User talk:Acroterion

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Signpost

Why are we suppressing information on a suspected Israels agent when it's backed by neutral and reliable sources

You mentioned on my page the following "Apart from the strange emphasis your edit places on the Mossad in a biography of a person who hasn't been asserted to have had anything to do with intelligence, the incorporation of rumors about her father is a further stretch. Given your history of edits concerning Israel, you are editing in an area that is subject to sanctions, in addition to the BLP discretionary sanction regime. Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)". I will give you benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read the biography of Robert_Maxwell. So kindly please stop now and read it then continue. I knew you are not going to read it so here is a cut and paste from there to answer why I am saying he is a suspected Israeli agent on Ghislaine_Maxwell "The Foreign Office suspected that Maxwell was a secret agent of a foreign government, possibly a double agent or a triple agent, and "a thoroughly bad character and almost certainly financed by Russia." Maxwell had known links to the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), to the Soviet KGB, and to the Israeli intelligence service Mossad. Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended Maxwell's funeral in Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized him and stated: “He has done more for Israel than can today be said."

Shortly before Maxwell's death, a former employee of Israel's Military Intelligence Directorate, Ari Ben-Menashe, approached a number of news organisations in Britain and the US with the allegation that Maxwell and the Daily Mirror's foreign editor, Nicholas Davies, were both long-time agents for Mossad. "

When you have the assertion from a former mossad agent that he is one of them, then you have president and six head of Mossads attending his funeral why wouldn't you want to say "suspected Israeli agent"? Would you have done this if it was Putin and six KGB heads attending his funeral with a testimonial of a former KGB agent. Why not Israel then? It's reliable and neutral info that deserves to be published. MYS1979 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References

You weren't editing Robert Maxwell's biography, you were editing Ghislaine Maxwell's biography to insert speculation about her father. It's in inappropriate linkage, and a violation of BLP. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite right Acroterion(talk). While I agree I wasn't editing her father's biography as the information that he is a suspected Israeli spy is already mentioned there and no need to edit anything this piece of information about Ghislaine_Maxwell father is pivotal to her biography. There are already large sections about her father there! Did you not notice that? Are you suggesting to delete them because it's her biography. How about we remove Epstein references from her biography while we are at it and see what's left! Why are you specifically interested in removing the info about her father's connection to Mossad. I presented this topic in a very neutral way with reliable sources, I didn't state he is one, I said "suspected agent" to be extra careful and neutral.

MYS1979 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You are abusing a secondary article as a coattrack for accusations against the father, and appear to be trying to imply guilt by association for the daughter. You've been warned before about your edits concerning Israel in general.There are enough conspiracy theories concerning Epstein, Maxwell and Maxwell, youn must provide direct referencing to show that this is relevant to the daughter. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So let me get this straight Acroterion(talk), someone who has been arrested on six counts related to child sex and trafficking who has a partner with at least one fake passport and was found dead/(killed according to his brother) in his jail who traveled to Israel regularly, and where both had video and pictures of their VIP guests in not optimal situations, and you think saying her father a "supected mossad agent" is coattrack? Let me tell you what coattrack, her father was a florist who enjoys tea and biscuits after dinner that would be coattrack.

Yes, and since you have made it plain that you are promoting an unsourced personal theory, you are warned for synthesis too. Acroterion (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems we are chasing our tails here? let's agree to disagree on this one and let the readers decide for themselves if mentioning that someones father is a spy is relevant or not to their biography especially when both share a life of action, crime, arrests, dignitaries, and even possible murders. I know where 99% of people out there stand on this one.

No, you are directly warned for inappropriate synthesis in a biography, as an administrator action. You will be blocked if you continue. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Carter Page

The statement is materially incorrect and needs to be modified. Similar errors have NOT been found in other FISA warrants. The reporting has been debunked and the citation is improper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D33pState2020 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Use the talkpage to describe why you think it should be changed, and why you should prefer a generally deprecated source, the Washington Times, over a generally reliable source, the New York Times. Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, I think this account is WP:NOTHERE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The username and editing focus is certainly suggestive of that. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the account as NOTHERE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

British Isles's population density

Hi, you undid my edit on British Isles changing the population density from 216 to 228 under the reason "not sourced", which I don't really understand since the reason of my edit is based on a simple calculus based on the informations which are already in the article.

Grab a calculator and see yourself: 71,891,524 inhabitants on 315,159 square kilometers gives 228 inhabitants per square kilometer, not 216. Whether or not the 71,891,524 number is correct, which I don't know since I don't really understand where the guy who added it found it in the source indicated, keeping the mathematical incoherence would be bizarre.

I did search for reliable sources for the British Isles population, and it's complicated. Adding up Ireland's and United Kingdom's UN estimates is bad since their UK estimates probably incorporate the British Overseas Territories which aren't part of the British Isles, and are generally too broad and less accurate than estimates of the national government. So I looked up the UK official mid-2019 estimate. Adding up England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I get 66,796,807.

But the Crown dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernesey and Jersey, the last two being incorporated in the 315,159 total area number in the British Isles article) don't seem to be included in those data, and after quick search I can't find any reliable source for their population in 2019.

Moreover, the official Irish data closest to the UK ones are from April 2019, so adding them to the aforementioned UK mid-2019 estimate would be a somewhat inaccurate. And the Crown dependencies would be missing.

To sum up, I can't come up with a reliably sourced population number for the British Isles in 2019. Ergo the population density cannot either be reliably sourced since it's calculated based on this number. However, having nothing better, I'm not going to change the current potentially false & unsourced population number, and it's going to stay there for a while because virtually no one cares about those demographic trifles.

Should we not therefore rather have a potentially false & unsourced population number and a mathematically coherent 228 density number than a potentially false & unsourced population number and a mathematically incoherent 216 density number?

I think we should. But edit warring over this would be childish, so I won't insist. Your call. 90.8.221.223 (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Go find a source for your change, especially since you indicate that the subject is open to interpretation. It's that easy. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I've searched and I don't have one, because as far as I know no official source gives an estimate for the British Isles's population or population density as a whole, and the official estimates from each components are not coordinated. So I can't come up with a correct sourced estimate. Maybe someone else will be able to in the future, I don't know. Maybe the currently displayed number 71,891,524 is correct, but the guy just didn't add his source. I just wanted it at least to be coherent mathematically with the density number regarding the total area. But I guess it will have to remain mathematically false until someone better or luckier than me at searching for sources does the job then. 90.8.221.223 (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. The CIA Factbook is usually regarded as a reliable source of statistical information of that kind. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't located on for the British Isles overall, and calculating from separate sets of statistics will run into the definitional issue you've encountered. I'll keep looking. Acroterion (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Stone Mountain

There is an editor, 96.252.95.115 editing at Stone Mountain who has been reverted three times and has reverted back three times. His edits carry subjects such as, "Fixed this. Language was too vague. This is a white supremacist monument. I don’t want to read any of the bullshit “Southern pride .” Fuck that" Could you pleae keep an eye on them. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, it's been endemic to some degree across the encyclopedia.

I lived for a couple of years within a couple of miles of Stone Mountain. It's a bizarre window into the Lost Cause movement at its most extravagant. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I do so enjoy editing without politics, and editing sculpture used to be so safe. Now I'm caught up with Gutzon Borglum (an article I started in on about 15 years ago) and now he is front page news and . . ......... and you know how that goes. Thanks, Carptrash (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Reversions to my contribution

You reverted my edit to the Tube Bar prank calls page - why? I was correcting the faux names used on the calls, specifically "Phil my ass" and "Phil Lucio" etc. Instead of throwing around baseless accusations of disruptive editing with a copy-paste template, explain the issue you have with the edits or move along. 81.154.114.201 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Use sources, and stop reverting to you preferred version at NONAZIs. Your behavior is borderline trolling. Acroterion (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your definition of trolling is an odd one. And the Tube Bar article's existing sources already point out the names. 81.154.114.201 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your approach to other editors is an odd one. I've protected the article so you can explain what you're doing on the talkpage, as we expect, rather than deeclaring that you'll just keep reverting. Between your first edit to a noticeboard and a pronounced resemblance to BKFIP, I don't think you're a Wikipedia novice. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I'm no novice - but I'm not BKFIP. I just don't understand why I've got to jump through hoops to improve an article by correcting an erroneous name used in it? In the Tube Bar Tapes, they goad the bartender into saying "Phil Lucio" (fellatio) and "Phil Myacsz" (fill my ass)). Whoever curated it originally was incorrect.81.154.114.201 (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on being au courant on our names for long-term abuse cases. You do a good impression of BKFIP's attitude. And BKFIP's attitude is why his otherwise helpful edits tend to get thrown out with the obnoxious ones. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who BKFIP is - I just made an assumption he was a user (presumably blocked?) that you were referring to. And my attitude stems from dealing with obstructive admins (to the point that one particular senior admin's presence is enough to aggravate) more interested in enforcing the letter of the law than the spirit and throwing sock accusations at every corner and randomly reverting edits on that basis regardless of the quality of contribution, so I decided I'd give the account angle a break and do things on my terms. 81.154.114.201 (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:Contributions/82.132.184.86, who is almost certainly the same thing as OP. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

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) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

RE:

Hey there Acroterion,

Thanks or writing and for your opinion, I appreciate it a lot. Yes, you are right, Google does not craw wikipedia that easily. Since I did my reg to Wikipedia yesterday, I'm still getting used to the platform. It's not that user-friendly, but it's indeed important. I decided to write a page about myself in general to see how it works. It took me 2 hours :)) I would appreciate your input and help on some things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steffanvs (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to restore it so you can scale it back and make it un-spammy. We tend to regard editors who start out talking about SEO with concern. Acroterion (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Britannia (TV series)

Hello, I saw that you engaged a user for potential edit warring on Britannia (TV series). The user started a talk discussion. Myself and several editors explained the problems with the content in question but the discussion appears to be deadlocked. I'm not really sure what the "next step" is but would appreciate any guidance you may have. Thanks,

It looks they've failed to gain policy-based consensus on the talkpage, so there is no further step other than "no." I attempted to explain to them the issues that they should address, and it looks like you got the same response, only at greater length. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. We seem to be back to the same issues including an edit warring IP (may or may not be the same user.) PAVA11 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. There appears to be a brand new user piling on, added a NPOV tag, and whose user page seems to indicate a WP:NOTHERE concern. Not sure whether it's actually a new user. PAVA11 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Irish Indentured servants - changes not cited

Okay, my apologies, I will ensure that I highlight my citations before publishing in future. I will cite these changes tonight and re-publish. Many thanks. StephenDedalus2020 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You should discuss the sources and edits as proposals on the talkpage first. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay great, I'll spend some time putting a a proposal for a number of changes and communicate them to you here. I have saved the page to a word document and will get to it over the weekend. Thanks again.

18:39 17/07/2020 The five links I have listed below do not work. I have tested them on Internet Explorer and Chrome. In relation to the academia links, I have an academia account and user access is not the problem. I propose removing these links from the "External Links" section. Thank you. 1. https://ibs.colorado.edu/alston/econ8534/SectionIII/Galenson,_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Indentured_Servitude_in_the_Americas.pdf 2. https://plymouth.rl.talis.com/items/50DBECD4-0395-BE9B-1689-460E944F3724.html 3. http://www.theflightoftheearls.net/SlaveryReview.pdf 4. https://www.academia.edu/24907710/Irish_Indentured_Servants_Papists_and_Colonists_in_Spanish_Colonial_Puerto_Rico_ca._1650-1800 5. https://www.academia.edu/25013836/The_Irish_in_the_Anglo-Caribbean_servants_or_slaves

Go ahead and propose those changes on the talkpage. Keep in mind that dead links are not grounds for removal of references (they should be updated instead), but I agree that dead external links in the external link section should be removed. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay I will propose the edit. In relation to citation 27 the link no longer works -http://www.historyireland.com/volume-24/the-rish-in-the-anglo-caribbean-servants-or-slaves/

I have googled the article and found the appropriate link, I will go ahead and propose these edits too. - https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/18th-19th-century-social-perspectives/the-irish-in-the-anglo-caribbean-servants-or-slaves/

http://www.historyireland.com/volume-24/the-rish-in-the-anglo-caribbean-servants-or-slaves/

Animal Rights - Wikipedia

Euro - Centric characters are still in control of distorting history on Animal Rights.

What are the lessons Euro - Centric people have learnt from the Black Lives Matter movement?

The section on Animal Rights completely leaves out the major contribution by Humanist movements outside Europe.

it is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.209.251 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem with your edits is that they're not sourced. Please provide sourcing, per policy. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

50.204.198.17

Perhaps you can revoke talk page privileges as well. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:75D4:48D4:757F:B45F (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Done, I see. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:75D4:48D4:757F:B45F (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reverts. I'll talk to Naleksuh about how better to deal with nastiness like that without reverts. Acroterion (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

false claims of attacking editors

Hello Acroterion, please stop attacking editors with whom you dont agree by making false accusations of attacking editors. If you cant deal with your bias then maybe its time to take a step outside and get some fresh air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrindMocha (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

A request

Could you possibly chime in over here[1]. It concerns overcategorization of election article. Another editor plus myself have been trying to inform this editor. You may want to read this too[2]. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You speedy deleted an article entitled Limbik, under WP:CSD#A7.

I'd like to request userification, as I started an article on the firm's founder. If there is nothing worth cannibalizing I'll speedy the userified version.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it's a Draft:Limbik. Acroterion (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding so quickly!
• The article says the firm was founded by Zach Schwitzky and Josh Levin - and the sole contributor was Joshuaelevin, a clue the article's creation may not have been compliant with WP:COI. If a new article on this topic was to be started it would be best if it were a complete rewrite, and did not re-use any passages from the first version.
• I am finished with my review. Thanks.
• I will note one further minor point. Reddogsix reverted five good faith edits Joshuaelevin made after it had been tagged for deletion. I see this as unnecessary, and a lapse from WP:BITE. When an article is up at AFD good faith contributors are encouraged to make edits to address the concerns raised by those who favor deletion, right up until an administrator closes the review. I've never read anything to suggest good faith edits are not allowed after an article has been tagged for speedy deletion.

  I said I would tag it for speedy deletion, when I didn't need it any more. I'll do that in a couple of days, as I'd like to give Reddogsix a chance to review their revision, and decide for themselves as to whether my BITE observation holds any merit.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Reddogsix had their competency challenged at WPANI, for too many bad speedy nominations, and announced their retirement, in 2018. So I will tag it now. Thanks again for your help. Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Fourteen Years on Wikipedia!

Hey, Acroterion. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Frank Collin block evader

He emailed me from his account complaining about my reversion - with his phone number. Nice of him to make the block evasion so clear. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Obligatory Blues Brothers reference. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The Alapaha blue blood bulldog

You have a completely wrong history description and overview of this breed. It is a recognized breed by several registry. Including the American Rare Breed Association. I also run a registry and I am a breed historian. Can we actively fix your entry if I have documents from the original registry the Animal Research Foundation and the breed founder Lana Lou Lane. Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have legit documents you have the entire article wrong Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article at all, but you are welcome to correct the article, using published sources as references.Personal knowledge isn't admissible, because it must be capable of independent verification. In any case, you may not replace sourced information with different information without replacing the reference, and ideally you should have done that after mentioning your proposed edits and sources on the article talkpage so other editors can see the proposed changes. Additionally, you must respect the best practices in WP:COI and avoid self-sourcing and self-promotion. Small-population animal breeds tend to be poorly documented, but that isn't an occasion to add material that can't be found in published sources. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not self sourcing how do I get the proper information to you Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has completely false information regarding every aspect of the breed Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where the talk page is or who to submit the documents to for sourcing Superior alapaha kennels (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you contesting the source that is cited? Every article has a talkpage - there's a "talk" tab next to the article's tab at the upper left of the window. The talkpage is where you can propose edits and sources. It's just like college, everything must be referenced. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of observation, general references tend to be spotty in their research on small-population breeds, so it's not surprising. However, you will still need published sources, which means that Ms. Lane needs to be mentioned in a book or reliable web publication that can be verified. Reliable means that the source has a reputation for fact-checking - breed fancy websites are often unreliable or represent narrow factions within a set of breed enthusiasts. Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, i thought it is bad

I am sorry for doing wrong thing on this article Greta Thunberg. I thought that redlinks are bad, but it is not bad. I will not do this again soon. Rdp060707 (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Reason for reversion of improvements to the tables of the COVID-19 vaccine article

Hello,

You reverted some of my edits without providing an explanation. May I ask what was the problem? The reversion discarded proper sorting of the Phase of trial column by the number of participants, and it also restored the Notes column which does not contain tabular data and is more suitable for a group of footnotes. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I misclicked.Sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your message (2nd August 2020)

You just left me a message. Accidentally I resaved my edit thinking it hadn't gone through.

But you're wrong to say it was "disruptive editing". It was just removing the contradiction of saying national socialists were far-right, but retaining the description of far right as a modern label for fascism. Surely that was needed to avoid "cognitive dissonance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiKeith (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

National socialism is far right according to the consensus of political science since the 1930s. Naive editors keep disruptively claiming that Nazis were left wing because "National Socialist." The cognitive dissonance was a feature, not a bug, so it's not up to you to rectify it. The "socialism" part of national socialism is about as descriptive as the "democratic" in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiKeith, you said "the Nazis were fascists", and that's deceptive. Nazism falls under the broader heading of fascism, but it's more than that, and fascism is a far-right way of thinking, and so is Nazism, by way of deduction. If one disagrees with that, one either doesn't know what "far-right" (or "right-wing") means, or one is just repeating weird talking points derived from almost-far-right thinkers who are trying to sweep their stoop, as the Dutch might say. There might be one other option: one doesn't know what Nazism or fascism is, in which case one certainly shouldn't be editing that article. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I won't re-edit the page but it disappoints me that Wikipedia has become a political playground when I'm trying to make it neutral and accurate. There are plenty of historical scholars who discuss fascism also as a left-wing methodology. Eg Hugh Seton-Watson, Fascism, Right and Left", Journal of Contemporary History, 1966, Vol 1, 183-197. Or Coupland P.M. (2005) ‘Left-Wing Fascism’ in Theory and Practice. In: Copsey N., Renton D. (eds) British Fascism, the Labour Movement and the State. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522763_6

It's effectively Orwellian to now edit the present to pretend that, in the past, fascism was solely a far-right methodology. You should read 1984 and reflect.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a forum for historical; revisionism. And in point of fact, there is an article on left-wing fascism - it has been applied to aspects of the German Democratic Republic and Peronism, but it is a niche concept. The NAtional Socialist party is consistently described as a right-wing party - they adopted the "socialist" tag as our article puts it "out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism." The Nazis were the original Orwellian speakers of Doublespeak. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

offensive material

Hi, you reverted and hided this once, but it was restored so if you could hide this too [3] --Zache (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Britannia (TV series) controversy

First, thank you for dealing with the controversy. Second, as you may have noticed, it has been disposed of. The two editors who were arguing in favor of the plagiarism claim were blocked for sockpuppetry. You had warned the first of them that they were close to a site block on English Wikipedia for conduct. Right after that, they got the site block for a different conduct issue. It is disposed of unless any more sockpuppets cause trouble, and, if so, sockpuppets usually get blocked quickly enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll, keep an eye on them. I expect they'll appeal at great length, and they've been using Commons as a dump for intelligence on editors who they disagree with. Thank you for your patient work at DR - I think by the fourth statement you'd exhausted all possible ways of getting them to produce a usable source. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, by the fourth statement I had gotten them to coloring inside the lines, but I was also asking to have their crayons taken away. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a procedure for blocking or banning users on Commons, since you are saying that SR has been abusing Commons? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I also thought it was worth noting the potential finding noted here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/971156806). Not sure anything else needs done, just thought it was worth noting we all appeared to be missing the true extent of the user's interest in the subject, but it makes a lot of sense. Maybe worth noting is response to any potential appeal. PAVA11 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

When I encounter such a single-minded account, blind to all but the cause they're promoting, I generally assume it's the person at the center of the issue or someone very close to them. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but I'd expect them to hide it a little better if they aren't going to own it. Oops. PAVA11 (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Obsessive focus on one's own priorities and no others isn't necessarily compatible with message discipline. Acroterion (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Dean and Jean

Could you please move this entry deleted in 2009 to draftspace so I can see what was there? Thank you.Have a happy every day. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dean and Jean is in place, not much to see. Acroterion (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Game Arcade, a.k.a. TheGameArcade

hi, you've just sent me a message regarding editing an article. it is not my intention at all to be blocked obviously. i just need to add some links to the article and it's done. do you think i can do this or better not? it's not my intention to go against wikipedia's rules or have any kind of problems (obviously). i'm new, joined a couple of hours at all and not yet familiarized with all the rules. best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBuzzr772 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

edits

i've just checked the article's page and noticed you deleted all the content. i know i created another similar page but my intention was not to spam. as i mentioned before i'm new here and wasn't sure if that page was an article or my user's profile. i have put my text back on the article that wasn't deleted. please do not make changes to it again. i won't be editing it anymore. if there's anything else feel free to contact me. best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBuzzr772 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming after a clear warning. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The deletion of Open2ANM

I am new at this wikipedia writing and if I mess up please forgive me. I am trying my hardest to write and publish this page on Alexander NeverMind. I have watched so many videos trying to understand wikipedia and all it entails. I believe now I may have a pretty good understanding of what is required and would like the opportunity to improve my page. So, I am asking if you would remove the delete from my page so I can work on it and bring it upto wikipedia's standards? Thank you --Open2ANM 15:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The tone of the deleted content was promotional. Replied at your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access revocation

Hey Acroterion, would it be possible to revoke TPA for Hissing at the U.S. flag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Thanks in advance. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out brushing the dogs. Explicit got it. Acroterion (talk)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your fast response both at Culture Abuse and my talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome - two grossly abusive features in one username merit everything we can do. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Skateboard Brands List

Hello, I recently visited [brands], and was planning to add and update the list to be more comprehensive and represent more accurately the prominent brands of the day. The first brand I was prepared to add was Deathwish. Apparently in 2010 you removed Deathwish Skateboards from the list, and the editor's note suggested that I ask you about adding the brand back in to the list. In this process I found a much more comprehensive list of companies so my edits aren't needed at this point. But I must admit, I am wondering why you would remove a prominent brand like Deathwish from the list, and wondering if I've missed something in the process of editing here that you might be able to educate me about. Thanks, I'll look for your response here as requested. --Skatepunk22 23.54:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That was a decade ago! I assume somebody was spamming the name without any indication of notability. Can you provide the diff from ten years back? Acroterion (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what "the diff" is, I'm sorry. Well, since it was that long ago and doesn't really matter at this point, I'll leave it alone. I'm trying to learn about all this stuff but there's a lot to learn and absorb that's a bit tough without doing it all the time. Thanks for your response. --Skatepunk22 (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean a link to the edit from ten years ago, and to whatever this other editor did/said. If they're notable now, just go and fix it with a reference to support it. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

More of same at Bobby Fischer

After expiration of your block on Exxcalibur808 (talk · contribs). Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

St. Peter HS page

Acroterion, thank you for your constructive suggestion and your positive tone. We appreciate it very much, and will make sure to cite sources, whenever we can, for any contributions we make.

184.148.28.151 (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)A group of Teachers

Your use of revdel

Hi Acroterion! Happy labor day! I hope you're doing well and that you're having a great holiday! So, I noticed that you redacted the revision text and the edit summaries to two revisions on User talk:Sro23 (see here). I'm not sure why you redacted the content to either of these revisions, and only one of the two revisions needed their edit summary redacted (for obvious reasons lol). We're only supposed to remove items that meet the policy for it's proper use, and nothing more. Out of the four things you removed here (revision text to two revisions, and the edit summary of two revisions), only one of them needed it. I've restored visibility to the other items for you. If I missed something and if those revisions actually need to be revdel'd, please let me know as soon as possible and I will fix it. You're a great administrator, it's always a pleasure to see you here, and I'm always happy to work alongside you. :-) Have a great labor day! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I did it to short-circuit the cycle of the vandal getting a new IP and simply reverting. I'm fine with you restoring it - I agree that in and of itself it's not a revdel thing, it's more just throwing a stick in the LTA's spokes. Acroterion (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yeah, we just want to make sure that we revdel only what needs to go, and cut the grass no further than that. Revdel is extremely important in keeping the place sane, but its overuse also can hurt. Editors don't have access to that information, and what could otherwise have been scrutinized and used as evidence in a discussion. That's why I patrol the rev del logs and make sure that we're doing the right things. Anyways, no big deal, but I did want to let you know (mostly in case I missed something or if you objected to the changes I made)... Have a great labor day! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright revdel request

copyvio-revdel template commented out to remove this page from of Category:Requested RD1 redactions. Nthep (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I'll be more careful next time wrt to copyright issues as I wasn't aware of this policy. Flaughtin (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

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) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Done as non-contentious housekeeping. Since it has a short history I might do an old-fashioned delete/restore when I remember how we used to do them and I've had something to eat, which will make me smarter. Acroterion (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Why Was My Page Deleted?

Hello,

I am Movement-specialist and I saw that you deleted my page for Stick Mobility due to "disruptive editing". I would like clarification as to why you thought my page should be deleted. There is no promotional content, nor is there any poor editing errors and I believe that it should be re-published.

Thank you in advance for the clarification.

I deleted it as spam, and I see that your account has been blocked by another user as a violation of WIkipedia's terms of use. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User Page Deleted

Hello, My name is Isaiah Leonard. I am messaging you in regards to the deletion of the page I recently created. I understand that this site is an encyclopedia. I have references from other sources about my music. I was wondering what exactly I can do in the future so that my page might not get deleted. I am not using this as a host page, I simply would like to get my information out and available to the rest of the world. If I could get some details about what I can do to make my page more suitable, please let me know. Thank you for your time in advance. I hope we will be able to sort this out.

    Best,
             Isaiah Leonard

Personal attacks?

What personal attacks? You threaten me and accuse me of personal attacks and don't even cite what you are accusing me of doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyph (talk • contribs)

You already know this, but [4] Expect to be blocked if you do anything like that again. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry for the edit conflict at User talk:Sohcb8#September 2020. I did not see your message before changing the block or posting my comment. We can try it your way if you like. – bradv🍁 15:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I was on the edge of what you did myself, I was going to give them a little more rope, but I see no realistic hope that the editor will redeem themself. The recent blatantly misogynistic IP bears watching as well. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

Hi Acroterion,

Did I break the rules or something? You put a Discretionary Sanctions warning on my talk page. If I did break the rules, my apologies. I just started editing.Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

New account?

Hi Acroterion, could you please confirm, that c:User:Acrozillaterion has been created by you? Cheers, Achim (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I've blanked the impersonation on their userpage. Acroterion (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Acrozillaterion fine name! [Wistfully:] Probably cute user! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 14:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

Bishzillapodonen? Acroterion (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Very long! [Bishzilla starts to count the letters, gets confused.] Can only count to hrair, regret! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 15:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

Good thing Bishzilla isn't German: Riesiges tokyo-vernichtendes Monster. The Swedish has a nice ring to it: Jätte tokyo-krossande monster. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

HI!

Do you remember me? Will you do me a favor please? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, what do you need? Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

May I tag you in a rfc so you can close it on the side that you personally think is superior? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Epstein? I have an opinion on the subject - that infoboxes are misused to make arguments they shouldn't make, and in my view it's inappropriate to add parentheticals in that manner, so I won't close it. I will comment, though. Acroterion (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Um no, not that. I wasn't gonna ask you about that. So no need to get involved cause I was gonna ask you about something else. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, what else needs a close? Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh, I forgot. I'll come back to you when I remember. Thank you so much for your quick responses! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

sorry

sorry, I was in a hurry when I typed "gg" and "hh" as summaries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.46.246 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

yo why yo delete my page

i didnt do anything to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilsupremex (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for you to post every possible link to your music, or for you to promote yourself. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please revoke talk page access....again

[5]. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:D82B:F40A:B8D3:A6BD (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads-up. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

My changes on Hunter Biden are Getting Reverted by Someone for No Reason

Some person keeps reverting my edits. I was trying to make details about the email scandal thing sound unbiased, and remove the word "debunked", since it hasn't been, but they keep changing it. Captainjackster (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop, or be blocked. Now. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

But the information people are adding is faulty. There is an ongoing investigation, it hasn't been debunked. I tried to add that, but people are reverting it.Captainjackster (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You may revert once. You've reverted twice, a bright-line violation. You may not edit war even if you are convinced you're right. Use the talkpage, and reconsider your approach to editing controversial subjects. Read the talkpage discussions first. Acroterion (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If you read the newest thread on that talk page, you'll find that Biden supporters are making opinion-based statements that the facts are debunked. Wikipedia says on the Biden campaign page that the matter is being officially investigated, and it even provides a link. But you guysd are telling me I should wait and discuss it first while other people are doing the exact same thing and getting away with it. That seems pretty lame and biased. You're letting a page on your site get slanted to one viewpoint instead of keeping it objective. Captainjackster (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a participant in those discussions. Make your argument on the talkpage and wait for consensus from other editors, bearing in mind that you've already violated the arbitration restrictions on the article by reverting twice. Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The editor persists in edit warring. soibangla (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about revision deletion

Hi, I found your name in the list of administrators willing to handle revision deletion requests. I have little familiarity with this process, but I am wondering if this edit would qualify. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it does, must be an election year. Thanks for the note, and I'm going to look at the IP's activities in general. Acroterion (talk)

Thank you for handling this. Marquardtika (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi there! I'd like to request a revision deletion at Jaime Harrison of this edit. I believe it qualifies under criterion 2 at WP:CRD, as it qualifies as Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material and is a violation of BLP. Thanks! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Why deleting my page?

Ecobisa isn't spam pls. Because it doesn't has a website doesn't mean it's a spam. Pls bring my article back pls. Mrr ecobisa (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It's spam. Don't use Wikipedia for advertising. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained Revert on 2020 U.S House elections

Hi, can you please explain your rollback of updates to the D.C. and American Samoa delegate races? Both races have been called, are sourced, and not controversial. Thanks. Carter (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably a misclick on a browser jump. Sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was worried I'd missed a policy consensus or something ... I'll go ahead and put the info back in. Carter (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

With all the folks watching this stuff I'm sure somebody would have told you. I looked at undoing my revert, but thought it best to avoid screwing it up. If there was one thing I'd change on the editing interface, it would move the rollback button away from the others. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC).

Hello Acroterion

you have reverted my edits, did I do something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.115.26 (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop redirecting sandboxes - you've been warned about this before, and stop editing the pages of blocked users. And pick a sandbox and stick to it. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

but i was just originally placing the ow which is allowed even tho the edit filter dissallows this cus it is on my page, I only started playing with it to test the edit filters when they were preventing things, is there a different place I can test the edit filters to see the messages it gives? and i think the rule is no redirecting from sandbox or else people might edit the page redirected to thinking it is a sandbox but surely there is no problem redirecting from one sandbox to another even if no-one notices they will still edit a sandbox no? and the bot automatically cleans it anyway, but I will just play with X1 for now. 174.77.115.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to work with more than one sandbox, and once you've figured out redirects you don't need to do that again. And blanking with edit summaries like "lol" is a very poor look. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

k, well I just put the lol cus it the filter says it is unconstructive even tho it isn't since sandboxes are suposed to be played in but I will stop that, and I use many sandboxes cus it is fun to combine them and place templates inside of other templates 174.77.115.26 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Endless fun with many templates is really not productive, and messing with edit filters to see what they do is even less helpful. Why not do some real editing? You've done that before. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Well it is easier when I have help, and I don't have help right now and this is safer, cant mess anything important up, but I may have help tomorrow and i will try to be productive. 174.77.115.26 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please be nice

Otherwise nasty people look like partisan hacks. I like Biden but some hate him and wouldn't mind sneaky vandalism.

But I did my duty to bring it up and if nobody wants to fight vandalism, I won't get worked up but rather laugh at how funny or amateur Wikipedia can be. In other words, I withdraw from the conflict. Vanny089 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you forgot to revdel this. An exact duplicate of what you revdelled

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=James_Sears&oldid=988248839 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 00:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I got them, I was checking the range. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Should this be revdelled?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kyle_Chapman&oldid=988270207 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 04:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the heads-up. Acroterion (talk)

Manda

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 63 @Acroterion: Manda Salam --36.71.136.6 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Continued, repeated vandalism to talk page

I left a final warning for the user that you just reverted on my talk page. He has left this nonsensical message several times. Now he has done it again. I hope you won't mind that I am reporting this directly to you instead of posting it on AIV. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Complaint

The edits that I made were not disruptive. I have used the talk page to discuss these matters, and am not engaging in any sort of edit war. The content that was removed is offensive, immoral, and vulgar.

Wikipedia is not censored. Acroterion (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk page vandals

Hello, Acroterion,

I noticed that User talk:Berean Hunter page has been subject to vandalism from Colorado-based IP accounts for the month of November so I've issued semi-protection for three days. But I saw you undid some of these edits so I thought I'd let you know so you could add the page to your watchlist in case it wasn't already. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting, I hadn't gotten around to it. Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain BLP1E.

You threatened block but do not explain your threat. Thoroughly understanding something is the way to go.

I see in BLP1E that

Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

On the other hand, I see so many articles that violate this. What you object is not even an article. I do not propose an article on Nik Dais. Vanny089 (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Pamela Rogers Turner BLP1E??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanny089 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Other stuff does not justify violation of policies elsewhere. School articles are plagued with this kind of thing and persistent attempts to shame non-notable people will be met with sanctions. Sop now, and stop with personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I am NOT attacking you. Please let me know what is an attack or I might think that civil discussions considered by you to be an attack.

Oh, I see. I will be careful about negative information.

I did not know that school articles are plagued with negative info, like you said. Ok?Vanny089 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You're attacking Meters. And yes, every time somebody does something bad at a school, there is a rush to make it a prominent feature of the school's article, in violation of half a dozen policies. There's an edit filter for it. It is very definitely discouraged. We don't use a worldwide encyclopedia to shame people, and school articles are marginal as it is. Acroterion (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I see in that same school, Little Flower Academy, that there was a huge uproar and many news reports when a teacher was discovered to be a lesbian who was pregnant. The teacher was immediately removed from teaching duties. It was covered nationally, not just locally. Would this be co sider a defacto ban on negative information? Meters removed that. Vanny089 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/b-c-teacher-claims-school-sent-her-home-for-being-gay-1.506952

In general, national coverage would make a difference, and the person was presumably not accused of any crime. However, again, I would steer clear of naming people, and since you appear to be having some trouble with BLP in general, I would recommend that you tread carefully on BLP subjects until you have more experience with the policy. Keep in mind articles should focus on their subjects, and not be WP:COATRACKs for tangentially related topics. Acroterion (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Pamela Rogers Turner

Do you think this is a BLP1E? Should this article be considered for deletion? Vanny089 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's marginal, but she received national coverage, probably on account of gender. It's not an excuse for similar material elsewhere, especially if those other events have received no more than local or regional coverage. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Acroterion (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine. But other stuff gives guidance. Conclusion is that I don't care about the Turner article and have no desire to try to get it deleted.Vanny089 (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I knew you were nearby...

...I heard it on the police scanner. Your photo updates are always a pleasant update on my watchlist. APK whisper in my ear 06:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd forgotten you'd moved out there from DC - I have an aunt and cousins in/near Winchester. I was thinking of my parents with that picture - it was the 7th anniversary of my father's death. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks II

I was accused of a personal attack for asking a potential homophobic editor why it was defamatory to ask about a persons sexuality in TALK. I appealed to Admin and received no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Your comment immediately above is another personal attack against Tbhotch, and your talkpage comments were violations of the biographies of living persons policy, which applies in a parts of Wikipedia. Stop with the aggressive comments - you will be blocked for a longer term if this continues. Acroterion (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I havent attacked anyone why wasnt my appeal investigated ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I investigated. You attacked Tbhotch for cautioning you about your edits that violate the biographies of living persons policy by adding unsourced potentially controversial information. You don't get to do that - attempting to frame their response as homophobia compounds the problem.Acroterion (talk),

I asked in TALK if anyone was interested in discussing LH sexuality. Is that defamatory and what is TALK for then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP applies to every part of Wikipedia, and you get no pass for initiating a speculative discussion concerning anyone's sexuality. Talkpages are for specific suggestions for article improvement, supported by reliable sourcing. What you did is a textbook policy violation. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

OK I still think a ban was harsh and being Bi or Gay is certainly not defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A 48-hour block is about what would normally be placed for this kind of thing. No, of course it's not inherently defamatory to be bi or gay, especially if you're open about it, but it is deeply inappropriate to use Wikipedia for speculation about anyone's sexual orientation, gay, straight or otherwise, if they've not mentioned it or are closeted. Remember that you're talking a bout a real, breathing person on a top-ten planetary website. Now that you know that, I'm sure you'll be fine going forward. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

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

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Patrick Kennedy

I was not disruptive editing. I explained my edits in my edit summaries which was reverted.Joseph Patrick Kennedy’s name was Joseph Patrick Kennedy NOT Joseph Patrick Kennedy Sr. His son was Joseph Patrick Kennedy Jr. The editor that was reverting my simple correction was the one edit warring. Look at other similar men who named their sons after themselves with Jr. John F. Kennedy had a son John F. Kennedy Jr. JFK wasn’t referred to as John F. Kennedy Sr. Edward “Ted”Kennedy had a son named Edward “Ted” Kennedy Jr. but Senator Kennedy isn’t referred to as Edward Kennedy Sr. Donald Trump named his son Donald Trump Jr. Donald Trump is not Donald Trump Sr. I explained this on my edit summary. The edits were just reverted sometimes with the simple “Huh?” Someone said that when a Junior makes the father a Sr. It doesn’t. Some people may refer informally to them as for example. John Jr and John Sr. NapoleonX (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of your reasoning, what I see is a return to the behavior that was disruptive. I think you should realize that, and temper your editing where naming is an issue. I'm trying to keep you within the guardrails here. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You reverted a correction back to an incorrection

A band is a single entity, therefore the singular word "is" is used, not "are". Example: "Steely Dan IS an American band", "Rush IS a Canadian band", etc. I corrected the Wishbone Ash page, and you reverted it for some reason. Obviously, anyone who would revert a correction back to an incorrection would fancy themselves as being an edit warrior, so I'll leave it for now, but will bring it up elsewhere for arbitration. Check any page for any band, and you will see the word "is" instead of "are", because grammatically, "is" is the correct word to use. No idea why you would prefer to die on this incorrect hill. Kubrickrules (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily in English English use - you will see that organizations such as bands and corporations are referred to in the plural in UK usage. And this is a UK band. Please respect other varieties of English per WP:ENGVAR. Acroterion (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop leaving messages on my page. Kubrickrules (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't plan to add to my comments, but if the need arises to leave you an administrative notification in the future, I will do so. Please consider a less combative approach to your fellow editors. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about all the edits, my little bro logged onto my computer. Shouldn't have left my username and password on the computer desk, lol. He is, uh, a little bit of a troublemaker. And by a little I mean he gets in trouble every millisecond. Again, I sincerely apologize. This has happened before, though. (See my contributions. All of them were my annoying lil bro.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.218.39 (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the little brother defense gets no traction here - we've all heard that many times. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Bro I'm serious. If you don't believe me, why do I even bother? God, you mods are so bullheaded.

Because it doesn't matter whether it's you or your sibling, and because it's not worth volunteer time to sort out. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm telling the truth! Remember what Henry Louis Mencken said, "It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place." I'm not lying, and even if I was, you know you would too. r/reallybro

Ban

I think 97.83.218.39 should get a ban for consistent vandalism. If you haven't already, tell him to use the sandbox instead. I'd be grateful for it. He doesn't seem like a nice person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.160.214 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm much more likely to block this IP for wasting time with silly games, given that IP geolocation is identical. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)\

What does that mean? I'm new here.

That belligerent IP

Thanks for blocking that IP user. I did not realise this at first, but it has to be Welkinstan, who in turn is an obvious sock of the indef blocked user Rightventracleleft as seen from their respective talk pages. Could you block Welkinstan as well? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll give it a look, I have to leave for a while to run some errands. There has been a spate of hateful editors over the past couple of days across a range of subjects, they're getting blocked without much compunction. Acroterion (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that El C got him first. Yes, definitely an ill-concealed and ill-conceived sock. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Distruptive editing

Looks like 50.52.16.153 is back to disruptive editing. Please take a look again and consider a ban. Thank you Tubbablub (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Re-upped for a month. If they start up again in January it will be six months. Thanks for keeping an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent Reverted Edits

Good Morning,

I hope Tuesday morning finds you well. I would greatly appreciate a little more information as to which parts of my edits constituted vandalism. The orignal post was so biased and deragotry and demeaning that it should be considered vandalism. The author repeatedly called Richard Gage a conspiracy theorist. Scientific process, math, and physics are real processes and laws that govern the world. The article was biased to the extreme, and I simply told the truth by making several small corrections. To use the phrase conspiracy theories or conspiracy theory more than once against an architect who has assembled not just hundreds but thousands of other architects who put their professional careeres on the line to speak truth to physics is demeaning, rude, arrogant, or worse, criminal.

The article before mine was fraudlent and everything I said in my edits is 100% true.

Field Marshal Tamas (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Field Marshal Tamas

Wikipedia isn't a forum for conspiracy theories or their proponents. Wikipedia is not a publisher of personal opinions. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory you peasant. It's high school physics.

And that kind of behavior isn't going to make things better. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion.....you're a "peasant" and here's proof! Thats you on the left I know...dont deny it!!!--MONGO (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Us'ns is a proud people, and we been learned good. Peasantry is all about applied physics. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Space Veteran / Space Cadet

Regarding this, see this. Not a newbie, they've been editing here since 2002. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Viktor Shokin edits

Funny, I would have thought that truth was enough to retain edits in an open forum. Apparently not. Even a cursory review of the Hunter Biden page and the Viktor Shokin page shows active suppression of documented facts concerning improper influence peddling. If this site is intent on merely being an echo chamber for liberal propaganda, then I have no desire to participate. Such sites already have too many cult followers. However, do not expect any contributions from me in the future.

On a substantive point, I "reverted" only once, but I see that actual truth is of no value here when it involves favored political figures.

DEOLES (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You reverted the same thing twice, not counting substantially similar edits to the same effect, and you started shouting in the article. You are not entitled to edit war because you assert that you're right Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

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) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Editors on Antifa sympathizers subject matter suppressing information

Recent edits on Antifaschistische Aktion show FMW777 removing a link to Iron Front on dec 10th, by claiming that it is in the Template:Anti-fascism_sidebar. But it had been removed from the template (twice) by Ziko and was deleted between 9th-14th Dec. Recently, it was restored by @Bobfrombrockley:. Moreover the Antifa (United States) makes no mention of the Iron Front, nor any reference to the fact that Antifaschistische Aktion, whose aesthetics they've adopted, and tried to get on the template, was a Stalinist front for the de:KPD. It seems a semi-coordinated campaign of intellectual dishonesty in suppressing awareness of the Iron Front for social democracy, while trying to co-opt the imagery of the Three Arrows for a movement that opposes it. Also please see the talk page for Antifa (United States), where I was accused of making a personal attack for objecting to this obscurantist editing and alleging a non-WP:NPOV. I tried talking with users about it, but have been threatened on my user page by Bacondrum with having my account blocked. I object to ignorance and suppression of the facts, not to anyone's personality or their basic human traits. Please advise. Thanks for your time.Jaredscribe (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

How strange that the intellectually dishonest version of the article with information suppressed contains the term "Iron Front" on no less than four occasions. Thus, the addition of a duplicate link to a see also section was correctly removed stating "removed duplicate links mentioned in article", since MOS:SEEALSO says As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. Any part of that too difficult for you to understand? FDW777 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to intervene in your content dispute, but I will take action if you continue the name-calling and accusations of bad faith. Don't call people you disagree with "Antifa sympathizers." Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

He's been taken to ANI for failing to drop the accusations. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again world. As doug weller said, this is now on ANI. I suppose I should have taken the content dispute to Neutrality noticeboard instead instead of your talk page. I'm new, and this is the first time I've heard of either of these, and first time contacting an admin. Although we've never interacted, I posted here bc I saw that you were an admin active on this subject matter.

As you say, I should not have referred to anyone's "sympathies" only to their words and actions in editing, and I hope I would be judged the same way. I won't do that again. And thank you for your time in responding. FWIW, I see nothing wrong with being an "Antifa sympathizer", only with suppressing relevant information. I should have said - "editors active in the antifascism subject matter". I myself sympathize strongly with antifascism, I just try to be historical about it and neutral for the encyclopedic purpose. Regardless of any feelings for or against communism or liberalism, I think that they both deserve more credit than they are getting in this field.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I drop all accusations of non NPOV in relation to Antifaschistische_Aktion article. FDW777 is in the right in this case: Iron Front is already linked on that article, which seems to me neutral and informative. I thanked FDW publicly on that pages history, and if FDW wishes me to do something further to atone for this, I will. I was upset when writing and mixed it up; the actual content dispute is with Antifa (United States), where I initiated the discussion now stalled, and with Template:Anti-fascism_sidebar, where editors more skilled at wiki-diplomacy than I are now confronting the bias issue, following my edit there. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Series

Well, Star Wars has so much lore and depth and I think it would only be fitting. Besides, Wikipedia has a series on the Beatles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I ask because that's usually what we use navboxes for. Are you thinking of something like what's described in WP:SERIES, which essentially adapts a navbox? It's something that has to be structured carefully, and has at times been contentious when applied in the portal namespace, so you might want to discuss with some active Star Wars editors to make sure you're not covering old ground. Acroterion (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Your post regarding the 3 edits is founded on incorrect information.

The information that is being posted in factually incorrect and offensive tot he families who have had people committe suicide

I ask you to reconsider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothereorthere (talk • contribs) 00:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're edit-warring. Use the talkpage to describe your proposed edits and why they're supported by references, to achieve consensus with other editors. Edit-warring is a bright-line violation, stating that you're right and everybody else is wrong isn't a justification or exemption. Stop treating the article as a battlefield. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Need Help With Deleted John Robles

Here is the next you stated was an attack. It was not. I am merely stating the facts as they occurred.

This is no way an "attack" on you. However it was an attack on John. As the former lead announcer with the Voice of Russia World Service and the first and only person with full permanent political asylum in the Russian Federation, years before Snowden and Assange, it is a crime against any proper recording of history to delete this person's page. If WikiPedia really is a real source for information deleting such pages because of the reviewers political bias or because the reviewer does not "like" the person is an egregious crime and dirties the reputation of WikiPedia. John was also a WikiLeaks media associate and although you may not have hear about him is famous in Russia and certain geopolitical circles. Revising history and deleting people someone wants to be "unpopular" is not what WikiPedia is about. As you are the person who closed the discussion, which was not really a "discussion" as no opposing views were given audience, I have written to you per WikiPedia's instructions. John is currently and has been the ONLY American with asylum in the Russian Federation and perhaps the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Deleted by Russia-hating trolls" is a personal attack. Stop that, and please post at the bottom of talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Stop editing my user talk page

So I want a crybaby corner on my talk page and you need to spot removing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by PEANUTBUTTERCOOOKIE! (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Talkpages are for productive interaction with other editors who are working with you to improve the encyclopedia - calling other editors "crybabies" isn't what you get to do there. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

sorry

I did not see your message that you for the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentthetigerman123 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

confused

what did I do wrong I added citations and links to reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentthetigerman123 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

For major edits on high-profile topics you must gain consensus on the article talkpage first. You must also be careful about making statements in Wikipedia's voice - you appear to be editorializing. Please read WP:MEDRS, which are a more stringent set of requirements for medical subjects. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

When you have a moment

Hello A. Thanks for the block of this one. Some of their edits and summaries could use some r/d when you have the time. Best wishes fr the rest of your 2020. MarnetteD|Talk 23:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see you are already working on it. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 23:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Relevance

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Schazjmd (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I think you logged off before I sent the email. I've made the same request to Red Phoenix. Schazjmd (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was compelled by my wife to go eat cake and drink wine for a while. Sorted now. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Mikey Chanel

I would like to contest the deletion of Mikey Chanel. I believe that the page, or the subject of the page, is significant because of the Pregnancy of the subject considering how rare it is. I believe that is something to document so people can see and learn about it. I included news sources, not from me, that explain this as a reference as well as government scientific information about the condition and an article about PMDS on this website. I also included a reference (or two) to socialblade.com about the subscribers, this website is used on James Charles' article that has been approved and available to read. With this being said, I would like for the Page to be approved and made available again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Intersex is not inherently notable, nor are social influencers, and Wikipedia isn't the tabloid press. Socialblade is of no use for notability, we need reliable sources, not statistics, and the Daily Mail and Mirror are worse than useless. The whole thing is a badly sourced BLP mess and will not be reinstated for a host of reasons. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of 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/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Yo Ho Ho

Denisarona (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of 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/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Happy New Year!

Acroterion,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! NASCARfan0548 ↗ 23:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Apologies

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

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

Vaccine

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

highfly3442

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

David Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for your efforts

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

Question

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Steveengel

I just filed a WP:SPI [6] related to this. Talk:Gab is known to be targeted for brigading, per notification placed by GorillaWarfare [7], but the confluence of at least two of the WP:SPAs seemed to warrant it. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Alex2021 at Right Side Broadcasting Network

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

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

Talk page misconduct - need guidance

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

Wikipedia discussions like WP:RM are not votes. Comments like Support, per x clearly go against WP:RMCOMMENT: The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments. When a comment violates a policy, there has to be some kind of sanction — otherwise, the policy is toothless. I've seen such comments being struck in previous WP:AfD and WP:RM discussions, and I thought it was common practice, so that's what I did. But I can't find an actual policy supporting this, so I may have been mistaken. Another editor already reverted my changes, and I won't strike these comments again. I'll simply add a comment pointing out that they go against WP:RMCOMMENT. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments like Support, per x don't go against WP:RMCOMMENT. They are shorthand for the same arguments which they point to, avoiding repetition. All is good, since another editor reverted these changes and you don't object. You are entitled to state your view on WP:RMCOMMENT naturally, but crossing them out unavoidably looks like the authors changed their position. Cheers Alalch Emis (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Strikethroughs are only done for blocked editors who've been editing around sanctions or who have been otherwise disruptive - and you're wrong about the way support or oppose !votes are registered. Editors are not required to create wholly new arguments when they agree with someone else's statement. You are not the arbiter of who gets a voice. It is up to the closing administrator to evaluate the discussion and to give appropriate weight after reviewing the comments. Acroterion (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"You are not the arbiter of who gets a voice" — I never intended to. WP:AGF. This RM discussion is super long anyway, and such spammy comments (no matter whether they support or oppose) only make it less readable. I think it would make sense to have a policy to somehow sanction such comments, e.g. striking them, to discourage other users from adding even more of them. But alas, there is no such policy. Well, so be it. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's up to the closing administrator to evaluate the comments, in context. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)