Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q1 2020

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


RevDel

It looks like there is a revision on Jack's Big Music Show that looks like it should be revdeled. --Rlin8 (☎·✎·📧) 23:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

regarding the warning on "Tatwamayi News"

Dear Acroterion, Tatwamayi News is a well-established media company ( www.tatwamayinews.com ) from Kerala state, India and is owned by Amiya Multimedia Private Limitted. This article that I tried to post was only to give an information about the News TV channel (Tatwamayi News ) and nothing for promotion or advertising. Can you please provide me some guideline which I can adopt to publish a wiki page for Tatwamayi News ?

Kind regards RAtheesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratheeshvenu (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Then write it without copying promotional content from an external source - you lifted it complete with copyright notices. And you'll need to proviode references substantiating the content and substantiating notability. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

French Bank of California v. First National Bank of Louisville

An editor who created this article, The C of E (talk · contribs) keeps putting things into the article that aren't supported by their inline citations. As I said on his talk page-

1- Your source makes no mention of the movie The Rainmaker 2- You cite one case citing this decision as a precedent but the article says cases.

There is no mention of the Rainmaker at all.

On a side issue, the User's name may violate user name rules. The C of E I have heard as shorthand for The Church of England. I will let you handle all of this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, already dealt with. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about your username, but I didn't see anything in the sources provided to support your edits, and the reference to a primary-source legal document isn't appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@The C of E: Despite what you said above, C of E went back and reinserted[1] the reference that makes no mention of the Rainmaker....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
He added it again[2] and now he's forum shopping[3] and totally disregarding what you wrote above. I am about to take this to ANI. Please weigh in again or tell me what else I should do if you want to step away from this. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I've asked on his talkpage. I suggest that you disengage, it's getting more heated than it really warrants. For my part, I'm developing a cold and am cooking dinner for multiple people, so I'm trying to do some article writing while waiting for things to cook and not savage anybody while feeling cranky. Acroterion (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Run amok editor

Can you please take care of this[4]? Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I didn't check every edit. Just five and all were wrong. Other editors found 3 other edits to be wrong. I doubt even one was legit....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that there are that many typos in that particular part of our aviation articles. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My content was in draft it was not completed

Hello,

My article was in the draft it was not published. I did not add this code as written in wiki article link " ". SO why did you delete it?

Leo

92.41.191.183

Hi Acroterion! I'm just sending you a quick note to let you know that I updated the block reason for this IP user. This is definitely block evasion given the timeline between the abusive account and that IP's edits to the article. If you have questions or object for any reason, please let me know (ping me so that I get notified). Knowing you as well as I do, I doubt that you're going to mind - I just wanted to let you know nonetheless. Call it professional courtesy. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem here, cheers! Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Thank you for leaving a note about not adding inappropriate external link to wikipedia. I sought personal pages were okay since I have since other users doing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talgalili for example. Is this just an enforcement issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDRUVINI (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

They are a long-established user whose links relate to their activities on Wikipedia. In general, it's a poor idea to post links to external sites on Wikipedia when there's no obvious relationship to what they do on Wikipedia, and it's not obvious why you would need to post a link to an Ebay tech blog here. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A mistake I made

I mistakenly uploaded an image for a golf tournament article. I meant to upload one for this year, but I accidently uploaded one from last year. So, this upload is not needed. Will you delete it for me? Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Women%27s_British_Open_logo.png Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Consigned to the memory hole. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Soros disagreement

I disagree with you. False is a loaded term and implies that it is absolute. Should it not be so strong in a biography?

OK, noted, I will use the talk area next time for BLP. Did not see this a controversial change, I thought it was more neutral- but will use talk area. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsparkwars1 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As Drmies has noted, when something's false, we say so, we don't tiptoe around it, particularly when it concerns a living individual. Watering it down like you've done can become a violation of the biographies of living persons policy - it implies that maybe those Internet rumors are somehow true, or maybe not, wink, nudge. Don't do that. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

174.84.161.252

Hi,

It looks to me like wants his TPA revoked. Adam9007 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Amend Protection for Page

Hi Acroterion,

Would it be possible to reduce the protection you placed on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak from WP:SEMI to WP:PCPP? The page is well patrolled by editors and there are quite a number of timely and valid updates by IP/ unregistered users from Asia. Several requests for help in editing have surfaced on the talk page since the WP:SEMI was imposed. Thanks. PenulisHantu (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

As I just noted at RFPP, I'd suggest that you ask other editors on the talkpage whether they're OK with the current protection, or whether it can be unprotected. Having been thanked for protecting, I'm not convinced that your impression is universally shared. Open a discussion on the talkpage. I protected because there was unsourced speculation creeping in among the rapid-fire editing, and such articles often turn into a frenzy of scorekeeping, sourced or not. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your message?

What are you talking about? I asked a perfectly reasonable question about article protection at the Talk page, and I'm now going to put it back. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Article talkpages are for specific discussion of article improvements. They aren't fora for speculation or for asking "perfectly reasonable questions" about conspiracy rumors. Acroterion (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
What!! Please read my edit. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for fixing it. Obviously a misunderstanding. Apologies for being a bit terse. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Your comment about protection is reasonable, and I'm happy to remove protection if there's general sentiment for its removal. I don't understand the politics sanction notice either and will look into it. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, let's see if there's a general view for unprotection. BTW, it was another editor who put in the forum chat stuff. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I found the mistaken AP notice source, it was placed in his edit [5], probably by mistake. There are so many edit conflicts right now it's hard to tell which end is up. No worries. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Michigan has a vaild reason to be listed on the Map of the US and reported cases of the Chinese coronavirus

@Acroterion: Hello, i was placing a source in it when i was editing the page. If you don't really believe me here is a link to info about it in Michigan. https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2020/01/24/michigan-health-officals-confirm-three-dealths-related-to-corona-virus/. --Godmanhalo (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I replied on your talkpafge, keep it there, and don't jump to conclusions. Acroterion (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 77

Hi,

You rev del'd this page today and you removed all the editors names.

However, ClueBot NG had reverted the editors and their names were still visible in its edit summary?

I'm assuming this was an oversight/error so I've rev del'd ClueBot NG's edit summaries but thought I'd also drop you a line here to let you know -- 5 albert square (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I was mainly concerned with taking the fun out of UnderArmourKid's edits, I suppose we could delete the edit summaries, but mostly I was applying some DENY to UAK's actual edits. I'll go over and see if it's worth it, thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Another sock?

Hi, there's a new entrant, SignorUgarte across at Greta Thunberg who has claimed they are "new to editing (less than 20 edits)" while showing much more familiarity with the topic and with editing. Also some "idiosyncrasies". Could this be a sock of MartiniShaw? Would you mind having a quick look, please? Esowteric+Talk 11:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Berean Hunter ran a CU on the 26th, so I would have expected somebody registered on the 23rd to appear, but I'll defer to his judgment. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. Esowteric+Talk 12:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Might you unblock a user you blocked?

Greetings, you recently blocked and deleted User:Aphrodite27. This is a legitimate user who is in a college class I am teaching. I'd love for her to be able to resume editing in good faith. Also, what was it that made her seem suspicious? I'd like to avoid whatever that is, in the future. Best, Stevenarntson (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've unblocked her. Her userpage was very similar to those created by some spammers that have been problematic - there's a format that tends to be repeated that hers kind of matched. Sorry about that! Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking her. Looking a little further into it, it seems some of my other students have been caught up in this sweep. This morning I found that User:MoAbbasi23 has been blocked as well. I am wondering if I should go through all 50 pages to see if any others are? What could I do to keep this sort of thing from happening in the future? Would a notification at the top of the pages be helpful, explaining that these are students? Thank you, Stevenarntson (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll go back through the logs and look for other similar blocks. That was the problem - I think your class was copying the format of each other's userpage profiles, and it looked like a series of spambot posts. We get some doozies - "my hobbies are papier-mache and making chain mail and I'm trying to learn Portuguese" and so on, from spambots trying to look human. I saw a bunch with more plausible variations on the same theme and took them for automated edits. Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I've unblocked User:Noecal2020 too - I think that's all. If you look at their userpage profiles, the similarity is rather striking, leading me to believe that an automated template was being used by a spambot. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me here. I just noticed your request that I respond to you on my own Talk page to keep things tidy here, and I apologize for not doing that! I haven't used Talk pages very much. I went through all of my students' accounts, and there are a few more that were blocked:
If in the future I added a notification to the tops of the pages that these are students, maybe including a link to my own Talk page, would that make them seem a little less spammy? Stevenarntson (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
That would help greatly - the appearance of seven or eight nearly identical userpages in short order, each with an external link, looks very much like a spambot attack - there have been concerns about external links to malicious downloads in the past weekor so after a story appeared in Wired, and adding sort of random links on userpages that are almost identical in format looks decidedly peculiar. Sorry for the trouble, there's no way you or they could have known that. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
You can see that the two redlinked userpages were caught (and all were flagged) by the spambot detection filter. The attempted edits on the redlinked userpages were the same format as the others. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
And you are welcome to discuss here, since the conversation started here and it's most convenient for us both - the notice just means that if I initiated the conversation on your talkpage, we should stay there - that wasn't the case in this instance. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this information--in the future, I'll post a notice on all the student userpages linking back to my own page. W/r/t/ User:LL0801 and User:SanQuintana--could those two pages not be restored? Those students had posted some content on them before they were taken down. Stevenarntson (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Both restored. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Stevenarntson (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [6]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Purpose of revert

Hello, what’s the purpose of this revert? If the image is a copyvio the old version, now a redirect, is involved anyway and it will (or should be) deleted, as well. So, your revert is quite useless. — Speravir (talk) – 02:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The second revert took it off the page entirely. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I didn’t notice this. — Speravir (talk) – 02:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering why my revert didn't work the first time, then I figured it out. No worries. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Content.

Good day. Regarding the removal of content for not being a reliable source, the addition you removed was in the same paragraph having two citations to the Washington Post and The Guardian and was sourced to James Lyons-Weiler, PhD who is as qualified as the editors are to these two newspapers with particular political slants. Also, James Lyons-Weiler, PhD is very well known for the subject matter and is a subject matter expert. The citations he includes are also to reliable scientific institutions.

It is critical the public understand the origin of coronavirus outbreak as it implicates the Wuhan lab HAS NOT BEEN PROVED and the paragraph this was added to indicates matter is 100% closed, as it relates to the phrase "that there was no evidence that the virus was genetically engineered". When there is and from many reputable sources.

1. Can you tell me what constitutes a "reliable source." 2. The phrase "that there was no evidence that the virus was genetically engineered" should be omitted as well then as there is evidence to the contrary by equally authoritative sources to the contrary of the Washington Post and The Guardian entries.

Thank you for your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on major published sources with a reputation for fact-checking, such as the Washington Post and the Guardian. We do not accept the views of individuals published onb their own domains as reliable, unless they are widely recognized for expertise in major publications, still less if they're being cited for self-published promotion of conspiracy theories. See WP:RS, WP:V and WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. This is an entry about the Wahun Institute and the post I had probably was not contextually best here, as it would implicate the Institute. The cite phrase you have allowed to stay, "that there was no evidence that the virus was genetically engineered" is a supposition as a number of authoritative "non conspiracy theory" scientists have shown this to be true with as much as, if not more, evidence as the Washington Post and Guardian editors cites. Perhaps these citations would be best under the virus entry itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a congenial home for conspiracy theories or for speculation on fringe theories. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

And, it shouldn't be! I have defended Wikipedia as a credible source from the beginning because of "peer condemnation." Thank you for your service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.70.31 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the cited article from the Washington Post (#4), an individual has to be a paid subscriber to see that cited material and the link redirects to their home page, and The Guardian cites the same exact article. Is there a policy about citing sources where the individual has to pay to read it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.70.31 (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Paywalled sources are acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.70.31 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Katy Tur

Hi Acroterian, can you help out with a user block and rev/deletion/ Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for reverting that crap. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Sure. MSNBC employees are getting noticed here tonight [7]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Nice. I'm close to signing off, so you may need to flag down some West Coast admins if it keeps on happening. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Same here. Or east coasters with insomnia. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible block on 120.21.180.180

Hello Acroterian - IP Address 120.21.180.180 is same individual who was vandalizing "Battle of Saragarhi" article. And now he is vandalizing "Tirah campaign" and "Mohmand campaign of 1897–98" as well as "Afghan–Sikh Wars" with personal views, misusing references and removing content without discussion on talk page. Can you please have all pages protected from vandalism? Not sure if there is a way to ban this IP Address as he comes back with different one again and again. But 120 is the common beginning digit in all his IP addresses. Any help would be appreciated.

From Tirah Campaign, he is taunting: 13:07, 14 February 2020‎ 120.21.180.180 talk‎ 10,682 bytes 0‎ Personal opinions once again hahaha undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

From Mohmand campaign of 1897–98, same taunts: 13:06, 14 February 2020‎ 120.21.180.180 talk‎ 7,801 bytes -4‎ Personal opinion once again 😂 undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible block on 120.21.57.81

Sorry to bother you time and again. IP Address 120.21.57.81 is same individual. Vandalising article "Afghan Sikh wars". I mentioned that his views do not justify this particular article and welcomed to talk page before making any changes but the user keeps adding his changes again and again. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand and I agree. As long as valid reference is provided and the views are not source misrepresentation, I have no problem welcoming changes. Also we have talk page to discuss about it. But in the case of Afghan-Sikh wars where the IP provided this link as reference to state that the over all war was a stalemate. If you read Page 296, there no such mention of it. Please take a look if you have time. https://books.google.com/books?id=AzG5llo3YCMC&pg=PA296#v=onepage&q&f=false WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Request some Admins to review the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

In good faith i been trying figure what going here on ANI. I like to speedy request some Admins to review the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for unusual activity from IPs on a ANI report that i inserted myself and other report that i started for a disruptive user. I do not want start like 100 ANI because of this. The last line of both reports. 1 2 Thanks. Regice2020 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if they are coming from other ANI reports. Regice2020 (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I will not have time this morning before I go out to review the apparently lengthy discussion. I'll look in this evening if it's not resolved by then. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

Hi, I just nominated a redirect that implies that Ilhan Omar father name is the same as her husband father name. This name is based on the conspiracy theory made by right-wing and alt-right media. It is totally inappropriate. Could you remove the redirect? Thanks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Pol Pot

Hi Acroterion. Would you mind taking a look at Pol Pot. This a bit of disruption going on with the infobox image, and there's a good chance it's probably the same person using multiple accounts. I thought about WP:RPP, but I suggested something similar at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030#Death threat and I'm not sure if this is another case where RPP wouldn't really be warranted. The file that keeps getting added is currently nominated for deletion at Commons, but it might be awhile before it ends up deleted. If RPP is OK for a case like this, please let me know and I'll make the request myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked both the IP and the account for trolling, and I'll keep an eye on the article, since the IP was probably a proxy. Additionally, I've added the picture to the badimages list until it gets deleted. Thanks for your diligence in pursuing this. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look and stepping in. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The person doing this is just creating new accounts to keep re-adding the file. I guess accounts can keep being blokced as they show up, but maybe WP:PENDING would be better at least until the file is deleted from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You're probably right, I'll do that now. I've added the current spelling of the image to the badimages list too. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are around

Hello A. There are some more edit summaries that need r/d. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Article on asexuality

Regarding the removal of the Asexual Manifesto - This source is not actually about asexuality as it should be understood as a lack of sexual attraction. Instead it is a treatise on abstaining from sex as a feminist political movement and argued that women are compromising themselves and their time.

Regarding the removal of David Bowie - I have read the arrived article 3x and Bowie notes that others have referred to him as asexual but that they don't understand him and that he does not. As such it is false representation to not him as an Asexual figure.

Regarding the removal of the Off Our Backs article - It is an article concerning the lack of lesbian representation in the National Organization for Women, a custody hearing where a lesbian almost had her parental rights taken, and a general feminist meeting. The only mention of asexuality is the reference to the availability of the Asexual Manifesto which is not a good source.

I take a great deal of issue with a number of these sources. I don't think they are presenting asexuality in good faith. Stellarburst (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You have some reasonable points. Use the talkpage to make your case, and please proofread your edit summaries. Acroterion (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

I have a email from my work, it isn't in the news yet but is true. not sure how to source an internal email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.128.233 (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You can't source an internal email - it's not a published reliable source in major media. Don't post rumors, wait for reporting to take place that we can verify. Acroterion (talk) 04:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi Acroterion, I recently rewrote a section at Mandy Powers Norrell regarding some controversial remarks she made; in reviewing the page history, I saw that some of the edits between December 24 and 27 added language in this section that I think may be potentially libellous. I saw that you are willing to handle RevDel requests -- would you be willing to take a look at these edits and determine whether this needs to be done? Thank you, –Erakura(talk) 04:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely malicious, zapped. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

NkassFourteen

Hi Acroterion.

You recently blocked User:NkassFourteen for advertising, but they are now using their talk page to carry on advertising [8]. I have reverted their latest, but may need TPA removal. Thanks. Agent00x (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey you deleted my "SA Franchise" Page and i'm not sure why. I worked REALLY hard on it, could you please put it back? Or can you at least let me see it real quick so I can copy the coding? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a free webhost. Does the content have an application for an article? Did you mean to move the content to article space? Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey this is Jm363490 again. I promise I will take it off but can you PLEASE put it back real quick so I can save the codes. I worked for hours on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please please please put it back I'm begging you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia but if that's what it tkaes to get it back then yes you can move it there. Thank you I would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you move it to article space and is there any way you can get it back? I really need it it's for my final grade in school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jm363490: Does User:Jm363490 have what you're looking for? —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:C.Fred @C.Fred It has some, I managed to retrieve it, but there is a lot that's missing and I really need it to pass Graphic Writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I will put it into your sandbox if you can explain what relevance it has to Wikipedia - personal projects for school or otherwise aren't an appropriate use of the encyclopedia. Otherwise, I can email it to you. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you email the link to the full coding of what you deleted. Thank you and I'm so sorry if i did anything against the terms, in the future I will seek confirmation before proceeding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Is there any way I can keep it on Wikipedia without going against the terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain what relevance it has to the encyclopedia? Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. it isn't educational really. It is just basically a spreadsheet/table/description of a "Survivor" season I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, then, no, the encyclopedia isn't a free webhost for stuff like that. In any case, there has been a lot of abuse of reality/contest shows like that, people have been blocked for posting showcruft tables, so it's best kept somewhere else. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok! Well thank you for at least sending it to me and clarifying. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm363490 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Loycarmo

Hi there, just to inform you that cross-wiki-vandal Loycarmo has been blocked indefinite in deWP. Cheers --−Sargoth 09:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate Discussions

Thank you for informing me of my imminent blocking, but can you please explain to me what, in my situation, constitutes "inappropriate discussions"? Because as far as I can see the descriptions on the page you linked me could just as easily apply to the posts left by your Wikipedia moderators responding to my post. I'm interested to hear your explanation as to why my posts in particular were deemed "inappropriate" but those left by the moderators and other users were not. I already know the answer - Wikipedia has a deep seated Leftist bias and agenda, and any user fighting the cause of Leftism will always be given a free pass to break the guidelines if it helps the cause of Leftism - but I'm curious to see how you would attempt to explain it without admitting to your agenda. Thanks. Des22z (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Des22z (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop abusing talkpages to soapbox about your dislike for people you perceive as leftists. If this recurs, you may expect to have your editing privileges revoked. Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Does a topic ban for post 1932 American politics extend to discussion too, User:Doug Weller left them a notice about it[[9]]? It might be the best way to handle this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Since this user appears to be focused solely on fighting those they perceive as leftists and demanding that conspiracy theories be treated as fact, I doubt there's much point in all the paperwork associated with a topic ban. A topic ban is more useful if an editor is involved productively elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Good point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Just look at the trail of this editor has done to me. And no I’m not personally attacking anyone merely agreeing with you and thanking you for writing about basically the exact same experiences I’m having on here with a few bad apples who have editor exclusive control over the rest of us, which in my opine is sad to see because it’s ruined Wikipedia! Jpodesta1 (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also- I wasn’t siding with your post about leftist or rightism just I believe in a correctism. But wiki Edit does seem open to allowing us to collaborate and legally use what they’ve amassed to start our own site solely purposed to COMPETE with Wikipedia, at least the company itself allows for that so who is for a truthipedia.com? Is there a way to look up and group newer or banned or heavily censored or blocked editors like this- to find out if they’d like to help start and contribute to a non political truth based new website since Wikipedia does t even seem to make sense anymore like I said with a few bad apple editors who are the ones bullying threatening and then saying that we’re the ones making personal attacks not even on them but their internet troll pals? Then another editor- maybe the same person under different names I dunno comes out and does the same thing- and it’s all duplicitous at best dishonest at worse- with the same United cause which is disinformation and no freedoms of speech expression opinion anything even just on what we post on a “talk page.” I mean, my opinion only- but this seems like all banned censored newer editors are all saying the same thing to the only editors in control and there’s gotta be more than half the world who feels the same or is just apolitical and not eve. That interested aware of the current politics banned or inserted into my experience as an editor on this website... but please don’t get hurt or offended or threaten me as I’ve not threatened you I’m merely stating my opinions about my mostly negative to date experiences and have hopes with time the bad apple editors will just leave me alone I don’t even know whom they are what they’re talking about why they are threatening me or why/ how they’ve got all the power on this website- nor how I can at least block them from doing anything with my account or contacting me, nor why none of us can report them to higher up administrators... time for some www.truthipedia.com type website? Or can I work watching the parameters and restrictions of this website. I guess we will find out soon enough. Thanks for your post and bravado! Jpodesta1 (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

To 'Anon' users @Dess2z and @Jpodesta: Hey... I remember you from earlier, 'J'!

A fellow junior 'Wikipedian' here, and Believe It Or Not( nothing to do with a certain popular IP whatsoever) — I'm primarily reaching out to 'D' out of sheer curiosity.

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, let's get it all out. Since all of your contributions revolve around contesting the conclusive-consensus of[ senior] Wikipedians, I say that I deem myself left-of-centre or to put it in other words, centre-leftist.

Unlike your presuppositions about Democratic Party's political-considerations towards bringing-up "AOC" and "Bernie" in a clearly-charged yet civil( if not polite) discussion whilst responding to a fellow Wikipedian's attempt to make you understand the popular political-compass in the offline-universe of Murican electoral-/mainstream-politics, I seriously can't understand your grudge to fixate over( let's try to play the ideal of "neutrality" of bit..) ethnocentrists-to-xenophobic activist-groups. To be sure, I hardly did dabble myself in any directly political topics but even I feel I've been wronged by those users in the hierarchy( higher "user access levels") who "play rank" in reverting edit under the guise of most-vague to incomplete of explanations, and strictly referring to perfectly non-political policies: Sometimes even Wikipedia has an ambiguously worded policy-clauses which, being fellow H.S.S. after all: They'll choose to interptet it per their own predisposition at any given time. And even when I tried to engage in conversation on their user talk-pages, they frankly don't bother to reply at most. Overall, it's a WP:RUDE which I've found the only consistent-thing across every( whom-I-dub) 'superuser' in my overall personal-experience. As for politics, I fairly did contest some certain generous( "treating with kid's gloves") articles on domestic-political to some ethnogeopolitical hot-button subjects by reading about them in very same reliable sources which you mark "Leftist Marxist"( paraphrased) or “Far Leftist” and so on by tagging and explaining my reasoning clearly readable in editing-stage.. Forget about even trying to start a talk-page discussion, they simply removed my tags by giving simplest of excuses, even though I went as far as pointing out exact sections of Wikipedia® policies and they simply obfuscated or strawmanned my responses before suddenly stopping to engage after "warning"( read threatening) of repercussions. And I see you've gained some resembling experience as well, to an extent. A-gain.. Curbing my tempting-presuppositions about your zeal to soften the potential-blow over the moralistic-repute of 'ethno-populists' movements: May I know will your zeal for “correction” would apply to say.. Osama( no salutation!)'s articulations of Uncle Sam's hard power to even soft power, would you agree that PRC and DPRK's official status by not just official sources( need I remind why it's logically-comparable?), but even sympathetic sources as "people's republic" and "democratic republic", respectively: Must be deemed given "equal"-weight as their actual governance-systems? Contrary to not just "the Allies", but even other human-rights outfits based in Anglophonic "First World" to other parts of "First World" keep reporting? Should opinions expressed by far-left publications like CounterPunch® over how the noun "Terrorism" and its derivatives have been evolved to mere buzzwords being deployed in an information-warfare against[ geopolitical] opponents of status quo and foreign military-control be given "equal-weight" and every single article about "terror" acts be re-edited accordingly to reflect "neutrality", regardless of how the official/state and independently-reliable sources treat those "buzzwords"? Similarly, another far-left outlet AlterNet® must be considered valid for reporting that whilst "the vet" [Ms ]Gabbard might be a Russian proxy, but she's indubitably a Hindutva trojan-horse? Should a source reporting a hypothetical view of a certain indigenous people of Americas terming the U S of A[ by recounting historical-facts*] as "the most-glorified genocidal country in all of human-history" be given "equal-weight" as well? Or will you campaign as ferociously, if not more: When more than a single sources are pushing either of these narratives? And 'J', you might have already sensed: I clearly-agree with you mostly on sentiment but seriously.. I must remark that "Truthipedia" sounds a inevitably-ludicrous christening! Seriously, who came up with that? It's almost as if it's not a serious encyclopædic-project but yet-another daily political-howling. 🤭🤭🤭 And this has nothing to do with the fact that the noun "Truth" is extremely vulnerable to subjectivity! Don't believe me? Just ask the "Perp Walk"-pioneer Rudolph( a-gain, no salutation!). *Cursory/Rhetorical remark: Is History certainly a branch of "science", though? Because if it genuinely is, then Astronomy must be classified as ‘ultra-science’ to evade the stigma. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a little hard to figure out where you're heading with all that. Talkpages aren't for political debate, so you mayt want to find a forum for that. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 Inconclusive
Whom is this specifically addressed to, Mr 'talk-page owner'?( Not a snark, trust me on that.) I would try not to mind so you can be radically-honest with me on that, obviously civilly — and politeness is not radical, but a charade.
On your ambiguously short "text", I'm confused because on one-hand: I clearly do agree that your user talk-page shouldn't be a turned into a "battleground" for 'Wars of Ideologies'. But "the OP"( call it a ‘trap’, if you wanna) certainly piqued my interest ever from QAnon's talk-page and I just wanted to gauge the genuineness between her/his/their gripe with the norm. I know I may be deemed stupid( "naïve") but perhaps for the factors already described succinctly in my original-entry of this section, I just wanted to assume good-faith and try making her/him/then understand the wiki's policies BUT with nuances and presenting hypotheses with cases reversed in the paradigm so that it becomes more easily-comprehensible. Needless to add at last, this is the only latest/ongoing-conversation "the OP" was involved and frankly, the only one where he was not hung-up on "fudging" against any particular right-wing ethnocentrist element and hence.. Sorry for any inconveniences inadvertently caused. Albeit: Judging from that template, you must've gotten used to it by now. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m new not sure who’s replying to what here or if any was a reply to my postings. But I’d like to proudly say I’m perhaps one of the few on here, and we.need more, who’s apolitical. And who can bring that to just about all my edits while I do realize my earlier ones weren’t as appropriate as the ones after. And it seems saying any part of Wikipedia is not a place for politics is outright untrue so far all I’ve seen is politics. So other than pages or edits which clearly are supposed to be opinion only and express ones left of center or right of left or I’m right you’re wrong or whatever political orientation seems politics, and only ONE shared political leaning controls and dominates Wikipedia today, period. I think most would agree. One side silences what they think is the other side or not their side, and neutral arbiters of fact like myself get censored banned and threatened. So how’s about being honest about what all this is, who’s in charge, who’s. Not, and then trying to recruit more people like me, apolitical and even politically disinterested and more interested in sourcing to things such as actual FOIA publications, actual videos which evidence content, regardless of source, and NOT banning major news outlets like judicial watch for example, but allowing CNN for example, if you’re not sourcing to articles or only source to an article because that’s the only way to source to a video, like a source I recently made to just show the only in edited video of Joe Biden’s first campaign speech or virtual town hall, not the article, the video, or sources to a foil production, not to an article about it but the actual 120 page foia document, you people stop editing censoring banning and removing my work, thus stopping the utter waste of my time.

Keep your politics to yourself when it comes to edits and posts and let people say what they want on talk pages without being threatened by more powerful editors who claim they can threaten you because they think that so,done else whom neither of you know, thinks you threatened them. Don’t be absurd I mean come on it’s so obvious.. thanks. Jpodesta1 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And yes I created “truthipedia” so you can’t have it. And yes I do see a huge market for it, or some other derivation of it, for folks, like me, which comprise a vast majority of the country and world, that’d love to see it- it can base off all the work Wikipedia has done to date, apparently for free, and be a for profit company, because I truly doubt all these editors on here who’ve been here doing this for decades, are unpaid, and if they are, in my opine, the editors who remove my posts within a few minutes, need to get a life and a job, maybe if they were paid something than you could actually get real JOURNALISTS who don’t do what all the powerful EDITORS do here, and enact strict policies which guarantee that what everyone who’s a minority newer smaller editor here says, that they’re powerless, but feel this is a political website, and that it’s politics seem to exclusively be “far left” (modern day far left that is) not whatever far left was 30, 50 or 100 years ago- to create not a far right or far left or center left right square website- but a facts only website where there’s separate places for just about anyone’s unedited opinion and separate places for only FACTS with paid moderators and neutral journalists. Can’t be hard and sounds like it’s a great business model long overdue and maybe people wouldn’t care about seeing a couple ads st the end of pages or soemthing- a price well worth paying for just getting a totally neutral turthipedia and then having a separate almost u edited section for anyone political to make their contributions and that’s lefties righties dems socialists conservatives green parties libertarians or whomever else to have their FREE SPEECH. all on one encyclopedia brittanics based website. Sound good? I think so... Wikipedia could’ve been that but every minority here who’s banned censored d Removed edited I’m seeing seems to feel the same way about the few editors who feel the same way and are in control of this, perhaps, sinking ship in the modern age... just my thoughts on what this site has devolved into... Jpodesta1 (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for the quick rangeblock. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I hit the easy pitches - when the first four hex groupings are the same, it's a /64 block assigned to a single router. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Ah, the amazing refreshing rollback link doesn't just hit me? :-) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Did it load? Did it load? Ye ... aw crap, accidental rollback. Drives me crazy. Acroterion (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I rarely edit on my phone because I hit the link to look at an edit and it rolls it back instead. I've given out my share of apologies and I don't edit on the phone much any more! Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
If I was an interface designer, I'd complain about it. I just cuss instead. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

I don’t know why I can’t just keep my stuff on my own Wikipedia page Jm363490 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t a free web host for personal projects, and the user page belongs t9 the encyclopedia, not to individual users. Please do not reinstate the content. Acroterion (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

How is it bothering anything? Jm363490 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As concisely explained to you above, Wikipedia is not a free web host for personal projects, it is a encyclopedia. Please do not reinstate personal content, or you may face further action. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

where else could i put it Jm363490 (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

i just don’t understand how it’s bothering anything. I’m not vandalizing wikipedia or sending false links. I just like having it here Jm363490 (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

For the fifth time, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web hosting service for everybody to use as they please. The system is a finite resource whose servers are solely for improvement of the encyclopedia. Find somewhere else, and stop looking for a way around the terms of use and site policy. The answer is no. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

anywaysss... k Jm363490 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Missed a spot

In your recent revdels, you missed this. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Mapsfly

Hello, Acroterion,

While I think this editor made some disruptive edits and lacks a certain amount of clue, there was edit warring going on at Josh Norman both yesterday and today by a number of editors. I think indefinite is very severe for a first block and I was wondering if you would be amenable if I changed it to a 1-2 weeks or a month. Here is their contribution history if you want to check it out although it looks like the most damaging edits were posted on the ANI complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

By all means - I was not encouraged by the absence of clue from somebody who had been around for so long, but I would regard this block as indefinite in the literal sense, not the infinite sense. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reconsidering this block. I hope they make a more clueful unblock request. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by user Ash Salvatore in Enrique Iglesias articles

Hi Acroterion,

Since March 4, 2020 an user called Salvatore appeared here in Wikipedia and inflate Enrique Iglesias's albums sales and revert sourced edits by some members, including myself. I tried to talk to him many times in his talk page and even in the Talk:Enrique Iglesias, but he doesn't care to anything and change all other members edits in the articles and warnings in his Talk page. He even includes fake certifications in the table of some of Iglesias's articles like Quizás (album), and changed sourced sales like here Enrique Iglesias (album) without providing any source, only to keep the Enrique's sales very high and inflated. I would like to ask you to do something with this user, I think he's gone too far.--88marcus (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Now he's using a new IP to post 196.246.194.16.--88marcus (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing living former representatives from US Congressional District pages

Hi Acroterion,

The edits to remove living former reps came about as a result of a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Congress#Lists_of_living_former_members

I will wait a few days then reattempt.

Thoughts?

Benawu2 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to remove if there is consensus, just remember to reference that discussion in the edit summary - it's hard to tell what you're doing otherwise. Feel free to carry on. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Loycarmo socking again

Hello Loycarmo's socks have continued to destroy other versions of wikipedia. I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into his case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Loycarmo

Since you have blocked him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Loycarmo) if you wish to provide comments on the spi investigation, please do.

Thanks so much for your time! Hefty hyde (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Acroterion, I have blocked Hefty hyde as a sock in an unrelated matter. The report they filed is a mess. At the moment, I've put it on hold. I would appreciate your commenting about the merits of the report, either here or at the SPI, when you have time. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Refactoring

My understanding was refactoring was discouraged except in cases on vandalism or BLP-violations. When I was 6 or 7 years old I took a Matchbox car and rolled it up and down the hood of my father’s recently purchased truck, scratching the paint. When he arrived home I literally couldn’t sit down for three days and was out of school for a week. My father later told me “I am not proud of what I done but I am not ashamed”. Bottom line, bad things happen to good people and vice versa. It wasn’t a backhanded compliment or insult or passive aggressiveness. It was a genuine comment to a valued contributor.

Then phrase it as such - there's no reason to tell a stranger who suffered a heart attack that they've learned a lesson. That just looks like trolling. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Stock reference in Ski Pole page

Any comments regarding the reason for reverting my edit? Is there another method that should be used to include the commonly used alternative term? Samuraiwombat (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to provide a reference to show that it's in widespread use in Australia, and not remove the reference to British usage. Acroterion (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Aside from 45 years of personal experience skiing in Aus :-) would this be an acceptable reference... "Downhill Downunder" by Peter Oliver, an article in Skiing Magazine Mar-Apr 1993 refer page 42. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X5hdl0E43UIC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=skiing+are+they+called+%22stocks%22+sticks+or+poles?&source=bl&ots=YVn-HxZDWB&sig=ACfU3U0uLCNOhqJwXozeYJ73KOr0cA8kng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG2ezV-5noAhXyTBUIHTO_D4wQ6AEwAHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=skiing%20are%20they%20called%20%22stocks%22%20sticks%20or%20poles%3F&f=false Note: I did not remove the British usage reference, I only added the Australian usage (after the British usage) and changed the "or" to a comma before the British usage so it made gramatical sense. Hope this helps - if you think this is ok then I will redo the edit and add in the reference. Samuraiwombat (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks good, I'll see if I can format it for you. Personal experience, no matter how extensive, is never eligible for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. What format is needed? I can have a go if you like. Samuraiwombat (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You can see how to reference in WP:REFERENCE. When I get a chance I'll see if I can format it so you can see how it'sdone. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass deletions

On peacemaker67s page, another user wiped my and peacemakers conversation m. Please look at the edit history and you will see I was returning what a nother user deleted from the owner’s pge. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and you restored it, took it off, put it back, and seem to think it's something worth arguing about. Stop, and do something helpful to the encyclopedia. Peacemaker made it clear that you shouldn't be doing that, and I've protected the p[age to ensure that their wishes are respected. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough but can you please restore what was wiped without peacemaker67’s permission? The other user deleted it and insulted me in the edit comment.74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker can put it back if they want, it's up to them, not you. Stop harassing them. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
So an external user can wipe Peacemakers page without his permission but I cannot put it back? What? Especially as the extern editor did so to sensor what I said and keep what they said? 74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
You're edit-warring on another user's talkpage. You were both asked to stop. You didn't. Peacemaker has thanked me for protecting their talkpage - give it a rest, and stop looking for things to argue about. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
If you read the timeline you would see that when Peacemaker asked for the bicker to stop, I said “Understood”. After that the other editor came and deleted everything and insulted me. Thereby ignoring Peacemakers wished. This is ludicrous. I have contributed much to Wikipedia. I’m not some rogue IP looking to troll. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
You keep trying to argue. Stop, go do something else. Acroterion (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Jpodesta1

Doug Weller talk 19:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see why. I was on the edge of blocking for the username. Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)

You have page protected this article before. Well, the IP is back. Could you please indefinitely protect? The page has been protected three times in 3 years and every time the page protection ends, the IP shows up not too long afterwards....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

What a remarkable example of persistence in a lame attempt to trivialize trivia. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of it. This IP reminds me of a quotation[10] from the James Bond film Moonraker. The video I link to is short and safe for viewing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Be sure to put the lock symbol at the top of that page. Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Want to know the reason for deleting my page?

On my user page it is written that my page is deleted because I have copied my own data and write it on user page. Can you explain me out the reason for this? And how can I get my content back on user page. Kanishk1901 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate question, answered here -FASTILY 00:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Hi. I saw that you deleted the article that I posted, to which you commented "This is not a place to post your resume". This post was not a resume but an assignment for one of my college classes, so if you could please tell me how to fix it to where to does not look like a resume that would be great. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenkortney (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've placed the deleted content into User:Allenkortney/sandbox. Userpages aren't for developing article content. Additionally, the article needs substantial editing to not look like somebody's promotional resume. You need to provide only the facts and show why the subject is suitable for an encyclopedia article, not who they are best frinds with and whether they're a prodigy, and you can't copy things in. When you think it's ready, you should move it to Draft:Sam Dameshek so other editors can review it. Acroterion (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Block not working?

Hi - can you take a quick look at Special:Contributions/2405:204:3488:C7A9:7520:740:B0EB:AF9A? I just reverted some petty vandalism from there, but when I look at their contribs I see a red banner saying the account is currently blocked by you. IP ranges aren't something I really understand, so I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but either the banner is in the wrong place or the block is somehow now working? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Girth Summit: The IP range is only partially blocked from a list of articles that doesn't include Fiscal policy. Favonian (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The block notice interface is confusing, it would be nice if it changed color or something for a partial block. This is one reason why I've never given out a partial block, and the continued problems from this IP circumventing the partial block bear this out. I extended Ohnoitsjamie's partial block, I'm inclined to make it a full block if they're skirting it. Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both - sorry, should have read the block notice more carefully, I see now this was a partial block. I'm not sure whether it's the same user skirting round their block - they were just inserting a name at random points in the article, looked like a typical kid messing about to me. Agree that a different colour of banner for a partial block would be a good thing BTW. GirthSummit (blether) 12:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
We're getting a lot of bored kids at home doing vandalism, and I've been giving them a very short rope. What will be really confusing is overlapping partial blocks for different ranges. I've never given out more than a /64 block on an IPv6 range, so I can't say how big a /37 block might be. In this case, it's a single address that could be blocked if it keeps up, or /64 blocked of you want to be sure. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Trying to create a page for software company

I'm trying to create a Wiki page for a software company. I thought I'd followed all the right steps... but it looks like I may have goofed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobaTeaGood (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't use userspace for what amount to spam links - advertising is prohibited, including inappropriate links. A one-year-old company is unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please read [[WP:COI|the requirements for editors with a conflict of interest. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


Got it! Can I ask for a favor then? Can you create it for me? I can check for accuracy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BobaTeaGood (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No.
You need multiple independent sources in major media, indicating that the subject is suitable for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. You're also required do disclose whether you have a relationship with the organization. Mere existence doesn't qualify for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

anxiety disorder in Electromagnetic hypersensitivity page

What do you mean saying " isn't understandable"? Do you want the sentence to be reformulated or do you contest article POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.34.80 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be written so that it is intelligible. "It was suggested a cognitive approach in which Electromagnetic hypersensitivity was considered as an anxiety disorder" makes no sense, and is a good example of why we avoid the passive voice. Perhaps you mean "**Somebody** has proposed that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is an anxiety disorder which may be treated through cognitive behavioral therapy." You'll need to specify whose idea that was, so it isn't stated in Wikipedia's voice. I would also look for a source that more closely satisfies WP:MEDRS - Skeptical Inquirer isn't close to a reliable source for medical topics. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.34.80 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Hi, you have reversed a change I made to the Bombing of Dresden page and called it "vandalism". If you are referring to the change of the American English spelling 'center' to the English spelling 'centre', this was to fall in line with an earlier spelling of this word which was using the English version. I would certainly not agree that this falls under a "vandalism" label, more maintaining the consistency of the article. Would you have called it vandalism if I had changed the English spelling to the American English one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.147.216 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You changed the number without attribution, that is the problem. We get a lot of that these days, and we're not keen on subtle changes like that which aren't backed up by sourcing. Those look like potential vandalism, and users get warned. As for the other issue, we also get a lot of changes from people who don't know that there are different national spellings, and it needs to be explained in an edit summary, rather than just changed without explanation. You were not being warned for that, since the article is tagged as using British English, but please use edit summaries when you make any edit. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

User with a conflict of interest

It is Broncobehn. He admits to the COI here[11]. I suspect he has a connection to this candidate. Broncobehn at the moment is clearly a SP account. I already informed[12] this editor what my thoughts were. Maybe you could also chime in about WP:COI at his talk page. The Florida 21st is my congressional district and I have opinions on its its serving congresswoman and likelihood of anyone beating her. So I have some involvement too. Stay healthy!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've given them a COI welcome and advice on candidate notability. Acroterion (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Greg Rikkart

But it's true. <redacted> However, he is NOT dead, and he should recover. Someone tried to claim that he was dead, when I didn't see a valid source say that.

https://www.instagram.com/gregrikaart/--2600:6C50:700C:200:B052:A56C:6712:CC97 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you were correcting vandalism. However, never, ever insert discussions of anyone's health without ironclad sourcing to major published media. Social media won't cut it. I've already blocked several people who've added rumors of this type - they don't belong in an encyclopedia. Thanks for fixing the vandalism, but it's better to take it out entirely than to insert something else. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q1_2020&oldid=1085727587"