Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Archives

Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 4 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4_2016 Q1_2017 Q2_2017 Q3_2017 Q4_2017 Q1_2018 Q2_2018 Q3 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2019 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2020 Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2021 Q1 2022 Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2022 Q1 2023 Q2 2023 Q3 2023 Q4 2023 Q1 2024 Q2 2024 Q3 2024 Q4 2024

Here is the newly edited version. Feel free to use it. " Auxiliary213 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just been blocked for abusing editing privileges. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no surprise. I was busy baking for friends who are coming for lunch, a much more rewarding exercise than trolling the noticeboards or dealing with them. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, what are you baking? Doug Weller talk 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just brownies, nothing complicated, but the kitchen smells great now. We're all going out for lunch and will come back here for dessert. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love brownies, but to be honest, I can't make them as good as Ghirardelli does.[1] Doug Weller talk 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are Ghirardelli, I've long since given up doing anything else. You can get them in the UK? Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/ Amazon. ebay but cheapest at Costco. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

No idea how to put this gently, but the ongoings under Heiar and Moccia were serious and are common knowledge in the I-25 corridor. Three players sexually assaulted three other players and two student workers, and a UNM player was killed by a NMSU player. "Hazing" doesn't describe what happened at all. 67.209.213.65 (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references don't support your assertions. If you think it ought to be included, find explicit reliable sources. "Common knowledge" isn't admissible here, and the biographies of living persons policy applies. Don't report rumors or unsubstantiated assertions of serious criminal conduct. Acroterion (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but recent sources such as this [2] and this [3] are unambiguous, they use wordings like "sexual assault" and "sex abuse" for the happenings on the NMSU basketball team. KFIX and ESPN are mainstream news sources with no particular agenda. It's permitted to call a spade for what it is. 67.209.213.65 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this: two of the men who were assaulted were paid 8 millions in restitution. If you can get that amount in a settlement you know the cSe had merit. 67.209.213.65 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't call it "rape." And we don't infer from sources that anything "has merit" in that manner from a civil proceeding, that doesn't establish criminal culpability, only that there was a settlement. Yes, bad things happened, but we can only report on what reliable sources explicitly state. Inference is of no use here; stick to the sources and don't embellish or interpret. Acroterion (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The report from NM DOJ [4] does not mince words. The executive summary on pg 3 uses words like "sexualized hazing" and "sexual assault", and on page 10 the DOJ is explicit in stating that Heiar was terminated for cause shortly after the abuse was reported to police. That Moccia was terminated for cause is not disputed, that fact is widely reported in the news. "Scandal" is too mild a word for what went on at the institution.

As far as criminal proceedings go, two of the three suspects have pled guilty, and the third one is currently at trial and is looking at 5 years of prison. The complaint from the State is for "Criminal Sexual Penetration", "Criminal Sexual Conduct" and "Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct", it's not great.

(Aside: US criminal law is a mess, many actions that ought to fall under criminal law are instead brought as civil actions, most infamously police misconduct. The public prosecution needs to stay in the good graces of the police, so the injured party brings a civil action and then settles before the case gets to a jury. At some point the "non-admission of liability" clause ends up being not really meaningful. Someone suffered injury, and they are awarded much money, and we can't call it for what it is. Suspicious people will say that was the intention all along.) 206.206.141.101 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We call it exactly what reliable sources say it is. The problem with the edits this weekend was with amplification beyond what the sources said. There is no bar to stating the issues (in accordance with the due emphasis guideline, and remembering the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy); we just need to stick to the references. All I want you to do is to stick to what reliable secondary sources say in accordance with policy, and we can talk about the problems with the program. We just have to do it with care and accuracy; this is the #7 website in the world, and we have a responsibility to get it right. No editorializing. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user made one edit, the creation of a promotional userpage, and was reported to UAA. Seeing the report, I deleted the page, and made a choice as an administrator to warn rather than go for the no-warning block.I made this clear at UAA.[5]

I'm curious as to why you thought it was appropriate to override my decision an hour later, when they had made no further edits? I believe my choice was within the bounds of administrative discretion and should not have been overridden without good reason. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have different ideas of what constitutes a promotional-only account with username issues, I guess, it looked pretty clear-cut to me. I didn't think of it as overriding you, please don't take it that way, and honestly I didn't check to see who might have deleted the page; we shouldn't have to go walking on eggshells around certain administrators. We've all had occasions where we've taken a more gentle or lenient approach, or abstained entirely, and had another admin take a different action. This is the nature of our distributed administration of this website. I have a less optimistic idea of what demands a promotional account is likely to impose on our volunteers than you do, I guess.

However, I am happy to reverse the block, as always, if another admin disagrees. While you may not think so, my overall approach to spammish accounts is pretty close to yours, and I believe I've made that clear in the RFC. I have different reservations about promotional usernames than you do, and it bothers me that we tend to act more harshly on accounts that at least are being more honest with us (like this one) than somebody with a throwaway username that's doing the exact same thing. I don't have a wise solution, except that the editing interface for user page creation might offer better guidance that WP isn’t like Facebook, and if you’re looking to expand your social media presence, you’re in the wrong place. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think anyone need walk on eggshells around me, but I do feel that any admins decision to take a particular course of action shouldn't overriden without a compelling reason. I see blocks I wouldn't have made all the time, but I don't just go undoing them unless they are truly egregious.

I think the thought of some sort of caution or warning when creating a user page/sandbox is a good one, and not an idea I believe I've seen before. We clearly have an issue where lots of people every day think this is the place to come to "get the word out" and something like that could help curb it at least a little bit, although knowing how the software is we'd want to make sure it actually works on the mobile apps as well.

As I recall, the community has asked in the past for something similar when usernames are created, that being the obvious other facet of this issue, but I don't think we ever actually got it. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 06:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An absence of action isn't easily discernable here, and given the way the various queues and happenstance work it's not always the case that a deletion without a block indicates some kind of forbearance. However, I would have figured that out if I'd looked at the talkpage; most of the time it's just a speedy deletion flag, but sometimes not, as in this case. Keep in mind that those who patrol the edit filters look at the edit filter detail output, which is usually more diagnostic than what might have been successfully saved.

However, it was my impression that you were not particularly concerned with spam username/spam actions, but rather an apparently good-faith username with spammish content who might be brought around to being a contributor, and userspace deletions. There may be a unicorn out there who registers a promotional name and posts promotional content, who might be persuaded to be a contributor, but I haven't encountered one yet. I've nursed promotional editors along, and can't say that I've had any successes. I've had better luck with vandals, who aren't financially or ideologically committed to vandalism. We've got a recent serial sockpuppeteer who is somehow trying to edit on behalf of the UAE Federal Tax Authority, who is an example of the more extreme sort, who has rejected patient advice and who presumably has been commissioned to establish an FTA presence on all platforms no matter what.

Spambots are another matter, and we should show no mercy there. They're prohibited by the ToU, and should be treated as LTA block evaders. They're tailored to superficially look like good-faith accounts, and they've been running as long as I've been here. They're much less of a problem than they used to be.They're instantly recognizable once you've seen a few, and I always tag the deletions and blocks with custom summaries: "spambot."

As I've pointed out, my practice, and that of most admins, is to delete and warn for the promotional content without an accompanying promotional username, but the usernames that represent organizations pose a general username policy issue apart from promotion; it would be more of a question whether to softblock or hardblock in those cases. I would generally softblock if there was no accompanying promotion, or more likely just wait and see what they do (which is a standard answer at UAA), since a lot of those accounts have second thoughts and never edit. I'm not actually sure how the 499 edit filter interacts, I think it logs only and doesn't warn. There are a lot of false or ambiguous positives with 499 (as I said at the RFC, about half can be ignored), perhaps a more narrowly-tailored filter might target a smaller subset with a warning, but that's outside my skillset to construct or even propose in much detail. Perhaps 499 could be tailored for a fairly general reminder to not be promotional and to remind that WP isn't social media. I'd prefer proaction over reaction, which is the current state of affairs. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion (I'm also tagging Liz in this request as a draft deleter who is), can you undo Draft:Milot Avdyli because the player is expected to debut (after being transferred in this transfer window) at Vorskla Poltava in the Ukrainian Premier League which according to Wikipedia is a fully professional league, and I believe that the draft can serve as a kind of starting point for the development of the article before its debut, which after its debut will be concretized into a full article. BalkanianActuality (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for Liz, but as usual, I have no problem with undeleting these drafts so you can work on them. Let me know if you don't hear from her; weather depending, I may be away for a while tomorrow for some minor eye surgery. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if there's no reaction from Liz, then I'll let you know and wish you a speedy recovery. BalkanianActuality (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for returning the draft article! BalkanianActuality (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get a revdel for this please. [6] Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, pro forma racist vandalism isn't normally revdel'd, unless it concerns a specific individual or is particularly gross (i.e., "kill all ***). But they've earned themselves a week-long block and a place in my watchlist. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it 👍 Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An elaboration - the "grossly-insulting" modifier is important, as opposed to the obnoxious-racist-jackass-who'd-better-watch-their-damn-mouth-if-they-don't-want-to-spend-a-week-at-the-dentist stuff. Acroterion (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I didn't make the request but I am a little confused. I was earlier told on a talk page to report an edit very similar to the one reported. Am I not supposed to request revdel these kind of stuff? Gaismagorm (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, going by the way I read the policy, it didn't rise to the level of grossness usually revdel'd. We get a lot of dumb nasty vandalism, and we don't need to scrub the histories of all of it; revdel should be employed somewhat sparingly. We remove things that can bring harm or express a desire to harm, are copyright violations, insult or degrade specific living individuals, are the products of sustained disruption campaigns. or reveal the identities of people who wish to remain anonymous. For stupid schoolboy vandalism like this, it can stay there as a monument to their ignorance. Your request above was similar to this one.in its level of obnoxious rather than gross. Other admins may have a somewhat lower threshold for removal from the history, but it has never been meant for all vandalism. There does seem to have been a trend to apply it more generally to ethnic slurs like this one, but it's not uiniversal. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nathalie Dupree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton, New Jersey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I struck a nerve. Seems like you don't enjoy being reminded huh? 37.19.107.94 (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

Hey Acroterion, the user named Ithizar got blocked and has some user rights. I checked their contributions and does not have good behavior. Are you allowed to remove user rights in situations like these? Just wondering. StormHunterBryante5467 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're indefinitely blocked with no talkpage access. There's no point in taking any further action. Acroterion (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh alright StormHunterBryante5467 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Parksfan1955 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you blocked the IP 72.22.227.228 for vandalism, including a grossly antisemitic message, would you mind revdel'ing the linked diff? I can't see any good reason to keep it around. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II Op-ed: Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers

Could you please address this request for page protection if you are available? The article Anshul Jubli has been getting relentless blatant vandalism today and needs protecting ASAP. Thanks in advance! Entranced98 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, two weeks this time. Acroterion (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please delete this revision? [7] It's purely vandalism and contains Chinese-language ethnic slurs for Korean people. See Gaoli bangzi for context; "棒" is being used in this fashion. It calls Koreans slaves and dogs; Google translate roughly verifies this. seefooddiet (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and the IP blocked. Acroterion (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of canceled nuclear reactors in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northville, New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you temporarily blocked the above IP address last month. I just wanted to let you know that the user posting from that IP address is the banned user Joseph A. Spadaro. The posting style and range of interests are unmistakable. I've left a note to this effect on the IP's talk page. Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz 06:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at their contributions, nutty and poor English. I see you reverted them. CIR? or DE? I'd say in any case they don't belong here. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CIR would be my view. Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd block but I'm involved I guess. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the books Abolition of Man by CS Lewis and You Gentiles by Maurice Samuel should be locked-up or at least under semi-protection to prevent vandalism/crypto-nazism

You can see what i'm referring to in my last edit on You Gentiles TeoCopr (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been sufficient disruption to justify protection; we don't pre-emptively protect articles. I'll add them to my watchlist though. Thanks for keeping a watch. Acroterion (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking out the trash on my talk page. Thank you! JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for making me smile today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, recently my created article related to Dr. Muhammad Amin Nezami has been removed, so I wanted to republish it with more accurate information and reference but before doing that I need you to allow the article to be republished, I`ll appreciate your guidelines to work on the articles ahead.

Thank you. Ambrosebasil57 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me? It was deleted (again) after the deletion discussion was closed four days ago. If you want it undeleted, use the process at WP:DRV, explaining how you addressed the issues raised in that discussion, having first contacted Explicit, who did the deletion. I see that you removed your paid contributor notice and it had to be restored; don't do that. You might want to consider that the article simply isn't eligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel'd with some others from that range. Since they keep doing this I've blocked the range for a while. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at works on a female astronaut and a senior US Navy officer Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on his experiences with a recent featured picture Timeline: This month in military history

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just pinging, seems they are still vandalizing the Unite the Right rally User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been active on this page before. This needs revdeletion, and maybe the page needs semi-protection. Thanks in advance. Jfire (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for watching out. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for the swift response to the IP.

I recently got singled out on 4chan in relation to Yasuke CTOP despite having very little to do with the article mainspace. Now that the game has released I expect to receive an uptick in IP harassment. I wanted to ask what the fastest way to handle it and if there was any preventative measures you would recommend. Relm (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using arbitration sanctions involves some delay and paperwork. Straight-up harassment (leavened with silly legal threats in this case - what does Homeland Security care about a Hanoi IP complaining about an article concerning Japan and a game?) is easily blockable as a normal admin action. Just report it at AIV, making it clear that it's personal attacks/harassment. If the talkpage disruption escalates we can protect the talkpage for preferably short periods. If you are directly harassed, take it to AIV or ANI, and we can protect your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will do. Relm (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acroterion, thanks for taking care of that Brazillian BLP violations IP. Hopefully the block actually stops them because I saw a previous IP 2804:214:8626:7CDC:1:0:AD4C:DC0 engaging in the same editing, which is not in that /64 range unfortunately. Anyways, their user account was User:Pollyanna Chita Ferreira Cunha, which it looks like they've logged out of it in an attempt to evade scrutiny (compare diff by account to diff by IP). Do you reckon we should block the account too?

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added peer-reviewed secondary sources to Chromotherapy in line with WP:MEDRS. However, I've been blocked for doing this which is unsubstantiated. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for a bright-line violation of the three-revert rule. You are not entitled to edit-war because you think you're right. Acroterion (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Acroterion,

I hope you are well today. I was reviewing discussions on ANI from today and in a discussion you closed, you included a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. Was this your intention? Because I didn't understand the connection. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant AR. But the target of AAR is funnier. Feel free to fix it. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AR is WikiProject Argentina. I'm guessing you mean WP:AARV i.e. Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Shortcuts can be confusing at times. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed [9] Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was finishing up lunch and the phone was ringing, so I didn’t get a chance to check. Acroterion (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acroterion,

Could you reinstate the rough draft we had started on Stephen Czech? We had just started it; it is not ready for review.

Best,

Todd Stephen Czech (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we?" If you are writing on behalf of Mr. Czech, you are required to declare a conflict of interest and abide by the conflict of interest policy. Otherwise, it looks like Mr. Czech is writing an autobiography. If not, there is still an undeclared COI. Accounts may not be shared. Acroterion (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

• Giraffer
• Goldsztajn

Dennis Brown

• Cyclonebiskit
• Nohat
• Someguy1221

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Borneo campaign of 1945 and warfare the South African way Timeline: This month in military history

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion, I thought your response was perfect. You were respectful, whilst quoting policy and sympathetic whilst rationally explaining your answer. Thank you for that. Knitsey (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't want to be dismissive or unsympathetic. I've spent most of my career in school design, and I clearly remember where I was when Columbine and Sandy Hook happened, and the reactions of the teachers, students, and administrators. We deal with the consequences every time we design a school nowadays. I know how I'd feel if something like that happened at one of my schools.Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting all political, it must be a terrible position to be in, to have to put so much consideration into that type of security.

No wonder you answered the question with such thought, your response was more considered than mine would have been. Knitsey (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we have to consider ballistic resistance against various weapons now, access control, and how long the security vestibule might hold out while a couple hundred seven and eight-year-olds having lunch next door can escape. Not to mention reverse evacuation from outdoor activity areas and arrival spaces to the relative safety of the indoors. It's profoundly depressing. All while planning an environment that's welcoming and conducive to learning. I reckon there are around 20,000 children in schools I've designed, and probably about 30,000 people who live, work or learn in buildings I've designed every day. I'd rather they didn't have to worry about being safe. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is amazing. 30,000 people potentially much safer because of you. I hope you are really proud of what you have achieved. Knitsey (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This: Western civilisation. 2A02:B021:F04:559:9D71:A69B:B131:2717 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How should I do that, in your opinion? Acroterion (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your help over at ANI. I appreciate it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/6380725 Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not Wikipedia, we're not interested in what you see on mirrors. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it mirrored from wikipedia years ago. for this reason an investigation was requested. It does seem suspicious that Natalac's Wikipedia page has been repeatedly vandalized and deleted, despite his apparent success and widespread recognition in the music industry. Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to waste our time on things that may have happened 13 years ago. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but Its still happening today though despite different writers from different walks of life across different countries nationalities different times after wider spread recognition apparent success in the music industry and different cultures. it seems very odd. Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, your time would be spent more productively in providing a draft article that demonstrates notability, rather than looking backward to versions that clearly were not acceptable on Wikipedia. You are seeing a conspiracy where none exists, the article was deleted by normal processes for content that isn't adequately referenced or is inappropriately promotional. Acroterion (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i can try but going by how many times its been speedy deleted, made into drafts etc in this pages history dating back over the years and or over a decade i would request your assistance in protecting this page to attempt to complete this task cause we both can see this isn't a job for a beginner. going by how many others have attempted. Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no reason to protect anything, any article must stand or fall on sourcing and notability. If it was protected, you wouldn’t be able to edit it anyway. Start with a draft and follow normal review procedure, it’s not a special case. Acroterion (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Protection was not right wording. What im requesting is some assistance Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

or even an collaboration with other editors or Administrators like yourself. Jimmysauce2017 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a topic I'd be interested in, but I suggest you read WP:NOTE and specifically WP:MUSICIAN so you understand what is needed to establish notability, and the reliable sourcing policy and the verifiability policy so you know what you need to do. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted an edit I made on the White Power article on which I attempted to make language more neutral. You commented "I don't think this does what you think it does." Could you elaborate? Thank you!

Note: I am not a radical and am in fact typically opposed to white supremacist groups, but no phrases are completely charged with wash a single viewpoint, and I intend to clarify that. This was an innocent edit, and I have no malice, I simply want clarification on your comment. For ease of access : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pride ThatWhichIsUnnamable (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more words doesn’t improve the sentence, it just made it sort of mushy. We don’t need to add vaguely qualified hedges in that way. Stick to plain declarative language based on the sources. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But is it aligned with the neutrality policy to just say all of these statements made by groups with this phrase included are automatically racist? I have trouble believing that every use for "White Power" is racist. ThatWhichIsUnnamable (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ya know, the page does say "primarily used by", which I think conveys the point well enough.

I hereby withdraw my argument. Thank you for adding another usage of "hedge" to my vocabulary, and for responding when I asked for clarification. Have a nice day. ThatWhichIsUnnamable (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>The neutrality policy doesn't require us to water information down in the manner of "the sky is blue, except when it's cloudy or sunrise or sunset or nighttime." First of all, it's bad writing style to muddle things Second, if there are significant exceptions, they can be described in subsequent prose. One of the common issues we see on WP is a tendency to make individual sentences do too much work, a product of the editing environment where things are tweaked rather than composed as a paragraph in one go. One sentence doesn't have to try to cover every base, let's leave that stuff to AI. Yes, there are outliers with different philosopjies in all cases, even fringe groups have fringes. Take a look at WP:FRINGE for how outliers are handled. Few articles can be boiled down to a single sentence. Besides, seriously, can you show us a case in which "white power" is not in some fashion a racist concept, from sources? Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, your point about finding a non racist use for it is a good point (I don't think I can easily find a source for that). 2: Is that really a common issue on Wikipedia?(Making sentences do too much work). I have not seen the fringe page before, so thank you for showing me that. You have proven your point sufficiently, and I agree with you now. Thank you, and may your edits continue to be well thought out. Have a good day. ThatWhichIsUnnamable (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't get me started about editors who overload infoboxes, captions or short descriptions. There is a (natural human) tendency to read the first few lines and to ignore the body of the article. Always remember that the lead paragraph(s) (not lead sentence) should summarize the sourced article body. Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, "primarily used by" is a concise way of covering any exceptions. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acroterion,

I just wanted to say that your message came across pretty rude. I understand you disagree with my edit, but I respect we have on style or formatting. But the way it was phrased- saying things like “more words are not better” or “unnecessary verbosity” felt dismissive and unnecessarily harsh.

I’m here to contribute in good faith and improve articles where I can. I would have appreciated a more constructive tone, especially since I was trying to add helpful context. A collaborative environment is more effective when we treat each other with respect. Thank you, Beatlemania2002 (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differences on style or formatting, sorry. Beatlemania2002 (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you choose to interpret a straightforward explanation of how your edits seem to be problematic as "rude," encounters with other editors will continue to be difficult for you.. You will have to get used to being disagreed with, and I'm not sure how "a more constructive tone" could have been framed under the circumstances. A professional copyeditor would have been a lot more blunt than I was. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're here, another editor has made an essentially identical edit to Harry Truman's article, which interests me. That one's been reverted too. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve taken your points on board, though I still feel the tone could have been more constructive. I understand not everybody communicates the same way, and I’m not expecting that to change- but I do believe mutual respect always helps collaborative work. I’ll continue contributing thoughtfully and will take the feedback into account as I go forward. Just wanted to clarify my perspective- nothing more. Beatlemania2002 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Geolojoey (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gommeh. I wanted to let you know that your signature does not comply with the requirements for signature appearances. Your signature may have too little contrast; you can use tools like this to determine the contrast. Wikipedia's requirements for contrast between colors are 4.5. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Your signature is all black, which can look weird for users who use dark mode. It can be hard to tell who you are. Gommeh _(t/c) 19:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News to me, the signature predates dark mode I guess. I'll see about adjusting it do something that is more in the middle. Acroterion (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Test. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that worked, thanks. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking care of this garbage -- disgusting would be an understatement. But thank you for the assistance, as always. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Userpage Shield
		Thank you for dealing with that mess! Nahida 🌷 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

The message still reads a racial slur repeated several times despite your previous edit, please fix it, if possible... 2806:108E:18:6C5C:BDEE:AADE:62C9:B8C2 (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) As far as I'm aware, there is no direct way to fix the page preview. Page previews are supposed to show the current version of the opening paragraph, but sometimes the servers retain a previous version for a little longer than they're supposed to. Just to rule out a cache issue, I cleared the cache on my browser, but the vandalized preview is still there. Even switching to another browser didn't fix it. I hope someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we'll unfortunately have to wait for the servers to sort this out on their own. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at aspects of World War II Review essay: Nick-D on Osprey Publishing Timeline: This month in military history

You reverted vandalism to this article, but there had been a long and ongoing string of attacks which were still going on. When you reverted the last attack, you just reverted the page back to a previously vandalized version. I had already reverted it back to its earliest clean version. Ormewood (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I am preparing dinner, so my level of attention may not have been up to the occasion. Acroterion (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 May you RD2'd a revision at Stephen Hilton and on the same date protection was applied. On the 19th protection expired and on the 23rd another blpvio was added here. I'm not sure what was revdel'd before but this may be more of the same, if not then I apologize. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was the same thing. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion! I'm wondering if you have thoughts about unprotecting Talk:Ashley Biden? You indefinitely semi-protected the talk page three years ago, which was obviously justifiable then. But it has been a while, and people have moved on; her father is no longer the president of the US. WP:ATPROT says we should be extremely careful with longer-term talk page protection. I think the kicker is that Ashley Biden itself is unprotected, and seems to be holding up just fine. For those reasons, I am strongly inclined towards unprotecting, but I wanted to give you a chance to respond before I push the button :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think the odds are very high that BLP violations will resume, things haven't changed all that much in a manner that would reduce the odds of disruption, but it's worth a try; it's the talkpage after all. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I'll add it to my watchlist :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

• DDima
• Gimmetrow
• Huon
• Johan Elisson
• Spangineer
• The Land

Interface administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

L235

Oversight changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hi 👋🏻, Hope your doing well, Can you help to improve grammer on OSINT Pages of 📄 Maltego ,1 TRACE , ShadowDragon Markeste02 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no interest in those topics. And it's spelled "grammar." Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acroterion. User:Markeste02 was blocked as a sock of User:Btw Santhosh, and 1 TRACE was deleted 16 June following AFD. Please note that it's just been reposted at 1 Trace by a new sock, larded with references to Btw Santhosh's usual faux news blogs ('New Malwa Times", etc.) Sock also posted the usual self-promotion for Santhosh Kumar: [10]. Thanks, 89.243.41.89 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Materialscientist got to it before I could. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted User talk:Altenmann/bitbucket and User talk:Altenmann/201. Restore them. It is not polite to mess with user namespace. --Altenmann >talk 03:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, because someone was messing with your userspace by creating them. Restored, I did not realize that the first one had not been created by that user. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On examination of its history, that redirect is remarkably confusing to anyone who might wish to communicate with you. It certainly was for both Liz and me. I gather you'd rather not be communicated with, or at least only communicated with on your own terms. Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Antonine Plague and cryptographic security Timeline: This month in military history

Hello @Acroterion,

I am here to politely ask you to Reopen my discussion; I'm fully aware of the process, if ANI isn't deemed the proper venue, I'll consider RfArb, but I won't "drop this" simply because it's "inconvenient". I'm here in good faith, within policy and I will continue to participate constructively while defending the principle that no one editor, regardless of tenure, gets to unilaterally define "consensus"

Tacosjajajajja (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want arbitration, you went to the wrong place, and in either case you failed to notify any parties to the discussion. Additionally, it looks to me like you're disregarding the condition of your unblock that requires you to edit collaboratively, and that you're continuing your pre-unblock behavior. You are on the edge of another indefinite block, and your demand for arbitration or whatever it is appears to be very poorly-considered. I am soliciting the views of the admins who dealt with you before, I advise you to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Acroterion (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read about the Law of holes. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Sometimes a block should be partly for not here constructively and partly for lack of competence. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've reverted Allbird85, but you might have missed this legal threat, which possibly warrants a block: Special:AbuseLog/41144572. Regards, — DVRTed (Talk) 02:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they seem to be trying to use WIkipedia to facilitate some kind of dispute that has nothing to do with anything on Wikipedia. However, they've been warned by Peaceray about trying to import off-wiki disputes, and the edit never got past the edit filter. It has the look of a drive-by complaint. Apart from that, I think they're seriously misinformed about trademark law. Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes sense. I didn't refresh the page, so their talk page was still a redlink, which is why I missed Peaceray's warning. Either way, thanks for the response. — DVRTed (Talk) 02:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Point Lookout Lighthouse MD1.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 02:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked proxy is trying to keep it going on their talk page by getting me involved. Just letting you know as you were the blocking admin. 🪷 nahida 01:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth the trouble to engage them, it won't change the compulsive abusive behavior. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, speedy deletion criterion G13 has been amended to remove "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text."
• WP:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts was upgraded to a guideline following a RfC discussion.

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to give the ip user a nuanced message. Why revert without even an explanation? Lova Falk (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I meant to revert you, but I think that IP is past redemption. Acroterion (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! In that case, I'll revert your reverting me. Lova Falk (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this username close enough to yours that I need to ask them to change it? Acroteron. Joyous! Noise! 22:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would be easy to confuse, but their edits seem benign. I think it's worth a gentle ask, since if they become an active editor it will be problematic. If they edit now and then, not so much. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal: I'll leave them alone if they leave me alone. If they don't want to interact with me, THEY shouldn't interact with ME. ANYWHERE. I didn't come to their page in a vacuum; I came because they were reverting my edits. First they claimed they were unsourced, so I sourced them...then they undid them anyway. _pbp 01:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is "the deal:" leave Magnolia677 alone, you are not entitled to retaliate or do tit for tat. If you don't, I'll block you from their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 is some sort of super editor saint who is immune from criticism, even from an experienced editor like me with almost 40,000 edits? What if they go around reverting my edits, and then reverting them again even AFTER I add the sources they ask for? A one-way interaction ban is not appropriate in this case. The deal is they've got to leave me alone as well. Saying otherwise just isn't fair. _pbp 02:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop dictating terms. You're stoking the fire with heated rhetoric and demands. This isn't the way to come to any kind of accommodation or agreement with someone you disagree with. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol you're dictating terms as much as I am...

Can you at least admit that some of Magnolia677's edits are questionable and may deserve some scrutiny? For example, calling an unsourced but good-faith edit vandalism? I'm the asshole for asking Magnolia677 not to characterize edits that way? _pbp 02:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to stop using content disagreements as a reason to harass Magnolia677 on their talkpage. You're free to disagree, you're free to seek dispute resolution. You are getting the benefit of the doubt from me as an established contributor, while at the same time being exasperating by refusing to examine the manner in which you've prosecuted your disagreement, when you should know better. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You want to talk exasperation? I've been adding content to Mexican Americans. Magnolia677 got it in their head to start removing what I added, targeting only my edits while giving a pass to unsourced or out-of-date content on the page added by other editors. I added sources for the content from the Census Bureau American Community Survey...and Magnolia677 still undid my edits, while not understanding how the American Community Survey works. They mischaracterized my edits, they were their-way-or-the-highway insistent, and when I said no to it being exactly that way, they claimed harassment. And a closer look of Magnolia's edit suggests that this is a disturbing pattern that has gone on with a lot of other editors. But because Magnolia said the magic word "harassment", I'M the asshole here, and you unequivocally jump to their aid? _pbp 02:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm solely concerned with your conduct on their talkpage (and here, I might add). No, Magnolia677 shouldn't call your edits vandalism, and shouldn't blind-revert. But you seem to have taken that as a pretext for all-out conflict. Right now, you're being inappropriately aggressive, and a look in the mirror is warranted. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is MAB, by the way? What's the story there? Why are people calling me MAB? I gather MAB did something super serious and it engendered a lot of sympathy for Magnolia677? Email me if you don't feel comfortable explaining in the talk _pbp 15:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've already been explained this, but suffice to say: a prolific LTA whose main focus is graphic death threats against Magnolia677. I was honestly quite surprised to see a post on ANI about people harassing Magnolia677 that *wasn't* about them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I'm not him. I'm disappointed in how Magnolia677 doesn't explore alternatives to removing content and that they don't deal well with other editors. I was particularly disappointed that Magnolia677 reverted my edits AFTER I SOURCED THEM. But I don't Magnolia677 to DIE. _pbp 15:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I never imagined you would. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And @Writ Keeper, FWIW, prior to your comment and Acro's email, I had some of the picture but not all _pbp 15:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I've replied by email. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

(for the above Magnolia677 thread) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TO User talk:Acroterion

I am writing to request the restoration of the article titled "Denise Carter (Comedian)", which was previously deleted. I understand that the article may have been removed due to concerns regarding self-promotion, lack of notability, or insufficient sourcing. I appreciate the importance of maintaining neutrality and verifiability on Wikipedia, and I am committed to revising the content to meet the community’s standards.

I intend to revise the article to: Remove any promotional tone or language that could be seen as biased or self-authored Add reliable, third-party references to verify all claims Ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy and Notability (people) guidelines Focus on her verifiable impact in her fields, rather than subjective praise or unsourced content I kindly request that the article be temporarily restored in user draft space, or otherwise made available for revision, so I may make the appropriate improvements and submit it for review through the proper channels. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,

Here's the log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=171123479 Jpwdotcom (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero says this was 100% AI generated, btw. — DVRTed (Talk) 18:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not and never has been an article entitled Denise Carter (Comedian). I deleted your userpage, which did not comply with the guidelines on user space content. Userpages are not alternate hosts for content that cannot be hosted in article space, or for self-promotion. You have a conflict of interest and will not be permitted to write about yourself. Please read the message I left on your talkpage concerning what is and isn't permissible on userpages. Acroterion (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as noted above, we expect you to communicate via your own words, not via AI-generated text. AI content is generally ignored or deleted on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand I appreciate your feedback. The article is based on someone else and not me. I inserted a lot of detail information about the comedian and would like to see all the info regarding name, tags and family information. Is there any way I can retrieve the article so I can make the appropriate changes so it goes with the guidelines? Jpwdotcom (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it in a sandbox in your userspace, here [11] Please read the guidance you have been given, and remember that the material can;'t exist in userspace in the long run. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about addressing the problems I address instead of spamming me. Greggzuk (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talkpage to explain what you're trying to accomplish - you've made no effort to explain what you think the "problems" are. Acroterion (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can I get you to take a gander over at this when you have a moment? Thanks! RachelTensions (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion - I wanted to get your opinion since you've interacted with Alexbarbershop before. He's been rapidly expanding Springfield Street Railway; much of it is good, but there's a number of factual and citation errors, plus unwieldy quotes in sources. I've tried twice to clean up citations and copyedit text, and both times it's been ignored (in that his next edits build on the pre-cleanup version). My messages on his talk page and an email have also gone ignored. (He also now appears to be accidentally LOUTSOCKING.) Any advice for what I should do? It seems like a petty thing to turn into an administrative complaint at this stage, but it's very frustrating to have him brush off all attempts to communicate or fix his edits. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think if I jump in it may make things worse - you can see all of those lengthy arguments concerning CIA mind control experiments, I'm not sure that me telling him to be more careful about a streetcar system will have much benefit. Acroterion (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at an overview of war history and the biography of a war historian Review essay: Simon Harley critiques a work from Osprey Publishing Timeline: This month in military history

Can you hide the edit summary from this revision? Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would deleting this revision on the page Poop be necessary? That edit was made/reverted hundreds of times Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oops, wrong link, but the edits all are on the page Poop Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are even close to needing revdel. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For blocking that interesting IP. I suppose I need to get a new last name. Lynch44 01:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of worse, unfortunately. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Hughes AME Chapel Blackwater MD1.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 12:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You recently blocked an IP being used by a banned user on the Ref Desk (thanks). It is part of this range User contributions for 61.229.0.0/16 - Wikipedia that was partially blocked by Rsjaffe. All edits on this range since November are clearly the same person. Since they rotate through a large number of IP addresses (but only a moderate number of ranges), perhaps you could extend either the range or the duration or both? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it, but I am cautious about long blocks or full siteblocks on /16 ranges. That said, I don't see much of anything that would be affected by a site block. I'll start with a month. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's understandable; definitely it's true that some of their other recent IPs have collateral at the /16 level. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks! (I hadn't seen your addition when I wrote my previous comment.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I went in another window and investigated it and then extended my response. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i mistakenly edited an information. Although I have edited it back to it's original form I want to delete the history of changes. Anwesha1710 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You made a mistake. You corrected it a few minutes later. There's no need to revision delete it. Meters (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRD for valid revision deletion criteria. Meters (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t warrant revision deletion. Acroterion (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Administrator changes

• CoconutOctopus
• Curbon7
• Hinnk
• Jlwoodwa
• Kj cheetham
• KylieTastic
• Ser!
• Smasongarrison
• UndercoverClassicist

• Bbb23
• Beeblebrox
• David Gerard
• Oleg Alexandrov
• Satori Son

CheckUser changes

• Alison
• Bradv
• Joe Roe
• RickinBaltimore
• ST47

Oversight changes

• Bradv
• RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

Thank you for taking care of the Joeyburner4 situation.

In the wake of his being indef'd, he used the Wikipedia email system to send me an attack note (unless you think "old bald fatass" is constructive.) I'm not sure if there's any practical way to cut him from that system (it can be used by people not signed in, I think?) but you likely know better than I and know if there's anything to be done. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like NinjaRobotPirate has taken care of it for me - anon IPs can't email users (at least through WP) and has disabled email for them. It tells me much more about them than about me. They were also trying to log onto peoples' accounts last night. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also @NatGertler:, I'm sorry it took so long for me to realize that he was probably trying to use WP to further real-life harassment, the context in your original post should have been enough for me to figure that out. His subsequent conduct provided confirmation. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought but feel no need for an apology from you. Within five hours of my hoisting the flag at ANI, multiple admins including you had taken steps to prevent this individual from doing further damage, and during that time he did no article damage, merely showed himself more fully mostly to folks who had already understood what he was doing. And when I raised the flag, I didn't bring into it the reason why his edits were particularly problematic, because I wanted to treat this as a conduct problem rather than a content dispute; in hindsight, I should've at least mentioned that and given everyone at ANI the chance to include that in their calculations. But the Burner account managed to dig his own grave at ANI, all is done, and the only apology I'm due on this matter seems unlikely to come. You put in a lot of good effort on this site, and it is appreciated. Peace to you.-- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can draw what comfort we can that we're not obsessed with harassing a woman we saw on TV. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at four works spanning ancient to modern times Timeline: This month in military history

Nerfdart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have previously blocked, is at it again, this time with three PRODs of the same article. I don't suggest a block right now, but have issued a warning - a stark one, based on the quite combattive history of the user. Geschichte (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good warning, I'll keep an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo the message? I was just trying to protect @Magnolia677! 174.208.227.18 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're just giving attention to the harasser, we've all been dealing with it for a year. Cheap advice to the victim isn't helpful, leave Magnolia677 alone. Please read WP:DENY. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've opened up a discussion relating to the potential edit-warring happening on the talk page for Stalking.

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:LateFatherKarma Orange sticker (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realize they were using the CC template so widely. For someone complaining about stalking, they seem to be making a point of drawing attention to themselves. Acroterion (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LFK is trying toopen an ArbCom case. My opinion is that they ae eitheR NOTHERE or there is a CIR issue. In any case I’m sure they won’t last long. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, fyi I've quoted your sagacity at AN/I. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks, LateFatherKarma (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I really, really think you should reconsider that. It won't end well. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You are now a member of the club of editors who have been named as parties in frivolous or vexatious cases filed with ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I joined the club a while back, maybe more than once. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing the AN section about the NYC primary RFC I closed. It was becoming clear there that nothing productive was going to come out of that despite my best intentions trying to suggest that venue to Orca. I admit I was surprised by this RFC being described by you as contentious as its only over the color of candidates on a map, but I guess I was proven wrong in that front once I actually did close it (although the warnings given about bludgeoning in there and the removal of canvasing asperation was definitely a tell to me even as I was considering the close). I'm probably going to just stay away from making closures in contentious topics (or ones posted at WP:CR which was how I found this one) for the next few months to avoid jumping back into a similar situation like this one. Gramix13 (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The road to hell, etc. This is a frustrating one, because Orca's done valuable work. But their level of ownership is discouraging. I appreciate that you tried to explain your reasoning and to be fair, and for your level of experience, you actually did a good job. I encourage you to continue to gain experience. Me, I can't remember the last time I closed an RfC, because it's pretty thankless, so you at least have my thanks. Yes, AN is an option for obviously mistaken closes or clear closes against consensus, but it definitely isn't where it all gets hashed over again between the participants.

I haven't looked at the rest of your work on Wikipedia, but I encourage you to try out different processes and discussions, and to find a good place where you can contribute quality content. That's really what's rewarding, to me at least. Acroterion (talk)

You yourself say that RFC's are "thankless" and if you take the time to check you would see Locke Cole and ButlerBlog should both be censured. Both of them but in particular, ButlerBlog take humor as being an affront or an attack. Efficacity (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

You locked this title as an admin-only redirect in 2021. I don't see any history of a deletion discussion. I do see a history of edit-warring. There is a reference to an ANI discussion, but I don't see a link to it and so haven't checked it.

I am reviewing a draft, Draft: Post-finasteride syndrome. On the one hand, I will not be accepting the draft. But on the other hand, I don't think that the title needs to be locked permanently in the absence of any AFD. Could the title be downgraded to ECP?

My own opinion is that there should be an article, but only if the article says (which the draft does not) that reliable sources disagree on whether the syndrome is recognized. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I think it's safe to unprotect., and I don't see why it can't be entirely unprotected, since I assume the edit warriors have found other occupations. Done. Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. They may not have found other occupations, but they may at least have founded other edit wars to fight. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening! Looking to see if you'd consider revoking TPA for 216.209.188.104 (talk · contribs). Take care :) --tony 03:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, TPA should be revoked. This is an LTA. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Isabelle Belato got it - I'd already gone to bed. Acroterion (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion, deja vu? ;) User talk:174.95.53.77 --tony 03:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand @Isabelle Belato got it again. Time is a flat circle :) --tony 03:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 216.209.188.104 is engaging in an edit war between me and another fellow Wikipedian on his talk. Please ban him from editing his talk page. Thank you! HwyNerd Mike (tokk | contribs) 03:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Tylenol PM has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 24 § Tylenol PM until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at recent works Timeline: This month in military history

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guggenheim family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After you posted a warning at User talk:Ryanruhl], user went ahead and for a third time added a copyrighted, unlicensed photo to Ian_Roberts_(educator). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derya Yannier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Hi. You seamed reasonable. Tell me, how could they have blocked my 2 IP with check user. Yesterday I edited from one device and my ip started with 78 and today earlier I have edited from another device and it started with 95. They couldn't both be marked by check user since they are from different devices. And they didn't say which user that is. Block 95 is often blocked in entirety because of some user. What are the chances that 2 distinct IPs get blocker at the same time 78.1.68.125 (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, this was done against Wiki policy [12]. "Unsubstantiated requests will be declined and a check will not be run (typically using the slogan "CheckUser is not for fishing"). WHo requested and where the check user? SPI wasn't opened as far as I see. I mean, you could have blocked me with any boguous reason, but this is clearly against policy. 78.1.68.125 (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers do not operate in isolation, but their internal discussions are not shared with other editors, including administrators, who cannot modify CU blocks. I can't advise on the origin of the CU request, and CUs aren't always able to say so either within policy. An SPI is not required to open a CU request, but an ANI post will often attract the attention of CUs. Everything they do is logged and potentially audited, and there are strict rules about what they can and cannot do. CU blocks aren't always directed at the obvious targets - other disruptive editors may inhabit a given IP range and be active in other areas of WP. However, I don't get the impression that you've been completely open about your previous, nor did other administrators at ANI, which probably explains how the blocks came about. I was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I don't have access to the technical details that CUs do. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. How can 2 IPs from different devices get blocked at the same time. Users which others metioned , Trimpops Bilseric were active more than a year ago. A link to those accounts isn't possible. Ok, I see you weren't interested into acknowledging that anything Joy said was wrong, not just about me but other users as well. I mean, there's no reason to write such insults even is someone is socking. You can see how many SPIs are opened each day, people sock all the time, but admins don't write such insults. No one is forcing him to be an admin or to be on Tesla article. There's no reason to insult people . Bye 78.1.68.125 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Oshwah is probably one of the more conservative administrators and CUs when it comes to blocking people. Your behavior, apart from the single issue of inclusion/removal of Croatia, is remarkably similar to two blocked accounts, both of whom are in the CU logs. And you're evading his blocks if they were directed at you. Joy wasn't insulting you. I block people on a regular basis on behavioral grounds if I think it warranted, and checkuser results usually confirm my suspicions. Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand, IP can't be linked to those users. Simply not possible and not permitted according to guidelines. But ok. It would have been simpler if you just said duck is a duck, and you can't argue with that. But doing it like this just shows how low their regard to Wiki policy is. Anyways, soory for taking your time. Goodbye. 78.1.68.125 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking care of... whatever this was. Thank you! JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pure respect sir, just curious. Why does asking why Wikipedia is inconsistent get a conversation closed? 2600:1702:7530:510F:687E:CE00:C71D:3FC5 (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, your question on the Copernicus talkpage concerning Copernicus was asked and answered. It's not a place to open a broad debate concerning the nationality of other people, it's solely concerned with the article subject. You were starting to repeat yourself. If you want to discuss the many issues concerning how to describe historical biographies, I suggest another forum, not the talkpage of an article on a single topic. The talkpage of MOS:BIO might be such a place, perhaps. You should look at the archived discussions first, both at Talk:Copernicus and MOS:BIO. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf hid the killers name (he's not a murderer yet until convicted) because he was under age but looking at Rittenhouse history, it was never hidden even though he was under age. It just seems like Wikipedia struggles to be consistent. Columbus gets labeled Italian even when the nation/ethnicity did not exist for another 400 years. Karmelo Anthony, it takes a year of people like me opening up the topic, asking why the information is hidden while Wikipedia had no issue calling out Rittenhouse. I don't think the discussion should be closed just because some people feel it fits their narrative. Like I said, by every definition of ethnicity, Copernicus would be labeled Polish, the topic should stay open so people have a chance to discuss it. It took a year for a knife stabbing individual to get included in their victims article because some people are against truth. 2600:1702:7530:510F:687E:CE00:C71D:3FC5 (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, each topic stands or falls on its own. Rittenhouse is a completely different matter, concerning a living individual, and governed by WP:BLP policy, which most certainly does not apply to Copernicus or Columbus. Tangential discussion of everything you believe is an inconsistency doesn't resolve anything. I am not interested in a discussion here of Wikipedia's inconsistencies - I have other things to do, I am well aware of them, and this is not an appropriate forum for sprawling discussions. The topic of Copernicus's nationality (not ethnicity) has been discussed ad infinitum. I suggest you acquaint yourself with those discussions - there was a lot of angry nationalist bickering there, and a painful resolution was achieved. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, may I ask where is the location for discussing inconsistency? Because you said Rittenhouse like Columbus (I never compared the two, I compared Rittenhouse to Anthony) he has nothing to do with these great historical figures. The only comparison is in discussing how things are inconsistent. 2600:1702:7530:510F:687E:CE00:C71D:3FC5 (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said farther up the page, MOS:BIO might be a place to discuss biography standards. There is no one place to talk about inconsistency. Any discussion should be focused on the subject at hand and grounded in policy and sourcing, and should avoid tangential topics or whataboutism. Simply saying something like "I disagree with this" without a basis for discussion beyond personal preference will not accomplish anything, and demands for perfect consistency across 7 million articles written by thousands of people over 20 years, often in contentious circumstances, will not accomplish much. That's why we expect discussion to be focused on the topic at hand on article talkpages - policy and guideline pages cover a broader remit, but are not usually compulsory. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look into his contributions after your block expired. Lots of nonsense posted on talk pages and I already warned him for vandalism some hours ago. I do not see any positive contribution from this user. Denniss (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those edits - I had blocked primarily for the "ask Hitler" nonsense. If he keeps up he may get blocked, but he seems to have at least toned it down, so I left him be for now. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for performing the tedious but needed admin task of letting me know that my Friend Requests to other Wiki users have been rejected. Berkeleywho (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Acroterion, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repetitive Ad Hominem Attacks the case was marked as well-intentioned but misguided. Although I can mostly understand the logic behind WP:PA, can I have more clarification about the WP:FOC violations? Are these not a problem at all, or just not a problem handled at WP:ANI? If it's the latter, where should this be taken? Thank you! Wikieditor662 (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Whatamidoing and I noted at ANI, criticism or critical commentary pertaining to someone's ideas or behavior, founded in reasonable perception, is not attack. A personal attack would be "Acroterion is a stupid jackass." "Acroterion isn't a very good writer" would be criticism if based on a foundation of reasonable critical review. Even if it was unfounded, it would be on the mildest possible side of the spectrum and not ANI-worthy.

Sanger has been perennially wrong about Wikipedia since about 2003. That's not an attack, but a reasonable observation based in his commentary over the past twenty years or so. That he chose to be deliberately provocative and to invite comments on his theses doesn't make him immune to criticism. If someone had denigrated Sanger directly, rather than discussing his ideas or conduct, that would be another matter. I see nothing of that kind in your examples. Disagreement isn't attack. Personal attack is not subtle, and as pointed out at ANI, it usually falls in the realm of schoolyard insult.

ANI is for urgent matters concerning editor conduct. Nothing I saw was urgent or worthy of an ANI report, the more so since you brought it straight to ANI rather than discussing it with the people with whom you were concerned. That may have been fortunate in your case, because you would likely have received some pretty sharp criticism concerning your conduct with respect to a poor perception of what constitutes attack versus criticism or disagreement. You got off pretty easy at ANI, and I closed it before the discussion could decline. Please don't try to tone-police those kinds of discussions, it won't go well. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for where this sort of thing should be reported: nowhere. There are no noticeboards for concerns that someone's getting their ideas civilly criticized. If the discussion was going off the rails into fighting or slagging matches, that would be another matter, but you brought no examples of such behavior, and I saw none in my review of the discussions. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance has been valuable. Keep on trucking. Thanks 😁

P.S. if you are able to help tell me how to type a pipe character on an onscreen keyboard that would help immensely.73.127.112.246 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onscreen? Maybe. In the WP editing interface, at least on a desktop you can go to the special characters submenu above the editing window and pick it from the "symbols" palette. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate the extra time and attention spent on verifying that such a simple change doesn’t speak to The Who’s Current stance, inasmuch as the article currently suggests. The current attitude of The Who is not sourced in the article, although the past is sufficiently sourced, while the requested change is still a far better and more accurate update that in no way even suggests anything about this organization’s current policy. It seems that the current article provides the opportunity for their current stance to be called into question merely as a result of the verb tense. That is the substandard error I am attempting to correct. Please bring this article to a higher standard. Between my request and the current status of the article. Persuading others that Wikipedia is hesitant to keep and  maintain a high standard is too simple.I seriously desire to emphasize maintain, as maintenance is the most obvious standard that has been overlooked by sloppy perusal. Thanks once again. Please accept this motion to reconsider.😀

After even more consideration, changing the article to remain accurate is less desirable than verbally demonstrating my attempts to act as an apical meristem. my efforts will yield the desired fruit in a few more hours. The assistance has been excellent and it has also helped me profoundly. It will be child’s play to demonstrate the ironic hesitancy that has already been adequately presented. My job online has been completed. Rest assured that I will not again petition for the same edit and raise the spectre of res judicata in this forum. the assistance I have received here will further my desire to paint the picture I was hoping to avoid.

I sincerely, value your cooperation in this matter. Please allow the article to remain as it currently leans. 73.127.112.246 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question:@Acroterion, What is it like to be an administrator, and out of curiosity how do you deal with stress, when present Tokeamour (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is it like to be an administrator? Not much different from being a regular editor, expect that you attract more attention from confused people like the one above, or from vandals. You have to be able to quote from the hundreds of policies and guidelines on short notice and be able to exercise patience and forbearance. As for stress, I have a demanding, responsible job in real life, so Wikipedia is a comparative walk in the park. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Mant08 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For quickly answering to a serious topic, and going the extra mile to reassure me. Mant08 (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Three Wikipedia editors review five books Timeline: This month in military history

Hello, Acroterion. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent closing comment on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you wrote "Whether the OP thinks so or not, editors are entitled to remove content, cited or not, which they believe doesn't belong in the article." I would just like to gently remind you that neither Binksternet nor TheAmazingPeanuts believed that the content they were removing didn't belong in the article. TheAmazingPeanuts was removing it simply because it had been removed by Binksternet, and Binksternet removed it without reading it because of who wrote it. 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:E95C:2CE7:6036:F1B6 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Yamla (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is closed, you've gotten your answer, and you are arguing for the sake of an argument. We're not going to play along. Acroterion (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating Wikipedia's Policy regarding Original Research with your latest revision.

"Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say."

The revision in question cites an article, which does not cite an published source for the allegations made. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The FT is a reliable source, well-regarded for fact-checking, and unless the Chronicle has retracted their reporting somewhere, we are not required to examine such sources in detail to look at their sources or to assume they're lying, when you simply don't like what they source is saying. Take your complaint up with the Financial Times, or the Houston Chronicle. Acroterion (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

• Elahrairah
• Juliancolton
• Magnus Manske

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

• The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
• Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.

Technical news

• You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
  • Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Best Farm MNB MD3.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 16:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Acroterion a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When did i say i was a nationalist? My country Ireland has nothing to do with the UK and i dont know why you would call me a nationalist i was correcting an issue Ireland has as much to do with Britain as India does and an Indian person who fixed something about the British raj wouldn't be called a nationalist because India is a country

"The term 'British Isles' was promoted in the 16th century by John Dee as part of a political and imperial argument supporting English claims over Ireland. Because of this historical context, the term is considered by many scholars and institutions in Ireland to carry colonial connotations."

Sources: 1. Royal Museums Greenwich – “John Dee and the British Empire” (https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/john-dee) 2. Glyn Parry, John Dee and the Elizabethan British Empire in its European Context, Historical Journal, Cambridge University Press (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/john-dee-and-the-elizabethan-british-empire-in-its-european-context/E2EF79A6B8ABC393495F3DFE7494C845) 3. Bryan Fanning, Histories of the Irish Future (2014) – notes modern Irish avoidance of the term. ~2025-35582-00 (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it on the talkpage, where you will find previous discussions on how to approach the objections to the term "British Isles. The article already covers the Irish point of view without editorializing, but has seen perennial disruption from editors who wish to take a geographic convention and turn it into a forum for nationalist sentiment. In the meantime, don't insert unsourced commentaries into articles. Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of others' comments is not permitted except in limited circumstances. See WP:TPO. Zacwill (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think I know that? Please read don't feed the trolls. This is nothing but a 4chan meme to try to get an article or article space mention on Christine Chan into Wikipedia by the back door. Apart from the BLP concerns associated with that, there is near unanimous agreement that it has been a long-running trolling campaign that should be discouraged on sight. Occasional a good-faith editor revives it, not knowing the extensive history of disruption and wasted admin time associated with this topic, and it's very much a ten-years-ago thing as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Acroterion (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to indicate that the user is a "troll" or that their question was asked in bad faith. If there is a consensus against covering Chandler on Wikipedia, then you should make them aware of this fact instead of simply deleting their comment. Zacwill (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The commenter, may, as I said above, may be making a good-faith request, but that talkpage has seen perennial instances of trolling on behalf of the chan boards, and consensus has long been on the side of WP:DENY. If you look at the history of that talkpage, you will see a long series of revdel'd or even oversighted edits. That should provide you with a clue concerning the issue - there are profound BLP issues associated with this issue, and it should not be left there to function as a troll magnet. Wikipedia isn't an echo chamber for the chan boards. Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that people keep raising the issue when there is no indication on the talk page that it has even been discussed, all relevant comments having been removed by you or others. You mention WP:DENY, but this is a strategy for dealing with trolling, not with legitimate questions about the content of an article. Zacwill (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can tell such editors directly rather than having a "don't bother asking about Chris Chan" thread there. If they have any questions they can ask directly, as you have done. Ruckersville (a sleepy town of less than 2000 in the Blue Ridge foothills) became an alternate target after an article on CC was repeatedly deleted and salted, so it became a back door to BLP disruption. We don't even know (or, frankly, care) if CC even still lives there, and it's not a matter covered in mainstream media - certainly not with a specific focus on Ruckersville as one of its prominent citizens. The BLP issue cuts both ways, with documented harassment of CC - why would we enable that by discussing them in an article about their hometown? Acroterion (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, the BLP matter and disruptive editing have been generally regarded as outweighing TPO in this specific instance. And in fact we have very good reasons for doing so. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping to in provide a bit more support that this has been extensively discussed. We remove it on sight, even when it's possibly good faith, so as to avoid compounding the incredible amount of abuse and trolling this person has received. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, per User talk:Dr. Precursor#Your Ruckersville question, this has already been explained to them and they're aware, and they've asked before at the same page. This is disruption, plain and simple. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not disruption, plain and simple. You can argue that Dr. Precursor's question was likely to cause disruption down the line by acting as a "troll magnet", but the question itself was relevant to the article and seems to have been asked in good faith. I'm glad that someone else took the time to give them a proper explanation of the Chandler situation, but this should have been done by Acroterion. Zacwill (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can take it up at ANI. I have answered your concerns at considerable length. And frankly, re-reading their comment, it looks a lot like trolling. As does the nearly identical precedign comment that was also removed [13] Acroterion (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first time it was asked, and when they started an RM, and when they edited a draft that has been deleted (four times), maybe it was in good faith. But continuing this for months after it has been explained, the drafts deleted, articles not moved, and more is disruption. You may wish to note that the explanation I linked is from eight months ago. Acroterion could have blocked for that behavior, and it certainly need yet another explanation after months of explanations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the first time it was asked? The user only edited Talk:Ruckersville, Virginia once, and does not seem to have engaged in any Chandler-related editing since the RM at Talk:Chris Chan. Zacwill (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[14][15][16][17] and over a dozen deleted edits. This makes it clear that they're aware of how the community handles this, and it had already been explained multiple times. How many months of furthering the harassment of a person do you consider acceptable after it's been explained why there is no coverage? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four works Op-ed: Nick-D on 20 years with Wikipedia Timeline: This month in military history

How short do you think a short description should be? I mean, I didn't add that many characters to the short description for Incest; all I said was, "Sexual activity between persons legally considered too closely related to marry", which is true, by the way. Jamgorham (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary is overly specific, as I and others have told you - not every place has or had a specific legal definition - we are not solely concerned with the present day. There's nothing wrong with the shorter short description. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out, I cannot believe it slipped my mind that I should verify whether Doris Miller was a woman. Since there's no point keeping that topic up I removed it from the talk page, so I figured I'd come here to thank you. WaltSevenThree (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's not exactly obvious to anyone unfamiliar with the topic. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[18] No complaints, mind, just curiosity. I noticed that your block was indefinite, and that raised a question in my mind. These temp accounts, are they semi-permanent? Like, if I were to log out and begin editing anon, would I maintain the same temp account as my IP cycled? I would assume if so, that this is done with cookies or UA strings (similar to the CheckUser functions). Or would I get a new temp account every so often, or perhaps whenever my IP cycled?

No worries if you don't know, I was just idly curious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) AFAIK, temporary accounts are cookie-based, but have a maximum lifespan of 90 days. So, an indefinite block on a temporary account won't have any effect beyond 90 days after the account was created. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Writ Keeper:. That's a good enough answer for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this yesterday - what Writ Keeper said. There are ways around the TA block, but like IP evasion it takes more work. I generally check the underlying IP if it looks like a repeat customer, or is particularly egregious and warrrants an IP block to make things a little harder to evade. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate both answers. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this unblock request, thanks for the swift and merciless block. Also you missed a spot! on my talk page, I know I know, WP:DENY, I honestly don't know why I replied. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 00:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're so much faster than me, nevermind! (for the TPA) Some bits on my talk page still needs RD2 --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 00:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got it - it never pays to reply to that sort of thing, and end up with another revdel that might not be as obvious as an edit by the vandal. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the article "nigger", can you please note that Lincoln Brown Did not succeed in his lawsiut. Because I am not a wikipedia member, I cannot edit that. This would help a lot in my 5000 word essay on the words history and today. Thank you, troy h ~2025-32471-95 (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I may have jumped the gun on blocking the above TA, as the question could have been made in good faith. I have adjusted the section title, however, as it's extremely jarring.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The most benign reading of this is that they're trying to get us to do their homework for them. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]