Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q1 2021

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


Apologies

just a statement for my wording on my recent edits to Raphael Warnock my statements were not intended to be an attack on any editor and were an evidently poorly worded explanation of my reasoning for reversion. I apologise for any lack of clarity and will attempt to avoid potential misunderstandings in the future. Apologies HalalSquad (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)HalalSquad

Don't ascribe intentions to other editors like that. Also, please review the comments made when the previous iterations were removed. In general if nobody was charged, it's usually regarded as undue emphasis. Acroterion (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine

I don't understand why the See Also section cannot be properly edited with additions which seem to me to be fully legitiment? Please explain.

highfly3442

Seealso sections are concise links to related topics not already covered in the article. They are not for things already linked, not are they dumping grounds for every possible link - if the are more than five or six see also, a navbox might be a better choice. Seelaso links should not be tangential. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

David Johnson

Hi, Re your recent message on my Talk page, I would add this:

It was he (Johnson) who attacked me! I made a perfectly acceptable amendment to the Rockall, simply rearranging (not changing) two sentences to make them read better. Shortly afterwards, David Johnson told me to stop “vandalising”the page and that I had “deliberately introduced incorrect information”. When I replied asking him why he had left that, as all I had done was to make existing content read better, he again attacked me and accused me of being “pompous”. He then insisted I should have checked the material and found it was incorrect, something I do not feel is my responsibility if it is existing copy and I am merely improving the syntax, not changing the facts. He may be too arrogant to apologise, but he’s the one who needs to be reprimanded for attacking editors, not me who was the victim of his unwarranted and unfounded allegations. Neilinabbey (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

So you feel entitled to escalate, use words like "cowardly" and repeatedly post after your comments have been acknowledged and removed? And no, you didn't just rearrange things, you introduced a specific change of meaning on a topic that has seen substantial disruption. This isn't a battle that editors must win for personal honor. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. The word ‘claims’, which is the crux of this, was already in the article before ever I edited it - I merely changed the structure of the sentences to make them read better, which is a perfectly legitimate and constructive piece of editing which is still in place. A check of the edits will clearly show this. I do not deserve to be attacked by Johnson and now similarly accused by you. Neilinabbey (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I’d also add that there us a huge difference between what s clearly a good faith edit and deliberate vandalism. Just check my record of editing over many years and you’ll see that I have a long record of constructive editing. The treatment I’ve had in recent days here is completely unwarranted and disgusting.Neilinabbey (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, one final comment - if my edit was “vandalism”, how come the accepted revision was based on mine? This confirms that my edit was constructive and that the offending word/s has been introduced in an earlier edit by someone else.Neilinabbey (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2021 (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.Doug Weller talk 18:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking that IP address. Could you please Revdel its edits to my talk page? NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, once I’ve finished with revoking talkpage access.Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

2600:1010:B141:63C8:827:D90:96ED:4E96

Can user: 2600:1010:B141:63C8:827:D90:96ED:4E96 please be blocked ASAP. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, now that I've finished up with an Nazi IP. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

My IP changed because I'm on a hotspot and I made the edit on cellular. The block passed as it was a 31 hour block and it's been more than 31 hours since I was blocked. Why was I blocked? Also my IP was 2600:1003:B00D:7948:8056:F218:9D7D:468D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.249.59 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You were blocked on your previous IP for obvious vandalism. If it resumes it will be a longer block. Acroterion (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Steveengel

I just filed a WP:SPI [1] related to this. Talk:Gab is known to be targeted for brigading, per notification placed by GorillaWarfare [2], but the confluence of at least two of the WP:SPAs seemed to warrant it. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Alex2021 at Right Side Broadcasting Network

He's told me he's paid and asked me how to handle an image copyright problem. I'm telling him on his talk page what he needs to do about COI and PAID. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured they needed to know about COI and WMF policy sooner than later. Acroterion (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk page misconduct - need guidance

In this RM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Requested_move_16_January_2021, Chrisahn is striking through RM comments in the form of "Support per x", citing WP:RMCOMMENT which doesn't support this action, and counter to WP:TPO. What shoud I or anyone do? Can you help? Thank you. Alalch Emis (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussions like WP:RM are not votes. Comments like Support, per x clearly go against WP:RMCOMMENT: The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments. When a comment violates a policy, there has to be some kind of sanction — otherwise, the policy is toothless. I've seen such comments being struck in previous WP:AfD and WP:RM discussions, and I thought it was common practice, so that's what I did. But I can't find an actual policy supporting this, so I may have been mistaken. Another editor already reverted my changes, and I won't strike these comments again. I'll simply add a comment pointing out that they go against WP:RMCOMMENT. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments like Support, per x don't go against WP:RMCOMMENT. They are shorthand for the same arguments which they point to, avoiding repetition. All is good, since another editor reverted these changes and you don't object. You are entitled to state your view on WP:RMCOMMENT naturally, but crossing them out unavoidably looks like the authors changed their position. Cheers Alalch Emis (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chrisahn: Strikethroughs are only done for blocked editors who've been editing around sanctions or who have been otherwise disruptive - and you're wrong about the way support or oppose !votes are registered. Editors are not required to create wholly new arguments when they agree with someone else's statement. You are not the arbiter of who gets a voice. It is up to the closing administrator to evaluate the discussion and to give appropriate weight after reviewing the comments. Acroterion (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"You are not the arbiter of who gets a voice" — I never intended to. WP:AGF. This RM discussion is super long anyway, and such spammy comments (no matter whether they support or oppose) only make it less readable. I think it would make sense to have a policy to somehow sanction such comments, e.g. striking them, to discourage other users from adding even more of them. But alas, there is no such policy. Well, so be it. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It's up to the closing administrator to evaluate the comments, in context. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Them edits

Do you use a script? You block faster than I can blink. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Ha, you must be: you are outgunning my poor fat fingers. Have fun with it! :-) Drmies (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • No, I've developed a rhythm - check filter log, block if it's the standard phat ass stuff, leave single tries alone. I need a break, going to go read. Have at it, the filters are doing their job pretty well. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Whoever wrote up that filter should be put on payroll. It's hard to imagine how much damage would have been done. I have a new novel, the first novel in Yoruba, and I'm getting back to that later tonight. What you got? Drmies (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
        • At 3 or 4 edits a minute, it would be impossible to manually revert. There are a few leakers.
        • You read Yoruba, or a Dutch translation? I have nothing so exotic, my wife the English+computer science major, bought stacks of detective novels at the used bookstore for distraction, so I'm reading Michael Connelly's books about Harry/Hieronymus Bosch (come to think of it, there's a Dutch connection) for the Los Angeles atmosphere, which is definitely not like here, where it's 20 degrees and windy. She's reading three things at once - Donna Leon's Brunetti books for the Venice atmosphere, which isn't like here either, something for her book club, and Patrick O'Brian. I have a couple of Terry Kay books on the waiting pile for Georgia atmosphere. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Pannal

Hi. Thanks for blocking the current vandal on the above page. They have just done it again under another IP address. I've reverted the edit, and I'm happy to keep on doing so, but I am not able to block. If you could keep an eye on this and block when you see fit, I should be most grateful. I think it's just a bored kid - we currently have lockdown here until 6 March, the schools are closed, and kids are stuck indoors because it's winter. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We've had widespread vandalism based on a TikTok meme to add your name to the "notable people" sections of articles. They were happening at a rate of about 4 per minute across the entire encyclopedia before an edit filter was instituted, but there are still some leakers. Acroterion (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Thank you - I guess I was out of the loop. So it was probably not a little kid, then. And thank you for the block and protection. That will save us all a lot of work. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Shane Frederick/24.233.208.230

Still continuing to evade scrutiny with the IP despite several warnings after yours. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. Looking at the account now. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing from the account since December. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you; I'll keep an eye on the articles to see if new edits spring up. Nate • (chatter) 02:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Nazi Germany

Would check my edit to see if I correctly interpreted your intention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, damn Sinebot. I see the IP has vindicated my block. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's forgive, I won't be wrong

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, I am very sorry about my work, hope you forgive me ^^.Luân777 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The editor continues to make unsourced edits despite the warnings. A block may be in order. Vikram Vincent 07:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Was just about to say the same thing, continued reverting after multiple warnings. They have been changing dates aroundand it does look rather like wikifiddling. WCMemail 09:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

May I get a sanity check. [3] It seems once his block expired our friend went back to editing the same articles and once again has started changing dates, names, dynasties and people links. It seems to me he is changing sourced material and replacing it with his own unsourced edits. I don't know if this is just incompetence or wikifiddling. I haven't reverted anything as I didn't want this to look like a revert war on my part and so I would appreciate your opinion. WCMemail 13:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality?

"Conspiracy theories" is a perjorative term. "Allegations" is neutral. Why the undo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.184.26 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality is defined by a preponderance of sources, not by watering down sourced content. If a preponderance of sources call something a conspiracy theory, that's what Wikipedia calls it. No reliable source calls the claims "allegations," they're patent falsehoods in service of a conspiracy theory. Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

How dare you delete my edition to talk page: Ilhan Omar. The reason why added to talk page is to engage on a discussion to possibly add or not add to main article whether she should be reported as far-left. Her anti Semitic comments are deeply upsetting and by you deleting my words show you appease her words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.41 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Talkpages are for concrete suggestions concerning article improvement, not for complaints about a lack of perceived symmetry between politicians. Green is a radical who calls for executions. Omar is on the left side of her party, but nowhere near the extent of Green. There is no inherent symmetry as you appear to demand. Articles do not exist to normalize radical views by pointing at other people on the other side of the aisle as false equivalents. Acroterion (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why was the change not relevant? I've thought the guy is in art world and would be nice to point out some artists he knows. Hhm. Is something not alright?

I've added blog earlier but later just added site of artist because blogs are supposedly not good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelvervoordt (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Do you see lists of friends in other biographies? No. There must be a point, whiich is plainly stated, which indicates that the relationship is of primary significance. Stop edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to know why I was censored

I read everything, when creating a new section, it said to have reliable sources and not your own research, and I didn't request an edit, I made that clear in the title, so why did you censor me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:200:7AE0:B1CF:9F66:B68B:778 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You weren’t censored, read the FAQ. Editors long ago got tired of cluttering up the talkpage with mistaken assumptions made by people who haven’t bothered to read the article. Acroterion (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please block a user

Please block Davidilich, LTA and an abusive email. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 05:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(by talk page watcher) @NASCARfan0548: If you like, you can prevent new users from sending abusive email. Go to your preferences, under "User profile", untick the box that says "Allow emails from brand-new users". Sro23 (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Sro23, That's what I did. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

E-mail access

Hi, thanks for the block of Branigins. Would you mind revoking email access there? It's being abused. Thanks, Blablubbs|talk 01:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I stepped away for a minute. L235 got it. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. :) For what it's worth, it was nothing too bad – I just got to read some decent song lyrics. Blablubbs|talk 02:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit reversion

How exactly is the reason given in the summary not valid? The information in the citations is heavily biased and unverified and the article content in general does not present an impartial analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredwsavage (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You removed an entire section with several references, including the New York Times and the Irish Times, claiming that they were "biased sources." Use the article talkpage to explain your objections and to gain consensus for any changes before you do anything else on this subject, bearing in mind that those two references, at least, are considered solid, reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

First, as a regular reader of the Irish Times, I can confirm that it is considered very biased in this area and not a reliable source. Second, most of the content is related to the David Gorski article which is essentially a personal blog. Would this be considered reliable if it were promoting a counter perspective? I think not. Jaredwsavage (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You're not the sole judge of whether the Irish Times is reliable. For the third time, you are required to find consensus on the article's talkpage - I am dealing with your disruptive blanking as an administrator, not with the content. Make your case and await responses from other editors. Acroterion (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Waldbaum's supermarket fire

Is posted, and has a surprise ending, it was an arson. I appreciate your comments. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Refdesk revert?

Hi Acroterion, was this revert intentional? [4] If so, what is the reason? --Amble (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Misclick, sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I figured. --Amble (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed amalysis

You should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to take the role of deciding when to block someone then you should read all the relevant information very carefully and verify the accuracy of all persons claims. Obviously, it is human nature (but not mine) to “pile on” when someone who has slightly irritated them is “on trial”, and to give incomplete information on what they did and that it was occurred.

Administrators do not arbitrate content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


One main point – the fact is the leads on music articles are VASTLY differential. Ritchie333 clearly admits “he likes short”. I never say what I like – I state I am trying to make them somewhat uniform and to present an non-American centric view of things. Oh, if it’s a British band then the UK is allowed to be mentioned too, or so its seems. People should not have flip to pages on the discography or the specific album or song to get even some sense of whether the artist is only a US (Or North American success). The Eagles lead suggested they were one of the biggest bands in the world, when in fact they only had 1 top 10 hit in the UK, Australia and most of Europe. By contrast, it should be made clear the Who (and others) are a truly worldwide band It should not take “agreement” on 100 different communities for 100 different artists (or in some cases one person may be involved with 2 or 3 or 4 artists) to get the articles to be somewhat uniform and to reflect a worldwide perspective. Presenting only the US point of view, is in itself, a contravention of Wikipedia’s POV policies.

Further, on the changes I made which caused you to block me someone explicitly said:

In the lead at the Who – through your contributions and those of an IP user, admittedly – we currently say that "My Generation" "went to number two in the UK and Australia, number three in Canada and the top ten in parts of Europe"; there's no source for these details, and they don't appear in the main body, sourced or otherwise. Same situation for "Substitute" and "I'm a Boy" being top-five hits in the Netherlands, "Pictures of Lily" and "Happy Jack" going top five in "several countries", "Jack" hitting number one in Canada; and for "I Can See for Miles" being a top-ten hit in Canada. It continues in the lead – Tommy as "the first of nine straight top ten albums in the US and Canada", inclusion of Canadian chart success of "Pinball Wizard" and "See Me, Feel Me", The Who by Numbers being "their fifth straight top five album in France". Nowhere in the 1964–1978 section of the article is any of this non-UK and -US chart success discussed. A lead section is supposed to summarise main points from the article. The lead's therefore been compromised by the inclusion of unsourced information, which amounts to original research; and it means that the article fails the Good Article criteria, specifically: 1b it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections ..., 2c it contains no original research ... After Ritchie333 reverted your first batch of changes, in January, none of this original research was there. Just because your additions are "accurate" and the information can be found at the artist's discography doesn't mean they belong, and it certainly doesn't get around the WP:NOR and GA criteria issues.

So much of what he is saying was that the detailed info needs to be in the body. That is exactly what I did (because the editor said the above), including with the exact chart sources/references, before you blocked me. Further which Rictchee333 – in the talk page for Genesis he lists 8 or 9 things wrong with the Genesis’s article lead AFTER I had revised it BUT all those errors were there before. He completely misrepresented the situation. Obviously, the other people who go to that talk page are going to think he is right and I am wrong, unless they actually verify what he is saying is true. He then said the below: I have seen this user charge into GAs and FAs and rewrite bits of them, introducing errors or going against consensus. To try and forestall this happening on Genesis (band), I decided to rewrite the entire lead from scratch this afternoon and left a talk thread here to try and resolve the dispute and a constructive note here, only to get reverted with "I do not care if it is FA if is is wrong." (which misses the point I was trying to make that charging in full pelt to a GA or FA where other editors have done lots of work, means you might get blowback and have to discuss changes) and putting grammatical errors in. I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring. Elsewhere I see him edit-warring on Katharine Hepburn, saying "Leave this alone. No one else object months last year or weeks now. Leave it alone." and on Aerosmith, saying "I do not understand why the other editor appears to have no concise writing skills and insists on re-adding repetitive and obvious text. Do not do again." which suggests an ownership problem, and his talk page has a bunch of warnings for edit warring and generally being disruptive. Further, if he is allowed to aggressively block my changes, why am I not allow to block the changes to Katherine Hepburn? The old version had been there for months. I won’t even touch the Aersmith lead – did you bother to look at it?? On the item of using talk pages beforehand, the Pat Benetar article had not had any not entries on talk page for previous 2 years, so why would I post on it? I added over weeks various amounts of text, and the Binksternet just reverted it all weeks later – I proposed a middle ground and he refused it. He did the same with Alanis Morissette 3 or 4 weeks after I had gradually added material.

As someone else said on another talk page it is Wikipedia advice to “Be Bold.”

Lastly, the below is some reversion text that I used on the Bette Davis page - Rictchie333 and Binksternet do not use this style at all: 

10:24, 18 January 2021‎ Informed analysis talk contribs‎  93,754 bytes −391‎  I do not mean to irrritate anyone, but it seems to be adding so many second tier films has made the lead too long compared to other actors of similar stature - Grant, Stewart, K. Hepburn; so I deleted a few. Her getting nom for Baby Jane and Crawford not is legendary and should be in, in my opinion.

Informed analysis (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You're wasting your time making content arguments (I'm being polite about the way you've gone after everybody who crosses your path) here or at ANI - you're doing it everywhere but where you're supposed to, as you've been told several times now. Aggressive denunciations of other editors are unlikely to result in the changes you're demanding. Acroterion (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It is amazing that you hold the position you do. Did you not read the way I made a reversion (politely)?? Did you not read how I explained Ritchie333 and Binksternet and the Aeorsmith guy made rude reversions and would not meet half way or that I explained I was just making the additions to the Who article that one editor suggested? You do not read actual occurrneces that occurred and just take the word of people piling on (they were making denunciations) then you are not doing your job. You should be ashamed. 05:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
For at least the fourth time, administrators don't arbitrate content. Content is discussed on talkpages, not appealed to admins. Behavior is what admins deal with, and your behavior is at issue, since you are unwilling to follow Wikipedia content discussion norms. That's why so many people find your behavior objectionable - you seem to want administrators to impose your preferred edits by fiat. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been totally off Wikipedia for 4 days due to massive depression caused by your improper pile. You did not look at the behaviour of Ritchiee333 and Binksternet. You do not listen. ALL the additions I made to Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Eagles, Journey, Styx, Foreigner, Abba, Bryan Adams, Beach Boys, and Rod Stewart are still there - no one had any concerns. It is only Binksternet and Ritchie33 that impose their will, a will which means the articles they control (Genesis, The Who, Alanis Morrisette) do not correspond to all the other articles and their leads.

Administrators do not arbitrate content. Use the talkpages as intended. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed Analysis, I left a well-worded and constructive piece of advice at User talk:Informed analysis#Advice, and you ignored it and personally attacked me anyway. I'm sorry you've got depression like me and many other people I know whose lives have been destroyed by COVID-19, but that doesn't make it acceptable. I need to remind you that the current leads for The Who and Genesis were put in place largely by JG66 and MetalDiablo666 respectively, and I mentioned at the latter's talk page that I found one of your comments in the edit summary offensive. I'm going to get off Acroterion's talk page as it's not the place for third parties to argue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Acroterion, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Acroterion, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abusive reverts on talk page

Regarding Wikipedia_talk:No_Nazis

MY comments are the ones being reverted on spurious grounds, when the talk page, if any, should be given far more leniency than an article page. Yet funny how after you started deleting my comment, other random people immediately jump in to revert my restorations. So now *I* am the one being threatened for edit warring, and not the ones removing content against policy. Also, as I said, you are an admin in a dispute, so if you decide to ban me that will be against policy. Regardless, this situation is clearly not resolving itself, and has become entirely abusive, and I will be raising it to higher levels. 73.159.229.5 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You’ve reverted at least four times to forum-chat griping. Make civil, concrete suggestions, or stop reverting. I’m not going to be the admin who blocks you in any case. Acroterion (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not reverting any longer, so if any admin decides to block me, they are doing so for abusive punishment reasons, not to stop edit warring. Also, by DELETING my ON-TOPIC (not "forum-chat") comments in the TALK page, you have REMOVED my ability to make "civil, concrete suggestions". This is a particularly abusive and censorious tactic by an long-term administrator, but perhaps that's the way Wikipedia rolls now. And while me comment was blunt, it was directed at the article, not the users, so you completely misrepresented my comment in your revert, and you continue to misrepresent my comment as a "forum-chat", even after I repeatedly pointed out it was discussing the content of the article. Obviously this is going nowhere with you, so I will have to involve outside editors (and possibly admins). 73.159.229.5 (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. Another admin has already warned you for talkpage abuse. Acroterion (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:No_Nazis".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:No Nazis.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--73.159.229.5 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrator action - Reconsider censoring discussion about ivermectin, which *does* stop covid-19.

With respect: Are you taking this action as an administrator based on policy? : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.201.195.170&diff=1007194144&oldid=1006610441. If so, which one? You seem to by saying that I'm giving medical advice. If that's your claim, I'll take it to arbcom if I must. Are you saying each sentence you removed is medical advice? Every sentence? I can't find one that does.

Let's see where we have common ground. There is tons of "Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19".

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.643369/abstract for example. Agreed?

Did you look at the history of the content you cut?

Did you see that Alexbrn added info about using ivermectin when treating covid with [5] and do you think that should be censored too?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no discussion going on, and user talkpages aren't alternate hosts for material that doesn't make it into an article. Userpages aren't suitable for promoting unproven medical claims, and WIkipedia in general isn't a place for you to tout ivermectin. Acroterion (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
True. True. True.
(What unproven medical claim did I make/you remove? None. Seems like you're kinda casting aspersions with that one and with "tout"; I'm not selling anything. Please strike. \Perhaps I should restore the discussion to the talk page it was on originally. Nah.)
I see you didn't address any of my questions. Could you reconsider answering the last one? Bolding it. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The article isn't at issue. Don't use userspace to promote medical treatments. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This editor is a net negative for the project and is taking up lots of editor resources to deal with. If they are not able to move on perhaps best just cut our losses sooner rather then later.--Moxy 00:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Protection

Hi Acroterion hope all is well

I noticed you name for the page protection on another editors talk page. Could you do the same for mine? I don’t want to be bothered by IP users and new throw away accounts. It would be very much appreciated! CheersOyMosby (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

IPs are people too. Talkpage protecttion is normally applied for short periods in instances of sustained abuse. I don't see any abuse from IPs on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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) 14:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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) 15:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Cavity wall insulation

The source of my updates for your page is fro city and guilds brickwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soviet99999 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You need a published source, and you need to clearly distinguish between masonry cavity walls and framed cavity walls, and between all masonry and veneer. Recommended clear air gaps are at least 1” in North America (per BIA), and fiberglass or polyester are never used in masonry cavities in North America. Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've left a new section at Talk:Cavity wall, where you can discuss. Please don't post lots of comments in every section, it makes it difficult to have a conversation. Use the newest section. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

ImoutoCompAlex

I saw your name on the recently active admins list and was wondering if you could help. Special:Contributions/ImoutoCompAlex and their IP {67.169.83.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been disruptive and incivil over at the Cusper article. Let me know if you need diffs but I believe their contribution histories pretty much speak for themselves. Thanks, Some1 (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've left a final note for all the reverts and drama via edit summaries. They'll be blocked if they start up again. That's a lot of bathos from somebody who's almost 30. Acroterion (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

ImOutoCompAlex had another outburst about 40m ago on the talk page of cuspers. This user isn’t acting civilly nor constructively with their dialogue. It is more of the user complaining about how they don’t agree with the approved published resources have to say Centennial357 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for leting me know. I've blocked for 48 hours, we'll see if they get the message. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
After revioewing some other recent edits, I've changed iot to indefinite. I'll put the page on my watchist. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Cavity wall insulation

There is a lot of vastly incorrect information on your cavity wall insulation page. The page needs radical reforming. at present it is misleading the general public .My edit contributions are true and correct. My edit contributions are CITY AND GUILDS BRICKWORK Actualities. Please look into changing Page to a correct version.I can send you correct drafts by email. Which. Email address shall i use. Please reply by email etcSoviet99999 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You should provide published sources on the relevant article talkpages. You have not done so, so far. Please post the references you're using. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverting on AIV

I have no idea why you reverted, here... but the reported IP has engaged in vandalism and is suitable for AIV reporting. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 04:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Browser jump misclick, sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Responded

Not that it merited a response, but you have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnes VQ (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

NapoleonX

Do you mind helping deal with this recurring issue? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, real-world deadlines intervened. I've left them a note [6]. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Morton H. Meyerson citations added on February 22

I revised my February 11 contribution to include citations throughout and resubmitted it for review on February 22. Please let me know if it is acceptable or requires further work. Thank you. Jusannaz Jusannaz (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Rev Del question

This is a copyvio issue, so no Streisand effect issues in publicly asking this.

I have a cryptocurrency promotor who made a user page edit in which the edit summary itself is the copyvio. Do we bother revdel'ing edit summaries in cases like this, and if so is there any better way than contacting an admin on the rev del list (such as you)? I can't find any archived discussion of this issue in Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, maybe because it wasn't likely to be an issue before summary lengths were recently increased.

Edit is [7]. Source is https://freecoin.technology/ Copyright © Free coin 2019

Thanks. Meters (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I just deleted the page as spam. We occasionally get vandals and promoters who think that they can use edit summaries in that way. Most mornings I delete a half dozen userpages belonging to spambots and spammers and block most of them, and they never come back to the accounts. I've not blocked this one, just warned. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RevDel

Are you available to do a RevDel? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:35 on March 2, 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Email me if it's sensitive. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: message on my talk page

Ok, thanks for the swift response and action. I'll pass forward any further correspondence from any user of a similar nature to you privately if such ever occurs. Cheers. Yousou (Complain) 00:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the best course - the person has been doing this for years. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I find your comments completely unhelpful to the situation. You are refusing to acknowledge that several other people involved in the edit war have got off without even a warning. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You posted at the admin's noticeboard, at least four administrators have told you that you're far out of bounds. Accept that and drop the complaints about everybody that's not you. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"Disruptive editing"

The editing I did was factual there was no source for that claim and its non factual.

First of all the KKK does not even elect leaders they appoint them, second of all he was not in the KKK ever however he did allegedly support them at one time.


7Prefix7 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If you keep removing well-referenced material, you will be blocked. There's a reference right there. Acroterion (talk)' 01:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


There is no citation for the part I removed. It was a false claim lying about a man with no citation. I have no idea why you are claiming this is cited. The citation is for the separate claim below. This myth comes from the Forest Gump movie and its an untrue statement. There is no citation in the page for him being involved in the KKK at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Prefix7 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re seriously asserting that Nathan Bedford Forrest had nothing to do with the Ku Klux Klan? There are 29 references to Forrest's activities with the Klan in that article. Acroterion (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops?

Hi there. I'm assuming that this was an error, unless you really think I'm an evil vandal or something? Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No evil detected anywhere but in my Chromebook and my connection to Comcast. There's a lot of evil at Comcast. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
And on the television. Lots of evil there too. And have I mentioned children's literature? Tsk. Have a good day, cheers DBaK (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Kimball War Memorial

Hey! I'm editing the page as part of a project at WVU to amplify previously silenced Appalachian voices. Someone else was also editing it (I don't know who), and I think you and I agreed that we disagreed with them.

Anyway, could you take a look over the page's latest edits? I'm a Wiki newbie and would love your input/corrections. Thanks! YouHadMeAtMeow (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

AttackTheMoonNow

Another AttackTheMoonNow sock: User:The Cat That Got The Weasel. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Recaptioning pictures isn't reframing events

No opinion for or against the suggestion you deleted at 02:30 UTC today, but image captions are article content and (by their nature) more based on editorial consensus for interpretation than reliable sources. They also could (in theory) be improved upon via a talk page discussion, and that's arguably how they should be amended when the alternative routes are edit war or private messaging. Plus, it shows up as a bold red 666 in the history, and that's a bit chilling, not the best look for an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Kindly reconsider? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I misunderstood their comment, restored. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. There are now three bright green 666s, should cancel out the big red one, at least by my reckoning of historical superstition. Good luck with those actual trolls and vandals in the future! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
No problem, I had a couple of actual trolls going on at the time, thanks for flagging my mistake. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

diff 1 (reverted by you) diff 2 (error corrected again by me). Narky Blert (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


Tulsa Police Department

Before I embark on an edit war, I would value your thoughts on the goings-on at this article. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no dispute that he said it and that it was reported, which doesn't make it defamatory, regardless of what the IP from Mississippi thinks. Comments like that from a major in the department, whether on or off duty, that have been widely reported, seem noteworthy, the only issue would be whether they represent undue weight to a single individual's comments. Acroterion (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethan Van Sciver

Given the most recent edits--I trust that what you rev/deleted was fairly serious--perhaps this merits page protection. And probably the edit I just reverted ought to be rev/deleted as well. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What I removed was more of a medical diagnosis, but the one you caught qualifies as well. I’m going to do a little protection. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

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, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Good use of a light hand

Thank you for the light hand you used in the recent NPA block. While the editor may choose not to moderate their behaviour, there is always a chance that they will. This is a genuinely preventative block. Fiddle Faddle 18:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - I would have used a 24 hour term if there hadn't been a couple of preceding blocks, and I'm open to reducing the term. This seems like somebody who can be redeemed if they can check their temper. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
They seem to be intent on making us both look like starry-eyed optimists. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Who knew that we were super-editors?
While it's tempting to remove talk page access, I think WP:ROPE is now in acton and they should have relatively unhampered reign on their talk page... for now. I half expected this behaviour, but am disappointed to see it Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Despite their complaints about "super users," the people who've been here for 14 or 15 years have seen it all, and are less likely to be goaded. I usually have the sense to walk away from the keyboard when I'm feeling irritable, but it's a learned skill. Acroterion (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Usually, so do I. I almost overstepped my own mark yesterday (as you can see from my talk page) with a self identified paid editor. I allowed myself to become frustrated that they appeared to be unable to listen. I called in a colleague and stepped away overnight. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"Usually" is the key word. On becoming an administrator, I was startled to see the format of each diff's attribution change to "Timtrent (talk | contribs | block)" for everybody from Jimmy Wales on down. It is and should be sobering. Acroterion (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we are all allowed lapses. I think, hope, I set myself a higher bar than the 'standard' here, so that any lapse will be below my own standards bt still above the community's.Seems to me that you do, too.
I didn't realise that "block" appeared suddenly on being granted a mop and bucket. I will never be an admin. This tells you why. I considered this very carefully over the years. I was pre-sobered by the bizarrely great power that arrives suddenly. Most admins make the grade fast. Probably I would, too. Probably. Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Why?

Hello why have you deleted my profile that I created just yesterday? DiscoveryFiles (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for promotion of external websites. Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No dude lock as told by ginger

So when we're allowed to edit on there again it don't start again cause I know it is he's like that he's going to go right back and start reverting stuff and il have to revert to so pls lock as told by ginger Theshavia29912 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi, thanks for guiding that editor on how to behave here at Wikipedia. I believe I should report them to ANI next time they make threats and to AN3 if they try edit warring.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. They didn't directly threaten legal action, which is why they're not blocked, they just quoted Indian law. It happens a lot. Acroterion (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, felt like it except it was not explicit like "I'm gonna sue you". They made personal attacks though. Also their edits in the article and here reek of uncivility and WP:OWN. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Consensus has generally been to warn editors like this first as long as they're not going "I'm going to sue you," and we warn for incivilities. They've stopped for now (it's nighttime in India), we'll see if they pick up where they left off. Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks . I hope they engage in the talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
An older account tried to replace "Festival of Love" with "Festival of Justice" here. The other user tried to remove exactly the "Festival of Love" part [8]. Not sure, but felt like sock/meat. I'll keep a close eye. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q1_2021&oldid=1040240713"