Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q1 2019

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


Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Acroterion: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 05:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

BMK

Hello I'm trying tohave an honest discussion about the name of the page Caucasian race, where I point out that the either it should be renamed or there should be a note that this term to refer to the white race is a North American term, as outside of North America, (as in where I come from), caucasian denotes a person of the Caucasus mountain region around Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Southwestern Russia. BMk however reverted my edits and called me a racist. I posted a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and notified him as I am suppose dto, since I can't use an/i as it's protected. I want to have him understand that I am not treating Wikipedia as a forum nor am I being racist. His points about the terms mongoloid and negroid also needing a bit of fixing are valid. I came accross the Caucasian race article when I was trying to read up on people from the Caucasian region. Being an Eritrean-born Brit, I had no idea that Caucasians were white until I heard the term use don some police detective shows from America. I noticed it was only in American media and after I moved to Canada in 2017 that I heard this term being used for the White race. I think that just leaving it will lead to a bit of confusion as this term is most an American term when referring to the White racial group. Please help us out at the despute resolution as I want to have an honest discussion without BMK shutting it down with a "not a forum you racist" type tag. I won't post again, but I find it rather hurtful that I'm being called a racist when I just want discussion not on the racial group itself, but rather the Wikipedia name as it relates to the Caucasian peoples (the ones in the acutal Caucasus.) That's what I want to do. So, I will not post on BMK's talk again, but please ask hi mnot to go around shutting down my discussions unless he wants me to post and ask why he did it. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by your "white race" proposal, and in my opinion it can be perceived as racist, whether you meant it that way or not. You're not getting traction with any of your proposals, and your focus on BMK is inappropriate. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You see? you explained yourself rather than calling me racist. I simply don't think that Caucasian is a good name for the page as there is an established Caucasian group. Maybe White is not a good term, but Caucasian is not either. Maybe there are alternative titles, but the discussion should be had on what else the article could be titled. I'Thakyou for at least explaining that. I'm also for somebody noting in the article that the term Caucasian to refer to white people is mostly a North American thing. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Even if the page is not renamed, if a note or tag that it's U.S> terminology would be enough for me anyway, as I am a non-American who thought I'd be reading a page about people from the Caucasus region. Titles matter, and I don't think Caucasians appreciate being lumped in with Western Europeans, just as I don't like being lumped in with Ethiopians. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

=let's get something straight

Alright, cards on th etable now. So it's okay for BMK to respond to me in a discussion, after he calls me racist and sicks you on me for posting on his talk page? Now I'm not denying his point about sources, I understand that, it's a valid point. However, one of my sources, Why Do We Keep Using the Word “Caucasian”? - SAPIENS, it not on Wikipedia. When I go to link something to cite it, it brings up a captcha thingy, where you're supposed to type in the characters you see. Only problem is, is that I'm blind, and use JAWS 16.0 screen-reader to use my computer and the internet. JAWS does not read captchas as they are images. While most captchas have an audio challenge, Wiki's does not. So I can't just go to the page "Why Do We Keep Using the Word “Caucasian”? - SAPIENS, " coppy the link, cite it and be done like I want to, because Wikipedia uses an outdated version of a spam filter. So either Wikipedia needs to update its captcha or else establish something for non-sighted users who cannot read the stupid captcha thing. and I'm not ripping my girlfriend away from her rehearsals to come and read a captcha for me as she's on the other sid eof the city. Having a musician girlfriend means she's not in the house all the time to run over and say, "oh, it's 13132" or whatever. Sorry for the rant, but it' strue. so while BMK brings up a good point, it's not as easy as you would like it to be. also how can I tell if a source is reliable? again, the page I'm looking at is called "Why Do We Keep Using the Word “Caucasian”? - SAPIENS" where it says that Caucasian is a term used in the United states to refer to White people. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a discussion of content or the WP interface. I've told you why I think your initial edit was perceived as inappropriate, and I've told you what I think about your disruptive focus on BMK. BMK did not "sick me on you" (by the way, it's "sic" or "sicced") - I saw you harassing him and stopped it. We're done here. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI

You've recently blocked Gwigley for making personal attacks. They have however, since the block was implemented, continued to refer to Alex 21 as a hypocrite on their talk page. Just bringing this to your attention. Thank you --TedEdwards 18:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've revoked talkpage access. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

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) 23:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Maroon 5 RS

I'm curious why you are adding back material sourced by YouTube to the Maroon 5 pages? YouTube is not good WP:RS, so I have reverted, and I have been taking out the material that is using YouTube as a source. I would more than appreciate your help removing such unsourced material rather than restoring it. Numerous IPs show up trying to restore the YouTube and other poor RS. See discussions at WP:RS/N. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Your reverts are fine, but the IP needs to avoid going on reference removal sprees with the edit summary "trim." YouTube is deprecated, but not in every instance. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for help with vandalising user account

Hello Acroterion. I was very grateful for your help maintaining the page List of association football players considered the greatest of all time recently, when you blocked indefinitely the vandalising account "Akhil Selecao" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akhil_Selecao), who, as you may remember, was removing any information on Wikipedia on the achievements of the football player Lionel Messi due to obsessive personal bias.

I would be very grateful for your help dealing with another vandalising user on this page, Lsw10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lsw10). As can be clearly seen on their contributions page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lsw10) this editor has edited solely in promotion of an individual (the footballer Pele), often via vandalism and outright lies. Indeed, the only edits this user has made on pages not explicitly about Pele are on pages such as List of association football players considered the greatest of all time and Diego Maradona, where the user has gone to lengths do (usually incorrectly) promote Pele, and (again, usually via vandalism and outright lies) denigrate various other footballers. All this belies a more-than-unhealthy obsession with Pele - though this would not be a problem in itself, of course, if the user was not determined to lie repeatedly, and on multiple articles, in pursuit of their obsession.

If it would help for me to provide examples of these, I can do so, but there are many easily visible on the user's contributions page.

As can be seen on this user's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lsw10), the editor has also been repeatedly told to stop such vandalism by many other editors, including, recently, me. Not only does the editor usually ignore such warnings, but when pushed, will go on the attack and repeatedly (and falsely) accuse other, entirely innocent editors of vandalism when they revert or overwrite the mistruths and outright lies he has written on various pages in promotion of Pele. The user actually went so far as to post vandalism warnings on my own talk page, after I had (with full explanation) begun to revert the placing of untrue information he had carried out on the article in question.

Every attempt made by other editors and I to reasonably discuss why the user has made these false edits has resulted in Lsw10 becoming abusive and making bizarre accusations of vandalism. I see no options but to either:

  • Let the user carry on making edits across multiple articles, thus allowing extraordinary amounts of mistruth on Wikipedia, undoing the work of many good editors, and discouraging serious, truth-focused editors from editing such pages as they feel they would be wasting their time, given the vociferousness with which the user in question refuses to allow any information on these articles which does not directly promote his obsessed-over individual.
  • Block the user, even if only temporarily, so that they know they will not be able to turn every barely-related Wikipedia article into their personal, warped records of Pele's achievements (which, of course, are extraordinary - as the article completely (but accurately) reflected before Lsw10 went on their most recent big round of vandalism).

If there is any doubt that this is not a personal vendetta, I would urge you to have a look at the user’s talk page and see just how many editors have had to try and confront Lsw10 about their constant vandalism.

If it is your opinion as the more experienced editor (and obviously administrator!) that the user should be allowed to carry on their vandalising, I will respect your seniority and give up trying to edit the article which Lsw10 is trying to maintain control over. If, on the other hand, you could help block the user temporarily or permanently, I and many other editors would be extremely grateful that we were able to go back to building a quality article free from bias. That Lsw10 is not trying to build a better, more accurate encyclopaedia: I would greatly value your opinion if this is the case to the extent that – as I and many other editors clearly believe – the user should be blocked.

Many thanks in advance for your help. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the attempt to put words in my mouth with statements like "If it is your opinion as the more experienced editor (and obviously administrator!) that the user should be allowed to carry on their vandalising." You both need to use the article talkpage. I don't see obvious block-worthy vandalism, but I do see a lot of accusations of bad faith editing on both sides, along with an impressive amount of edit-warring. Nobody's used the talkpage, they've just reverted and argued via edit summaries. Start a discussion there and notify Lsw10 of its existence. If that's not fruitful, then there are other options, but not until there's at least an attempt at civil discussion. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A POV pushing account

Hi. Please take a look at NvAp. It is quite obvious that they are here to push a POV and not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It is pretty clear, but I've left them a warning. If they continue they are likely to be blocked - this is part of a recent spate of parochial edits concerning Nepal-related topics, or at least topics that the editors wish to concern Nepal.Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Lange

That is fine. You must be prepared for my contributions to be validated, reinserted, and more or less made clearer.

Interesting how you take a vested interest in knocking down valid contributions/observations on the Jessica Lange page, but not the various forms of vandalism this page has been subjected to.Carly Marshall (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You're not doing much to reassure me. You're calling other editors who disagree with you vandals, including, so far, one administrator. Now you're trying to accuse me of acting in bad faith. Stop that. Please reconsider your interactions with other editors - you are being unnecessarily aggressive in your dealings with others. There has been no recent vandalism there. Claiming that other editors who simply disagree with you are vandals is a fast way to lose credibility. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hey

I have a revdel request: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tua_Tagovailoa&oldid=877648496

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Revdel'd and blocked the obnoxious fanboy. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hasty talk page warning

The notice left on my talk page was put there too hastily without looking at everything. It is asking me to do things in that notice that I have already done so there was no reason for the notice to be put there...

  • "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page"

Did you happen to notice the edit summary I made where I invited editors to go comment at a discussion that had already been started and nobody decided to comment, but decided to edit war instead?

Or, did you happen to check my contribs to see that I did in fact open a discussion on the other editors talk page with the same invitation?

I'm currently under some pretty heavy unblock restrictions, and I would appreciate it if you would be more cautious about dishing out warnings so hastily. It would really be even better if you would review the matter and remove it from my page since it will look a whole lot better on me if the admin who put it there admits it might have been a bit hasty and removes it themselves, than it would for be for me to just blank it myself. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I did all those things, that's precisely why I warned you. You're under a lot of restrictions, and you need to be a lot more cautious about dishing out warnings to other editors while editing disruptively yourself. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Huggums537 I'm going to give you some friendly advice. If you do feel yourself getting pulled into an edit war, the best thing you can do is walk away, especially if you've tried discussing it with the other editor. Seriously. Just walk away, go do something else and then come back to Wikipedia later on, even if it's just a few hours later. For what it's worth, I don't think Acroterion was too hasty in leaving the warning message.-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
5 albert square, that's fair advice. And, Acroterion, you are right, I probably was too hasty in dishing out warnings myself and should have been more cautious about that. However, I still feel the warning message was too hasty considering the fact that Bazza had already left a note on my talk page warning me that the edit warring accusation was misplaced. I was not even given enough time to respond to that warning before yet another one was placed on my page. So, not only do I think it was hasty, I think it was excessive as well.
At this point, I have to ask, Acroterion, are you and Bazza the same person editing under different usernames?
The reason for this question is because at 15:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC), Bazza made the claim they undid my edit, but the page history shows Acroterion undid it at 15:48.
So, either Bazza is Acroterion, or Bazza made a claim they did not fulfill for whatever reason. Huggums537 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Disregard previous question. I just realized I misread Bazza's comment. Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
You really, really need to stop and walk away from the computer - you're making things much, much worse for yourself, and if anything like this happens again, I'll block you Acroterion (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Block with my blessing: we can do without this sort of juvenile behaviour. Huggums537's accusations about us being sock-puppets of each other are insulting and entirely unfounded. They may well have been struck out, but they were made and are on the record. Bazza (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Lots of people are watching him, there's no reason right now to block. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits

User:Epf2018 has made rather high-handed edits to Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, not having taken his proposals to the talk page, and having employed rather biased conclusions from the papers cited. I have reversed the edits and pointed him towards discussion and consensus, but, having seen warnings on his user talk page, I fear he is probably going to persist. Just a heads up. Urselius (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No 'heads up' needed. Are you going to discuss the issue on the talk page, Urselius? My edits are taken directly from the two most respected and thorough genetic studies on the British population and the Anglo-Saxon migration. You are removing cited material without reason. Wikipedia policy states to be bold and make edits based on academic sources. My edits are taken almost verbatim from two highly respected studies. You need to explain why you are removing them. Epf2018 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It is probably not the done thing for two people to hold a discussion on another person's user talk page. However, I personally know some of the people who have undertaken this research, I am a geneticist I have helped out on an ancient DNA project. I also know that no single paper, or even two, are conclusive on this issue. I am always willing to discuss such matters. Urselius (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
If you are actually a geneticist, you would not be excluding the Leslie et al study, which is the most thorough, accurate and reliable on this issue to date. You also would admit the inaccuracies and uncited claims in the current state of the Anglo-Saxon settlement article, as well as the lack of significant material entered from the Schiffels study. Everything I entered is taken, almost verbatim, from these two major studies which are the most informative to date on the British populations and the Anglo-Saxon migrations. It is now known that there is a significant Anglo-Saxon genetic component in the modern English population, and thus there was a migration of at least some magnitude, even if it was small in comparison to the larger native British Celtic population. Epf2018 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
How about using the talkpage and de-escalating? @Epf2018: I note that comments like "My new edits are perfectly valid and sourced from the best sources" doesn't read as a very helpful or collegial response - you might want to adopt a more collaborative tone and discuss edits in advance to find consensus. Mere assertion doesn't make that so. I see a series of bold edits without any discussion before today. See WP:BRD. Acroterion (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point. But bold edits are not a violation of Wikipedia, especially when I am doing so almost verbatim from valid, highly respected academic studies as in this case. Urselius just reverted them completely without reason or explanation. He/she is the one in error here. I have already engaged on the relevant talk page. Thank you for any assistance in this matter.Epf2018 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
You are encouraged to be bold, and if your edits are questioned or contested, you're expected to engage constructively and to discuss, not to simply state that you're right and others aren't. Be patient, and discuss by reference to sources to work out a consensus. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I have clearly opened up the floor on the relevant talk page to the only person opposing the edits. The reverts are still unwarranted, and there was no valid reason to just universally remove all of my edits. Thus, Urselius is the one in error there. I entered valid material almost verbatim from two of the best, most recent sources on the subject, including one that isn't even included in the article yet. What is Urselius opposing exactly, apart from these studies possibly not supporting their personal point of view? Epf2018 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Wait for discussion on the talkpage and work it out. Assume good faith while you're at it. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yankeepapa13 - suspicious user?

Several days ago the username listed above showed several edits related to the Mann Gulch fire article. None now appear. Yankeepapa13 has entered into a major collaboration with "Grandmaster Editor" Montanabw to reedit that article(see Yankeepapa13 talk page). What gives? --67.132.160.2 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

What gives with all these sockpuppetry accusations? Is this CerroFerro editing logged-out, and what's the problem with collaboration, exactly? This IP is certainly suspicious. Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Acro's emotional outburst is a dead giveaway. Goodbye, Mr. Bond. --67.132.160.2 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI, CerroFerro sent me, User talk:Yankeepapa13, the same abusive message that he sent to User talk:Montanabw, and I've removed it.

I'm very grateful for your assistance! Yankeepapa13 (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

What was your reason for leaving me this unpleasant message? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

These unpleasant messages: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and then this [6] bit of condescension over almond milk. Those were the diffs that came easily to hand. You seem to be going out of your way to antagonize. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome to view something I said as condescending if you wish, but being condescending is not a personal attack. Here is a good example of an actual personal attack, though I'd be surprised if it bothered you in the slightest. In future, if you wish to communicate with me, kindly make it clear from the beginning what you are communicating about. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
And you think those first five diffs are expression of collegial respect for your fellow editors? You aren't setting terms - your comments are consistently antagonistic. Reconsider your approach to interaction with other editors, or expect to have your editing privileges revoked. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Try being less sensitive maybe. Explaining policies to people who have misunderstood them is not a personal attack. If you warn the editor who unquestionably insulted me not to make personal attacks, it would demonstrate that you're acting in good faith. But at the moment, every appearance is that you're just tone-policing anonymous editors. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It's possible to explain things, 37, in a way that is not condescending and abusive. Try it; it won't hurt you, and you'll stop getting messages from administrators to change your tone. Just a friendly suggestion. Antandrus (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing I said was abusive. Meanwhile nobody has yet warned the user who insulted me. Curious, isn't it! 37.152.231.125 (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
"DON'T COME ACROSS AS CONDESCENDING OR I WILL MESS YOU UP. OTHER PEOPLE MAY INSULT YOU AS THEY PLEASE." - would you be tremendously surprised if I don't take that very seriously? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not issue threats to anyone on Wikipedia, it is not acceptable and you face a block if you continue. Also the use of caps is considered "shouting" and that is also unacceptable. If you wish to continue with Wikipedia, please observe and comply with our conventions and respect the views of Admins and long-serving editors. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Please understand that making threats towards others in order to intimidate them is unacceptable behavior, irregardless of your ability or desire to follow through on your threats made.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
That all-caps appears to have been meant as 37.x's interpretation of my warnings as an administrator, not as an attack. 37.x is doing a very good impression of the Best Known For IP's behavior. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Stupid question

Hi,

Is there a rule against pages like this? Not sure whether it's legit or not (I have to assume it is...). Adam9007 (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, but we generally delete them in cases like this as a courtesy. I've already deleted one, I'll do this one too. Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You

sure have been blocking some very interesting people. That's why I edit Wikipedia-- all the interesting people.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that I perceive invisible air quotes around interesting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You've been reviewing some interesting unblock requests. FWIW, AndInFirstPlace mentioned autism in their now-deleted RFA, so any interactions must take into account problems in perception arising from autism-spectrum difficulties with perceptions of others, particularly in a text-based environment between strangers. They're having a hard time understanding that advice that's at odds with their perception isn't disrespect. 174.x is on a mission, without such mitigation - demands for religious purity are unacceptable. And 37.x above bears a strong resemblance to the Best Known For IP. Acroterion (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The One and only macaroni account's edits mirror some recent disruption I've seen elsewhere - inserting "might have" or "was possibly", etc. into articles. Don't know if it's one user or a meme, but it's all the same, and easy to spot. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I note that 37.x is using the same IP range as one of the Best Known For IP's addresses. See my talk page for a recent interaction. I wasn't aware there was a history on this until I happened to look at this page. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

courtesy notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AndInFirstPlace 01:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs)

User:174.126.168.126

You might want to block their talk page access and possibly even extend their block, since all they're doing is haranguing. But if Wikipedia is imminently in danger of downfall, why are they bothering to edit here? Inquiring minds don't want to know. ;) --Ebyabe (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Access revoked, they appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for a platform on which to harangue their coreligionists on the correct and pure interpretation according to their personal and exclusively enlightened views. This is something we see on a daily basis from didactic members of every religion, they're not as unique as they think they are. 13:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I've seen many ideological diatribes over the years. Some people just don't get what Wikipedia is, and isn't. I wonder now if they'll leave things be, or start socking to restore their denunciation of the site. Either would not surprise me. Cheers. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this the longest wall of text we've ever seen on an unblock request? Quite impressive, as is their indignant denunciation of our crimes against humanity. Alas poor truth, would that we knew him. Antandrus (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Varma (Surname)

Thanks for removing the incompetent IP on my page. You may note that I have never edited the bloody Varma (Surname) page in my bloody life. But what do they care? Pity it's such a big range. I looked at its contribs, and only a small fraction are remotely useful, but there are a few. So I left it at large, to encourage those few. Perhaps I shouldn't have, I'm not sure. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC).

gad

it's been > 10 years since I got one of these. LOL-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do you remove a correction because it has no sources

When the corrected, false information, also has no sources? Are you able to name me one (1) other European power than the British, who were in control of the British Dominion of Canada? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.133.108 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your obsession with the Orange Order and your personal attacks have resulted in a long-term block on your IP. Acroterion (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Hello Acroterion. Do you think it may be time to semiprotect the talk page for a bit? I suggest two months. The IPs who are warring to reinsert the material on Talk are hopping from a range: 37.230.*. The article itself is indefinitely semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking about too, the range is too broad for a rangeblock, and I haven't seen any very valuable discussion recently from IPs who aren't interested on flogging conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have to head out, feel free to set whatever protection you think reasonable. Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor is back at it again.

John2690-john2690 (talk · contribs) A few months ago I wrote[7] you about this editor and their work. He's from Pine City, Minnesota and made many problematic edits. He appears to be using multiple accounts now. I said this a long time ago[8] but got ignored. Today these edits here[9] and here[10] were made to Pine City. In them a further reading section was re-added to the page. It was removed because the books are the work of the disruptive editor. He is named Nathan Johnson. FYI the IP is from Minnesota, the other editor is brand new. What should we do here?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The search back to October to find the specific diff that removed the bookspam is pretty transparent for both the IP and the new account. Both are blocked. I've left a warning on the master account's talkpage, at the bottom of all that mess. I'm going back to review your previous report again in light of my comments. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Another editor who may need a few words from you

Speedbird6104 (talk · contribs) The issue here is they keep creating aviation accident articles(Just noting, I have created around 50 of these articles over the years) without any references in them. Examples- Kalitta Air Flight 207, Aer Lingus Flight 328, and Air France Flight 091 to name just three. The problem is= Two other articles he created, Pan Am Flight 160 and Fedex Express Flight 1478, were deleted for Copyright reasons. Just for that reason, I think we need to know what his sources are. He's been asked to add references, here[11], here[12], and here but hasn't done so as of[13] yet. Maybe you can have a gentle word with them. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I've given it a try. Acroterion (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Acroterion, I'm afraid you may have failed. Speedbird just created Sky Lease Cargo Flight 4854 and please note the paragraph that begins 'After receiving a confirmation' does that look to you like a copy and paste from here[14]. Actually at least part of the paragraph above the one in the WP article looks like it was copied from ASN....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's something[15] you may want to look at. Speedbird just added a source[16] from Aviation Safety Network but obviously at the same time proves that what he is sourcing is a copyright violation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:12, 31 January 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Superlaman (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

sources

I am struggling, I need help with sources, please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedbird6104 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Where are you getting the information for these articles? That's your source(s)....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
As WiiiliamJE says, the sources are the places from which you got the information. You will need to properly attribute them in references. Copy/paste is not acceptable here, and unattributed content amounts to plagiarism. Please learn to properly reference content, and please take advice seriously. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Your credibility is shot

You're using opinion pieces to make false claims regarding racism. Factualfuryfate (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You're removing sourced material to insert your own views. Do that again and you'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A Heads Up

The user HER KNIGHT is well known for lying, posting false information and threatening and harassing multiple individuals across social media. They will bring this same behavior here in time. I am just saying to keep an eye on them. Silenteth (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If you make any more personal attacks, I will block you. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
So truth is unacceptable? Have you not read the personal attacks they have left on others' pages so far? Silenteth (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Your behavior above is unacceptable - carrying off-wiki fights into the encyclopedia is a fast way to lose editing privileges. Don't do that. Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk page comment may need revdel

Special:Diff/880554540 grossly insulting material against 2 editors. CoolSkittle (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. Done and blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Defamatory Edits

Apologies, it was simply for giggles due to an ex co worker being a bit of a drama queen... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottLondon76 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got no confidence that it won't happen again. I've rev/del'd the edits. I'd say indef but I'll defer to you. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

HER KNIGHT.

I am new here. I have no knowledge not only of protocol, but also of what happens to what I write.. and where it goes, once it is published. I wrote you an explanatory message a short while ago, here on this message page but it was rejected. I screengrabbed it and have uploaded it to a youtube channel. Please view it. I will provide a link if you are willing to do that. I am not here for academic reasons.. aside from wanting truth in this matter. I am here to defend my very close friends, and prevent further tragedy I saw that you have warned me because of false and misleading statements. Please tell me what they are. <redacted> . What proofs do you require ? sincerely Tony Bazley HER KNIGHT (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I am concerned only with the behaviors of the editors who've been fighting each other, including your actions. Your attempted edit to this page was rejected by the edit filter because it was a lengthy attack on other people. The AfD will play out, but without competing violations of Wikipedia policies. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing other work

I assume this is about the link to the youtube channel, that I removed. The uploader cruiser 1 stated that the new version of the article did not have links to unverified outside sources. In order for that statement to be correct, I removed what was not supposed to be there. <redacted>. That is not true. Therefore the link was leading to falsehood.I feel it is in the spirit of this Organisation that such things be rectified Thank you Tony Bazley HER KNIGHT (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it's about your behavior and your posting of gossip and hearsay about living and recently deceased individuals, and your treatment of Wikipedia as a means of pursuing off-wiki arguments. You may not do that, and you've been blocked for doing it again here. Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis

Thanks for revdeling that edit. I was going to ask if someone uninvolved could have a look at potentially redacting this (and the most recent comment in the same thread) for a similar reason. Would you mind having a look? Thanks. Hut 8.5 18:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Redacted, and the user immediately above blocked for posting similar material here. The AfD is a mess. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Central Minnesota

Can you clean up this AFD a little? Our old friend John2690-john2690 has voted 3 times in this AFD and I'm uncertain whether to strike votes #2 and #3 entirely or just the part where it says keep. A word with John2690-john2690 is another possible course of action. Some how I don't think it will be long before some other editing behavior of his crops up....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually he has voted 4 times. Is there such a thing as an AFD Grand Slam?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I've struck through the votes, I think that's all that's needed at this time. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello,

I hope you decide to continue to contribute to Wikipedia.

I want to help you.

Benjamin (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Hi, the user Ahmed ibn Khalid keeps edit-warring at the Shaigiya tribe page despite warning. LeGabrie (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi. This edit, and subsequent versions may be deserving of revdel. The intermediate edits aren't very important (imo), since the net change was this. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, this revision. The previous edit was revdeled already as a blp violation, but the violating content wasn't removed in the next edit, and so its still visible in the linked revision. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Done, and the IP blocked. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished

Via Teahouse, I had dipped a toe into the HER KNIGHT story line. My last advice to HK was to move on to other topics, but with less passion. Post the temp block, this resulted in a long missive at my Talk. Sort of thanking me, but still rehashing the same ground. I took it as venting steam over the delete debate even though that decision was what HK wanted. Just wanted you to know that the fire is still out there. David notMD (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think it's best left alone where Wikipedia is concerned, and the user can turn their crusade to other places on the Internet. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Conflict

He started it. Not me. Matt Campbell (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandal on my talk page

Thanks for blocking the vandal. Can you please also block his IP: 66.134.137.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? The contributions indicate that its definitely him. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Done, IP hard-blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Can you please Semi-Protect my talk page for 3 months and also block each of the IPs recently active on my talk page? They're all Open Proxies/VPNs abused by another LTA (unrelated to the other one earlier today). Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I would normally refuse to semi-protect a talkpage for that term, but on review of the log, it looks like the right thing to do. Done. Acroterion (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

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) 12:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Stanley Adams

His article had a copyright violation (Copied word for word from Imdb) and I removed it[17]. It was put in via this edit[18]. I am just advising you in case further action is needed with the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI I removed even more from the article as it was clearly copied from imdb. Please also be aware that the editor who added this information has a history of copyright violations. See his talk page[19]]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything else significant from that editor since they had some things redacted last June. I'll look into redacation on the Adams things, though given the time span there's probably no point. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Bad image list

Hello Acroterion. Your addition to the bad image list here is missing the "File:" portion of the link, so the image is not being actively blacklisted. Home Lander (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I have every right to edit as I choose

Thanks for your concern but I am not vandalizing by removing content deemed inappropriate. I am cleaning up content. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.199.15 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, and you have no business censoring pictures (museum pictures from the 17th century, no less) from an article about Bathsheba. If you do that again, you will be blocked. Wikipedia is not censored. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Censoring the truth

I see that you have blocked me for six months from writing anything about the death of Vincent Foster. Apparently this is a result of a comment I left on the TALK PAGE(!) where I explained that the evidence clearly points to his death being a homicide, not a suicide. Are the facts so scary?

I mentioned lots of reading material that would be of interest to anyone interested in the facts of the case, as well as the names of some mainstream, high-profile folks who don't buy the suicide story.

I mentioned several untruths - easily verifiable - that are contained in the article.

Why would that lead to a ban - a six month ban, no less? Because of a comment on a TALK PAGE? Is the truth that scary?

Vcuttolo (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Because you keep abusing Wikipedia and its talkpages to post conspiracy theories, and disparagement of living persons in service of rumor and personal views. You have an extraordinary number of warnings about this on your talkpage, this is the narrowest sanction I could impose. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your opinions, and you're not entitled to abuse other editors to promote your views on Foster or anybody else. You've been testing boundaries for some time now. I considered a BLP ban as well, since the Foster events necessarily involve living persons, and since you've been near the line on other BLP topics, but am holding off for now. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I will hope that you are in fact willing to listen in good faith. I intend to explain the facts, although not at this moment. I will point out now that the accusation against me that I "keep abusing Wikipedia" to "post conspiracy theories" is simply untrue. It is similarly inaccurate that I am looking to post my "opinions". I strongly believe that the "Suicide of Vince Foster" article is a royal mess, both in terms of specific claims therein that are simply factually false, as well as in overall tone concerning what happened that day. The article should be titled - as it used to be! - "Death of Vince Foster", with both possibilities presented. As to my response to the whole thing, it is lengthy, so I will have to see when I can get to it. But not now.
Vcuttolo (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am happy to listen in good faith. However, a topic ban appeal must address your conduct, and is not a back-door way to litigate a change to the content from which you have been banned. I expect you to frame any appeal in the context of your behavior, now and in the future, to give the community and myself assurance that you will not breach community standards of conduct in the future if the editing restriction is lifted. Complaints about content in the area from which you've been banned aren't an appeal. The last post you made to the Foster talkpage is an excellent example of how not to approach a controversial topic in a neutral and collegial manner. If you post "the facts" as you see them concerning Foster here, it will be a breach of your topic ban. If you want to discuss your conduct and how you will work differently in the future, that is relevant.
You've received arbitration enforcement notices in American politics, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and biographies of living persons. You've received one-month topic bans in BLP and Arab-Israeli topics, and you've been blocked for breaching the BLP sanctions. You are presently at AN3 with an edit-warring complaint in a subject where you've gotten yourself blocked before for breaching an arbitration enforcement sanction, and you've shown a tendency to breach boundaries in BLPs in general. You move from one battle to another, skating close to the edge, and you must address this broad conduct issue before anything else. That's why your topic ban is six months long - you appear to be going out of your way to pick fights. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a much longer, possibly indefinite topic ban on BLP, American Politics and/or Arab-Israeli conflict is warranted for this editor just to prevent the highly likely event of disruption. I'm tired of linking WP:IDHT to this editor. They do make some good edits, but their insistence of waging ideology-based edit wars and subscription to conspiracy theories makes it evident that they're simply unsuitable to edit in such contentious fields. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Tedious

Well this is ongoing I see across multiple articles. I had a discussion with a friend that Canada goose is never called a Canadian goose or as they were demanding for the plural form, Canadian geese which led us to further discussion about the plural geese that does not apply to plural moose, as they are always just Moose and not meese as explained here unless of course you're in Europe, where a Moose is an Elk!--MONGO (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been going on for some time with lots of very precise subspecies-level amendments that, to me, add little or nothing to the content. Maybe it's the time of the year, because there seem to be a lot of pedantic "corrections" to units, language variants and terminology that really amount to article churn all over the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. I mean are we better off linking to a Start grade article on a species rather than the usually far more expanded main articles. Example is Northwestern wolf which is linked apparently to many articles but is basically Start-class.--MONGO (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How to study listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to study. Since you had some involvement with the How to study redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Harassment

The user StaticVapor accused the user Addicted4517 of stalking. That's not civil. Is it harassment to warn them about it? I don't think it is, especially when he ignores the warning. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You have no business harassing other editors because you think they did something wrong. Stop that: walk away. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
So how do I handle it? "Walk away" is not an option. Other suggestions please. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Walk away is the option: you aren't obligated to engage, and you aren't entitled to fight a battle on behalf of someone else with comments like this [20]. That kind of comment doesn't help your credibility. Drop the campaign against StaticVapor. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Addicted4517 and StaticVapor are sniping at each other in a manner that doesn't do either of them any favors: you aren't making things better. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
What's wrong with Addicted's conduct? He looks pretty reasonable to me and up with the rules on notability. StaticVapor is harassing him into creating an AfD when he said why he wouldn't and rightly challenged him for sources, and then accused him of stalking - which by the way is a criminal accusation where I live. Not something Addicted has done. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
StaticVapor has stepped away. Edit stalking is a minor user conduct issue: if you make any more hyperbolic accusations of this kind, you may lose editing privileges. They've interacted over six edits on one article. Stop trying to inflame a problem that's already gone away. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
He never specified edit stalking. He said "following his name around" (quoted verbatim) which has a wider meaning. And you're calling this hyperbolic? Just pointing out how your comment is wrong by the way and nothing more than that. "Stepping away" isn't - or shouldn't - be an excuse for uncivil conduct. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh wait he DID say stalking and then he changed it! 203.15.226.132 (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You're argued your way into a block - you are clearly trying to make a mountain out a molehill, and trying to claim that someone's offhand comment is an accusation of criminal conduct isn't acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note to say thank you for blocking this IP as he or she was sticking their nose into something that they shouldn't have. I do ask that the original week long block be imposed instead of the 24 hours you put it back to. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sock IP

Hello, sorry to bother you with this. You reverted and warned IP address here [21]. It appears to be This user, but logged out of their account. Both accounts edit similar articles noticeably subjects related to Australian professional wrestling. The user has used the IP to edit war here a few days ago and pretended to be someone else in a discussion here and here. I am doubtful that this IP address just happens to always agree with this user and then immediately come to his defense when we had this disagreement. StaticVapor message me! 04:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The IP is blocked for now. I'm about to sign off for the evening and will review tomorrow. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for randomly seeing this happen though. It's very hard having to deal with this on here, when I am just trying to dedicate my free time to help out. StaticVapor message me! 04:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
From where I sit I'm not seeing much similarity in the language styles. I'm not convinced, but I've hard-blocked the IP. Acroterion (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Possible meat puppet then, or just smart enough to type different. Very odd to me. This is weird too, it just seems like they are pretending to be a different person. StaticVapor message me! 06:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought you had disengaged? I do not support the conduct of the IP at all and your assumption is laughingly outlandish. Perhaps you should just forget about it. Apologies for bringing this on here, Acroterion. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Also of note Acroterion, the IP has never edited Melbourne City Wrestling or it's talk page before. Are we supposed to assume they just happened to stumble upon this coversation 1-2 hours after it happened? At the same time the user in questions stopped editing. I do not buy it one bit. StaticVapor message me! 14:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any reason to believe that Addicted4517 has any link to the IP. Wrestling-related articles tend to attract assertive and enthusiastic editors, compared to, say editors who edit articles on moth genera. I think you should drop that accusation. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay thank you for the attention. I do not plan to further engage with this user. StaticVapor message me! 23:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you did a mistake!

Please include the two urls I added in the 'External links' section. They are NOT inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.19.115 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The links don't meet WP:EL. Don't use Wikipedia for appspam. Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi. Can you take a look at this edit? I think it might qualify as under WP:CRD 2 or 3. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it's just a kid practicing their cussing. Revdel is for specific things aimed at specific people, and a bot isn't people. Acroterion (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This [22] however, is. Acroterion (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Acroterion: well, "this" is deleted, so I can't see it, but thank you so much for dealing with it --DannyS712 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sandvol

He already had a DS alert, from me. Last October. Doug Weller talk 21:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I'll remove - I missed it. Acroterion (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Slavery

Hi. Thanks for your recent intervention in the article Slavery. Really appreciate it. However, I want you know that this dispute has been months old now, with multiple editors both in favour [23] as well as against the images. The article has in particular attracted editors of Arab heritage one of whom gave some of the lamest excuses for removing the images i.e., slavery being associated only with the western culture [24] which is both historically and factually a blatant lie. Their edits on other articles reveal a particular agenda [25][26][27] especially in relation to Arab & Islamic perspectives.

I respect the status quo you have established and will abide by it. However, I would like you to reconsider it especially when one of the images being removed has been here for 7 years and is historically very important. Regards.Balolay (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't established any status quo, I just went back a couple of days to stop the ping-pong match. I've found that image-related disputes of that kind become lame after a couple of reverts, and that images should be directly supported by text and references. I haven't reviewed to see if that is the case, but I am concerned that there's an attempt to pretend that only Europeans were involved int he slave trade, which isn't the case. However, making statements via images or their removal isn't a good way to go about it. Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • But Arab editors on the article have taken your edit as a status quo. I risk being reported again if change it. The editor who reported me is now being banned for edit warring on an other article.[28] It will be helpful if you looked into the situation further. Regards Balolay (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @User:Acroterion Just a little update, after an endless discussion on Talk:Slavery#African slave trade images, it was revealed that no one was in favour of deleting the second image execept the editor who removed it. And that editor has been barred from editing for edit warring and refused to take part in discussion.

As a result I restored the image which was immediately removed by another Arab editor for reasons I don't understand. His reply[29] indicates that he/she wants to stretch this discussion to the point of exhaustion so much that only their perspective remains.

My valid edits on other pages have also been reverted[30] [31] with the purpose of me being thrown into endless debates with no productivity and an edit war.

That's some really toxic behaviour on wiki & I am trying to make sense of situation but I can't. That's the last I am consulting you as an admin since I don't want to waste any of our time on this useless endeavour. RegardsBalolay (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m traveling this week and haven’t been able to follow through. Please remember that there’s time to sort things like this out by a request for comment - back and forth between two editors like we’ve seen here are rarely productive. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Racism

Either both Black Power and White Power is racist or none of them are. stop using a double standard :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian D 123 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop removing sourced material to draw false equivalencies based on your personal analysis. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Killing time

I saw your note on Iridescent's talk page. If you find yourself in need of another little time-killing opportunity, would please (please please please) try out mw:VisualEditor on mobile/Section editing on your iPad? (Please ping me with any questions; I'm not watching your page.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Identity Evropa Wikipedia page

Just letting you know it's defunct and Patrick Casey is the president of the American Identity Movement now 007Waffleman (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Go to the talkpage and provide sourcing in dependent media for all that in a proposed edit. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory talk page

Why was UnknownAssassin1819 reprimanded and blocked but Ian.thomson not? They essentially both did the exact same thing: accuse each other of racism, yet there were different consequences for them. RandomUser3510 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@RandomUser3510: Because:
1) UnknownAssassin1819 was acting like the white genocide conspiracy theory wasn't a conspiracy theory,
2) The white genocide conspiracy theory is a racist lie made up by racists to justify their racism,
3) WP:SPADE.
Ian.thomson (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, and I see that RandomUser3510 is into things like equating the ADL to white supremacists, acting like "white pride" isn't just a white supremacist idea, even saying that it's fringe and that "the article is racist against white people"; and even citing a Youtube channel that promotes Holocaust denial conspiracy theories to push an out-of-context quote about Jewish people promoting multiculturalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You pointed out some edits I made, ok. But you did make an accusation that I disagree with: the Barbara Spectre quote was just a reference of her saying that: it does not mean I support anything the YouTube channel it is on supports. That's like saying I link to a CNN video and support their political leanings: no it is just a video with her quote. I don't know why you are so enthusiastic to smear me to equate me as being a Holocaust denier just for asking a question about UnknownAssassin1819's treatment. RandomUser3510 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
UnknownAssassin1819 was explicitly promoting a racist conspiracy theory as fact, or equating it to real genocide (which is the real blasphemy). Ian Thompson called him out on that, and got this screed [ [32]. They are not the same thing, but given your edit [33] to the same talkpage and your recent userpage revisions, I can see how you might feel that way. I'm not very patient with arguments of false symmetry. Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the conspiracy pages or anything that mainstream media and others clash on will be a continued problem for the forseeable future. A lot of these theories have rooted in them the media being complicit, so when reliable sources are cited that say a conspiracy is debunked or false, people are not satisfied on both sides. RandomUser3510 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
In other words, the conspiracies are real and they're just being covered up. @RandomUser3510: it's really starting to sound like you're here to counter the "liberal" mainstream media's "bias" against "white pride." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You can come to any conclusion you want about conspiracies. I am just pointing out a fundamental attribute of them. About the second part, not really. But this doesn't concern the original question: that's going into stuff about me. RandomUser3510 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You say that, and yet your edits elsewhere say something else. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

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) 10:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding user Bonadea

This user keep deleting articles only, never helps in expanding information even if it’s worthy. You should not take her side on this but help others to counter this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyofjawad (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop attacking Bonadea. Acroterion (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Request

Please revdel Special:PermanentLink/887378595. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Require explanation why this edit was undone

(cur | prev) 00:53, 14 March 2019‎ 71.81.249.86 (talk)‎ . . (12,555 bytes) -4‎ . . (A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source, the water fuel cell in question within the article used water to break down into hydrogen as fuel. I changed it to Hydrogen Generator.)

Please give a detailed explanation as to why the above mentioned edit was undone. Thanks. I really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You removed referenced material based on your own personal analysis. Don't do that. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed this: "perpetual motion machine", which is referenced on another wikipedia page, you just told me i shouldnt edit material based on my own thinking, its not against the rules to edit material based

on user analysis, you are making things up as you go along, please reference me the rule which says i am not allowed to edit this particular part of the article ""perpetual motion machine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I will contact another administrator and complain unless i am given a rule that states against why i am unable to edit that particular part of the article! wumbledorf

Undoing an edit under a false pretext

Hello Acroterion, i recieved this message after you undid one of my edits, but this message was very wrong in that i did provide an explanation of the edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

<remove copy - I know what I said, thank you> I did adequately explain why in the edit summary: (cur | prev) 00:53, 14 March 2019‎ 71.81.249.86 (talk)‎ . . (12,555 bytes) -4‎ . . (A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source, the water fuel cell in question within the article used water to break down into hydrogen as fuel. I changed it to Hydrogen Generator.)

You undone my edit under the explanation of a false pretext. Also i believe you are using a bot and arent even reading the new edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you're removing sourced material and putting in your analysis - your edit summary was not an appropriate justification for that action. You may not substitute your opinions, or insert promotion of documented hoaxes. That's disruptive. And no, I'm not a bot, and I read your edit - that's why I noticed what you were doing. To keep you from further problems, I've semi-protected the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove sourced material, a sourced material has a number at the end of the paragraph, sentence, or article, your claimed source material is a hyperlink to another wikipedia article, which is not a reference as a website referencing itself undermines the very idea of referencing. A hyperlink is not referenced or sourced material. Can you explain to me how my edit summary was not an appropriate justification. I have also not inserted a promotion of a hoax. You are not keeping me from any problem, you have disruptively undone a reasonable edit.

Can you explain to me how the hyperlink perpetual motion machine" is referenced material and not a hyperlink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In this edit [34] you removed "allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine." which is immediately followed by the reference that supports the statement that you removed. An IP (I assume you) had earlier removed "perpetual motion", which is indeed linked, substituting "hydrogen generator." The internal linkage aspect is neither here nor there. Don't remove or alter content supported by sourcing without adequate explanation and consensus. It's disruptive. Please take some time to learn how Wikipedia works before you dive into areas that have seen past disruption. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The internal linkage aspect is relevant. A troll admin has undid the same edit in the introduction earlier with the explanation given "the purpose of the lead section is to provide an overview of the body, and the body explains how it's a perpetual motion machine". So i removed the particular part of the sentence that mentions perpetual motion machine in the body so that the introduction edit would go through.

This is the paragraph in the source linked for the article body which mentions "perpetual motion machine" :

"I can answer that right now: no. You start with water, you break it apart into its constituent elements (hydrogen and oxygen), and then you recombine them by burning. Yes you can do that. Hydrogen, indeed, is the promised fuel of the new clean energy economy. But making hydrogen from water takes more energy than you can ever recover from burning it. Extracting net energy from this total cycle is impossible, if you believe in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise, you have the basis of a perpetual-motion machine.

The paragraph in this article is not deliberately talking about the Stanley Meyer device, he is simply hypothesizing about how it is impossible to extract net energy from traditional electrolysis.

Can you understand how this source does not authoritatively state that the Stanley Meyer device is a perpetual motion machine? In addition nobody is sure how it works, so how can it be stated that it is a perpetual motion machine which nobody but the creator which is now dead knew how it worked? By stating it is a perpetual motion machine you are misrepresenting the purported invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 02:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop the "troll admin" business - the burden is on you to justify the change, using the article talkpage to find consensus. I did not insert the statement and reference, I simply reverted your removal to the status quo ante. Bring up your proposal on the talkpage, and please learn to thread and sign your comments. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


In addition i feel that you are just giving a troll blocking excuse to prevent editing the article, how is somebody supposed to edit the article if every part of the article is "sourced"? If the introduction is linked to the body and the body to the conclusion, then there are thousands of so called reasons you can dash out to any editor as to why you have undone their edit. If you as an administrator have an agenda to prevent editing an article you can just do that. Why not just lock the article up for good and prevent anybody from ever editing as you have done so now?

Why do i have to bring up my proposal on the talkpage? Nothing about my edit was controversial to anybody but you who undid my edit, this is not a "community issue" because you undid my edit, not another user who disagreed with the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 02:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We're done talking as long as you continue to make accusations of bad faith and refuse to use talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You stated "In this edit [34] you removed "allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine." which is immediately followed by the reference that supports the statement that you removed. "


This is the only part of the article which mentions perpetual motion machines and it is not relating about the stanley meyer device at all in this part of the reference.

"I can answer that right now: no. You start with water, you break it apart into its constituent elements (hydrogen and oxygen), and then you recombine them by burning. Yes you can do that. Hydrogen, indeed, is the promised fuel of the new clean energy economy. But making hydrogen from water takes more energy than you can ever recover from burning it. Extracting net energy from this total cycle is impossible, if you believe in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise, you have the basis of a perpetual-motion machine.

this source does not authoritatively state that the Stanley Meyer device is a perpetual motion machine

I prooved that the reference does not support the statement that i removed, please fix the article and unlock it as there is no disruptive editing going on at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


The reference does not support the statement that i removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbledorf (talk • contribs) 02:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You are trying to make a substantial change to the lead paragraph of an article that has existed in a stable condition for about a decade. The correct way to propose a change is to use the talkpage, so that a broader section of editors can see it, not here or via edit summaries. There was extensive discussion on this subject in 2009, when the article was subject to disruption from conspiracy theory advocates and hoax promoters. Use the talkpage, I'm not the one who has to be convinced, I just reverted your bold edit to the 'status quo ante', and I will not debate you on this. Discussion of the interpretation of the source is a talkpage matter. Acroterion (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
And please learn to sign your posts and follow threading and indentation conventions. It will make communicating with other editors easier. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you appear to indicate that 71.81.249.86's edits are yours, I note that that IP was blocked for edit-warring for 72 hours by another administrator., and immediately started up again on release of the block. Earlier, the IP was repeatedly removing references,claiming that a reference doesn't exist. We don't change content because a link is no longer live, the content of the reference is available in archive, and it is abundantly clear that you're trying to remove references and content that don't coincide with your views on the article. Changing to an account doesn't make this conduct any less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Revdel discussion

Thanks for the revdel on that talk page; I've noticed that the same user has posted the same link elsewhere on that page, so, if you wouldn't mind revdeling those? In the meantime, I'll remove the relevant comments myself, if that's all right. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Revert

was their a reason you reverted my edit that clarified some outdated statements and added additional context and information?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sometimesonline232 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sometimesonline232 your account has made no edits to article space so this question cannot be answered. Have you been editing under another name? MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@MarnetteD:, this was the offending revert in question, made by the user using an IP.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It was probably this edit [35] by an IP. @Sometimesonline232: you need to find consensus on the talkpage for wholesale replacement of referenced material and addition of carefully selected commentary. Acroterion (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

2601:240:e480:6f66:3cfc:e90:1640:7f81

Hi,

He's still posting silly help me messages. Should his TPA be revoked? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed talkpage access for the rangeblock. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently not as he's just done it again... Adam9007 (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
And this is why I'm hanging it up now. Thanks, access revoked for real this time. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why Did You Block Me?

I did not appreciate you blocking me for dishonest reasons. Who are you? What is a sock puppet? If it means signing up with more than one account, then I am definitely not a sock puppet. I have never signed up for or logged into Wikipedia ever before today. I want to know who you are. What gives you the right to block me? I added a direct quote to an article. For that you block me? What is wrong with you? I expect a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwburwell (talk • contribs) 01:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleting a Post

I posted a DIRECT QUOTE from the President of the United States on the page concerning Charlottesville, and either you or someone else has already deleted it. What is wrong with you? Why would you purposely try to present fake news? Many other users have tried to add this DIRECT QUOTE, and you or a user named Grayfell keep deleting it. Why would you be against people having accurate information? What is wrong with you? I hate the anonymity, who are you? Why would you block me when you know nothing about me? What is wrong with you? Who are you? Why are you actively trying to present false information? Does Wikipedia know what you are doing? I have already reported you to them. You are a modern day book burner. Orwell would be proud of you. Tell me who you are and what gives you the right to edit my posts and block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwburwell (talk • contribs) 01:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Lwburwell Acroterion doesn't appear to have reverted your edit from what I can see. With your edit, it was completely unreferenced. "Editors must take care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". Everything must be verifiable and there must be no original research.
Please also read our policy on how to behave with other editors. Your comment above, plus this one do not come across as very civil, especially when Acroterion did not revert your edit.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
What I did do was block them as a sockpuppet, but I reconsidered and unblocked on the supposition that they might turn into a valuable editor who will work collegiality with others. My hope is looking disappointed. However, I don't have the time or energy spare to investigate for the next day or so, but I'd appreciate some eyes on the subject.
There has been a recent flood of editors into that article with very similar aims, I get the impression that there's some off-site canvassing going on, thus the reconsideration of socking. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I saw online that someone at Wikipedia was constantly deleting direct quotes by the President at a press conference, which was the exact subject of that section of the article. If a section is about what the President said in a press conference, then why would you constantly delete what he said in the press conference? I apologize for being uncivil, but being immediately blocked simply because I posted a direct quote seemed like an attempt at censorship. I assume you are against censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwburwell (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

He didn’t make the additional comment at the time, it was a statement released later, as sources describe. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe Billy Hathorn is socking

This IP[72.191.54.229] originating in San Antonio, TX which is known to be BH's home, has shown up at 3 AFDs (here[36], here[37], and here[38]) today all of which are articles he created. Not to mention this non-AFD edit[39] that is very BH in style. Quacks like a WP:DUCK to me. Would you like to handle it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The sun comes up in the east and sets in the west, and sockmasters sock. I'll take a look when I get a few minutes together. Acroterion (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
What about their AFD votes-Strike? Revert? Leave them alone?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I would note that the IP was blocked as a probable BH sock. Acroterion (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Busy tonight

Looks like the sock vandals are out in force. I have been busier than a one legged man in an Olympic track meet. Most of this I am guessing is Nate Speed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm chasing down what looks like a Billy Hathorn sock per just above, I got distracted by the NS sock that popped up on my watchlist. I'll divert into vandal blocking when I'm done. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

95.249.116.170

Hi,

I think he needs his TPA revoked. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP

I have received an extremely strange message from your account:

"This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at User talk:Mandruss, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, your declared intention to try to game editing restrictions by waiting 24 hours will result in a block for that if you attempt it, apart from a block for violations of the biographies of living persons policy. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)"

I have not violated Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. My attempt to converse with Mandruss was in good faith, and to my knowledge, the only available means with which to contact them.

I am not attempting to "game" editing restrictions. My content is neither poorly sourced, nor defamatory, and are direct representations of Ms. Johnson. That Ms. Johnson et al. have made allegations of sexual misconduct, posited statements under oath, and repeatedly instigated legal proceedings are matters of undeniable fact. The sources of those undeniable facts are the legal representations of none other than Ms. Johnson herself, and supporting witnesses.

I will be updating Wikipedia pages to include sexual misconduct allegations and legal affairs of Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.33.136 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

False positive ban

You did a false positive ban on 90.30.193.172 by him doing a false positive revert. You appear to be abusing proxy IPs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.119.49.43 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop fooling around with the edit filter board. The original report was very definitely not a false positive. You appear to be abusing proxy IPs. Acroterion (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q1_2019&oldid=1222541109"