User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q2 2022

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

Your Response on the ANI - What is 'Sealining'?

Hello, how are you? I am not an experienced user, to start with, but I would like to know what your response means (without cluttering up the website, to confuse others, which is why I'm posting this here). I know a lot of speech goes around that refers to "trolling" which I interpret to mean "vandalism" but I have never seen any speech that refers to the term "sealining?" Can you either explain that terminology or point out a place that this is explained? Thanks in advance, keep up the good work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_trolling_at_Talk:Bucha_massacre 69.112.128.218 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read Sealioning. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. That link was very helpful. Now I can see more of what that meant. It means that we are assuming that a user is being cordial under false pretences? The user is creating a false aura of politeness in order to create trust in order to sow seeds of conflict? If so, I have another question. Without being a mindreader, seriously, how is one to know the level of another person's/user's voracity or "sincerity" - wouldn't it seem to a reasonable person, if you are "assuming good faith" that there is no way to really assess this? How do we even know if such a thing exists, and even if it definitely did exist, how would anyone know that it occurred? Additionally, if we are to "assume good faith" wouldn't that prevail against 99% of the suspicions that such a thing is happening? Even so, assuming that it is happening, shouldn't we encourage others whom we disagree with to be polite, sincere, and cordial, whether it's sincere or not? What if a user simply doesn't agree with the other user, cannot see the other user's point, and refuses to be rude? Is that seriously the issue? Sorry to bombard you with all these queries. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. You are bordering on Sealioning right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I was going to make the same observation, it's pretty much what you've been doing. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Add the questions to the Teahouse, my talk page, here, and I'm trying to figure out why I haven't blocked them yet. I guess they think we are stupid. Never confuse patience with stupidity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
We're volunteers writing an encyclopedia. We're not some kind of quasi-judicial debating society. That's the good-faith response. The alternate response is that this is the latest in a series of IPs to waste our time with Russian disinformation, or general FUD-sowing. Acroterion (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Your recent reversion

I couldn't help but notice Your reverting my edit at 88. I believe you might have acted in ignorance or negligence.

The edit concerned a ban on the use of the number 88 for, quote, "its association with Hitler’s initials". To my knowledge, Adolf Hitler's initials were A H, thus yielding "18", so certainly the article's claim must be mistaken. I altered the line to suggest that the ban was due to an association with the phrase Heil Hitler. Such use is well-documented and described in detail in the very article. I am personally unfamiliar with the use of 88 in reference to Hitler's initials and have to request a source for the claim. For the time being, I have unreverted the edit.

Brittletheories (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Go away. The 88 references HH, which is stated plainly. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and therefore the paragraph was mistaken. Well, good thing it got fixed. I'm sorry you got so agitated. Brittletheories (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to remove material concerning fascists based on your own opinions and then come here to complain that you've been reverted, in tones of dudgeon, I'm not able to assist you. In point of fact, I agreed that it refers to HH, but your approach was fell considerably short of cordiality - please feel free to avoid using words like "ignorance" or "negligence" about simple misunderstandings, and please correct things like this, using references, rather than taking them out several times. Please reconsider your approach to interacting with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Kurt

How can we state that it was a suicide after all the info and facts we have now about his death? Why not just say he died. Period. You seem like an intelligent person and if you look at what Tom Grant has said and proved and what his own attorney has said it looks like he didn't do this. I work with addicts and I've asked every one since 2000 if what he did was possible. Not 1 has said yes, or maybe. That's alot of addicts who have had a habit decades longer than his saying it's impossible. Jaskim06 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Your addition broke the citation, and didn't help the article. You are wanting to add your opinion to an article, based on someone else's opinion. We follow the sources, which say it was suicide, as did the police dept. We aren't interested in your personal opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Complaint

Hi, thank you for reaching out. I was immediately going to assume that you were a person that doesn't even reads the justifications and reverts any changes that has been done on one of your notification links. If you think I haven't been adequately explaining myself, I'll gladly try to do that here and now. I have attempted to delete one of the many problematic sentences on the "NoFap" page which is "NoFap is part of the "manosphere", online groups credited with disseminating misogynist discourses.[12]". Let me clearly, and without dragging too much I hope, explain the points why I think this sentence should not be there. First reason would be your objection to my changes which is "objection to clearly sourced statement", I think graduating from GeorgiaTech, you %100 know better than me that a piece of knowledge being sourced clearly doesn't at all relate to the validity of that statement. I've read at least the abstraction of the sourced material - because of the obvious barrier to knowledge being lots of money - I can deduce that it's a research material that is done by Xiaoting Han & Chenjun Yin to define and fill the concept of "Manosphere". This piece alone does not puts this sentence up in the page where generally objective definitions take place, they do, for 3-4 sentences but putting this sentence up there with is subjectivity to personal bias doesn't reflect the spirit of Wiki. It just seems like a biased person's opinion piece up there with the definitions.

Second reason is actually an expansion of my reasoning: if it should exist in the page, why it shouldn't be the defining sentences. It is because putting this sentence aside with the definitions assumes that the (1) term Manosphere is universally/academically accepted and used whereas its literature is just being created, (2) the explanation next to Manosphere defines the NoFap. My 2nd point is the most important one, I don't think anyone can nonchalantly claim the NoFap disseminating misogynist discourses. The rule number two on the subreddit is even against that. More evident thing is, if you'd scroll through the top posts and comments you'd see that those kind of misogynistic behaviour is downvoted to hell and are not tolerated. Because most of those people know what actually misogyny is, they've actually witnessed misogyny firsthand. They were the ones watching violent pornographic scenes, heartless men carelessly hurting woman just for the sake of entertainment. How can someone claim this movement to be misogynist, I think there is a confusion what NoFap defines and defends. There will obviously be people that will spread misogyny, racism etc. But they are not inherent to movement as you can clearly see in Reddit and other forums, even in the most wholesome pages such as Puppies, there will be someone spreading hate among us.

I simply request you to edit the page to remove that sentence relating to Manosphere. I encourage you to check my claims on the subreddit to find DEFINING PROPERTIES that is evident to "disseminating misogynist discourses". If you find that piece of knowledge useful, I'd propose you to change the start of the sentence with: "A researcher from Beijing thinks that/claims that...". I don't believe any other way is justifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthmaulethuitpapillons (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia uses references to appropriate research in academic and journalistic sources with reputations for expertise and fact-checking. Reddit is neither.
  • Your opinion does not override the consensus developed over time on the talkpage.
  • Discussion takes place on the article talkpage where it can be seen by other editors, not here
  • Please be aware that pseudoscience and gender issues are subject to special scrutiny
  • Abusing multiple accounts and IPs is grounds for summary blocking. Likewise meatpuppetry or brigadiing from off-wiki canvassing. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Why did you revert my edits the links didn't go anywhere! Return to Monkey Island (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with redlinks, they may encourage an article to be written. Stop removing them. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! It makes the pages look unprofessional. It's like you want people to go on wiki and think "oh wow these link go nowhere I guess no one proof reads this". Return to Monkey Island (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a user-generated encyclopedia. We want to flag things that need an article written about them. Feel free to help. Acroterion (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with th logic (but won't remove them if that's the rule) but I shouldn't have said that it was rude. Sorry. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
No problem, you'll understand better after a little while here. The encyclopedia is a work in progress. We used to have a lot of redlinks. Now they're unusual, precisely because people have seen the need and addressed it with an article that turns the link blue. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, it makes people go "Wow, I can't believe there isn't an article on that. I will start one.", which is the whole point. Redlinking plausible articles is encouraged as a way to expand the encyclopedia by letting people know what we need to work on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A Favor

Would it be at all possible if you could rev-delete the vandalism edits made by the user CuddleKing1993 at Talk:Suchomimus and Acrocanthosaurus? The editor in question started a thread in the former, and made an edit summary in the latter, both being incoherent rants about how the perceived incorrect data in both articles are sexually assaulting him.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Really, it's just over-the-top nonsense, and I don't think it warrants a revdel. I've warned them on their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Range block

You put a 1 week range block on 2A02:214C:8719:7D00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. They're back at it on 2A02:214C:8734:DC00:79A8:191E:2BA0:AB89 (talk · contribs). – 2.O.Boxing 09:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

They seem to be bouncing around some very large ranges. I'll see what can be done beyond just /64s, but it may not be easy. 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Revoke to talk page access for 217.180.232.83

217.180.232.83, which you have blocked, is personally attacking us. Please revoke access to their talk page for the duration of the block as they don't really understand about the rules. Wesoree (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Block extended and talkpage access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

63.155.49.159

Hi Acroterion, thanks for blocking 63.155.49.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – she might need a talk page block as well. --bonadea contributions talk 06:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Noticeboard notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding WP:BLOCKNO. The thread is Inappropriate use of "block" threat from administrator. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you.

Per requirement to notify editor in question upon opening noticeboard thread. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2022 (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 07:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your helpful intervention on Talk:Cessna 310#Cockpit image and your request that the editor withdraw the personal attack against me there. Unfortunately he has not only not withdrawn it, but doubled down on it here and again had it pointed out by another admin there that it was probably another personal attack. That was after you posted your request for him to withdraw the original one. Two more days have passed with no action on the editor's part, so it is clear he is not going to withdraw or or apologize. As described in WP:CIVIL his behavior is obviously unacceptable. I should point out that I request some action to close this, not from any sense of personal hurt (frankly it is clear that his personal attack was just an embarrassed lashing out in response to several editors pointing out that the photograph in question was obviously not a real Cessna 310) but because, as the policy describes, poor behavior like that drives editors away from Wikipedia, is detrimental to the project overall and needs to be deterred. I would like to see this individual matter concluded quickly, so I was wondering if I could prevail upon you, as the intervening admin, to take whatever action you deem appropriate in the circumstances to resolve it? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Now that's an instrument panel
I thought Serial Number 54129's comments were over the top, and I would appreciate it if they retracted them and apologized to you. I don't think that JG Howes would be happy about things like that said in his name. I've worked with some of his images, because he and I both used a Canon AE-1 film camera on the old days and have extensive slide archives created with that equipment that we've uploaded, and I see his work a lot in areas where I've been working on Commons. We overlapped geographically, and I would have liked to have met him. I don't think the level of umbrage that SN took honors JGH's memory, especially when we're talking about an objectively poor image. We all have them, it's not a slight on the creator, and it seems to me that it was meant more as a portrait of JGH rather than a documentation of an instrument panel, regardless of how it was used, and given the paucity of images of any kind associated with C310 interiors. And I say that as someone with an FP on Commons of an aircraft instrument panel. That said, it won't do any good for me to appear on CBW's talkpage after they've already admonished SN and called out their behavior, and demand an apology. I've rarely seen that accomplish much on WP, and there are no sanctions that can realistically be applied, except to see that it doesn't happen again, or that if it does, it's called out. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts on this. I actually laughed out loud when I first saw the image, as its intention is quite humourous. The fact that the sky-and-clouds background was added to make it look like it was in flight, while the photographer holding the camera was obviously standing outside the aircraft, where the right-hand engine would have been if it was a real aircraft, just added to the humourous nature of it. As user portraits go I thought it was a fun image for a user page, obviously not intended for any serious use in an article, though. As I indicated above I trust your judgement that if you feel the editor in question has been "sufficiently debriefed", then that is fine by me. I had never encountered that editor before and hopefully won't again, as they seem to have "some issues", but if things escalate I will drop you a note. Thanks again for your work on this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes, thanks for adding that Ford Trimotor panel. Now if we had something like that of a C-310 that would be a useful addition to the article. It is a failing of mine that in my three decades as an active pilot and also photographer, that I did not foresee my future at WikiProject Aircraft and take more instrument panel photos than I did! Hindsight bias! - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I found what your wrote highly offensive

As a Jewish family (related to the Noether family) we find your comments about the edits outrageous. "othering" what are you even talking about? Its people like you who are taking away our proud history. How dare you lecture us about how we should identify by nationality. What does that even mean? Disgraceful. I need to report you, how do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontodecide (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You may complain at WP:ANI.Please read MOS:ETHNICITY first, and bear in mind that 9 out of 10 times, when a nationality is replaced with "Jewish" in an article, it's being done by anti--Semitic trolls as vandalism and, as I mentioned, a way of setting Jews apart as non-citizens or un-persons. See triple parentheses for another way that this is accomplished by those with malign intent. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Shame on you

Under no circumstances did I attack another user. The allegation is egregious, I was forced to delete it from my talk page in embarassment at your aggression and I allege you are abusing your position as admin to accuse me of such when I am contributing to the site in good faith. Removal of well cited, rule following, good faith, relevant contributions with no explanation or rationale is indeed "vandalism"--you ought to know the rules, but clearly you do not. Shame on you. ~ Gkoogz (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Bluster is not an appropriate response. Stop treating other editors as opponents to be overcome. Acroterion (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my page

Hello.

Doug Mastriano is not "far right". Please do not continue to call him as such. Else, we open the flood gates to Wikipedia simply becoming an outlet for mainstream media regurgitation. I can just as easily cite Fox News and call every single Democrat a far left socialist if we can use ridiculous, theatric titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineer-005 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikiopedia is reliant on mainstream academic and journalistic assessment, in intention and design. Your expectations are misplaced. And please stop labeling anyone and anything you disagree with as "far-left." Unless there's a Pol Pot party, hardly anybody in politics is far-left in the U.S., not even Bernie Sanders. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for making your bias known. Nobody in the US is far left, but plenty of people are far right? Haha. You guys crack me up. You're not even hiding your bias, but you genuinely think you have none. Too funny! Engineer-005 (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, everybody who doesn't agree with you is biased. That's not very enlightening. We're all biased, including you. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This editor has now stated twice on Talk:Doug Mastriano that Being a Q Anon believer is not "far right" [1], [2]. In my opinion, anyone making that kind of statement has earned a CIR block. Those people never go on to become productive editors. Wikipedia should take a zero-tolerance approach to QAnon. Just my two cents. I am aware of WP:ROPE and will not be pressing that issue further. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect info

On the page for the peanuts special To Mom And Dad(With Love) it is stated that some critisism is "homophobic". but the two sources used are in fact not homophobic. i edited the page assuming someone majorly misinterpreted the articles but you edited them back.

why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.115.161 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the entire passage, since there doesn't seem to have been much discussion in secondary sources. In the meantime, please acquaint yourself with taxonomy. Your edits at crush fetish were inappropriate, and your lecturing of other editors who repaired the article was misguided. Birds are indeed reptiles in some special taxonomic senses, but an article on a paraphilia is not an appropriate place to make such technical distinctions, or to garble the overarching term vertebrate. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I overreacted with that I agree, but what about the Peanuts special page. I am being genuine, as I truly see nothing homophobic about it, and if it was homophobic then I would be siding with you there 24.210.115.161 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

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) 15:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

grammar and english standards for "gang stalking" page are extremely incorrect. Needs and edit to promote neutrality.

Hello! Thanks for engaging with me about my edits. How exciting, someone must really care about that page.

I believe that the term, "gang stalking," is a verb. It is used on this page as a noun, which is incorrect. A verb cannot technically be a set of beliefs.

The language on the page seems a bit skewed towards the controversial, instead of addressing the topic at large. I'd love to be able to contribute to making this page more neutral. That is always my goal.

If your opinion is in line with that of specific medical professionals, I hope that you will allow others to contribute alternative viewpoints, as well as allow people in the wikipedia community who are interested in neutrality itself to make edits that serve that purpose.

Thank you so much for interacting with my edits! And please excuse any appearance of pushing for a "cause," or "belief," on my part. I assure you that people have all kinds of opinions about things like ghosts, technology, outer space, and just about everything that should be allowed to exist online - while we also state that these are the opinions of some - not all - people.

And of course the algorithms keep changing the title to this note I am sending to you. It should say "an edit," not "and edit." OH internet. How imperfect it all is.

Actually, depending on context, it can be a noun, verb, gerund or adjective. In this case is is a noun, a term used for what is generally regarded as a delusion of persecution by organized groups, often treatable by medication. Wikipedia reflects mainstream sourcing, with particular emphasis on clinical research. Please read WP:FRINGE for how Wikipedia covers other aspects in proportion to their credibility, as granted by mainstream journalistic and academic sources. The article has seen much disruption from editors who have pushed the notion of genuine persecution by gangs, with no actual supporting references. If you have sources that can be used to improve the article, please use the article's talkpage to present them and suggested edits. I have protected the article for a little while to ensure that you follow that protocol, which is required for significant alterations to sourced content. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Seth Rich - Potential update to information

Acroterion,

I saw that you protected the Seth Rich article and I wanted to provide you with updated information. I am contemplating rewriting at-least sections of the article but wanted to get your opinion first. As part of the FOIA, the FBI has recently released redacted documents that make clear the DNC email leak is at the very-least empirically related to Seth Rich. https://vault.fbi.gov/seth-rich/seth-rich-part-01-of-03/view

With access to this information, I humbly believe that it is only respectful for Mr. Rich and our search to find the truth - to make proper edits to the article. This may include removing fact-finder data that was not available at the time of initial publication, among other things. Additionally, although mostly redacted the FBI seems to have uncovered a "hit" plot for Mr. Rich prior to his death. I do not wish to get involved in the politics of this article (as I mostly work on disaster and emergency management), but I do believe significant revisions and/or removal of content on the Seth Rich article (as it stands today 5/31/22) is necessary. Given its magnitude and the work therein, and depending on what response this comment receives, I would like to work in tandem with you to correct the article as a whole.

TLDR: The FBI documents seem to show that there is more of a connection between the leak and Mr. Rich than the media, fact finders, ad other sources were aware of at the time. Access to this new information should call for major revision of the current article.

Sincerely, Thebeast613123 (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. Your interpretation of what FOIA material “seems to show” is not usable on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Well then I will change what I said to "does show" because as per the FBI documents, it does. The FBI makes it clear that there is a connection between the DNC leak and Mr. Rich. I simply said "seems to show" to be polite. Thebeast613123 (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Read WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY, and leave the sleuthing to the secondary sources that Wikipedia relies upon for reliable sourcing. The encyclopedia reports on what professionals describe as the truth, we are not searching for it ourselves. Acroterion (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I completely understand what you are saying and the guidelines involved. It does appear that FBI released documents - from themselves is as primary as it would seem to get. In fact, a case could potentially be made that in this case, specifically, the fact-finder sources discussed in the article are secondary sources. I think that internal documents, such as these would be a better source than someone else reporting on their release.
Additionally, even in the realm of speculation, wouldn't FOIA internal FBI documents related to this case be proper to bring up. I do not quite understand the hesitation here. The FBI documents admit that Mr. Rich has connections to the DNC leak. I would say that that source is about as good as it gets. Thebeast613123 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
If the Washington Post or the New York Times or a similar publication take notice, then it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to rely on what they say to establish that the material is suitable for inclusion. If nobody takes notice, then it is not Wikipedia’s purpose to reveal it or to draw conclusions in the absence of reporting in secondary sources. Wikipedia follows the news, it doesn’t create, which is plainly stated in the NOR and primary sourcing policies that I have mentioned. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's role to sift through document dumps and draw conclusions. FOIA documents are by their nature contextless and incomplete. It is up to multiple reliable sources with reputations for solid research to make the effort and to publish context and conclusions which can then be cited, not individual Wikipedia editors.We don't allow court evidence to be cited in most cases for the same reasons. Rich's death has been used to promote the ends of people who couldn't care less about Rich himself, and the absence of reporting on the material you mention indicates that nobody so far thinks it is of any significance. If that changes, then it might be mentioned in the context of what is said about it in reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Historical Right article

I’m looking at the page history and it seems like Nick.mon and other accounts made various changes to the article without proving ANY scholarly citations to support their edits. I mean ZERO references whatsoever. They made those changes unchallenged despite not following Wiki protocol.

Meanwhile, I provided numerous reliable sources for my edit, most of them from the last two decades, and it got reverted instantly. It was not even a major change to the article. I was mostly reverting the aforementioned unsourced edits while providing many scholarly citations to back me up. And yes I read Italian and know the material well. The edit only looks lengthy because of all the citations I provided, not because the main article was changed substantially. CuttlefishJack (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We see a lot of edits changing “liberal” to “conservative” and vice versa, “left” to “right”, etc. Those are red flags when unaccompanied by a talkpage discussion. I don’t see that you’ve ever used a talkpage to open a discussion. Please do so now. It is not the references so much as the sudden shift in characterization without any discussion. References are good, but changes are not always self-evidently beneficial, which is why talkpage s are provided. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but it’s not a “sudden shift in characterization” as much as it is a reversion to what the article said before editors like Nick.mon made their *completely unsourced changes* that went unnoticed and unchallenged at the time (except that I included more citations and more detail than what previously existed in the article). If other administrators had reverted Nick.mon’s edits back then on the basis that he ignored Wiki protocol by not providing any references, we would not be having this discussion. I don’t have infinite free time to debate, so can you see why it’s frustrating when other editors are allowed to make changes without providing any references and have those changes remain, while I go through the trouble of providing many different scholarly sources and get instantly reverted as reward for my efforts? CuttlefishJack (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

None of us are omniscient or universal specialty subject matter experts, and that's one reason why you and everybody else should explain what they're doing, otherwise it just looks arbitrary.You may want to discuss with Nick mon directly, or at least ping him about the talkpage discussion. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User

(Redacted) -- this user appears to be threatening. Nythar (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

They've been blocked. Nythar (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


Nation state phrase

Dear Acroterion. Please, I think you mistake by reverting the corrected phrase (15:49, 11 June 2022‎ Acroterion talk contribs‎ 99,962 bytes +4‎ Reverted 1 edit by 93.176.134.75 (talk): Rv, languages dpn't Try to replace" things or themselves undo Tags: Twinkle Undo).

I'm afraid you did not read the text referred to Spain, so you did not noticed that the phrase I corrected was because was in inverse sense to the article. Now, upon your reversion it says: the non-Spanish languages which over the last three hundred years have tried to replace Spanish with hundreds of laws and regulations. So:

- please notice that it is absolute opposite to the information of the rest of the article.

- please notice that it is the spanish government who mades the laws and regulations, not the speakers of no-spanish languages. So, as expressed before in the article, the spanish government improves the condition of spanish language (castilian, as is written in the Spanish constitution) in front other spanish-no castilian languages.

So, in order the information be accurate and real, I think you would have to revert your previous reversion. Of course is your decission that the information fits or not, but readers would agree. Anway, thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.134.75 (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What you inserted makes no sense in English. From your note above it doesn't appear that your proficiency in English is sufficient to edit the way you want to. My edits have responded to the mangled grammar you've been adding. Please use the article talkpage to make suggestions for edits so someone more proficient can make edits. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Right, my english could be much better, but the article about Spain still is wrong. Of course I don't want to made a bizantine discussion, but please, don't you mind that the sentence says exactly the opposite to the rest of the text? Not need to search far, just one sentence later: "The main workhorse of Spanish nationalism is the non-Spanish languages, which over the last three hundred years have tried to replace Spanish with hundreds of laws and regulations, but also with acts of great violence, such as during the civil war. For example, the statements of Queipo de Llano..." It is absolutely clear for anyone that know who was Queipo de Llano.

From my side I'll not insist anymore, thanks anyway for your patience and time. 93.176.134.75 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I'll take a closer look, but I'm not very enlightened by the quoted content either, since it is trying to argue that languages are able to take actions. No need to apologize for your English - I understand French pretty well, for example, but don't edit the French Wikipedia because I would do the same things and not realize my errors. Acroterion (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi. I opened a talk page thread titled "Lead paragraphs", about the number of paragraphs of the Donald Trump page, which is under active arbitration remedies. I take great pride in researching for long periods of time the Manual of Style, guidelines and policies to try to improve articles, but to my dismay and demoralization, the discussion devolved in a series of attacks against me and my edits and other off-topic posts. I even requested an editor if they had accusations against me to follow relevant policy and take it to my talk page, but they continued with the off-topic situation. Another editor even said they was sick of the bickering and they was just mocked. Could you check the situation and if possible or if appropriate put a stop to the situation but leaving open the discussion about the paragraphs? Thanks in advance.--Thinker78 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

European Colonization of the Americas

Why do I get in trouble when Bishonen inappropriately blocked me? Is it because I am not an amdinsitrator and thus have less power? This is the same thing that keeps happening. I get accused, I defedn myself, and I get in trouble. Could you rescind the warning? I think that other people will use this warning to get me blocked or banned months from now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs)

I've replied on your talkpage. Please stop treating other editors as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Leave me alone

Leave me alone please. I don’t give you permission to reverse my edits and you’re incorrect for inferring I commited vandalism. 2404:E80:90EF:0:689C:5855:EDA6:EC49 (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You are not able to make demands that your edits stand. Stop trying to harass other editors. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

RevDel at Leba Chand Tudu

At Leba Chand Tudu can you delete all revisions prior to the page creation edit by Sudip Karmakar23? The full history (40 revisions) including the ones deleted per WP:Articles for deletion/Leba Chand Tudu were inadvertently restored by Justlettersandnumbers. The article is facing speedy delete per G4, and the version by Sudip Karmakar23 is different from what was deleted. Jay (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sold on the G4, since it's substantially different from the first version. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I agree, the speedy tagging may have been because the earlier history showed the original creator as current creator. I have removed the G4 tag now. Jay (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Jay, that wasn't actually inadvertent – I'd mistakenly deleted the page as G5, for which it was not eligible, and chose to restore the history in its entirety. I'm open to correction here, but when a page is tagged as G4, isn't restoring the earlier revisions a reasonable way of allowing comparison between the deleted and the re-created versions? If I'm wrong about that I'm happy to re-delete those earlier revisions. In this case, the distinction between the original creator and the more recent one is pretty marginal, as the latter is a sock of the former. Acroterion, was revdeletion really the right choice here? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I would say it is wrong to restore deleted revisions to facilitate G4 evaluation to non-admins. Anyone may tag a G4, and anyone may decline it, but only an admin can accept it. Tagging and declining can be based on the AfD's rationale too, not necessarily on article content. For comparing content, non-admins use Wikipedia mirrors or Deletionpedia. See some archived discussions here: Only Admins Declining G4?, Questions about G4, G13, Verifying G4. Regarding, the sock angle, I was not aware, as the new creator was tagged as a sockpuppet 10 minutes after my above post. The page can now be speedied under the sock criteria then. Jay (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, Jay – the page has substantial edits by another user, so is not eligible; the G5 tag was removed for that reason by Ponyo. Any user can remove some or all of the sockpuppet content, of course. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
It was my feeling that the first version’s revisions were heavily influenced by a sock master and best deleted, and that G4 was not warranted. I meant to remove the G4 but was distracted by wife and dogs. I see no reason to keep the early revisions, but have no very strong conviction on the matter. Acroterion (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've re-deleted those revisions, per suggestions here. The article creator now shows as the sock rather than the master. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Helllo, just wanted to thank you once again for blocking the Indonesia IP for harassment, just wanted to ask a question about it.

Did he leak any of my personal info? Or was it just something along the lines of "I will find you and kill you" or something. Thanks! Dinoz1 (chat?) 12:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The latter. No personal information. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


The Impartial Truth

Pretty clearly NOTHERE, wouldn't you say? Doug Weller talk 15:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Presuming that's him, I guess it could be someone else. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I give it 80% odds.My warning has it covered either way, and we'll see if they ever come back. The Truth in username rule continues to be remarkably accurate. 16:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Issues with the Operation of ANI and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Carter00000 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You realize that this is a remarkably bad idea? Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I can answer for the user: no. Welcome to the Wikipedia Circus.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe there's something wrong with my computer, but this isn't returning any results. hmm. Antandrus (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Try: Special:Contributions/Carter00000. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Ban Me

At this point I don’t care. Permanently Ban from the site DO IT!

Arbitration request declined

The recent request for Arbitration to which you were listed as a party has been declined, as the Committee felt it was premature. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 15:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor troubles

My apologies to bother you but a while back you placed a block on User:E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr – recently some issues have risen again with this editor, regarding edits I've made. The individual posted a bogus claim on the talk page stating I placed inaccurate content. As you can see my edits contradict the claim (I’ve pinged him, with no response) Also the editor maybe running 2 accounts as user:Tbx3571 & user: E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr seem to have a similar interest(s) and writing style(s) - Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated -cheers FOX 52 talk! 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Partially blocked editor asking others to edit for them

Hi - see[3]. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

See this range

[4] All I see is adding unsourced and odd deletions and changes. A mess, but maybe nothing can be done. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Also changing sourced text. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q2_2022&oldid=1123509537"