Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q3 2021

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


Template:Usage of IPA templates‎

Hi, just letting you know that this revert of Xcalivyr at Template:Usage of IPA templates‎ doesn't seem to have been well motivated. At the time of their edit, {{IPAc-fr|j|@|-|s|U|i|s_|a|m|é|r|i|c|ain}} yielded [jə sɥi.z‿ameʁikɛ̃], which was clearly unwanted since the whole point of {{IPAc-fr}} is to convert orthographic representations of French to IPA and j in French usually represents [ʒ] and rarely [j]. But instead of reverting your revert, I edited the responsible template, {{C-fr}}, so {{IPAc-fr|j}} now yields [ʒ]. j was already specified to be converted to [ʒ], and it was converted to [j] only because it was doubly specified to be converted to [j] and that preceded [ʒ]. So it was basically a syntax error. Xcalivyr spotted it, even if the way they fixed it may not have been ideal. Nardog (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

My edit was motivated by another edit that was equally unexplained, which screwed up formatting. A subsequent check indicated that most of that editor's changes were beneficial, but it was unclear that the edit I reverted was useful. Thank you for fixing the edit, but please avoid making assumptions concerning other peoples' motivations. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not implying (nor did I think) that you had any ill intent. You reverted an edit without knowing whether it was useful, and it turned out it was. I was just leaving a note that you could have been more cautious, though it's an error anyone (myself included) is capable of and by no means do I accuse you of any kind of ineptitude, let alone bad faith. Nardog (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Brescia LTA

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ping :)

Hi Acroterion, I tried to ping you in Special:Diff/1031305635. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw it and meant to get back to you, but things intervened. I think I got the paperwork wrong, but if any article ever needed page-level sanctions for BLP and AP, that one's it. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Hm. I have now had a closer look and fixed the talk page notice to match the current situation. Regarding the content dispute about the word "debunked", I'm afraid neither 1RR nor "consensus required" nor WP:ONUS would have any different effect than removing the disputed term until a clear consensus for inclusion is found. I can't see a talk page discussion about the issue either, and the most recent edit war about the topic was between an extended-confirmed user and an administrator. 😐 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

70.161.8.90

Once again IP editor 70.161.8.90 is involved in edit warring and personal attacks, this time in the article about the Pleasant Valley War. Maybe you should block him again.216.128.232.11 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me the personal attacks? I'm just seeing grumpiness and two reverts. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

protected edit request

Regarding your protection of Sara Jacobs here. Could you also take a look at Scott Peters (politician)? The same sockpuppet is disrupting that page as well. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

About possibility of self-reviewing and restoring some removed content due to impartiallity

Hello Acroterion:

Thanks for your help about my recent additions and the message left in my talk page. I am replying in your talk page as you suggested.

I agree with you with the reason to remove my last edit in Olive_oil_regulation_and_adulteration and noted is a fair decision.

I see also that previous editions in Jamon iberico and Jamón Serrano have been removed as well. Is is possible for me to rework those two editions to comply with Wikipedia rules and guidelines and contribute again a few weeks later? Even this reply is now flagged as "potential vandalism" by automated filters, so not sure if I should try to edit anything again regarding those matters.

I don't want to give the impression I am retaliating or trying to make reviewers lose more time. You don't need to reply about the following lines and I won't raise any further discussion. Just wanted to point in good faith that Jamon iberico includes a caveat: "buyer should beware and not fall victim of retail or wholesale bait-and-switch or fraud", should a caveat like that be included in other luxury product entries susceptible of fraud/counterfeit? Caviar, French wine, Rolex for example doesn't mention any caveat (and I think is right not to do that when is common sense that any expensive product can be subject to fraud).

The caveat is just before another section called "Availability in the United States" which informs about when US started to reimport Iberico ham after being banned and then includes reference to "The Guardian" newspaper article talking about new US based Iberico pork producers in Texas and Georgia[1]. I agree encyclopaedias are to avoid any commercial talk. But after reading those last paragraphs I wasn't careful enough and left myself drive into confusion. Sorry about that.

Many thanks again. Francisco Fernandez Rodriguez (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The olive oil edit was the one that concerned me the most. I think your edits to jamon-related topics could easily be edited with the right sourcing and subject knowledge to be fully-referenced and neutral. There was just a little too much editorializing, which was hard for me to pick through on an iPad in the middle of the night. I recommend that you try again, being extremely careful to reference everything, and to attribute statements that are judgments to a source in the text, rather than making statements in Wikipedia's voice. The discussions of hog genetics seem to me to be relevant. I was tempted to remove the discussion of olive oil (which is what must have led you there) in the jamon article as a tangent. The Canadian syrup was a similar tangent - all of that would be better suited to an article on counterfeiting in food, which I've not looked at. Acroterion (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate much the quick reply and the kind advice. Also I discovered the sandbox, will use it to practice and self-review before publishing again. Honestly I have read again the reverted editions and should not have published them so carelessly, I see a bit ashamed some parts I thought I had removed before publishing. I remember I was frantically browsing to find reliable references and ended with several tabs open editing the same page, plus dozens of tabs with references I wanted to link and just published to close the laptop and go to bed. Will rework them with time and hope I can trim all the fat off the ham :) Francisco Fernandez Rodriguez (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/15/fury-in-spain-at-us-plans-to-produce-iberian-ham-in-texas-and-georgia
No problem, take your time, and remember that any format issues can be … cured. Let me know if you have any questions. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

More personal attacks and USTHEM and SOAPBOX over at Talk:Ivermectin

See these diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Thanks for any help you can provide. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a normal admin action for personal attacks. Discretionary sanctions may be forthcoming if they don't stop attacking other editors. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the mopping Acroterion, appreciated as always.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Something is going wrong here

You should be able to see a "citation" from July 3, 2020. Saying that a White city police officer “deputized” members of the lynch mob and “instructed them to get a gun and get a n-----,” according to the Oklahoma Historical Society."

Are you seeing that? --71.193.6.149 (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No. It says "White police officer deputized ..." It's a typo in the source. There's no "A". Acroterion (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Police officer remains singular. 71.193.6.149 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Because it's a typo, the sentence makes no sense otherwise. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad to know we agree that only one police officer was giving out guns according to the source. 71.193.6.149 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no source saying "An officer" or "only one officer," there's something that's either a typo or a significant grammatical error, whose interpretation by you isn't supported by any other sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

AmorLucis

I was going to report them to ANI over this [[9]], but then I saw you blocked them. I do not think they will learn as it is clear they are here to fight the good fight.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

And their appeal confirms it to my mind.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It's going about as expected. The unblock request is a sustained statement of grievances against everybody else. They're going to talk themselves into an indef. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Complaint

And you don't know me well enough to say it's an amateur diagnosis.

--71.193.6.149 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Shall I warn you about the biographies of living persons policy, which applies to the recently deceased? That needs extensive sourcing, not your conjecture. Acroterion (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops

I managed to edit conflict with you when tagging User:Jadebavister04 for deletion - could you delete it again please? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. By the way, that formulation of first/last name/number, with an often-different name in the userpage body, a set of unlikely interests, and a link is nearly always a spambot. Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that they always seem to trip the same three edit filters as well - I normally find examples through the filter log - see this list of spambots that I keep in my userspace. Pahunkat (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, they pop out once you see the format, don't they? 499 is the one I usually check, I end up blocking one to four spambots a day. Acroterion (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Reply to your statement in my User page

I have no reason to stop editing any Talk pages that are biased, and suggesting that kind of discussion isn't ilegal anywhere in Wikipedia, that should be answered with arguments exposing how the article isn't biased and has a neutral vision, which clearly is not the case of the referred article. Trying to censor discussions and topics in Wikipedia is innapropriate. Edits in Talk pages are totally legal according to Wikipedia's rules, when you try to adress some problem related to the article starting a discussion, that was the case. Biasedness absolutely is a problem. I claimed one article was one sided, protected from editings from people trying to fix that (My edits were basically discussions in the Talk page about the article's problems) and so on. This is actually a systemic issue in some areas in Wikipedia, by the way. I saw here a lot of people complaining about your removings. Maybe you have some ego issue by doing that. Wikipedia loses it's integrety because of this kind of attack on it's free nature. Have a good day, and i'm not interested in excuses for censorship in Wikipedia, i'm not waiting for any excuses, censorship even in so small things, continues a problem for any society, institution or group of people. The topics were legal. So have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.255.59.62 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:FORUM. Talkpages are for specific suggestions to improve articles, not for philosophical discussions about the existence of topics that are amply covered in reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


Edits on Camp of the Saints

Hello Acroterion

Thank you for your message. I resent the allegation of "watering down" - if you please read my entire post I was encouraging the re-writing of the article inline with its French equivalent, which in fact has more specific literary detail on race / racism as noted in the discussion, but is written in a less hysterical way and above all with a focus on the book, rather than obscure American political figures reactions to it. I'm disappointed to learn that essay with its lurid terminology and adolescent tone is widely excepted on the English wikipedia, but will take your word for it. The clear consensus in the discussion page of the CoTS article remains that the introduction was too strongly worded and does in fact require moderation from its current form. This is not "watering down", its accuracy and proportion. Thank you for your time and feedback

You keep saying the same thing. I disagree, both with your premise that it must be rewritten to coincide with the French version, and the characterization of the article's language, which you appear to want to water down. The article appears to have closely translated from the French version, and shares the French structure, without the excessive plot summary in the introduction. I recommend that the references to racism be appropriately expanded, and that the french article's references to dehumanization of the migrants be incorporated. If you're going to keep rejecting mention that the book has been criticized for racism or praised by racists as "hysterical" or "adolescent," you won't get far. The commentators offered in the French version would be equally or more obscure to English-language readers. Acroterion (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Doris Miller

You need to do your homework. Doris Miller was a First Class, read the article, towit "Miller advanced in rating to mess attendant first class on June 1, 1942.[1][16]". I was NOT being disruptive but rather trying to make it more accurate. Stop being so full of yourself, do your homework, and leave me alone. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Read the source: "On June 1, 1943, Miller received another promotion, that of Petty Officer, Ship′s Cook Third Class" I will investigate the contradicition between the article and the source. In the meantime, donm't lecture other editors. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Cook third class ranked mess attendant first class. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Why not? That's what your edits show you do multiple times a day. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
That's what administrators do. Take the attitude off the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
HAHAHA that's so funny and hypocritical. YOU need to take your attitude off the encyclopedia. No wonder you guys have so much trouble retaining editors. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Glad I could amuse you. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did you reject my Talk Experience article with Carrie Fisher at FanX

To the user Acroterion.

As you know I really did meet Carrie Fisher at Salt Lake City Utah FanX in 2015. May I ask, was that talk article inappropriate? I don't know all of the rules of Wikipedia as I'm an autistic man. Can you tell me what's going on? I only wanted to share my personal experience of meeting a celebrity at FanX convention. CrosswalkX (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Talkpages are for specific, sourced suggestions for article improvements. They're not a place for general discussion, or a place to share reminiscences. Acroterion (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You do not get paid enough for this. This is the least I can do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Farkas

He's the most Jewish person in the world.

  1. His name
  2. He was born in Ohio, which has a lot of Jews
  3. This https://forward.com/schmooze/155312/wealthy-jewish-new-yorkers-are-packing-heat/?gamp

Still don't think he's a proud Jew? --62.165.254.177 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's manual of style requires that nationality and ethnicity or religion not be conflated, that ethnicity or religion be mentioned only of they are fundamental to the subject's biography, and that it be sourced. We don't call out that Presbyterians are packing heat, for instance, or call them Presbyterian Americans, and we never label somebody because they have a "Jewish-sounding name." Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard J. Stephenson

It seems I started this article many, many years ago. The fellow owns a for-profit cancer hospital chain. When I started it, I mentioned his activity in conservative politics. Now, that is all gone. It seems an unregistered user **50.112.131.150** has a long-running interest in the article and keeps it nice and favorable. I have added this back to my watchlist. I wonder if we might want to do something to protect this page. I value any thoughts you might have. PaulinSaudi (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It's gotten considerable attention from a series of widely-scattered IPs and on very focused account. For some reason some of them thought it was vital to discuss his wife's figure skating career, or to debunk it. It looks to me like it's seen some PR polishing. It's not really a candidate for protection, but it certainly needs some cleanup and a less glossy focus. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request (edit summary)

I'm not totally familiar with our guidelines here, but the (other) f-word in this little number puts it past the bar for me – thanks! AngryHarpy‍talk 08:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nordic Resistance Movement

You made a mistake by reversing my corrects on the Nordic Resistance Movement article. National Socialism is what the ideology was named and used until ww2 concluded, the terms “nazi” and “neo-nazi” are political epithets that are inappropriate for a website that strives for a neutral point of view, that is why the article on the U.S.S.R is not entitled “commie russia” or the article on the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is not entitled “goatf**ker Afghanistan”. You as a moderator should know that Wikipedia was originally meant to be neutral and should continue to be. Bigboi71 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not by what you think something should be called. They're called neo-Nazis in reliable sourcing, so that's what Wikipedia calls them.Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help regarding talk page conduct

Would you please revert this hatting of an ongoing content dispute? I disagree with VQuakr when they performed it. There is no solid grounds for such a thing, and the discussion is not a duplicate. All or almost all of the points raised in it are completely new. I don't necessarily intend to continue the discussion (I had already requested WP:3O, and intend to wait to see if someone will respond), but I don't agree with it being hatted. I would also revert myself but it seems better that an administrator does it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinged here. If you feel strongly enough about it to request admin help, I will self-rv. Further discussion should be at the previous thread since that is still a fork. VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I feel strongly about it. Kindly revert. I disagree with your opinion on where the discussion should be continued but I have already requested 3O and intend to wait a while. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason to take any action - it seems like this discussion should take place in one venue, rather than hopping across multiple closely related talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

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) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

hi friend

let's talk here. i feel more comfortable.

  • the topic you are confused about is an extension of the discussion @VQuakr: tried to bring to your attention in order to get me blocked.
long story short: he says my claim that the GAO report (government accountability office), which gave NASA the opportunity to reconsider the award for the solid rocket boosters awarded to the contractor (which were found to have caused the disaster) were not enough to warrant retention because it did not explicitly state the boosters were problematic.
however it is to be noted the GAO report did not quote the other competitors' proposals in full, it merely quoted one passage as an example outlining lockheed's concerns about the winning proposal (where they stated the nozzle design would be a safety concern, which quakr said were found not to have contributed to the disaster).
  • so, i have FOIAd the entire set of documents in possession of the GAO, which includes all of the design proposals and additional arguments made in the process of the dispute of the award.
i believe (genuinely) this is the first time in history (i'm pretty sure, they can't tell me that) someone has asked for all documents in their possession.
i suspect a lot of dirty laundry will be aired out once we see exactly what each contested proposal said. i believe aerojet (who finished third or last, i forget which) also voiced concerns about the winning manufacturer's designs (thiokol).

it is rare for an impartial government body to have all of the documents that would also in nasa's possession. in this instance, these documents were produced to assist the GAO's investigation over the disputed award.

imagine if i had asked NASA for these. i bet they would have redacted the shiz out of them and refused to give them. since they're in the GAO's hands i have a lot of confidence we'll be get unredacted stuff

exciting times, or so i think. we shall know in a few weeks hopefully! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for you to publish original research or the results of your personal investigation. That's what people are warning you about. Find somewhere else on the Internet to reveal hidden truths. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2021 (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.Jena (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Salman Khan revdel request

Hi, as I noticed you're part of CAT:REVDEL, I'm here to request a deletion of this vandalism and my revert per WP:CRD as "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" - it is an added profanity that should probably not be visible on a BLP. Thanks. --IronManCap (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Revdel'd. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Much appreciated. --IronManCap (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Re the Key Biscayne media edit, what would be the proper way to add an entry? I am the publisher and want it it to be verifiable, independent, and without a COI issue. I started an article draft on the new newspaper. Advice welcome. Thanks. My hope would be to slowly improve other pages with current information. For example, I updated the info to reflect election in 2020 and new village administration. Tony Winton (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  • You will need to make the requisite declaration of your conflict of interest in this matter - see WP:COI.
  • You will need to find substantial reporting or academic scholarship in independent media, preferably on at least a regional scale and ideally national. See WP:V and WP:RS. This accomplishes two things - it shows notability in secondary sources, so this encyclopedia, a tertiary source, can use their recognition to establish a basis of notability - see WP:NOTE. It also allows us to use independent assessments by other media, rather than self-sourced statements that have no objective distance. See WP:ABOUTSELF - while not inherently unreliable, sourcing content to an organization's statements about itself is to be avoided for all but the most straightforward content.
  • You'll need to avoid directly editing the topic if and when it is accepted as an article.
  • While the threshold for mention in a related article is lower than for a stand-alone article, there still needs to be some justification of notability - orgnaizations aren't included on the basis of simple existence.
  • Hope this helps. Acroterion (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    It's very helpful, thanks. I think the simplest way to proceed would be to locate a wiki editor who has some experience handling journalism and media articles and suggest an article. We are a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News and there are probably a number of solid, local news organizations in the same boat. Many of these will only be 'notable' at the city or county level, so that it a bit of a conundrum. Tony Winton (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    Notability is the hill to be climbed, I think.Sometimes that just takes time and an accumulation of notice - regional and national press awards, things like that. I've seen a lot of topics that were initially rejected as non-notable gain notability and cross the bar over the last fifteen years. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

whigger is not a racial insult

i don't understand how the word 'whigger' is offensive. didn't you just participate in a discussion about how darknippes is borderline?

are you going to seriously tell me that darknipples is somehow more acceptable than WHIGger?

i don't even see how the word wigger is a perjorative because, unlike the n word (highly inappropriate), the word 'wigger' was essentially coined to disparage a white person imitating black culture.

the actual analogue for the n word, for white people, is the word "cracker". it's not "wigger". so i reject this allegation.

isn't there anyway to take it to a vote? i'm seriously shocked that this word, intended to show my fanfare of the Whig party, is deemed offensive. i think it is deserving of a WP administrator vote because it is not at all racist. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both the IP and account are blocked. They are about to run out of chances. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Been following the unfolding drama with a disruptive IP user (the one with the disgusting name change request), and I noticed this comment: "so few edits? have you seen what my IP has contributed? this is just one IP. if i made a list it would put most to shame.". Is that an implication of socking? (iow; disruptive edits using multiple other IP accounts). Not sure if you caught that, and if you did, is it being looked into further, especially wrt any more name change and/or unblock requests. Anyway, just curious, I'll leave it to you and any other admins dealing with this. - wolf 03:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It was a little hard to take anything they said seriously, but I accepted at face value that they've been editing via IPs for a long time. They didn't appear to resemble anybody else I'd encountered before who was being disruptive, I would think I'd remember a consistently disruptive set of Edmonton IPs. I hadn't looked into it in much detail - they bounced from topic to topic, and I'm surprised they didn't get in more trouble sooner, but then they've only occupied the current IP since late June.The Challenger thing seems to have been their most recent hobbyhorse. I suspect a little digging would find prior IPs
However, I see that ST47 has made a CU block on the IP now (just after you posted), and without connecting IPs to accounts, it appears that they're still misbehaving, but they don't appear to have a drawer full of active socks.
My enthusiasm for playing wiki-detective is low at present, but I think I'll spend a little time looking around for old IPs. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello how are you hope you are well can you review and edit this article Draft:Ali Al Suleiman (writer) 

and it's ok, move it to mainspace

Stay safe

Where is the talkpage on the O-Six article ? I am new and i do not know where that is.

Where is the talkpage on the [O-Six] article ? I am new and i do not know where that is.

Talk:O-Six - see the tab in the upper left corner of the frame. I moved your notes there so they would be preserved. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

302M

- Text edited with sources - References tried by example with other pages using the same types of reports and also how you referenced the book on wolves that you referenced yesterday.

I had difficulties with structuring a paper that has multiple authors (the "et al" doesn't work). I had to insert 7, 11 and 11 authors for 3 annual reports. also, how it worked out is confusing. It would be to check if you have the time to. Thanks for your time.

Contributing

I wasn't trying to cause trouble. Cwater1 (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That's why I just left a mild warning, before you got in too deep. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I don't want to get in trouble. I'll be careful what I say. Cwater1 (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You were straying away from trying to persuade to more personal discussions, and posting walls of text is a poor way to get anyone to take your suggestions seriously. Keep it short, read the policies that other editors are telling you about, work from within established policy, and be respectful. Read the archives - people get weary of explaining things over and over. Thanks.Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I get the point now. I think we're good to go. Cwater1 (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I still bad for making that mistake. I do apologize. Cwater1 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Not sure where my disruptive editing was, so please elaborate. I use Wikipedia daily and I never go into editing pages. There is no reason to, maybe it was some sort of error.

Peter Hotez

How is posting factual information vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.33.11 (talk • contribs)

I think you know. Stop doing silly things like that. Acroterion (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Major Problem in the page Mammal

When you click on the albino elk of the description template, it leads you to reindeer. Gimly24 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you found the source picture? Ir does look like an elk in velvet, but at that image size I can't really tell. The automatic taxobox is so inscrutable that it's impossible for anybody to figure out where the sourcing comes from, including me. This is a fine example for editors writing the encyclopedia for coders, rather than for editors. Acroterion (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it.Yes, it's an elk. Now to go figure out how to label it correctly. Ideally, we should be careful about "elk," since in European usage an elk is a moose. Acroterion (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. I will look at the way to change such templates in the future or now where i can. The page mammal is semi-protected. Gimly24 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I posted a grumpy complaint at Talk:Mammal. It didn't help that the original upload called it a caribou. Acroterion (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
check this picture, it is the same animal (antlers fully grown) : http://www.wagontrails.com/media/109692d0-84e4-4c9c-ac8f-2c0f4e997538/CQ3_uQ/animals/ps-2011-02-04-12-23-39.jpg?mw=1000&mh=600 Gimly24 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I found how ! rect 530 380 350 500 reindeer. Change it to rect 530 380 350 500 Wapiti.
I was overthinking it, thanks. Fixed, and since our primary article calls it an elk, that's how I edited it. You should be autoconfirmed in a few more days, which will let you edit semiprotected articles. You're doing extremely well in learning how this stuff works, good job! Acroterion (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Awesome ! Thanks ! Gimly24 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
It was this edit [10] in 2015 that added the descriptions. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

What specifically is wrong with my changes?

The entry about the SCV is heavily biased against the SCV and it is wrong. My changes focused on the organization itself and removed biased and incorrect material. What specifically "does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert AC1 (talk • contribs)

The NPOV policy requires us to describe subjects as they are described by reliable sources in academic scholarship, major published references and in independent media. Please review the references that you removed - articles do not necessarily describe subjects the way the subject might wish to be described - neutrality is determined with respect to the bulk of coverage in reliable sources. They do not get watered down to present a subject in a favorable light if the coverage is unfavorable. As with anything more than routine editing, you will need to gain consensus for your changes on the article's talkpage - major undiscussed changes and removal of sourced material in favor of unsourced content is not to be done. Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Comicsgate Lack of Neutrality

I see you've deleted my post in the Comicsgate talk page. That is disappointing, because it means there is actually someone with an administrator title allowing that article to very blatantly be steered in a direction that's decidedly not neutral. People there are acting in bad faith towards the intent of Wikipedia being an unbiased source of information, and the rationale employed by GrandpaLLama and others amounts to disingenuous and sophistic dancing within the letter of the rules. Specifically, the rationale is that an editor is not acting in bias if they make a biased, subjective statement as fact, and and then they cite as a source an editorial that shares their bias. So the goal of neturality has a very simple workaround that can be gamed.

This gaming-the-system conduct is at least tacitly supported through lack of intervention.

I actually came to this article to get some information on Comicsgate. The first line in the article is "Comicsgate is a campaign in opposition to diversity and progressivism in the North American superhero comic book industry". This is not putting the content on a neutral path, since it is obviously letting its opponents define its goals. The sources that back it up are editorials, critical and vitriolic and full of personal bias. I'm sure there's some wonderful rule that can be regurgitated to support such tactics, but my question to you is thus: do you not see an attempt by editors to use the letter of the rules to present a biased view against the article's subject? 71.56.4.128 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What it means is that you may not take backhanded swipes at other editors in discussions. You can make an argument without that. Acroterion (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, that was quite a sidestep, but let me see how my next pass goes. 71.56.4.128 (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Given my answer, my warning and the stated reason for the revert on the talkpage, it should probably occur to you that the thesis you advanced in the complaint above was faulty. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Considering that none of those actions you undertook addressed the thesis I raised here or on the talk page, I don't see how you can say any fault was exposed. Unless the fault in the thesis you're referring to is the notion that a Wikipedia admin would be an advocate of neutrality, in which I case I'm not talking to the right person. 71.56.4.128 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Administrators deal with behavior, not content - you were moving into personal attack territory. Reformulate your argument without veiled reflections on other editors.You are obligated to observe the conduct required by policy. If you just want to argue, you've come to the wrong shop. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
That's a clear explanation, and I do not fault you removing what you consider to be an insult. You were in the right on that. Having said that, if administrators concern themselves only with conduct, what is the proper channel for raising concerns that an article is being edited in a bias fashion? It's not supposed to be an endless tug-of-war of edits, right? 71.56.4.128 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The talkpage is where respectful discussion belongs, keeping in mind that consensus of reliable sourcing determines emphasis and NPOV. You may get along better if you remember that the correct word is the past participle "biased." Sorry to be too pedantic, but it will be less irritating to other editors if you avoid web forum grammar, and they will tend to take you more seriously. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not experienced with Wikipedia, so I welcome pedantry. By all means. My concern is that from reading the Talk page that Grandpallama (in particular, but not exclusively) is beyond respectful discourse. This individual has already expressed his personal antipathy towards the topic. This person has already asserted that "the way Wikipedia works" is that an editor can state as matter of fact that someone is a white supremacist because they found an editorial on the internet ("well-respected and peer-reviewed") where someone leveled that label for them. Grandpa's civility is marginal. He browbeats. He is not seeking consensus, and from looking at the history page, neither are the individuals who are instantly reverting any change that attempts to remove biased remarks. Given all that, could discussion on the Talk page help spur collective will to bring a semblance of NPOV? Or are editors held hostage by someone hovering over the "Undo" button? 03:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't personalize discussions like that. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
You have some impressive patience, Acroterion. :) Grandpallama (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Long ago I learned to conduct discussions like that on my terms (which I hope are aligned with those of the community), and not on the complainant's terms. They usually don't like that, but it keeps discussions a lot shorter. Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

False disruptive edit

I got a “disruptive editing” for a page that was supposed to be like the page Hypixel, if that one can stay the one I wrote should to. Ninjagokristian (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't spam gaming servers. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

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) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit

Hi, i saw what trolls had did, and was attempting to revert it. By time i did it you had already fixed and i did not notice. I am very inexperienced doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsmith222 (talk • contribs)

I see that you removed some earlier vandalism there a couple of years ago.Don't worry about it, edit conflicts happen all the time. Thanks for watching out. I've remopved the warning. Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


Iberia Parish Sheriff's Office (Louisiana)

I am confused as to what happened to this nice little article. I wrote it and it had several cites. I maintain that it is notable. Another editor posted an unusual deletion template. The template asked that I not remove it until 29 August. Now, as I was about to remove the template, boom! The entire article is gone.
What just happened? By the way, do you think the article should have been deleted? Many thanks,--PaulinSaudi (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It was a proposed deletion, meaning that any time after seven days from nomination it can be deleted. If the notice is removed it's considered contested, and either left alone or submitted for an articles for deletion discussion. You could have removed the template and contested it, but in reviewing the deleted content, I don't see more than purely local mention in press, so it would have a hard time meeting the general notability guideline. Have they gotten written up anywhere outside of Louisiana? I can put it in your userspace for you to develop. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Sure, please toss it into my sandbox and something may come of it. PaulinSaudi (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Question (IV)

The evidence is them saying “shock the pants off of ya”. I proposed in the article talk page regarding the content dispute. This is conduct dispute. They can’t just say mean things to anyone. GoodDay bringing the content out in the conduct dispute doesn’t change that. Advise, please. KosomPolskii (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s an ironic colloquialism that is in no way mean or offensive. Sometimes things like that don’t translate well. It’s not an insult or even a little mean. Acroterion (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, understood, no contest. Regarding the content, do you think I need consensus, as I waited for a week and the additions were well-sourced? KosomPolskii (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Silence is not consensus, and you had apparently left. Acroterion (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think 'I waited for a week' means very much here. While WP:Silence can be a thing in this case it remains clear there is opposition. More importantly 'I waited' is highly misleading here. You didn't 'wait'. You were blocked and after some initial evasion you finally stopped. That's not 'wait'ing. Further you said you were retiring and your user talk page still says that. It's unreasonable to expect people need to respond when there's no reason to. And there's no need to when the editor wanting to make the change is gone for at least 7 days and had indicated they might not be coming backNil Einne (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It would help if you'd make a decision about whether you're going to use your registered account or your IP, at the List of titles and honours of George VI discussion. Would be less confusing, for other editors. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Question V

You think a Freedom of Information report is a good source for Wikipedia? KosomPolskii (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

FOIA requests are primary sources and are a component of original research. - so, no. Acroterion (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I launched a sockpuppet investigation into this user's edits, since he seems to be constantly returning for one sole reason, even after being blocked: to edit out Mark Milley and readd David Goldfein as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After his latest blocking, I wanted to ask you if this investigation should still stand, since another user under a new username returns with the same edit pattern a few weeks after the previous account is blocked indefinitely. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting help and outside opinion

Hi, hope you're doing well. I need some outside help with this article in dealing with an editor who doesn't want any legal issues displayed that may come across as negative on the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intellivision_Amico#50.88.235.139 Thank you for any help you can provide! 50.88.235.139 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Complaint

So because I succinctly pointed that you were wrong, you flagged that as an attack. The article is culturally insensitive and needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.238.219 (talk • contribs)

Actually, another editor removed your complaint. Stop changing sourced content to what you prefer. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice editor starting the discussion failed to give

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns about Softlavender by Butterslipper. Thank you. the editor starting the discussion failed to notify you despite mentioning your alleged involvement. Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WTC-7

You are the author of the page 7 World Trade Center? FactFinder3 (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Many editors have worked on it, and it is a featured article as a result. I am, however, an architect, so by the same logic you've presented on that talkpage, I am an infallible expert in all areas of building design. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

PLEASE RESTORE THE RIGHT VERSION OF JOHN FRANEK

I am begging you, please. I cannot find all the sources again and write another biography page. I know my other version exists there somewhere and some Administrator can find and retrieve it. I need that version, as it was the cleaner, more usable version. Please, I am begging you. I don't have the mental strength to write it again and I might as well give up. This is really why people leave Wikipedia, the unfair rulings.

I AM BEGGING YOU WITH ALL MY HEART, please restore the other version. I could break out in tears, I worked so hard on the other version. Please, dear god answer me please.

Gongfong2021 (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Tuskegee monument

Stop undoing my edits. I live in Tuskegee and am fully aware of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gijoegotogo (talk • contribs)

You are going beyond the facts into statements of opinion about the motivations of other people. Stick to those things that can be cited to reliable sources. Acroterion (talk)…
And you were wrong on both counts. But thank you for drawing this to my attention, I'll spend some more time expanding and referencing the article. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

User4721 again

New report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User4721, the ducks are quacking very loudly. FDW777 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

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) 14:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Hey Dude, are you saying you're older than me? I'm 60. BTW I agree with your block. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I am, by a couple of years. Still, off to work now. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing problem with Robjwev

In June, I took a dispute with Robjwev (talk · contribs) to ANI which resulted in you blocking them from editing one article for 48 hours, see the last two sections of this version of their talk page, where you told them "Your conduct toward Rsk6400 has been a series of personal attacks".

Since then, we had a series of disagreements at African_Americans and Racism against Black Americans, the latter leading to this discussion. Apart from their words at the end ("That's the part where you seem to escape logic and reason, something no amount of text can fix."), I feel that their revert was particularly unfair.

Already before that, they got me entangled in a lengthy discussion in which I tried to point out why they had simply misread a statistical table (confusing "2 % of American Jews are African Americans" with "2 % of African Americans are Jewish"). The number of their reverts of my edits at both articles made me ask them whether they were hounding me (here - since only two article are involved, I now doubt that WP:HOUNDING is the correct name for that sort of harassment.) They answered with an accusation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, but didn't give the example I asked for.

I'm going to inform them on their user talk of this discussion. Of course, I'd greatly appreciate any kind of help. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to look at the issues when I have a little more time to properly review them. I'll go through it this evening. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
While they're being needlessly personal, I don't see it as rising to the level that previously existed, and unless it continues, I don't see a need for uintervention. Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Why my page is published yet?

Hi sir, I made a Wikipedia page after following those rules but why it Isn't published yet? Atiqul Islam Sakib (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

deepwoodsacademy

Why did you delete my page?

Deepwoodsacademy (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for fiction. Talkpages are a place to tell us a little about your activities on Wikipedia, not places to publish things you've made up. Acroterion (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Who is reverting what?

Who is reverting what? Have you flagged the other editors?

I've suggested to take it to the talk page which is the correct thing to do. --Iyo-farm (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Which I've done. Stop edit-warring to include inappropriate peripheral characterizations. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Progressive Alliance

So is the PA website a "Not reliable" source for the (eg.) UK Labour Party having such an international affiliation? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is that the unsupprted claim is not credible.You are welcome to look for other sources. Please review the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Did you have a look at Wikipedia's own article on the Progressive Alliance. Shall I edit or will you? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no interest in that article, if you want to note there that the PA claims the Democratic party is a member, but that there is no independent corroboration, you are welcome to do so. Acroterion (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
See WP:SELFSOURCE. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
You should have an interest, because you are a Wikipedian. By leaving that article unedited, you are allowing inaccurate information that the Dems are part of the PA to circulate on the internet. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
So fix it. Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

re: WP:NOTCENSORED & September holocaust

As per WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't think you understand how the Wikipedia works.

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness

I am not attempt[ing] to equate the organized genocide of entire races and religions with the slaughter of 100,000s of companion animals. I am documenting the evolution of the word, & how it mutated from applying to animals, to human beings.

I suspect you'd just not heard of the British pet massacre before & not only was it a big surprise but that you remain uninformed about it.

Take a look at the article, check over the references, & the people & organizations involved, & you'll start to understand. It's genuinely historic & directly connected.

Thank you.

--Iyo-farm (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works.
Really?
For your part, you are abusing NOTCENSORED in a manner common to POV warriors who abuse the policy to demand than anything and everything be included in a given topic. You appear to be abusing peripheral articles on profoundly important topics to indulge a personal point of view. Please stop, and please realize that patience with your conduct is limited and rapidly running out. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you call Mass-Observation (it was the equivalent to a British CIA at the time) & British black-propaganda unit, NARPAC & numerous leading members of the British war effort, Queen Elizabeth, Goering & von Ribbentrop, "peripheral" to the development of what happened during WWII? --Iyo-farm (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:GAMING

Nothing more than WP:GAMING --Iyo-farm (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q3_2021&oldid=1242254638"