNOWN, and I.m taking this to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, this is ridiculous. You should really read these things more carefully before jumping to conclusions. Esszet (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- 1) Can you point me to a discussion where consensus was established? It was not established on the talk page 2) The police themselves named him as a POI on Wednesday night, so yes, there were RS's publishing his name 3) My main point is that when the police do that in a case like this – rightfully or otherwise – there is no hope – and I mean no hope – of protecting anyone's reputation. It gets plastered all over the place, and, eveni if the accusations turn out to be false, his reputation is ruined – temporarily, at least. Your actions were hastily taken and ill-considered, and I hope you refrain from doing the same thing in the future. Esszet (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
User:BeingObjective
He's doing it again. I think this is clearly WP:NOTHERE and indefinite block is warranted. --WikiLinuz (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not prepared to go straight to indef. Iv'e blocked for a longer term to make the point that you can't just do what they're doing. They believe they're editing in good faith, but from a very pedantic point of view. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
edit summary deletion
Hello Acroterion, I did not think of modifying my edit summary in the reversion of an edit you just hid, same for another editor reverting at Talk:Free Palestine Movement, may want to hide those edit summaries as well. Thanks, nableezy - 13:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- that was quick, ty very much. nableezy - 13:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I've gone through and taken care of all of them, it's pretty much standard procedure.I wish there was a script that would do that if the previous revdel was for a disruptive username. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC
Its not a different conspiracy.
Burned memo- https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/alien.ufo/majestic_12/Burned%20Memo,%20pages%201-2%20burnedmemo-s1-pgs1-2.pdf
Magic Eyes Only-https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/alien.ufo/majestic_12/Flying%20Saucer%20Analytical%20Report%20rdlab_analyticalrpt2sept47.pdf 66.244.71.70 (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a messageboard for conspiracy theory mashups. Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
- The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
- There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
- Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
- Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
- Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
- Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
- Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
- An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
- The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
YGM
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Justyouraveragewikieditor (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding - Deletion of user sandbox Aparna DS/sandbox dated 11 Nov 2023
Hello Acroterion,
I had used my user Sandbox for creating a draft of the article i intended to contribute to wikipedia. Could you please indicate how the use of sandbox to create a draft is violating the wikipedia's goals ? Thank you, Aparna
Aparna DS (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please read the notice I left on your talkpage. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for your CV or a platform for self promotion. Acroterion (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@Acroterion, thank you for your feedback. I do not intend to use wikipedia as a self promotion tool and neither it is a CV of mine or anybody that i was intending to post about. I used the wikipages Nirupama Rajendra and Maya Rao as reference and added few more sections that was relevant. I am working to cut it short as this was only a draft.. Aparna DS (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Neither of the articles you cite appear to have been written by their subjects, and both avoid the promotional tone that the deleted draft uses. This is one reason why auutobiographies are generally not considered appropriate. Please see the comments on the draft the you submitted, you must use that process to submit content. Please read WP:AUTOBIO. Acroterion (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
| Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Acroterion! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |  |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
- The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi
Just to know :"Not usual usage" what is meant by that? So I know how to deal with it,thank you. Labicanense (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know of anywhere in the encyclopedia that we abbreviate George Washington to "G, Washington." Either Washington or George Washington. Acroterion (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you. Labicanense (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
195.244.166.33
Can you ban this ip for longer? This isn’t the first instance of them being disruptive and pushing an agenda. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- I could, but a week is what most admins would do for tiresome widely-spaced griping. If they do it again, it will be a month, then three or six months. They're on my watchlist for the next few months. Acroterion (talk)
Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy
You closed this after 28 hours of discussion on that page. One admin suggested I go to that page. I did. The first person to reply on that page was 28 hours ago. Please revert your closing. This discussion is not a repetition of the other talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- And you kept on with the same forum presentation that I closed, that has not done any better over there, except that it was tempting other editors to a forum debate on pathology. Please find somewhere else on the Internet for such debates. 331dot told you, in his capacity as an ordinary editor, to review those discussions, not to go there and start over. Acroterion (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
331dot's last 2 comments:
| That's an issue for the article about the assassination itself, and you might want to review that talk page and its archive carefully before proposing it there, as it sounds like this general issue(if not the sources you use here) might have been brought up before now. As to this article, I agree that you probably could mention these claims in the context of theories, if it isn't already mentioned.
Then the only thing you can do is attempt to gain a consensus on the talk page of the assassination article, but you will need to do more than just repeat prior arguments to have any chance at succeeding. Personally I don't think you are likely to succeed, and it will likely be a long, hard effort, but that's what you can do. |
I did not just repeat prior arguments. There is much new info in the documentary. But you cut off discussion after 28 hours.
I noticed that there was only 34 hours of discussion at the other talk page you closed. If you don't count my note at the end of it pointing to the other discussion 17 days later. Most talk pages let discussions roll naturally off the page.
That first discussion was based solely on the trailer for the doc, and reviews. The trailer by itself was pretty extraordinary due to all the eyewitnesses. But for the 2nd discussion I had seen the full documentary. And it is much more extraordinary than the trailer. Many more eyewitnesses covering much more. We were having a good discussion on the 2nd talk page. I don't think your reasons for cutting it off are justified. Why not just let it go on as at most talk pages? That's what talk pages are for. I have edited many controversial topics on Wikipedia over 18 years, and have seen nothing like what you are doing. We were having a good discussion without insulting each other. Please revert your close. What's the worst that could happen? More talk? That's what talk pages are for. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Talk pages are for concise discussions of specific improvements to articles, based on a consensus of reliable sources. You are not doing that, nor are you following @331dot:'s suggestion (which I think was an unfortunate idea, given the walls of text and analysis you are generating). You are baiting other editors into tangential debates on talkpages that are plagued by that sort of thing. You are treating a single source as definitive against the opposition of everyone who's responded, tendentiously. Please take a step and and look at your discussions through the lens of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SYNTH. You've been around long enough to know all this, and your editing history is otherwise productive as far as I have looked, so I am trying to keep it that way. You have run away with enthusiasm for an idea, as people sometimes do, and you're not listening to other editors. We're running an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. If the TV show has finally cracked the JFK assassination, then it will be endorsed in reliable sources and will influence academic thought. That is what you must bring to a talkpage, not paragraphs of enthusiastic pathology discussion built on a single show. That is why I closed it in both locations. It's not actionable, other editors have told you so, you haven't gotten any consensus at all, and it's getting disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Having a discussion is not "baiting", nor "tendentious". Nor am I having a forum or synthesizing anything. I am listening and responding to all the editors. The documentary has not cracked the JFK assassination, and I never said so. It's easily actionable by pointing out what the 7 Parkland doctors said in the documentary, which is that they all thought the neck wound was an entrance wound. There are more reliable sources for this than just the documentary. Some of the doctors have been saying this openly for awhile. In reliable sources. I am in no hurry though. I will wait a few days and go to WP:AN as Ad Orientem said in answer to my question on where to appeal the close. I suggest you view the documentary. Paramount Plus gives you one week free. That's how I watched it. It is hard to have a good discussion if the parties involved in the discussion haven't seen the proposed reliable source in full. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are free to go to AN. I don't think it will be seen there the way you want it to be seen, but that's up to you, which both 331dot and Ad Orientem have tried to tell you in other ways. Acroterion (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Having a discussion is not "baiting", nor "tendentious". Nor am I having a forum or synthesizing anything. I am listening and responding to all the editors. The documentary has not cracked the JFK assassination, and I never said so. It's easily actionable by pointing out what the 7 Parkland doctors said in the documentary, which is that they all thought the neck wound was an entrance wound. There are more reliable sources for this than just the documentary. Some of the doctors have been saying this openly for awhile. In reliable sources. I am in no hurry though. I will wait a few days and go to WP:AN as Ad Orientem said in answer to my question on where to appeal the close. I suggest you view the documentary. Paramount Plus gives you one week free. That's how I watched it. It is hard to have a good discussion if the parties involved in the discussion haven't seen the proposed reliable source in full. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Talk pages are for concise discussions of specific improvements to articles, based on a consensus of reliable sources. You are not doing that, nor are you following @331dot:'s suggestion (which I think was an unfortunate idea, given the walls of text and analysis you are generating). You are baiting other editors into tangential debates on talkpages that are plagued by that sort of thing. You are treating a single source as definitive against the opposition of everyone who's responded, tendentiously. Please take a step and and look at your discussions through the lens of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SYNTH. You've been around long enough to know all this, and your editing history is otherwise productive as far as I have looked, so I am trying to keep it that way. You have run away with enthusiasm for an idea, as people sometimes do, and you're not listening to other editors. We're running an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. If the TV show has finally cracked the JFK assassination, then it will be endorsed in reliable sources and will influence academic thought. That is what you must bring to a talkpage, not paragraphs of enthusiastic pathology discussion built on a single show. That is why I closed it in both locations. It's not actionable, other editors have told you so, you haven't gotten any consensus at all, and it's getting disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
RD2 and the files you just speedy nominated on Commons
Hey.
I'm not going to contest this, either here or on Commons, in no small part because copyright laws are hella complex. But, I think those images might actually have been uploaded properly. I took a look at the masthead of the paper through the Newspapers.com access in WP:LIB, and there's no copyright notice in it. I also couldn't spot one anywhere else on the first or last pages of the issue. You might want to take a closer look at the issue through the copy accessible via the library.
I do agree though that it was an entirely inappropriate pair of images. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Entirely possible, newspapers were less rigorous about that in the past. Commons can make up their mind about it, I'll append a note to the deletion rationales. My Newspapers.com subscription seems to have lapsed. However, I foresee the pictures being abused if they stay on Commons. I think the editor who uploaded them was acting in good faith, but they seem to have a rather expansive idea of what's appropriate in a biography and what might go on Commons. I note for comparison that there aren't any pictures of Ted Kennedy's infamous Oldsmobile posted on Commons or used in any articles. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Mmmm, yeah. Though I could also see someone else uploading the same, or similar clippings from around that time period even if they are deleted. The upcoming election will no doubt bring more attention to Biden and his family. Even if it is PD because of the lack of copyright in the masthead, it seems overly gratuitous to use them as images any article to me. As for Newspapers.com, even if your individual subscription to it has lapsed, you should be able to access it through WP:LIB. It's in their standard collection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
93.216.109.46
After all the headache I've had at WP:AIV with this IP and an experienced user, who is the IP a sock of? Reminded me a little of BKFIP, but the location is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not a clue. It looks like they're using a bunch of European proxies for harassment. The business about taking too much interest in children was out of bounds for me. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Excuse me
Why did you revert my edits? The maps were biased (claiming Suriname controls the disputed territories and violates WP:NPOV. BoomGoesTheTrinitrotoluene (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Where have you discussed this with the editor who added them? Politely? Edit summaries tell us nothing, wxcept that you disagree. Acroterion (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)