User talk:Acroterion

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

Signpost

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

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 planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Deleted

Hi I recently had a page deleted, and was wondering if I provided proof that the model has a large fan base and made unique contributions to their field of entertainment would that be enough notability to keep the page up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjaxel (talk • contribs)

Please review the guidelines for notability of individuals. You will need to show multiple independent reliable sources that have taken published notice of the person in some depth. That would substantiate notability. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Goatlanndia

Yuck. It looks as if they kept at it and you had to use halite. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I made up my own country at one point in my adolescence - it's a really good way to learn about civics. I would probably have been a pest if Wikipedia had existed in 1972. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Why deleted RugGear page?

Hi there,

I am Charles Bird, Marketing Director for RugGear, a rugged device brand. I am trying to create a company page. I'd like to know why it was deleted before with the G11 reason?

We are not trying to promote, just to show the history and some of the key products in the timeline. How is that considered promotion? Please let me know how to proeceed.

Thanks,

Charles

I went back and checked the deleted version. It was advertising, clearly intended to promote a company and its products. This is why Wikipedia has strict policies concerning paid editing, conflict of interest and promotional editing. Please do not use Wikipedia to advertise products, and please read WP:COI for best practices for editors with a conflict of interest. Acroterion (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion,

You're right, I looked again and didn't believe my eyes, I thought the person I asked to do it knew the tone of Wikipedia. Sorry for this. I will personally rewrite all from scratch.

Charles

Yes, encyclopedic is what we're looking for, not marketing speak. While you're working on it, please review the notability guidelines for companies, provide independent references to support all non-trivial content and to support notability, and please remember to plainly declare any conflicts of interest. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok got it, when you say "declare any conflicts of interest", does that apply to an internal employee of the company, and second, how is that appropriately declared as that info is not in that article you mentioned. Thx.

Everybody involved should disclose - see WP:DISCLOSE for details. Note that you don't have to (and really shouldn't) disclose personal identity, just involvement. Acroterion (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

Does this look like our old friend user:Realitytvshow? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Disregard. Looks like socking all around. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful, after we've given them the benefit of the doubt. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Nikunj3121994 and C program examples

The articles got deleted before I had a chance to check. This user has been warned and blocked before for adding copyrighted material, do you know the origin of the source code he was including? I can't see the revision history etc. of the deleted articles but Adding two numbers in C had some kind of note in the edit summary about the author of the code. This seems like a persistent problem user. He is also painfully ESL so I am going to look at his contributions for grammar problems. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There have been a lot of issues with this editor. I didn't check for copyright issues, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not prepared to block at the moment, but will keep an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Columbia river

Hello Acroterion. I'm asking it here because you have participated to change the visibility of some vandalism. It may be a bit early because the vandalism is still ongoing, but I seem to remember that it's possible to delete history entries (the history is now rather useless after so many edits/reverts), but I forgot where to ask for this or if revdeleters can also do it... and my searches fail to find the docs about it. If you can, that would be most useful. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate - 02:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Back in the Old Days, before we had revision delete, we did delete/restore procedures to deal with this kind of thing, not restoring the bad stuff in the history. It was a significant nuisance to do, and very hard to do with heavily-edited articles - you could bring the servers to their knees if you weren't careful. I suspect this article is a poor candidate for delete/restore. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I hoped that there was a simpler process for this and ignored those design implementation issues. I understand, thanks for the explanation. —PaleoNeonate - 02:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Technically I could do it - it has a little over 3000 edits and the limit is 5000, but I'd want a more compelling reason to do so than simple puerile vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion wube Software

Hey I noticed you deleted the Wube Software page, could you then fix the link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games so the list doesn't have an odd one out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.158.214.31 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jimmyboi36

Hi,

Just wondering if you saw his reply? Is it a personal attack? Adam9007 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat, but I'm graciously ignoring it for now. I don't feel optimistic about their prospects - anybody who deploys that Orwell quote on their fifth edit is looking for an argument. Acroterion (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln/ Kennedy/Titanic IP

Hello Acroterion, Looks as though this problem person has now surfaced as 78.146.107.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with "contributions" on the United 93 pages. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. Acroterion (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Also 149.254.234.196 (talk · contribs). Acroterion (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. David J Johnson (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Re-surfaced again as 92.6.186.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 149.254.234.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). David J Johnson (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, both blocked. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your help, as always, much appreciated. David J Johnson (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I Need Edits Deleted

Hi! I recently made accurate edits to the wikipedia page Dubois Pennsylvania without realizing my IP would be displayed. I was wondering if you could delete these three edits? (They were the one about the Highschool and the second pronunciation of Dubois. They are the recent most three.

I'd much appreciate it! Thanks! -Heather W.

It's not really one of the criteria for deletion, but I've done it and I've reverted the edits to avoid attribution problems. If you want to edit the article, please sign up for an account, and there's no need to use your real name. Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Vince Foster

Hi, Acroterion! Not sure how to proceed with this. Can you check out this edit that moved Suicide of Vince Foster to Death of Vince Foster? This change appears to have been implemented based upon the claims of Miguel Rodriguez whose views don't get any substantial coverage in reliable source. Cheers! -Location (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I brought this up at WP:FTN. -Location (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I moved it back. That kind of move should not have been made without consensus. I left a note on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again! -Location (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Howdy! Was wondering if you wish to, as an expert on the NHS stuff, merge the Rising Sun (Montana) stuff into the Rising Sun Auto Camp article, dumping the advertisement spiel from former in the process? I just returned from Glacier NP...and have some images I will be adding as I can find time...it was a splendid visit but I was not able to get in the backcountry at all, so most of my images are from the main roads.--MONGO 21:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they're the same place and they definitely should be merged. The spam is pretty remarkable, I'll take a few whacks at that so I can see what might be left that's useful. I hope your dad and brother had a good time - even from the main roads it's pretty damn fine up there, and from the images you uploaded it looks like the weather was good. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Weather was glorious, a wee bit on hot side and it was crowded at major sites as expected. GTTS road was in better shape than I have ever seen but the road into Many Glacier was horrid. The heat and crowds kept much wildlife well hidden too sadly.--MONGO 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we picked the hottest week of the year to spend a few days in New York City last week. The wildlife was out in the parks trying to keep cool. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

My trip allowed me to "miss" the bad heat wave in Omaha last week. I now see though that all campfires are banned in the northern Rockies due to the heat and lack of moisture...whereby here at home things are back to normal highs with some rain finally. The worst fires in Montana usually spring up in August and I fear the western reaches of Glacier are way overdue for a big flare up...the forest there is old and dying. I saw the north side of St Mary valley had a big burn since I was last at the park, as did the forest on the Blackfeet Reservation heading up from Two Medicine and descending into the St. Mary valley. While I knew the park would be crowded in July, I also knew the peak fire season is later and wanted to make sure GTTS road would be open.--MONGO 01:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

4BP Horses

Hey Acretoerion - I've removed all links from the 4BP Horses but it was still removed - how do I get it back? Didn't intend for it to be soapboxing. Happy to remove that language as well. - Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamanthaCaplan (talk • contribs)

There were two problems with the article. The language was clearly promotion, not just the links. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for promotional content, it is an encyclopedia. Which brings us to the second issue: all topics are expected to meet notability requirements, see the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for organizations. There was no indication that the organization is notable. If you have a close connection with the organization, please read WP:COI and abide by the best practices noted there. Acroterion (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Airasiaint

why did you delete my airasiaint page?many companies/organizations have their pages here.what's wrong with mine?

Wikipedia doesn't accept advertising, and all articles on companies must meet notability guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

New wiki page for Borderless Access

Hello Acroterion,

Please help in creating a new wikipage for Borderless Access Vinodba (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why? Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello Acroterion. My health is better now, I should be able to contribute soon, and more. JUST a fyi. I am looking at the West Virginia State Capitol and trying to make it a batter wiki articleCoal town guy (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad you're feeling better, you've been missed. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles with no refs

Hi Acroterion, do you have the link for the tool we used to have to find articles needing refs? I thought I could correct a fewCoal town guy (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. I'm committed on a variety of real-life work duties and will look around this weekend. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Nikunj3121994‎ copyvio again

Nikunj3121994‎ has created a copyvio page again (CdmHUB). Was previously blocked for copyvio and has made a number of bad edits since last mention. Does not seem to be reading/responding/reacting to any warning on his talk page or any edit summaries correcting his mistakes. There seems to be no way to interact with this user. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually to be fair I think he got the copyvio material from Composite material. However he has been copying material between articles without attribution which is another kind of copyright violation... —DIYeditor (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Copying between articles is equally a copyvio. I've blocked for two weeks as strike two. The next block will be indefinite. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

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 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Can you semi-protect I Want to Know What Love Is to persistent long-term abuse of Hanoi Vandal. 183.171.181.75 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Easyship Wikipedia Page

Dear Acroterion,

Kingd97 here. I understand that you have deleted the Easyship Wikipedia page due to Criteria A7, but it is extremely important you could reverse the deletion as this Wikipedia page possesses no threat but credible information. With all due respect, many other company companies and brands have made a Wikipedia Page for their companies, including Shippo, Shyp, Google, Apple Inc., and many more. Therefore, what makes the Easyship page different from every other company page that are on Wikipedia? Thank you.

Cheers, Kingd97 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There was no indication that it was notable. See the general notability guidelines and WP:CORP. It was also advertising, which was why it was deleted a second time. It will not be restored. Please do not abuse Wikipedia for advertising. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Understood. But so many other companies such as Shyp and Shippo have a company page... what about them? What is the difference between their company page and the company page that I am trying to create for Easyship? (P.S., I don't mean to disrespect you) Kingd97 (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether other articles exist that shouldn't is immaterial to the ase of Easyship, it must stand on its own. I'll take a look and see if they meet deletion criteria. Acroterion (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I understand. So just for my satisfaction, is there any way I can create a Wikipedia page for Easyship without it being deleted?Kingd97 (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You would need to establish notability by reference to non-trivial mentions in major independent media. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

So basically you mean cite all things necessary? Kingd97 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No, basically I mean that the subject must have received in-depth coverage in multiple reputable sources, which must then be cited. You may wish to write a draft in your sandbox space. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP

I will no longer try to bring up the defecation incident on the talk page, but for the record, vandalism by others should have no bearing on whether something is included on Wikipedia. If something should be included per Wikipedia policy, then it should be included in a non-vandalistic way even if some people have tried to include the information in a way that violates Wikipedia policy. FinalForm (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If you can possibly reconcile the language of the BLP policy with the term "defecation incident" in a biography I'd be impressed. That was the basis of my note to you. The fact that others have been actively defamatory is a matter of degree - all are unacceptable. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Omri Dayan

hey man you recently deltelted my page Omri Dayan, and i was wonderign if you could reverse that i was not quite done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javabula (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

his page should be undelteled for several reasons. First of which is that I was not finished writing I just reached a good stopping point saved it with thought to continue the next day but it was deleted very very quickly. The information I was going to add included some of his past work, why he is important and some of his family history. In addition to that, I have found out today that he is creating a car show(like a meet) which just adds more reason. If possible I would really appreciate this page being restored... An editor has asked for a deletion review of Omri Dayan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Javabula (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no indication that the person is notable according to major independent media, which Wikipedia relies upon to determine notability, nor did it make a credible assertion of notability. The article relied on closely-related sources, which are not useful for asserting or establishing notability. Please see WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yea look at his drivetribe account... he has several thousand followers and if you would just undo it so I can finish it then re-review it? Javabula (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia determines notability. Show us two or three articles in major newspapers or comparable media that show broad notice in the world. Acroterion (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

hey man i read over the guidlines again and realize you are right, maybe in the futer but for now no need for a page, thanks for the help

Hey

Can you see if there's a rangeblock possible? Note my recent blocks and revdels--it's likely all the same person, with only one IP out of the pattern. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a look. I've semi'd the new TFA pre-emptively. Acroterion (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I did a /24 block on the 172.x range, but it appears they have a new range. We'll have to see if it's as narrow. Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing section headings

I tried to revert it myself just now. You beat me to it by seconds. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, a little venting can (and should be) be ignored, but changing the neutral header isn't on. This is the second restriction for that editor. Acroterion (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This [1] was the edit that convinced me that sanctions were needed. Any more accusations like that on any subject and a block would be called for. Acroterion (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor has changed/added a lot of section headings on their talk page in the past, but not for a couple of years I think. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

recreation of Halon Entertainment

Hi Acroterion I noticed you deleted an earlier version of Halon Entertainment under G11. I was considering nominating it at AfD, but am unsure to what extent it is a duplicate of the deleted version. Can you let me know if it is substantially different? Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's nearly identical to the deleted version. Nothing wrong with taking it to AfD if you want to. Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

I shall attempt to form consensus immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConduciveEditor (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:COIN thread of possible interest

Given your conversation a few sections above, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Easyship. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

An interesting tactic. I've reverted to your condensed version and will deliver a warning. An AfD is likely the best move at this point. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. Kind of a weird little episode. Apparently the article has been created and deleted a couple times before. Any idea if the new article is substantially identical to the previous drafts, and/or created by the same person? (I turned in my secret decoder ring a few years ago so I can't check for myself.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You should get your secret decoder ring back - it's been upgraded and now it has a compass and a thing that tells time. You can also commune with the Illuminati if you know the right frequency, which is printed on dollar bills.

The article's pretty much identical to the deleted versions, though lacking the list of founders. All by the same editor, who clearly has an unacknowledged COI. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

172.58.139.63

• 172.58.139.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I know you're not the admin who blocked this IP, but I also know that you've dealt with this vandal in the past. Would you mind disabling their talkpage access? Thanks. 73.96.113.119 (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

NVM, already done. 73.96.113.119 (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Brendanz Dystopia

Hello, I'm curious about the deletion of my page based on a YouTube channel. It was not a promotion of the channel, and it was not poorly written (at least, in my opinion). Are there any suggestions you can give me that would make this page appropriate for Wikipedia? Is it a lost cause? Cheers. Reidsome (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not even close to meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the content consists of personal opinions. It's wholly inappropriate for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln/ Kennedy/Titanic Ip

Hello Acroterion, I'm afraid the block evader has surfaced again, this time under 79.67.78.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have deleted all their current "contributions", but no doubt they will continue until blocked - yet again. Can I leave this with you please? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for spotting them. Acroterion (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I saw that the IP used the same edit summary here that I had used eight hours earlier here. Just wanted to let you know that the IP is not me. I've seen the "LTA: UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP" tag previously but I've never been sure of the history or what it means. Is it one person? -Location (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC) into

The Lincoln/Kennedy/Titanic is based in southern England and uses a variety of mobile IPs (mainly Opal) and school IPs in Sussex to insert some good, some bad, some unproductive and some nonsense into articles on the deaths of Lincoln and Kennedy, sometimes into articles relating to the Titanic, sometimes into subjects relating to Alcatraz, the Halloween movie series, Manfred von Richtofen, das Boot, 9/11 ....

It's one person. When discussing they're mostly cordial, but this has been going on for years with no improvement in their editing, which is either plain wrong or a subtle degradation of the content.. I've been blocking IPs as I see them for maybe three of four years, they're pretty easy to spot. Acroterion (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to correct Acroterion, the majority of IPs are in Essex or the northern outskirts of London. He is absolutely right regarding the quality of the "edits". David J Johnson (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least I didn't say they were in Wessex. Acroterion (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've observed the mixture of quality in the edits that you two have mentioned. Given that so many IPs edit in these articles, how is this IP easy to spot? Typically I just revert or edit what is wrong and move on. -Location (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Acroterion. Can take a look at the edit history of the Jack Ruby article? I'm not sure if it is the L/K/T IP, but two IPs struck back-to-back and seem to be tag-teaming in a few of the same articles, including Lincoln assassination. @Sundayclose: -Location (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC) <outdent> Both IPs blocked, thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

WTC advice

Hi Acroterion, thanks again for your encouragement on the WTC collapse article. I've now gotten the existing material moved around and trimmed the way I think it should basically be, and I'm getting ready to comb through it with the Good Article guidelines in mind. There is one last bit of content, however, that I think needs to be added. Like the Moon landing and JFK assassination articles, the collapse of the WTC has an associated "conspiracy theory" article that it seems weird not to link to. In the other two cases, the problem is solved simply by having a small summary of the CT article. This is of course the whole crux of past controversies, so I want to be careful about introducing it. But its absence here is actually more glaring than its presence would be, and with the article now otherwise completely "mainstream" there seems to be no issue of weight or balance. I'm hoping to get your agreement about how to do this before I proceed. Without your support, I think any effort in that direction would be futile. What do you think? --Thomas B (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a land mine. I am personally no proponent of inclusion of any more than a link to any conspiracy theory on any subject where conspiracy theorists are active. My experience with Truthers has run the gamut from WTC was nuked/disintegrated with particle beams to people who think the intelligence agency screw-ups have not been fully examined. The so-called professional organizations that promote CTs have no credibility in their professions and are no more than cottage industries with an internet megaphones. It's Been my experience on all subjects where CTs are active that it's a contant struggle to keep the content from going off the rails. Their consensus that exists was arrived at after much acrimony and I am skeptical that any new consensus will be established anytime soon. I suggest extreme care in approaching this one. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Just want to add my complete support for Acroterion's comments above. Frankly those of us who edit the 9/11 articles are fed-up with the constant attempted insertion of conspiracy theories. The "contributions" from ThomasB, whilst some of the moves are good, seem to be a sophisticated attempt to re-introduce those theories. David J Johnson (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's a contentious area. And I'm not going to go into it without some support from people who, like you (including David), have no time for CTs in real life. What we have to imagine is a reader who hears about "controlled demolition" for the first time and goes to Wikipedia to help get a handle on the issues. At the moment, the suppression of any mention does not suggest credibility and leaves the reader with needlessly unanswered questions. Consider NIST's FAQs on the Towers [2] and WTC7 [3]. Both of them acknowledge and reject controlled demolition. I think this must be included, not out of fairness to conspiracy theorists, but out of kindness to the reader. Why not inform the reader about the simple fact of NIST's rejection of the theories? The Apollo and JFK pages, like I say, do this perfectly well. And I don't think there's much ongoing acrimony about it. (I guess I could be wrong about that.)--Thomas B (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me about this particular CT and how we might try to discuss it is the fascination by CT enthusiasts about promoting the means over the ends. They go into great detail about how it supposedly happened, but not why. While this isn't entirely unique, it assumes an overwhelming emphasis on technicalities, many of them based on fundamental misunderstandings of the behavior of materials (steel loses most of its strength at temperatures far short of its melting point) and how structures fail. They focus on collapse and never really explain why all this had to be done at the cost of 3000+ lives. They also generally discard the Washington attacks in favor of the thing where "X looks like Y so it must be Y.". Roughly half of those who attribute a motive at all blame the Bush administration, and the other half blame an Israeli or Jewish conspiracy. And therein lies the editorial problem - the most sophisticated conspiracy theory proponents focus exclusively on the how over the why, which must go begging. The fascination with constructing theories must remain focused on material things, because motivations and actors lead only to vague speculations about the actual nature of the conspiracy, whose means are described in CTs at excruciating length.

As someone who keeps a distant eye on Kennedy stuff, it's a constant problem and there is indeed a great deal of acrimony. Take a look at the Kennedy talk archives, they go on and on. However, the cottage Kennedy assassination industry is far broader and more mainstream than 9/11 Truthers. Both Apollo and Kennedy CTs at least manage to discuss potential motivations better in CT enthusiasts sourcing, and both at least offer greater internal consistency in motivation.

In any case, a little reorganization can't hurt. Like many WP articles, there's a tendency for many small edits and reversions to turn it into word soup. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it may be a moot issue. Everyone (other than you) who has commented on my reorganization has found my changes unacceptable--those who care about the article seem to prefer the old version. To me, there is no point in discussing the CTs if we can't even get NIST's explanation right.

The concern raised by Tom Harrison on the article talk page reveals a sticking point, I think. He wants to be sure that blame is assigned to al-Qaeda. That's understandable. But I don't think readers of the article are looking for that ultimate cause. They want the physics explained to them. They want to know how a plane, no matter how it got there (by accident, say), could bring the buildings down. This actually parallels what you're saying about CTists. I think many of them just want to get their mind around the physics, not the motives. (Although I think you're wrong that they don't have all kinds of theories about motive.) It's because they don't understand NIST's explanation that they think there must have been bombs. If there were bombs, they say, then it makes sense again. Without bombs, they don't understand how it could happen. My point is that the article should do a better of job of explaining exactly that.--Thomas B (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been meaning to go through in detail and see if Collapse of the World Trade Center should or can be updated. I've reluctantly watched Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories and think there are lessons from the experience there that can be incorporated. However, I lack the time at the moment to undertake any serious editing. I am, in fact, concerned that your sole focus is on this article after it was a factor in your former topic ban. I suggest going slowly - I'm not in a position to review your changes in detail (I'm on a train to New York, and have been traveling or working all week), so I can't comment on what other editors have been saying or doing, and my initial comment applies to your first few edits. I'll review the past couple of days of history when I get a chance. Liberal talkpage use is essential. Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Have a good trip.--Thomas B (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC?

I would be interested to see an RfC on my proposal [4], mainly seeking comment from people who have not been directly involved. I don't think it will be taken seriously if I propose it. But if it's something you think would be useful, people might take the time to consider the matter carefully. I really do think those who are defending Wikipedia from conspiracy theories have lost sight of the ball and are now going only after the man. The result is that the article is not nearly as good as it could be.--Thomas B (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You have no interest here other than advancing your crackpot nonsense in an article based on the facts...when we already have articles elsewhere that already cover this in excruciating details. Since you have zero interest aside from promoting this nonsense the website should consider topic banning you again.--MONGO 10:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

WTC Reverted

Like I said, I did not come back to engage in these controversies. You seemed to understand and appreciate the edits I had made so far. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not going to engage with MONGO on this. It is pointless. If you can open his mind, great. Otherwise I'm going back into retirement. Except for the value it would have to the article, it's not worth any trouble.--Thomas B (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

But that is exactly what Thomas B did - see MONGO's Talk page. I'm afraid that anything this user states is unreliable and still wishes to promote CT's in a sophisticated way. Frankly, he is best ignored unless he starts promoting in the article(s). If only he would go "back into retirement", as he has promised. David J Johnson (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Klein Tools wiki

I recently received a message from you about COI on the Klein Tools talk page. I am the copyright holder of those images that I wanted posted but do not have a high enough status to update the wiki page. Recently the wiki page could only be edited by credible users and I work for Klein and am just trying to update the wiki page with new photos and the new logo that we have. Every photo has been accepted by wiki commons. Please let me know how I can unlock the Klein Tools wiki page and update it with the new photos.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhoulis1 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Documentary about the Police

Hi,

I was prompted to create an account and send you a message by your Andy Summers / Police slide scans.

I am independently making a documentary about the Police and would like to ask if you have any more sequential shots from this show (or any others) which you took - and if you would consider allowing me to use them in my draft of the film? I can show you some cuts, examples of how I have used other photo sequences etc

No work from photographers will be used in a final production for even possible distribution without agreement by the photographer of course.

Message me here with best way to contact you - I am unsure about leaving my email address here as I do not know if this message is publicly viewable or not...

Thanks for your time,

Ben Melbourne, Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzealandpromoter (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You can email me through the "email this user" button (once you've enabled email for your account). I don't have a lot more - color film was expensive and I was a starving student at the time, working for my college newspaper. The images I didn't use were very similar but had technical issues that would not add to the narrative, but I should look through them again. There apparently were two tours that stopped in Atlanta that year and I'm not as certain as I thought I was about which one. Email me and we can discuss at greater length. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Mass murder list

I just opened my sandbox to mess around with something and noticed I once prepared a list on Mass Murders in the US in 2006. Seems a shame to throw it away. Is it article-worthy? here. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it can be developed, but you need to place it in its own sandbox and trim the stuff like "Education in Arkansas." You should also do a column for events that have an article. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Could use some help

Hi, I just noticed my talk page. I did not even know I had one. I see several mentionings where I have been editing articles. To my knowledge I have never edited a wiki article, nor has anyone else whom shares my IP address. I dunno if someone is hacking my account or...what? I dunno. I did not even know I had a talk page until now. Love Wikipedia & do not want to see it damaged. Therefore I request you to please block my IP address from editing articles in the future. I do not see myself becoming an editor now or in the future. Thank you. 107.77.173.10 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Josh

You have a dynamic IP that is periodically reassigned. Other people have used it in the past and others will use it in the future. We don't pre-emptively block IPs, and you can disregard the messages meant for others in the past. Acroterion (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist redlink

Something is up with File:Cropped Penis des Menschen.jpg at the WP:Image blacklist; the file still exists but is showing as a redlink on the list. I think it's because it's missing "File:" ahead of the file name. Home Lander (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

E move protection

When you protected E, you changed the move protection level to "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access". Did you mean to keep the move protection (not the semi-protection) at "Require administrator access?" —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should have remained as it was. I'll fix it, thanks for spotting my mistake. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

An inquiry about page deletion

Hello, Acroterion, this is Luhanae, yesterday I created a page of Lover beauty, and it was deleted, which said it may seem to be an AD, so now I want to recreate this page, can you give me some advice.

Luhanae (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It was advertising. Wikipedia doesn't accept advertising, and it only publishes about subjects that are notable], that have received significant coverage in independent major media. If you have a close connection to the subject, please read the conflict of interest guidelines - you must follow them. Acroterion (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

User:172.56.13.103 // contribs

Howdy, don't forget to revoke their talk page access. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 02:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Help, Vandalism on List of video game emulators

Help, This is 86.174.240.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has Been Vandalised edits on List of video game emulators see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. LG-Gunther :  Talk  02:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked and protected. Thanks for spotting it. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not me !!!

It is actually not me who are putting more words into a article. There is somebody else who is constantly messing around in the community portal of Wikipedia!

[16], [17] and [18] are all you. Acroterion (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

WHAT DID I DO!?!?

I am telling you the truth bro. IT IS NOT ME WHO WANTS TO VANDALISE THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:(

Your English skills aren't up to what you think are grammatical improvements. You're not a vandal, but your edits are unintentionally disruptive, and you're edit-warring to keep bad edits. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Hello,

you deleted the page I have created on "Warwick Congress".

This page should not be speedily deleted because it provides important information for the students of the University of Warwick and other UK/European universities. Warwick Congress is a startup conference that was founded in 2016 and has been very successful on the campus of Warwick Uni. It would be a shame for the students of the university of Warwick and other universities to delete this page, which provides a quick and easy overview over one of the biggest conferences on Campus.

According to A7 of Criteria for speedy deletion "with the exception of educational institutions." this article should clearly not be deleted as it directly linked to the University of Warwick, which indeed is an "educational institution" and Warwick Congress is an academic conference at Warwick University.

This article is still a work in progress and I will link external sources to show the media acclaim to this academic conference in due course.

Rico42424 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Academic congresses are events, not educational institutions, and all articles must make a credible assertion of notability. Notability is not inherited from a parent organization. Please work on the article as a draft in your sandbox space, and please provide references to major independent media that substantiate notability. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC).

IT'S STILL NOT ME !!!!

I do not care if you block me or not but it is still not me who is making the changes. If you STILL don't belive me, you can check on my contributions and almost every edit I do is actually HELPING Wikipedia. You can block me if you want, but I'm just telling you that I'm not the trouble maker here.Thechinesekid (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you're not listening to other editors when they tell you that your well-intentioned edits aren't up to basic expectations for grammar and factual basis. We expect a basic level of competence - neither your proficiency with English nor your ability to take advice seem to measure up. Good intentions aren't enough. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You do not block people like that.

Although I am not supposed to have personal attacks, that does not mean that you should just block me without a warning. According to Wikipedia, you were supposed do a block properly by giving that person a warning before blocking them. Be careful of your actions next time.Thechinesekid (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No warnings are generally given or necessary for violations of the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks. And I'd advise you not to try to tell admins here what to do, especially when you've just returned from a block for violating that policy. General Ization ^Talk 05:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thechinesekid: Tbh, when you've just come off a block for personal attacks, I can think of wiser things to be doing than immediately telling the chap responsible he should "Be careful... next time." — fortunavelut luna 10:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, this user is back at Thechinesekid 2. Sro23 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not anymore, they're not. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter

My best guess at the best solution at this time: 877. Per this, range blocks are always a possibility, but not without collateral; I've put one down today. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Last edit to bad image list

The last edit that you made to the bad edit list was incomplete. It didn't have the G]] at the end.Naraht (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry.

I am very sorry for all of the rudeness that I gave you, but can you help me improve my new user page? Thank you!Thechinesekid (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

UAA

I saw you removed a username from the history at UAA - you might want to remove the bot summary too, it included it in the edit summary when it removed it. Home Lander (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am only doing some HOUSEKEEPING.

I am not trying to be "disruptive", but you have to understand that I am only answering requests on Wikipedia.-Thechinesekid (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Please stop this nonsense now. Acroterion is a much respected admin and has offered you serious advice, also your use of Caps is considered "shouting" in Wikipedia. If your are not prepared to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively - then leave now. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You aren't able to properly respond to requests of this kind, and from your note above, you don't appear to be able to understand the limits of what is appropriate. Your actions have had the effect of disruption. Please take it slow. Acroterion (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Unblock 175.156.10.171

Hi! I'm ISingOk As you probably know you just blocked my IP and also it is not A school you're just abusing your admin!!!! Please unblock as you currently know you didn't reached me a warning! ISingOk (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you help?

There's a guy named User:Shellwood who is keep on having personal attacks on my talk page when I was doing helpful edits onEthnic minorities in China. I am an actual Chinese person on this site and I have the experience to edit the article. Can you formally tell that person to stop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechinesekid (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

These are warnings not personal attacks. You keep making unconstructive editing and removing material from my user page which is vandalism. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC) ~ GB fan 10:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

GB fan, then what do you call this? If its not vandalism what is it? Shellwood (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Shellwood,It is disruptive but I would not call it vandalism. This is exactly how vandalism is defined in the policy;

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

How did the removal of that userbox obstruct or defeat the project's purpose? Does the presence of that userbox improve the encyclopedia in any way? Does it removal hurt the encyclopedia in any way? In my opinion the presence or absence of that userbox makes zero impact on the project's purpose, so it is not vandalism to remove it.

With that said, he was being disruptive, see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and I was very close to indef blocking him. ~ GB fan 10:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree on all points. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked Thechinesekid indefinitely - this isn't the first time they've initiated a vendetta, and it appears to me that they presently lack the required maturity to edit Wikipedia productively without wasting everybody else's time to clean up after them. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Request

Acroterian, On the WikiMedia Commons web site I viewed a photo of yours with the file name, File:Hager House.jpg. I would like permission to use this photo in the 3rd edition of a book I am writing on historic preservation. Your photo would be a wonderful example of vernacular (folk) architecture. Of course, attribution will be given as you designate if permission is granted.

Information describing the 2nd edition of our book can be found at our web site at: .

References

Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. I would appreciate a response via my email, since I do not check the Wiki Talk Page regularly.

Norman Tyler, Architect/Planner, FAICP

Ntyler1944 (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Replying via email. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

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 and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

93.86.248.199

Please revoke talkpage access for user:93.86.248.199 . CLCStudent (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Capetian House of Anjou

Your allegations are baseless. These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed. The person who removes obvious facts grossly violates the rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duconte (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Gschadow

...is still at it, now adding personal attacks on the other editors to their repertoire over at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory. I think they've been warned enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

More griping than anything else there and on their talkpage, and not worth another ping-pong round of advice ignored. I'll keep an eye out for trouble. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
Message added 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thought you might want to contribute to the discussion. Shearonink (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

What was this for? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Misclick on a slow browser that was still loading - sorry about that, didn't realize it reverted. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it was just probably a minor mistake. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

I suggest you read the history and then do something about the vandal-bot.

I suggest you stop behaving as you have, or you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversing redirects

Hi, Acroterion! Frank Nugan currently redirects to Francis John Nugan and Michael Hand currently redirects to Michael Jon Hand. Both are known in conjunction with the Nugan Hand Bank scandal which has a CIA conspiracy theory attached to it. As the vast majority of reliable sources use the common names "Frank Nugan" and "Michael Hand", I am wondering if you are willing to reverse the redirects that were put in place by a pro-conspiracy editor here and here. If you prefer that I take it through the regular channels, just let me know. Thanks! -Location (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm on vacation and am working from an iPad (I hate editing from an iPad) in an attempt to avoid real-life work, but at some point I'll fire up the laptop and take a proper look. Otherwise, feel free to work it the other way. I expect tomorrow I'll be at the beach watching waves from Maria, so it may be a while. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Order

Who are you to make decision, Ah!

All I stated was facts, and theories.

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Josh Mayo page deletion

Hello my friend, I noticed that the page Josh Mayo was deleted multiple times and was locked by an administrator indefinitely in 2009. Since then, Mayo had a successful career as a professional basketball player. As a leading player, he helped his current team Bonn qualify for the international Basketball Champions League. Many newspapers have written articles about him (check out e.g. http://www.general-anzeiger-bonn.de/sport/telekom-baskets/Josh-Mayo-ist-ein-Allstar-article3446893.html). He has a page in the German, Spanish and Italian wikipedia. Can you please unlock the site so that he can gain an English entry, too? Thank you very much .. Stephreef (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. The Josh Mayo that was deleted was an entirely different person - this often happens. I've unprotected the title so you can write an article - there is no point in restoring the earlier content that doesn't relate to your subject. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

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 and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination source

Hi, I was in the process of adding the source. I will edit again in a couple of minutes. Review and tweak as you see fit. 47.196.80.109 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Nikunj3121994‎ copyvio 3rd strike

User:Nikunj3121994‎ is at it again. This edit in more clear English than he is capable of is straight from the section on "Crack Bowing" in this book with a few minor modifications. This user is just not learning despite recently claiming on his talk page to understand that he needs to improve, after I, with considerable patience, went into some detail about problems he is having. Communicating with him is nearly impossible. The previous warning at User talk:Nikunj3121994#August 2017 was that if the copyright violation happened again the block would be permanent. My only concern would be with him coming back under a different username and evading notice while damaging articles but I have watchlisted his favorites. I had thought it better to easily keep an eye on him rather than force the issue but I think it is past that. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, blocked idefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln/ Kennedy/Titanic IP

Hello Acroterion, Just to give you the "heads-up", it does look as though the LTA has started-up again, as 78.146.97.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with a series of obscene comments on various Talk pages, including my own. The location, and other "contributions" of this IP seems to indicate that the Lincoln/Kennedy/Titanic IP has surfaced again. Admin Widr has blocked the IP for a week, but I wonder if this is long enough, considering the history of this disruptive person? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an Opal mobile IP, so a week is about as long as can be justified. They probably already have a new IP. I see they were careful not to attack any administrators. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I was told i was being disruptive

In reality i was editing a page with actual facts. I suppose that the moderators are centrist conservatives or something. Donald Trump's grandfathers birth name was Drumpf. This is fact. ive been donating to wikipedia for years and have always claimed its accuracy to naysayers, this is a big slap in the face.

Apologies

Dear Sir, Sorry kindly excuse me for using the talk page inappropriately. But the edit war involved the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Medical_College which is my Alma mater and i was merely updating the page for the recent updates about the college and about the new journal it has launched . My college is purely government funded college , and in India, it is a big achievement for a government college to start a journal. but the said user merely deleted my edits time and again with out even having any first hand knowledge about the institution and also i would like you to also note i added the appropriate references for all information. Hence the edit war.

United Daughters of the Confederacy

I am having a problem at that page. you made an edit, Revision as of 19:20, 19 August 2017 (edit) that returned "Kirk Savage, professor of history of art and architecture at the University of Pittsburgh, wrote in his book Monument Wars that the UDC has tried to legitimize Jim Crow rule in the American South."

References

I recently removed that section after emailing Dr. Savage about it because I could not get a hold of the book. Here is the reply I got from him.

"Dear Einar, I think this is the first time I’ve been consulted on a fact check! It’s wrong btw — I did not discuss the UDC in Monument Wars. I did a little bit in Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves. p158 I talk about the UDC’s role in the faithful slave monument"

Needless to say the editor at the article was not willing to accept this. So what do I do? The author has told me that he did not write it and I am supposed to tell him, "Gee, sorry, but wikipedia policy says that you did. Sorry man."

This is really getting difficult. Because in a similar article List of Confederate monuments and memorials I had questioned using the SPLC as a source for something and was informed by the same editor as above that there was a 99.9% chance that anyone questioning the SPLC as a source was involved with some hate group. So what do I foo. I saw that you had marginally been involved already, I knew that you were an Admin, we had had some correspondence in the past, so hear I am.Carptrash (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled by the assumption of bad faith in their edit summary [19]. Can you provide a diff or the Confederate monuments comment? Acroterion (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the post at RSN. Morty's getting carried away with a personal POV. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I find it interesting that not long ago I used a definition of racism that proved I was a marxist, now I am a CSA lovi' hate grouper. That pretty much covers the spectrum. Thanks again, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2017 (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 18:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Delite

Hi Acroterian. Back earlier this year in April, you deleted Delite and apparently salted the page because it was repeatedly being recreated. Well, as you can see from the deletion log, the article was recreated again shorty after the protection ran out. The account that was used to create the article this time around (Famousvideomovies) only seems to have been editing for a few days, but it's quite possible that the editor is the same one who kept recreating the article earlier this year. Can you figure out who that was and whether they might have been blocked for doing so? If they are still currenlty blocked, then this might be a case of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it's likely, but I don't have anything that I can definitely point to. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion

I have realised you just have blocked User:Генерал Радев, a sock of User:PavelStaykov. Immediately afterwards he has registered a new one sock called User:Генерал Радев. He is abusing me on the edit summary as usually here. Regards.

Precious three years

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter/False positives/Reports

Did you possible remove one too many edits there, you reverted two editors. The second editor seemed legit unless I missed something. TVGarfield (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Never mind, I went and looked at their attempted post in the filter log. TVGarfield (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, both were making mischief that was caught by the edit filter, both are blocked. About half the reports of false positives are vandals waving a big flag. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Antifa Civil War

Excuse me, but you deleted the article Antifa Civil War, citing it as a blantant hoax which you would do a simle google search you would know it was not. Also, read some of the articles in the Google search. I'll be waiting for you to restore it, thanks.--Democratic Backsliding (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Democratic Backsliding: Yeah, right. Home Lander (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm right, so put it back.--Democratic Backsliding (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll be waiting for you to provide evidence that it's not a hoax, using mainstream media for your sources. In the meantime I've warned you for wasting everybody's time with speculative articles that seem entirely unconnected with reality. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Help on Page

I tried to create a page but it keep having draft: in front of page name. please how to solve that.

It can be moved into article space when it's ready. Right now it isn't - it needs sourcing to support the content and to provide that the subject is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. You will be able to move the material once you've had a set number of edits and your account has a few days on it. In the meantime, please find sources in major independent media. Personal knowledge is not sufficient. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of my Account

Dear Acroterion,

You recently deleted my account and I am currently using my account for a class assignment. In this class, we are required to learn more about Wikipedia and get started on this website. I did not intend to plagiarize, I simply did not know enough about Wikipedia and its policies. I have learned the constraints and requirements now and ask you to reverse your deletion of my account. Again, I apologize and this will not happen again. I really need my account back for my class and would really appreciate your help. Thank you in advance, Victoria Rihm

Acroterion did not delete your account, because Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted. See Wikipedia:Username_policy#Deleting_and_merging_accounts. Your contributions still are listed here, for example. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What I did delete was the copyrighted material you copied into Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia doesn't permit you to do that, I can't and won't restore it. You can't do that in class in any case (that's where the plagiarism warning comes into play) or here, and in addition Wikipedia doesn't host material that is under copyright elsewhere. You must use that material as a source and write your own prose in accordance with Wikipedia requirements, and probably in accordance with your school's policies as well. You account is not deleted as Boris (who is, by the way, a university professor) has noted. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, please sign the posts you make on Wikipedia by typing four tildes at the end of your post, like this ~~~~. That way talk page stalkers like me will be able to follow you to your talk page and offer more advice (if needed) regarding contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Recover Sandbox

Thank you for your response. Could you possibly do me a huge favor and recover my sandbox since all of my information was posted in there. I had all of my sources in another document and simply did not add them yet. There will be no more issues with plagiarism, the sandbox was simply a draft and I need the information back for my project. Thank you. Victoria

Talk page stalker reply Please read the documentation at WP:AFTERDELETE. You will not be able to retrieve any material you submitted to wikipedia, which was deleted as a result of a copyright infringement. You will have to do the work again. Although this might be a bit of a sting this should serve as a decent lesson for a student performing research, not to publish material which you do not own - not to mention the all important lesson: keep regularly updated offline backups of all your course work. Edaham (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional - I have left a message on your talk page showing you how to generate a list of all existing subpages under your username, should you use this method to store material in the future. Edaham (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your sandbox was deleted because it was largely copyright infringement. Once again, you can't do that. It can't be restored to Wikipedia. I can email the deleted content to you - but I'm reluctant to do that because you don't appear to quite understand that you may not represent other people's work as your own. Not on Wikipedia, and not in school. That's what plagiarism is. Lightly paraphrasing or quotefarming other work doesn't fix it. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion, Could you possibly recover my unpublished Sandbox article. I was not finished with it yet and had not been able to add the sources before it was deleted and would greatly appreciate being able to refine my article. Thank you in advance.

VictoriaR1997 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)VictoriaR1997VictoriaR1997 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

See comments above. We cannot restore a sandbox that consists mainly of copyright violations. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

IP:86.124.204.188

Hello Acroterion, Could I bring to your attention the activities of 86.124.204.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding edits to 2 World Trade Center and recently to 5 World Trade Center The IP is constantly changing the status of the building and has made 5 reversions to their view, without giving any detail and refusing to answer or discuss on their Talk page. The IP appears to be in Romania. Could I suggest a short block, as they don't seem to want to discuss their "edits". Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Both topics protected rather than blocking, since the IP moves around a lot. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Acroterion.

I am actually User: Thechinesekid, but I am here to say sorry and please unblock me for my past mistakes. I now know that I am not supposed to argue with people that are trying to help me, as I am a beginner at this website. This is not meant to be a sock-puppetry attempt, but to let you know that I am good enough to join back to this online community.

Your block of 108.48.26.108

In view if their recent talk page edit, blocking them from editing their talk page is recommended. Might want to extend the block as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Talkpage access removed and block extended - it doesn't seem to be a highly dynamic IP, some of those Fios IPs are fairly stable. Thanks for keeping an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Just happened to catch that on the list of recent changes. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ok then

SO what are you going to do to defend my work from editors who keep removing it without just cause? --Bojackh (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You have four reverts. Stop reverting or expect a block. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thats not an answer to my question. Is it really so horrible he might have been atheist? Bojackh (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You have passed three reverts. You are expected to gain consensus and not to revert if you don't have it. More than three reverts is a bright-line violation that is blockable. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And how is that supposed to happen when it is materially evident the majority of editors have no interest in allowing relevant and well cited information due to a conflict of interest? Bojackh (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Now is the time to remind you to assume good faith. Please remember that administrators address behavioral problems, not content, and that content is determined by community consensus for better or worse. 3RR and aspersions against other editors are dealt with by administrators. Please take a break from that subject - I'm sure that sources will address your concerns one way or another. These current events usually move around a lot at first, and 48 hours are usually needed for appropriate sourcing to become available. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"content is determined by community consensus for better or worse." There's no way wikipedia runs blindly on the will of the masses. If it did China would be running this place. Bojackh (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not only is Wikipedia run by consensus, the Chinese version is effectively banned in China. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe for Chinese civilians. And no. Wikipedia does have people who's job it is to intervene when the majority of editors are clearly in the wrong. Bojackh (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of Chinese civilians. And no, there are no special users who intervene in content decisions, that is determined by consensus. Administrators do not have supervotes that permit them to adjudicate content. You may be interested in the consensus process - see WP:RFC and WP:DR. Acroterion (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Correction - it's currently available without VPN (possibly subject to regional variations and other keyword filters). I was translating my CnWiki user page last night on a non VPN machine in Shanghai. Access via 4G is limited apparently by city district level ISPs as some areas of the city provide access while others don't. Edaham (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been in and out depending on HTTP vs HTTPS, etc. In any case, the Chinese government is less than keen on crowdsourcing. Mainly, the government seems to want to know who's editing and what they're saying. Acroterion (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2017 (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. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblocked IP (2601:84:4502:61EA:700A:7DF0:CCE1:ECC7)

I went ahead and blocked the 2601:84:4502:4000:0:0:0:0/50 range 1 week for the extraordinarily bad behavior. Just FYI. If half of New Jersey loses Wikipedia editing privileges, you'll know who to blame. Regards, GAB^gab 01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I gather they've been busy in other places? Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. GAB^gab 15:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Same user, but different talk-page

Hi, can you close this subsection that was started by the same guy who appears to want people to believe that the lion is bigger than the tiger, or something like that? Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

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: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You fear what ??? you and the other administrators base your case on bad arguments, opinions or lies (fake videos on tigers beating lions) most that is written in favor of the tiger this is the problem... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You want stop me from writing about your lies because you didn't base your case on evidence but you base your case on bad arguments, opinions or lies most that is written in favor of the tiger ... do like you want i'm not a child to speak with like that !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoleo7495 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You are a force for normative obfuscation. You should be ashamed.

Accuracy is accuracy, even if you are squeamish about admitting facts. Attempting to keep articles as they are at the expense of accuracy is a deliberate obfuscation of the truth. Shame on you. It is clear from other users' comments that administrators like you are the reason that broad corporate objectives are propagated by Wikipedia. It is such a shame. We already have published encyclopedias in which articles are vetted and paid for by corporations and political interests. Extending that agenda to Wikipedia is evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyalanstewart (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your gripes about Nike or its personnel. There are lots of other places on the Internet for axe-grinding. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to file away "normative obfuscation" for later use, right next to "revanchist imperialism." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This [20] is the all-time best rant I've ever gotten. You absolutely cannot top "People like Acroterion neither drink nor gargle from the fountain of knowledge but pass miles away from it. The result is that the truth becomes a victim of their straw like intelligence." It lacks the academic luster of "normative obfuscation," but the English language never disappoints. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That guy should apply for the opening at the DPRK Department of English Rhetoric and Reeducation. That's talent!

By the way, have you guys gotten your checks this month from the Corporate Benefaction Fund? Mine's running late. Antandrus (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Way behind for me too, I've had to keep my day job for the time being to keep the lights on. What's the good of being a corporate shill if they don't at least pay for beer money? Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

They kept saying "the check is in the mail," and when the damned thing got here it bounced. Bastards. It's almost enough to make me think of taking an honest job instead of furthering the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• This is all the more ridiculous in that the quote the editor keeps trying to insert into articles was very obviously referring specifically to Adidas, not to the Aztec people: "Originally annointed Aztec in honour of the Olympic host city, adidas spoiled the ceremony by releasing the Azteca Gold. Threatened with legal action, the name was changed at the last minute to Cortez". [21] Who's the obfuscator now? Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure I'm still a normative force. Of course, Wikipedia's a normative organization by design, so we're all just dupes of The Man. Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Disentroutulation

Damnit, I was just looking for a picture of sliced almonds to go with it! Anmccaff (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Mmmmm trout almondine is a fave of mine as well Anmccaff. Thanks for the revert Acroterion. This IP hoppers been around for a few days (at least) but I don't know if anyone who has tried to tie them to a LTA. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Any idea what they're on about? Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well the two recent IPs that I've seen 35.2.114.100 (talk · contribs) and 141.213.172.73 (talk · contribs) both locate to Michigan - though that doesn't always mean that is where they are editing from. I don't remember any specific problem editors from there. Maybe other of your TPW's will know something. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Or y'all could realize I'm harmless & not worth wasting any time about. Good grief. Two of the people I trouted understood what was going on and responded appropriately. People who were not involved at all (y'all for example) are suddenly up in arms. I have not been around for a few days, just one 24hr period. I'm not a long term abuser. I admit my actions were childish, and I apologize for the disruptions them seem to have caused. So, how 'bout we all just go our separate ways? 141.213.172.73 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Or y'all could have not wasted everybody's time trying to figure out what the deal was with the IP. However, you've apologized, and we appreciate that. On a scale of 1 to 10, the trouble was a 1, so nobody's fussed. Acroterion (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox vandalism

Would you please take over the role of reverting sandbox vandalism by 191.222.150.158's sockpuppeted IP addresses from me temporarily? I've been doing it for over an hour, and I've reported it here, but there's a report backlog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.198.46 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh; you're an admin. Thanks for blocking him, but more needs to be done, or else he'll sockpuppet another IP address.98.197.198.46 (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to bed soon, but I may apply protection if they get another IP. I'm collecting addresses for a possible rangeblock or two. Thanks for your efforts. Acroterion (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you or another admin deleted most of the reverts. However, you missed these two.98.197.198.46 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This might be helpful. Thanks for taking over until you enact a permanent solution.98.197.198.46 (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Message added 03:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

10 years of adminship, today.

Wishing Acroterion a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it hadn't occurred to me that ten years was coming up! Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I could not imagine anyone else I would trust with these awesome powers. You are a level-heard force for Good. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm more like a mid-level force for pretty good, I think

I get to spend much of tomorrow and Tuesday traveling to/from a prospective project in northwest Pennsylvania. Somebody thought the Tuesday before Thanksgiving was a good time to meet. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Many congrats on your ten years as an admin Acroterion and best wishes on the next ten! Safe travels on your business trip as well. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

European school articles

Hi Acroterion. It seems that the excitement at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime is never ending. I am wondering if it might worthwhile to considered indefinitely semi-protecting all of the relevant European school articles to stop any further disruption, since Euexperttime/others editing seem to be unwilling to stop and will likely continue to try and find ways to WP:EVADE no matter how many accounts are blocked. Other disruption such as the edit warring 129.67.117.187 was doing at the Teahouse can be dealt with via WP:AN3 or WP:SPI if they continue, but indefinitely protecting the articles might take away their motivation if they realize that the protection will never run out. If after an extended period of time (say 6 months or so) there are no signs of further disruption anywhere (e.g., no new SPIs filed, etc.), then the protection can be downgraded/removed accordingly. I understand that protection is not intended to be pre-emptive, but European School, Luxembourg I has been protected three times since September 1 and the disruption has restarted each time the protection has expired. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We can certainly do long-term protection. While we don't do protection based on a hunch, this is clear, sustained sockpuppetry that is wasting volunteer time. I'm not in a good position to do research on this user's past history, and I'm about to go for an overnight business trip, so it might take a couple of days for me to sort it out. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. A couple of days should be fine. FWIW, it's just a suggestion and may not work as I expect, but disagreement over article content seem to be the primary reason for all this socking, etc., and as you say keeping track of everything is just starting to become a drain on the community's time and energy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

ty NikolaiHo☎️ 04:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Page moves

Hello, are there double standards in english Wikipedia? I expanded the article, added the source to the correct name of the car! Davey's editor removed this by omitting the source and behaved badly.--LechitaPL (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - As explained to you before you called my actions xenophobic[22] you need to go to the talkpage and get consensus for these changes, The van has been at the current name since its creation (2006) so as such consensus would need to be sought before changing or moving the article, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to move something, it is best to open a discussion on the article's talkpage firs to gain consensus, or to open a request at requested moves. It is a very bad idea to start calling people names because they disagree with you, or to edit-war over it. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

New help with Cheeseburger article

I have notice that you have recently place protection on the article Cheeseburger from vandalism by IP editors for 3 weeks, which is not a bad thing. Unfortunately, you did not go back far enough to find a good edit. To do that, you will need to roll back to the last good edit of 07:24, 24 November 2017 by‎ ClueBot NG since the current version includes vandalism introduced on 23:22, 27 November 2017‎ by 2600:387:6:805::74, see Special:Diff/812458382. You might

Can you correct this oversight? Thank you in advance. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not taking it back to the Miss Cooper version, but I think I've got it back to something resembling the stable version. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' → Acroterion (talk)

to

'''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' → Acroterion (talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Heat Pump

an internationally accredited research (Peer-Review) with a vested voice of excellence on the part of the scientific community is not promotion but encyclopaedic disclosure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It reads as promotional and is not appropriate, as does your comment above. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

a primary and secondary research peer-review is promotional?

This is not the wikipedia regulation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You are describing a concept using language that is promotional in tone. Perhaps you can rewrite it to make it more academic in character? Also, please remember that Wikipedia avoids the use of primary sources - Wikipedia does not publish original research. The problem can be rectified if you avoid comments like "vested voice of excellence" and "innovative" and so on. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

is an innovation that describes the technological advancement of the industry. The term excellence describes a secondary source. One must make clear: many of his colleagues point to a peer review as indispensable for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

In any case, can the technological progress described be published, as it is an encyclopaedic voice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.14.22 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Answer Please.

As Vsmith noted to you, this is a recent development that should be first covered in secondary sources to establish significance and notability before it is included. Wikipedia follows coverage in major publications, it does not lead. I advise waiting until you can provide evidence that the concept is being implemented in systems on a production basis, and that it is of sufficient notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. You are free to use the article talkpage to initiate discussion, it is not a matter for individuals to decide, but reather a consensus of editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ok thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.105.194 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement

I think it is better not to label a group individuals who aren't convinced by the official narrative as "conspiracy theorists" since it carries a bad connotation. Referring them as "individuals" is just as fine.

The characterization is amply sourced, reflecting mainstream publications, and represents a consensus of contributors. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Acroterion's comments. David J Johnson (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: your recent block of User:Mr.Exicornt

Hi Acroterion, Thanks for working so speedily to hit this vandal with the Ban Hammer: I spotted their edits but another user had already started to take action. The user name rang bells, but I couldn't recall why initially - but after a bit of a search I rediscovered this (note: "In short, any insertion of the word "exicornt" in any article should be treated as vandalism.") and then happened upon this. Not sure whether this particular individual has stopped for the moment, but I think it's a word that's worth remembering in case of future mischief-making. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Acroterion. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

trying

You keep deleting the stuff before I can add the damn edits! yes theres a web page, yes I will link it - I even put the link in the second edit but you deleted it too fast for me to do the work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarry (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

how do I post?

I have been given permission by the committee to use the website information on a wikipedia page in order to correct glaring errors in the history and description of the breed which seem to all originate from one incorrect encyclopedia entry. the quotes are from peggy graysons book, but they only read up to page 17, the start of the breed is two pages later. The other stuff that keeps getting deleted is from the cocker spaniel pages. I have tried doing things bit by bit - deleted, and in one go - also deleted. I have used my own words, deleted. used stuff from definitive sites with references, deleted, I have copied from other wiki pages, deleted. I have reworded stuff from out of print books - deleted. this needs to be changed as people are confusing the breed with another.