User talk:Acroterion

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

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

added Clovermoss
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock confession[edit]

Can you please look at this ? [1]Ratnahastin (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are back [2] Ratnahastin (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Soupackage[edit]

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:JWBallz[edit]

Given their prior (if sporadic) editing history of POV pushing regardless of the citations attached, I might have indeffed this editor per WP:NOTHERE. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thought crossed my mind, but then I really needed to wind up lunch and get back to work. We'll see what use, if any, they make of my tolerance. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Stylondecors[edit]

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Revert Rule Warning[edit]

Hi sir,

I am curious where this three-revert rule applies to me. Please provide evidence. I have actually not reverted a single page. I am not even on one, yet you flagged my account as three. Why is this?DivineReality (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that you've donne it once in a given article (I thought you'd done it twice in the Biden article, I was mistaken). However, you're bouncing from place to place adding lengthy digressions about a lawsuit that has a long way to go before it reaches a threshold of due emphasis. Warnings do not mean that you've breached a threshold, they are just reminders not to. I recommend that you wait until any court action becomes a significant feature of someone's life. Mere existence is not notable. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind cease reverting the positive changes I make to the page[edit]

The statement I made was a highly neutral statement, that is pure fact, that is so embedded in Christianity- can it be more "neutral"? Or how would you define "neutral" It is not personal commentary, it is neutral explanation that is designed to make the text less ambiguous than it already is - as it seems biased towards the religion. The sentence "19th century priests - including Donders - showed no respect towards existing beliefs (including Winti) is by any standard not neutral, since: 1. Is authos's presonal opionion not covered in bibliography 2. Contains only half of the truth: most (if not all) missionaries does not show respect towards existing beliefs, becuase it does not go on par with Christianity 91.189.141.116 (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a messageboard for your personal views or analysis. I have no particular issue with the removal of that statement, but amplifying or explaining it strays into personal analysis. ff you persist in editorializing you will lose editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

71.65.65.144[edit]

Less than 2 weeks after the last 6-month block expires, somehow trouble finds them again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more like 18 months, if I'm reading the block log right, but we can find comfort that they've at least moved on from Matthew Garrett. Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied on my talk page and on the administrators' noticeboard[edit]

By mistake, I pinged a different editor. I edit it back, to your username, but I don't know for sure if it notified you or not. Dante4786 (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at AN. I think you probably need to take a step back. I'll reply at greater length on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent block[edit]

You recently blocked[3] a disruptive IP. I suspect this account[4] is the same person. They left a comment defending the IP's edit and then made the same disruptive edit at Ronald Acuña Jr.. Nemov (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd been waiting to see what else they'd do, there's no doubt that they're a logged-in version of the IP. Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rev/delete of defamatory content[edit]

Hi Acroterion, can you rev/delete the latest BLP violation at Gary Allen (runner)? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Materialscientist got there first. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xwpis ONOMA[edit]

Thank you for blocking User:Xwpis ONOMA. I think you may want to just go ahead and remove TPA, I missed this horribly antisemitic comment on another page until I went looking through their previous contributions. This person definitely doesn't need to be allowed back. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, I didn't see that either. I won't remove TPA unless they abuse it, but I will amend my comment, I see no redemption available to them. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block Followup[edit]

You recently blocked this IP range for personal attacks, but I'm seeing very similar IPs (like this one and this one) continuing to post on the talk page in question. Maybe not making personal attacks, but it feels like block evasion. Asking here because you did the original block and it's honestly not clear whether this is something that needs to be reported/where that would even happen/whether a block expansion is even warranted. Can't wrap my head around rangeblocks, but when I tried to look at contributions over a larger range the edit history seemed to line up. Paris1127 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Want to be clear I'm not requesting that you expand the block, just asking what the protocol is here... Wikipedia policies can be positively oracular at times. Paris1127 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rangeblocks take some getting used to, especially with IPv6. I think it bears a closer look, because blocked is blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On inspection of their edits, the first edit from that range was probably the most telling. I guess they've learned from the first block to tone down the personal attacks, but not quite enough. Iv'e blocked the new range. I suspect they'll find another /64 range, though. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the attention. A new block was more than I was expecting. If he does find a new /64 I'm not sure we can continue this game of Whac-A-Mole. Paris1127 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They should be tolerably obvious, for reasons I won't go into in public. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comicsgate[edit]

Hi Acroterion. I know you keep an eye on Comicsgate, which is frequently targeted by irate editors. If you have some time, it would be appreciated if you could keep an admin eye on Ethan Van Sciver for a while, too; I anticipate some talkpage sealioning. Grandpallama (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, watchlisted. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert question at September 11 attacks[edit]

Why did you revert this IP editor? I don't see it mentioned in the summary. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the edit? It wasn't a question, it was a garbled test edit at best, and was not an edit request or a suggestion for article improvement. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I just thought maybe the new IP doesn't know the rules yet. I put a welcome banner that has the rules and hopefully they will learn the ropes here. :) --David Tornheim (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. I interpreted it as a child who had a slightly garbled idea of what had happened who was trying out editing. We see that fairly often, though less than we used to, unfortunately. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent removal of well-sourced content - Canada convoy protest[edit]

Would it be possible to help? A convoy supporter is removing well-sourced content. It appears that the edits are politically motivated - they wish to remove any content that is critical of the convoy occupation (e.g. anything referring to the class action lawsuit). They are also adding inaccurate content. Thanks! Helikon (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the issue is, you have both wildly exceeded 3RR. I’ll look it over and figure out what to do, but reverting like that is never a good idea - it should be reported at AIV or AN3 before it ever goes that far. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

I'm not going to have the time to sort this out before I go to work, I'm going to leave a message at WP:ANI for other admins to look at. You should expect to be scolded for simply reverting instead of soliciting admin help from the beginning. I realize you didn't necessarily know that, but it leaves you open to sanctions too. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has protected the article. I contacted info-en@wikipedia.org to ask for help, but received a reply 9 hours later. Sorry, I didn't know who to contact - I haven't encountered these issues before. Helikon (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody expects you to know, from limited experience. In general, editors are limited to three reverts, at most, for anything short of really obvious vandalism or defamation, which this was not. In general, if you encounter this kind of thing again, I would advise reporting it at WP:AIV for simple vandalism, or WP:ANI for more complicated issues, and resigning yourself to the understanding that the article may have the wrong version until it can be dealt with. For flat-out edit-warring, like you saw, WP:AN3, but it's best to go there without having done it yourself,and formatting it can be tricky. WP:RAA is a good resource. It can be hard to find help in the North American nighttime hours. Acroterion (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the detailed info. I will definitely seek help if I spot any similar issues in the future. In this situation, it looks like a former protester/occupier is really keen to remove or counter any negative coverage. In response, we can talk about the use of reliable sources, and the importance of maintaining a balanced, neutral point of view.
On the contact page: it could be helpful to add some more details there.
"3. For vandalism, it is best just to fix it directly yourself; however, if you cannot fix it, you can email info-en-v@wikimedia.org and include the address or title of the article and a description of the vandalism."
Wikipedia:Contact us/Readers Helikon (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a mechanism via email, at least Iv'e never participated in such a mailing list. I'll figure out where such emails actually go, I'm not optimistic that it's very closely monitored I'd avoid email response and just contact somebody on-wiki. Nighttime requests would be very unlikely to get attention via email in any case. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lower protection of United Airlines Flight 93 to semi[edit]

Hello. Extended confirmed did make sense on the 20th anniversary, but it’s been 2 and a half years and the page is still extended. It could potentially be lowered to even pending changes or no protection, but extended confirmed is overkill as of now. CharlieEdited (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed protection entirely, as the specific disruption has been dealt with. There are a couple of LTAs that might cause trouble, but they can be dealt with by semi-protection if needed. Acroterion (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against men[edit]

Hello Acroterion, I see that you've protected the violence against men article. I personally disagree with your move and request the move to be reversed, however I am happy to hear your thought process as I'm not up to code with page protection. You cite an IP persistently removing material without explanation. There was an explanation for the move on the talk page. This user has also only removed this content once before, which was a day ago so is that considered "persistent"? Further, this user has added well-sourced content, so I've assumed that the editor is acting in good faith. From what I see, it didn't need to be protected. —Panamitsu (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take a less benign view. The IP appears to be trying to turn around the article's discussion on domestic partner violence, flipping the statements on women vs. men (i.e., persistently removing content not to their POV). They added a source that at least on its face appears to support their apparent POV, and then removed the reference that supported the original statement, with a talkpage comment that effectively stated that they just didn't like the reference. This particular statement has seen disruption in the past. The IP can clearly find the talkpage, and is welcome to discuss why they think such a significant reversal should be made, with a consensus of sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, since I have commitments for the rest of the day and won't be available to respond, I've removed the semi-protection, since the IP appears to be able to present talkpage discussion. Please keep an eye on things, the article has been a battleground in the past for this very statement. Any admin is welcome to reinstate or modify if needed. Acroterion (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diatribe[edit]

is such an interesting word. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"1. An abusive, bitter verbal or written attack, criticism or denunciation. 2. A prolonged discourse; a long-winded speech." Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn’t I edit the talk page for Far Right?[edit]

I was trying to polish and refine the comments on the talk page for the Far Right, but you undid my revision. Why? Julkhamil (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't alter other peoples' comments. Period. And why are you using two accounts? Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Julkhamil, I removed your recent post, which was not on-topic for the article talk page. I second Acroterion's advice that you not edit other people's comments. You cited Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, but none of your changes were of the types suggested at that how-to page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am close to blocking both accounts for general lack of clue and abuse of multiple accounts. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need help, don't know what to do.[edit]

Hello @Acroterion! There is an ongoing discussion in the Amhara people talk page. This discussion began after a disagreement on when the Christianization of Amhara began, with me believing it started in the 4th century during the reign of Emperor Ezana and the other user "Socialwave597" believing it happened "in the late Aksumite period, as hinted in the missionary activities of King Degna Djan." Throughout the discussion I gave a lot of reliable sources, however to no avail. He (I don't kow if it is on purpose or not) misinterprets them and/or gives some excuse not to accept them as valid. He also provided some sources, however when you look at them they don't state what he said, on the contrary, some even prove my point. I saw that It was a waste of time and asked for a third opinion. Thankfully it was answered and the Administrator gave his opinion, which seemed to me that he wasn't certain or just tried to be as neutral as possible. Me and Socialwave597 made our proposals and have yet to been answered, it's been more than 2 weeks. I have no idea whether Admins respond back when giving third opinions but we really need a concrete answer so we can reach a consensus as fast as possible. Would you be able, if possible of course, to check the situation and possibly resolve this? Please let me know if I need to contact someone else or do something as I really have no clue of what to do, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia and I am just trying to solve this issue. Thanks! Javext (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On superficial reading, it looks like Ilywrch (who is not an administrator) did a very thorough review, more than I could do. But , at least while acting as an administrator, I can't arbitrate content, and I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic, so I would need to do a lot of homework to be of much use in any case. I would suggest WP:DR for a moderated discussion if you think the issues are intractable. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I believed Llywrch was an administrator as it was stated in his profile page but in any case I'll see what I can do, thanks for the response. Javext (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they are, but they aren't commenting from an administrator's point of view. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Black (song)[edit]

See WP:ANI#Copyvio revdel requested for Back in Black. I've boldly deleted the passage based on that dodgy Guitar Player "citation". We need a solid RS for gushing fanpuffery, and I've seen unusable anonymous reviews in Allmusic and reaction videos which were better than that. I don't have the stomach to go over the rest of the article. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Internet has plenty of other places to post glowing odes. Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Uniquely" triggered one of my alarms. OP at ANI (Binksternet) thanked my edit, so that's three in agreement. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

31 hour block for the Talk:Leo Frank editor?[edit]

I think it's warranted. Good close to that discussion. I got caught up in an edit conflict with you, wrote: Quick response before I block you for personal attacks. Source1mag[5] is a conspiracy theory site. Eg "Shocking Mini Hidden Camera Shows – Corporate, Big Pharma Plot to Fire Tucker Carlson" and "Bizarre Oddities: Oh My, Obama’s Brother Says Barack Sold His Soul to Satan To Join the Illuminati" The American Chronicle is no better.[6] Doug Weller talk 12:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, they're headed for an indef one way or another for POV pushing. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection – thanks![edit]

Hi Acroterion, it's been a while and I hope you are doing well. I decided a few days ago that I would see if I could make a low-key return to Wikipedia editing without too much anxiety, and the first thing I found was that Nsmutte had returned while I was gone... I came here to ask if you could help me with a renewed semi-protection of my user talk page, but I just noticed that you already did while I was typing the previous, so I'll change to a thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I considered making it indefinite protection, in fact, I think I will, if you don't mind. I'm happy to help. Acroterion (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Thanks again! --bonadea contributions talk 13:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin Acroterion will not let me refactor talk pages and is not engaging in an open way. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are abusing your power to block, are not providing transparent justification for your editorial decisions, are asserting rules that are not present in Wikipedia policy pages, and are reverting edits citing principles that contradict Wikipedia policy pages.[edit]

I am contesting your conduct as an admin. You have threatened to block me 3 times, which I find to be an unacceptable way to wield your ability to ban users. If you ban me for contesting your conduct, I only take it as further evidence that you have been given too much power as an admin because you are apparently able to overrule anyone who questions your conduct.


Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding You are threatening to block me on unjust grounds, and this is not ok conduct for an admin. The thread is Admin Acroterion will not let me refactor talk pages and is not engaging in an open way. Thank you. — Julkhamil (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I have replied. Good luck with that. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of my wiki page[edit]

You:

Subject: Inquiry Regarding Deletion of User Page

Hi there,

I recently noticed that my Wikipedia user page, which was dedicated to well-known saints with followers worldwide, has been deleted. I'm writing to inquire about the reason behind this deletion. I've observed similar pages for saints from various countries, including the USA, China, Japan, and India. like similar content what my page was so if similar content with other page can work what is issue for my page..?

Given this precedent, I'm curious as to what specific issue led to the removal of my page.

Could you please provide me with more information regarding the deletion and any guidelines or policies I may have inadvertently violated? I'm eager to ensure that any necessary adjustments are made to comply with Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you for your assistance.

Warm regards,

Yatharthgeeta24 Yatharthgeeta24 (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my notice to you, userpages are not workspaces for drafts, or alternate hosts for articles. Additionally, the content included repeated links to what I take to be your personal website, yatharthgeeta.com. Wikipedia does not permit that kind of spamming. Please do not use Wikipedia as a free webhost. Acroterion (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… thanks for your kind reply
You mean if I do not use links of websites so I can Create a page for famous india saint..??
I was new on Wikipedia just started contributing here I will keep in these points in mind for my future page if any. 103.87.31.236 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could start at Draft:Adgadanand, and build an article there, using independent sources (not your website), and avoiding anything directly copy/pasted from anywhere, printed or on the Internet. Acroterion (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

173.206.254.88[edit]

Some people just need to stick to decaf. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a little on the shrill and manic side. Acroterion (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on flight 93 passengers[edit]

There is no actual way of knowing that the claims of the four men being the ‘ones who organised a revolt’ are true. The only evidence is from reports of what happened which have changed over time, and their accuracy has been questions. There is no way of knowing that the four men actually were the only four who decided initially. That is just what is reported through popular media and what was reported as being said in unrecorded telephone conversations. Tge use of names when referring to the 9/11 commission report is also wrong as the simply says ‘native English’ or ‘native Arabic’ speaker. The voice recordings have never been made public just a transcript, so any attributions to individuals is not confirmed. The definitive claims of ‘these four men did x’ or ‘x said this’ when not a recorded call in wikivoice is a misuse of wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your language implies far more doubt than actually exists. Reliable sources are reasonably concordant on these matters. There is room for modification, but I don't think the may-or-may-not tone is helpful. We follow the conclusions of reliable sources rather than introducing our own analysis of primary sources. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying ‘primary’ sources here where in fact you are using secondary sources.
also you have omitted that I have pointed out inconsistencies from official reports, to the non-official media reports. Also the primary source of the voice recorder has not been released.
the claim of ‘implies far more doubt than actually exists’ is not true as doubt as to who did and said what does exist. There is no way to know who ‘we’ or ‘they’ are when this is reported as quotes in media sources. It is unlikely the passengers all formally introduced themselves to each other.
The issue here is with flight 93 a lot of what is reported in the media is written as being factual and accurate, when it is speculation and conclusion creation on behalf of those organisations who wrote and published those. There is no way of knowing who was and was not involved in the passenger revolt. There is no way of knowing fair was just these four men or others unnamed were involved. It has to be written media and popular narratives attribute the events to be that this is what occurred. The official 9/11 commission report is not definitive but somehow popular media is. Remember popular media uses licence to create a story to sell the medium it is being published in. Stating things as definitive because it is in sources usually considered reliable negates that the accounts are not verified as what happened. Reliable and verified sources must be used, but just reliable. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses "the media" for sources. If you have wording that you think more accurately reflects the 9/11 report and reliable sourcing, describe it on the relevant talkpages. Again, your wording is more vague than I think is warranted. I think there are better ways to approach the issue of what is knowable and unknowable than inserting a bunch of waffle. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the phrase ‘a bunch of waffle’ it’s not in good faith. Also attributions to who has said an individual thing is common on Wikipedia. It is more than common to go ‘according to newspaper’ or ‘publication stated about subject’.
what is being missed here is assumption bias of this is what has been reported for a long time by lots so it’s correct. Which is a form of bias to avoid. Lots of people saying something over a long period is not verifiability in and of itself. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful with the "not in good faith" accusations - I am responding to you in good faith.
Attributions are typically used when there are other widely discussed views. Take it up on the article talkpage - the onus is on you to find consensus for your changes. At the very least, they're awkwardly phrased and convey waffling rather than attribution. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add my complete support for Acroterion's comments above. To repeat, the onus is on you to find consensus for your proposed changes. You do appear to waffle and find objections to other Wikipedia pages. David J Johnson (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I saw your message to 49.185.208.16. (Thanks for the backup, btw. It's good to know that someone else found that edit sketchy) Do you know if there's a discussion/policy that specifically addresses the issue of "Jew-tagging"? Or is it something that is enveloped by wp:rs and wp:undue? Joyous! Noise! 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It comes up at ANI from time to time, and it's condemned each time. In the MoS it's specifically deprecated - see MOS:ETHNICITY. We get two kinds of editors that do that - proud promoters of Jewish accomplishments, and bigots. Before edit filters prevented it, we'd get Triple parentheses instead. I'll look around for a discussion, I know one exists, and I've probably quoted it at some point. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's this [7] and here [8]. I haven't gone and looked for the AN and Jimbo discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate your time and trouble. Joyous! Noise! 01:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ships[edit]

In this edit you said that consensus was to refer to ships without gender. I tried to find the consensus myself but failed to do so. Is it possible that you can share with me the link to the consensus? Thanks. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this list but all appear to have closed with no consensus. Am I missing something? —Panamitsu (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed someone mentioning MOS:SHIP which says that either feminine or neutral gender pronouns may be used with ships. Sorry for the mass of messages! —Panamitsu (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Strictly speaking, consensus is not to change from one to another per MOS:SHIP, so I misspoke somewhat in the edit summary. It's sort of like sticking to one language variant once it's established. Personally, I think it's kind of anachronistic to use gendered language for ships.Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missed revdel[edit]

Hi – thanks for those blocks, looks like potentially a missed revdel over at Special:Contributions/SmBby. Tollens (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there appears to have been a group of accounts doing the same things there. I’m still looking at some earlier edits to see if they’re worth reveling. Acroterion (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fracture Critical Bridge[edit]

I read your article.....and while I appreciate you asking me, I am not sure how much help I can be with it. (Although if you have specific questions from specific references, I might be able to help.) First off, I am not a bridge guy (I do mainly industrial buildings). AASHTO is kind of a world unto itself. Bridge design is a specialty area in structural (kind of like precast/prestressed). We use to gripe about the fact the SE exam was 20% bridge questions.....and we (i.e. building guys) were clueless. (I had to get AASTO's 16th/17th ed. and try to pick off the easy questions.....but I digress.)

All that being said, here is a good thread (with some references) on this topic on Eng-tips.com: [9]. Like some of the posters said: we tend to think more in terms of "redundancy" than "Fracture Critical". I am not sure if I've even heard that term before.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm an architect, so I'm worse off than you - my competency is in building structures, and as you observe, we generally think in terms of redundancy - there are few non-redundant tension-loaded elements in a building. Thanks for the clue, I'm going to try to stick to generalities and avoid getting down into the engineering weeds, and hope somebody in the AASHTO world looks at it. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across another paper on this [10]. I am kind of fascinated by the history of this.....mainly because I haven't heard of it. It appears this has been a focus in more recent decades. (After most of the references I am familiar with were written.) Of course, fatigue checks have always been a part of AASHTO.....but I didn't know this was part of their intent (i.e. a overall failure of the whole system).Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith[edit]

exclamation mark  On 29 March 2024 you stated I don't see this as a matter for arbitration, this looks like extended forum-shopping. The Arbitration Committee is part of the dispute resolution process. I had legitimate reasons why I went to the ArbCom, which I will explain in the case if my request for extension is approved. You may even think I may have used a mistaken venue. But you stating that it looks like it is forum-shopping is an ill-considered accusation of impropriety and is not assuming good faith. You are an administrator, please follow Wikipedia guidance. The Assume Good Faith guideline clearly states,

Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. [...]

When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all around.

According to the Administrator conduct policy,

Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should follow Wikipedia policies and perform their duties to the best of their abilities.

Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGF doesn't immunize you against criticism for your behavior. Acroterion (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is directly addressed in what I posted above. I am not seeking to be "immunized from criticism". But if you fail to understand the difference between constructive criticism and unfounded accusations and not assuming good faith, then I do criticize you. In fact, my track record can show that I do seek objective feedback for my actions out of my own volition. And I do accept and recognize objective criticism and even when I make mistakes. But I don't like when people make unfounded and false accusations or rumours against me, much more administrators, who should know better. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're acting in good faith. That doesn't mean that everybody is compelled to agree with you, or never to criticize you. The tendency to filibuster the slightest criticism is another characteristic that I'm seeing on this page. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear[edit]

Yeah... so... let's just ignore that – Potato/potahto! Hope you see what I was trying to do! I think my logic is sound, even if the geography isn't!!! MIDI (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got to within 400 miles or so the cities began with B and the states with M. However, I take your point, see my discussion on the talkpage about a pedantic insistence that the bridge ran from Dundalk to Baltimore, which may make sense in a legal sense, but is otherwise nonsensical, and I did say "outside Baltimore" or "to the east of Baltimore" would be fine. Acroterion (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huntingdon Valley Chupacabra[edit]

This is not a hoax this is culturally significant local legend back by reputable news source. It also helps to further display the cultural impact the Chupacabra cryptid legend has stretched to other area of the world outside of mexico. Dancmaster (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm sure that you can provide several references in reliable sources that actually describe the alleged appearance in Huntingdon Valley. The reference you used made no such mention. Acroterion (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An IP range you blocked[edit]

...a couple times for "Jew tagging" and in general bad editing practices has picked up where they left off after the latest 3-month block expired: 2601:883:C201:8590:0:0:0:0/64 A good number of their recent edits involve some form of apparent anti-Jewish animus (e.g. [11][12][13]) or whitewash well-known antisemitic conspiracy theorists (e.g. [14][15]), while others have simply been reverted for being unsourced or undue. As the most recent blocking admin, I thought I'd bring this to you first rather than give this person a platform at ANI. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this was their first rodeo I’d warn or give them more rope, but they seem to be trying to skirt on just the edge of what they were doing before. 1 year this time. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VisualDiff crashes on pages with complex/manual HTML changes[edit]

Can you please restore my user page until after phabricator.wikimedia.org/T363024 is resolved? The example links for reproducing the bug are no longer working. Otherwise, could you please recommend where/how I might post the exact same history so there's a working example the MediaWiki/Wikipedia devs can reference? Thank you! RDuckDev (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does a copied course syllabus have to do with that? User pages aren’t hosts for copyright violations or HTML debugging or whatever you’re trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the delta (change) between the revisions that's relevant to the bug report. Wikimedia asks for "clear [steps in] how to reproduce the situation" (How_to_report_a_bug). Unfortunately, I only know the contents that trigger the bug in Parsoid and/or the VisualEditor/VisualDiff, not the root cause that I would need for crafting an example from scratch. There-in, the relevance is to provide Wikipedia's software developers with a working example of the bug to help make visual diffing work more reliably for us all!
All that in mind, I understand that user pages aren't the intended place for providing Wikipedia's developers with such an example for debugging the underlying MediaWiki software, my apologies for that oversight. Could you recommend where I should post a working example (solely for the lifetime of the bug report)? Please disregard. I've attached the information directly to the bug report. Thanks, again, for the guidance. RDuckDev (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that's what you would do. Putting a course syllabus, code source or not, in Wikipedia itself is a copyright violation from what I saw, and Wikipedia itself isn't a Mediawiki or coding forum. You might want to try the Mediawiki wiki for that sort of thing: [16]. Acroterion (talk)

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pouvez fermer mon compte Sur le Wikipédia de langue anglaise[edit]

Monsieur le ministre@heures, je ne veux pas vous faire perdre votre temps comme vous me le dites sur ma page de discussion. Je ne veux pas perdre mon temps. Vous pouvez fermer mon compte sur le Wikipédia de langue anglaise. Cordialement Laurange Jolicœur Héron du fleuve (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Email[edit]

Hey, I have written you an email. Ryan kh (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks[edit]

So I just partial-blocked my alt account from Wikipedia community and the template namespace (but disabled autoblock), and logged into it and visited https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%20community&action=edit. If I'd fully blocked the account, this would trigger an autoblock on my IP and this account; I'd like to try this, but this has caused me problems in the past. What happens if a partially blocked user attempts to edit one of these pages, and then logs out: is an autoblock applied, and if so, is it a full block, or is it limited to the scope of the original partial block? Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... damned if I know, to be honest. I'm not sure if the autoblock would apply only to the partial block topic, I hadn't considered that. I would think so, but it's outside my experience/understanding. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zzuzz or another checkuser would probably have better insight on that topic, since they'd see the consequences. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty niche subject, but do consult Wikipedia:Partial_blocks#Technical_considerations where it mentions it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Stinney "Talk" comment[edit]

Why did you delete ALL of my "Talk" on George Stinney? Topsecretsquirrel (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages are for specific, sourced, actionable suggestions for article improvement. They're not fora for the opinions of individual editors or for general discussion. Acroterion (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1968 in Orangeburg, law enforcement officers shot thirty African American students, killing three. These students from Claflin College and South Carolina State College had been protesting a segregated bowling alley. Two year later, in Lamar, two hundred white men armed with ax handles, chains, and stones stormed three school buses transporting African American students to the high school. Topsecretsquirrel (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a terrible time and place. But this encyclopedia's article talkpages are for suggestions on article improvement, not for general observations on how awful things were. Wikipedia is not an Internet forum. Acroterion (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a forum here either, please read Orangeburg Massacre, which has lots of sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To Acroterion (04/15/2024 PST Northern California),
How do I say this "Wiki" Proper? I will do my best. But first I would like you to know a little something about me. I am a "FACT" checker from day one. My Grandmother imbedded in my little pea sized brain the following quote:
"Believe NOTHING of what you HEAR and ONLY HALF of what you SEE".
Let me start with 2 questions for you.
Q1). BEFORE Wikipedia, where did YOU get your "FACTS"? (Please answer below)
A1).
Q2). My last reply to you (Orangeburg 1968), is most definitely a "FACT" but not from "WIKI". It is straight out of The Smithsonian Magazine, and it is only ONE paragraph of "The Orangeburg Massacre" in 1968.
A2). You don't have to answer this question. You can try, but....
Moving FORWARD...
It is only ONE of the many "FACT CHECKS" I do when someone decides to, ohhh, "Underestimate Me". So, for you, I have attached a link of "The Smithsonian Magazine" article (Note that they do NOT have {#} please) as, quite frankly, I do not have the time to give all my FACT resources to WIKI.
Lastly (I really hope you read this article), I NEVER come to Wikipedia for FACTS. I saw a "Documentary" about it on a "True Crime" (I am a True Crime buff) channel I "TRUST" and when I typed it into my browser (NOT GOOGLE) the "Wiki" page was the 1st to POP up (I bet you all pay billions for that spot) and I foolishly clicked on it (Because I know UNEQIVICALLY better than to trust this info). I read what "Wiki" had to "SAY" about "George Stinney" (the youngest EVER to be EXECUTED), saw hundreds of your blue {#}'s which I know UNEQUIVICALLY that they mean it was either "Edited for WRONG FACTS" or "Misleading", "Sorry, wrong, here's an update", "Sorry you were fooled by a so-called Historian", blah, blah de, blah ditty blah.. noticed the "TALK" tab and like a dumbass, signed up so I could write what I did the first time. Which, by the way, is so very true and I saw many others doing the exact same thing.
In summary, Wikipedia is commonly referred to and known as (and ALWAYS has been from day ONE) "Wiki-Rumor-Has-It but we'll fix it with blue {#} if you call us out on something".
My knowledge comes from a lot of research, fact checking and being or living someplace where I SEE, HEAR, and WITNESS the TRUE goings-on of what I UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOW as a FACT still happen to this very day! And I am NOT afraid to say it directly to anyone's face who attempts to "call me out" on a fact that I UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOW, LIVE and BREATH due to incompetent hacks who crossed my path of life.
And finally, in the "Southern Schools" students are "NOT ALLOWED" to use Wikipedia for "ANY and ALL assignments or you will fail with a big fat F and have to do it all over again". That is a TRUE FACT that I know UNEQUIVOCALLY. And if you do not believe me? Please allow me to introduce my "Genius" son.
I will now leave you to spew more "wiki" and I will kindly unsubscribe to "TALK". Just for YOU :).
Here is "The Smithsonian Magazine" link. Enjoy and it has been my pleasure to tell you what IS.
In 1968, Three Students Were Killed by Police. Today, Few Remember the Orangeburg Massacre | Smithsonian (smithsonianmag.com)
Sincerely and from the bottom of my heart,
TOPSECRETSQUIRRELL Topsecretsquirrel (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is somehow a response to my request that you not use Talk:George Stinney for general discussion? We have a very detailed article on the Orangeburg Massacre, extensively referenced to scholarly sources. Please feel free to read it. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

who was inviting to be site blocked? I did not see the message because of an edit conflict. Neko Lexi (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not you! Acroterion (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok just making sure. sorry Neko Lexi (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bans on Nazi symbols[edit]

I was just removing unsourced content because Wikipedia:Citation needed. Arnida0210 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's preferable to find sources instead of summarily removing it, unless it's agreed to be dubious or unsourced and tagged as such for a long, long time. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what User:Arnida0210/ is all about. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies It looks like they are trying to get auto-confirmed in a hurry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Spicy, did you find anything exciting? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what counts as exciting, Drmies, but you may want to have a look for yourself. My response was "meh..." Spicy (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least we've given them some time back that would otherwise be used in adding periods, one by one. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review Draft:Korvi Rakshand Page[edit]

Hello Acroterion, I am requesting you to review Draft:Korvi Rakshand page. Thanks for your help.--IqbalHossain (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on List of Fictional Countries of the Earth? There was nothing wrong with my addition 2A02:A459:24D6:0:1144:6BB:4212:8785 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsourced, and I missed the link back to the main article. Acroterion (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my fault there is no article about the book yet. That is why i linked to the author's article where the book is mentioned
There are also plenty completely unlinked cases on the article so i don't get why you're singling this one out specificially? 213.134.244.103 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There really ought to be an article on the book first, and there really ought to be sources for the others, and for your addition. I've left it there though. Acroterion (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GeekyAviation[edit]

You might want to remove Geeky's TPA. They're abusing it. ZLEA T\C 03:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Bbb23 has taken care of it. - ZLEA T\C 03:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I was in the shower. Acroterion (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did You Remove RossoSPC's Sandbox[edit]

Let me get myself clear. RossoSPC's sandbox is a sandbox. Not an article, a sandbox. He's not making that a real article. Yes it is a hoax, but it's a sandbox, not an article. I do sound uneducated but I'm still somewhat confused that you deleted a sandbox

Rahit493 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes aren't permitted anywhere on Wikipedia. See WP:HOAX and WP:CSD, G3, which applies everywhere, not to mention that Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for fiction. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he said he was testing out how to work on combat articles though Rahit493 (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
war articles*
also im going to migrate it to my own website do not make a big deal about it please RossoSPC (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
supposed to be a work of fiction not a hoak but ok RossoSPC (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote something in the format of an article purporting to describe a civil war in Texas. It's both. Not here. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i will migrate it to my fiction wiki then RossoSPC (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is perfectly fine, I understand your motivations for creating it, I've done things like that too (long ago, before the Internet). Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fire me![edit]

I actually quit a couple minutes before you fired me! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And people who tell me I'm doing something wrong have to be punished for being meanies. I think they're a teenager based on the edit to Bearcat's userpage and the edits to their own userpage that had to be suppressed for TMI, so it all goes together. I think they're not yet living in the Real World and are finding out what adults expect of other adults the hard way. Acroterion (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems pretty likely. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion&oldid=1223808575"