User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q3 2018

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

Note

Hi, I'd like to inform you about what's actually happening in those 83.21.0.0/16 talk pages. The user causing so much problems with different IPs and accounts is the notorious Wikinger. He's trying to hide the original content of those 4 pages since he's the one who used those 4 IPs in the past: the original content was either the template {{IPsock|Wikinger|confirmed|blocked=yes}} or a message left be the admin who blocked him years ago, as you can see for example here and here. Lately, Wikinger has been periodically replacing such contents with this: {{welcome}}. Clever move, since such a template is always substituted by a bot: in this way, the bot would always result as the last contributor in that page, while the original content proving his identity is hidden. And today he's made an ever more clever move: he first replaced the content with the original template but about another user instead than about him, and then, with others IPs and accounts, pretended to be a vandal trying to delete that content, to make you admins revert him and protect the page, as you did. If you check with attention the histories, you'll find that's exaclty what he's done. Unluckily, admins fell for it; luckily, you protected the page from further vandalisms. All you should do now (even if a month is a bit too short, it'd be better to extend the period) is to restore the original content, which just means to replace the wrong name "Wickedangry" with the correct "Wikinger" (see here or here). I hope the piece of information I've provided was useful :-)

I'm skeptical of the utility of retaining the old content on those those pages as a vandal shrine, and our usual practice would be to stop the disruption and ignore them from there on out. I have a strategy, which isn't something that should be discussed here. Thanks for the information, I'll take it into account. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! So, you won't restore the template showing that the user behind thops IPs was Wikinger, but are you leaving the false information inserted by him (i.e. the user behind those IPs was Wickedangry) anyway? Aren't you even going to restore the message written by the former admin who blocked the IPs (RandomXYZb)? I didn't write this to insist, I just wanted to ask you this question! :-)

I tend toward the least said, the better where long-term vandals are concerned, and I dislike tagging IPs in general, as they become a focus for disruption. It's all in the history. And as I said before, I have a plan concerning both the pages and their protection. If I do anything, it will be to delete the tag entirely. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

All right then! By the way, changing the subject, I think I've found another case of LTA, I'm telling you because you're a sysop who could take care of such issues, as you've demonstrated. This time it's a quite recent case, a single cross-wiki vandal who's been using proxies and socks, mainly in en.wikipedia. A few of them were globally or locally blocked some months ago for LTA, and some recent edits of his led to the global block of a wider range of the proxies he'd used. I strongly suspect I've found a pair of new socks, and I've got evidences proving my suspicions. May I tell you more about this issue? :-)

Certainly. Diffs are welcome. Acroterion (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm telling you all I know. There's a proxy ("AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc., US") providing different IP ranges: the main is 66.160.0.0/16, the others are 64.71.128.0/18, 72.52.64.0/18 and 74.82.0.0/18. In en.wikipedia some of these ranges and some of their subranges were blocked a few months ago, while a subrange of the main IP, 66.160.188.0/24, was globally blocked in February; on the bases of similar edits and CU checks, users Myeuurn and Baka Líte were blocked immediately after this IP range. The admin who blocked them globally didn't know that another checkuser had detected one more sock belonging to the same user, Fulgencio Kokomeci, as you can read here, that's why this sock wasn't blocked. After a long time, he reappeared last month, in the same period when also other IPs from that proxy reappeared. He made this edit just 2 minutes befote an IP from the proxy range made this edit: this time there wasn't disruption, but it's clear it's the same person, this isn't a coincidence. And there's an overwhelming evidence this isn't a coinciedence: both edits are identical to 2 edits (this and this) made by a "long-term multiple sockpuppeteer, using numerous IP addresses and accounts", as wrote the admin who blocked the 193.204.194.0/24 IP range locally for "Persistent disruptive editing". I think this is should be enough to prove that Fulgencio Kokomeci is just another sock by the same user hiding behind the other 2 socks and countless IPs from those ranges, and this should also be worth enough a check over those 4 proxy ranges to verify whether there're other socks of his, created or editing using such IP ranges. I have already a little suspect about a recent account, MbretiBasha, since the long-term abuser I'm talking about was known for having also a sort of obsession with phonetic and linguistic issues, but this is just a little suspect and may be just a coincidence, however a check on those proxies could prove his involvement or not-involvement. I hope I didn't write too much, and I hope this report was convinging enough. Let me know in case you need more information or have any questions, but I think it's far too clear these users are all just different identities used by the same person to "masquerade" :-)

I'll look into it, but I'm not surprised to see your IP is blocked, as your repeated insistence on attribution seemed to be unusual and consistent with the blocked user's behavior. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

In trying to be helpful, I think I stuffed up your hiding of an edit to User talk:Edgar18. Sorry. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 12:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a simple edit conflict, and your reversion didn't affect my revision deletion. The Sinebot action got in your way. Thanks for helping out! Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Dylan Meyer

I see you deleted the page Dylan Meyer back in April. I cannot see the deleted draft so I created one from scratch which can be seen here. I wanted to let you know before I moved it so you had a chance to provide any feedback. He is a two-time winner of a national amateur championship (3M Invitational) which would make him notable; however, he has also turned pro and finished 20th in the U.S. Open. I am assuming the deleted page didn't mention these. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

He was still in college and didn't meet notability guidelines, and it was one line, unsourced. Go ahead and create the article. Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Aryan

Dear admin, when I provided sources to my edit in Aryan article you accepted it, otherwise I know you would have removed it again. Please can you keep this info, because I see people removing it and keeping Irish example ? You see the double standard and pov edits of those users. 107.77.230.42 (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I most certainly didn't "approve" anything - administrators don't do that, and you've been edit-warring. Neiln blocked you as I was about to block you myself for edit-warring and misrepresenting the edits of other users, including myself. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sock Drawer

See Special:Contributions/315tim, and thanks for being on the ball with this character so far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, sort of, I went to bed shortly after that affair, but at least they're easy to spot. Acroterion (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

425mike

Re 425mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I believe that I may be hearing a quacking sound from 315tim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Guy Macon (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like GBfan got them while I slumbered. Acroterion (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Zilla flooring truck.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zilla flooring truck.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Sternum

Why did you rollback my edit on Sternum? MarqFJA87 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference to Homer without explanation? Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I was connecting that sentence to the previous one, which was also about Homer. Please don't tell me you didn't even look at the end result of my edit. MarqFJA87 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Please use edit summaries, so that when looking at the diff display we don't have to find a connection amid all of the markup and reference formatting. I had looked at the time for another reference and must have missed it in the clutter - that's why you should use edit summaries, as I should have done too to explain my revert. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Noted. So, I have clearance to restore my edit? MarqFJA87 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Certainly, just summarize. Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

98.220.157.243

Me and some others have done lengthy re-writes of the Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, and Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém articles. They were filled with a strong POV, and questionable sourcing. Looking through the history of the pages, the source is User talk:98.220.157.243 who added the material. Example. Example. These articles were obscure enough that somehow these edits were missed.

Then looking through their talk page, I see they have a long history of edit-warring, bans, and adding unsourced or poorly sourced strongly POV material. I believe that all of this user's edits should be examined and scrutinized. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

They've made a lot of controversial edits and have gotten into some trouble, but they're on mostly well-watched pages and seem to have mainly been contested. Since they haven't edited since February we can just look out for trouble. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for keeping a civil tone and continuously trying to come to an agreement, even though we have different views on a subject. I had to give you a Special Barnstar because I think you fit into several of these categories. Thank you again, and I hope we can come to an agreement. Wyrm127 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
At some risk of seeming less congenial than you imagine, your comments have taken on the tone of sealioning. Please reconsider your approach - all of your extracts from policy presuppose the existence of credible, or at least marginal opposing views in reliable academic or journalistic sources. There are none, and you've been repeatedly told so. I've said all I intend to say there, please stop cluttering the talkpage with megabytes of text. If anything, you have achieved a consensus that "false" is there to stay. Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Relax

Did you even read what I wrote to Oshwah? How is that an attack? You need to take it easy. Vcuttolo (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I did. That's why I warned you. Neither your message to Oshwah nor the one above is an appropriate response to a warning. And never, ever ask anyone on Wikipedia "who are you really," even rhetorically. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Afterward I realized that "Who are you, really?" sure sounded like "Who the hell do you think you are?", which I did NOT NOT NOT mean to say. I meant it in the way I clarified afterward, 'are you the nice guy you appeared to be, or a some guy on a power trip?' So if your warning to me was based upon my lack of clarity, my apologies. And, as we've both seen from Oshwah, he IS a good guy. And I still suck at all things digital, although my Galaxy S4 (no joke) and its moods is not helping me, either. Vcuttolo (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I was a little startled that Oshwah was getting that kind of question - he really is one of the good guys. This text-based communication between complete strangers thing is harder than it looks. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm still using a Samsung Galaxy s4 as well ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018

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) 12:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

socks puppet

Hi Acroterion, (including K6ka here. Greetings. I noticed that user Stamina12 has been indef blocked by K6ka and user 176.222.226.19 has been blocked by Acroterioon for 2 weeks. I believe both editor is the same person as when Stamina12 account is blocked (temporary), IP user 176.222.226.19 would start editing the same way as per Stamina12's and visa versa (history show the patterns). As this has been going for some time now, and would gauge that once user 176.222.226.19's block is lifted, the same pattern would emerge again. I am not sure what could be done here but would appreciate if admin could check whether both editors are the same person as socks. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm on the road today and will look at it this evening. It may need a checkuser. Acroterion (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Acroterion, OK and thank you for the reply. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Response

"Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)"


I didn't. It seems that your are biased. In which case, I might say the same back to you. In case you didn't, please read before you judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.93.14 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't forum for you to post your views on conspiracy theories about weaponizing the ionosphere. There are plenty of other places on the Internet to post fringe theories, this isn't one of them. Acroterion (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ante-fixa[e]

Hi, Acroterion. Your name happened to catch my eye when you fixed the vandalism to the Tham Luang cave rescue article, so I came to see who you are. Sorry to be pedantic, but ante-fixae can't be singular. Lewis and Short gives the word as a neuter plural, antefixa, -orum, whose singular would be antefixum. Antefixae would be the plural of a feminine noun antefixa, which isn't in L&S. The WP Antefix article has the etymology right; don't know what the 1911 Britannica was up to. Cheers, Awien (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right, of course - my 10th grade Latin teacher would be terribly disappointed in me. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
All fixed, and your Latin teacher need never know - my lips are sealed! Awien (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Grey Owl

Thanks for dealing with the problem with Grey Owl (film). — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I doubt this is the last we'll see of this. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Because of that, I had to remove it from my watchlist until I feel like watching it again. I never want to remember what happened again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Question for a smart person....namely you

Why, even if I clear out my cookies etc, does a "watched" page never show up on my watchlist..I mean I have even done a full reboot, cleared my history, watched then unwatched then watched the page again and yet, never shows on watchlist? Ever seen that before? I think I have once in the past and I cannot now remember what I did to fix it.--MONGO (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried inserting it into your raw watchlist? That's about the extent of my watchlist wisdom - sysops aren't what they used to be, and soon we won't be able to even edit the the API, whatever that is. Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that page doesn't want me to watch it? I'll keep trying.--MONGO (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
At least we've clarified that I'm not that smart after all. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

In doing my research for the "project" I stumbled upon this...did not know if you were in the northern Virginia region in the early 70s or not but this (number 7 skyline plaza) was kind of big news is also worth reading.but I lived right down the street and for us it was a really big deal. Does that ring any bells?--MONGO (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Doh...we have an article..Skyline Towers collapse.--MONGO (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Skyline Towers was a big deal - I remember it. There is always a lot of pressure to remove shoring, it gets in the way. L'Ambiance Plaza collapse is also worth reading. The Oklahoma City bombing also covers issues with progressive collapse failure. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

PCP on Zodiac Killer

Hi, I noticed that a few months ago you gave Zodiac Killer indefinite semi protection. It's still got pending changes, which is now redundant. Would you be fine with me removing the PC protection? Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's redundant to have PC too. While PC helped, I think it's better for pages with a lower proportion of drive-by troublemaking. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed pending from the page. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How to protect a page on Wikipedia

I wanted to ask because if I decided to create a page and a person wants to hack it, how can I protect a page before a hacker does so. Some pages like Tom and Jerry are protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristie Ann Webb (talk • contribs) 06:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

All page on Wikipedia are freely editable by default. If a page sees significant and continuing vandalism from IPs and new accounts it can be semi-protected for a fixed term to prevent such accounts from editing, then unprotected. A page can also be fully protected for a short while if there is a substantial editing dispute. Pages are almost never protected indefinitely, and they are never protected in order to allow someone exclusive editing rights. Only administrators can protect pages, and they must have good cause. Your use of "hacked" is mistaken - vandalism is the term for the kind of edits you appear to be talking about. In short, what you're asking for isn't permitted. Don't do what you did here [1], and make sure that you understand the protection policy before asking administrators to protect. While Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series) has seen vandalism in the past month, it's not enough for protection, and there are editors like yourself watching it. Acroterion (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

West Virginia Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation

They have changed their name. How may I change the name of the article? ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Move the article to the new name. WP:MOVE. Acroterion (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2018 (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.Doug Weller talk 08:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey

See this diff. The IP claims to be 425mike, whom you blocked for socking. Just wanted to let you know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, obvious evasion is obvious. They created a number of nasty sock accounts and discovered that abuse didn't work, now they're trying another method. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess some people really do have nothing better to do... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

TPA revoke

You may want to revoke this account's talkpage access. Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:24A0:5C25:6C2F:1943:29B8 (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, Acroterion. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 02:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


User talk:Terrybear8648

Still making threats. Example:

Acroterion should be blocked from such they are insulting me on my talk page and accusing me of such when reporting abuse from other editors so they need to also be added and restrained from attacking me on my talk page.

Much the same as the prior accusations against other editors. I don't think this is acceptable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on it. We usually allow a little venting, as long as it doesn't go along too long. Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I sent you an important e-mail, please, make sure to respond. Thanks --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

Just wanted to let you know that the edits at Peruvian army have continued... I have tried to explain policies and the purposes of my edits to the best of my abilities. Notifying you because you were previously involved. I have been using the "Uw-image" templates to help explain the situation. I may continue to use them in further cases, though I do not want to escalate any bad behavior.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You Know What, Do it Yourself then. and i won't wasting my time to put Your Biggest Situation. Good Day.The Showgun Master (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection request for Airbus A380

A while ago you protected this page because it was being vandalized by the SST troll. There is now an edit filter in place to prevent him from causing more disruption. Therefore protection to this article is no longer necessary. Funplussmart (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The Golden Snitch

IT"S A PRIMARY SOURCE. IT"S LITERALLY HIM!!!!!! WATCH THE VIDEO!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvSJXUI6rp8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:CFC0:101:38BB:8620:D2C5:3BA8 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an extension of UFC. If well-sourced from independent print sources, it might be incidentally mentioned in the body of the article. We don't promote memes, self-generated or otherwise. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No birthday?

Why is her birthday not listed? She was born 6/18/1987 she’s 31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.110.221 (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean at Melanie Iglesias? As numerous editors have advsed, a source is required, not just an assertion. All biographical content must be sourced to reliable independent publications. And you're evading a block. Acroterion (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers!

A beer on me!
Thanks for taking care of an IP user (104.235.110.221) who'd thrown a couple personal attacks and trollish remarks my way. Have a virtual beer on me! Amccann421 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The edits to the Big Ant Studios page were not promotional

Hi there,

Can you please explain to me how the text that I added to the Big Ant Studios page is "promotional" where the exact same form of text is left on the EA, Activision, Ubisoft etc pages?

Rather than simply delete the text, perhaps flag particular words or phrases that you think need to change.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikuFanMcMatt (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

They were both promotional and informal, reading as though they were written by the marketing department in a breezy opinion-piece style, touting features and placing glowing reviews into the article. If you have a conflict of interest here, please declare in in accordance with the best practices outlined in WP:COI. Please learn to use the formal prose style demanded by the encyclopedia, and please stick to plain, unvarnished factual statements. Acroterion (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Than q for block

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/106.77.166.59

Please close the discussion on edit war ...this IP may revert again

(Qwert5yuio (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC))

Closed. You might want to use the Twinkle semi-automated tools for reporting at AN3 - tit makes it easier to follow for admins. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Than q

(Qwert5yuio (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC))

Acroterion, Qwert5yuio is a WP:GOODHAND sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. The same exact thing went down a few days ago on another admin's talkpage. 2601:1C0:4401:24A0:B847:9331:D464:23BF (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, looks like Spencer got them. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


The following revert is exempt from the edit-warring policy

Exceptions in 3rr [[2]] My doubt : If An Administrator blocked the IPs and closed the discussion on edit warring notice board, result is Both IPS blocked .In this situation due to any reason an editor can revert this closed discussion?. This revert under above acceptations or not?. At my opinion can revert.

(Uorryo (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC))

Are you talking about a report on a noticeboard or in an article? Can you link to the specific item you're concerned with. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about on edit warring notice board.I observed many reverts like this. my doubt is , Administrator is heart of Wikipedia, if an administrator perform block and closed the discussion edit warring notice board,by express result... it is 100% perfect edit. In this situation any one can revert this closure?(Other than administrators)

(Uorryo (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC))

And you would be a new account from Qwert5yuio (talk · contribs)/Nsmutte, I'm assuming? Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely wrong, i have observed this type of reverts, so i asked for clarrification

(Uorryo (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2018 (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.

- JuneGloom07 Talk 17:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive?

I don't see how making something past tense because things evolve and are not solely dedicated to hate is disruptive. Please enlighten me on why it is disruptive? OMEGAUNIT (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making things up, like the past tense business. It's disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.


Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


User:Zistagroup

The first article I ever created was on Gilsonite. I keep the page on my watchlist for sentimental reasons. In any case, it seems "Zitagroup" is the name of a corporation that deals in Gilsonite. The user has made changes only to this article. I have no objection to his edits. Nonetheless, there may be a policy of some sort and so I thought I would bring this to your attention. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

They're violating policy, but their edits seem constructive, so I've soft-blocked the name - they can register a new one, declare their conflict of interest, and go on editing. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Antifa: No edit warring

Antifa is known to wear dark clothing and to hide their identity wearing hoods, bandanas,

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/internet-vigilantes-destroy-antifa/ http://dailyheadlines.com/antifa-website-encourages-violence-against-americans/ https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/963785-antifa-thugs-never-want-see-faces-lets-share-sad-mug-shots/ http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/09/11/antifa-behind-masks-berkeley

That's an openly partisan website and is not a reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
RESPONSE: If the above citations are considered "partisan" then please review the following photographic evidence from the news:
MERCURY NEWS:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/05/berkeley-bracing-for-alt-right-rally-today-antifa-counter-protest/
GETTY IMAGES:
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/demonstrator-gestures-in-front-of-an-antifascist-action-news-photo/605837992
WASHINGTON POST
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/03/as-far-right-marchers-and-antifa-prepare-to-face-off-on-saturday-portland-braces-for-violence/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dad2836b0cbd
SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER
http://www.sfexaminer.com/use-term-antifa/
FURTHER RESPONSE: The Southern Strategy is only "well-documented" as a political theorem. The word "allegedly" is appropriate in context of a strategy that has no documentation in the Republican Platform. As well, debate still currently exists that it is a myth*, so it stands that it's proper to either insert the word "allegedly" or remove references to the "Republican party."
Case in point:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/southern-strategy/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SDSU-Prepper (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @SDSU-Prepper: Please WP:INDENT your responses on a talk page, do not capitalize whole words, and WP:SIGN your posts. Being parsimonious with new lines and paragraph breaks is also a good idea. If you cannot find text citations for what Anitfa generally wears then you have no grounds to make the generalization. We only report what WP:RELIABLESOURCEs say and a photograph is not a reliable source for a general statement (and conclusion about the reasons why it's true). Further please be cautious of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant

Dear Acroterion,

Regarding your action Aug 6 under Ulysses S. Grant (Reverted 1 edit by SDSU-Prepper (talk): Better before. (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

I would like to assume in good faith that your edits were to improve the content (and not WP:TENDENTIOUS in nature); however I don’t find “better before” as an adequate reason to revert the edit, which is why I’m writing. In fact, by reverting the edit you’ve changed the course of history. The edits I made were for historical accuracy.

Grant used the military to put an end to the former Confederacy. He did not enforce laws in the former confederacy.

According to Ron Chernow in the biography entitled Grant[1], he began to realize his remarkable potential, soaring through the ranks of the Union army, prevailing at the battle of Shiloh and in the Vicksburg campaign, and ultimately defeating the legendary Confederate general Robert E. Lee. In other words, he wanted to put an end to the confederacy and he did! Further he sought freedom and justice for black Americans, working to crush the Ku Klux Klan and earning the admiration of Frederick Douglass, who called him “the vigilant, firm, impartial, and wise protector of my race.”

References

  1. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Ron-Chernow/e/B000AQ735Y/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

In summary, your revert has rather large consequences with regards to changing the course of history, and as such I am requesting that you please undo your revert. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Your edit made no sense.
Long answer: You don't appear to have read what you edited. General Grant fought the Confederacy as a military leader during the Civil War to 1864. President Grant, elected in 1868, used the military to enforce reconstruction laws. You appear to have ignored the "Elected president in 1868" preface, which indicates that the following material refers to his actions as president. Your edit muddled the two roles and times. If you can't be bothered to read and understand the material you're editing, don't edit it, and don't lecture other editors about "changing the course of history." You need to understand history first.
You do realize that the war ended in 1864, and that Grant became president-elect in 1868 ... right? And that he served two terms as President? Acroterion (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

West Virginia Coal GRAIL

I have found the GRAIL of coal town hobbyists in WV. Deepwater, West Virginia. There is a bridge that as an ORIGINAL Virginian Railway Sign on a rail crossing. THOSE are almost non extant. Sorry, just had to share the joy and post that pic as part of the articleCoal town guy (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I remember seeing bridges painted like that in the remoter parts of WV, I guess that's one of the last that have escaped repainting. Congratulations! Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks CTG, reminds me of when my parents would drive out on the back roads to visit relatives. (My grandmother was from the next county over.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Clan Arthur

Hi sorry, I got it the wrong way round. Thought I was removing the paragraph, not adding. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries. These clans are touchy, aren't they? Acroterion (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard "Rich" Russell

why did you delete this. important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotwhoisntoffended123 (talk • contribs)

Mocking the death of someone who was having a mental health crisis violates Wikipedia policy. Don't make articles in violation of the biographies of living persons policy, which equally applies to the recently deceased. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfinished Message

I'm not familiar with how to respond so I'll finish here. My complaint was that someone (Clarity fiend) decided to change something on Wikipedia that had existed there for years for no other reason then they thought it was unnecessary information. My argument was what made W'pia great was its attention to detail and its completeness. Also, there are numerous listings of TV shows that go into great detail concerning the show, the plotline, the major stars, the date it was shown, the director, etc. How can you expunge the Award theater listings as frivolous when there are literally hundreds of shows with a lot more trivial information. I remember watching these movies with my dad and to me the listings with the dates had a great deal of importance. But twice, clarity fiend deleted them because he/she thought they were unimportant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordham73 (talk • contribs)

You don't need to make a personal attack against another editor to express disagreement. Use the talkpage to present policy-based reasons for inclusion, along with sourcing. Summarizing and tightening material is part of the writing process too. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Re the warning left on my page, I agree with needing to source that claim for Keith Ellison better. City Pages, the Minneapols/St. Paul alt weekly has now run a story on the claims, and the Congressman has denied the claims. My intuition is that this constitutes acceptable sourcing. Am I wrong? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that it was a report of a second-hand allegation made on a facebook page two days before an election, I would expect to see multiple sources that have actually, you know, done some fact-checking of the kind that was done for Luther Strange, where reports of misconduct were not given credence until there was corroboration. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
And thanks for archiving your talkpage. I couldn't figure out what was making text get smaller and smaller as you went down the page! Acroterion (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Understandable. I've put a few more sources on the talk page and will likely add a very modified version of the original later, barring any objections here or on the talk page of the article. The local NPR affiliate is reporting that they have reviewed the text messages in question and the Congressman has released a denial. I think the denial and coverage are worth a mention at least. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
And yeah, it became a total mess after being inactive for awhile. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Darren Bailie

Moved following message by User:Dazperkz here from user page:

Seems i need to contact you regarding Darren Bailie page deletion in 2009, blatant copyright infringement, i think you were blatantly incorrect and you are guilty of misleading users!!!!! Please remove your mistaken information so we can give users correct information.

Chris857 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you might want to consider addressing other editors with greater politeness, given that as far as I can see I've had nothing to do with the multiple deletions associated with that subject. Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Help, perhaps...

How nice to come across an architect! Would you be interested in taking a look at the Leadville Historic District article and adding any info to the section that has photos of many of the old buildings in Leadville, Colorado? I did my best but most of them remain unspecified as to style. Gandydancer (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a look. I've found that most buildings of that era defy clean categorization, and I'll need to avoid the deadly consequences or committing OR, god forbid. Acroterion (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Well as far as I know god does permit just a tad of OR from time to time...? Looking forward to your additions! Gandydancer (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A question

Hi Acroterion. I am a patroller from tr.wikipedia. I want to ask you a question regarding an NPOV issue. Your answer will probably shed light on a problem we face in Turkish wikipedia. It basically revolves around one point: does using words derivative of "terror" (I.e. terrorism, terrorist attack, terrorist organisation) violate our NPOV policy or not? Let me explain the issue by giving an example. English wikipedia has "September 11 attacks" article. Here we see several usages of the term terrorist attack, terrorist organisation, etc. I don't want to question this attack and its definition. I used this example because in the discussion in Turkish Wikipedia this page is used by a user who is for the usage of the terms related with terror. If we had this definitions in Turkish Wikipedia, the users who are against the usage of t-word would engage in a ful fledged discussion about NPOV policy violation. The users against t-word usage did not answer to 9-11 example in the discussion. And, despite this statement will be a kind of ad hominem, the user against t-word is a fervent opponent of the portal of Terrorism in Wikipedia and he is a devout supporter of socialist armed organisations. I give you this information because the discussion generally happens in the articles about these organisations, albeit we also see the extension of this problem in other pages, too. Therefore there is a structural personal bias in this discussion. In attempts of reaching to a consensus about usage of this term, we face constant references to NPOV policy and relativism about the definition of terror and terrorism: for whom and according to which criteria (including the relativity of the criteria and institutuons who decide on these criteria, and so on). If you can generously confer any advice for us as being a senior user in English Wikipedia, it will be invaluable for us. Best. - Narsilien (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"British Isles" or "British & Irish Isles"

Hi.

I am very new to this so I might require things explained to me very slowly.

I'm the guy who's been editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles of late and changing the first instance of the term "British Isles" to British-Irish Isles".

I just now created a membership account.

Thanks for the feedback.

Just so you know, I personally have a problem with the term "British Isles". At the same time, I am well aware that many folk (including many Irish folk) have no problem with it at all.

My editing of the page had two purposes.

1. To draw attention to what I believe is an outdated phrase that is offensive to many people and with cause.

2. To try and understand how Wikipedia works. How is the consensus arrived at? What if the consensus is wrong?

I am a supporter of Wikipedia and make a monthly donation towards its upkeep. So I champion it and use it on a daily basis. But I've always wondered, how do we know that what it says on Wikipedia is correct?

When reverting my edit you said the following:

Rv invention/neologism that confuses geography with nationalism.

Unfortunately I don't know what this means. Can you explain?

You also said:

Hello, I'm Acroterion. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to British Isles seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

First let me thank you for getting in touch and for taking the time to explain to me what you felt was wrong with my edit.

You believe that my edit "seemed less than neutral". However I believe that the term "British Isles" is far from neutral. It is politically loaded and offensive to many. (Again let me reiterate that I acknowledge and respect the views of those who aren't in the slightest bit put-out by the term). So you think my edit "less than neutral." I believe that "British Isles" is not neutral. How do we square this circle?

In a way you have already answered this for me when you said:

Wikipedia records outcomes and mainstream consensus.

But as I said, what if the consensus is wrong? Is has often been so in the past.

[Wikipedia] is not a place to start a discussion.

If this is so, then how is the consensus reached?

Nobody believes that there is a territorial claim on Ireland by Britain, apart from a few nationalist extremists, and Wikipedia is not a platform for nationalist claims.

Agree and agree. Yet the term "British Isles" remains problematic. As the page in question already states, "The Government of Ireland does not officially recognise the term, and its embassy in London discourages its use." If the elected Government of Ireland has a problem with a term, should Wikipedia not be more cognisant of the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. P. Rogers (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Your opinions on the appropriate naming of places can't be used to influence content. Wikipedia goes by academic consensus in a preponderance of reliable sources. If you want to start a discussion, Wikipedia is the last place that's appropriate, as it reflects consensus in the wider world - it's the endpoint, not the beginning for this sort of thing. In general editors don't look favorably on confusion between nationalistic disputes and long-established geography, or nationalist axe-grinding. I just reverted an editor who was busily changing "English" and "Scottish" to "British." There has been a great deal of nationalist mischief associated with these subjects, and our patience is short. Don't use Wikipedia articles to advance a nationalist agenda, and don't make up neologisms and try to promote them through Wikipedia. And in no case are you entitled to edit-war to force a change, as you've been doing with IPs. Acroterion (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks again for replying. However, I am still confused. Perhaps you are busy but you didn't actually address many of my questions. You again say:

If you want to start a discussion, Wikipedia is the last place that's appropriate.

But how are decisions made then? And who gets to make them. I though this was an open platform.

You say:

Don't use Wikipedia articles to advance a nationalist agenda.

I don't have a nationalist agenda. I solely look to learn and express myself. I am a pacifist and to be honest I personally believe that the idea of nationhood is redundant and often dangerous. As I've said, I do have a problem with the term British Isles. It is politically loaded and should be avoided. I am not alone in having this view. Please see the following from an article in the Guardian newspaper:

However, the Guardian style guide advises against using the term because of its unpopularity in the Irish Republic – with good reason, you may think (as I do), given the nature of the historical relationship between Britain and Ireland. As our sports desk will have been aware, for example, the former "British Isles" rugby union team (often referred to as the "British Lions") has, since 2001, been known as the British and Irish Lions. [1]

It could be argued that the retention of the term "British Isles" is in itself an act of aggressive nationalism.

You further instruct me to not "make up neologisms". I presume that you mean my use of the term "British-Irish Isles". I didn't make it up. I found it on Wikipedia [2] which is a reference from British Civilization: A Student's Dictionary by John Oakland. He says:

British Isles, the (geography) A geographical (not political or CONSTITUTIONAL) term for ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, WALES, and IRELAND (including the REPUBLIC OF IRELAND), together with all offshore islands. A more accurate (and politically acceptable) term today is the British-Irish Isles.

(My emphasis.)

Finally you say:

And in no case are you entitled to edit-war to force a change, as you've been doing with IPs.

Roger that! I won't do that again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. P. Rogers (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You must demonstrate that a majority of reliable sources use the terminology you're promoting, and that it is in widespread usage worldwide, not just among segments of Irish society or the Guardian's editorial board. Wikipedia isn't a place to propose changes to common usage until common usage has conclusively changed. We're not interested in whether arguments are made that "British Isles" is nationalist oppression (apparently the Irish Sea is not subject to such debate), nor are nationalist arguments about Sea of Japan/East Sea, Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf or other arguments adjudicated in any way other than via common usage among English speakers and scholarship. If British-Irish Isles becomes common usage, Wikipedia will follow. Right now it's a little-used neologism, worthy of mention in the context of Irish resentment of historical British dominion over Ireland, and the continuing question of Ulster/Northern Ireland, but not a cause for renaming. Far too often these arguments are proxies for nationalist disputes, wasting the time of everyone concerned. Acroterion (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing with me.

There is no consensus on this issue as you can see here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute. I agree that of all the terms used to describe the islands, "British Isles" is most widely used. But one look at the footnotes for that article [3] will show you that issue with the term isn't merely taken by "segments of Irish society or the Guardian's editorial board" as you assert. This is a real issue and is recognised by many. Read what Trevor Montague says in relation to the title of his book, The A to Z of Britain and Ireland:

...although it is traditional to refer to the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the British Isles, when considered as a single archipelago, this nomenclature implies a proprietary title which has long since ceased to exist, if indeed it ever really did exist. Despite the very close affinity between the British and Irish people I have no doubt that my title is both expedient and correct. [4]

J.G.A. Pocock says in his 2006 book, The Discovery of Islands:

... the term 'British Isles' is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously. [5]

And as I have already quoted, John Oakland says in the entry on "British Isles" in his British Civilization: A Student's Dictionary:

A more accurate (and politically acceptable) term today is the British-Irish Isles. [6]

Montague and Oakland are Englishmen and Pocock is a New Zealander. It would be a stretch to accuse any of them as purveyors of some nationalist agenda. The same goes for Marcel Berlins when he wrote in 2006:

I prefer to argue that "British Isles" is confusing and wholly unnecessary. Although a purely geographical definition, it is frequently mixed up with the political entities Great Britain, or the United Kingdom. Even when used geographically, its exact scope is widely misunderstood.

Question: Are the Channel Islands part of the British Isles? Answer: No, though I've seen many references get it wrong, no doubt because they assume that their political link with Britain makes them part of the British Isles.

They are clearly, geographically, part of France. Anyway, I cannot think of a single, valid, reason - not even a nautical one - why there needs be a British Isles at all. In what circumstances does one ever need to refer to it? Ireland and Britain don't need to shelter under a joint umbrella. The British Isles have no reason to exist. [7]

I happen to disagree with M. Berlins when he says that the "British Isles have no reason to exist." They do exist. We need to name the islands as a group for many reasons, including meteorological ones. It's just that we can't agree with what to call them. There is no consensus. I include his remarks to again show that problems with the term "British Isles" are not confined to Irish folk and Guardian editors as you suggest but also to show that the term is innacurate when one considers the inclusion of the Channel Islands.

You say that:

Far too often these arguments are proxies for nationalist disputes, wasting the time of everyone concerned.

I can only imagine how frustrating that must be for editors such as yourself and in hindsight I regret my "vandalism" of the page. It was a rather crude attempt at pointing out my issue with the term and I apologise for my actions.

However I must ask you to take me at my word when I say that my concerns with the term "British Isles" are not for me personally the manifestation of a hidden nationalistic agenda. I am Irish, I am a republican but I am not a Nationalist. (Not with a capital N anyhow. To give you an idea of the fluid nature of my views in regards to relations between these islands I sometimes wonder if Ireland would have been better off staying in the UK, if only so we might have provided a bulwark against Brexit.)

You say:

Wikipedia isn't a place to propose changes to common usage until common usage has conclusively changed.

I think I get this now. You mean that the frontend if you will isn't the place to trash out arguments such as this. Do I have that right? Yet again I ask, how is Wikipedia updated? If scientists make a major breakthrough on the nature of Dark Matter then the Wikipedia entry for Dark Matter will have to be changed to show the new information. How is this done?

You say:

You must demonstrate that a majority of reliable sources use the terminology you're promoting, and that it is in widespread usage worldwide.

So this answers me in a way. And again let me say that I see now how wrong I was to just barge in and start rewriting what I believe to be wrong.

"British Isles" is a problematic term. Some, such as myself find it offensive and believe it to be inaccurate. Others, many, probably most, have no issue with it at all. I see and accept that.

So I have a suggestion for an edit to the page. The last paragraph of the article's introduction states:

The term "British Isles" is controversial in Ireland, where there are nationalist objections to its usage. The Government of Ireland does not officially recognise the term, and its embassy in London discourages its use. Britain and Ireland is used as an alternative description, and Atlantic Archipelago has also seen limited use in academia.

This is succinct and well put. How about we bring this up the page and make it the second paragraph?

--J. M. P. Rogers (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

How about we dont? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2010/may/11/snooker-british-isles-mind-your-language
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute#Footnotes
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute#cite_note-7
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute#cite_note-Pocock01-10
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute#cite_note-Oakland01-13
  7. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/oct/04/comment.features11

write wright nationality

Why deleting my edits Lordpacific (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Because you appear to be solely focused on scrubbing "Scottish" and "English" from biographies of people who are clearly associated with those origins in favor of the broad-brush "British." While there are arguments to be made on the distinctions between broad nationality and sub-national/regional or ethnic affiliation, just changing them isn't the way to do it. Acroterion (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Heynatz vandalism

Back with another IP. Thanks for all your efforts whacking this particular vandal. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A request

Hello, Acroterion. Could you please remove the edit summary that was used [here], since it is a piece of filth that has no place on Wikipedia? Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

on recent edits of Manhattan project

man i just need some references that Manhattan project actually engaged active role in Italy and France offensives Galib x360 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

While I think the infobox is a bit overloaded, it's important to read the article if you have any questions. Your required citations for Hiroshima and Nagasaki too, which seemed excessive. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Troubleshoot apology (I can't think of a title name for this)

I didn't know if that source would have been reliable or anything (which is why I asked and questioned if it would be considered a reliable source or not). I didn't really mean to violate the Biographies of Living Persons Policies, and I really feel as if I should have thought about that more before sending that troubleshooting place (this was also the first time I've ever seen that) and if I see a source of a living person doing something, maybe I should like ask one of the moderators or something (I don't know if there's anyone you recommend) before thinking of putting that onto the article.

I guess as a result of this, I probably shouldn't use "Steemit" as a reliable source, and I'll avoid using that site as a source (or any other poorly reliable sources) whenever I'm trying to add something to a biography. I'm sorry for apologizing about this (I don't know if this would be pointless, change anything or anything like that). 73.240.105.138 (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not really a huge deal since you obviously are taking my note seriously, just remember that allegations of the kind you were quoting require way better sourcing. Read WP:BLP for more on the policy and why we require ironclad sourcing. That's one reason why we have that kind of edit filter. It was definitely not a false positive. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A ref desk troll returns

Hello A. You blocked 98.239.113.209 (talk · contribs) back in February. They have gone right back to their same editing style after the block expired. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 03:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Now blocked for a year. This time next year maybe it'll be two years. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I just discovered this IP 166.216.158.31 (talk · contribs) obsessing about the same TV episode and pestering two other editors about it. However, their only edits were a couple weeks ago so I don't know if a block is necessary or even useful. I did want to let you know what I'd found though. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Mobile IPs like that tend to be highly dynamic, despite the "static" notation in the WHOIS lookup. Probably not worth blocking unless a pattern emerges. Thabks for watching out. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome and thanks for the info about mobile IPs. MarnetteD|Talk 04:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocks

Since you put 98.239.113.209 on a long block, maybe you could block 166.216.158.31 for the same amount of time, as they are probably the same guy. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

See the later part of the discussion immediately above. They've probably moved on, since it's mobile. Acroterion (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oops, Marnette beat me to the punch. And you're right, the troll will just move on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q3_2018&oldid=1087992199"