Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q4 2016

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


Sock

You blocked PerfectDude666 (talk · contribs) as a sock but didn't tag his user page. Given the overlap on The TRUTH Measurement I guess it's a sock of Isabella Cho (talk · contribs), but there's no caution/block/tag on her userpage either. I don't understand. Am I missing something? Cabayi (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically it looked like meat puppetry, not sock puppetry, so I didn't block the Cho account. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Cabayi (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion sorting pages

Would it be all right for me to create one for Boxing? Sorting Muhammad Ali fights at Mixed Martial arts seems a little off. Golf has a deletion sorting page and it isn't all that active and boxing has more fans I think. Note- Hurricane Matthew looks ready to brush us here in Palm Beach County. So I may be offline for a while but now at 7:30 we still have lights and internet....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me, seems like it would be useful.
We were supposed to be vacationing in Charleston last night and tonight. That didn't work out, now we're in Lynchburg, VA, which while not known for its beaches is pretty nice nowadays - it's been 30 years since I was last here. Home tomorrow, a couple of days earlier than expected..
Good luck with Matthew, it sounds like the worst will be to your north. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
We were without power for three hours last night but it was restored. Otherwise we came out of Matthew fine. A few of our friends are without power as is our church (where my wife also works but she was off this week) but noone we talked to has suffered more than minor damage. BTW I went ahead and created the Deletion sorting page for Boxing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

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) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsalt

Hi Acroterion,

Could you please lift the creation protection currently on LeafyIsHere – a page which was salted back in October 2015 – as to allow one to edit it? kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

September 11 attacks talk page section removal

You should remove the article "September 11 attacks" or rename it as "September 11 attacks (conspiracy theory)" rather than remove the talk page contributions. The sources are not capable to support the claims that are made there. The information from 2000 shows in advance how it is done and where it is done. So the current article classifies as a conspiracy theory.Dancing Mickey Mouse (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You should not use the talkpage as an internet forum for your theories about popular musicians' advance knowledge of the events of September 11. Acroterion (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted my Online Components page.

Why did you delete my Online Components page? I was only doing what my competitors did. Online Components is a Company, and if my competitors are allowed to have basically the same page I created (which I even used their wiki code as a starting off point and modified it for ours) then theres should be taken down too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjak.techy (talk • contribs) 15:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no indication that the company meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, which depend on substantial coverage in major media, scholarship and journalism. See WP:NOTE and WP:CORP, and since you clearly have a personal involvement with the subject, please read WP:COI and abide by the practices outlined there. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Nightwing (TV Series)

Please revert your speedy deletion of Nightwing (TV Series). The page clearly did not meet the standard for WP:G2, nor was the speedy template in place long enough for anyone, including my self or the article's creator to contest it. MordeKyle (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you got it sorted out: thanks. However, I do think that a page containing nothing but "xsz" is exactly the sort of test edit we see regularly, and there's no reason to re-create it to preserve that edit. I'm not sure why anybody would contest the tag, though I agree it was a bit fast. Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of The Academic Antidote

"Please review Wikipedia's general guidelines for notability and the guidelines for notability of organizations to see if the topic mentioned above qualifies for inclusion. Sourcing to the organization itself is not sufficient. Generally WIkipedia looks for significant coverage in multiple independent media outlets that are not purely local in nature. Additionally, please review WP:COI since it appears that you may have a conflict of interest in this matter. If you wish I will move the content to draft space or a sandbox in your userspace if you think you can satisfy the notability guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)" 1. Move the content I spent over an hour drafting for publication to draft/sandbox 2. Now the page has been deleted, even though COI is not proved (only assumed as judged by your use of 'appears') will my time be reimbursed by you/Wikipedia? 3. The decision to delete so quickly after my first response is concerning. 4. The article was also being edited and was not finished. It was published as there may be people who will find the work interesting. You have put a stop to that sourcing of interest by assuming COI and denying based on sources. The source used is legitimate. Other sources will be once full edit is in place. So, put it back please or reimburse me for time spent. GrahamMinenor-Matheson (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The draft link has been placed in your user talkpage as requested. Please review Wikipedia policies for notability and conflicts of interest. Third-party sources are insisted upon to establish notability. Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood

Thank you all very much for the help. A page for Jazette will be created at a later time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JermaineJazette (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki-vandalism

Hi there,

I'm confused about your message re wiki-vandalism. I corrected a factual error in the page Geology of Victoria and advised the person who had earlier incorrectly undid my edit why I had reinstated the edit I had made. Given the content of the one and only edit I have made using my brand new editing account, I fail to understand why you have taken this action and made the threat to remove my ability to edit. Please explain.\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strudel79149 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You changed content without citing a source or a reason for doing so, which looked like vandalism. We can only go by what you see in your contributions, and random undiscussed changes are frequently vandalism. My apologies for seeing it as vandalism, there's usually a lot on Saturday night. Please find a source for your change, preferably an academic work on the geology of Victoria. Ararat is a good 80 km farther west than Ballarat, and while there are mountains in the vicinity of Ararat, we need to be able to see if they are part of the GDR. It may be that given Ballarat's size, ten times that of Ararat, its vicinity is commonly considered the end of the range, as opposed to the more obscure Ararat. However, Ararat is mentioned as a GDR town in the body of the article, which is woefully under-referenced in any case. Perhaps you can find references to support the article in general? Please use the article talkpage - Talk:Great Dividing Range for discussion before initiating such a change, citing published works. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Cuyahoga Valley National Park

I have a reference proving that the park is 33,000 acres. Where is your reference proving that it is only 32,950 acres? 75.187.180.89 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The reference you supplied is a rounded number; the park's official media fact sheet states the figure as 32,950. Edit-warring over 50 acres in a national park is pretty silly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
<ec>:Replied on your talkpage. What you have is a reference proving the area is about 33000 acres. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

New Article

I am planning to write a new article (in my sandbox first, of course) but I do not know how to format it. Any advice that you could give would be greatly appreciated. Please reply on my talkpage. 75.187.180.89 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the article about? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 03:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Your_first_article. And welcome to the encyclopedia :) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Murtz Jaffer - Assistance Needed

Hi Acroterion,

You helped lock my Murtz Jaffer Wikipedia page (when it was being constantly vandalized awhile back). I have some small edits and updates to make... would I be able to send these to you so you can help me fix them and relock the page when they have been completed? It would be a major help.

Thanks Murtz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.194.4 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was back in 2011. Unprotected, let me know if the problem resurfaces. I'm going to leave it unprotected unless the article gets vandalized. Acroterion (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Page Deleted

Hello ! My name is Tiffany . I am trying to make an article page for my boss. I received a message saying it was deleted because she isn't of any importance . I would like to know who determines that and how do you know she isn't of importance ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalakemia82 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Shalakemix82: please see WP:GNG also please see WP:RS. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 01:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
You might want to start by writing the content in your sandbox (see the header at the top of the page). Start by just writing what you think is important, then worry about formatting. That's easier than using Dorothy Dandridge's article as a template. You can do that later. You must show how your boss is notable - see WP:BIO, and you must use published third-party sources. Finally, take a look at WP:COI: you have a clear conflict of interest and must abide by the policies in such matters. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Thank you so much I appreciate the help and pointers . I'm new to this . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalakemia82 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if you get stuck, and remember that not everybody meets the notability guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalakemia82 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

DataSunrise

Hello, hope you don't mind me contacting you. I noticed you were the most recent admin to delete DataSunrise and I had a question that is related to that article. This user seems to only have one objective and that is to promote their two websites by adding external links to articles and as you've seen, created that DataSunrise article twice. The edits in question are:

Edits that add datasunrise links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Edits adding protectmydb links: [8] [9] [10]

These are the extent of this users actions on the wiki, no other actions of improving articles, no helpful edits, etc. I figure if this user is blocked they'll just create a new user and continue where they left off. My question is, at what point can a domain name get added to the abuse filter so it can no longer be included in an article? (i.e. what is referenced in this message) Offnfopt(talk) 01:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think they're close to that threshold, there's no particular rule. I don't work with the blacklists or edit filters because I lack the technical skills, but you can certainly request that the domain be added to the blacklist. Acroterion (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

missing section title

Dear Acroterion, I am sure you mean well, so I'll make the effort to make my case. The current article is funny. It starts out very bad by being unfactual, relating opinions of mainstream representatives about truthers, instead of discussing the factual evidence like the truthers with relevant professional qualifications prefer to do). The disqualification of the competency of professional truthers is very unfortunate and much more deserving of your stringent editing. It is funny as I started to say, because after the deplorable introduction, it goes on to be a pretty solid, wide and deep, representation of what is out there in trutherland. So your rationale of cutting out my contribution being that it must be written from a neutral point of view is wrong. The current text is grevious and heavily spinning, because that text magnifies the more fringy, unreasonable and at first unbelievable points held in trutherland, which is an obvious tactic to marginalize the truthers. I decided to present the strongest case that truthers make which is almost totally undisputed in the truther community and therefore much more representative of what truthers stand for. I am stating facts, Sir, not spin. I may not sound disinterested, but stating facts (the facts about what the majority of truthers agree about stated as a fact, is a fact). The current text is like one truther-basher explaining to a would-be truther-basher why (s)he would indeed be totally justified in bashing truthers. It does not speak to truthers at all! Think about this! Please remove your deletion or at least state your minimum amendment to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHeideveld (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your changes added an unsourced assertion that Truthers are mostly American, and went on to editorialize about high school physics. Please stop using Wikipedia articles as a soapbox for your personal views. Acroterion (talk)

Miss Intercontinental 2016

Another yearly version of Miss Intercontinental which was deemed not notable as were other related categories. Can you please deep six this one and SALT it otherwise it will be back....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. I deleted Miss Malaysia Tourism while I was at it. I'm not so sure I want to wade into the beauty pageant swamp, it seems a lot like wrestling and MMA in terms of shameless promotion of completely un-notable events and individuals, and perhaps in exploitation too. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...
National Register of Historic Places
... you were recipient
no. 1013 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for all you do. Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dairy Queen Photo

I wanted to mention I have been using this photo as a computer wallpaper. It has the wonderful feel of a watercolor or perhaps a pencil sketch. You should be very proud of that one. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw it as we drove back from an obscure barbecue place in Gastonia when we were retreating from H. Matthew. It had a sort of Edward Hopper Nighthawks look that I wanted to capture. Glad you like it. Acroterion (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hoover Dam

Did you mean semi-protection? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like move protection is still set to extended confirmed. As mentioned in the announcement above from September 23rd, "Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort." Could you either remove ECP from move or change it to full move protection? Mamyles (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC) I'll fix it. I'm traveling and subject to touchscreen glitches, hence the booboo. Acroterion (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Regd. Verbanet Technologies

Hi,

Couple of hours back, i had added a new page on Verbanet Technologies. It was deleted then and there :-)

Could you please let me know, why it was removed? maybe some guidelines? Appreciate your help.

Regards Shibu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.72.198 (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You should review Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of businesses at WP:CORP. In general all subjects must cross a [[WP:NOTE|threshold of notability as shown by significant coverage in major independent media. Simple existence doesn't qualify a subject for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

IP block

Hello Acroterion. Just to let you know, this IP you have recently blocked is harassing you. I have given the IP a warning. If this harassment continues, we might have to revoke the users talk page editing access. Just to let you know. Thanks. FixCop (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. An admin already revoked talk page access. FixCop (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

PP

Nice, thank you very much - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, there's no point in waiting to see if more appears, given the variety of trouble sources. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

hi

boi . sorry, I just want to talk to people.Cad315 (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"Boi?" I'm 57. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social network. Please stop messing around with the 'pedia. And stop harassing Oshwah. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Amitis Kate Beigy was re-created after you deleted it. Pyrusca (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Pedantics

One uses the term ' American measurement' simply to differentiate between you and the rest of the world. The article cited metres as the measurement. Since meter as defined by Wikipedia is the american spelling of the word then what is wrong in correcting it when applied to anyone who uses and understands it? Why is it right to force an American form of English (based in illiteracy) on everyone else in the world Goodness if a person can't even revert appropriate spelling without small minded supremacists espousing their personal righteousness then I'm not interested in further contribution. Hope you'll feel better in your dark little room hunched over your keyboard that you are the arbiter of right and wrong .end of discussion Lisaleelyons1960 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Only you use the term "American measurement." There are American, English, Canadian and Indian spelling styles. There are metric and English measurement units. You are inappropriately conflating spelling style and measurement. Your "Why is it right to force an American form of English (based in illiteracy) on everyone else in the world Goodness if a person can't even revert appropriate spelling without small minded supremacists espousing their personal righteousness then I'm not interested in further contribution" doesn't imply much intention to help the project in collaborative encyclopedia writing - you appear to be trying to promote a personal prejudice over the policies of the project. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Murtz Jaffer Page

Hey Acroterion

Thanks for unprotecting the 'Murtz Jaffer' page. I have made the updates I needed to. If you wouldn't mind protecting it again (at least for the next little while), it would be most appreciated. I have a lot of enemies in my line of work and I don't want the page to be vandalized again. I just need to make some quick updates to it which I have now completed. Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtz (talk • contribs) 08:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

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) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I dunno if you might be interested in helping out in the 50,000 challenge, by listing your new articles, if you're working on Wyoming NRHPs now. And expansions count too. BTW, I think Wyoming has just three "NRIS-only" items now, because wp:NRHPprogress counts only 4 and I just added a bit to St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Cheyenne, Wyoming). The others seem to be:
I may try to expand these but I'd be happy if you wanted to expand them more, too. Anyhow I thot maybe you'd be happy to know that zero NRIS-onlies is very close for the state. cheers, --doncram 05:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'll see what I can do. I'll be out of town Sunday night and Monday on business, and family will appear later in the week, so it'll be a bit sporadic. Acroterion (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Wayne County Courthouse (TN)

Would you categorize this as modern, postmodern, or neither? BrineStans (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Frustrated Bullsfan103

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

Bro you've taken it wrong.....MY Article is actually about a School situated in the middle east.It aint a soap opera or advertisement.Instead it is all about the school.Sorry For the Disturbance... Yours Truly Bangbrother — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangbrother (talk • contribs) 13:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Then write a factual article supported by sources, not an advertisement on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Acroterion.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello, Acroterion. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ergo Sum 03:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User The Smasher X

and his twin PyramidX need to be blocked. I saw you deleted some of the latter's creations. This is the same editor and the first one has done repeated acts of vandalism....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's UnderArmourKid (talk · contribs), I just blocked another of their socks. Thanks for spotting that one. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Never heard of Underarmour before. I have taken part in User Ryan kirkpatrick duck hunting. Ryan k hasn't socked (or at least not been caught yet) in about 6 months. Around 20-25 socks ago me and admin The Bushranger told Ryan about the standardoffer. I wonder if he may be taking that route now. As he has created 100+ sock accounts I don't think the outcome would be too good if RK took the SO route and asked for reinstatement. I've offered to work with him, so I would probably stick to my work and sponsor him....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
RK is a much different case, at least they're an adult. UA kid is just that, a straightforward vandal/sock kid. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the blocks. It looks like there's still one left, The Real Dorami. Sro23 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. I'm trying to lay off some of the admin stuff and do useful things like writing articles, so I haven't been diving deeply into sock farms. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hello Acroterion,

May I ask you why did you delete the section "Religion" in the article "Bosnia and Herzegovina"? You can find the section "Relligion" for all countries. Several sources were also added.

Kind regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.147.92 (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It appeared that you were removing material, but on review it looks like you were reorganizing, so I've reverted to your version. However, you should describe your work in the edit sumary and a change that significant warrants a note on the takpage describing your intentions. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Acroterion,
I understand and I am sorry that I didn`t describe my work in the edit summary. I am new on Wikipedia. Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.147.92 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Replied at your IP talkpage. I encourage you to register an account. Acroterion (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Acroterion,
You are right. I will register an account and I like to contribute on Wikipedia. In addition, I will add sources for all my future work.
Kind regards,
Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.147.92 (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of The Republic of East Maltby

What I have seen is not a good impression of the Wikipedian admins, I was going to contest the speedy deletion, but you had no intentions of being patient. I also do not understand how the page is a "hoax", I referenced the information I provided and still get Speedy Deleted. Can you please tell me why you decided to Speedy Delete it without me having a chance to contest it? LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for things you've made up. Creating personal micronations is widespread among young people - I did it before there was an internet. Virtually none of them are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Two or three are deleted every week. Mere existence doesn't qualify, especially if it only exists in one's own bedroom or a personal website. Substantial coverage in major publications is required for both verification and to establish notability. In point of fact I deleted it as made up by the creator, but there was enough obvious fiction to justify the hoax tag too. Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I haven't actually made it up, plus, why do you have the right to speedy delete it before I can contest it? Also, it's not a "Bedroom Country" and I never made the site. Also, if you actually read the rules of Wikipedia instead of deleting thousands of Good and OK pages, you can see that it never says "If you make an article of a country or business, make sure it's popular in the media". I never tried to "hoax" anyone as well, because the nation exists. So, note down that I never: Made the website, Made the nation or broke Wikipedia's rules.

It seems now that Wikipedia is like Nazi Germany now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkDirectory5000 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles that give no credible indication of notability are subject to speedy deletion. Now that you've crossed into Godwin territory, please see Godwin's Law. And by the way, what were you doing here [11]?Acroterion (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Should I get a chance to Contest it though? Plus, the "Nazi Wikipedia" thing was a joke. Also, I am trying to make Wikipedia a better place. I am going to discuss this matter with the person who submitted the Speedy Deletion, you are seriously acting really stupid. LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
With respect, it is you that is "acting really stupid" and it is time for you to stop this. Otherwise I fear that you will end with a block for disruptive editing. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
What you should do is find three references in major news outlets to substantiate the article. All material must be referenced to independent sources, that's a policy. If you can't do that, the material doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Self-referencing doesn't count. And you haven't answered my question concerning the blocked user's page. Acroterion (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Link to that policy that it has to be from independent sources. Actually, there are a lot of pages that have dependent sources, so why delete mine and not them? Also, the blocked user is BLOCKED, so I feel like a message to everyone saying that the sockpuppeteer is banned/blockedLinkDirectory5000 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please review the verifiability policy and the reliable source policy. These are fundamental. Also see WP:NOTMADEUP. How did you get to that particular userpage, and how do you know how to manipulate templates like that? Acroterion (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you think that I am a sockpuppet for that account, I am not. Also, I just went on "SockPuppeteers" category and saw The Template Vandal. I figured that manipulating the References with a |[Something], I saw that I could fix the Sockpuppet template with SockPuppet|Blocked LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this properly cited?

Dragon Coins Page --LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No. You need third-party references. See what you can find, I suspect there are materials out there to work with. Its tone is rather informal. Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look

At the logs. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sessions

The office on Sessions article referring to Attorney General designate is based on precedent of similar articles from 2008, specifically Eric Holder when he was nominated. Calibrador (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Holder wasn't a U.S. Senator at the time: Sessions still is. Please leave the office as the office he holds, or keep the Senate seat and add designee - but that's really more than belongs in a userbox. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
There are many other then-current office holders you could look back upon. Specifically then-U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton. Calibrador (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Precedent. Calibrador (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced that that's appropriate and I think that precedent of eight years ago should be re-discussed, but I appreciate that you made it designee - there was a rash of IPs that were making Sessions the AG without a confirmation hearing! Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, on review I think your version's fine, it gives enough context - others were replacing the senator with AG. Thanks for discussing. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Pretty certain it always at least said designate in small text under the AG text. Calibrador (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Right now you have him as senator designate - please sort it out. We are all getting confused. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You are the one who forced that edit, then MrX reverted me back to your edit. Calibrador (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

Hi, can I interest you in this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops I see you already got invited, just couldn't remember seeing your name on the list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Acroterion. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hi Acroterion,

Sorry to bother you again. I just wanted to request the protection be placed back on the Murtz Jaffer page now that the edits have been made. It would add a great level of comfort for me. Currently, I am monitoring it almost daily to ensure the same vandalism that plagued us in 2011 doesn't happen again.

Would be most appreciated if you could put it back on lock now that I have made the necessary revisions.

Thanks Murtz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.73.14 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a recurrence of the 2011 vandalism there isn't a need to protect the article. We generally only protect pages if there is an ongoing need, the default should be free editing per policy. I'll keep an eye on it and you can ask for protection if the need arises, but right now things look good, I don't think you should worry about it. It's on my watchlist. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern but I did not edit the material on the Dorothy Kilgallen page to promote the book but only to provide access tp fresh research that has never been exposed before through primary sources, eyewitnesses such as her two hairdressers, one who found her body, a woman was one of the last people to see her alive, and an attorney who comments on her reliability as a respected journalist. The websites provided indicate my credibility for the book based on this being my 25th and my intensive, three year investigation of Kilgallen's life and times and her death. This has nothing to do with a conspiracy but hard facts pointing to her having been killed for writing a book about the JFK assassination. I believe it is a worthwhile book adding to the historical account of Kilgallen's life and important for people to understand who she was and how she died. Therefore, I feel that your comments are unfortunate and would suggest you read the new book before commenting further. Thank you, Mark Shaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8300:DA2B:CC42:745F:635C:8E2E (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Shaw, please refrain from adding material that promotes fringe theories in contravention of WP:PROFRINGE and also nakedly self promotional material including using Wikipedia as an advertising platform for your books. An examination of the editing history of what I presume to be your primary account shows that every single edit you have made over the last eight years has been self promotional and or promotional of fringe conspiracy theories. As I stated on your talk page this is not allowed. Further editing of this sort may result in the loss of your editing privileges. Additionally please do not use multiple accounts without clearly identifying the primary account in your edits. This is called sockpuppetry and is a serious no no here. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Why so quick to destroy this article? Is it politics?

Why?

Let it improve. Shorwak (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I see your warning and will let it go (not revert). But please allow more discussion. Shorwak (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the existing article on the family. That is where a consensus could be built. Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem with that is that any discussion would be biased and theoretical. People would discuss based on their own theory on how the article would look. With this article, people can see the merits of this article. Shorwak (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You are expected to discuss edits with other editors when challenged. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Thank you Acroterion, for your help at WP:ANEW. I have self-reverted the edit. After closer inspection, you are right -- it doesn't appear to be obvious vandalism. Since their edits seemed to not have added sub-sections, we're in a different language, and we're unsorced, it seemed to be obvious vandalism at a first glance. Sorry, I should have been more careful reviewing this edit, as the context of the article allowed for this kind of behavior. FWIW, I have also tidied up their edit by dividing the examples that they gave into sub-sections, having it make a bit more sense. Regards. 71.222.33.212 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I generally give people a chance to back up and reconsider in such circumstances. Please take the time to properly assess edits, and remember that when experienced editors tell you you're wrong, it's possible that you might be wrong. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this; I am happy to see that some good folks are keeping an eye on this article to keep it from being deluged with nonsense. Many thanks. Neutralitytalk 02:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It needs a few more eyes, there are a lot of conspiracy enthusiasts out there, as well as people who believe that NPOV requires a suspension of disbelief and disregard of reliable sourcing in favor of rumor. Acroterion (talk)

Thank you

Thank you for your admin actions regarding conspiracy theories and the like. For what it's worth, you might be interested in reading this portion of an article that may help understand regarding some of the possible incoming participants desiring to foment those fringe theories online. Sagecandor (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sugababes and Peanut Butter Jelly (song)

Can you semi-protect both pages to persistent disruptive editing. 115.164.91.192 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Help please

Multiple incoming accounts likely from [12] at [13]. Can you get eyes on this? Anything else to help? Any advice? Sagecandor (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around - I went to work, and I don't edit WP from there. Looks like you got some help, though. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah things have quieted down, thank you. Extra eyes would be helpful though. Sagecandor (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For fearlessly making it clear that the project's basic principles of fairness, accuracy and sensitivity toward living people must be respected. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Second. Sagecandor (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Well deserved! Neutralitytalk 04:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate

Afternoon Acroterion, per something that popped up on my feed there seems to be an insistence on using the word "false" regarding any claims relating to Pizzagate, as if putting it in wikipedias voice is somehow a solution for the problem of unfounded allegations related to BLP. So rather than actually citing reputable sources to demonstrate the opinion of reliable sources who have investigated the claims, we are instead declaring without citation that it is false. I am not aware of any other conspiracy theory situation where we evidently describe them as 'false' outright, or declare things to be 'unfounded' without also citing such a source. The situation in question is available here where you will be able to see recent edits by NorthBySouth which seem to think putting "false" and "unfounded" in front of stuff absolves us of any BLP risk. I am of the opinion that it doesn't change the BLP risk if there is any (we're still repeating the information), and instead creates a non-neutral POV. I have a few main points of contention for this:

  • 1. I believe this sets a very slippery slope in allowing blanket "this is false" approaches to any contentious subject (BLP or not) where if suitably strong opinion editors decide something is 'false' then they can approach a subject without citation, source or otherwise, make blanket changes threaten to pull in administrators. Which, while fun, merely brings up more issues.
  • 2. If the claims are suitably BLP offending, then adding "false" and "unfounded" to the front doesn't actually make it any better. We're still repeating the claims, joining the dots and wiki-linking the content. I believe if the subject matter is contentious to that extent the policy is to remove it, rather than make our own op-ed about it.
  • 3. If approach 2 is taken, then this opens the door to serious BLP risks elsewhere on wikipedia where you can literally shit-post anything you like, so long as you say "falsely" first (with or without citation). I don't believe that is appropriate to any article, let alone anything people suggest is a BLP risk. Koncorde (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
<ec>:I have a few thoughts on this, which I don't claim are totally consistent with each other. Some have to do with short-term versus long-term encyclopedia-writing - i.e. managing a tide of editors determined to shit-post versus writing a review of events considered from a distance of time and perspective. Let me put them into some order and I'll try to respond this evening when I have a little time to compose a thoughtful reply that takes your observations into account. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I do not think it absolves us of BLP risk, Koncorde. But we're apparently at the point where some mention of this issue is going to have to be in Wikipedia; the battle to do otherwise is being lost. My feeling on the matter is summed up here - it's going to be a permanent honeypot for conspiracy theorists making wild, false and thoroughly-defamatory accusations about living people. If we're going to have to have this in the encyclopedia, we absolutely have to be able to state, clearly and unambiguously as the reliable sources have, that the claims are false. This is not us doing an op-ed; the reliable sources on this matter which our articles are based on all unambiguously state that the claims are false — see this Washington Post article and this New York Times article which both clearly and factually state that the allegations against the people in question are false, fabricated and without a shred of truth to them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
If that is what the sources say, then quote the sources. For instance "in the WaPo, Abby Olheiser said X" about the accusations or "In NYT Cecilia Kang said..." anything other than that is really shitty editing on our part. Merely saying 'falsely' and 'unfounded' in wikipedias voice is not the same thing as demonstrating the reliable sources the accusations are false. By the same token, we would not accept editors stating that something was 'true' without similar citation - and we must be consistent, fair and as neutral as possible with the sources.
In contrast if we have any allegations (here or elsewhere), with no refutation sources, then remove the allegations as a breach of BLP (if it is in fact breaching a guideline to say fringe theories exist). Koncorde (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Article content reflects what is published in reliable sources. What is published in reliable sources unanimously states that the claims are false and fabricated. We are not required to give equal validity to such tripe. In other words, we should do both — yes, we should directly quote the sources, and we should also state in Wikipedia's voice that the claims are false. To do otherwise is to create a false equivalence between respected reliable journalistic sources and anonymous Internet trolls. "On the one hand, the NYT says it's a bunch of lies; on the other hand, RedditTroll293208 says it's true" is not encyclopedia writing, it's cowardice.
Removing it all would be the best choice. But I don't know if there's editorial support for that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Who has asked for equal? What equality (or lack of) was achieved by introducing the word 'falsely'. All I am asking for is to do it correctly and not merely throw such claims in the middle of a sentence. I repeat, quote those reliable sources. Place that criticism with them and their editors. They are the ones raising the content, they are the source for the content being notable, they are the ones detailing the accusations. As such we should demonstrate through those sources the validity or invalidity of the claims and allegations that are only cited and supported by those same sources. What you have currently done is not that. This is not an argument wikipedia has a role in (and is exactly the reason crap articles like the Gamergate one continue to exist in their current form).
I really don't understand your point. it seems like you entirely agree with the principle, but insist Wikipedia should have a dog in this fight by making a statement of solidarity. Anyway, we are abusing Acroterion's Talk Page, please take further discussions to my or your talk page. Koncorde (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not a statement of solidarity, Koncorde, it's a statement of fact. We do not include attribution for the fact that Alaska is a state; we simply say in the lede Alaska (Listeni/əˈlæskə/) is a U.S. state because it is a fact. Similarly, when faced with entirely-fabricated and viciously-defamatory claims about living people which have been debunked and rejected by the most reliable of sources, we can and must simply say that the claims are false, because that, too is a fact. (And I'll end it here.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Response

I'm composing a potentially lengthy discussion at User:Acroterion/PG. Please bear with me, I'm using the occasion to try to sort out some ideas that I've been considering for some time. Few of them are new, but at least it might help me to answer questions of this kind more clearly in the future. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I've finished for now, at greater length than I intended. If you're feeling patient you can look at the subpage [14]. I find that I agree with both of you. @Koncorde, it's best just gone, eliminating the whole argument. The issue is how it stays gone. @NBSB, the next best thing is a fig leaf to keep us from being complicit in the propagation of defamation. The worst solution is to keep the rumor and omit the disclaimer. This issue is at its worst in things like disambiguations that can't carry tall that baggage. A re-examination of the other pizzagate's need for a redirect may be useful, then it could just be a redirect to CPP, or for that matter they both could just be axed and create-protected. I'm not convinced there's any notability for the term in RS. Now that the disruption has settled down on the main topic that might be the best option. Anybody want to do an RFD?
In the long run a broad discussion of conflict between GNG and BLP is probably needed, with particular attention to the little one-line things that cause the most trouble, followed by some amendment to both. Acroterion (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Night Club Fire

I recently stumbled across the Rhythm Club fire of 1940 that killed over 200 people. I thought I ought to bring it to your attention. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that one got less attention than the Cocoanut Grove fire because of where it was, when it was and who it killed, but the circumstances were similar: crowded club, few exits. locked exits and flammable decorations. There were a lot of really deadly fires in the 1940s. History repeats itself every so often: see current news and The Station nightclub fire. This is why we have to document everything concerning exiting, alarms and finishes for fire marshals when we design restaurants or clubs. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Five Blues Lake National Park

Hi Acroterion – I think I've found a gem that, in the right hands, can make featured article status. I came by your name when you recently deleted Selfiefeet, a G7 proposal of mine. I've been busy reviewing new articles – some garbage, some with prospects, but mostly what I do is format refs and other minor stuff – I don't have much patience with actually scripting articles.

So I came upon Five Blues Lake National Park, in a very sorry state; copy by someone whose first language aint English, raw refs but excellent sources, zero graphics but I was able to pull 4 good images from one source, all of which are Fair Use, and as I worked through the stuff I began to realise I was working on a jewel in the heart of Belize hardwood rainforest. The subject is way above my paygrade, requiring immense input by more experienced editors than myself.

So I checked you out and saw what you did with Biscayne National Park – I went through the history and you clearly enjoyed the journey – so I thought you might like to take up Five Blues Lake National Park or, at the very least, you know the right people who would water at the mouth for the opportunity. The few existing refs are gold; they lead to endless others, and the subject matter will doubtless appeal to some you have met when you were helping bring Biscayne National Park to excellence.

Think about it – a 10 acre National Park maintained by a tiny indigenous population – gotta be worth a look. MarkDask 05:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be glad to take a look. Biscayne was a fairly terrible article that had great possibilities when I started, but I had more time available then and I don't think I can take on an FA project right now, but I'll be happy to help out with expansion where I can. Acroterion (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

Hello Acroterion.

I am an administrator of the Wikipedia Lusofona and I am here to ask you for a help with the user Andre.levy.al (talk · contribs). I am creating a summary of the user's behavior so that, if necessary, I require infinite blocking in lusophony.

I realized by another user, that Andre has a similar behavior with the Lusophone Wikipedia. This one has been making questionable edits and then it shoots offensive words, summarizing a coarse behavior and without any respect to the other users. Requiring the blocking of users just by being reversed by these and calling them vandals and trolls.

In a small review on the user's talk page I see the similarity in behavior. Funny that this had only 3 issues in Lusophone up to 15 days ago. In a short time it has been giving problems. So if possible it would be very helpful to summarize you by reporting user behavior so that I can add in the evidence in the blocking request. Thanks for listening. Le Comte Edmond Dantès msg 05:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Usually behavior on one wikipedia has little effect on others, but a global block may be accomplished if it's consistent from one to another. The reason Andre.levy.al was blocked here was because he was using Wikipedia to promote a conspiracy theory, and was accusing those who disagreed with his abuse of the website of misconduct or even of complicity in the conspiracy he was promoting. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Northen Cyprus

stop adding northen cyprus because in not recognized under any law or state ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.35.123 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop blanking the content or I will block you. Nobody claims that it has wide recognition, but it certainly exists. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Darren Bailie

Can you please re-instat Darren Bailie... you deleted this article by mistake a few years back as he is a recognised music artist thats responsible for several aliases including Darren Bailie https://www.discogs.com/artist/1428863-Darren-Bailie https://www.discogs.com/artist/2016491-Guru-Project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Disruption after final warning

The disruption by Bitsnake420 was after a final warning. I note warnings from other users higher on the page. The user ignores WP:RS sources. Three of them. At this point can he be blocked for the WP:BLP violations? Sagecandor (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The extended protection is meant to deal with that sort of issue, rather than blocking people. They're being stubborn on talkpages, but at the moment I'm not inclined to issue a block. Probably sanctions first if they continue, blocking only if egregious. Acroterion (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay that makes sense. I guess after your warning we can go from there, although hopefully not. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I will be away from WP for a while. The latest response is unpromising, but not block-worthy, and I don't have time to fill out DS paperwork. You may want to check in at ANI or AE if they continue or escalate, but for now I think everybody should avoid the temptation to have the last word. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I really do have to go, I've left a warning and an addendum. You may need to flag down an admin if they go on. Acroterion (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

After your last warning [15]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

Hi Acroterion,

I notice that you added the discretionary sanctions tag to Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). I don't think it falls under anything listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log, but maybe I'm wrong. Is the idea that this falls under Gamergate, broadly construed? That seems a little too broad for me.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The entire thing is a series of libelous claims about living people, so the BLP discretionary sanctions clearly apply. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) America Politics 2 would apply as well. Fake conspiracy theory during the US elections involving Democratic Party. — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Agreed, both. I looked at it yesterday and was wondering if things were bad enough to impose 1RR & consensus required. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As others have noted it has nothing at all to do with GamerGate (except that the hoax is popular in gaming circles). I set it based on the BLP and American Politics arbitration. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I did say maybe I'm wrong! I didn't know that American Politics (post 1932) is subject to discretionary sanctions. Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. Yaris678 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It took a little research on my part too. I already knew about the BLP arbitration, but there are other options. I regret to say that the tree shaping arbitration doesn't appear to have spawned any DS regimes, nor has the The Beatles/the Beatles argument. Maybe we can find a link to the Shakespeare authorship question! Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle

Please be more careful in your Undo's. You thought I deleted something but I actually just moved it down. Please read more carefully before undoing. Sorry I didn't explain it in a comment. This kind of rapid undo discourages new contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.236.69 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it happens some times. I was avoiding real-life after-hours work here on WP and was a bit distracted. Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor Golffan1

who also edits not signed in as Ip 24.74.165.146 and 2600:1004:B02D:B1DE:E9AB:1CB8:AE66:548D. There are several issues involving this editor who created an article Lorcan Morris. The subject of the article seems to fail WP:NGOLF and had been up at AFD because an administrator userfied it.

1- Based on this[16], there is strong reason to believe User Golffan1 is Lorcan Morris. A selfie photo taken of Morris which Golffan1 claims to be his own work.
2- Golffan or the IP keeps adding a mention of Lorcan Morris to the article Boiling Springs, North Carolina. In his last edit there[17] he violated WP:NPA.

Additions to Notable people sections need either an article or references to back up their notability. The edits to Boiling Springs fail on both.

Maybe you can have a word with this editor....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the Boiling Springs page for a couple of weeks. It's probably an autobiography, and while it's not encouraged it's not positively prohibited to create an article about one's self, and it seems like they're verging on notability. I'll keep an eye on the draft. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
FYI Golffan1 is back at it again[18]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New coordinates= parameter for Infobox NRHP

Hi there. I have seen your constructive work adding information to NRHP articles. It looks like you are using the individual lat/long parameters that have traditionally been used in infoboxes. Those parameters are being replaced with the |coordinates= parameter, which can use the {{Coord}} template to pass coordinates to the infobox as well as any location maps that are used in the article. For more information about this simplification of the infobox templates, you can start at the (relatively technical) page Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes.

At some point in the near future, the individual lat/long parameters will be removed from infobox templates. Let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work with the new format. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

About Duck family (Disney)

Your 6-month page protection of the page Duck family (Disney) expired yesterday at 16:29, and the IP returned today with three edits between 3:05 and 3:13 (less than 11 hours after the page protection expired) as if he had been expecting this day the whole time. It was his usual POV/original research edits (copied and pasted from his previous edits), with no discussion in the talk page and no edit summary. I reverted it, but I hope this won't start another edit war. --Newblackwhite (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Newblackwhite: I also just saw that on my watchlist. I've put it on PC1 for now, but it would be good if you could put something on the article talk page about why those changes are not helpful - I checked the archive and did not see anything that seemed to match the material in those edits. As far as discussion goes, I think it's generally a good idea to hold ourselves to the same or higher standards than those we revert - I recognise that defending the status quo is sometimes a stronger position than adding new material. So it would be great if you could just put a little description on the talk page of why those edits are not useful, and if the IP comes back again having ignored the discussion, I'm sure Acroterion or myself will be happy to put it back on semi. HTH, Samsara 09:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Samsara: Ok, I will add an explanation on the talk page. Although in the past I have explained why those edits don't improve the article, my comments were either in the edit summary, in the talk of the user/ip who added them (whom I tried to contact before reverting his edits), or in Acroterion's page when I was asking how to avoid edit wars. I think it would be a good idea to have a section on the article's talk page for future references. Thanks for your help. --Newblackwhite (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Re supposed 'soapboxing' on Talk:September 11 attacks page

Kindly reinstate my comments on the September 11 Talk page. I was not 'soapboxing', I was not having a general discussion, and I was not expressing my own personal views. If someone claims that 1 + 1 = 5, then when I respond directly to that claim by saying that 1 + 1 = 2, and showing the reasoning which proves that fact, that is not 'soapboxing', it is not a general discussion, and it is not expressing a personal view. In the case of the September 11 Talk page, I responded directly to two separate, unsupported claims made by an anonymous user who wanted to include them on the September 11 Wiki page. The first part of my response proves that the twin towers did not fall at free fall speed, contrary to the claim I was directly responding to. That is a fact; it is not a personal view, it is not a general discussion, and it is not 'soapboxing'. My usage of the September 11 Talk page was perfectly legitimate and you have no reason, and no right, to remove my comments. Wikipedia does not belong to you, nor does the September 11 Talk page. By removing my comments, whilst 'allowing' other comments which actually are examples of 'soapboxing' and personal views - not to mention blanket statements which you and others, particularly David J Johnson, have no right whatsoever to make - you are introducing a bias which does not belong on Wikipedia, and potentially discouraging new editors from becoming involved in the project. Take, for example, your own response to the very same comments I was responding to:

"We're extremely familiar with this topic, and we're extremely familar with AE 911. You aren't the first conspiracy enthusiast to visit Wikipedia. No "serious scientific research" has ever emerged from that source and Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum for conspiracy theory promotion".

That is clearly an example of 'soapboxing' and is certainly not a statement of facts. It expresses your opinion; nothing more and nothing less. In response to the same anonymous user, I stated demonstrable facts - not personal views - and my response is clearly more legitimate than yours. For the sake of consistency, either reinstate my comments, or remove every comment that is an example of 'soapboxing' and the expression of personal views; which is every comment in the 'Terrorism' section attributed to both you and David J Johnson. Thanks and Regards, FillsHerTease (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) There is no "right" to write anything on an article talk page; they are not general discussion forums but spaces set aside for discussing improvements to the article in question. As there can be no improvement of an article without a reliable source (and no reliable source adheres to the absurd claim of controlled demolition), discussion of it on the article talk page for September 11 attacks is irrelevant and a waste of editors' time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Stop using talkpages to promote your personal interpretations of conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research or personal analysis, and repeated behavior of this kind is disruptive. Cite reliable sources in accordance with policy, not your impression of what an appropriate building collapse would look like. 12:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Acroterion (talk)

revdel

Since you're in the CAT:RFRD, you may want to revdel this one. Insinuating a BLP is a child molester is not kosher. APK whisper in my ear 15:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Done and blocked as not here to help out. There are a lot of intervening diffs and I'm reluctant to wipe them all as it's an indirect sort of hinting that probably doesn't warrant that kind of intervention. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Acroterion!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

your block of User:175.114.34.55

Latest IP is up [19] Meters (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Whacked by User:Antandrus Meters (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

JDKJDKJDK thanks you for your work, but sandbox and draft-article versions seem inaccessible now

Hi Acroterion

Thanks for looking over a draft article of mine, user JDKJDKJDK at 13:58 today.

I admit freely that the article is autobiography, and the reasons for that are that I am a notable academic (two professorships, both in the Russell Group universities (like the Ivy League), but unlikely to have someone write an article about me.

For example, I am the 42nd most cited computer scientist in the UK [20], and that list includes Turing.

I also freely admit that I tried to have my article published far too early. I had not added all inline references (or any!), and apologize for this.

I would now like to add those, please, but can't see my article anywhere, and did not keep a copy myself (assuming I could look at all the versions).

Please would you let me know whether you can reinstate my article in my sandbox please?

Many thanks for your kind consideration.

Joshua JDKJDKJDK (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

No Phone Numbers

It was the phone number for the PUBLIC, and easily accessible, DC metro police department as Wikipedia mods, like yourself, wanted physical proof of something. I now have no way of providing physical proof without submitting something like a phone number. Interesting how you guys will always find a way to win. SChalice 17:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in checking to see if it's the central switchboard or if it's the desk number of a detective or a cell number: don't post phone numbers or contact information for individuals. We're not here to investigate, we're here to report based on published sources. We are not in the business of providing "physical proof" on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Being outed off-wiki by Acroterion,Tagishsimon,and Widr. Submitted on behalf of an IP who did not notify you. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Question

Could you tell me how you were able to get this photo: File:Mt. Pleasant, Union Bridge 2009.jpg? It looks like the building isn't visible from the main public road. -- Veggies (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As I recall (and as the metadata show) I got it from the side of the road with 225mm of zoom on a cropped sensor at the end of the lane - the geolocation is accurate. In summer it would be invisible, and it looks like I was shooting across a valley that set the intervening trees below the line of sight, sort of. Acroterion (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, got it. I was looking on Google Street View (which only has summertime views) and was totally flummoxed. That makes sense. I'd like to photograph more of these NHRPs, but so many are privately-owned and secluded from view from public roads. Thanks for letting me know. -- Veggies (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Trees, cars, street signs and overhead wires are my kryptonite. There are several places I'd like to get, but they're in dense trees at the end of a half-mile lane and invisible even in winter from public roads. Sometimes I've been able to get images on public tour days - Whitehall (Annapolis, Maryland) for instance is otherwise impossible to photograph except from a boat. Acroterion (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q4_2016&oldid=1083943925"