Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q3 2019

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


Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If Not Addressed, I will Contact Wikipedia.

The revision is based on the source provided by the Author reading "Page Not Found" when followed. This is not objective writing, this is simply claiming a fact with a non existing source. If you do not remove the false claim before providing a source further action will be taken.

"Page Not Found" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.24.220 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A reference was provided. It doesn't have to be online, and your inability to review the source doesn't justify removal, far less your declarations that there is something actionable about it. Bring it up on the article talkpage in an appropriate manner - i.e., not as an accusation - and discuss. Bluster is not a justification for removal. By the way, you have contacted Wikipedia already - here and through your edits, which other editors have noticed and reverted. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way, your claim of a hate crime - does that mean Wikipedia can be sued by Thomas of Monmouth after 850 years? Just asking. Otherwise, you seem to be reading the account of the libel as a true account. Acroterion (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Repetitive behavior

Hi! You have blocked Jazz1972 for one month for "continued personal attacks after previous block for same, nationalist POV warring" [1] in February 2019. The user was absent from WP since then, only to re-appear yesterday to repeat his personal attacks against me and IamNotU [2]. His edits were reverted by a third user, TU-nor [3]. Previous discussion at ANI here. I thought I should let you know. Thanks. Cinadon36 20:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Request

Could you possibly have a friendly word with Eibln (talk · contribs). He keeps creating categories with just one entry [Here[4] and here[5] for just two examples] or NAVBOX with just one or two. Even though around 20 of his NAVBOX are currently at TFD[6], and I tried having a friendly word with him[7], he went ahead and created two more NAVBOX (here[8] and here[9]) like all those at TFD. If you don't know, NAVBOX with zero to two links are routinely deleted at TFD. BTW, Smithtown New York one of the sportspeople categories I linked to is very close to where I lived till I was 15 and due to my father owned two businesses in that town. Smithtown was also home to cousins of mine, so I spent alot of time there. Thanks for the help....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm about to run out on errands, I'll look at it when I get back. I agree that navboxes should have at least have half a dozen links, preferably live, to justify their existence. It's not exactly disruptive, but it is something of a time-waster for all concerned. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
We agree. It isn't disruptive, just time wasting. When you have time some gentle words from you might help. The editor does otherwise very good work on softball related artices....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

2 World Trade Center

Hello Acroterion, Could I just call your attention to the activities of 181.127.141.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), based in Asuncion, Paraguay; who has now changed dates on 2 World Trade Center three times without any supporting sources. I have left two notes on their Talk page to no avail and they are still reverting to their unsourced version. Can I leave with you please? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I've moved your question from the Acroterion article space (an understandable mistake) to here. I've semi-protected the article for a week or so. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for all your help and my apologies, but life has been difficult recently. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Arcoterion, do you know where I can find these talk pages to add or develop a consensus on WTC 2 crash time. I would really appriciate it if you can help me out on these matters, thanks.Miked1992 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It'll be tedious to find, because I think the main discussions took place at least ten years ago. I suggest looking through the archives at Talk:September 11 attacks. There are also discussions at Talk:Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks/Archive 1. Acroterion (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Arcoterian Although I still have much to learn about Wikipedia Editing and Consensus Building. The paragraph just below this sentence is roughly a rough draft of trying to establish a consensus in the 2010s compared to the archives of the late 2000s. If you could help me more with consensus building around a topic in case someone wants the consensus to be changed I would really appreciate it.

Hello all fellow Wiki Users. I was just coming back to check on fellow Wiki Users on whether 9:02 A.M. or 9:03 A.M. was the actual time of the UA 175 Crash into WTC 2, that way we can all develop a consensus and form an opinion on this question some 10 years after this forum was discussed. Most websites including the Official 9/11 Memorial Timeline [1], [2] As well as the 9/11 Commission and Fema Reports have it as 9:03 A.M. The NIST Report on the Other Hand and a couple of earlier sources have the time such as the National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) have the time as 9:02 A.M Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[3]. I personally believe the attack time was 9:03 A.M. The official timeline on the 9/11 memorial website as well as the History Channel and more surrent sources in the 2010's agree with that notion. And above all I was wondering if we could develop a general consensus on this matter thanks.Miked1992 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://timeline.911memorial.org/#Timeline/2
  2. ^ https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-timeline
  3. ^ National Transportation and Safety Board (February 7, 2002). "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" (PDF). NTSB. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 19, 2007. Retrieved December 29, 2010.

Block of SparmSperm

You may also want to block SpermSparm. S0091 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

And maybe Ted Katschyński MISZCZklanausran. S0091 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

New message from WilliamJE

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at WilliamJE's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Editor Eibln (The one I wrote about who was creating categories and NAVBOX) came to my talk page. You might want to read it and comment. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi Acroterion. Could you take a look at these edits which I think warrant being revdel'ed per WP:BLP etc. Many thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes they do - revisions deleted. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Railfan23 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Another duck quacking

Libbycoifs (talk · contribs). A recently created account and every edit of theirs is related to Mercy College in New York....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Another Favor

Would it be at all possible if I could ask your assistance to have an IP blocked, for a while? 139.195.53.91 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is the latest IP being used by a long term, block-evading, IP-hopping vandal who, when haunting the IP ranges of 139.XXX.XX.XX and 140.xxx.xx.xx constantly spams pages with inappropriate, nonexistent, and or inappropriate and nonexistent categories, as well as insert poorly written original research opinions. And, if not blocked, the vandal will continue with its unhelpful edits until it moves onto another IP or is blocked. I would give it warnings, but, years of dealing with it show that it never bothers using its (IPs') talkpages beyond misusing them as sandboxes.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"Fictional squamates"? Crikey. Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Arigato gyoza Christmas--Mr Fink (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, could we renew the block you gave 139.195.53.91? It's active again. THank you in advance.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

RevDel again

Hi Acroterion. Sorry to bother you again. Coule you take a look at the contributions of 118.104.114.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They are unsourced and appear to be defamatory. I believe they should be revdel'ed. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

They're all identical musings on connections with Alibaba and airdrops and stuff and things. I don't see that it's really a BLP issue, so I don't think it qualifies for revdel. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I've been dealing with this sock for the last few of days. Although I've tagged the protections as BLP, I also did not feel they needed to be actually revdel'd. El_C 18:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both. I'd thought of it more in the "smear" category of WP:REVDEL, but more than happy to be guided by you on this. Railfan23 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

MEOWCAT™️

Hello, would you like a prototype of the new and improved, MEOWCAT™️? We are handing out a cat for you.

Anyways, careful with the cat.

DIEHARD PET STORE

Over 200,000 branches in Wikipedia alone!

DIEHARD PET NO: 2018-002-A

Diehard Pet Store sends cats to various Wikipedians around the world. We use special WikiLove technology to give out cats. Please return cats to A diehard editor, and please send us the DIEHARD PET NO. so we can get the pet back.

A diehard editor (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding My Miley Cyrus contentKillingKiddo (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I respect your feelings but why should her page be unrealistic with facts than other people's pages?

Not wanting a fight, just an open and honest discussion.

Thanks! Kiddo KillingKiddo (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It took me a while to disentangle the mangled syntax in your comment above, but I eventually figured it out. Your Miley Cyrus edit was unsourced - you were out in front of the news cycle, and you provided no substantiation. Everything requires sources, particularly statements that somebody got married. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Flight 93

On the flight 93 page, you will see that three articles are together as part of the same reference, and I was simply making them separate; they have been on the same reference for quite a while now; the references pertain to Leroy Homer’s widow and her belief that her husband was alive after the hijackers took over the plane. I was trying to make them be on separate references. You will see what I mean when you look at reference number 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.19.142.61 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please remember to use an edit summary so we can easily see what you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Portuguese people

I just read the body of the article and it is full of affirmations without any source. It cannot be accepted that almost an entire article is devoid of sources. It is true that some parts do have and carry sources together with scientific studies, but many others do not.

I think it is necessary to review it, because it has a great subjective component that is far from reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.222.202.7 (talk • contribs)

I see at least seven references. While the referencing is not optimal, it's far from unsourced. Please use the article talkpage to discusss specific concerns and to propose sources to back up proposed changes. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not say that there are no references, but there are many phrases that do not have any type of source or reference. I will not delete parts with sources or references, it would be appropriate to delete opinions and phrases without source of the article.

If you look at the body of the article there are many unsubstantiated statements, which seem subjective opinions like that Portugal led the entire Age of Discoveries among many others.

Are there references in the article? Yes of course. At least 7, but that does not eliminate the fact that many sentences are undocumented and lacking of sources. {unsigned|46.222.202.7}}

Check all of the references in detail, and don't make large changes without getting consensus on the talkpage first. Be specific, and always discuss on the talkpage. References aren't required for every phrase, but it's best to at least have every paragraph referenced. That doesn't mean that removal of unreferenced paragraphs is appropriate. The talkpage is where discussions belong, not here. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I will look at the references further. And I'll start a Talk on Wikipedia.

However, the fact that a paragraph has a source does not allow you to post any opinion or phrase without foundation in that paragraph.

I will not eliminate large parts, but small details that are clearly opinions and agenda, and the rest I will do once I start a Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.222.202.7 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Don't forget to provide sources for your own proposed edits, and remember that talkpage discussions can unfold over days and weeks. You can place {{cn}} tags at places where you think citations are needed in the article. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't threaten me

I have as much right to post to talk pages about disputing content in articles as anyone else. No article was changed, but i protest and demand a moderator look into the anti conservative bias in several articles linked to Russia collusion investigation as well as presidency of donald Trump or the lack of mentions of hillary Clinton campaign involvement in the Russia fusion gps scandal Markvrb (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You are subject to the same rules as any other editor. You may not post defamation anywhere on Wikipedia, and you may not abuse talkpages as a forum for your personal views. Acroterion (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted notification/tone left on my user page.

You left a threatening note suggesting I had engaged in "disruptive editing" on the page for Might is Right. You threatened me with a block if I "persisted", as it were. What are you talking about? Can you list the "disruptive edits" you're referring to? Notanipokay (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be this nonsense [10],. but you already know that. Whatever the document is, it's not a "communist manifesto," and it has nothing to do with anti-fascism. If you keep making up nonsense like that you'll lose editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It also wasn't 'my' edit. For all of the sixty-odd edits to that page in the past 48 hours, you're awfully belligerent over a single revert. You need a break. Notanipokay (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
You took ownership of the vandalism when you reverted its removal. You're warned for that. Don't do that kind of thing again. Bluster is a poor rsponse. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your comments

No need to use the harsh words "isn't appropriate" or block me from editing.

Quite a shame, as the book is public and reveals truths about the institution advertised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marypowellcsw (talk • contribs)

I've warned you three times that adding one's own publication isn't appropriate and is in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. You've ignored those warnings. Please read and abide by the requirements I posted at your talkpage. You may also wish to read Wikipedia's advice on righting great wrongs. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


What do you mean? As soon as I got your messages I refrained from further writing. I think it isn’t “appropriate” to be mean to people. I had no idea about these rules until you said them and I took no further action. Please be nicer and more appropriate. Marypowellcsw (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I posted the COI notice on your talkpage after your initial edit, and warned you again when you reposted the same material. I warned you again after you added the book the third time, and I protected the article. Please refrain from using Wikipedia to publicize your own work.It's something that is very much frowned upon on Wikipedia - WP policy is very clear on COI editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

acroterion

Hey, for Bank of Andalusia, would you call it a "pseudo-pediment" like the NRHP document does, or can it properly just be called an acroterion? --Doncram (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) reads article Acroterion. Acroteria are very pretty! Bishonen | talk 11:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Think of them as Greek gargoyles, things perched up there to pretty up the corners, usually derived from a vegetable form. We don't get to do them very often nowadays.
@Doncram: I think the author of the NRHP doc was free-associating it a little. It looks to me like they are interpreting the very slightly sloping top of the front parapet as an allusion to a pediment, and the knob at the middle as a sort of acroterion form. Acroteria go on the ends and middle of a pediment, the terms are not interchangeable. Me, if I was describing it without reference to the NRHP narrative, would call it something like a "slightly sloping parapet resembling an attenuated pediment, with a central projection alluding to an acroterion." You can really get down in the weeds in Greek-derived design terminology, with guttae, triglyphs, metopes ... Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've always thought it sounded a bit pretentious. User:Egg-and-Dart might be a good alternative, though it might be interpreted as a chain of breakfast restaurants offering activities that might not be wise first thing in the day. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably better at 11 AM than 11PM; I've always though putting dartboards in pubs was simply asking for trouble  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 10:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Alohaphone

I'm near 100% certain that this is an LTA sock; I've modified the block to be indefinite and with talk page access and email disabled. If you object, please let me know (ping me if you respond here so that I'm notified) and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I doubt you're going to care, but I figured that I'd let you know just in case. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I meant to block indef - that tendency for Twinkle to reset block durations if you change the reason is irritating. All good. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Sweet deal. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

St. Peter's Church

What do you think of St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland) now? I plan to get some new pictures next week. TwoScars (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's much better, but I think the text is a bit tangential in places. I'll leave a few review comments on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate any help. Might be hard to believe, but I cut out much of the harassment of Catholics in Maryland content that was in a sandbox version—too off topic. Shamefully, I live in Maryland but knew little about its beginnings. Just about anybody from Maryland that goes to the MD-DE beaches is aware of the church, but few know anything about it. TwoScars (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Acroterion—you for your help with St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland). I have taken the advice and changed the very last citation from a web page (with the scroll down advice) to a book. The old web citation is still there, but commented out. The "trouble-maker" citation in the Info box is still there—hopefully that problem will be fixed everywhere soon, and I want to be consistent with other pages that discuss something in the National Register of Historic Places. The trouble with the National Register link is why I used the Maryland Historical Trust (the second citation) to link to a copy of the National Register Nomination Form. The church was fun to work on—a nice break from my usual American Civil War or glass making. I have two more (in Easton) that I might do next spring. Your time was appreciated. TwoScars (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

revert on my talk page

I believe I owe you a thank you for the revert on my talk page but I'm not entirely sure because the edit you reverted doesn't make sense and the edit summary was deleted. Was this something random or targeted specifically at me? Thanks, --В²C ☎ 17:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It was random nonsense, and the edit summary included a couple of names and phone numbers, for no obvious reason. Nothing to do with you, specifically. Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

You missed this revision. Adam9007 (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for giving me clarification on the use of article talk pages, it was very helpful in creating a proper format for edit requests! I hope to help keep the platform professional and accurate, and can do so just a bit better thanks to your help!

DartKitten (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute Resolution

I have mentioned you as a participate in a dispute resolution here. Thank you for your time and I apologize if anything I have said comes off as rough. I'm only trying to resolve things amicably for everyone. --Emma (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the dispute: I'm concerned about editor conduct and respect for BLP. Acroterion (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Try reading edit summaries

You have left me some boilerplate text falsely accusing me of not explaining my edits, and you have undone the work I put in to improve an article. You need to read edit summaries before you go around making accusations like that. As you were apparently not able to read them in the article's history, here they are:

  • fixed really basic style errors
  • this whole section has nothing to do with the topic of the article
  • likewise, this has nothing to do with the Darwin cemetery

You are welcome to offer your own rationale for restoring what I took out; you are not welcome to pretend that I didn't give reasons for my edits. 46.208.236.138 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Article page have talkpages for a reason. Please make a case there for your removals. It was not immediately obvious that your edit summary backed up your edits, and significant changes should not be made with only an edit summary for justification. Acroterion (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I already explained my edits; you did not bother to explain your undoing of my work. If you need reminding, your edit summary was this:
Reverted edits by 46.208.236.138 (talk) to last version by Wee Curry Monster
It seems to me that if I make a clearly explained edit, you revert it without explanation, and then accuse me of not explaining my edit, you're simply trolling. So how about you stop doing that and start editing constructively. 46.208.236.138 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You removed a substantial amount of sourced content with minimal explanation. You are also behaving like the Best Known For IP. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You seem to want an explanation that I already gave; meanwhile I want an explanation for why you reverted which you haven't given. I do not know what your second sentence means but it suggests again that improving articles is not really your concern here. 46.208.236.138 (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
"I do not know what your second sentence means..." Yes you do. Antandrus (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Need your help

GoldRingChip (talk · contribs) keeps insisting on putting redirects into Congressional articles that redirect right back to the very same article in violation of WP:SELFRED. I have found three recently created articles by him full of these violations. Here is a link to the discussion at my talk page[11] and the post[12] I made at his page today. This is WP:DISRUPT in my opinion. Remember Neelix and all his bad redirects or goofy pages?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example- 1913 United States House of Representatives elections which GRC created last June or 10 months after the discussion at my talk page. Click on any of the links 'elected' and you get sent right back to the same page. He's made a 100 (At least since August 2018) of these bad redirects even though they know it violates SELFRED. If that isn't a violation of WP:DISRUPT, I don't know what is....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

They seem to be responding now. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Calling Green New Deal legislation rather than economic stimulus or spending package - good edit. BattleshipGray (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought of it shortly after I saved that first edit. Can you do better than the NY Post for a reference on that other edit? Acroterion (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Revisit LTA block?

Looks like another IP and those two pages with same edit counts from yesterday [[13]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

An El Salvador IP, so blocked as a proxy too. Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

I don't have time to fight with you on Wikipedia, or research the legal maze of ridiculous clauses you're sure to pull on me from the Wiki rules. Suffice it to say, the fact of the matter with the Oath Keepers is that the *facts* in the matter are that their opponents make a claim about them being anti-government. That is fact. What is not fact is that they "are" anti-government. If they were to say they are anti-Government, then it would be a fact.

Similarly, you are asking me to prove a negative (prove they're not anti-government). As a computer scientist working for NASA, I'm well versed in logic, and I can tell you this, proving a negative is virtually impossible, and is an unfair bar to set for anything, even on Wikipedia. We've been trying for decades to prove that NP complete problems are in fact unsolvable with traditional computation in polynomial time. It's likely something that will never happen.

You're not asking me to do something that daunting, but it's a fairly simple assessment. No member of Oath Keepers would describe the *organization* as anti-government. Individuals may be, but then again, individuals of your high school graduating class were probably racist, that doesn't mean your high school graduating class was racist, nor you.

I suggest we stick to facts. My edits on the page are more factually correct than the previous version, and they should be retained.

Barwick (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use self-description for politically-oriented organizations, it relies on third-party sourcing in major media for sourcing. Few organizations' self-description can be taken at face value, and Wikipedia relies on secondary sourcing to provide the necessary at-a-distance context. You've found no consensus for your changes so far, and you've presented no independent sources that describe OK in the manner that you present. As I noted, there are nine separate sourced - the Guardian, the ADL, the New York Times, Politico, the Chicago Tribune,the Independent and the Washington Post, apart from perhaps more partisan sources like Salon and Fox News. In al there are 70 references. Attacking the SPLC doesn't change that. Please read WP:RS. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Every single one of them quoted nearly verbatum from the SPLC. You are unfairly requiring me to prove a negative. This is why conservatives like me with real lives and a passing interest in Wikipedia don't bother with jumping through these hoops. I'm basing this on fact, I've made a factual statement, and you're saying I can't say those facts. This is absurd. If someone wrote an article about you that was factually incorrect, and nobody else in the world cared about it but you, you are going to find *ZERO* "articles" in existence disproving that "fact" that someone claimed about you. It is an utterly absurd requirement. Barwick (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
What is your evidence for saying that all those cited sources merely "quoted verbatim" from the SPLC? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Find independent sources that support your assertion that everybody else is wrong. That's the basis of the encyclopedia. There are 70 references, and the SPLC is well-established on Wikipedia as a reliable source on its own (as opposed to infallible, which no source is). If the only thing you can provide is a personal assertion that all of those media outlets have it wrong, or are blind uncritical followers of the SPLC, then you'll have trouble getting any change. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up if you want to take part, discussing this via dispute resolution, link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Oath_Keepers Barwick (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion, I feel that I should apologize because it was my suggestion to Barwick that they proceed to dispute resolution. I tried to paraphrase what I thought their concerns were, but it's apparent their issues went deeper than that, and they possibly wanted to change how the entire article was describing the group. (Although I still think that anti-government is not very descriptive in that groups like Oath Keepers become pro-government during Republican administrations, and that saying what a group is against may not describe very well what they're for.) In any event, I thank you for your time spent on this. Warm regards,  Spintendo  06:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
No need to apologize. We occasionally get people who really just want to have an argument - I'm reminded of the Monty Python Argument Clinic sometimes. The whole discussion is doomed from the start. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

US Military Ratings

After the Mogadishu Mile the US military started a higher rating system for powerful threats.

  • MIL-IV: 7.62x54mm AP, 7.62x51mm M61, 5.45x39mm 7N22
  • MIL-V: 5.45x39mm 7N24, .338 Ball, 9.3x64mm Brenneke
  • MIL-VI: .338 AP, 7.62x54mm 7N33, 7.62x54mm 7N37, 5.45x39mm 7N39
  • MIL-VII: .338 SLAP
  • MIL-VIII: 12.7x108mm Ball
  • MIL-IX: 12.7x108mm APDS, 14.5x114mm Ball
  • MIL-X: 14.5x114mm AP

My name is not anywhere (I hope not) the video is a YouTuber who shot the only Mil-VIII I can find online (loPSYWJyGjY) LeanZambia (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You copied your username into the article. A YouTube video is not a suitable source, please find a published source for your additions. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Intelligent Platform Management Interface

Hi, if you have time, can you protect the above from unexplained deletions. Many thanks Denisarona (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. I see the latest IP is already blocked. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many thanks. Denisarona (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

IP at Talk:Antifa

I blocked them before I saw that, they'd had a number of warnings for various edits and their repeated edit at Code Pink was the last straw for me. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think they're an IP sockpuppet of a banned user in any case. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) Page

Hello Acroterion,

I am trying to edit and wrote the page to be a factual representation of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). You have said I’m having copyright problems; you have now protected the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) page and hidden content. The page was not written by a UDC member, and I would like to factual update the page and truthfully represent the organization. By your actions, I most be doing something wrong. If you could assist me in resolving these issues, it would be appreciated.

99MJM1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99MJM1 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You're removing all of the references and copying in something from the UDC website, so you're removing sources and content and violating copyright. There's a talkpage available for you to discuss your edits first. Please review the extensive discussions there, it will give you a better understanding about how the article got to its present form and why it says what it says. Wikipedia relies on what mainstream sources say about organizations, not what they say about themselves. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi I'm writing different articles on wikipedia on different celebrities , my english is ok but it may have some grammar mistakes. this is an article i've created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_Shabaz but someone has put deletion because he think its a promotional stuff. but if you read it you will understand it is not. Shahid shabaz is a winner of voice of uae and he has performed in an event which was organized by 'peace for harmony' for victims of easter church bombing. an event was witnessed by me. i request you to help me creating this.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

LA political vandal

Hello! Thanks for banning Dingleberry dropper. Just FYI, I think it is probably the same person as 2600:100D:B12F:A7B2:2DF8:6E26:ED25:777F, who made a similar sort of vandal edit at Charles Philippe Aubry. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, got them, added the image to the bad images filter and hard-rangeblocked the IP. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! One more to add, Farctum seems to be part of the same cluster. Since all the vandalised pages are ones that link to my user page, I'm guessing I may have pissed someone off. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Blocked and revdel'd. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Q

[14] Doug Weller talk 12:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with the ,,, erm ... phenomenon. I just wasn't sure which editor they were attacking. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Frye Gaillard

Hey, sorry to hear that, about your folks. Anyway, here's a guy who really needs an article. I'm watching a program honoring him on TV, for an award for his book A Hard Rain. I'd get on it but I have a roast in the oven. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he needs an article. Not tonight, though, but I'm willing to give it a shot tomorrow.
Even on central time you're running kind of late with dinner. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Truth's been trying to reset my password. Acroterion (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I've made a start at User:Acroterion/Frye Gaillard. There are a lot of basic biographical facts needed. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q3_2019&oldid=1109686538"