User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q2 2018

Question

What is the rule or rules about copying over an article to another wiki to here at English Wikipedia. I am talking about this one[1] Please help me out if you can. Fr. Gabriel sometimes says mass at the church I attend. He did today at 7:30....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I can do imports from frwiki, and place it and the whole history into your userspace.for you to translate. I'll let you know when I've got it imported and where - it's been a while since I last did it. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

ROARRRRRR!

ROARRRRRR! Kindly do not be so fast![2] Very frustrating for little 'shonen! Please consider 'shonen is poor old slow little old lady! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC).

I will obey 'zilla! Leave angry IPs for 'shonen! Acroterion (talk)

User:KyleKashuvForGAStatus

You uw-disruptive3'd user KyleKashuvForGAStatus without specifying a page where the offenses occurred. You then blocked (later INDEF) them 4 minutes later after one WP:TPO-infringing edit was made. That edit must have been the reason for the block. Please convince me that the editor was aware of WP:TPO before the first block and don't remove this message, or I am taking this to ANI (you bit the editor with an unwarranted indef block).

Per WP:INDEF, Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. One edit to a highly-watched project page is significant disruption?

Per WP:UWLEVELS you should've taken the user to ANI for obviously disruptive editing, but you didn't take the user to any noticeboard. Happy Easter and good night! wumbolo ^^^ 19:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Take it to ANI then. That editor has no business editing Wikipedia, based on the rant that ensued after my initial 48 hour block. Why would I go to ANI to resolve an obvious case of NOTHERE? I will turn their talkpage access back on in case they care to unsay their comments on their talkpage.and change my mind. Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not taking that editor there, I am talking about you and your first block. Blocks are not punishment, and this is from the NOTHERE policy that you cited: General pattern of disruptive behavior: A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions. Well, one edit is not a long-term history. wumbolo ^^^ 23:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I warned them for removing MrX's post at BLPN with this charming edit summary [3]. Warned [4]. Another removal after the warning [5]. That's a block for disruption, with no shadow of a doubt. The rest is just confirmation that they're up to no good. We're not obligated to follow a ladder of warnings, nor to assume good faith in the face of conduct that is clearly meant to obstruct scrutiny, as those edits were, or to put up with attacks on other editors like those edit summaries, far less maintain their editing privileges when they have plainly stated that they don't give a crap about Wikipedia's policies. And no, they weren't bitten, this is clearly the return of an abusive editor. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit [6] was the reason for the indefinite block. Do you think that's OK, or a sign that this is a potentially constructive editor? Or this [7] just as I blocked, or this [8] or this [9] or this [10]. And you believe that a new user would create an account with that username or know how to ping editors? I ignored the AN3 edit, except to remove it as unhelpful and irrelevant, but it wasn't a factor in the block except as additional evidence that the editor was up to no good, something that was amply evident in any case. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That edit summary was rather unconstructive. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators have wide discretionary powers to block disruptive editors. Fortunately so, because if a majority of those editors were reported to ANI (or another noticeboard), that crowded noticeboard would be ten times its current size and totally unmanagable. What you think WP:UWLEVELS — a list of warnings — has to do with the price of tea in China is anybody's guess. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC).

A pie for you!

Some holiday dessert for you. Thanks for the help and Happy Easter to you too. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael Cudlitz

Hi Acroterion, could you help out here? Page protection, user block and rev/deletion all requested. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

yank TP access for KyleKashuvForGAStatus?

he is now calling people who don't see his way bigots. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: I oppose a reblock. That user is gone and most definitely never coming back, the fact which you're trying to hide. wumbolo ^^^ 15:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo I don't understand, what reblock? He was indeffed on the 31st, TP access was revoked 8 minutes later, but then returned the next day. When I posted here I failed to notice that TP was revoked after the bigot comment, although I don't understand why it was reinstated. As for trying to hide anything, abusive SPAs don't really get to "retire" on bad notes. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: I misread the block log. wumbolo ^^^ 16:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I lifted the talkpage protection since Wumbolo was concerned about the block sequence - reprotecting the talkpage is easy and I myself was curious to see what they might do. Block logs require a little patience to parse if you're not used to looking through them, and sometimes even if you are. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, to match talk page message. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your block of 2001:bb6:3b1b:8458::/64

Block should be extended to 83.71.238.37 given that they're in the same location and the recent edit history for Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Fifty Years Ago

The Richmond, Indiana explosion killed fourty-one. There is a reason for all those pesky fire codes. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much everything in a building safety code is there because somebody died, a slightly chilling thought for us when we do code review. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply to now-deleted comment by angry IP with a chip on their shoulder: pretty much everything you said in your rant is wrong, starting with the assumption that I'm a public employee. And I don't edit from work - I have a business to run. I do this in my free time, much like you presumably use your free time to make unwarranted assumptions about strangers on the Internet. Acroterion (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

National Security Agency

Instead of a template, consider this message as a warning for your blatant act of vandalism on the NSA. Continued disruptive editing of this type could lead to a block and/or a desysopping. - ^theWOLFchild 01:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, no. I mistakenly reverted thinking I'd gotten both of that editor's edits, but so nice of you to assume that I was doing that on purpose. Nontheless, thank you for fixing my mistake. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Thewolfchild, going straight for the nuclear option without waiting for an explanation doesn't cast you in a favorable light. It's certainly not like Acroterion has a history of vandalism. Mistakes happen. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thought all was would quickly become obvious once you looked at the diffs. I was kidding about the vandalism. But if there was an actual warning to give, it would be use the "preview" and "compare changes" before saving. It fixed now, so please don't revert again. - ^theWOLFchild 02:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, if there's not a {{FBDB}} template then clueless types like myself can get the wrong impression. Sorry about that. Carry on... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a merry mix-up but all ends well. Acroterion (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I'd fixed the category vandalism too, thanks for catching that. I'm multitasking, looking through photo archives for something that I'm not finding (I'm guessing I have about 70,000 image files), so flipping between windows doesn't always yield the best results. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Make that 80,000 files. If organizing them was as easy as reverting to the right version most of the time I'd have it made. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• 1 138.229.171.58 makes vandal edit, changing title at top of infobox to "Not Secure Agency".
• 2 Sunsetworm47000 makes further vandalism edit.
• 3 Sunsetworm47000 then reverts himself, also fixing the previous IP user vandal edit. Page is now fine.
• 4 Acroterion then reverts past the two edits by Sunsetworm47000 to the IP user's last version, reinstating his vandalism.
• 5 I revert, fixing the page and leave a message here in jest.
• 6 For some reason, Acro reverts me, again putting that IP user's vandalism back in (wtf?)
• 7 I revert again, fixing the page once more, and am now posting here again, further hoping that Acro & Co. will see that it was mistake, followed by a joke, followed by I duuno what. But seriously, please check these diffs, you'll see I was just fixing the page, then posting a harmless reminder that, if you see a long-term editor change a page after some clowning around by an IP user and a brand-new SPA, maybe figure that the editor is most likely fixing it? But if you feel differently for some reason, and think the page still needs fixing, then check what you're actually changing before saving (I know I shouldn't have to tell you this, but... ) Anyway, I think it's good now. People make mistakes, but the page got fixed, I tried to keep it light-hearted and even now I'm posting this more detailed post hoping this will square everything up. So... all good? Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 02:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We were already fine, don't worry about it, I've had a long day, and I never thought you were causing the problem with the NSA article. I am puzzled that my revert only went back one diff, even if that wasn't ideal either, but odd things happen sometimes. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your IPv6 friend

Hi. I've rangeblocked your friend 2001:E68:69ED:5000::/64 for 60 hours. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC).

(Apologies and) A cupcake for you!

Thanks for reverting my edit where I (accidentally) reverted to a broken edit. I'd misidentified it as unexplained removal by just eyeballing the diff, but you fixed it before I even noticed it. Apologies, and thanks! deadwikipedian (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, I had to look carefully first - see the thread above where I made my own mistakes. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

IP editors and WP:Articles for deletion/Travis J I Corcoran and WP:Articles for deletion/The Powers of the Earth

They both made first edits to the AFDs and one of them also accused other editors have conducting a political hit or having political motives. Something tells me this might be the article creator or somebody personally familiar with the subject. Could you please look at them and take any action you think proper? Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

While the IPs in question are at opposite ends of the continent, I suspect they know each other. The sniping about politics has been called out by another editor. I'll keep an eye on it in case meatpuppets get recruited. Acroterion (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete our page vaarso

Hello I run an organization called vaarso in Ahmedabad Gujarat India and we are a registered nonprofit and this is our registered trademark our website is www.vaarso.com www.vaarso.org and my personal website is <redacted> write me back on <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaarso raheel (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost. Advertising and promotion are not permitted here. Please do not abuse Wikipedia for promotion of yourself or your organization. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your intervention.

Hello Acroterion.My edit to alexandros tsipras is not a point-of-view kind of edit. By the way, i would ike to show you a semi-protected article that does have a POV editorial. It is the article "White Pride".Compare it to "Black pride" and you will see that the former is demonising whit epeople who are proud of their race by calling them neonazis while the latter is embracing people of the black race for being proud about being black.This is a clear example of POV. The fact that tsipras is a bad prime minsiter has been reported on various news outlets across my country (Greece).I will cite them. Awaiting for your response,

Vassilis (truexfalse)

Um

This is the last account but this time will be a not vandalism account. OGhosttly (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron 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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hoax baseball articles

RedSkyParka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created 4 unreferenced BLPs that I checked 3 and there is no such baseball person (per Baseballreference). Could you please handle this?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It goes deeper: looking at the backlinks 2600:1700:3310:4C20:34A1:D7F6:51CF:CE0D (talk · contribs) has been messing with the templates, as has RedSkyParka and others from the same /64 range. I've hard-rangeblocked 2600:1700:3310:4C20::/64 for a week, meaning logged-in users can't edit from that range either. Acroterion (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

104.188.232.170 (talk · contribs) too. Both IPs geolocate to Chicago. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know about the IPs but did see SPI was started on RedSkyParka. It was around 5 years ago that I found a hoax article on a Boston Red Sox General Manager. The article ad been around a few years and one editor had CSD it. Thanks for taking care of today's nonsense....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Their creation of the "Dover Whales" last year in the NBA was a bad start ... Acroterion (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

misuse of minor edit flag (repeat offender)

You might be interested in this[[11]] where I have had to point out to a user that their edit is not a "minor edit". This is the second time I have had to do so with this user. I note that (a) you have had some dealings with them and (b) they frequently clear out all the comments on their talk page (you will find my previous comments on their talk page here[[12]]).

Clearly this is not the biggest issue on Wikipedia right now, but I thought someone other than me ought to be aware of it.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw that. I thought you handled it well. I'll keep an eye on the user. Acroterion (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank You for helping on Hot tooth syndrome.

Trish pt7 (talk) (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Your Post On My Talk Page And Jorm

Regarding your reminder of the 1RR on Gamergate, I am aware of the rule, and I have no intention of violating it. I am concerned about Jorm, however. When I suggested that the page may not have an entirely neutral point of view, he posted that BLP section on my talk page and then violated the 1RR. He also accused me of violating the BLP policy, but when I asked him to explain to me how I violated the policy, he refused to discuss this with me and called me a “Gamergator”. I had nothing to do with Gamergate. I don’t even have a twitter account. I feel that he is taking this personally for some reason. I don’t like to report users, so I’m not going to try to get him blocked, but I can’t help but find this behavior concerning. I don’t want this to turn into something. Has this user caused trouble before? Should I be concerned? Anasaitis (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The article has caused extensive trouble.

In cases like this, where individuals have been defamed or falsely maligned, the widespread interpretation of BLP policy is to explicitly characterize the accusations as "false" rather than lending a false balance or credibility through omission, always providing the consensus of reliable sources support the statement. This has been applied to individuals associated with the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and others and appears to reflect a broad consensus on BLP interpretation. In any case, you are expected to review the archives and to gain consensus before such a bold move. It's not just a copyedit. The article wording reflects extensive discussion and is under active sanctions for a reason.

I'd prefer that both of you avoid personalizing the discussion. Some editors have grown a little tired of explaining that neutrality is not a matter of acting as if there is a credible basis for scurrilous accusations against real people; Jorm didin't violate 1RR, which explicitly allows a BLP exemption, and his actions to restore the "false" are in keeping with project-wide consensus on this matter. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You won’t have to worry about me making this personal, but as I said before, I am worried that he is taking this personally. Since I first posted here, I looked at his talk page. There were multiple users complaining about him insulting them, as well as deleting and reverting their edits. His responses to them were more insults, vulgar language, and childish behavior. He appears to be bullying other editors he disagrees with. I do not want to deal with such an editor targeting me. I don’t like edit conflicts, and I am not looking to get into an edit war with someone who seems to enjoy bullying others and calling them “garbage people”. I just want to know wether I should be concerned about Jorm, and what I should do if I become the target of further harassment. Should I be worried? What do you advise I do if this becomes a more serious problem? Anasaitis (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to be concerned, and you're not being targeted or harassed. Jorm's talkpage is no more troublesome than that of any other editor who deals in difficult subjects where people have strong opinions. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the assurances and the quick response. I apologize for troubling you. I just get worried when confronted by such strongly opinionated, less than courteous editors. I’ve been harassed by such people on other sites, and I don’t want a repeat of those instances on Wikipedia. I’ll get out of your hair. Thanks again! Anasaitis (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem, and you've been no trouble. It's a contentious topic and it represents something of a third rail, along with a variety of other topics. The GamerGate article is the majorne reason we have extended-confirmed protection now, which has come in handy in some recent politically-charged environments. You're fortunate that you haven't encountered them before - it can get very heated very quickly. That's once reason why I sent you that reminder - if you don't know you're venturing into a minefield it can come as a shock. You're fortunate that you haven't had to deal with some genuinely unpleasant situations and alarming or malicious editors. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Jack Dorsey

Dear administrator,

I think this is probably an act of vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.224.132.96 He/she deleted a whole section. As far as I know, it's not illegal to talk about someone's personal life. Evan Spiegel's article, for instance, has a chapter devoted to that matter. (They even wrote, Kerr described Spiegel as “very traditional” and said that he believes in sex after marriage.) Heavy.com is not a strong source, but I couldn't find a better one.

This person insulted Ms Greer by calling her an "unemployed golddigger". This Wikidata item, created by me, proves that's not true: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48980153.

Also, he/she threatened me. An anonymous user is not entitled to report any member.

Regards.

Soleil222 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP removed gossip. It's not vandalism. If you can't find a strong source leave it out. I'll look at your Wikidata edit, since unwatched Wikidata edits have been a problem over on this side in the past. Anonymous users have the same rights as registered users, even if they're being kind of obnoxious in their edit summaries. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

On the Wikdata link, I see no evidence that the subject meets Wikidata's criteria for inclusion - there are no links to existing articles on any Wikimedia site, so I would think it ought to be deleted. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Twenty One Pilots album cover version history

I uploaded a new version of the Twenty One Pilots album at File:Twenty_One_Pilots_album_cover.jpg, but the reference didn't get processed properly. Can you please edit it so it displays correctly?

I'm assisting this editor on my user talk page now - you can consider this question resolved here :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Gary Franks

This article has IP editors regularly remove referenced content without explanation. Can you please place it under some form of page protection? Thank you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP is now a registered editor.[13]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. It has been taken care of. Sorry for the bother....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No bother, I saw that MelanieN got there first while I was still at the office. Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

see my user talk page

I said ok. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Good. Please listen to other editors. Acroterion (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

important

This is a changing story. Before, it was "blood everywhere". Many citations exists. That's the way modern people talk, but middle aged and elderly don't.

Then the coroner cited today that head trauma is the cause of death.

Therefore, it is notable that blood before, but now head trauma. It is also helpful to the world if Wikipedia's article notes this change. That is better than being stodgy.

Note that my position is now changed and I believe less material should be devoted to blood. See, I am thinking and not being difficult. Southwest Boat (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place - your talkpage. I've replied there. Acroterion (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Aircraft list

You have an interesting list of aircraft flown.

My list of piloted aircraft is small. My list of aircraft where I've been a passenger has a few that is lacking from your list.

• Airbus A340-500
• Boeing 737-200QC (Combi)
• Boeing 747SP
• BAe RJ85
• Bell 222
• Fokker 70
• McDonnell Douglas MD-11

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Any list that has a Ford Trimotor in it is bound to be peculiar. It cost me 50 bucks and was a nice way to spend an afternoon - like flying in a giant moth. Where did you go in the 747SP? Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Brussels-Amsterdam flight on TWA, connecting to a KLM flight. The TWA flight went on the JFK Airport in New York.

747SP sales were poor, about 45 or so. Not a complete waste as engineering work was reused for the 747-200SUD, -300, and -400. The hump starts above the wingbox, unlike the 747-100/200. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, not efficient use of a plane with that kind of range - although I once flew from Washington Dulles to JFK (<300 miles) on a Pan Am 747 with fewer than 100 passengers, transferring to a second (packed) 747 to go to Heathrow. Acroterion (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruption

User:EEng needs to be blocked.

Look at this person's attitude: I take no prisoners with respect to overdetail... EEng 05:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Take no prisoners? That is an admission of guilt in being anti-Wikipedia's policy of discussion and consensus.

EEng latest "take no prisoners" has been to remove from the infobox the route of the flight of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380. Yet, no discussion in the talk page, just taking no prisoners. Others are discussing it on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380&type=revision&diff=837450971&oldid=837450362

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380#NY_to_Dallas_or_NY_to_Dallas,_New_Orleans,_Oakland,_Reno,_Las_Vegas,_San_Francisco

In contrast, I have recently learned to be a better Wikipedian so I have not fought with this person. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You're about an inch from being blocked indefinitely for lacking the competence needed to edit productively and for personal attacks on other editors. Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Think again. It is not a personal attack on EEng. It is a report that EEng is being disruptive. EEng even wrote that they "take no prisoners". I did not write that, EEng did. "Taking no prisoners" is the opposite of discussion.

In contrast, while I edited a little sloppily a few days ago, I exhibit much more thought today.

I ask you a straight question. Is "taking no prisoners" that attitude that everyone in Wikipedia should take when editing? Yes or no. I strongly believe no. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

And I gave you a straight answer. Don't tattle. You've exhibited serious problems with maturity, and demanding that an experienced editor who's ust being grumpy be blocked is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I understand but am very surprised. Do not tattle. That is very surprising because there are noticeboards on Wikipedia that are full of tattle. But I am a better person than to do that, now that you told me. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

edit confict - oh, you added grumpy. That editor is more than grumpy because they edited against what was discussed in the talk page and didn't discuss in the talk page. I see, however, that somebody else changed EEng's edit back. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You've noticed all those messageboards, have you? Yes, I mean tattling, as in wasting other peoples' time by complaining about minor transgressions in a sanctimonious tone in an attempt to appear more grown-up than you actually are. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mad Max video game

User DasallmächtigeJ[14] is stating the on Mad Max video game page that's it's both a prequel and a sequel to Fury Road. The video game's story doesn't even fit Fury Road or any past Mad Max film. Mad had a baby boy, not a preteen girl, Glory in the game isn't the same from the movie and comic book (written by Miller). Max meets her and her mother very differently, the car he has at the end of the game is not the same as the one seen at the beginning of Fury Road.[15]

But more importantly, the source links on the page from the studio and developer don't support this claim.

• "A Mad Max game is coming, but it's not going to be related to any of the movies, because of Avalanche's radical position that movie tie-ins are pretty terrible."

• "A Mad Max game is in development, but don't call it a movie tie-in. Developer Avalanche Studios is making it clear that their upcoming game, based on the long-standing franchise, is not tied to any of the films, particularly the upcoming Mad Max: Fury Road."[16]

• "The studio is very clear that this game is in no way associated with the upcoming Mad Max: Fury Road movie starring Tom Hardy, that it is very much an original, standalone story, set in a standalone world."[17]

The official comic book doesn't show the events of the video game[18] and the Mad Max wiki doesn't use the events of the game on the character's page, "Do not put information from the video game. It is not canon.".[19]

DasallmächtigeJ is not only putting in his opinions on the page but links to opinions from people who didn't work on the game and had nothing to do with it, is that how wiki articles work??? Opinions, speculation and original research???? The way he's editing the page, it doesn't make any sense, it's not connected the film... and yet... it somewhat is... I have already talked to two other administrators, but there not active at the moment.108.208.136.214 (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Esther the Wonder Pig

Hi. I saw you deleted a draft article three years ago (not written by me) about Esther the Wonder Pig, presumably because it didn't meet notability requirements. I'd like to take a crack at a new one, as I think she meets the criteria at this point. A quick google search turns up articles about her in the Washington Post, HuffPost, Toronto Sun, CBS News, ABC News, etc. Any objections to me doing that? Ashram molter (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Harassment User talk:MilborneOne

Hello. Another IPv6 from the same /64 (Special:Contributions/2600:1002:B105:6D9D::/64) was blocked yesterday for harassment of the same user, so I suggest a range block, or they'll soon be back again. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, range /64 blocked for a month. Acroterion (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Erika Heynatz

Thanks for catching the reappearance of the vandalism there and removing the vandal revisions. There's still a bunch of older versions of this in the edit history at Erika Heynatz (from before the page was semiprotected), a bunch of posts promoting the death hoax in the history of Talk:Erika Heynatz and one more at Craig McLachlan - any chance these could be removed from the edit history as well? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Altoona child sex abuse scandal

Is a new article and there is several things about it that bug me.

• When it was created the article was named Atlanta rather than Altoona. The word at the beginning of the article was Altoona also.
• This is a detailed article but its creator has no edits before this.
• Another odd thing. References 4 to 11 all show a retrieved date of January but the article wasn't created till this month.

As I said this article is weird. Do you have any thoughts?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The article has been deleted twice before as creations by a blocked/banned user with essentially the same content - Jack Coppit (talk · contribs), operating as Korrektnetekst (talk · contribs), Ebony&Irony (talk · contribs) and RomanskiRUS (talk · contribs) [20], which raises immediate red flags for this one. I'm having a look around and may have a word with a CU. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you deleted the article. Altoona will now be on my watch list. I thought sockpuppetry may have been at play but didn't notice that the pages had been deleted in the past. Do you think misnaming the article was a cute way of trying to avoid exposure?

WP:Deny doesn't get applied evenly. I CSD Festivals established in as a creation of a blocked user but administrato RHaworth reverted without explanation. Most of the category tree[21] is the creation of Earflaps, a sockpuppet of banned user musiclover650. Another problem with some of the categories is the contents are sometimes not festivals at all....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I think it was done as a subterfuge. Overpaid, oversexed and over here is another of their themes. I waited until a little more time had gone by, and they removed all doubts with their other edits. Deny is definitely unevenly applied, and I'm guilty of it as much as anybody, I'd suspect. In this case I think the subject is notable, but this isn't the person to write about it. They have trouble with copyvios, sockpuppeting and significant POV troubles. Acroterion (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The American Dollar (band)

Hi, I saw you hid a revision of this article for being grossly insulting. I have a feeling that the gross insult may have been directed by the IP at me. If that's so, I would actually prefer that the edit not be hidden. Chubbles (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to unhide death threats in article space, however silly. In user space, I'd feel differently. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, it wasn't aimed at you in any case, and it was more of a wish than a threat. Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

sorry

I am trying to be good, not bad. You can see that I have not edited in Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 by choice, not by threats or warnings.

I see that you reverted my prod in Keishi Kusumi. I originally did that because the article is just a few words and an infobox. You said it is notable.

I am currently looking into the problem that there is uneven treatment in Wikipedia. A very minor athlete can be deemed notable but an actor has to be very famous, such as awards, to be notable for Wikipedia.

Please do not assume that I am bad. Southwest Boat (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not assuming you're bad, I just see that you don't understand deletion policies.Please familiarize yourself with what's appropriate. There is uneven treatment in Wikipedia - non-North American/Australian/New Zealand/European topics get less coverage, so that a well-sourced Japanese professional footballer's article needs expansion rather than deletion. Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that you are indeed bad [22]. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove my Ajisen Ramen article edit

I was trying to list Ajisen Ramen stores in Singapore. Put it back!

Ajisen Ramen

Educator57 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Find published sources and references. Your own knowledge is not usable. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. These are policies and are not optional. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

IUCN removals

Whats the status n those IUCN category removals?--MONGO 13:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I figured you'd notice ...

A couple of days ago I started looking around the IUCN database at protectedplanet.net [23], thinking that we really don't actually reference the IUCN categories anywhere. I was startled to find that a lot of our IUCN data is kind of speculative - a lot of misapplied categories, and no references. As a matter of fact, the protected area infobox doesn't support refs for that data point. In the process I realized that there is virtually nothing at IUCN for US national forests. National parks are reliably Category II (Hot Springs and Gateway Arch apart), wildernesses Ib, national monuments and state parks are mostly III, wildlife refuges IV and other things V, but it's not entirely predictable. The only things I can find for national forests are here [24] - and most of those are only portions. I'm trying to find a download location for the entire database so I'm not at the mercy of their search engine, but the main point is that IUCN doesn't appear to list US national forests as anything at all.

I've found a lot of mistakes and faulty assumptions, where people have probably been copying infoboxes and not checking references, and until recently, I don't think the IUCN data was easy to find.

Have you found any references for, for instance, Shoshone NF's IUCN status? All I find are Wikipedia mirrors. Ottawa and Shawnee NFs show up in their entirety as VI, which leads me to believe that maybe the data is otherwise incomplete? Acroterion (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that national forests in general are *not* IUCN-categorized, based on the fact that National Forest System landbase is not necessarily protected from land-cover conversion (due to mining laws). There is some (confusing) discussion of this issue here, here and here; the upshot is that in USGS' Gap Analysis Program, NFS landbase is categorized as GAP Status 3 Area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover for the majority of area. Subject to extractive uses of either broad, low-intensity type (e.g., logging) or localized intense type (e.g., mining). Confers protection to federally listed endangered and threatened species throughout the area and that this does not crosswalk to any particular IUCN category. Per USGS, Only GAP Status Codes 1 and 2 meet the definition of protected by IUCN as, “A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”. Particular areas within national forests, such as wilderness, wilderness study, recreation areas, national monuments and research natural areas often do qualify as IUCN areas, but the broader national forest as a whole does not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The complicated thing for us is that it gets really granular... looking at the Tongass National Forest on ProtectedPlanet, there's legislatively-defined LUD II areas (non-development, non-timber-harvest) included as IUCN protected, but those areas don't appear on basically any "public-facing" map... you'd have to get internal GIS documents like this one to find and source their existence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hahaha...I think more than a decade ago I went and assigned them the status that seemed most appropriate with the type of protections afforded in a National Forest. Course the Wilderness designated areas would fall under a different IUCN status where one assigned than the rest of the forest. I was mainly following WikiProject:Protected areas precedent I believe so it was a bit arbitrary. Thanks for the education!--MONGO 17:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't really think about sourcing this either until I saw the removals and the conversation going; it seems totally logical to me that NFs should be Category VI because "sustainable use of natural resources" is the concept we're shooting for, but as usual the archaic General Mining Act of 1872 keeps making things difficult for us... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm guilty of all the same things. From working my way through the database, it appears that while Category 1b is written to hew closely to the Wilderness Act, the distinctions between III and V are in the eye of the beholder, and even II doesn't necessarily apply to the entire designated area of a park. While IV is applied consistently to national wildlife refuges, most of the West Virginia state wildlife areas are III or V. I think we'll have to remove the Category VI from all of the national forests except Ottawa, Shawnee, Chequamegon-Nicloet, Hoosier, Hiawatha, Huron-Manistee, Kisatchie and Ouachita. I don't understand why those forests differ from the big Appalachian and western forests, though.

I need to find somebody who understands templates better than I do to make it possible for us to cite the IUCN classification for the protected areas infobox. It's hard to gracefully work a discussion of IUCN into most normal prose. Citing it in the geobox changes the entry undesirably, but at least it's possible. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I could guess is that those specific forests, being Weeks Act forests, might be treated differently under the mining laws and are exempt from such disturbances? I don't know for sure, though. I might do some digging through FSWeb (our Intranet) if I get a chance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: Freestyle Releasing

I don't suppose I could bother you to check out these reports, since they are related?

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/148.255.178.70
• Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Thanks! {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 03:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Murder, She Wrote episodes

There may be a copyright issue with this page. Not too long ago, the article was massively reverted[25] because of content copied from another website. It appears the same thing has happened again. A episode summary check of every episode will show the summaries now come from Imdb. If it wasn't right to copy summaries of them from epguides, why is it right to copy them from Imdb then? I'm going to ping @Justlettersandnumbers: who did the revert to hear his take on this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right about that, WilliamJE – what a tedious bore these useless plot summaries are, they just act as an irresistible copyvio magnet! I've not looked in detail, but chose one phrase, "A handyman who has been paying attention to more than the houses of various Cabot Cove ladies", added in this version on 3 May 2016; it was already present in this archived IMDb page from 2012. The article should be blanked and listed at WP:CP. Do you want to do that, or would you like me to? Thanks for keeping an eye open for copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You can take care of it. I'd like to hear Acroterion chime in however....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm on lunch break and have limited time, but without making a check on individual portions, I'd place the copyvio probability at 95%. These show lists are plagued by cut-paste copyvios - I reverted some on another show last week that were particularly egregious. I have half a mind to nuke it the old-fashioned way and do a delete/restore, but there are hundreds of revisions that are probably copyvio. I say for the time being, if a series of five or six samples turn out as copyvios, nuke it back to the most recent clean or clean-ish version and let God sort them out. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Every season 1 episode I checked, from episode 6 to 12 is a word for word copy from Imdb. So I tried jumping somewhere else. The beginning of season 7, it is all cut and paste too for the first five episodes or where I stopped looking. I've been working on the article (Just recently friend gave me all 12 seasons on DVD. Before I'd gotten the gift I'd seen maybe 12 of the 264 episodes total) to add guest stars, but this is a clear copyvio. So I say nuke it too. @Justlettersandnumbers:, if you could please handle this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm on it. I'd already looked a little further, and believe I have identified the first of the series of copyvios. I was going to list at WP:CP, but will take this discussion as consensus to deal with it straight away. Watch this space ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Here is a link[26] to the last edit before all but one copyvio was done....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually I went a little further back than that, WilliamJE – the first definite copyvio I identified was in this version from 11 April 2016, material copied more or less verbatim from here (archived 5 November 2015). Anyway, good catch on this one – I even still have the page on my watchlist, but hadn't picked it up. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Harry Dolan

I hope you don't mind me asking for advice. AGAIN.

A few months back I removed[27] this person from List of people from Pittsburgh with this edit summary 'There is nothing in Dolan's article saying they are from Pittsburgh'. Which at the time was true. There was a busted category link[28] in the body of the article but nothing saying he was from there.

A few hours later, an editor comes along and adds[29] that Dolan is from Pittsburgh and gives a 1981 newspaper article as a reference.

Now last night, that same editor posts[30] to List of people from Pittsburgh's talk page writing- 'I don't understand why Removing People not from Pittsburgh was the Edit Summary for pulling Harry Dolan from the list. His article says that he was born in Pittsburgh and it cites his 1/2 page obituary in the The Los Angeles Times that ran on Sunday, September 27, 1981, Page 415, which says "Harry was born in Pittsburgh and attended Pittsburgh High and Carnegie Tech." I would think the answer to their querry would be obvious. That editor added the Pittsburgh information after I removed Dolan from the list.

What also bothers me is the so called reference- Its from a newspaper without an archive for articles from that time. Somebody has a 37 year old newspaper handy? Of late I've seen too much 'bullshit with a reference' as I call it. Namely something untrue in a article with a reference at the end of the sentence which doesn't corroborate the information. Liza Minnelli, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211, and Organization of Iranian American Communities are just a few recent examples and I get called pigheaded and other things for insisting that a reference says what is being added to the article.

Any advice what to do with Dolan?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case I'd take it on good faith. We accept references to off-line printed materials, and you and I are both old enough to have done research using microfilm/microfiche newspaper archives. We have to take peoples' word for it when there's no obvious reason for us to believe that they're pushing an agenda, and accepting only references that can be verified online leads to a regrettable emphasis on recentism. I wouldn't be able to use my three-volume dictionary of architecture, published in 1901, which contains references to all sorts of people and things that aren't found in more modern work.

A nice note to the editor asking how they found the off-line source would be OK, and you're not being pigheaded to ask for references, but we have a Wikipedia structural issue with subjects that haven't been covered in digital media, but were notable enough in their time to be covered by ephemeral print media.

I've written about all sorts of things that, had the Internet been in existence at the right time, would have been covered to death, but are in fact covered by a few newspaper clippings that were preserved by an archive service. Glacier View Dam would have been a huge story on the Internet. Bernard R. Hubbard would have made sure that he was all over the Internet if he had lived at the right time, he was a multimedia star before there was multimedia. Both topics required a lot of research, and I'm certain that there is vastly more sourcing available for both than I could find online. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's resolved. I found the LA Times article from 1981. Thank you for the help....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

David Ross (baseball) vandal is back since protection lapsed

Just FYI. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's been protected. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Forgot to drop back by and let you know. Someone in the wikipedia freenode channel protected it for me. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 02:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The Mueller Talk Page dispute

I don't even know who started the reverting. I suppose you could say my edit was opinion, but it was no more an opinion than what I was responding to. Here is the comment I responded to:

"Great logic considering it seems equitable, adding him makes it an equal amount. But I guess for you he's not R if it's not 17/17."

That is nothing but sarcasm.

Again, here is the second "contribution" to that talk section:

"The article says he is a Republican, and that may even have been true in the past, but that is almost certainly very inaccurate today given the fact that 9 of the 17 lawyers he hired donated to Obama and Hillary. Indeed, it appears that each and every one of those 17 lawyers seems to be pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. So almost surely he is not now a Republican"

Nothing but opinion.

I fail to see how my comments were out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantedia (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

None of that thread has had much to do with article improvement. Let's not add to it. Please remember that article talkpages are supposed to be specifically for focused discussion oof article improvement, and that conversations about political opinions just turn into arguments. Please set a good example and let the thread die. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Death hoaxer

Back again unfortunately. Thanks so much for cleaning up their mess to date. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Identity theft, attempted

Just by the way, there have been two attempts by someone to log on as me. Imagine that. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's happening to everybody WP:VPT#"a failed attempt to log in to your account" alerts. Make sure you have a strong password. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

IP edit warring again

Hi Acroterion, As you've twice blocked 73.34.105.30 for edit warring could you reblock them again for the same reasons ?, Although they've only reverted once so far this is something that's never going to stop so I feel nipping it in the bud early would be better, ANyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

From Educator57: I want to make a new article about Sushi Express

You deleted the previous one right? I am looking for some good sources right now. Written by Educator57 (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I did, since you indicated that you'd abandoned it. Next time use your sandbox (you can create more than one) to work on the article so that an incomplete article isn't out there in article space. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

re Udo Erasmus

Hello Acroterion, I see that you were involved in the deletion of the article on Udo Erasmus, back in 2011. I found this citation when I clicked on the link to create such a page.

06:14, 25 August 2011 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted page Udo Erasmus (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) (thank)

I would like to read the article that was deleted. I have not decided whether to recreate the page, and I don't know why it was deleted. I should also know about that process, before re-creating the article. Is there, somewhere available on the Wikipedia site, an archive of deleted articles? Please direct me as to how I might find it. Thank you. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a direct copy/paste of his biography from the now-vanished www.udoerasmus.com website - a copyright violation. As such, I can't restore it to Wikipedia, and even emailing it is problematic, since it gets into administrator privilege concerns. However, it does appear to be saved on the Internet Wayback Machine archive [31] - I suggest having a look around there, as it will probably provide you with more material in any case than the deleted article. Acroterion (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Help and Advice

Hi, I have been on Wikipedia (with this current username) for 1 year... Have created pages and have edited a lot... I plan to at some point run for admin. However, I do not want to waste people's time and then get upset... Do you mind telling me, how much chance do you think I would currently have... And what do you think I need to do from now, to have a realistic chance for running? Thank you --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You have 171 edits. You'd need 30 times that count for consideration, with significant content creation credentials and productive participation in Wikipedia management discussions. About three years of experience is best as well.

You're nowhere close to that. Have you edited under a previous username? That needs to be declared.

Your chances are zero for the forseeable future. Acroterion (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That sounds rather depressing... So what do you propose I do to improve my chances? How can I participate in Wiki management discussions? Can you give me a more accurate plan? Thanks --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Acroterion can correct me if I am wrong, but almost no one who sets out with the goal of being an admin, is going to ever be an admin. It can look like you are just here for the "status", not actually for building an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHERE {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Did I not mention that I have been editing here for more than a year now? Did I not mention I created articles? And I will do whatever it takes to be an admin. How can you tell me I am not building an encyclopedia if my Contributions are full of building? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

To be an administrator, you need to show that you understand how the encyclopedia is written. You prove that by creating substantial content. Featured articles, good articles and DYK work are nearly essential, as well as the unsung work of broad content creation. Wikipedia management involves deletion discussions, dispute resolution, helpdesk help, vandalism patrol, new page review and other processes. As alluded to above, what is termed hat-collecting - editing with the specific aim of obtaining advanced permissions, like the admin bit, is frowned upon, and will work against you. Virtually nobody who sets out to be an administrator starting at a couple of hundred edits will get there, you are expected to be a productive, established editor before offering to take on additional responsibilities. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there may be a competence issue here: see their conduct at Erwin l'Ami and Talk:Erwin l'Ami. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course there is a competency issue here. He has less than 200 edits! I'm not sure I knew how to sign my name at that point. Being new comes with some baggage and a certain amount of tolerance for errors. I shudder at the thought of anyone looking back at my contrib log when I first discovered NPP. Barring evidence of malicious behavior I tend to ignore the first 1000 edits or so in any candidate at RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok... I get it, I should not be an admin... Can we move on now? Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars 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) 14:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Pederasty

I don't know what "the" talk page is. I see talk pages for specific users. Here I am. talking. not reverting. discuss if you want. defend YOUR reverting of my edits. I've already explained the edits. It's your turn to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifatalism (talk • contribs) 01:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't reverted you: I've warned you about your edit-warring. Use Talk:pederasty to make your case. Don't argue on other users' talkpages, and don't issue silly trout warnings to editors who've reverted you. You're past four reverts, counting your IP edits. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Kenilworth Public Schools

Can you please protect this article and possibly discipline/warn the IP[32] who keeps removing sourced content?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think including the mystery pooper falls afoul of BLP policy, and it should be removed - per NOTNEWS as well. And interim administrators are of no encyclopedic consequence. Acroterion (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I obviously agree with you. However, I restored the content (with better sources), but certainly not because of WilliamJE's threat to report me. I only did it because I looked at all the other articles for school districts in the same county and they all have this nonsense "Administration" section for some reason, which merely lists the names of the superintendent and business administrator (or similar). It's not encylopedic content and no article for a major school district has a section for administrators; they simply list the superintendent's name in the infobox. In any case, someone needs to educate WilliamJE on sourced content that is enyclopedic vs. sourced content that is not. Just because something is sourced does not mean it belongs in an encylopedia, so I hope WilliamJE will stop using that as a reason to restore bad content. (I have reliable sources that verify the interim superintendent loves chocolate ice cream and walks his dog at 7:00 every day. So does that mean it warrants inclusion in an encylopedia?) 173.91.60.85 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am suspicious that this page has been vandalized... And is NOT written in Neutral point of view... Check it out, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroe_Bergdorf --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Taken care of, I believe. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Chris Stuckmann

Hi, can you please unprotect creation of Chris Stuckmann as am going to accept Draft:Chris Stuckmann as it passes WP:GNG but needs improvement that mainspace should provide, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Unprotected now. Acroterion (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• • thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Didnu do Nuffin

But seriously. What is inappropriate about my discussion? I keep getting my section deleted and you do nothing about that. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC) TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring, and stop abusing talkpages to gripe about people you clearly don't like. Acroterion (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Zyklon B

Hello - both you and User:Diannaa have reverted my suggestion that Z-B is now an Obsolete pesticide(Category:Obsolete pesticides). Can either of you produce ANY evidence of ANY cyanide-based product, being currently (or perhaps at any time in this century) produced under this (or perhaps a similar) tradename, ANYWHERE in the World? By the way, I have read the article carefully. Brgds. Roy Bateman (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"A fumigation product similar to Zyklon B is also in production by Lučební závody Draslovka of the Czech Republic, under the trade name Uragan D2. Uragan means "hurricane" or "cyclone" in Czech." Reference #53. Acroterion (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks User:Acroterion and User:Diannaa - mea culpa: I obviously didn't read it carefully enough! - many old pesticides to cover and I missed this source (incidentally reference comes up as an error page). Worth mentioning 'Cymag': manufactured by ICI until the early 1980s? I am trying to find a good definition of "obsolete pesticide": do you think the above is a good start? Brgds. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, it's not that easy to spot. I didn't actually check the reference myself in any case, so we'll need to look at that again. I would say a pesticide is obsolete when it has been effectively banned worldwide or has been out of production for at least a decade. Acroterion (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you put the article Ronald Gidwitz through speedy deletion processes?

Hi, this article is not finished and has only one sentence in it. Can you check this out please? Thanks, Lemonpasta (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Brevity isn't a speedy deletion criterion, and it is sourced with a reasonable claim of notability. I would let the proposed deletion process take its course. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You’ve got mail!

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Request for Deleted Source Text - DrLupo.
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.

OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

May 26

Hi. Is there a way for me to check the number of edits I have made in wikipedia? Or do I just have to count them individually? Thanks --Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The edit count link is at the bottom of your contributions page [33]. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

This page [34] doesn't cite ANY sources and the person who is being discussed doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. Please, review it!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Abuse of privileges

Thanks for getting back to me about User talk:Kuru, a user who is harassing me by blocking my IP for no reason. Can you let me know what remediation options I have regarding this abuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.3.87 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop harassing Kuru. Your IP is in Canada, so I must assume that you've been abusing proxies if you have a complaint about a New Jersey static IP that's been blocked as a proxy. This [35] doesn't look good. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I was blocked from using that IP because it was erroneously detected as an open proxy. There is no reason to block it and the administrators who continue to do so are harassing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.3.87 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are editing from where your present IP puts you, the other IP is clearly a proxy. I agree with the block. Either edit productively from this IP or expect it to be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Peacebuilding page

Hmm. Anti-chicken training doesn't seem to be working on this fox.

Better.

Hi Acroterion, Why not rather specifically identify which word or phrase that you suspect of possibly not being neutral? If not, it's obviously impractical for me to *guess* at which word or phrase, so, again, obviously that puts the editor who was (wrongly) complained against in the position of having to reapply all his edits. That's the only reasonable recourse, right? Also, isn't it more efficient on your part to edit any suspect word or phrase, rather than merely complaining about something imaginary? In law, the failure to state the specific word or phrase being complained about is called *vague* in violation of due process. The plain wiki rule is that all words & phrases be verifiable, so perhaps the real issue here is a failure on my detractors' part to verify the information in my edits. (As for me, I was in the middle of editing the verification when bonadea interrupted my edits.) Alright, now look, you could be useful to all readers. Let's you and me build a consensus that all of our edits on the Peacebuilding page are neutral & using the proper formal tone. Change anything you want. Any of your edits that I disagree with I'll edit. Please, don't feel troubled by it, because I'm just trying to proceed efficiently in our collaboration. If you change something *back* (a tiny rollback), I'll message you on anything where perhaps a question arises. I'm presuming by no (specific) response that you are my collaborator in all of my (other) edits to the Peacebuilding page. OK? Thanks, Acroterion. Let's get this encyclopedic-type info out to the public! Yourfav (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Don't bold for emphasis.
• Does "Under the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan of the Afghan Armed Forces, ANA soldiers are infamous for committing cowardice & running from engagement with Talibani soldiers. No known solution exists for the problem that NATO's anti-chicken training doesn't work, so Obama's global approach of small footprint SOCOM, super-killer mindset bases in more than half the countries on earth remains viewed by US leaders as the optimal peacebuilding strategy." look like something that belongs in an encyclopedia?
• Does "This is the root danger & problem for Americans. Although Julani's reasons are generally loathed by Americans, his fighters are universally respected as the strongest, sneakiest &/or luckiest Arab army in history. Unfortunately, Turkish Kurdistan lacks an equivalent to the ADL, but US negotiations over Manbij succeeded." look like it belongs in an encyclopedia?
• No scare quotes, please.
• Don't insert commentary in Wikipedia's voice. That's not encyclopedia-type info. Acroterion (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Acroterian, What do you want to use for emphasis (instead of bold)? By "scare quotes", I imagine that you're referring to oil revenue from Iran. So in support, I'll add this quote, “If Iran threatens us in any way, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid.” More proof that I'm not calling the speaker into question is in this quote, "You stay and protect the oil and you take the oil and you take whatever is necessary for them and you take what’s necessary for us and we pay our self back $1.5 trillion or more." But it'd be mildly awkward to work into the article because his general context was what Iran might do in Iraq. At any rate, you can see now that I didn't at all resort to a scare quote, right? I fully agree that I'm required to be generally cautious with Wiki's voice. But the answer to both of your questions is yes, so I would very much benefit from an edit by you. It occurs to me that maybe your not aware that the fact that the ANA soldiers flee from the Taliban is the real reason for Resolute Support. That's verifiable. I've read it in the official reports. By super-killer I mean that SOCOM guys are something like the best sergeant at fighting out of 5 platoons of men. They're super-gung-ho. Perhaps we can add a cite to the Army's selection requirements so that any reader can instantly perceive that the real intent behind that statement is purely factual & neutral. Do you agree with me on the Afghanistan statement, now? As for Syria, maybe it would help to add a cite to syriacivilwarmap. Readers might then instantly perceive that the descriptions of the Governates/Provinces that are about to be negotiated at Geneva IX are genuine. I wrote bonadea, but he responded by deleting even my direct requests to him for either edits or quotes. So at this point, I'll presently attempt to undo his rollback. (It's taken all day to request consensus.) Again, please feel free to edit the Afghanistan & Syria quotes that you've just given me. I need your edits to better perceive your points. I think that you don't intend to say that ISIS' reasons are not loathsome to Americans. I think that your not opposed to the thought that in this time of preparation for Syria negotiations, reduction of "danger" to OIR soldiers is the main thrust of the peacebuilding efforts. I don't think you're opposed to the thought that Julani's men survived 15 years of fighting against the US - that that makes them incredibly seasoned fighters. I don't think that you're opposed to the substantial thought that Turkish/Kurdish relations are a problem. So unless, you provide edits, that is, an alternate way of stating these most major peacebuilding strategies in the world today, I'm left grasping at straws as to what your cause of concern is. Thank you very much for the quotes. Now I very much need your edits, too. I'm proceeding with the undo. Yourfav (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not paying attention - you're making statements of opinion in articles. You can't do that, and you need to usderstand that before any discussion of specific content can ever take place. Scare quotes are the practice of putting quote marks around things that the writer wants to be read with skepticism, and they're a red flag for non-neutral editing. Your edits amount to obvious statements of opinion, expressed in informal and inappropriate language, and unsourced or poorly sourced. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views. Stop trying to insert opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have utterly, utterly no intention of making a statement of opinion in any article. I am absolutely fully paying attention to you. Look, each one of your statements is patently false. Your primary error is that you don't edit the 2 quotes that you gave. If you would kindly edit them, on the page, then I could perceive the specific nature of your concern. Where are the quote marks of the alleged quote? I think that I didn't make any quote marks to imply that any speaker was speaking falsely. Your claim that there are quote marks somewhere is again false, right? Show me that quote. To the contrary, it is exclusively your statements that are an obvious statements of *your* opinion. As for my statements, I just labored to support them to you in great detail. Not 1 specific word or phrase are you challenging. Your case is therefore false. You said that I shouldn't use bold. You gave no authoritative cite for that. Bold is part of HTML for a reason. The reason is emphasis. If indeed it is improper to use bold according to wiki rules, I'm not opposed to using some other method of emphasis. But what is that method? What method of emphasis do you want me to use? You made no suggestion of an alternative & I asked as my foremost concern. Isn't that a super-simple matter. Than you falsely accuse me of not paying attention. Who's not paying attention? Start by giving me the alternative to bold. Next I want edits to the quotes. I'm asking over and over for the same thing from you. Please, give me edits to the quotes you sent. I don't yet understand why you are wrongly imagining that those are opinions. They're not opinions. I'm not saying that phrases can't be reworked. They can. But to ignore my constant requests for your edits is proof that I'm not the one who isn't paying attention. How can we collaborate if you never contribute any improved phrasing? Your saying that I have to do all of the editing & that you don't like it, but you provide no cause. Show me something that is clear opinion. Again, the reason for Resolute Support is verifiable. You're proceeding with draconian threats faster than I can perform the most basic edits to the page. We haven't solve so much as the bold problem, yet. How easy is that to solve? I think that your responses are based on your personal emotions, not reason. I supported each statement to you. Now let me support them with formal cites on the page. That takes a moment to do. So your threat to a new contributor is ridiculously draconian. Let me correct matters, first. Now, I've clearly said what I need from you. Please, give me an alternative to bold so that I have something I can use. Please, give me a cite that says I shouldn't use bold because it is a built in feature of the internet for this specific reason, the reason that I used it. Please, give me edits to the 2 quotes that you provided. OK? How difficult is that? They're tiny sentences? Why complain for hours & hours & never make the edits that you think are needed? It's not a case of not wanting very much to abide by all rules & satisfy even the most critical reader. It's a case of merely not perceiving which exact phrase is troublesome to you. If you make the edits I can instantly, immediately see which word is troubling to you. If you don't at least propose an alternative way of making these completely neutral, factual statements, then your constant statements that they are opinion have been thoroughly proven false. Your real reasons have something to inappropriate emotions, nothing at all to do with neutral facts. Again, my statements are neutral facts. I'm willing to consent to rephrasing, but I need the rephrases from you. OK? The ball's in your court. Yourfav (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop inserting unsourced opinion into articles as you did here [36]. It's that simple. Everything must be sourced, and opinion can't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Read the verifiability policy, the reliable sourcing policy, and the neutral point of view policy, all of which you're violating. Read the manual of style while you're at it. My talkpage isn't the place to propose edits - use the article talkpage to find consensus, which is essential. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Methods

Hi... I created this page [37] several days ago. It deals with a magic trick... I am NOT a pro magician but I specifically DID NOT add the method section to this trick... I understand that Wikipedia has rules of no censorship, AND I SUPPORT IT! And I understand that revealing magic tricks is not seen as a big deal, and I am not going to vandalize pages, OF COURSE, but I do not think that it is ethical for me to describe the method of the trick even if it is not forbidden by law... In short, while I do have the reference material and under law I COULD reveal the method of this trick, I do not think it is ethical. That's ok right? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I know of no Wikipedia policy against revealing magic techniques, as long as there are solid sources. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that... But in my situation THERE ARE sources but I DO NOT choose to reveal the method ON PURPOSE... That was the point. It is kind of a reverse of what you are saying. I believe it is unethical FOR ME to reveal magic tricks, even though there are solid sources... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's your call. I can only advise on WP policy. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Admin Swarm

On the dispute with me as you commented Swarm has shown bias towards me and is threatening to block me when I have broken any rules what do I do? TheKinkdomMan talk 02:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you just need to communicate more fully - you've got a lot of blind reverts with no explanation of why you reverted. Please use informative edit summaries, use talkpages, and please be careful about reverts in general. Swarm was being grumpy, and I don't see any consensus to do more than warn you to be more careful - now that you're back on the air, I suggest that you just promise to be careful with the rollback and use edit summaries, and don't assume that IPs have nothing to say. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok thank you I do apologize for my mistakes which I admit I am at fault with I just don’t wanna be blocked for my reverts I understand that I’ve been wrong and I appreciate that your helping me I will delete some of my comments and apologize and state I’ll change my way of editing TheKinkdomMan talk 02:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's really not a big deal. Just communicate more, and you've apologized more than enough. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:TheKinkdomMan, while you're here, can you do something about the colors in your signature? I can barely read your name. See WP:COLOR for some guidance in regards to accessibility for the lesser-abled. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I will thank you TheKinkdomMan talk 02:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be nice to actually be able to make out who you are. And by the way, as Alex Shih has pointed out, this isn't your first rodeo on the blind revert area, please take the criticism you're received seriously. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Nick Toon's place of birth

I am looking for advice.

His article says Middleton, Wisconsin, which this RS verifes[38]. However we have another WP RS[39] that says Madison, Wisconsin. To top things off, we have the New York Daily News saying[40] he was born in Mineola, New York while his father Al Toon was playing for the New York Jets. The third makes some sense, and I've seen other instances of reliable sources confusing the town a person went to HS at with the place they were born. Do you have any thoughts on this?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI a talk page discussion is going on here[41] if you want to chime in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't say that I have much to add, except that I'm a fan of explicitly stating that "sources differ on his place of birth," or something to that effect. If somebody was writing my biography (God forbid), they'd probably be similarly confused, since my parents lived in and took me home to a different state from the place of my birth - the hospital seems to have been chosen on the basis of proximity to family and work rather than home. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Another over 10K feet

Was playing around over the weekend and realized the new NAVD88 ratings places Kaiser Point (Montana) in Glacier NP above 10K. I see the mountain has no name on the USGS Quads (listed only by the elevation of 9996) and I can find some listings from the name in some refs, but I do not see where the name came from. I was considering writing the park service and ask them if they were looking at this minor quibble and maybe planning on officially stating there are 7 identified mountains greater than 10K above sea level as the current listing is 6. I think when I first visited there in the early 80s they only identified 5 peaks as exceeding 10K feet. Also, I was playing on google earth and did some views of these peaks and I suspect that both the Kaiser Point and Mount Cleveland are possibly even taller then the NAVD88 listings. Anyhoo...just a small detail I thought you may find interesting.--MONGO 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's charming that there are still a few 10,000 ft peaks in the US that haven't been named. I suspect the North Cascades are among the least-well-surveyed tall ranges in the Lower 48. Does North Cascades have an equivalent of Yellowstone's Lee Whittlesey who keeps track of naming and history? Acroterion (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Must be someone that does but since the North Cascades NP is a relatively newer park compared to for instance Yellowstone or Glacier, might be hard to find. The only thing I've read as far as name for Kaiser is about some guy in Canada shot himself along a creek and the headwaters of that creek originate near what is now known as Chief mountain which has also been known as King or Kaiser Peak. The man was named Lee Kaiser. But must be a dozen miles from Chief Mountain to this peak called Kaiser Point and I cannot make a reference based addition based on speculation. Its not big deal either way...just an odd factoid. Another thing that's unknown for some reason is that natural bridge in Shoshone National Forest, Blackwater Natural Bridge...why no one has ever done a scientific measurement of it is bewildering to me.--MONGO 19:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Read section on Chief Mountain--MONGO 20:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

DB Cooper edit

I have seen your request about the subject DB Cooper regarding verifiable content. Will comply. Gaylaprociv (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Residence_Ensemble_Schwerin_–_Cultural_Landscape_of_Romantic_Historicism

The User who write this, is the parliament: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Landtag_M-V_Infodienste Sorry, I'm en-0 --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a machine translation with my de-1-

Es tut mir leid, aber es ist eine Kopie einer Broschüre, die nicht anzeigt, dass sie auf Wikipedia verwendet werden kann. Ich kenne das Urheberrecht von Werken des deutschen Parlament nicht und muss davon ausgehen, dass dies urheberrechtlich geschützt ist.

Any talkpage stalkers who understand whether tourist prochures printed under the authority of the lande parliament are public domain are welcome to advise. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And the Parliament now appears to be blocked on enwiki as promotional, but not on de- I guess the rules are different for official accounts over there. Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit war on white supremacist vs white nationalist

I AM trying to revert it back to its original state. I also wrote a lot of stuff on the talk page. I added references which were deleted over and over again. Calton and few others are trying to make a claim of Lana Lokteff being a white supremacist - all of which is nothing but a personal opinion by left-wing authors. Why is it ME who is supposed to use the talk page when Calton and others are editing, deleting and reverting to old states of this article? Also, he is doing the exact same thing. Why is he not being warned, but only me? Do you also have an agenda to put foward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansnarf (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on consensus. It would help if you avoided accusations like "personal opinion by left-wing authors." You are expected to gain consensus for your edits, and not to edit-war until you get your way, nor is it appropriate to dismiss other editors as agenda-pushers. Calton knows the rules, you might not. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Calton knows the rules? You mean that's why he's been banned a few times before, even as early as 2008? The "accusation" of the author being left-wing is a fact. Vox is also a left-wing publication as seen here https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I'm seriously questioning Calton's objectivity. I was the only one trying to get consensus for my edit on the talk page. Calton just reverted my edits by claiming they were illegitimate without providing any proof but the original link, which linked to a left-wing publication. I provided four different sources which all said that she was a white nationalist. Even in the original Vox article it doesn't name her specifically a white nationalist. In fact, it only alleges and implies that she is. So how am I in the wrong exactly? Cuz, to sum it up: I used the talk page before Calton, I provided more links, the original editor called her a white supremacist based on personal opinion - which he even stated as the reason for editing it. I don't understand how you could even make a point to blame me for this edit war in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansnarf (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't edit-war: discuss. I'm making no judgment on the content or whether you're right or wrong, because that's not what I'm supposed to do as an administrator. We deal in behavior, and bringing up Calton's block log is the wrong way to approach an editing dispute. You're moving into personal attack territory. Don't edit-war. Use the talkpage to make your points, and remember that simply because a source tends in one direction or another doesn't mean they are automatically rejected: there should be a preponderance of opinion in media and scholarship. Acroterion (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Trying to make my points will result in a ban because even factual statements seem to be taken as "accusations". So I'll just not bother anymore. Hansnarf (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't call people racists when they simply disagree with you. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018

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 a supergun of 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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion:

I'm gonna have to stay signed out for a while. I feel terrible about editing pages. I don't want to be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristie Ann Webb (talk • contribs) 04:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

All you need to do is to add sources for what you write, and not rely on memories of a show you've seen. You're not going to be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. BTW, I've watch this crime show on Ted Bundy and at the time before I've received notice, they've mentioned that Hawkins was beheaded after the crime scene and one investor asked "Where's the head?", then Bundy responded "It's nowhere.". Unless I come across a typo, I decided not to edit pages unless I know how to use them properly. Kristie Ann Webb (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Antifa

I provided two sources for the edit no one put an argument against my change. what is the problem?KirinMagic (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You provided no sources at all in your edit, and the ADL source mentioned ion the talkpage doesn't state what you claim. Silence doesn't give assent, and misrepresentation of sources is disruptive. Don not make controversial changes to articles without consensus, and don't source to random YouTube videos. Acroterion (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

User Anon11000 and Charlie Kadado

Could you please take a look at this. Anon's 1st post to WP was this[42] where he writes 'I know someone who is a living person with a biography page on Wikipedia that was not created by him, and would like the page to be removed' Subsequently he nominated[43] Charlie Kadado for speedy deletion, and when that was declined, started an AFD[44]. WP:SPA, WP:COI and who knows maybe sockpuppetry might be in play here. If you have time, please look it over....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I've had many distractions in the past week or so, from work to an ongoing veterinary crisis. Yes, it probably involves a COI, but they've made it pretty clear that they acknowledge that, and while it's a single-purpose account, that's not automatically problematic. I think your responses in the AfD have been helpful, and I see no reason to intervene. I don't see any sockpuppetry, but that often happens inadvertently with new users, so it wouldn't fuss me as long as it wasn't intentional. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Brain Balance

I did not remove the NPR report. I did correct the characterization which was based on the headline and not on the body of the report. The report was far more balanced than the previous editor acknowledged. Also the previous editor had downgraded the status of the only actual peer-reviewed research on the program and had mischaracterized an editorial in a skeptic journal as "scientific and medical" evidence. I am not affiliated with Brain Balance, but I am an educational psychologist and a student of neurodevelopmental interventions. It is important that Wikipedia entries on such endeavors be balanced and complete. By the way, I note that there has been no factual objection to the actual editing I did (including the correction of spurious characterizations and the claims of plural sources, or any sources at all, when one or none exist.). All that was done was that my specific additions were rewritten in bland language to preserve the article's initial emphasis. This suggests bias, not effort toward accuracy, on the part of the editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthavengerusa (talk • contribs) 14:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I read the referenced article, and the content you removed reflects the content of the report. Use the article talkpage as intended to discuss your concerns, with specifics. This article has seen a great deal of promotional editing in the past and was originally created by editors with a conflict of interest. Your username "Truthavengerusa" doesn't indicate that you're a disinterested editor, and your broad "self-styled skeptic publications" commentary isn't an accurate characterization of NPR and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is it? Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand your apparent hostility. I did not characterize the Milwaukee paper or NPR as skeptic publications. The publication in question was "Science-Based Medicine," which is indeed an avowedly skeptic publication. The change was to the inaccurate phrase "scientific and medical journals." Science-Based Medicine, for all the good it does in the world, is neither (at least if we consider a scientific publication to be one which publishes peer reviewed material and is indexed in SciMed). Meanwhile neither the Milwaukee Journal nor NPR is a "scientific and medical" publications--the original phrase. Those references were preserved and attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthavengerusa (talk • contribs) 14:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't go straight to "your apparent hostility." You appear to be trying to cast shade on all criticism with the "self-styled skeptic" commentary, and to bypass or water down the main point of the NPR article. In any case, use the article talkpage to present your concerns and to propose alternate content so that a consensus may be developed, and please avoid treating editors who question your edits as adversaries. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Damn, I don't have "Truth in Username" on my Wikipedia:Bingo card for once. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I did get an "I don't understand your apparent hostility" to a rather mild expression of concern. The Truth in username continues to be a consistent marker of a confrontational attitude toward editing. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As with many things Wikipedia, MastCell gets right to the point (item 15). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

OWB #9 and #72 as well. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Two years later: new vandalisms on Disney's duck articles

Hi, we already had a discussion about this in the past (the last time being in User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q2 2016#Vandalism on the Duck family page), but it seems that once again, two years later, the page Duck family (Disney) saw the addition of unsourced facts and POV opinions like Therefore, she couldn't be a 100-year-old woman in the mid-1950s, as suggested by Don Rosa's chronology, and it would be more appropriate to consider her to be a great-granddaughter of Cornelius Coot. Incidentally, the controversial lines are copied-and-pasted from the previous edits we had to deal in the past. Similar questionable or non-constructive edits happened in related pages like Ludwig Von Drake (here) and List of Donald Duck universe characters (here). I have reverted these edits, but I hope they won't be re-reverted back again and again like in the past. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me some diffs of the edits from two years ago against those that happened recently? Acroterion (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A recent edit vs an edit from 2015. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like these same edits are going to be repeated forever, just like they were repeated today here, here and here. I reverted them, though I wonder how long it will pass before the same controversial text appears in these articles again. -Newblackwhite (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanq

You blocked user:bona bed2 and also other sock user:bona bed3 started desruption

{Actor juniour (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)}

I got the latest one. Thanks for reporting them. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

i found one sock user:bonadae ...all these socks are belongs to that sock..i just read sock puppet investigation report

(Actor juniour (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=847382722&oldid=847382616

(Actor juniour (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

Yes, they were blocked in 2016. This is a prolific abusive user who has been harassing Bonadea and other editors for years. The original account was Nsmutte. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read my unblock appeal for my Educator57 account (CREATED ANONYMOUSLY UNDER MY IP ADDRESS!)

Can you check my unblock appeal at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Educator57#unblock please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.46.212 (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You won't be unblocked until at least six months after the last time you evaded your block, as you have done here, and attempts like this one to do so will count against you. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

How is giving barnstars to fellow Wikipedians "vandalism"?

How is giving barnstars to fellow Wikipedians "vandalism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnstar Rewarder (talk • contribs) 11:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

How are your actions helpful to the encyclopedia, why are you wasting your own time and that of our volunteers, and what was your previous account? Acroterion (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Expedient!

You beat me to it and I thank you! Better coming from you anyway since you're an admin and far more polite about things than I am.MONGO 12:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Scary admin! Woo! Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Осншаикея

Will you revoke talk here. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. I stepped outside for a few minutes to watch the fireflies and distant lightning. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. Home Lander (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Great minds think alike!

:D Λυδαcιτγ 03:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

One week for you, vandal! Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)