User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q2 2019

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

Personal attack?

Just to be clear, accusing someone of having a political POV or bias, is a personal attack? I ask so that I understand the rules. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The way you're going about it, yes. Stop making judgments about other editors based on your feelings about the topic. If you can't edit neutrally and without attacking other editors, your editing privileges will be restricted or removed. Walk away from the keyboard for a while. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to take a Wiki Break. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cardi B#Hennessy Doesn't Need a Page... Not Famous Enough

Siblings like the Jenner sisters are very high profile models and TV personalities and cause of that two separate pages were created.

But as for the case of a famous rapper, namely that of Cardi B has younger sister named Hennessy Carolina. (no really that's her given moniker, as it comes from the fact of her dad showing up boozed during her birth)

Since subject isn't a well known social media personality to the likes of the Paul Brothers, a page removal should be accepted. Yes page blanking is a giant no no but that HAS to happen.

Link to the desired page: en.wikipedia.org/w/Hennessy_Carolina.

Lights out,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The deletion discussion came to no consensus. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing my correction

I am Walter Johnson’s Daughter. Why would you remove my correction ? Blasian99 (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't a correction - generally children aren't named in biographies unless they're independently notable, with sources in major independent media to prove it, and we have no way of confirming who anybody is that makes an anonymous edit. Everything in a biography must be sourced to published mediaAcroterion (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Reprisals for the death of Karl Hotz

Your Link to this article had started a translation of the French. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Socking

Hi, Acroterion - I noticed in one of your discussions above there was an issues with an IP messing with filters, and I'm now wondering if 91.248.142.3 and 85.16.226.58 are one in the same with that IP. If so, is that considered sock activity? Atsme Talk 📧 14:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Those two are clearly the same person, but since IPs can change, sometimes, we shouldn't be quick to say that it's socking just because the IP has changed. I'm not sure which discussion on this page you're referring to - neither of the IPs you've mentioned have triggered filters.
The various fascism-related pages have seen a steady stream of drive-by edits by folks who've taken Jonah Goldberg seriously, or who take the "socialism" in National Socialism literally, or people who think that a given political stance is defined by its extremes - which would make my socially-active stepmother a follower of Pol Pot by that definition. I've never thought that any particular person was doing that, it's just part of the background chatter. It's all a bit tedious, because most of those edits are motivated by name-calling in both directions, with a lack of understanding that extremists have more in common with each other than with the directions to which they're attributed. Acroterion (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
There's been a bit of trolling by a couple of socks who've advanced the novel idea of extremist centrism, which at least is a refreshing change - see the grandiosely-named ArcusLordOfGods and Stormcloak EthnoNationalist. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess it really doesn't matter. I'm still in the learning process and obviously a slow learner. confused face icon Just curious...can CU tell if someone is masking their static IP address by using a VPN app? Atsme Talk 📧 21:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't say that, but it's admittedly easy to go into full Poirot mode and see sockpuppets everywhere. I've made a few mistakes, but over time I've almost always been right about a suspected sockpuppet, even if I don't know who it is. I'm not a CU, but a VPN app should look like an open proxy, which is often flagged by various WHOIS services, or as an unlikely geolocation. One of our most notorious abusive sockpuppets used to routinely use open proxies in Venezuela. I think he likes Belarus nowadays.
If you think there's something fishy about somebody or an IP, feel free to run it past me, I'll tell you if I see any red flags. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Mr. butt-in-ski MONGO here...I've grown very tired of all politics especially lately...but were I to return I want everyone to know that I most closely align with the Rock 'n' Roll Loony Party based mainly on their primary platform of "free beer and sex for pensioners, and the construction of laughter clinics".--MONGO (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
(orange butt icon Buttinsky) <-- here's the template, Mongo. OMG, you're not kidding about the Rock 'n' Roll Loony Party.

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, there's another edit war

Hi. The user Wizeone2 which you have blocked previously, is back with another edit war. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Italo-Ethiopian War (again) and [[1]]. Although I have tried to talk and reason with him in his talk page, he continues to undid my sourced revisions ([2], [3]), add unsourced content ([4], [5]), and remove issues ([6], [7]). His explanations (User talk:Wizeone2#Edit warring at First Italo-Ethiopian War) are not justifiable, but he does not seem to want to give up. I ask you for help because you have already intervened previously. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit war on Van Badham and Sally McManus Pages

There are two users, "ChangeTheRulesComrade" and "Emuwren" who are engaged in an edit war on the entry pages for Australian writer Van Badham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Badham) and Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_McManus). Their edits relate to adding in a false reference that Van Badham co-authored a book with Sally McManus. This can be seen in the change logs. There is currently a Federal election in Australia, and obviously political activists are attempting to cause trouble by doing this edit. I'm happy to keep an eye on the pages, but would it be possible to have the pages locked? (I have left a copy of this on the page of fellow editor Primefac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac#Edit_war_on_Van_Badham_and_Sally_McManus_Pages) Thanks. Lymantriidae (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The disruption at Badham;'s article was confronted and stopped a few days ago. I've left a strong warning on Emuwren's talkpage - their conduct is not acceptable. I haven't protected the article at this point - Emuwren is autoconfirmed, so semi-protection would not work, and I'd rather deal with the disruption at its source. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

WTC wide flange columns

Hi, can you tell me how the information that the impact zone core columns were wide-flange columns (supported by NIST report with citation)violates the rules of Wikipedia? Also, my picture was well referenced (citations to its size, density of thermite and its fire resistance). Also, it was clearly stated that it is a conspiracy claim and a forum can be a source of conspiracy claim - since it is not mentioned as a fact but as an example of conspiracy claim. Also, I do not support conspiracy theories (as evidenced by the text) but I though that the section deserved some more detailed info on that subject since it is rather small.ParallaxHunter (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edits have collectively amounted to original research, mainly sourced to conspiracy theory fora. That's not acceptable. Find better sources, and avoid speculation about theoretical locations for explosives. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That is clearly not true. My sources were mainly links to NIST (type of beam, cover, it's lack of e.g. HVAC duckts) and the fire resistance/weight of the specific beam. The only conspiracy link was to the idea that a charge (not explosive) could have been hidden in that cavity. Also, it was quite clear that it is a conspiracy speculation - as is the rest of the Truther nonsense. To be clear - as far as my motivation goes, I find the claims/works of National Geographic, et. al. insulting to the energetic materials research community. Thermite is clearly capable of attacking and destroying large columns - such as those used in WTC. I'd be happy if the article reflected that in some way.ParallaxHunter (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Your edits amounted to original research. Conspiracy theory fora are not reliable sources under almost any circumstance - secondary sources that examine conspiracy theories in reliable independent media with a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking are needed. I don't know what the issue is with National Geographic - I didn't see anything about any reference to NG, and I'm completely indifferent to whether it's insulting to the "energetic materials research community." Wikipedia isn't a forum for presentation of research. Use the talkpage to present your proposed edits, their sources, and how their combination doesn't run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Acroterion (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Gary Concepcion (politician)

Looks like the guy who made Gary Concepcion (politician) also has Draft:Gary Concepcion (politician). might want to delete and salt that also. Wgolf (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I missed that there were two drafts of the same thing. One of them is going - the other should go when the AfD is closed, unless there's sentiment to put it back in draft space, which looks unlikely. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Request

Can you take a look at Special:Permalink/892797963? It *may* qualify as rev del. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Blockworthy, but since it's nonspecific, not revdel wortHy. Acroterion (talk) 23
49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A Misunderstanding

This isn't a disruptive edition,the people who they're recognized as Japs are a group of fascist group believe in fascism genetically,and this fascist group've killed about 38k Chinese people especially POWs and civilians in Nanjing December 13 1937,so the changing in anti-fascism isn't a disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.73.59.243 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

RFPP

I see you might be currently active, can you p-lease consider actioning this request, Thanx - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sort of active, I'm busy cleaning out my car for a short trip. It doesn't look like things are too bad right now there, I'll lave it for somebody else if things pick up. Acroterion (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

AIV

Hi,

This probably needs revdelling too. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Singer

Hello, but he is a famous punjabi singer so how come thats inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saanzzz (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that that is so. Please stop re-creating the article under different names. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Need a rev-del

Someone posted spammy content + a problematic URL. It's all been removed from the article itself but probably shouldn't be left in the edit-history of Hyde Park on Hudson here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Give me the arbitration case page

Hey mate, you gave me the wrong notice page. The notice page you gave me is stuck to a case that was more than a decade ago. Seriously?? It hasn't been active for over a decade.

You gave me this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong

Please send me the correct link or if it is the current one, then give me details of when to expect to see the page be updated. Because I want to be fully involved in my case that you claim to be aware of.

IT is Incorrect. Case Opened on 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If its a real case then I want to know more about it Acroterion ~ both the time to expect it, who filed it and the correct page if you gave me the wrong one.

~

Also you exhibited you only got Double standards of deleting one pov ~ whilst allowing another person's actual soapboxing to be added freely in which I responded to directly after it was added.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/894442351

You showed clear bias and hypocricy. What was Marvin 2009 comments if not political irrelevant soapboxing added to the same





And what gives a person a right to close a discussion right after adding his own soapbox?

You ignored his soapbox about off topic going on politics but not when i replied directly to it using relevant arguments that Li talked about aliens which satisfies the simple definition of cult and ironically for the other person to not debate off topic politics, but instead focus only whether something are facts or not.

~ Also I want to know how to take my topic to arbitration. Because you abused your editor powers out of spite. Turning a blind eye to one soapbox added while deleting my reply. Clear double standards?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/894442351


Unicornblood2018 (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The arbitration sanctions have been active for the past twelve years, ever since the arbitration was closed. as and univinvolved administrator (I've never made any substantive edits to FG, and have no actual interest int he subject}, I'm enforcing the arbitration decision concerning user conduct. See WP:DSTOPICS. Note the word "current."
  • In 2014 the sanctions were modified to read "4) Clause (b) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Motions is amended to read as follows:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Falun Gong, broadly interpreted from " Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review."
  • Standard discretionary sanctions are found at WP:ACDS.
You've been posting long passages of personal analysis on talkpages, in violation of the original sanction and the current DS process.
If you have a complaint, go to WP:ANI. Arbitration is for disputes and conduct that can't be solved by other means, including by arbitration enforcement, discussion with administrators, and examination at the noticeboards. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

your deletion of my posts

I am making suggestions on the talk pages

In the case of BDS rightly point out that it is targeting Jews and is anti-Semetic and that should be equal weight to the apartheid lie. On Antifa, they can claim to be anti facists, but many regard them as facist removing anti facists makes it NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎American Zionist (talk • contribs)

You're posting complaints about things you don't like under a thin veneer of "suggestions." Talkpages are for specific discussions of sourced improvements, not for general griping. To quote from a recent noticeboard discussion "This is an admin conducting straightforward policy enforcement, specifically WP:TALKNO, WP:FORUM, ... Expressing personal views on talk pages is prohibited. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the protection at Teapot Dome scandal?

Today's edit and revert were unrelated to the thrice reverted edit of several days ago. I don't see anything resembling persistent disruption going on there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For a relatively sleepy article it's been getting a good bit of partisan editing over the past month, I felt that semi-protection for a few days would settle things down. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I accidentially did copyright infirngment!

Hey uh it's been a while. I'm improving, but still have some issues. However today I discovered I made a major error with this image. File:Adam Air Boeing 737-400 PK-KKW at CGK in 2006.jpg. So on March 31 I uploaded this image and as it was in the report I thought it was the public domain. I knew the license for uploading images from the NTSC, so I uploaded it. However today I was just looking for other images when I noticed the REAL source:https://www.airliners.net/photo/AdamAir/Boeing-737-4Q8/1115292?qsp=eJwtjbEKAjEQRP9lay1EsLjubFN4hWC9bIYzEC9hs4LHcf/uGuyGN4%2BZjaQsho/d1woaqIFVnnSgysqvRsNGijk1U7ZUllHszdm9KRxDeLjXitp1dRLZMIqgGuKf3zRCfxWa9MnZL04eoFPPdL44j6nVzH0DxinTvn8BWDgyTQ%3D%3D I realized that the NTSC had removed the watermark in the image and edited its size. Unless this made the image entered the public domain, I've accidentally stolen an image! Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the government great? It's happened with images of historic buildings - we see that often. It's also possible that the original photographer granted the NTSC permission. Go ahead and nominate it for deletion on Commons as a good-faith misunderstanding, Thanks for being conscientious, and thanks for taking the time to learn how to do things right. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Foul mouthed IP hopper has returned

(I’m asking because I think you’ve blocked one of his IP accounts he has used) The IP hopping vandal who has targeted my talk page and various pages has returned under a new IP address.

His original one is 68.197.237.168, which he abandoned after getting blocked. I can tell as he is acting the same as he has before, saying that all Admins and Non IP users on Wikipedia are jerks. He only said that on my talk page was because I demanded him to never talk to me again after he was last blocked through another IP and for bullying non-IP users.

The message below is what he sent me.

“Fully registered users are better than IP users any day”

I hope you know that this is statement is how you degrade people’s experiences on Wikipedia. If you ruminate on it, you will realize how much of an arrogant and ignorant prick you are, homes. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:C0 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link, just to show I’m being truthful. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LTPHarry&oldid=895868174

Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. I can't say that your comment does you much credit - IPs are people too, and registered users aren't "better." Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

IP 39.40.248.48,

Hi Acroterian. You blocked 39.40.248.48 and revoked TPA, but they seem to be back as 39.40.219.199, 39.40.248.160, 39.45.67.159, 39.45.75.28 and 39.40.199.196 to basically copy-and-paste 2020 ICC T20 World Cup onto various user talk pages. I've blanked the talk pages, but I suspect they'll be back to do it again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them and deleted the user talkpages so they can't be used. In composing the rangeblock I found a couple more. Thanks for the heads-up. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on this. I only stumbled across these particular accounts because of the non-free logo used in the copied-and-pasted content was flagged for a WP:NFCC#9 review. Not sure how to catch them otherwise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think I'll check for the logo use now and then, they seem to be pretty persistent. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

AE 9/11 page

If you could do something about this Clip on username person on the A&E for Truth page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth), I'd appreciate it. You left a message on his page (already) to knock it of. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Somebody else already blocked him for 31 hours. Thanks for your attention in this matter.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Just got home from work - I don't edit at the office. Looks like it's stopped for now with C.Fred's help. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:AaronWikia

Previously you blocked this user for employing personal attacks, they have resumed. His behaviour is bizarre but it is not up to me what should be done. If you believe I should be going to an ANI and not troubling you, please just let me know. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

He's been warned, and right now his behavior doesn't rise to ANI or blocking territory. I'll keep an eye on him, he's having a bad evening, it seems. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
He got caught trying to end-around the undeletion rules, which he has been blocked for before, and received no warning. Unless you count my clumsy intervention. He called me names, which he has been blocked for before, and received no warning. He persisted in behaviour that he is fully aware is not okay (removing a speedy deletion tag from an article that he created) and for that I guess he did receive a warning. So.... we are all afraid to give him more attention for bad behaviour then? Sorry I bothered you at all.18abruce (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
You asked for my opinion: I don't block people on demand. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Zack milkovich

I wasn't done citing. What did you flag that needs citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katcafe (talk • contribs)

Everything you've added needs to be cited. Don't leave it to the end. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to file an SPI report but I mangled it...

You blocked Robinbanks12345 and an IP took up right where Robin left off so I filed an SPI but I seem to have mucked it up. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robinbanks12345 was originally Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User talk:Robinbanks12345 but now there's like a warning thingy on the new page that the new page might be wrong? Help.
Heh, it's been so long since I filed an SPI I followed the directions and it looked wrong so I changed it but now I'm not sure what to do. Thankeverso in advance - Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Meyer article

Can you look a little closer at what C. Fred has just repeat and weigh it up against the Wikipedia's guidelines?

Note the summary I left.

If you wish to judge the specifics, please allow me to provide them. Thank you. --82.132.184.102 (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You've been doing this for some time now with an account and IPs, and it's been disruptive - I've read the reference and it supports the content that you kept removing before. Provide reliable sources for the individuals involved - the Times is a reliable source, and it's no less reliable because the reference is offline. I've protected the article - again - because of your removals. If you have a policy-based argument, take it up on the talkpage, remembering that Wikipedia isn't a showcase for fringe theories, or for the notion that a perpetual motion or free energy machine is real. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for courage!

Here, have a barnstar for helping to combat racist and anti-Semitic vandalism on highly contentious and divisive pages. You've earned this.

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For helping to combat vandalism on fascist and alt-right related topics such as triple parentheses and The Great Replacement. ELH.Peace (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

ELH.Peace (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You're too kind

I want to indef [8] - with a statement that I'd accept an appeal with an indefinite topic ban. ??? Doug Weller talk 09:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I probably am, but given their prior history of uncontroversial Irish buscruft, I figured I'd warn first. It was a close decision. I expect to regret it. 12:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Kebman has been warnd as well. I expect more trouble there, given their history. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm watching that. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I went back to his last Talk:Islamophobia edit which had been hatted and deleted the whole thing. He claims it's not a rant - despite ending it with "Resist! Resist it while you can!’ " It's hate speech. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
He's speaking through a Hitchens quote. It has no place on the talkpage though, and it has no bearing on article improvement. It's just an approving copy/paste of Hitchens' rant. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pearson manager

Regarding the part I put in and you removed due to sourcing, would these be be sufficient for the point's inclusion.

https://crooksandliars.com/matt-osborne/national-bloggers-club-and-their-supe https://www.facebook.com/TheCJPearson/posts/874762045892613

Habord (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No. C&L is a partisan source, and Facebook is Facebook, not a reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RevDel

Thanks for the quick deletion, but you may also want to hide my edit summary, which includes the name of the user I reverted. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the revert! Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Acroterion: No problem. I saw the user name and knew it was an LTA - if you take a look at Quarry:query/35462, it may make sense to put the phrase on the title blacklist? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope, nuh uh - I have no experience with that, haven't seen it before, and have no business editing it. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
El C got him. There are more of us than there are of him. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I semi protected AN/ANI. Time for a break from that nonsense. El_C 02:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@El C: Thanks. Also, you may want to hide this revision. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go file a task on phab explaining that I can still see the username in this log entry, despite it having been deleted. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing. Anyway, looks like Acroterion got to it already. El_C 02:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@El C: just to double check, the log entry I linked to, the user name is deleted, right? I shouldn't be able to see who it is? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't, at least without doing a special secret admin thing - have you refreshed? Acroterion (talk)
Refreshed, purged cache, restarted browser, the ~hack~ still works - does this qualify as a "security issue" for phab? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm an architect, not a coder. You're miles ahead of me in anything phab-related. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Acroterion: I'm not sure about that, but I filed it as security to be on the safe side --DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As in, I design buildings for a living, and can give a lively talk on building codes, but a coding class in graduate school led to my only C grade. We used terminals on a mainframe for class ... the terminals had bell keys. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Acroterion: nice. Also, I can see past [9], and I didn't see anything about that user until I saw that you had reverted at talk:CU and went to investigate - guess the protection El_C applied wasn't enough... --DannyS712 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Acroterion, you design buildings? How cool! Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! As with most professions, once you've been doing it for a while you have a clearer picture of what the work entails - in architecture, a high proportion of time is spent arguing about money, rather than designing things, for instance, but it's still fun when we get back to the designing part. I mostly work on educational projects, from kindergarten up to university work. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Vnkd and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21

See [10], (which is the most obvious) and basically the whole of the article history today. As you previously blocked this editor for making the same sort of pointy deletions on the same article, this may be of interest to you.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

bunch of idiots. You, different admins should check for what reason we need to know about that Su-22 shot down over Syria and tons of other information, but we cannot really report incidents involving Indian MiG-21s. This is becoming a bunch of idiots fest. Keep your wikipedia for yourself and ban all other users at this point and your IP trick is very idiotic too and proves what a bunch of nuts you are. - Signed: vnkd

You are entitled to work to find consensus for inclusion. You are not entitled to disrupt articles to make a point, or for some sort of payback for being disagreed with. That is why you were blocked, and why this IP is now blocked, for doing exactly the same thing after being told not to. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another sockpuppet of Unicornblood2018

See here.

Sigh... Rockstonetalk to me! 02:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. RBI. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Article review

What is missing or should be culled from Collapse of the World Trade Center. I feel we have too many sections and some areas could be combined. I have a period of free time and may try and push this to peer review after I reread the NIST report. If you're inclined, feel free to post any suggestions to the article talkpage so we can get a dialogue started.--MONGO (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look in the next couple of days. I'm at a conference right now and have a fairly intense week. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

seriously

attacking? Im tired of his repeated and uncalled for revisions. Who is yalls bosses? who holds yall accountable? Questioning someones ability to be impartial is not the same as an attack

Seriously, yes, this [11] is an attack. However, could you tell me which article you're concerned with, so I can review? we're not clairvoyant, and Kuru isn't either, since there are no other edits to you IP's name. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing you mean this edit [12].? As Kuru noted, the first reference is a circular reference to a Wikipedia mirror, and the second is a Facebook page, which isn't a reliable independent source. Pointing that out doesn't deserve abuse in response to a statement that the material has to be sourced correctly. Find a source, like we expect, and it will be fine. Until then, don't harass editors for enforcing the referencing policies. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What should be done about BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest?

Hello there Acroterion, and thanks for backing me up with BubbleGuppiesIsTheBest. I am wondering if something should be done with them? This isn't a new user, they have done stuff like this before, and have been blocked on similar grounds. I am getting strong WP:NOTHERE vibes here. Should we give him one more chance? Thank you.

P.S: Can you please process my file mover right request, I've been waiting 2 weeks for a response. This isn't me demanding the right, I am very kindly asking for an admin to review my request. Thanks again. The Duke 15:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

They're perhaps a little young, and if they don't change it's likely that they'll be blocked, but I don't like to summarily block kids if they're not vandals.
As for the permission, can you give me a couple of examples of files you've renamed and files you'd like to rename? Acroterion (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Aloofbobcat with his Daughter.jpg Renamed per WP:FNC#3.
  • File:Cover art of Wham's Music from the Edge of Heaven.jpg Renamed per [[WP:FNC#4].

There were a few other ones, that were deleted for other reasons.

I would rename files that are tagged, so that they can get addressed quickly, and are not left for days. I would also check Special:NewFiles regularly to check if there are files that need renaming per WP:FMV/W. Any other questions, I would happily answer them. Thank you. (Please ping me, so I can see it quickly. Thanks again.) The Duke 16:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, though I tend to agree that it looks a lot like you're just collecting hats. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! However I can happily assure you I am not a hat collector. All my permissions were for a useful purpose, not for showing off. Like my page-mover for WP:RM, my Autopatrolled so that my articles don't need inspected, and my file-mover for Special:NewFiles. Stuff like that. I am not showing off with the permissions. I hope I've cleared up a few things up. Thanks again. The Duke 18:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

IP issues

Hello.

I'm not clear on where this belongs, and IPs and sock puppetry confuse me, especially ipv6, but here goes:

Back in March, you blocked a range which covered 2601:42:800:A9DB:* and I think some others. That editor was laser focused on race and intelligence articles, and also posted on some experienced editors' talk pages in a way that seems like borderline canvassing to me.

Strictly from behavior it's obvious that editor has moved and is now using a different range. The topics and content are mostly the same, but comparing this edit from the blocked range to this edit seems like a good demonstration.

I was hoping to avoid the headache, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Grayfell happened. This new IP changes very rapidly, but the massive quantity of these posts is disruptive. I would appreciate if you could take a look, or at least link me to the page that explains how to properly file an SPI for a IP range, or even how to identify a range, because after ten years I still don't really get it. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The edit you've linked appears at first glance to be the blocked IP on a new range. They're still blocked, so that's evasion. You say there's a massive quantity of posts? Can you give me a few more?
SPIs on IPs are a waste of time in most cases. Give me a little more to work with and I'll see if another range needs to be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I see the conversation on DGG's talkpage that apparently was the motivation for Sinuthius' filing. I'll look around among those IPs. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The range I blocked was a Comcast range in the Philadelphia area. The latest IPs are Verizon IPs in the Knoxville area. The distance between doesn't mean it's not the same person, but it does complicate things a little, and it removes the new IP from the realm of an easy automatic block for evasion. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. It's hard to even know where to start, but Gerhard Meisenberg has a lot.

These were on Atsme's user page (where I think the blocked range also posted?)

Elsewhere:

Is it worth listing more? Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't bother with more right now. I'm about to pack up - I'm alternating between work emails and WP, and I'm about done for the evening on both fronts. I'll look into the IPs above over the next day or so - tomorrow is wall-to-wall meetings 60 miles apart. Acroterion (talk)
Thanks. Have fun and/or don't overexert yourself. For future reference, the ones I struck out are part of this :Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible to get these IPs in a range block, which I assume is separate. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I tend to think the (original) LA, Philadelphia and Tennessee IPs are related, based on what I see behaviorally, via DGG's talkpage. The Tennessee incarnation appears to have realized that they overdid it with the nonazis business. Admins at AE aren't terribly impressed with the complaint against you or the means by which it arrived. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:ROYCE RELIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED/sandbox

was also a g12 --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for making those edits on behalf of me, revoked TPA for the account and blocked the IP. 211.26.200.179 (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Your vandalism

I made four careful edits to an article, and they improved it. I described what I did in the edit summaries:

Someone came along and undid all those changes with the edit summary "Restore last good version". That is egregiously insulting and frankly moronic. It is not possible for it to be anything other than an act of bad faith. They sought to provoke, by undoing a 100% good and positive edit, for no reason at all, thus restoring the article to an inferior state. And you endorsed their action, protecting the article in addition, to prevent me or anyone from restoring these good and productive edits. Your deliberate effort to undermine the integrity of the encyclopaedia is vandalism. Why did you vandalise this article? Why did you encourage an act of bad faith trolling? 79.129.26.46 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can’t address other editors appropriately, you’ll be ignored. DIsagreement isn’t vandalism - vandalism often involves the word “poop.” Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. Mere disagreement is obviously not vandalism. Undoing good edits for no reason certainly is. If you are not able to say why you undid my edits, then you did it for no reason. So all you need to do here is explain why you undid my edits. Why are you not prepared to do that? 79.129.26.46 (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
And angrily demanding that other editors treat with you as though you were the Emperor of Wikipedia furthers the project's purpose how?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Acroterion: See also Wikipedia talk:Rollback#Reporting misuse --DannyS712 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Your edits were made in good faith, they were reverted in good faith, but your comments about other editors do not reflect good faith. Make your case (politely) on the talkpage for your changes, recognizing that consensus is required. You will get discussion when you approach other editors respectfully. Acroterion (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Stop being naughty you big meanie administrator!!!--MONGO (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Your edits were made in good faith - yes
they were reverted in good faith - no. Leaving an insulting edit summary is not a good faith action. 79.129.26.46 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
What was your old account? You know, the one you used until you got blocked?--MONGO (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Behavior is similar to the BKFIP, now in Greece. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards that conclusion as well, looking at the previous 3 IPs. Antandrus (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Why Does Wikipedia Take Tom and Jerry Articles that Seriously?

I mean even children don't read them, do they? BTW Wikipedia should clear out all the Tom and Jerry articles. PS It was just ridiculous of how I got blocked just because I was experimenting on a Tom and Jerry article. 70.49.8.250 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinions and bitter grapes about getting blocked for repeated vandalism are noted. Having said that, neither are valid justifications to invalidate the inclusion of Tom and Jerry themed articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories and Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - Help please.

Looking for some advice. I note you chose to become involved in the "discussion" I began on the above on the Talk page of User:Sumanuil. There is no way I want to become involved in an edit war at List of conspiracy theories, but I see a problem with an article, and a somewhat rude editor defending it, with what I see as not logical, just angry comments. I see no point in discussing it further with him. Where do I go and what do I do next? HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the response to my comment an apology, but at least they acknowledged that there's a problem. The most that can be said is what the article says, that it was shot down by a missile fired from Russian-controlled territory. I don't have a lot of patience for the use of peripheral articles to advance a point of view that's at odds with the main article - Kennedy assassination articles are notorious for that kind of thing, and I think your edits and comments are appropriate. Contesting their edits doesn't make you a forum-style commentator, and I would leave it alone unless they keep trying to put it back in.. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. But it's back in right now. That's the problem. I am trying to remain polite through this, and as I said above, I don't want to be accused of edit warring. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted it with a rather long edit summary. That could be construed as becoming involved, but I have little patience for nibbling around the edges of subjects like that, obnoxious edit summary and all. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

IP hopping

Hi. Wikiaus98's talk page has had offensive posts on it made by some IP's again. The posts are very similar to how they originally if not the same. I think that those other IP's are block evasion by the previous IP(s). You may wish to therefore semi it for some time. Thanks.211.26.200.179 (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the IPs are dynamic, I've semi-protected the talkpage for a while. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
And maybe block the range?211.26.200.179 (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Not really worth the trouble, they're focused on the one page/user, and we don't rangeblock for minor stuff like that, given collateral damage. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
My concern is that someone's been IP hopping. PS it's confusing as to when the page protection will expire. I thought it said 03:48 10 June 2019, not 03:48 10 July 2019 :).211.26.200.179 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, everytime I've removed effensive posts from talk pages (probably of indeffed users - I don't remember finding offensive posts from IP's talk pages - who have been for variety of reasons. I've seen nothere, sockpuppetry and vandalism only accounts so far), this case was the lastest and among at least a few where the page has been edited afterwards. In this case, very similar if not the same things were posted, as if being restored from page history.211.26.200.179 (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
We need more data points to properly rangeblock, since they appear to be using two ranges, and for three IPs who are just being silly a rangeblock is a bit extreme - the economical approach is to keep them away from their target. In any case, it's late here, and I'm not feeling smart enough to do a proper rangeblock. Acroterion (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.211.26.200.179 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 175

Hello Acroterion, to inform you that the above which you protected last week is again subject to the same alterations made by:

62.74.25.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 103.223.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 79.129.26.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are now operating on:-

193.106.252.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Still in the same part of Greece, although according to another editor, they are subject to world-wide abuse with WP:BKFIP. I have made a request for page protection. Perhaps this should be for a longer period? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Favonian got it. Acroterion (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/2019 New York City helicopter crash

We may have someone taking part in the AFD both through their registered account and unsigned. Both made unsigned edits to the AFD, one was the creator of the article and the other an IP who made edits there within minutes of the article being created. Both are using RAPID as an argument too. I hear a duck quacking. Can you please check this out?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: and @Acroterion: How dare you accuse me of something like that. I ran WHOIS on that IP and it is located in Arizona. I am currently working in New York close to the crash site and I also live in Connecticut. The timing of that IP is purely a coincidence. I have been on encyclopedia for two years and would never violate a policy. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As AmericanAir88 says, it looks coincidental. Acroterion (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

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) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Mt. Rainier.

Mt. Rainier has one name, the official name. It’s not disruptive to remove the non-existent other names, Mt. Tacoma or Mt. Tahoma. You’re a douche. NapoleonX (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Do anything like that again and I'll block you. This is an encyclopedia, not your private world where things may only have the name you designate. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Duck quacking

Dino Moro (talk · contribs) has been doing many edits to Mercy College (New York). This article was protected by you due to the history of socking there. I have strong reason to believe Dino is a sock of another account, User:Psychonot, who you indefinitely blocked. Besides Mercy College, both these accounts have edited here[13]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Mangoeater1000, blocked. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Roachmoan (talk · contribs) also looks suspicious. Mercy college related edits and stuff like here[14] and here[15]. What do you think?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Another thing- Dino added James Reitz to Mercy College's notable alumni only minutes after Roach created the article. If you decide this is another sock, can you deep six the Reitz article (Mango's socks have a long history of creating articles on Mercy College alumni of dubious notability) per WP:DENY?. Reitz is only a local judge and fails notability guidelines BTW....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked Roachmoan too, it's pretty obvious. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Doilyminis (talk · contribs) is also slightly suspicious....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Probably, but they haven't edited in two weeks, so we'll see what they do. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Karperfish (talk · contribs) after years of not editing (and after those other accounts were blocked) has come active and came to Mercy College....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
lol I didn't know all this was going on. I don't have any other account. BTW, William's edit looked like a massive vandalism to me, as explained on edit summary. I am not related to Mercy College in any way, but I believe we should help build Wikipedia, and not act like vandals based on personal vendetta.--Karperfish (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's an edit[16] to Mercy College's talk page by an editor with no prior edits....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Probably a Karperfish/Mangoeater1000 sock, I'd like to see what else they do before I block. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I think this follow up edit[17] confirms it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Am I your sock or are you my sock? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:JGaines2017

Thank you for blocking User:JGaines2017. I just wanted to let you know know that he's not just a vandal, but also an obvious sock of User:Angela Criss. He has an extremely similar name to several of the socks, such as User:JGaines1997 as well as making the same bro-country edits. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hopscootchica

He's had the DS alerts and I'm about to tell him he needs to change his attitude and be civil if he wants to avoid sanctions. See this. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Micronation roleback

Hey, can I ask why you rolled back my edit on the list of micronations? I am just curious and I would like to improve what I did so that I may be correct going forward. (sorry if this doesn't make any sense I am tired af right now and just got off work). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Emperson (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Mr E. There are several problems with this edit. First, it creates a WP:EGG as there is no article for the "tsardom" readers will have no idea why the link leads to the Clipperton Island island article. Second, wikis cannot be used as a ref as they are WP:USERGENERATED. Third, and most importantly, there is no mention whatsoever of the tsardom at the CI article. While this article exists on another wiki it has nothing to do with CI and it still cannot be used as a ref. MarnetteD|Talk 19:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
And there is no indication that the experiment undertaken by two teenagers meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability: see WP:NOTE for the general criteria. It needs to have received significant coverage in major independent media with a reputation for fact-checking. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Acroterion. I just found this User:Mr. Emperson/sandbox. I get a sense that this is a pet project of Mr E. It also looks like it is getting into WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. You may feel differently but I did want you to see it. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I saw that, but hadn't done anything about it. I will blank it for now, and if it comes back it can be MfD'd or speedy-deleted. The editor seems to be otherwise good. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. MarnetteD|Talk 02:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q2_2019&oldid=1211790898"