User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q1 2017

New account
Hello Acroterion I followed your suggestion and created a new account here so I won't effect my shared IP anymore. thanks. Eric Ramus (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Acroterion!


Happy New Year! Acroterion, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Time for indef semi-protection
...on that page, I think. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected, but only for a week since the present activity only involves one Telstra user. Telstra IPs are highly dynamic so blocking is often ineffective.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Great minds
Snap :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)



UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool.  Acroterion   (talk)  

Question
Hello A. Thanks so much for removing the ref desk troll edit. Unfortunately, the grotesque name they chose is still visible in this edit summary. Is there anyway to remove it? If not I understand. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, got it. I tend to forget that rollback leaves an automatic edit summary, which can include an offensive username.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'm glad that it could be done. The less that one gets fed is always better. Best wishes for your 2017! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Best wishes to you too, and thanks for watching out at the refdesk.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit
on Huntington, New York when I was reverting vandalism
 * My mistake. However, you need to clearly state what you're doing and why in an edit summary, not just "Nope", which looks like vandalism. The edit filter log for your IP shows a lot of what looks like random changes to numbers that are highly suspicious, and you're liable to be blocked by somebody if you don't start clearly describing what you've done and why.  Acroterion   (talk)   05:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion
I tried creating an article about my vidoe series. Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middlearth6982 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it did not make a credible assertion of sufficient notability for inclusion in a global encyclopedia, and because you were using it to promote your video series. You may not use Wikipedia for advertising, and you have a conflict of interest.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing
Don't know what you're talking about. I commented on his page and it appeared differently when I saved it. Perhaps he did some changes on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicist5777 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You altered a message left by another editor - twice. New comments go at the bottom in a new section - there's a button at the top of the page to help with this. Don't alter other editors' comments.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

Just go down the article and you'll find the source by yourself. So did you delete my comment on his page because you disliked it? If you did, you should be ashamed of yourself because censorship is common in undemocratic societies. You should never silence an opinion because you do not adhere to it. And do me a favor and just use your search function in your browser and you'll find what I was talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicist5777 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that now, thank you for pointing it out. We're not omniscient, you know. However, the use of additional names should be discussed on the talkpage first, as purely religious names aren't necessarily appropriate for use in the lede, and have been abused before. You're not being censored.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, great.Physicist5777 (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Drug-Related Deaths
There seems to be a long-running kerfuffle over at List of drug-related deaths over the inclusion of Karen Carpenter. I have no dog in the fight but thought you might wish to take a look to see if you would like to take some action. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Edi-warring and WP:NOR warnings placed, based on their note to Freikorp.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am being right and you users should apologize to me talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrest Lesak (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Drug Related deaths
i did not even do anything on that page today you guys just think i'm wrong but on some articles and me are right you should apologize to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrest Lesak (talk • contribs)
 * You've been edit-warring to insert your own personal analysis for a couple of months now. Please stop.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

71.54.171.55


Can you keep an eye on them and/or possibly hand out a block? I gave them a final warning, and they've persisted... Aurato (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you beat me to it! :-) Aurato (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I blocked them as you were leaving your note. I think they're trying to improve the article, but removing references in favor of IMDb and changing dates isn't how to do it.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mind
taking a look at this edit by User:Thephilosopher6, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sunmist&diff=758698100&oldid=756837383 and other recent stuff by that editor? Carptrash (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What a ... ...  ... person? Indeffed. Thanks for the note.   Acroterion   (talk)   16:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Eric Ramus
This recently-blocked User:Comet Egypt sock is claiming that you gave him permission to set up a block-evading sock. If that's really the case, I've no object to your unblocking him if you're willing to take responsibility for cleaning up the mess he's inevitably going to make (the reason he came to my attention in the first place is that within a week of creating this account, it was trolling on ANI). &#8209; Iridescent 20:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (adding) If you're taking the "the troll account was five years ago, and people change" approach, have a read of User talk:199.195.166.103 and this thread before you click "unblock". &#8209; Iridescent 20:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hell no, he never had permission from me for anything, and I blocked several of his IPs. I don't buy the business about him being a pilot either. He left a message here a couple of days ago and I should have investigated then.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course he's not a pilot—quite aside from the fact that he doesn't seem to remember which airline he claims to work for, it's only a couple of years since he was claiming he was blind. If I'm stretching AGF to the limit, his claim that you gave him permission is a just-about-plausible reading of your comments in this thread (You can request a new password, you know, or you can set up a new account); however, my AGF is severely lacking in this case. &#8209; Iridescent 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At the time I was stretching AGF as far as it would go, I see no reason to continue. YGM.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete Harvey J?
Why did you delete Harvey J after seeing that it is properly referenced with notable sources? I understand that it was deleted in the past as well but that was also prior to references being added? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hennygang (talk • contribs)
 * There was no significant change in the overall article to indicate that the subject had become notable. A few more references do not alter the outcome of the AfD, which does not hinge solely on notability or referencing.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The subject has has over 20 references. The article was originally cited for not having notable sources, which were added thereafter. Billboard, Oxygen, and Uproxx are all reputable media sources and are commonly cited on Wiki. You are a trusted administrator. I expected you to review the contents of the article and if for some reason it still does not meet guidelines to make the proper notations so that it can be corrected. I am contesting the deletion with factual information that I believe is being overlooked. Hennygang (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take it deletion review. The content was not substantially changed, and made no new claim to notability. It appears to be a direct copy in all respects of the originally deleted content from November, except for a minor alteration to the last paragraph .  Acroterion   (talk)   03:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I added credible references before it was ultimately deleted. I did not agree with the original deletion which is why I reposted it with a slight revision. What I am asking you to do is to review the actual article instead of assuming the content is not properly cited or notable.Hennygang (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As you have been advised, I suggest that you create a draft. Articles are subject to re-deletion if no significant change was made between the deleted version and the new version, which is the case here. The subject clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and someone is not automatically entitled to an article just because they've gotten some press. The sources you mention are pretty superficial and mainly support the claim that the subject promotes Hennessey. AfD is where marginally notable subjects are discussed to see if they can be retained. This one doesn't seem to me to be quite there. WP:DRV is your other option.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hennessy*. How does the subject clearly fail WP:MUSICBIO when he has 1.) "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" and 10.) a song on a "notable compilation album" described in the Billboard reference? </ref Hennygang (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to ask you to take it to DRV and make a case there? As far as I can tell it's someone who has achieved modest notice for videos about cooking with a specific product, who would not otherwise satisfy notability guidelines for musicians. You appear to be trying to promote a few marginal promotional mentions into something greater than it is by padding it out with fansites and trivial mentions or with self-promotional content. Your source above doesn't even mention the subject. If that's the best that can be done it's far short. That's a good way to undermine your argument, and Wikipedia is not a component of a viral marketing campaign. Since you reposted essentially the same content that was deleted by an AfD that is your avenue; I will not ordinarily override a deletion discussion process if the same material has been reposted, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case, it must be done with consensus in a formal discussion.  Acroterion   (talk)   08:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hello Acroterion, I saw that you blocked User:Jeemark indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion for the edits made on the Action camera article and I think the user might be back again as User:Tingfeng892930. The account is repeatedly adding the same content and images as the account you blocked. Thanks, Vistadan (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again Acroterion, I see that you have blocked User:Tingfeng892930 and I think he/she is back once again as User:Kingmark2017. The account is adding the same content to Action camera as the other two accounts. Thanks, Vistadan (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, got them. I'm traveling right now and have limited time on WP, I'll look into a blacklist for that URL when I get back. Thanks for watching out.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * FYI, preparing an SPI for these socks at the moment. --JustBerry (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello JustBerry, Since the accounts keep adding one specific camera to the Action camera article, I guessing its probably an employee of the camera company. Vistadan (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a COI duck. Created SPI case Sockpuppet_investigations/Camparkcamera. --JustBerry (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello JustBerry, I was just reading the Sockpuppet investigation, but, what's to stop he/she creating more accounts in the future? Vistadan (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * CheckUsers can find underlying the IPs of registered accounts and perform an IP/IP range block (by themselves or via another admin) if deemed appropriate. --JustBerry (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Forget about the Original Wikipedia account of 12BET
Good day Acroterion,

I don't know if you will be able to help me about this inquiry, but 12BET lost its original account on wikipedia so we decided to create a new one. We are trying to edit the page of 12BET since it is outdated. I am hoping to get a feedback from you soon.

Thank you and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper-88 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to ? Are you ? --JustBerry (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @justberry yes, I am talking about the original user that we have in Wiki.
 * Who is "we"? Are you affiliated with 12BET? --JustBerry (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @justberry yes I am associated with 12BET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper-88 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you tried making a simple COI request using the guidelines Simple_COI_request? Do you need help adding any information in particular to the article? Also, I noticed Acroterion reverted your edits here. The reasoning appears to be the fact that you had substituted a reference with two sentences that were unreferenced. Please see WP:Verifiability. Essentially, fellow editors and readers should be able to verify the information in articles through reliable sources. Links to the sources are formatted as inline citations within articles. Does this make sense? --JustBerry (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@justberry thanks for the feedback I will work with that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper-88 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dame Celia Johnson
Have added Blue Plague honoring actress, please do not remove images without consensus, this is a vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.173.32 (talk • contribs)
 * The plaque is fine, but stop adding unsourced content and placing images that break page layout.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictures.
If you Do NOT LIKE the image where it is placed, put it somewhere else in article, also what is the consensus for honourifics  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.173.32 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the manual of style for image placement guidelines. The burden is on you to make a case for the use and placement of the image. Wikipedia doesn't use honorifics. Cliff Richard is not Sir Cliff Richard, nor is Paul McCartney described as Sir Paul. Additionally, stop inserting unsourced material.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

PHOTOS
photographs are fundamental to this project, They illustrate the Article. IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY, PLACE A PHOTO THAT IS MORE SUITABLE, PLEASE
 * Yes, I know - I have the featured pictures and featured articles to prove it. Please slow down and listen to what other editors are asking of you. You are expected to respect layout and content guidelines and to work collaboratively with other editors, so please work with us. And please stop making new sections for every comment. You are going a little faster than your level of experience on Wikipedia can sustain.    Acroterion   (talk)   03:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for undoing vandalism on my talk page Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Plasco Building
I thought steel framed buildings never collapse from fires????--MONGO 15:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course they don't, what were you thinking? While I think this is a steel-framed building (the lattice covering certainly is) I feel compelled to avoid speculating on what is going on based on my personal interpretation of a video in which I might project my view of what ought to be happening.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Understandable...we may see "poofs" of smoke which would lead one to surmise that this must have been due to thermite charges detonating.--MONGO 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for input
I would like to request your input as to whether or not Pyrocynical is now notable of a Wikipedia page, seeing as I would need an admin to create it anyway and you were the one that create protected it. There's been a lot more coverage of him since the last time his article was deleted, to varying extent, in Forbes, Reporter Magazine (RIT), New Statesman, and Daily Dot. It seems that perhaps PewDiePie is the only YouTuber that is easily proven notable, I think that many others seem like a gray area. So, what do you think of Pyrocynical's notability today? Has it changed in your opinion? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 00:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The strongest reference is Daily Dot, who mention "noted commentarian and human meme Pyrocynical." However, they're all mentions in passing while discussing other subjects. As you say, it's a gray area. I think a case can be made for some level of notability, but it really needs more coverage than one or two lines in an article on something else to cross the bar into WP notability. Can you find a source that would back up the Daily Dot comment?   Acroterion   (talk)   01:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

82.221.133.62 block evading as 193.107.85.241
is probably the same editor as. Thanks. 172.56.39.178 (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. Anybody who talks about "great adversaries" is up to no good.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed... :-) 172.56.39.178 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Also the IP that you blocked for disruptive editing on Kermit the Frog has returned from. 172.56.39.178 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What a pleasant person! Blocked. I guess I'll have to add Kermit to my very strange watchlist.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, at . Perhaps a rangeblock is in order? 172.56.39.178 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like Materialscientist beat you to the punch. 172.56.39.178 (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only done /64 blocks on IPv6 addresses, I'll need to do some reading first.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lots of people watch Sro's talkpage since he's such a vandal magnet.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Electromagnetic sensitivity article
Your comment that my recent edit seemed less than neutral is biased. I am stating the truth. Actually if you read the article, the Wikipedia article itself is biased toward making a person question whether there is such a condition by using the word claim, claims, and or claimed many times and other information presented. I do have a degree in Biomedical Electronics and have done research on the subject and find overall, the article is misleading. Wikipedia should not provide biased information.

Also, these links back up my assertion about EHS being recognized as a disability in a court of law here: https://en.geovital.com/electrohypersensitivity-ehs-recognised-as-disability/ and in other places. See also the link here concerning the ADA: https://www.access-board.gov/research/completed-research/indoor-environmental-quality/introduction where it says: "The Board recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual's major life activities. The Board plans to closely examine the needs of this population, and undertake activities that address accessibility issues for these individuals."

In the Wikipedia Electromagnetic sensitivity article, it states,"Some people who feel they are sensitive to electromagnetic fields may seek to reduce their exposure or use alternative medicine." The reference is to an abstract that says, "The most common measure was to avoid exposure if possible." At least in the abstract, alternative medicine wasn't mentioned. When I went to the link for "alternative medicine," I found a biased article where the writer(s) was highly biased against it and provides false information! Naturopathic doctors use therapies that are most certainly science based. The alternative medicine article also says, "Alternative medicine consists of a wide variety of practices, products, and therapies—ranging from those that are biologically plausible but not well tested, to those with known harmful and toxic effects." In Dr. Mercola's article at: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/26/prescription-drugs-number-one-cause-preventable-death-in-us.aspx, it says, "37,485 people died from drugs, a rate fueled by overdoses on prescription pain and anxiety medications." And, "An estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur in the U.S. every year." It's interesting how mainstream allopathic medicine killed 37,485 people in the United States in 2009 but it is hushed up and treated as if it were not a problem like it is! But alternative medicine is vilified! Also, see the article here: http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2004/3/awsi_death/Page-01, for reference.

Also, concerning your mentioning that the topic should be raised on the discussion page first, not dropped into the article lead, there was no Discussion link at the top or bottom of the page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WCarp (talk • contribs) 05:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Use the talk page. It's linked at the top of every page, and please first read the sourcing requirements for medical topics and issues concerning fringe topics.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ferociouslettuce
Hi. If you look at this (now speedily deleted) and read the material which is supposed to provide "proof" at the link provided there, it appears that the editor who posted it, ZanaredousLB, is Ferocious Lettuce, and the entire thing is another case of attempted outing - that FL mixed in other editors into the report doesn't alleviate the attempt to connect a real-world name to a Wikipedia account. Given FL's behavior regarding Carlos Slim and the NYT, I wonder if you think this is sufficient to show that their unblock conditions have been violated, and that their indef block needs to be restored? If nothing else, I believe my request for a CU was a reasonable one, and it is not sufficient that ZLB was blocked as "an obvious sock", when the real question is "of whom"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also the matter of CIR - see his attempt to add a death date to Robert A. Bernhard, when the death is clearly of a completely different person who was born in a different city in a different year and lived in a different place than the subject of the article. Add to that that the death of one of the Lehman Brothers family would rate a real obit in the Times, and not a paid notice in the Washington Post, and you've got an editor with absolutely no sense, and no business editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it. My time for the next few hours is somewhat fragmented, I'll try to look at it in some detail.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see, and , especially the edit summary on the first "No evidence that he's still alive. I'm a member of his temple."  Since when do we require evidence that a person is alive, as opposed to evidence (from a reliable source) that the person is dead? And "I'm a member of his temple" is pure WP:OR.  One wonders why, if FL is a member of Robert A. Bernhard's temple, he previously posted this, the edit summary for which says "there is similarly no credible source showing him living. And the fact is, he's dead." I've reverted his edits, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Given his history on that article that's an interesting series of edits. Final warning given.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry to be a bother. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No bother at all. That's why admins make the big wiki-bucks.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Red Icarus
As you no doubt know, there are continuing issues with and complete nonsense. — ATS &#128406;  talk  03:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't checked recently, but given their history I almost blocked for the Carrie Reynolds redirect. Now that they're re-creating previously-deleted redirects with minor variations I see no reason to waste any more of our time, there have been many, many warnings.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Note
Don't know how in the world to privately message you, but apologies for the Yates edit. I briefly lost my temper, made an irresponsible decision and it will not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirkh1 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note: it's an unusual evening. Email's the only way to PM people on WP.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User talk:47.137.191.83
He's posting personal attacks at this talk page while blocked. I see you were just there. Home Lander (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've said all that needs saying. Looks like Euryalus got there, and talkpage access is likely to be shut down soon.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Creating Martyrs in the struggle against Donald Trump
Why didn't you move this to a Specialpage if that was more appropriate?

Yes the article may need edit or even a better title. How do I (or others) edit it for improvement if it's deleted?? Jamesdowallen (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Because it was clearly a polemical article intended to make a political statement. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for discussions of political martyrdom or your views on Trump. When you use charged language as you did you're going to run into trouble, and it's way, way premature. Please read WP:NOTNEWS. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that writing opinion pieces or placing opinions in articles like you did here is unacceptable.   Acroterion   (talk)   04:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

142.40.135.244


Would you mind disabling this IP's talkpage access? Thanks. 172.58.40.242 (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Some wikipedia weirdness
I didn't know where to report this, so I am coming to you for advice.

Category:1962 establishments in Arkansas page is empty though Walmart clearly links to it. I learned about this after I got this notice on my talk page. I'm wondering what is going on and how it can be corrected. BTW there were a bunch of other 'empty' categories nominated for speedy deletion that had been created by editors who do a great deal of category work like myself. The Arkansas category may not be an isolated instance. I haven't checked out the other categories. Guatamalan archers isn't one of my specialties....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a database bug, and as such is beyond my competency. I'd take it up at WP:VP/T and mention it to the nominators and/or at WP:CFD.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been solved as I made a null-edit to Walmart. I fairly frequently find that Wikipedia for some reason misses a recent addition/removal of a category for a bit. Usually doesn't matter much, but if it's the difference between an empty and a non-empty category, it can be a problem. Usually solves itself within a few days at most, though a null-edit forces the change through. Though that issue shouldn't have happened in this case because the Category was on the article for a while already, I can't help but notice that the first tagging of the category as 'empty' happened about half a day after an IP blanked Walmart and thus removed the category. Perhaps the categorization system picked up on that (and then had the lag with the 're-adding', or rather, reverting) in spite of the Pending Changes on the article? It shouldn't be doing that, methinks&mdash;would be a big flaw in Pending Changes, at least&mdash;but it makes more sense than either a. the article somehow never having appeared in the Category for months and the (seemingly) empty category also never picked up on for those months or b. the category un-promptedly removing the article from its listing. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Britain
Hello,

I noticed the Battle of Britain add on was removed and needed to be discussed.

There is sufficient popular and academic debate, covering books, journals and conferences on the role of sea power in the Battle of Britain which places into doubt the impact of the aerial combat.

As you can imagine the debate is large.

In this case, it is worth having a controversy section to atlert alert readers to this. Either it can be kept as is, or made shorter with a link to a new 'Battle of Britain controversy page'.

Best

Seapowerthinker (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I assume you're referring to this edit? Yes, I also think that material is undue in size, to say the least, and it needed copyediting as well. But this editor's talk page is not the place to discuss it--Talk:Battle of Britain is. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seapowerthinker (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Quick request
Just a heads up, you forgot to delete this when deleting the main-space article... 172.58.41.13 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch.  Acroterion   (talk)   05:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

A Little Help Wouldn't Hurt
You recently deleted my Tyrone Jefferson article without help, as If I'm a troll. I'm trying to do good here. I read through the guidelines and descriptions and found them to be convoluted and confusing. All I need is a little help on the ONE THING I need to fix to make that PDF right. What do I need to do to cover for duplicate content when I own the original content and want to license it to Wikipedia? Help please.
 * Acroterion, see their userpage. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  14:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Clients." Thanks, I'll discuss with them.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Metallic hyrogen
İ have made an edit on it and its been removed by you.I am new here so i just wanted to ask is it because my edit was wrong or i changed the meaning and said fixng typo. TahaInceTR (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't fix a typo, you changed the meaning. Both your edit and the summary were inappropriate. Please do not change content unless you have a reliable source and are certain that you are providing correct information. Your edit placed incorrect information nin the article - metallic hydrogen is different from solid hydrogen.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ty. TahaInceTR (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

About Speedy deletion of my VeEX contibution
I wonder what did I do wrong for you to delete my contribution about VeEX company profile. The note says that it is "Unambiguous Advertising" but all the other companies in the same market segment are listed in Wikipedia. e.g. Exfo, Viavi Solutions, Albedo, Fluke, Spirent,... The idea of adding VeEX is because it is referenced in other articles (marked red) and it is the source for other cross-references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veexpolo (talk • contribs) 01:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no indication that the firm meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines - see WP:CORP, and the content was promotional. Please note also that your username implies that you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Please see WP:COI for best practices.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Time for a block, but I'm involved
Would you mind administering a block for a combination of hoaxing, persistent addition of unsourced content, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RANDY?

See the history of Hall and parlor house, which I encountered earlier today with the surprising claim that the concept is present in Nigeria, together with a tag claiming that the article fails to represent manifestations of this piece of Western vernacular architecture outside Western culture; I removed the tag and the claim about the Nigerian term for the concept, because it's rather preposterous to imagine either that British vernacular architecture would have shown up in Nigeria after it stopped being built in the UK or that the British vernacular architecture would have been drawn from thousands of miles away during the early modern period, when Africa was basically entirely unknown to the average Briton. So what — I get reverted with the simple claim that a Google search would demonstrate that this concept appears in Nigeria, and when I twice remove the absurdity (the second time accompanied by a warning), I just get reverted, and we see the addition of two sources that don't use the word "hall" at all in connection with these houses, and topping it off with a preposterous uw-disruptive2 warning.

So, in short, we have the following:
 * An exceptional claim being added with no source
 * This exceptional claim being added into the middle of sourced text, presenting the appearance of being derived from that source, when the source doesn't support it
 * Reversion of the removal of such content, without the addition of anything to fix the hoaxing and the WP:V requirement that "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material"
 * Addition of sources that don't address the topic of the article with a claim that they do, easily meeting the SYNTH concept of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"
 * Everything derives from an absurd historical proposition that would make Henry Glassie get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse on the subject. Not surprisingly, nothing of this is in Glassie's Vernacular architecture (one of several relevant books that I bought because of recommendations from this guy), pages 117-120 in my edition, which discuss the development of house patterns; and neither "parlour" nor "parlor" appears in Architectures of Nigeria, recommended by UC Berkeley.

Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, if you have any questions, please don't expect a speedy reply — I'm getting new Internet service and am in just a few minutes phoning the old company to cut off service (they have evening hours for customer service), and it will be at least Monday before I have home Internet. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I was away from the Internet last night. I see another editor has reverted and left notes, with which I agree. We would need to have a source that explicitly makes the link between the two vernacular traditions and terminologies, and it would need to have been discussed at length in the body of the article to warrant inclusion in the lede. Given that British colonial influence in Nigeria came 150 years after the prototype arrived in North America I think the connection is coincidental. I can't check the reference provided, but mere use of terminology somewhere would to me be insufficient, and it would need to be discussed in the body of the article before it shows up in the lede. I realize that Wikipedia reflects Eurocentric scholarship bias in cases like this, but I can't support inclusion at this time. If this continues I think a short block for OR would be in order, but for now I'll stay uninvolved.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about a IP you blocked
You wrote on User talk:89.92.117.20 that he was being blocked for block evasion - but I don't see an entry in the block log for this IP. He/she is currently editing the same group of article in the same way again as was User:Boulu who was briefly blocked. User talk:89.92.117.20 has also edited an article currently up for deletion: Articles for deletion/List of solar power stations although that was started by a different IP. Do you have any further details on this matter? Rmhermen (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP for a week, as it appeared to be Boulu evading their block. The question now is: is their current editing disruptive? I haven't had a chance to look into it.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories
This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Meyer's fuel cell
I am sorry but that was not "disruptive editing" that was correction. See talk page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.124 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Steve Salis
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steve Salis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. This isn't directly aimed at you but it occurred to me that you are involved. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

/* Career structure */ Added a reference for wrongful death claims.
Thanks! I thought it might be relevant to the topic.
 * Please read WP:EL - links to firms are considered spam.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me Acroterion?
I simply was trying to establish a page and start editing on Wiki. I had no intension of creating an advertisement. I thought CNET was a great source that shows the company. Can you help me with this and keep? Is "Payhip" not a credible company?? I appreciate your cooperation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlawrencecohen (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article made no credible claim of notability. Please see WP:GNG and WP:CORP for guidelines on notability of companies. Additionally, you may not use your userpage to host a deleted article about a company or to promote it.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WelcometoJurassicPark
Hi Acroterion, could you please keep an eye on. Immediately after your month-long block expired they resumed edit-warring without discussion. Sro23 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since they've resumed doing exactly hat they were doing when they got blocked before I've blocked indefinitely. I haven't reverted anything, our Internet is slow since storms blew through this afternoon and it's painful to do much on WP right now.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They are now evading their block at : . It appears to be relatively static since they've been using it since January. Sro23 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IP hard-blocked for a month.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Acroterion, This same person has re-surfaced under in the same location and making exactly the same edits as before. I have reverted a few relating to the World Trade Center, but due family circumstances, cannot spare the time to revert around 15/20 other changes for a couple of days. I think another block and possibly page protection is called for. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Anton Flettner
Hi Acroterion, thank you for your comments. I am still quite new to Wikipedia and am sincerely trying to work within Wikipedia's required parameters.

Per the message that I received from Kudu, please note that I did make considerable changes to the references cited in 'Anton Flettner's' page before I saved 'Anton Flettner's' page today in my suggested newest version. I would be grateful for your instructions on any specific changes that need to be made to update this page. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Storm 7 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. Thanks for the note, I'm about to go out for a while and will check this evening. You might also want to talk to Kuru.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A question
Hello, I sometimes put which puts speedy deletion tag when I want to discuss it. Any way to discuss the deletion and the proper tag? Thanks! Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can use PROD when speedy isn't appropriate or Articles for Deletion if you want to open a deletion discussion. Tools for those actions are available by default in Twinkle - see the TW tab at the top of the page.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost almost heaven
So you're West Virginian? I had you pegged as Oregonian or Scottish or something. I missed by about 10 miles but culturally it was pretty much the same. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On both sides. My father's family comes from either side of the border in Tazewell County, Virginia/McDowell County, West Virginia and my mother's family from Berkeley County, West Virginia/Jefferson County, West Virginia. So we're English/Scotch-Irish with lot of German on my mother's side. My great-great grandfather was a Confederate cavalryman who brought his own horse to the fight. He got $4000 (Confederate) when the horse was killed in the Shenandoah Valley. Other relatives fought on both sides, mostly in the cavalry since they were mainly farmers and had personally-owned horses (POH in 1864 govspeak). Covington would definitely be culturally compatible.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Scottish? Aye, right! Scotland was the second place (after a conversation with a true Cockney in London) where I was speaking to someone who nominally spoke English, and I didn't understand any of it.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Only visited there once but the memories are very pleasant. The accent was a slight challenge but practically everyone I met was incredibly nice and helpful. Don't know if they're always like that; maybe I caught them during National Wee Dram Week or something. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

47.192.18.128


Please revoke talkpage access. Thanks. 172.58.40.183 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My Sandbox
I am part of a website called alternatehistory.com, and I make the wikiboxes not as a hoax, but as wikiboxes that would show hypothetical scenarios. I'll link to the page so you can have a better understanding: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alternate-wikipedia-infoboxes-iv.405334/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateworldwar (talk • contribs) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for content, false or otherwise, destined for other websites. Please do not use your Wikipedia account for purposes other than encyclopedia work.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how it was harming anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateworldwar (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for non-Wikimedia projects. See WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:USER. Fake infoboxes are unacceptable under any circumstance, much less as part of an off-wiki project.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Accurateworldwar - How it was harming anything was by using Wikipedia for improper hosting of external links. I don't know anything about an erroneous infobox because I didn't see it.  Please do not put crud in Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Marc Ducharme
Thanks. I was trying to remove the vulgar BLP violation when you deleted it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Account blocked too - not much chance of useful contributions.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the user was a vandal or troll, thank you for blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news
 * A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
 * AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
 * Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
 * The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news
 * A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
 * Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
 * A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Page deleted
Hi, I see you e deleted a page I was creating. I'm still learning to add sources- I was trying to upload them when the page disappeared. Very quick of you to disregard my work- not so welcoming of a new user. I'm trying to add pages that I have knowledge of on a local level (such as another article I contributed to having to do with a historic house near mine). Are localized celebrities not enough for Wikipedia? This individual has a local "Cvillepedia" wiki page- I figured that was enough to show worth. Am I misinformed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBall4 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You were violating Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Don't create defamatory articles. And no, "localized celebrities" do not get space in a global encyclopedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I read the biographies of living persons article, including the section on people who are relatively unknown, but I'm not totally clear- there are many many articles on wikipedia pertaining to localized celebrities and business leaders (Charles K Sumner for example). How do you determine this significance? In this case, the subject is an entrepreneur who started some major companies that spanned the region- I was trying to add sources but it was deleted on me. Another question- in some cases I'm trying to locate sources. The Chevy Silverado commercial for example- this was a commercial that was filed on the Blue Ridge Parkway with Howie Long, where Wilburn was used for close ups of his hands. I would like to source the specific commercial but I'm having trouble finding it. Does something like this require a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBall4 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You were claiming someone was a soft-core porn performer - that's a blatant violation. What on earth were you thinking? As for notability, see WP:BIO for guidelines.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

He had non-speaking roles in Wild Things 2 and some other movie I can't remember the name of. I figured that was notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBall4 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You must not have read BLP very thoroughly if you believe that you can include such claims without extensive referencing in reliable sources. What you remember isn't useful and in any case such claims have no business in any article unless it's a central feature of the subject's life.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI
172.56.39.50 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't think any further discussion will do much good, they've moved into full Godwin mode with a heavy dose of Nazis-were-leftists. Now that they've blanked it they should be left alone.   Acroterion   (talk)   12:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
About what you wrote in User talk:Goelie : see for example Robert Blaskiewicz, Nope, It Was Always Already Wrong, 2013-08-08. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's an enlightening essay.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since https://twitter.com/DanieleGanser/status/837416014233104384, what is your opinion about d:special:diff/451196265? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One of my chief concerns about Wikidata is the ease by which people can change data points to suit a particular point of view out of the light of day and discussion. Wikidata (and infoboxes on WP) are ill-suited to the presentation of argument and nuance, but they are often abused to provide a simplistic two-word summary.
 * That said, Ganser found success with his Gladio exposé, and he seems to like a good conspiracy theory. In this he seems to be like a man with a hammer - everything looks like a nail. Ganser's tweet is clearly wrong in claiming he found the root of "conspiracy theory." He appears to be making a living from conspiracy allegations, but I dislike the application of "conspiracy theorist" to anyone much short of Alex Jones.
 * A shorter answer: I disagree with your edit to Wikidata, not because you're totally wrong, but because it's an oversimplification in a venue that's plagued by little canned summaries.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to your answer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Reporing user The1337gamer
Can you please ban this user, he keeps removing Charles Martinet's filmography and vandalizing it, without a reason. He doesn't explain it in his edit summeries, he's doing it on purpose as harassment. Please stop him. 174.192.32.199 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason has been explained by The1337gamer, and over many, many edits nobody has ever provided references for all that content. How about finding some?  Acroterion   (talk)   01:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

My case about Phantom Bullet
Hello dear Acroterion,

I never intented to make an advertisement about the specific manga. My case is about a manga not well known-but I feel it should be,considering it has all the proper,required elements of a great fantasy adventure.I was hooked on it due to I love manga. You see nearly everyone who knows Sword Art Online knows Phantom Bullet-but it’s not the same,it’s so easy to confuse this with Hiroe’s early seinen manga..So my article is to help a reader get a clear idea and to tell which is which.As a matter of fact there’s no official tankobon in English yet,and no scanlations too,from what I know. Please allow my Phantom Bullet article to be published,if you do I will act according to Wikipedia rules,this time I will provide specific sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armantilo25S (talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was written with no context at all and came off like a movie trailer. "In a world where ... " Feel free to re-create it with context, sourced and without the breathless prose. I don't know what the notability guidelines are for manga - take a look at WP:MANGA for more. It's best done in your sandbox or in a draft.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Just my 2 cents here but I decided to come to you here instead of adding more fuel to the fire on Vjmlhds's talk page. I have had issues as you can see here with him in the past and I was the one who reported him for the edit warring that lead to the block where he promised no more or he'd take a perm block. After he highjacked my post to another user here a few days ago I knew it was matter of time before he'd get blocked for something again and was back to his old ways. I will say though when his head is on straight he is a good editor, but when he is proven wrong all bets are off and the edit warring, name calling, harrassing, Etc. starts. I'm not here to stir the pot, I just wanted to let you know this isn't an isolated incident, which I'm sure you're aware, but honestly I think he's gonna say what he thinks he needs to say to get unblocked because he can't handle not being able to edit or being proven wrong. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 03:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. The only course to a return to Wikipedia that I see right now for him is an enforced term away from WP of at least six months with reinstatement only upon successful request, with strict and final probationary terms.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I really think time away is the best thing for him, Ive taken breaks and taken self imposed blocks for periods and it does wonders. I know my opinion doesn't really matter but I'd support your suggestion. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 03:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He's saying just what I figured he'd say. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 03:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the number of people that are concerned and the need for a structured remedyI think I'll bring it up at ANI for community consensus.  Acroterion   (talk)   10:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree after seeing the more serious issues. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 12:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you say that he is more likely to behave like this when he edits in a certain area of interest (Wrestling? Politics? Religion?) or does it matter? I'm trying to suss out if maybe a topic ban is a more productive solution, because if he is generally a good editor, it would seem a shame to exclude him entirely, but perhaps corralling him away from subjects that raise his ire would be better. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really any subject in particular, He's fine until he's reverted or told hes wrong and then it's a fight and the fur flies so to speak. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 18:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Then maybe something along the lines of a 1 revert limit would be a possibility. He could revert something once, but after that if he restores his version of the content without consensus, he would wind up blocked. Might be something Acroterion might consider. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea, But like said below it seems to get worse everytime. If the 1 revert was in effect there would also have to be something in effect regarding attacks and what not.Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me  21:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - This behavior is not limited to professional wrestling. He often asserts ownership in articles related to local broadcast media in Northeast Ohio and Cleveland sports teams.  This was one of the first interactions I had with Vjmlhds nearly six years ago; not much has changed since then.  When he gets frustrated, Vjmlhds has a reliable tendency to lash out, and quite honestly there are times when I simply don't know what to do.  I agree with Acroterion that this probably needs consensus from administrators at ANI.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Related comment

 * Acroterion,, et al.- The off-site episode Vjmlhds referenced here occurred in October 2012; per an administrator's suggestion, I have not discussed it since then (except on the rare occasion when Vjmlhds has dredged it up for some reason). As for those edit summaries noted by Cyphoidbomb, I think they mostly speak for themselves.  I do find it disturbing that Vjmlhds seems to think those threats would have been justified if his suspicions were ever realized.  This user habitually edit-wars and often displays contempt for basic site policies & guidelines.  And it's only gotten worse with time, not better.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  06:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A Responce
Dear Acroterion, frankly thank you.I'll try to make a better one,in the way you explained to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armantilo25S (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please dear Acroterion, give me some time so I can make my article much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armantilo25S (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Try using the article wizard which allows you to create an draft version and submit it for review. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban
Thanks, but the editor posts only irregularly. On the other hand if he repeats his behaviour indeff will clearly be appropriate., so three months was probably a good idea. With my fancy hat on, I need to remind you it needs to be logged. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about the log, Mr. Fancy Hat. I'll take care of the paperwork. See below for some discussion that took place overnight with talkpage stalkers.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sanctions?
You have been sanctioned for persistent refusal to accept consensus at Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims. Compare my warning above: "You've exhausted all reasonable means, and have started to disrupt the talkpage by refusing to accept the obvious consensus. If you persist, I'll have to consider topic banning you from Bosnian pyramid claims, per the discretionary sanctions that you were warned about.

What do you mean by this? TheBIHLover (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * being topic banned means, if you edit, or discuss said topic on Wikipedia, you can and will get blocked from editing, period. If you post on the talk page that Acroterion mentioned on your talk page, the one your topic banned from, you'll get yourself blocked from editing Wikipeida. The same goes with discussing it, even on your talk page, that can get you blocked also. So pretty much, WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. You can not discuss it anymore until you are un-topic banned. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  08:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * please see this as an example. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  08:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked how? TheBIHLover (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * as in, by Acroterion (for example), or any other administrator. They will block your account from being able to edit. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  10:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but what does block mean? TheBIHLover (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It means that you are not allowed to edit any Wikipedia pages at all, and that you are in fact prevented from doing so - your account is disabled from editing anything other than the user talk page for your account. More information here. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * did I say that? What is so hard to understand about "hey will block your account from being able to edit."? Unless I missed something, lol. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  12:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the word "block" is difficult to understand, but it seemed BIHLover did (since they responded to your post with another request for clarification), so I saw no harm in spelling it out in detail. I did not mean to step on anybody's toes, it's just that sometimes a message can be more clearly understood if a couple of different people phrase it in different ways. --bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry, I meant to finish my question with lol. You're fine. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not edit any article or talkpage relating to the topic- in this case Bosnian pyramid claims, nor may you use unrelated pages to discuss the topic. If you do, your editing privileges in Wikipedia will be removed ("blocked") by suspending your account.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Logging
Should be in the 2017 log! Re this log entry. :-) EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017
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) 23:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion: Lincoln/Titanic/Kennedy IP
Hello Acroterion, To let you know that the block evading "editor" has re-surfaced as and  with the usual nonsense edits. I have managed to correct most of this block evasion, but time is at a premium for me at the present. Can I leave action to you please? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Both blocked, thanks for reverting. They've been more active recently.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Empire of New Amsterdam
I do not appreciate the fact that you did not take into account of what I said, I totally get that Wikipedia isn't for made up stuff, it makes sense to why that statement was implemented and I totally understand it, but what I find unfair is that Molossia, Atlantium & Sealand gets to keep their micronation pages but New Amsterdam doesn't, despite the micronations being made up.

Please take into account on what I just said and please respond with your thoughts on the matter.

Yours faithfully,

--AquaPigg (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a place for you to write about your personal made-up micronation, which has received no coverage in the press at all. See WP:NOTE for general notability requirements.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As We Ascend ‎was recreated
I noticed that you speedily deleted page As We Ascend earlier. It was recreated by the same editor. I nominated it again but and another admin rejected the request because, "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7". I don't see it. I nominated again, and the admin has redirected it to the only notable musician in the band. Does this need to be reviewed or is the best outcome? Should we lock the page to new editors? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think having a bluelinked member in the band is significant if that is not discussed appropriately in the article, but a redirect is a valid way of dealing with that.so that's a satisfactory outcome.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for being disruptive
Sorry for being disruptive i was just proving to my friend that you can change things around on here. It won't happen again — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICHANGEISH24 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

146.135.35.244
Hi,

This IP whom you blocked for 31 hours was actually recently blocked for two weeks by a different admin, so I'm not sure if the current block will stop them since it is shorter Thanks. 66.41.60.178 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I meant to block for a month but got distracted - I was in the middle of packing for a business trip. Fixed now.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And whIle I've got your attention, could you keep an eye on . They've continued their disruptive behavior after your previous block. 66.41.60.178 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like Materialscientist got them. I'm traveling/in meetings the next couple of days, so my availability will be intermittent. Thanks for watching out.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Micronation not listed
Hello why the Micronational list is blocked for editing? If so why The Principality of St Benedict is not included ? ( www.stbenedictgov.org ) sorry to bother and thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.214.145.199 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The list is protected because it's been spammed with non-notable micronations, just like the notice says. If a micronation isn't listed, it's probably becuaue it's not notable.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello thanks for the answer

Would be possible to list the Principality of St Benedict based on the website www.stbenedictgov.org ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.214.145.199 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Notability is governed by significant notice in major independent media. Anybody can have a website, and Wikipedia doesn't accept self-referencing as evidence of notability.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Society19 (Magazine)
Why do you keep deleting this page
 * Answered on your talkpage.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Guidance needed
I removed the speedy tag. Why delete it? What does it do? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a creation by a serial vandal with the express intention of being disruptive. No particular reason to leave the page around as far as I was concerned, but nothing I would be prepared to have any particular disagreement over. Given that it allows an offensive username to live on in userspace, I felt it was better gone. Your mileage may vary.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, my friend. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)