User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q3 2014

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

Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory

Earlier today you objected to a post that I made regarding the reality of what some term as Chemtrails. As far as I know I referenced credible authorities that state the authenticity of a problematic aerial spraying of toxic substances that are polluting our environment. I also stated that if it is true that the persistent trails left behind high flying aircraft are simply vapor trails who might object to open disclosure and "open house" of the suspected aircraft?

Now I am wondering how you can assess that I am only offering my own opinions on the matter? My position is and always has been a procedural matter of seeking the facts, a fact finding project, not the opinions of those who may be hiding covert operations that are harming all life on the planet. May I ask where you find fault with a project destined to protect the environment and or possibly disclose sinister activities? --Inspector In the Truth (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an internet forum: it's an encyclopedia. Please do not abuse the encyclopedia to post opinions, advocacy or soapboxing. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Skilled Group

Is there a reason you went with deletion-and-partial-restore rather than sticking only with revision-deletion? It's my understanding that the whole purpose of revision-deletion (with or without WP:OVERSIGHT) was to avoid using deletion-and-restore except for history mergers and history splits. The only remotely valid reason I can think of to use deletion is WP:IAR + WP:DENY, or perhaps some use of WP:IAR that I haven't thought of yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion and restore is still valid where there is a broad chunk of disruption (defamation in this case), particularly on a talkpage where the history isn't as important. DENY is the primary reason: I started through plain revdel and it became clear that entire swaths of the history were infested with hundreds of disruptive sockpuppet edits, far beyond the normal scope of revdel. Close to 90% of the history was going to be struck through. Revdel is best used for individual episodes of disruption, where delete/restore was cumbersome and confusing (we were all relieved when revdel was instituted), but delete/restore still has a use, and is used now and then in such circumstances, and I know of no policy that forbids its use. This certainly falls under "occasional other cases where it is needed." Acroterion (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That bad? Sigh. Oh, could you email me the wiki-text of the vandalism that you revdeleted from my user page earlier today? (Oh, and thanks for removing it - if it was that bad the fewer people who saw it the better). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
208 revisions bad, mostly the same thing over and over and ... The thing I deleted was standard abuse, not creative enough to be interesting. If you really want to know I'll email it. Acroterion (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Send it along. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes

Ok, sorry about that. That guy was being pompous though. But I understand, I'll try to tone it down in the future.Zombiesturm (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's no apology, and you've been keeping it up using slightly cleaner language. If it happens again you'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

immediate block requested

209.216.233.52 has been vandalizing non-stop for more than an hour and there is no response from AIV. Thanks. Meters (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Finally blocked. Meters (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
<ec>I stepped away from the computer for a few minutes to walk the dog: I see Reaper got the IP, appropriately enough. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And now Reaper's blocking CU socks. Cases like this make me sorry I'm not an admin! Meters (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It comes in handy for great justice when dealing with trolls and vandals, you can just fix what you see, though I occasionally have to track down a CU for some things. You've been around long enough to give it a try, you know, and RFA has been less of an ordeal in recent times. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's time for a change. I need to either take a break, try to become an admin, or switch from vandalism fighting to writing articles for a while. Meters (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Then write some articles, get some GA or FA content, then see about RFA. You'll be expected to show some quality content, which wasn't the case when I had my RFA in 2007. I did my writing later on, but I lack the time nowadays due to professional and personal commitments. Acroterion (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

hi

could you do the page "List of Turkic dynasties and countries" semi-protected, those who are not logged destroys only. Mehmeett21                    User talk:Mehmeett21  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pesky little vandal

Hey there. Thanks for the reverting of that one's changes to my userpage. The first of their two accounts seems to persist in changing my name on the warning template I left them to "Silly Dutch Woman". Not really in the mood to feed a troll of a blocked user on their talk-page, so I figured I might as well ask you if there is any chance you could revoke their talkpage access? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Already done for both accounts, and if any new accounts appear they'll lose talkpage access when blocked, given their history. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, noticed you did so while I was typing up the message. XD Then you edit-conflicted me as I was going to say "nevermind, you're faster than I am". Well, that's doubly-proven now, eh? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian page

May I ask how my addition to the "Reception" segment of Anita Sarkeesian's page was inappropriately sourced and disparaging? Is there a way to address the criticism of her in a way which conforms to Wikipedia's standards? I think it's important to do so, as this site is meant to be an unbiased information resource. --JackHeslop91 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. When you've done that you'll understand that you can't insert disparagement into a biography sourced only to a couple of bare YouTube urls. The article and talkpage have recently been targets for direct attacks on Sarkeesian based on Internet innuendo. While there is probably a neutral way to discuss the often misogynistic way Sarkeesian has been attacked on the Internet, it must be approached in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Your edit plainly violated BLP policy and was reverted accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't feel as though I was being disparaging. I wasn't personally accusing Sarkeesian of anything, I was simply pointing out how some people perceive her, which has already been done in that section. It's important to present both sides of an issue. This isn't a problem in other articles. On my page for James Herbert's novel Shrine, for instance, someone added a negative comment made about the book by a critic to the "Reception" section, and linked to a footnate indicating a page of a critical work. If the problem is that my footnotes weren't detailed, I'll be happy to remedy that. Whether or not Sarkeesian has been the victim of crude and misogynistic online abuse is irrelevant; my addition was simply a presentation of how some people have negatively received her work. I point out again and again that this is how she's perceived by them, not how she actually is, or how I feel about her. Where you see plain violations, all I see is honest reporting of different viewpoints. --JackHeslop91 (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You wrote opinion in Wikipedia's voice with profoundly unacceptable sourcing in a biography that has seen extensive trolling and outright defamation. Please read and understand WP:BLP: your comment above doesn't indicate an understanding of that policy. BLP doesn't preclude the inclusion of criticism, but it does clearly state that editors are entitled to insist on scrupulous adherence to policy: it was indeed a plain violation of BLP. For sourcing you need chapter and verse from specific coverage in major publications, not links to YouTube. The first two paragraphs of BLP contain the essence of the policy, which I don't see respected in the edit you made. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
For some context, see last night's [[WP:ANI#Nosepea68 and disruptive editing at Anita Sarkeesian-related topics]]. Note that I make no comparison of your good-faith edit to that user's behavior, but it's what's been going on, and the article gets close attention nowadays. If you're going to edit Sarkeesian's bio, you need to be scrupulous about sourcing, attribution of views, and preferably discuss it on the talkpae first. Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I understand. Sorry if I was defensive, and thank you for your time. --JackHeslop91 (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Continued promotional edits by Lepro2 despite your final warning

Lepro2 (talk · contribs) has continued to edit articles in a promotional manner even after you gave him or her a final warning (which itself came after two other editor gave warnings). Time to block for a bit? ElKevbo (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Rasta Rita

As I tried to edit the page concerning content related to Rasta Rita, It ws deleted. Should i create a new article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngwelsh (talk • contribs) 00:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC) No. You need to review the notability guidelines, as there was no indication that the subject was notable. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:808s & Heartbreak

I think it's obvious sock between Special:Contributions/Postcodez and Special:Contributions/93.186.31.114, both are doing on '‎Proposal to change the Genre' section non-stop. 183.171.169.169 (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it when I get a chance. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Could be, but I don't see a sufficiently strong correlation right now to take action. However, do you see a possibility that these are related to MariaJaydHicky? Acroterion (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter change?

I saw your note on WP:ANI asking if an edit filter can be written to stop the India prostitution spammers. I've seen a couple of those accounts, too. I can add a few of the most used keywords into edit filter 466 so that at least the account will be flagged by Mr.Z-bot onto WP:AIV/TB2. Outright blocking is difficult with the format of the spam changing, but at least the bot will flag them and make it easier for everybody to deal with. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I was having trouble too with figuring out a possible set of keywords: possibly a string of numbers of a given length plus "girls"? Acroterion (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I made the change. It should flag a few of the accounts. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I lack the skills to do that myself - I'd explode the wiki for certain. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It has not flagged anything yet, but at least I didn't break the filter! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

A bit late, but thank you for catching this and this. It's appreciated! Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 18:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Siggasonswein

Assuming he doesn't remove my latest comment, I see no real sign that this user is ever going to contribute anything worthwhile to the project. For a supposed researcher, he doesn't even write well. At the same time, I hesitate to act unilaterally. Your approach has been much kinder than mine, which doesn't suprise me as my natural inclination with editors like him is blunt. If we could agree on a course of action, I'd feel more comfortable. I was tempted to remove his edits from the Wentbridge article, but that would eliminate any possiblity of administrative action on my part, so I'm hoping he will. I would see that as a small positive step. Your thoughts, as always, are welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel much the same way and was holding back from acting in the article for the same reasons. I was hoping he'd self-revert. Given the fact that he's abandoned the direct promotion I wanted to give him as much leeway as possible, and I figure we don't have to be in a hurry. I'm going to be spending the rest of the day doing house maintenance/improvement stuff, so I'll look in this evening to see if there's been any movement and if not will remove the material or heavily edit it, which will disqualify me from further administrative action. Acroterion (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
House maintenance stuff? That sounds worse than dealing with the user, but then I hate that kind of work. Some like it. I had some water damage to my house a few years ago, and it took me that long to fix the damage. I did fix the source of the problem immediately but then the repairs languished as I didn't want to deal with it. After a couple of weeks of chaos, though, the house looks much better. Still have to buy new carpeting, though. Hopefully, that won't take three years.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yard work and the continuing attic renovation, which I hope to complete by the end of summer. It's looking great, but there's a lot of trim to do, and no right angles, being under the roof. I'm always amused by movies that cast an architect as the protagonist so they have an excuse for a fabulous house. Most architects' house are permanently unfinished, or they've tried too many things out in one place, which they wouldn't do if they were under the discipline of working for a client. My house is the former case. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the entire Robin Hood digression, there's no good way to disentangle it. This [1] is an interesting development. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Speed record?

How did you delete Suck a salty hot fart out of my ass so quickly? I was tagging it for deletion, but the page was gone before I could save. Keep it up! Piguy101 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I happened to check the new pages queue, and there it was. Charming subject, creator blocked as not here to improve the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here's a kitten for having to deal with that appalling streak of RD2/RD3-worthy edits on your talkpage.

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

109.157.151.98

Darkness Shines tells me this is likely a sock of Aldota. Usually edits from the 109 range. - is this related to the vandalism on this page? Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To the extent that both are using Venezuelan open proxy ranges, yes. However, 109/Aldota and 109/JarlaxlArtemis are on opposite sides of the fence in every other way. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I was about to leave (to do a Segway rough ground course) and didn't get a chance to investigate. If my 109 is Aldota then a longer block will be needed, I'll look into it - I'm not famliar with Aldota. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainefree/Rihannathebestlikeher

Both accounts are the same edits like Rihanna and Imagine Dragons. Can you block both of them? 183.171.172.217 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's possible they're related, but not obvious, and I don't see cause to block either one at this time. If it becomes obvious that they are sockpuppet accounts one or both might be blocked. I should note also that most administrators don't like to be asked to block people unless there is blatant abuse: if you want to make a case for less obvious cases, you need to present clear evidence, not just a suspicion. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hello Acroterion, Have sent you a private email. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Hi, Acroterion. Per the rationale briefly discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics#Minor question, would you be comfortable moving Belayneh Densamo to Belayneh Dinsamo? Thanks! Location (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, and I tidied the article spellings and added "Densamo" as an alternate spelling in the persondata. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try to get around to cleaning up the redirects, too. Cheers! Location (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Philadelphia Police Department Misconduct

Could you stop by to help User talk:PhiladelphiaInjustice? He is a new user who has done super work. I have tried to provide some support. The user suspects his account has been hacked. I advised him how to revert changes. He may be right, I suppose it bears looking into. Not an emergency. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Darn you write pretty. I found your comments very useful and thoughtful. This user however is unfamiliar with our goals here and has decided to take his marbles and go home. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Professional advice needed

Are you aware of a technical term for the "horns" on the corners of these two church towers? I can't remember seeing any other buildings with such structures. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Pinnacles" would be a reasonable label. They were found in some of Wren's churches: see St Margaret Pattens, though he used urns for similar ornament on other churches, as did John Soane at the Dulwich Picture Gallery. Their equivalents at Vanbrugh's Blenheim Palace are termed "finials", since they're not so pointy. I've also seen obelisks used for the purpose. In general, such pinnacles or finials are common devices in Georgian architecture. They are descendants of the pinnacles found in Gothic architecture, which performed a structural function by weighting down buttresses, thereby changing the direction of the force vector to something more vertical. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bachelor of Architecture may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[Georgia Institute of Technology]]* (

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation: Air Serbia – issue

Hi Acroterion, I was recently caught in the discussion about Air Serbia - Jat Airways relations. Please, if you are willing so, read my whole expose about this issue here: [2], and give your opinion on it, so we can move forward from this stalemate. Thanks! --AirWolf talk 15:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: The whole merge discussion was directly moved here: [3]. Thanks.--AirWolf talk 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed email quote from Talk:Xigazê

Thank you for the note. I am glad you wiped the various revisions from the history of the Talk page. However, I had already removed the quoted email and made other changes from the Talk page after the author of the email wrote to me again and made me aware (for the first time) that WP does not allow the quoting of emails without the writer's permission, and asked me to remove it. I was happy to comply once I realised WP's policy and am sorry it has caused a fuss. I certainly won't do that again. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem now that you know, and I noted that you'd removed the quoted text: I was being a bit conservative with the revision deletion. Acroterion (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your assistance

My "Quote of the week" section was in sore need of an update, thanks for your indirect assistance finding a smokin' one. (I got Bishonen to post it coz bad language comes better from admins.) darwinbish BITE ☠ 14:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC).

Glad to help, if only indirectly. Speaking of updates, I've always meant to suggest that the Compliment Generator include "Rosy-fingered ..." It's hard to beat Homer, after all. Acroterion (talk)

Leisure Car Rental

Good day, Can you please tell me why my article was deleted, and what I need to fix so that the article will be accepted.

My article is not spam, it is not advertising, or promotional. There are many other Car Rentals listed on wikipedia, why am I not able to add Leisure? Besides being the only Award Winning Car Rental Agency, Leisure is also one of the most reputable Car Rental Agencies on the Island of St. Maarten. I followed all the submission rules and guidelines, and the article was deleted twice. I really do not see my editing as disruptive. I am just trying to add something to wikipedia, as millions of other persons have done.

I would certainly appreciate it if you could tell me what I am doing wrong. Instead is just deleting the article, help me to submit it correctly.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infosxm74 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There was no indication that the subject of the article was sufficiently notable for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Being a reputable car rental agency on St. Maarten isn't especially notable, nor is the award given to the company's employee. Please see the notability guidelines for companies for more. Acroterion (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit War

I requested help from two Administrators and even wrote help request on the main page. The unknown user is editing the article based on false accusations and unreliable sources like news articles which are according to Wikipedia rules not reliable.

regards Wikisupporting (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The unknown user with IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/149.140.220.194 violated and is still violating the three edit rule.

Wikisupporting (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to edit-war because you disagree on sourcing or content. Stop, or I'll block both parties. Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

He using sock puppets in order not to blocked. See the history of page. He deleting almost whole the content without using talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.140.220.194 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


I am using sockpuppets? Who is editing the article without any real reason. BBC and Guardian news articles are no reliable sources by definition. I simply copied what is written in Willey Blackwells book at page 404 word for word. You accused me of deleting Asatrians source and used that as excuse to edit, but I never deleted this source. You even claimed some of them are of Arab origin based on nothing but your own opinion (No source, absolutely nothing). Well the Admins will see what happened I am just going to wait. Wikisupporting (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You "copied word for word"??! You're edit-warring to keep a copyright violation? Consider yourself on notice that any further edits of any kind at Yazidi for the next 48 hours will get you blocked. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocking

Hi.

You inappropriately blocked me so as to allow User:HelenOnline to control the article Trial of Oscar Pistorius, which she owns, and has kept in a permanently false state. There was no reason for you to block me as she already controlled the article. It was just bullying. Please refrain from taking that kind of action in the future. Thank you. All I was doing was adding correct information. Also, please can you stop User:NeilN from harassing me. Thank you. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:ANI#IP_harassment_of_editor --NeilN talk to me 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For blocking a really nasty vandal, IP 123 ... 96. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. These celebrity trials seem to bring out the amateur lawyer/CNN analyst in far too many people. Acroterion (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sept 11 Attacks Talk page

Hey there, I was wondering if you had any time to look at the short paragraph I wrote for possible inclusion in the main article? I know you are really not too keen on the idea in general, but I felt like you gave some logical critiques and I really did try to take your comments and sources into consideration. Anyways, if you have any advice on how to improve what I wrote, I sure would appreciate it. Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been dealing with the mess played out in the sections below. I probably won't comment until tomorrow, since other things intervene. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the heads up Smitty121981 (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal Page

The Fields Medal Page contains biased information about laureates.We need to change this page as we have done about Nobel Prize laureates Page.I do not understand why Wikipedia chief editors insisting on not to change this biased information which now exists on Fields Medal page.The main suggestion is to remove Nationality and add Birthplace and current institution and residency. Rezameyqani (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned Rezameyqani (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I really hoped that you come to help me editing this page,if you have enough info,or at least try to convince other editors that this page contains biased and unreliable information.Instead you threatened me.So sorry for you and other editors who are claiming that Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia"!!! Rezameyqani (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has been the scene of extensive edit-warring, in which you've been a participant. If you reverted, you'd be blocked, as you've already crossed the line. . I've protected the article to force you and other editors to work out a consensus on the talkpage, and to keep you from digging a deeper hole.. I see you've made some attempts at that, which is good. Please continue to discuss on the talkpage and to provide appropriate sources. Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you're blocked because you edited the page immediately after being warned not to. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please Field Medal page unprotection

I want to informative edit.--Daegu1989 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Then use the article talkpage to achieve a consensus. The article is protected due to the extensive and disruptive edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rezameyqani Block evasion

User:Rezameyqani is blocked ip user. Please block him and revert his unconsensus edit.--112.169.25.12 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, he edited after being warned for edit-warring, so he's blocked for that, and so are you since it's clear that you were just editing as 112.169.25.11. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Template protection in mainspace

Hi Acroterion, I've noticed that you have applied template protection to the article Fields Medal (log). Given that, per WP:Protection policy, "This protection level may only be used on high-risk templates and modules and possibly in rarer cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree", I wonder if you have applied this protection level by mistake? (especially since part of your comment in the log is "full protection is warranted") Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 00:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, I'll fix it immediately. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Red Baron in popular culture

You do know that in the movie flyboys, the red baron was never in it. His tri plane had no other picture other then the German Cross, and the charcther in the film is called Franz Wolfert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.3.168 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I made the page about the band Albino Jesus.

I wish you unban it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeexo123 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MUSICIAN. There was no indication that the subject was significant enough for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Thank you for reminding me of the three revert rule, my intent was not to start an edit war but to bring consensus to a debated topic.DrCuddle (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

requesting for a comment

Hello there,now the time period in which I had barred from editing has passed.Can I remove its related section in my talk page?Thank you. Rezameyqani (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal page

Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rezameyqani

The user is going bananas. I warned him, but I don't know the background. You blocked him. Wouldn't you like to deal with it? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories

I am notifying editors who participated in the recent discussion regarding the September 11 attacks that a brand new RfC has been created. The RfC was created in a brand new discussion thread. I don't wish to see any editors be disenfranchised so you may wish to comment in the new thread. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed it and will make a statement. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Acroterion, I hope you get a chance to comment on the RfC (please take your time though, and no worries if you are not able to). In regards to our conversation about the insider trading, at first I was having a very difficult time grasping how quoting from a reliable source could be considered "direct promotion of fringe theories"... but I think I'm starting to understand the reasoning and I crossed out the insider trading phrase. Also, I found a great new source since you last commented (Falk 2014) and I think it directly addresses your concern that there is "no support in credible academic or journalism sources." Smitty121981 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tips are needed!

As far as I could realize,one the main pillars of Wikipedia is to preserve neutrality in articles.I confess that I've not read all of Wikipedia articles(which in fact, is impossible to do so),but in the articles which I read them so far,especially those concerning with biographies or award tables, I found a serious deviation from neutrality pillar.I mean, the dispute over Nationality of famous people,causing serious harm to credibility of articles.You know,Nowadays, the matter of nationality of someone,especially famous people,is a hard thing to verify,because most of the famous people,work and live in more than one place or country.For example, Manjul Bhargava, was born in Canada,raised in United States and now,He works mainly in US,and for some part of a year in India and Canada.So I guess you confirm my assessment.The interesting fact is that most of those famous people,cite their "Citizenship" or "Birthplace", and very few of them state their "Nationality".The other thing is that the definition of Nationality is somehow vague and ambiguous.What should be the basis for Nationality?birthplace?citizenship?ethnic group? The word is,I want to run campaign or something like that to reason with administrators to add a policy like this:Replace the term "Nationality" in all of biographies and their related materials with term:"Citizenship" or "Birthplace"(I myself would prefer "Birthplace" over "Citizenship")unless it is clearly stated in the person's CV.How should I do this?Is there any committee or something like that for admins so that I can discuss this matter with them?Thanks.Rezameyqani (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that administrators don't make policy, they only enforce the consensus of the community. Furthermore, the issue of nationality versus birthplace versus citizenship has often been a battleground, and as far as I'm aware has been resolved on a case-by-case basis, since there is no obvious way to establish an encyclopedia-wide diktat. The manual of style has advice at WP:MOSBIO. The problem is that nations change, borders change, people change their allegiances or immigrate, people live through regime change, have multiple citizenships, or history is murky. There has been a years-long fight over the national characterization of Copernicus, often bitter. Was Alexander the Great Macedonian, and does that have anything to do with the present Macedonia/FYROM? British nationalists have objected to the characterization of pre-Republican people from Ireland as "Irish," while Irish partisans have objected to the use of "British Isles." Palestine, Israel, Yugoslavia, pre-and-post Soviet/Russia/Ukraine/Belarus,colonial America, pre-and-post colonial Africa, China/Taiwan ... the list goes on and on.
One thing to note: there have been more edit wars over this specific issue than practically any other, and the use of flags can make it worse: there is a general dislike for the over-use of flags and the use of flags as decoration: see WP:MOSFLAG.
For what it's worth, I would suggest that Bhargava be noted as Canadian, since he was born there and retains some ties and citizenship(?). I don't think place of work is appropriate, since that can be anywhere, particularly for academics, and we discourage characterization by ethnicity unless it's central to their notability. Other editors at Talk:Fields Medal seem to agree that birthplace is the most reasonable approach. Acroterion (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your generosity. In my opinion,Mediation Committee should discuss this matter of replacing birthplace with nationality in any tables containing information about any awards's laureates,except those laureates who have stated the word "Nationality" in their updated CVs, explicitly.There is no doubt that birthplace is far more verifiable than nationality.Thanks.Rezameyqani (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User Seul1978

Hello there,unfortunately,user seul1978 is committing vandalism to Fields Medal page,despite the fact that a discussion is ongoing on the talk page.please address this vandalism act,since it's clear from the page article editing history.I tried to convince him/her to join the talking, but it seems he/she refuses to do so.Thanks.Rezameyqani (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please respond to this issue.I do not have any intention to engage another edit warring, But this user does not stop his/her vandalisms on the page.ThanksRezameyqani (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked Seoul 1978, since they made no effort to participate in the consensus on the talkpage, because they are specifically edit-warring, and because of their history of sockpuppetry. Technically, so were you, but given your efforts to achieve a consensus on the talkpage and your evident good will, I will not block you. Please remember not to get drawn into such edit wars: notify an administrator or use WP:AN3, and stop before 3 reverts. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm really sad since we lost an editor who is willing to help us get a better consensus.Yes,You are right,I will not do this again,and will inform directly before editing.ThanksRezameyqani (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If you encounter this sort of thing, it's always best to stop at two reverts and call for help: the article can exist for a little while in the wrong version. Since I and all other administrators are volunteers and have other things to do much of the time, and I, at least, am on the other side of the world from you (and from Korea), you should post at WP:AN3 to get help in these situations. I know it's cumbersome and slow, but it's the best way. Acroterion (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not know that you are from Korea!!Next time you visit "Tehran Avenue",Please remember this fact that Iranian people are far better and logical people than what may have been said about them.Safe to say,I had a trip to your beautiful country when I was a 2 year old boy!:-)
I was referring to Seoul1978: I'm an American on the US east coast, distant from both Iran and Korea, and I have a high regard for the Iranian people and the Iranians of my acquaintance here (and Koreans too). Acroterion (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Stalking

I just want to know why is it that the term "gang stalking" isn't acknowledged by wikipedia. Even the John F, Kennedy assination has a conpiracy theory section. Why not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paultrem (talk • contribs)

You removed well-sourced material on well-documented Internet paranoia to give unsourced credence to the idea that so-called "gang stalking" is a widespread phenomenon, something which isn't supported by reliable sources. fightgangstalking.com is not a reliable or neutral source, and in fact is a good confirmation of the material you removed, a site that promotes fringe theories that prey upon vulnerable readers. Acroterion (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong/Newbie biting

Mind salting the talk page too?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, done. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there should be an edit filter to prevent people that aren't me from making new pages in my userspace. But that sounds unnecessarily complicated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why it couldn't be done, but I'm not the one to do it. I'd explode the wiki if I tried making or editing edit filters. Acroterion (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Anita talk page

I said he is either ignorant (Of WP policy) or trolling. He has been around long enough. He also mention he read all the comments, which is another dubious claim, if he had read all the comments, the discussions would not be at a stale-mate right now, or I should say the consensus. He jumped with totally inaccurate information, when is a controversial lead exempt from citations? Don't leave me messages unless you have the full facts, this isn't a defend a friend game, I take exception to your comment, and is you don't desist from ganging up (wolfpack mentality) I will file a complaint. Syanaee (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

edit, you may move this to my talk page as per your userpage comment policy. Syanaee (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please reconsider the hostile tone of your interactions with other editors. As the guidelines note, references may be used in the lede if there is a consensus to do so. Attacking other editors will not help to create a consensus. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to agree to get along

  • Look, I know I'm challenging consensus and that's an unpopular place to be. I'm also fairly new to Wikipedia which confounds the problem. So I don't expect to be treated with the same level of respect as established/uncontroversial editors and I have not been whining about being criticized, because I accepted this as inevitable before I began and I assume that the criticisms have been made in good faith.
  • When we had our conversation about insider trading[4], you ended it by saying I was "bordering on tendentious editing". Well, I took this seriously. Of all the characterizations listed on that page, I feel the one that most editors might say applies to me is "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people". (e.g.[5]). The page says, "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones." and that's what I was doing by finding sources like Chesney, and later the Falk book and the 9/11 Encyclopedia. It goes on to say, "And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said... You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong." And this is exactly what I did with the insider trading: I admitted I was wrong and I then removed insider trading. I also did this with the Bentham sources when you criticized them, didn't I? I was wrong to present them as reliable, and I removed them from the list of sources.
  • You didn't have to comment on the RfC - I came here before[6] to let you know that I completely removed one line in response to your feedback (insider trading), and to let you know that I found a source in response to other feedback you gave (Falk). Despite this being brought specifically to your attention, your comment on the RfC read (A) like insider trading was still part of the proposal even though I removed it and (B) like I hadn't found any new sources to address the issue of due weight, even though I found excellent sources for this. I pointed (A) out to you in the most civil way possible on the RfC, yet your new comment this morning still did not mention it at all. I'm not looking for you to agree with me - I am well aware that this is not likely to happen. However, I do expect to at least be acknowledged when I have made substantial efforts to respond constructively to your feedback. Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm an idiot. I did not see your comment "That's good." I apologize for the unnecessary drama. Smitty121981 (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You're not an idiot: I've done the same thing more than once, and I missed the strikethrough, probably because I was looking at it in the edit window. Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Acroterion, thanks for being understanding of my embarrassing blunders above. Just coming by to let you know that I made a major revision to the proposed wording in the RfC, including removing the "hundreds of professionals and officials" line which you objected to. It seems from some other comments that you are opposed to the idea no matter how well it's written, but if it's not too much of a bother could you let me know if what I have now is more neutral? (even if you are still opposed to it in general) Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Help Needed!

Hello there. As you know, I have implemented a "request for comments" section in Fields Medal talk page. When should I remove it? Is is removed on its own?I mean, Is there any time threshold for request for comments? Cheers. Rezameyqani (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comments typically run for 30 days, and anybody may close or remove them if a consensus exists. You should leave it up for its term and then just remove the header when it's over. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: James Foley discussion

Please kindly note that it is only your PERSONAL OPINION that what I contributed to this discussion was "GENERAL". Also I'm of the view that without such general discussion having gotten out of the way there's no chance of properly improving the article in question. So what are you saying? "This page is only reserved for discussing the cosmetic details of the article. A proper discussion is not welcome here!" Effectively that's your view as far as I can tell. 78.184.130.231 (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The article talkpage isn't a forum for your views on the video. You appear to be trying to use it as a soapbox for commentary rather than article improvement. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes sorry, I seem to have forgotten that Wikipedia is a forum reserved only for you and people who fully aggree with you. My mistake! What I've had to say about Galileo has nothing to do with James Foley in general and it's absolutely shocking that it has been deleted of all things despite it's not being an insult or anything else that can possibly be considered remotely offensive nor out of place by someone who has the least bit of intelligence. It's just a simple observation. Why the fuck did that have to be deleted and more importantly who the fuck are you to decide?? 78.180.211.139 (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You are using Wikipedia as a soapbox to post your opinions on the video: that's not what the talkpage is for, and abuse of talkpages for forum-style discussions is viewed by the community as disruptive. There are many other and better places to post your opinions on the Internet. This is an encyclopedia. As for Galileo, do you think you're the first person to use that analogy? Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah well I've taken this matter up with the stewards and hope that you are not as priviliged to delete people's posts for no reason in the future and what does it matter if I'm the first or ten billionth person to use the Galileo analogy?? It's the truth is what really matters here. 78.180.211.139 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"You are using Wikipedia as a soapbox to post your opinions on the video." And how would this criticism not also apply to you under the circumstances?? In fact, with all due respect it can be furthered by saying "You are using Wikipedia not only as a soapbox to post your opinions on the same video, but also as your personal censorship tool to block/delete any other opinions, to prevent views you disaggree with from even being expressed." Which is completely not on. It definitely goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for IMHO. It's absolutely disgusting to see that someone who has such absolute disrespect for opinions other than his/her own think they can make useful contributions to Wikipedia. 78.180.211.139 (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.211.139 (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please unsalt Caspar Lee

Hi. Can you please un-salt this page so I can create it a-proper. Cheers, Nikthestunned 11:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly! Nikthestunned 13:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not gonna work!!!

Hey there.I'm really tired of this!!This makes me feel sick in my guts!!You tell me "you must first discuss your opinion(s) in a page's talk page,and,if you can get a consensus you can make changes to the page" . and now, a bot ("Legobot") ruins everything by inviting others whom they have not been involved the talk, or even have any basic knowledge about the topic!!Please see this:"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alsee#About_the_changes_you.27ve_made_on_Fields_medal_page". The whole thing is flawed!!!I do not have any intention to make things worse that they are now,So please remove the request for comments from the page!!!Cheers Rezameyqani (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with RfCs is that anybody can comment, that is the nature of the wiki. You've achieved an initial consensus, but others may have other ideas, and you can't close it off when other editors offer alternative approaches. Remember to be patient, and remember that there is no deadline. You've done a good job so far, and I think it will work out in the end. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal page again!

Hello there, I jut wanted to give you some good news. Finally, editors could reach a consensus on the Fields Medal page contents. There just remains a small difference on viewpoints. I think it is a good time to remove semi protected status of the page. and, as always, We will be glad to see your comments about the new page! Cheers Rezameyqani (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry for the inappropriate page I created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.143.138 (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I am sorry for my vandalism and for deleting the tag I did not know what the tag was so I deleted it and again I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.goodinfo (talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok I will be careful in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamhussain19 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Re User:Visitantehumanoide

Thanks for engaging in discussion with User:Visitantehumanoide. I'm worried that this bloking process has been incredibly WP:BITEy, though; this user was acting in good faith and requesting clarifications of policy within the block request, and those went unaddressed so he repeated them and was rejected several times.

I know that a block request is not the place for those, but he shouldn't be expected to know that and shouldn't be punished for failing at bureaucracy; I've expanded the appeal guidelines to clarify that, but please keep an eye for these situations and try to guide the editor when they make a premature unblock request like this. Diego (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I had avoided blocking them right away for the same reasons, but I'm concerned that their reasons for unblocking included a desire to return to the same theme. That's also why I didn't do a templated decline. If they undertake to avoid speculation on peoples' sexual histories, it would help greatly. The original post had a general air of slut-shaming. As for the otherstuff argument, I can't say I'm too happy with the example he mentioned: it's technically compliant with BLP, but only just. Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I'm going to be away from a computer for large parts of the next four days, so I may not be able to respond very quickly if needed. Acroterion (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Hi Acroterion. Thanks for protecting my talk page last night. I'm going to unprotect it because I do quite often get genuine messages from real editing IPs and I'd hate for them to not be able to contact me as a result of the stupidity of one blocked moron. I'll take care of the incessant spamming from now on. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I understand: I dislike protecting talkpages too. At least the Croatian IPs are easy to spot. Acroterion (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Help PLease!

Help PLease

How do you format this? ive had phpbb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwalters2828 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

RevisionDelete request

Greetings! I am wondering if you are able to suppress/delete revisions of mine that were of purely disruptive manner? 12345 26oo (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

They don't really look that bad, and they're very old. If I delete them, they'll show up in your history anyway with the strikethrough and people will think you did something really bad, instead of seeing normal experimentation. I think they're better left alone, and they don't reflect badly on you eight years later. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you are right it's not that bad, it's just I wrote my name on there and I would prefer them deleted, if it's possible? I really appreciate it. 26oo (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll delete it as "personally identifying information," which should cover your concern. Acroterion (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Confusion of tongues

Is being hit hard by User:Wikinger - normally he uses open proxies but I know too little about proxies to be comfortable, but if they are proxies obviously they need long blocks. You may know all this so sorry if I'm telling my grandmother how to suck eggs, whatever that means. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't know much about proxies and when people explain to me how to detect them I feel inadequate. I generally declare an IP a proxy when three or four identical edits apparently originate from three continents in quick succession, or when someone I know to be in North America starts editing from Bangladesh, but am otherwise clueless. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Toward a List of American Mass killings

Look at my sandbox. I found a source and am making some tables of mass killings in the US. A remarkable number of arsons, by the way.

I wonder if these lists are useful. It seems we have several lists of various madmen doing dreadful things. On the other hand, many of these "local news stories" seem to not make these lists.

It is all in the counting. These lists show killings of more than four people by a single killer in a single emotional event. Why not three or more (the new FBI definition)? Why exclude cases with several killers? Serial killers, who kill over a number of years are also excluded.

Your thoughts, please. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Depressing, for certain. I think you've got something, though I would think that most of those events do or should have articles, and the first column should be a link (blue or red) to the parent article. You need to format your refs so they link to a single named ref instead of repeating for each instance. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand how to make One Big Cite rather than a list of the same cite over and over again. This is a problem very evident in another list I have worked on of late List of law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania. On the plus side, I can now spell both "Pennsylvania" and "borough." Can you show me how to fix these endless cites? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q3_2014&oldid=1142831699"