Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q4 2021

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


Hi Acroterion!

Can you pleaase protect all Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:608:F500:2880:B536:8517:5D79 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

<sigh> if only... - wolf 21:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Let's see, 6,387,400 articles X 15 seconds each to fill out the paperwork = 95,811,000 seconds/1,596,850 minutes/26,614 hours/1,109 days. I'll get right on it. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
You're only counting the articles. I think the IP requested all 54,304,029 pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Then I guess I'd better pack a lunch. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Well it would solve a lot of problems. (Would it create others? Oh my. Guess we could find out. :) ) Antandrus (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Drum Corps articles

Would you support creating List of DCI Open Class corps and List of defunct DCI corps as WP:Stand-alone lists, merging some of the various articles you've nominated at AFD? I'm not sure there's enough about "all-age" DCA corps to justify a similar article for those groups but a similar option may work there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think these can be sourced enough for a list and consolidated. I'd like to preserve some of the content and lose the cruft. Honestly, only the World-class units that have seen competitive success seem to be notable, the lower echelon outfits probably need to go too, but I don't want to do that all at once. A well-structured list would be a good home. Acroterion (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I have started the process at List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. I am dropping the performance songlists and some obvious cruft but merging most of the rest; there is still a lot of cruft and unsourced material being merged but I want to minimize interleaving Copying within Wikipedia with my own editorial changes. Going to wait at least 36 hours to see if any DCI people notice/comment before doing more merges. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The DCI people have been rather quiet. I really don't want to rain on anybody's parade (ahem), but most of those articles shouldn't exist on their own. A list is a good solution, but independent sourcing remains an issue. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
One merge got reverted (for reasonable-enough reasons), the others seem to have stuck. I'll merge another batch to the defunct article now, and start the "Open Class" (aka division 2) article tomorrow or the next day. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, have at it. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I mostly frequent Wikipedia for articles in the scientific and technical fields I work in and don't look at the drum corps pages much, but I visited recently and found that there are omissions that I find very surprising (as someone formerly involved in the activity and fairly knowledgeable about it), with some very noteworthy corps now missing pages while other corps with much less history/relevance/success have pages. I see that you have been pushing several of these deletions. While I understand your motivation -- most of these pages are actually pretty terrible and in need of serious cleanup to meet Wikipedia's standards -- in the the deletion discussions I see several objections that I simply don't think anyone familiar with the drum corps activity or marching music in general would think are relevant. For instance, placement in the top 3 as a criterion of success is arbitrary and not appropriate in the context of the activity (I can explain why elsewhere), and some of the dismissals of citations from what are actually independent publications simply because they are focused on marching music seem entirely inconsistent with the standards used on Wikipedia: I work in computational mathematics, for instance, and no one is proposing that all of those pages be deleted because they heavily cite computational mathematics journals. But, I'm not here to argue these, but instead to ask is there an appropriate place where a high-level discussion of what the appropriate measures of relevance, what are legitimate sources for citation, what the general guidelines are for what should go into pages for individual drum corps, etc. could take place? What I've seen in the piecemeal deletion discussions is pretty inconsistent, and I think that the entire body of drum corps pages could be improved by having a high-level discussion in a central place. I've never waded into this sort of controversy for a collection of Wikipedia articles before, so I don't know and am therefore asking an admin. Thanks. Dr.RMills (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to contest individual deletions, deletion review WP:DRV is the place. You will need to address how the organization complies with broad Wikipedia notability guidelines, such as the general notability guidelines WP:GNG and the specific guidelines for musical performers WP:BAND, with specific sources The nominations were based on those criteria for inclusion. The top-three placement in competition is based on criterion #9 in WP:BAND, which appeared to be the sole valid reason for inclusion in many cases, according to widely-accepted guidelines. If you think that should be changed, the talkpage associated with that guideline would be the best place to open a discussion.
In general, the articles I and others nominated for deletion failed both GNG and BAND. General notability is a widespread problem with many of these articles, since there is scant coverage of the organizations in broader media that would confer notability, and mere membership in one of the umbrella organizations doesn't confer notability. Worse, there were cases where junior or feeder corps had stand-alone articles, which I would argue are a disservice to the reader, as they fragment information that might otherwise be relevant across two or more articles, when the parent meets BAND.
Beyond that, the drum corps articles exhibit an extreme level of unsourced detail, with setlists, detailed travelogues, and in some cases chatty editorializing. This is at odds with Wikipedia's summary style, and is best suited to a specialty wiki at Fandom, where such material is not subject to sourcing requirements. Deletion is not a means to address the very poor sourcing that still prevails throughout this category of article, that must be tended to as well in the long run for the remaining articles that meet the letter of the guidelines. Few of these articles could sustain more than a short paragraph if strict referencing requirements (which are policy) are applied. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi Acroterion. In your opinion as an admin, do political pundits and talking heads (think Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, etc.) fall under the AP2 topic (and potentially discretionary measures)? If so, does that only apply if they specifically address explicitly political topics, or does the umbrella also include cultural topics that have become politicized ("wokeness", vaccines, the "war on Christmas", etc.)? Grandpallama (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The short answer is: it depends on context and who is interpreting the context.
In my view, since everything that can possibly be politicized is politicized, it would fall under AP2 if the overall trend of editing behavior appears to be politically motivated. I am not in favor or extending broad-brush sanctions or warnings simply because someone passes through a topic like those, and vaccines, for example, would be a hard sell unless there's a distinct political tone to a given set of edits. Since you are discussing specifically political pundits, their statements would be covered by AP2 - but they're not the ones editing Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how you think it would be applied. As an admin, I am leery of prejudging things like that, or judging them at all unless some editor is following a pattern that would clearly invite sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
True--everything is dependent upon context. Thank you for the very thoughtful answer, which makes a great deal of sense. (And I know it's difficult to address stuff like that in the abstract!) For clarification, I was thinking of the BLP articles about political pundits, and therefore comments they might make about politicized issues that are not inherently political topics (such as vaccines), and criticisms they receive in the wake of those comments. There are often attempts to scrub well-sourced material from articles that is critical of their subjects (both on the left and on the right), and when someone digs in their heels and edit wars to keep it in/out (without discussion, etc.), it seems to me that a discretionary sanctions warning might be merited, especially when there are clues that the editor might not be on the up-and-up. Thanks again! Grandpallama (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Robjwev - continues

At the end of our previous discussion, you wrote unless it continues, I don't see a need for uintervention. Sorry to say, my problem with Robjwev (talk · contribs) continues. In a long discussion at Talk:Racism against Black Americans they were WP:STONEWALLING, in the end they reverted without taking my objections into account[1]. In order not to escalate, I refrained from giving them a warning on their talk page. During said discussion, they wrote "it seems that you disagree only to be disagreeable, unwilling to compromise." When I saw that they reverted another editor at African Americans with an edit summary that made no sense to me[2], I reverted them[3], adding "Don't revert just for the sake of reverting". They responded with uw-agf1 on my talk page[4]. I feel a bit silly taking this to you again, but if I (as the attacked person) placed a uw-tempabuse2 on their talk page, that would be even more silly.

Pinging @Robjwev: --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This really isn't a situation that an individual admin can or should arbitrate or adjudicate. There is no egregious misconduct of the kind that would warrant admin intervention. I suggest taking this to DR. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

2601:644:8D80:AB10:75E6:B782:FF8D:6866

Frankly, when they come off their block they will start up again...cuck, LOL, I think edit summary nicely sums up why I do not think a show block will work, it's clear they are just a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The other activity on that /64 is interesting, and I want to see what they do. Reblocking for a long term is easy. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

GregRendon469

In a kind of edit conflict, I blocked GregRendon469 just as you were giving a warning of a possible block if they continued in the same way. If you think it better to give them another chance, feel free to unblock. My expectation is that it will probably make no difference either way, because it looks like a genuine spammer, rather than a good faith editor who simply doesn't realise that promotional editing isn't acceptable, and experience over the years is that the true spammers almost never edit again anyway, whether blocked or not. JBW (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I xould have gone wither way, indef is fine, it was obvious spam. Acroterion (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Threatening abusive power for disagreeing viewpoints

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This user threatened to ban me for disagreeing on a serious topic regarding life and death for people trying to survive covid 19 in regards to ivermectin:talk. Instead of taking any kind of rational balanced view, he/she threatened to ban me for simply arguing passionately about a serious topic. Clearly this is not appropriate for a page spreading disinformation to begin with, only to then threaten anyone pointing out the lies with a ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asailum (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you ever made it to ANI. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ouvrage La Ferté

Hello, first of all, I wanted to let you know that I have crossed your way several times on a lot of articles about France, châteaux and the Maginot Line, and clearly, your level of French language is much more than "un niveau élémentaire" (as on your user page), congratulations. I am a French user, learning English, which is a much easier language, but it's not always easy for me.

Today, my question is about Ouvrage La Ferté, which is a good article where you contributed a lot, but this article is not written in British English as it should be, according to the MOS, because the main article (Maginot Line) is in British English. I have already corrected some articles about the Maginot Line, a lot of them mixed several English, but as this one is a good article, I want to be sure that I can do it before doing something wrong. Thank you very much in advance for your help. Have a nice day. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. My proficiency in French has declined since I was an architecture student in Paris 40 years ago, but I can still read French with reasonable ease. Writing it is another matter.
I wrote in American usage because I'm American, and unless there's an obvious reason, like the subject being directly related to the UK, there's no policy to prefer an English variant for a subject concerning France. I'm not aware of any preference that a given set of articles reflect the general article topic either - where do you see that in the Manual of Style? For me, writing significant content in another variant is a distraction and remembering to use colour, humour, spelt, storey, bonnet, boot, etc. detracts from from getting the subject matter right, so I have not tried, except, of course, where the topic demands it. GA didn't and doesn't require it, and WP:ENGVAR applies only within individual articles, not broad topics. For instance, most articles on colors use American spelling, but Orange (colour), does not, and it's not a matter for concern - the article was first written by someone using British variant English, and it's stayed that way ever since. I like it that way because it's an opportunity to educate people who may not realize that there are national English varieties at all.
Alf that said, I have no profound objection to adjusting usage in those articles to UK usage, and definitely have no concerns about adjusting for consistency where there are mixed orthographies. I just think you're setting yourself up for a lot of work that the MoS doesn't demand. WP:RETAIN probably applies best. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. You have good remains in 40 years.
I strongly agree with you about everything you said. My point is only for consistency because a lot of articles are using mixed orthographies and sometimes it's not easy to define which one was the first or the most present in the page. Otherwise, I don't mind if it's British or American English, as you said, it's better to avoid nationalism when it's possible.
You are right, I can't find it again, but I'm pretty sure that I read something about the consistency of broad topics, that's strange. Thank you again. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Somewhere somebody may have expressed a preference, but as far as I know there's no actual policy. In any case, I appreciate your help and attention to those articles. I've tried to avoid interpreting French sources where there is a matter of tone or nuance, because I don't trust my interpretation skills in matters that aren't plain facts. I appreciate your help and your attention to the subject - please feel free to expand on them.
Your level of English proficiency does you credit - working within national language variations in a second language is no easy task! Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
If I find it again, I would let you know.
Thank you for your help. I will try to expand them as much as possible, and editing Wikipedia helps me to practise in English, even if I make some mistakes sometimes. English is still easier than French, even for a French. Switching between American and British English is easy too; my girlfriend is Scottish, that's much more complicated. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I think you have enough on your mind, dealing with Scottish dialect. If you want to, you can fill in missing diacritics in the French text I've referenced.I don't have the right keyboard, and at times I was too lazy to find them in the little editing window and put them in. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, it's not easy without the right keyboard. I will check that ;) L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Am I replying to you correctly?

Hi Acroterion,

I need a lot of help. Is it possible to hire someone for Administrative management purposes?FactCheckOntario (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. What is your reason for asking? Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The above user posed a similar question at my talk page, but then deleted it, so I'm not sure what is going on here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Kinu t/c 18:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Killing of Eurie Martin

I started a new article. So far not a single person has edited it. Want to take a look? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you find sources outside of Georgia? Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

‘Unnecessary contributions’

Thank you. I promise, I had no intention of making any unnecessary contributions. I sincerely apologise, if I’ve caused any harm. Electromagnetic induction (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that you know that we don't appreciate editors who game the system to try to disrupt articles, you can turn your attention to constructive edits, preferably using straightforward language. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Acroterion. Electromagnetic induction (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

'Accusation to myself of biasm and vandalism'

I am quite upset, as there is a section on the page for Albert Speer that seems very clearly in my opinion to advertise a book, and make the assertion that Speers declaration of regret for partaking in the nazi party was a lie. Which, legally, is slander. It also seems amiss to me that my reversion of the reversion of my edit was literally immediately, to the minute, reverted. May you please explain why my removal of this section was consider persistent vandalism, and why the section, which in addition to being slander and advertising also makes the introductory segment of the page very long indeed, is a defensible part of the article. Suspending me from editing the article after my second edit on the basis of 'persistent vandalism', in of itself seems to be a misuse of power. I would be OK with the paragraph being moved from the introduction and worded in such a way that presents it clearly as subjective speculation rather than objective fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terran 5998 (talk • contribs)

The lead sections summarize the sourced content in the body of the article. You need to find consensus before removing things you disagree with. Please read the entire article and discuss what you believe to be problematic on the talkpage, preferably without the complaints that Speer's being posthumously slandered - he was a Nazi, that's plenty already. Please understand that this is a featured article, which has been reviewed by many editors, so you will need to find consensus, backed by sources, to support your suggestions. You've been doing this sort of thing on a variety of pages, please take the time to understand the editing process and how Wikipedia works. As for the Speer page, it has seen extensive recent vandalism, and I was responding to the request that the article be protect in view of the problems appearing in the last couple of days. That will give you an opportunity to use the talkpage to make your case, as you are supposed to. It's not all about you. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been using wikipedia for over two years although I lost the details to my last account and generally make edits without one. I have read the article, and don't beleive anything to be problematic except the slander and advertising that is clearly evident in the introductory segment. You say "He was a nazi, that's plenty already", although sir, as a Jewish man, I share your dislike of Nazis, I believe integrity to be one of the highest virtues, and as such, slandering a man based on the testimony of a single authour, is not only wrong in the legal sense, but is in contradiction to the wikipedia guidelines sir, and I will pursue this matter further. Could you please explain how I am to have a source, for stating that saying someone is a liar without evidence is immoral and un-encyclopedic? But I think your banning of my account based on a harmless comment on your talk page proves my case, and will be instrumental in my appeal. Hopefully concluding with your removal from wikipedia
Your cross-post in the section looked like the continuation of editing by a problematic editor I was dealing with a few minutes ago - I apologize for the error, and you're unblocked. We multi-task, and sometimes edit conflicts look peculiar, especially when you've switched from using an IP to an account in the middle of the discussion. Stop calling people liars, and make your case on the talkpage as you are supposed to. Are you acquainted with an account named HarveyCarter? Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Ester 9002 (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of LemonJuice78

If it doesn't inconvenience you at this time, I'd like to inform you that, as stated in a recent report of mine, that LemonJuice has been edit blocked before on Commons for consistent downloads of non-free images with the CC-BY-SA 4.0. license (or mislabelling free images with this license). Even after that block, LemonJuice78 continued to upload images the same way as if the block didn't happen. As such, I'm unsure whether the site-wide block here will get his attention, as he may or may not seem unaware that he has talk pages on both these sites. I don't like to assume, but the lack of communication is implying that. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

While Commons isn't our direct concern, a pattern of non-communication is developing, and refusal to respond in any way is concerning.This isn't like the known problem with mobile IP users not being able to see notifications, it's not hard to see the orange bar of death at the top of the page of an account and to click on it. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
In spite of the block, it seems LemonJuice has gone straight back to his usual disruptive editing on William Westmoreland, A Very Stable Genius, and I Alone Can Fix It, unnecessarily adding the details of Mark Milley's selection as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in particular. SuperWIKI (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Blocked now for two weeks. I'll compose a note, patience for that kind of thing is scant. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

gjspring page deleted - why?

Hello,

I am artist Gary Springer and created an autobiographical Wikipedia page for myself. I've been excitedly awaiting publication of this page.

I was disappointed to see that it was deleted by you in March 2021.

Please let me know what I need to do to recreate/restore this page without it being deleted.

Thank you,

Gary Springer

<redact email> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjspring (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Revdel

Please and thank you. – 2.O.Boxing 10:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done Girth Summit (blether) 10:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove aspersions from own Talk Page

Hi Acroterion,

I have a problem and I do not know who to ask, as apparently AN is not the place. Before coming to AN I had edited Concubinage (law), where I removed the imprecision that concubinage is a 14th century revival. Immediately my edit was reverted and the same editor who reverted it left this message on my talk page. But since I was not wrong after all, my edit was kept in the end. I don't want anything else than be left in peace, so I would like that this message be removed from my Talk page, as it is not based on facts. I have tried to ask the user who left the message to remove it twice, but my first request has been ignored and my second request has been reverted by another user who mysteriously watches other people's talk pages (their edit summary was even “remove trolling”). How can I do to have WP:ASPERSIONS removed from my Talk Page? Thank you for your help. --Grufo (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that your block has expired, you can clear your talkpage as you wish.. if you want to be left in peace, leave others in peace, and don’t revive old arguments. I think you misunderstand what an aspersion is, though. In any case, do it yourself. Acroterion (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
“you can clear your talkpage as you wish”
I believe doing it would go against WP:TPO.
“if you want to be left in peace, leave others in peace”
If I wanted not to leave Iskandar323 in peace I would hardly search for third party comments at A3N or like I am doing right now, but I would proceed the way they did.
“don’t revive old arguments”
An argument that never received a single answer is not old, it never started.
“I think you misunderstand what an aspersion is, though”
That is interesting. At WP:ASPERSIONS a series of rules are listed. Maybe you can help me understand how this message does not constitute an example of

An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

and this edit summary does not constitute an example of

It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

You don't have to answer my questions, I can try to ask another admin if you prefer. --Grufo (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
TPO applies to article talkpages. WP:UOWN applies to user talkpages. You are free to remove everything but active block declines, and since you're not blocked you can remove whatever you want to, as long as you remove the entire thread.. I'm not going to debate you about anything else - my advice to you is to stop looking for reasons to argue about things, and to take the time tio listen to what other people are telling you rather than interpreting what you think they're saying.Your problems have been brought about by this failure to carefully listen.. Acroterion (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have just been called troll by a user who reverted a message of mine from another user's Talk Page (the whole thing already is quite odd). I want you to be honest, Acroterion, imagine that happened to you: what would you do? Thank you for the explanation about user talk pages by the way. --Grufo (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Administrators get that on a weekly basis, and lots worse, up to and including death threats. Ignore it, that's what we do, and don't post on those users' talkpages to badger them about perceived injustices. Acroterion (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the wise suggestion. --Grufo (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:UserABCXYZ

Hello, Acroterion,

I saw your patient comments on this blocked editor's talk page and I thought I'd add a comment. This editor is now confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA "TARA". This editor and all of their sockpuppets' primary goal has been to have an article on themselves on Wikipedia. These articles have been deleted in both main space and draft space and the pages have extended protection. Hence, their frantic level of activity to reach extended confirmed status. They even expressed their desire to become confirmed on their talk page so they could write more articles. Their sockpuppets have also visited WP:REFUND 7 or 8 times asking for their deleted bio to be restored despite repeated explanations of why that was not going to happen.

Another strange tell is an interest in Queen Elizabeth as they wrote a book on QE2 and have tried to get a Wikipedia article about their book as well as a biography of themselves. So, if you see these signs again in an overly eager new editor, please report them at SPI. Many thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not encountered this particular LTA before, I'll keep them in mind.I saw that they'd been CU blocked, and the ensuing drama. As we are both aware, it's often hard to know if you're really being patient with a new user, or just feeding a troll.Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

help

at the Template:Fascism sidebar and Template:Nazism sidebar, it mentions authoritarian democracy which i added a while ago, but now am unsure since it does not seem to be mentioned in mainstream sources, does fascism and nazism support a form of democracy or is this article and its inclusion in other articles inaccurate? Gooduserdude (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a serious student of political science - the article on authoritarian democracy is interesting, but I'm in no position to comment on the sources. If you take the article at face value, there appears to be a relationship between the two. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Electromagnetic sensitivity as a real condition.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32289567/ Above link confirms electromagnetic sensitivity as a real condition, caused by over exposure to electromagnetic radiation. 188.65.190.74 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

We present the consensus of reliable medical and scientific research, not the conclusions of single studies. Take it to the talkpage, and read WP:MEDRS, which applies,and WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Francis1864

Howdy. The editor-in-question is gonna be trouble, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I will take their blanking to indicate that they've read what we've written. It's an interesting legal thesis to insist that the ADA protects products rather than people, and that they're being singled out because of their features for the vision-impaired - that was scarcely mentioned in the article. Let's see if they settle down some. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

New request for help

Hi Acroterion,

Once again I need advice. The same editor who reverted my comment on another user's Talk Page and called me a troll is doing something similar in Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam. There is a bullet list written by another user, which, among other things, mentions my words. However a bullet point got mixed with my words, so I split it, leaving a message in the Talk Page and pinging the original author to make them aware of my changes. However, the editor who called me a troll keeps reverting my edits without leaving any motivation in the Talk Page (#1, #2). What should I do? Do you think I should go to WP:ANI? --Grufo (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You edited another user's comments - you should not do that, and they were correct to revert, and they explained why in their edit summary. Make your own comment in a new section below the comments you're responding to. Never change someone else's talkpage comments. Acroterion (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I am confused. What about WP:TPO?

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[potential libel removed by ~~~~]".

Which is exactly what I did, given that there were words I never pronounced involved. --Grufo (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It's best practice to never alter anybody else's posts to make them appear to have said something different from what the actually did say, not even spelling corrections. There are exceptions, but they are few ,and I don't think what you did was a good way to approach your concerns. When in doubt, just add your own comment, separately. Acroterion (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
We might discuss about what could be best, but the fact that another editor keeps touching other people's comments without leaving any explanatory message remains. And given that it looks like a trend, it is quite likely that they will do it again in the future. In the meanwhile, what should I do with the unrelated bullet point that got mixed with my words? --Grufo (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Make a section below and explain what you propose, and don't concern yourself with the actions of other editors - you must focus on content, not other editors. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Below here in your talk page you mean, or below in Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam? As for the second, I have created § A reverse approach with the intention of defining what the current scope is according to each single editor, so that eventually it becomes possible to criticize it. Until we define what the current scope is it is impossible to criticize the current scope. That is at least what I believe. After all a page already exists and it does not talk about French fries. --Grufo (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
On the article talkpage. Please allow other editors to comment, and see if they agree - that is essential. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. Thank you. --Grufo (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:The Vegan Society

Sorry. Must have stepped on your undo of the IP/sock. If you want the edit to remain I'll undo myself. Meters (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No, go ahead. I'm looking through the IPs, and want to appropriately attribute the ANI posts to the IP. Acroterion (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Confused.. do you want the IP's contribution, correctly attributed to the IP, to be restored to that talk page? Meters (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That too. Especially since their behavior is intended to be confusing. Acroterion (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I see what you're asking now - I don't care either way, their behavior is plain enough, and continues the pattern of blind refusal to heed anything other than their own voice. It can go as far as I'm concerned, but if it says up, it should have the additional attribution. Acroterion (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Already put it back, and it has now been tagged as the IP's edit. Somehow I overwrote your edit without noticing it. What a mess. Meters (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I’ll see if I can disentangle thr series and probably just do away wi5h it. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal

Hi there. You removed an edit I made. Can I know the reason for this? Thanks. Portalplop (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Portalplop: It was explained by Acroterion on your talk page in his/her message of 15:44, 13 November 2021 at User talk:Portalplop#November 2021.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
You need to provide sources, as I advised. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I will try to find sources however it may have not been documented as it happened between bandmates and members. Also I did include a source in the form of a video and this was still removed. Why was this? Portalplop (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't accept Youtube videos as sources under almost all conditions. They're hard to source and tend to be unreliable, speaking as a whole, and demand more effort to verify than printed documentation. Acroterion (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Coahuiltecan page edits

Hi there you stated my facts about Coahuiltecan people existing to this day were not reliably sourced-my reliable source is my existence and the existence of the tap pilam Coahuiltecan nation and other non federally recognized Coahuiltecan tribes Cuervo411 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't take other editors' personal assurances as references. Please provide appropriate references based in academic ethnography. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Macrobiotic talk-page

Iyo-farm is still evading his block on many mobile IPs on the macrobiotic talk-page [5]. Is there any chance the page could be temporally locked? Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've just blocked them. I don't recommend that you engage them, it will waste time and encourage them. Just report them to AIV or SPI - you'll have to show the chain of IPs in either case. RBI. If they return to the talkpage they can be blocked, and the talkpage can be a honeypot. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access

After this I think it might be in order to revoke talk page access. DuncanHill (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. No more deffamtion. Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Deffamtion is a terrible thing. Nobody should ever be deffamted. Thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Email..

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cinematic Maniac (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Acroterion a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Bobherry Talk Edits 00:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Assalamu'alaikum Wr.Wb

Maaf saya baru di wikipedia dan tidak ada maksud untuk memberi kesan promosi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ade Nader (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Where is the Kyle Rittenhouse Page?

Wayback seems to show one! I did a wayback and it seems there was a Kyle Rittenhouse page, why was it deleted? I think I know why! https://web.archive.org/web/changes/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse 66.68.178.180 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean Kenosha unrest shooting? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Spare us your insinuations, the content concerning Rittenhouse is at Kenosha unrest shooting, in accordance with Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons who are notable for a single event. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Then why does wayback show a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse from 2020 until just 2 days ago? And why so much deleting in the last two days at Kenosha Unrest to correct all the lies that liberal wiki editors would not allow to be placed in the last year under Kyle_Rittenhouse, just like CNN is doing as of today. Wonder if fear of lawsuits could be what makes liberals actually tell the truth, amazing all of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" got it wrong and all the sources liberal wiki won't allow as sources got it right! I know this makes you mad, but too bad, be truthful.66.68.178.180 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It's been a redirect all along. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Your comment
The history is here: [6]. I have no interest in the subject, and haven't participated in any of the content. Take your suspicions and insinuations elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

User name that may need attention

It is WorldGolfHOF (talk · contribs). HOF is Hall of Fame and there is the World Golf Hall of Fame....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Censoring the word "censorship" a talk title

The title of a discussion (about censorship and privacy) that I started has been repeatedly altered by the users advocating for censorship in that instance here and here.

In particular, they always removed the word "censorship" from the title without any comment.

Now, that that discussion is hopefully concluded, it has been mainly been about censorship, editing and the Wikipedia consensus process. So I decided to re-add the word "censorship" into the title here, because that was the point of contention.

You then promptly reverted that edit along with a stupid Futurama reference joke with the comment "Not helpful". Now, I assume the "Not helpful" comment relates to the dumb joke part and not the "the title of a discussion about censorship is allowed to use the word 'censorship'"-part, but at this point I don't want to assume.

So, can I have "censorship" in the title of my complaining about censorship or does that have to be censored? (And if so, why?)

Kind regards. Dufaer (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Stop using the article talkpage as a soapbox for your views - consensus has long since been established, please respect it. You are closing on on a block for disruptive behavior if you continue. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Alrighty then! I shall drop it. Have a good day. Dufaer (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
And I've never watched Futurama. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

AIV

Hello! Just wondering, did you mean to revert my edit or the one before mine? Thought I'd ask before restoring my report. :) –FlyingAce✈hello 17:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry about that. My browser lag is unusually bad today. Acroterion (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
No worries! I'll re-report then. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hey i'm sorry i should of requested a page move first, I will now do that going forward if I have concerns about a name. about the titles changed I didn't have the page added to my watchlist so when I saw the page go back to 2001 I was editing a redirect and I thought it was because of that. My apologies --Aaron106 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I just advise that you slow down until you understand how to edit effectively and to work with other editors. I have no concern about your good faith, but you need to think before you do - dozens of small edits that you end up undoing do not help the encyclopedia, and they don't make it easy to see what you're doing. Moving high-profile pages without discussion is a very poor idea too. Acroterion (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you delete this page

Hey some user named Liz reverted my db-author edits on World Trade Center (2005–present) ‎and Talk:World Trade Center (2005–present) ‎can you delete these pages? --Aaron106 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Gone. Liz was correct in her reasoning that the tag was incorrect. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Aaron106, you were not the page creator. That's why I advised you to review CSD so you'd understand the criteria better. Some user named Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I did create the page. --Aaron106 (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't - I did, as a result of the cleanup from your ill-advised page moves. So Liz was correct to decline. I could delete it as page creator, or as clean-up, which is what I ended up doing. Again, please slow down, and take time to understand what you're doing - it's causing problems and wasting the time of other editors to fix. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

3rd message

I'm reading this page, is there any other pages I should be reading too? So i understand the full permission :User_access_levels#Extended_confirmed_users --Aaron106 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

And i'm taking a week long break from Wikipedia later :) --Aaron106 (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed permission was introduced to allow selected articles, usually controversial in character, a greater measure of protection against inexperienced or agenda-driven editors. It is assumed that by 500 edits an editor has acquired enough experience of the workings of Wikipedia to be reasonably proficient in policy and conduct. In your case, with all of the corrections, false starts and undos, your edit count has outrun your proficiency, and your edits and conduct are not of the expected standard to have EC status. You may have about 100 useful edits in all.That's why I removed the EC permission. An EC editor would probably have known better than to move the WTC article without asking, and would be expected to take the views of other editors under advisement. Wikipedia is built on consensus,not on "I think it's best so I'm going to do it." Please read WP:BRD for more advice. Acroterion (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Acroterion: in case you haven't seen it already, [7] (not sure if you watch that page or not). Thought you'd like to know after your messages on their talk page from a few days ago. :) stwalkerster (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I had not seen it. I've left a note. I would be open to a reasonable request early next year, after a history of constructive edits of a reasonable scope. Right now they're headed in the wrong direction. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss first

I have discussed this. I obtained a copy of the reference and read it. Have you? If you have not, then why are you reverting it? Alan B. Samuels (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

And you've received no consensus for your suggestion from the discussion. That means it will stay out unless you can politely convince other editors that your suggested edits are appropriate. Given that this subject is the sole focus of your editing history on Wikipedia, you should consider gaining broader experience with other topics to learn how the process of finding consensus operates. Right now you're acting as a single-purpose account. Acroterion (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
You are telling me that without reading the relevant source editors can simply vote about what it says? Alan B. Samuels (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Who says that other editors haven't read it? It's a good source, and it's a shame to see its content twisted for an agenda. –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Projection. The source is clear there is no consensus and debate continues, the quote is cherry picked. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It's possible that after reviewing the source they don't agree with your view on how it's to be used. Until you obtain consensus, you may not simply revert until everybody gets tired. Acroterion (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I suggest Austronesier raise their position on the talk page where we can both go through the source. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding User:LSOsucka

Thank you for blocking this user. I can see through the [8] edit filter log (refer to link before) that LSOSucka is attempting to edit the page in a disruptive manner (but is failing). Can you please revoke LSOSucka's talk page access before he succeeds in abusing it? Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The only place they can do that is their talkpage, a low-traffic location that I wold notice if it happens. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia required?

Howdy. I think Wikimedia might soon have to step in, as I suspect it's the same individual behind all those IPs that have recently been vandalising the talkpages of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, among others. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The WMF can't really accomplish more than a checkuser can.
I've succeeded in getting the WMF to ban a user before, but it was for a blatant breach of the ToU in which threats of physical harm were being aimed at another editor on the basis of their real-life identity. Puerile poop vandalism of politicians' articles isn't something that the WMF will pursue. Acroterion (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DH85868993 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Nick Levine (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TornadoLGS (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not falsely accuse me of anything

All I was doing was tidying up an incorrect page before somebody, not necessarily a PR firm, edited the corrected page to its pseudoscientific former-self. I thought wikipedia was meant to be about improvement and getting to the truth (crowd-sourcing). The existing citations (references) were blatently false, if you looked into them. Phrases from e.g. wiley.com were taken out of context, and misrepresented. Am I missing something here. I'm just an ordinary citizen trying to make a difference. You've taken the truth, and reduced it to falsehood.

I think you'll find my 'edit' was far more accurate and scientific than the former version. Please justify you actions. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.32.235 (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edits were disruptive and amounted to falsification of sources.You may be blocked if this recurs. If you think the article deviates from the sources, take it up on the talkpage, with specifics. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

Holiday cheer
Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 A. MarnetteD|Talk 19:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Lighting wiki?

Hi! In your edit here, you suggest a lighting wiki. How or what do you propose? Thanks much! Hanyou23 (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


Huggums537 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Huggums537 (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

white genocide and “muslims”

Hello, I noticed that you have repeated what you have modified. I have modified the word "Muslims" because there are many white Muslims such as Albanians, Russians, Chechens and Bosnians. Islam is a global religion and not an ethno-religious one like Jews and Hindus has nothing to do with any race but the immigration from afghanstan and iraq consird asians Whatever their religion, I hope you can explain to me why you returned what you modified🌹🌹 Saxsd12 (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Saxsd12: first, if it's in the source you shouldn't change it. And of course at white supremacism I see ". Different groups of white supremacists identify various racial, ethnic and religious enemies," which includes Muslims. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
You are assuming there's some sort of actual logic in the prejudices of the people who promote these smears. That's assigning too much credit to them, and we should not attempt to impose a missing rational basis to them. Acroterion (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

But there is a difference between race and religion. There are many white Muslims, such as Russians, Albanians, Bosnians and Chechens, as well native white muslims in Germany. Even native British, some of them convert to Islam. White people can enter Islam. I know there is a source, but how can I correct or modify it? Do I have to bring another source? Or should I just explain? Saxsd12 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course there's a difference between race and religion. However, the bigoted conspiracy theory draws no such distinction. The article is about that, not about any logical distinction. There might be a better way of wording it, but you should not make the topic appear to have more internal consistency than it actually does. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
He’s made other edits pushing the same agenda. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

But the conspiracy theory sees Afghans and Iraqis as not being white, but their religion, no one cares about it Saxsd12 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The bigotry is applied to people who are either non-white, Muslim, or both. We aren't here to make sense of a prejudice that has no rational basis, we just report on it. Acroterion (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra

The crazy vandal whose edits you redacted on Deepfriedokra's talk page returned after you left. I just thought I'd give you a heads up to give you the chance to delete all of the revisions if you wish. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I took care of it, thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion/Archive_Q4_2021&oldid=1094694616"