Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

Hi, I was just wondering if you are having a trouble finding info about the guy himself too Eliyah17 (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. When you get a moment, could you take a look at this. It's a list of disruptive IPs from Brescia Province in Italy who have been active on a number of articles, on all of which they have been disruptive. I came across them on Anton Drexler and German Workers' Party. I believe you ran into them on Nathan Bedford Forrest. I'm fairly sure this is one editor using multiple IPs, but it could be a group of editors working in concert.

I really don't have a clue how to deal with them. Multiple range blocks? Edit filters? Any ideas you might have would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

They've been active for a couple of years - while it's been toned down a bit, their early edits were very much fascist-adjacent. They've put in a lot of time on subjects concerning Nathan Bedford Forrest too. I've been applying RBI. I'll have a look through the list in more detail and see if there's more we can do. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I first noticed them in late 2019, I'll have to check my logs - I think I used the summary "Northern Italy Nazi" for early blocks. There might be some rangeblock targets in there, but last time I tried, they were too big and too rapidly changing. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the extent you want to keep being involved, but this by 87.4.31.172 is clearly block-evasion. Let me know if I'm bugging you with this stuff, Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I plan to keep after this individual, they have no business editing WP. Blocked. I'll take a look at some rangeblocks this weekend. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm updating the list on my subpage as I come across new IP numbers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Vandalism on Brian Pearce by 79.32.252.3. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, blocked. Acroterion (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Same vandalism by 5.170.5.27. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

And again by 5.170.4.160. I;m going to RFPP Brian Pearce. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the blocks, but I think you accidentally blocked 86.20.76.53 which is a UK IP who reverted one of the vandalizing edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, I'll fix., Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Brescia LTA editor is running amok using 80.117.213.106. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Crazycomputers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I notice you removed these edits as "trolling". The renewed interest in Cullors' Marxism is because conservative media have been discussing the optics of Cullors purchasing a expensive home in an overwhelmingly white neighborhood. Yahoo Finance also reported that the right-leaning National Legal and Policy Center stated "Whenever a figure in the nonprofit sector acquires significant assets in a short period of time, scrutiny is inevitable". Yesterday I added details about her new home purchase (see Patrisse Cullors#Personal life), though I avoided any commentary about the optics of this purchase, per WP:BLPBALANCE. I'm not sure I would have deleted this so quickly as "trolling". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

See below - they've been using talkpages as platforms for screeds on "leftists" there and on a couple of fascism-related topics with at least two IPs If they can bring themselves to stop soapboxing, they are free to make their argument. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And see below - I appear to have done something I didn't mean to do with fat fingers. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You removed section from Talk page of Patrisse Cullors because of trolling - what trolling and by whom? It is a practice do discuss between editors some topics so what is you reason to remove it? Loesorion (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Talkpages aren't fora for denunciations of "leftists." The editor is free to discuss the subject without shrill attacks on other editors. The editor has been doing this on several subjects with several IPs and will be blocked if they don't change their behavior. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened, I only meant to deal with the IP, not the whole thread. Sorry about that! Acroterion (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion, I noticed your revert of my reply in a talk page discussion between me and another user, ScottishFinnishRadish. This is the kind of thing explicitly discouraged by wp:tpo, which mentions a number of exceptions which don't apply in this case. Self-revert. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be messing around with archive dates, and not explaining what you did - it certainly wasn't just a "reply to ScottishFinnishRadish." If you want to make a change to archiving, explain what you did, and don't use a misleading edit summary. Feel free to reinstate your comment at the very end without all of the archive edits. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, in my experience on enwiki, an edit summary which you suggest is "misleading" has not been considered a sufficient reason to remove a talk page comment that is pertinent to the corresponding article's subject or to an ongoing talk discussion. You could have selectively reverted the lines you objected to while still complying with wp:tpo, or failing that, you could have reinstated only the lines in the discussion when I requested you to. It is strange for you to suggest that I should reinstate my comments there, projecting a sort of undue eagerness to talk to ScottishFinnishRadish in the process, all because you decided a wholesale revert was appropriate in a situation where it clearly wasn't. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, I just saw your most recent edit to that talk page. No further action is needed - thanks! 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

[1]. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Fastest I've seen yet. Nice work. - wolf 02:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, the Evlekis socks are proliferating tonight. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

Please read wp:talk and wp:npov.Pyromilke (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion‬, for removing all the pictures from History of Street Lighting in the United States, I have no choice to erase the links to my website and lighting gallery.net and galleryoflights.org from the External Links area. I'm sorry, but you've given me no choice. I don't want people to go to my website using the external link. I want people to find the Frangioso's Street Lighting Gallery website on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpirman1982 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, then, you have a conflict of interest in any case and have no business posting links to your own websites. Don't use WIkipedia for spamming your personal projects, and please remove links to those endeavors - we're not here to drive traffic to external websites.Acroterion (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Why your revert?

Why are you cluttering the category list with tangential comments that have nothing to do with your edit summary? Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What do I clutter?

I deleted one cat which obviously is incorrect by now, as object in question had been found, crushed, sadly. Was my edit. I saw a comment added by so else there, added one myself, was meant only for those who will sort the cats of this article later.

I left that comment for those in charge not to create a certain cat with only one entry, and prob no real use for the future. There are lots of cats with single or only two to three entries, and they receive 'merger' requests, stay for ever, nb cares to clean afterwards.

I did not create that specific cat, not my job to delete it - but others might think it be not useful. Therefore my comment.

And bc you are quick to accuse sb of wrong-doing:

Do you read twice before changing ath back? Do you realise the intention of those who add sth may be positive, or are you just in the mood to create havoc along your way?

The wp will eventually run out of contributors, and lack most prob importance. With the german wp it is already at that point. Friendly ppl like you are the reason.

How does it feel being on the receiving end?? Feels bad?? Congrats. Hope you just learnt sth.

Nonetheless, greetings. 185.16.53.224 (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

And I removed the other comment line as well, the category can be changed to =make it "Indonesian" instead of "Indonesia" if there is sentiment to do so, but adding comment lines doesn't accomplish much. The gtalkpage or the cateogy would be the place to do so. You are as much in charge as anyone else on WP. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jerry Zipkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, could you have a quick look through the contribution history of NapoleonX (talk), who's been blocked before, please? Their talk page (which they keep blanking) contains stacks of notices, the latest being unexplained blanking at Greta Thunberg and many changes to subjects' names (eg Jr., Snr). Sorry, I haven't the time to pull out edit diffs. Thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You saw my note - since they've been forthcoming with us about things they need help with, we've tried to work with them, but it consumes a lot of volunteer time and patience. Acroterion (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks for the explanatory note. Much appreciated. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there sorry it took a while I would like to put back a part of what I wrote with citations two news articles which directly reference this area and possibly one document/ company report. I will add it to the latest version with two citations New to this so apologise. If the formatting is wrong please feel free to alter Thank you Citizen for the Planet (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Citizen for the Planet

Could you please revoke TPA from them? They keep blanking the block notices. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

thank you for your message AdmiralAkira 18:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed you had posted a warning to their talk page. Despite that, and my 2nd request that they stay off my talk page, (after abusing it), they again posted there. This is repetitive behavior; the misuse of notices and the personal attacks, all from an editor with a total of 12 disruptive edits to project space. I would post an ANI, but I'll await your response. Thanks - wolf 19:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll reinforce my request that they stay away. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that is appreciated, but my concern is not just for my talk page, but their overall behavior, from parroting warnings and requests, abusing notices, abusing edit summaries, and a general confrontational attitude, with no apparent willingness to discuss matters collegially. This isn't even a content dispute, but stems from a message left on their talk page to address their disruptive project space edits, the somewhat bizarre response to that of which is so far lacking in any rational explanation. But if you're keeping an eye on the situation, I'm satisfied with that. Thanks again - wolf 21:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw that, but since they're presently focused on you, and they haven't visited the article talkpage, I figured I'd start there. I try not to do the mean administrator thing unless somebody's obviously up to something, rather than just misinformed or troublesome. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Please tell TWC to stop posting at my talk page. i will comply with your request AdmiralAkira 19:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion, Thank you for comment to my (improper) revision of honorifics for the "Menachem Mendel Schneerson" artile. In which manner does WP (Wikipedia? or something else?) allow using titles. FYI: this is not some "Schneerson" we are talking about, this was a very renown rabbi. Besides, I am pretty sure that major style and grammar guides require titles. Plus, Chabad.org uses his title explicitly. So it seems that the title should be there. How do we overcome this discrepancy? Please advise. Truly, MS

See WP:HONORIFIC - we use their name, no more. No "sir," "reverend," "general," or "rabbi" out in front, in nearly all cases I'm aware of Schneerson's status, but it makes no difference to the policy. And it certainly clutters the article to put it in anywhere somebody's name appears. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

User 50.52.21.250 did replace another nationality with "Jewish" today. (I reverted it.) --152.7.255.228 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that sockpuppet of Cruizir! JavaHurricane 12:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

It's always a pleasure to run into you when we are both dealing with a problematic user. You do very excellent work here and Wikipedia is measurably better because of all your effort. :) --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and the assistance! One of the best things about Wikipedia is the collective work by many editors to deal with trouble. That sometimes gets lost in all of the arguments about things like The/the Beatles. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you are willing to handle REVDEL requests, would you mind deleting this revision? Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

While the IP was certainly trying hard to be irritating, there's no revdel for obnoxious pedantry and mild cussing. It's reserved for things that really shouldn't be publicly viewable. If we did revision deletions for tiresome pedants, we wouldn't have much encyclopedia left after a while. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm not sure most people should see this. Bneu2013 (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"Really shouldn't be publicly viewable" is usually reserved for gross personal abuse, accusations of criminal activity, detailed observations on one's mother's character, things like that. This is a more everyday sort of abuse. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The information I had added comes from a reliable source because it is an academic book, whose work is based solely on existing historical documents and, therefore, verifiable. And that information was removed incorrectly. Also, I added a jurisprudential quote from the International Court of Justice, which it was removed too!!! Isn't that International Court a reliable source???!!! You, Wi-ki-pe-dians, should put back what I added to the page in honor of the truth.Sergio Pelayes (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You will need to make your case on the article's talkpage. The fact of being published doesn't necessarily mean that its addition is permanent. Additionally, quotes from judicial proceedings are explicitly discouraged, as they are primary sources and subject to interpretation. You need to use secondary sources to establish how judicial proceedings are to be interpreted. And you need to adopt a less confrontational attitude toward other editors when they advise you about problems with sourcing, removal of other cited material, and interpretation of primary sources. Acroterion (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You warned me for a "personal attack" on someone else. Could you please explain to me what it is you are referring to? Thank you. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You're harassing BMK and the word "liars" is occurring far too frequently in your comments. You may not skirt PA policy by omitting usernames from your accusations. You were warned at ANI by Black Kite, and now you're warned by me. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If someone deliberately misrepresents what a scholar actually wrote, and uses an entirely false quote as the foundation of an entire article , then what would you call the person who did that? If someone simply makes up "facts" out of their own imagination, what would you call such a person? If exposing that means I was "harassing" someone, then I honestly don't know what to make of it. 197.87.63.222 (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Stop rationalizing your behavior. Stop now, or be siteblocked, not just topic blocked. Final warning. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I just asked for a single rational explanation. And now I'm getting warned with siteblocking? Thanks for confirming my worst fears about humanity. 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You might also want to redact the edit summary of the revert, since it unfortunately also mentions the troll's username? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the more annoying features of reversion is the perpetuation of that sort of thing. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Uh. It's possible (but slightly more time consuming) to undo manually and add an edit summary which doesn't mention the username. Thanks, I think there's still a couple other edits and reverts which might need action... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You might want to look through Special:Contributions/Praxidicae (and thank Praxidicae for their quick reverts) and redact the relevant ones... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an LTA we're playing whackamole with the last few hours. YODADICAE👽 17:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

<ec>Most people don't manually revert, though. I think I got everything for that sock, there's at least one other that was active that I want to catch. Acroterion (talk)

@Acroterion: Hi there, this message is to inform you regarding your edit to Inshallah for unexplained content removal however I believe there is an error as user Prince1917 was the one removing it without providing an explanation in the edit summary. I was patrolling on Recent Changes and came upon the article which was why I undo it. If you think, I make an mistake, please free feel to undo it again. Thanks you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, early morning. Carry on! Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revert my changes to the terrible spelling on the DDT page spelling colour without a u is shocking English and should not be allowed on an important page. Thank you

I left a message explaining why. Don't change national varieties of English spelling and usage without consensus and clear justification. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I was in the process of writing an ANI thread when you blocked, while I think 24 hours is...rather light given his history and our extensive use of kid gloves but I came here to ask if I should still file the ANI thread or if there will be a more formal warning issued that if this behavior continues, the next block/restriction will not be so generous? YODADICAE👽 01:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I purposely made it light - it's either that or a term of several months. There's no bar to further discussion at ANI to see if a community sanction is needed, or a modification of the terms of their topic restriction. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if Florida chills out or doubles down and then proceed. YODADICAE👽 01:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what they'll do - my suggestion of a walk outside hasn't been accepted yet, but there's hope. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said on their talk page, my hope in intervening by removing the original personal attacks on the talk page was that he would take a step back and rethink his approach because I think he's partially right (about Wikipedia's bias which tends to be geared toward Western "white" notability) but screaming racism and bigotry at every disagreement is not the right way and it's disruptive and does a disservice to actual anti-bias and anti-racism efforts on Wikipedia, but now of course, I am the bad guy. I've accepted dozens of his drafts and even improved some as I find the subjects interesting but alas, here we are. YODADICAE👽 01:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

FA has a point, I don't think anybody seriously disagrees with them on that. But he's hurting the cause he's trying to promote by behaving that way. I'm aware of the arguments against being all nice and cooperative and going with the flow, and there are settings where being the stick in the spokes is right and good. This isn't one of those places. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a request from you, please edit the "Ottoman Empire" page on Wikipedia and please state that the Ottomans are a Turkish state and a Turkish dynasty.Thanks in advance History of MONGOL EMPRİE , BRİTİSH EMPRİE AND OTTOMAN EMPRİE (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You've already asked at the talkpage, which is where such requests belong. You will need to be more specific about what you want, anbd you'll need to indicate sources, either new or already in the article. The article already covers the fact that the official language was Oghuz Turkic, and there are several other discussions of the Turkic nature of the central empire. What, specifically, are you asking for? State that on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this qualifies. I noticed that the IP apparently belongs to a school, and has only just had a two year block expire. – ².O.^Boxing 13:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and the IP is now blocked for three years. Thanks for spotting it. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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 and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

Casting men as perpetrators in the Violence Against Men article first paragraph de-legitimizes the rest of the article. Both men and women perpetuate crimes and violence and each of the Violence Against Men or Violence Against Women articles could also have a "(Gender X) are both victims and perpetrators of violence" in the article first paragraph. Perpetrator should not be included in the Violence Against Men article for the same reason it is not included in the first paragraph of the Violence Against Women article. Some examples of Women committing violence: female genital mutilation - included the Female Genital Mutilation article on who does the cutting and also by the number of persons committing child abuse by genders - link added to the Violence Against Men talk page.

Wikipedia articles on men and men's issues should not always lead back to men are bad, men are broken, men are the aggressor, men are toxic in each article. The women's articles do not do this. The men's articles should be about men and not an acknowledgement of men's topic with a sprinkling of negatives about men leading back to men are bad/toxic and women are the victims.

Wikipedia is broader than prefixing favored groups with positive adjectives whenever they are mentioned and prefixing unfavored groups with a negative adjective every time they are mentioned.

Consider the use of "distinguished senior senator" versus "senator" where neither is negative yet the first one casts the senator in a positive light. Wikipedia should avoid this and avoid salting negatives into articles that are not in agreement with the author's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:780b:869:9a8a:517f (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia works with verifiable references, not personal opinions. Men are by far the largest perpetrators of violence against both men and wormen. You do not appear to be making any kind of coherent argument, and in any case, Wikipedia isn't a forum for your personal views. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a valid point that including “as both perpetrators and victims” delegitimizes the article. The Violence Against Men article is about male victims. Important that such a statement could be included in the Violence Against Woman article based on the Wikipedia article on FGM and this is not an attempt to get that included. There are verifiable sources that both males and females commit large numbers of violent acts. Defaulting to men much more than females does not justify salting Violence Against Men with up front negatives. This is a push piece to mislead readers by including men perpetrators in the article head.

Would the article be considered fair if the first sentence is “Violence against men consists of violent acts committed exclusively or proportionally against men and boys; and men are the largest perpetrators of violence against men and women.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:DD15:294B:FF22:DBBF (talk • contribs)

Go to the article talkpage and find consensus for your changes. The lead paragraph of the article (or any other article on Wikipedia) summarizes the sourced content of the body of the article. It isn't changeable according to the views of individual editors, you need to show that it doesn't reflect the sourced content. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

And if you're trying to start an argument about circumcision, you need to re-think your approach. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s well known that a summary of reliable sources can tilt the summary towards or away from on viewpoint. What is your recommendation on how many Wikipedia users are needed for a consensus?

The reason for asking is that suggestions for article changes in even non political articles follow a path of:

1. Propose a change with more than one reliable citation
2. Editor - Multiple requests for more citations
3. Clarification of the change
4. Editor - Mischaracterization of the change as a large one
5. Followed by one of
   1. Editor saying this is not productive and shutting it down
   2. Editor saying it is a personal opinion and not allowed. Even when directly quoted from more than one reliable source.
   3. Editor 2 joining in and asking for clarification and then calling it an opinion
   4. Editor claiming addition is inconsequential and not worthy of inclusion
   5. Editor claiming inclusion changes the view of the article
   6. Editor probing the user to get an argumentative response, name calling response or foul language response
6. Then shutting down the change

This is when the sources are mainstream academic journals or direct quotes from well researched Wikipedia articles.

By this tHousand cuts treatment, fewer new users will be able to add to Wikipedia. The net loss is that Wikipedia gets frozen in an aging mindset.

Think if Wikipedia was largely written in the 1950s with bigoted articles and rarely able to be edited to remove the bigotry.

And none of these are arguing, they are regular discourse.

Your point being? The lead summarizes the sourced body of the article. It can’t depart from that requirement because one editor objects. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for inserting potatoes where they weren't wanted. I was confused by Category:Potato houses, which is a sub-category of Potatoes. Perhaps you could help make it less confusing? I'm clearly not an expert! --Ranveig (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, thanks for bringing it up - there are indeed potato houses in Maine, but the lead sentence had them all mixed up by product and geography - I've tried to disentangle it. Your edit brought that issue to my attention. No apologies needed. Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The Englsih terms are a bit hard to specify - "plain old potatoes" versus sweet potatoes? Maybe you can figure out how to categorize the ambiguity? Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think both vegetables are ambiguously named all over the world! I've added the potato house-category to the category for sweet potatoes. --Ranveig (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, "pommes de terre" and "pommes" is certainly ambiguous in another direction. I'm expanding a little to separate Maine and Delaware and to elaborate on the Acadian potato barns. Thank you for flagging the confusion in that article. 13:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Our friend is ploughing ahead with their changes, without reference to the talk page or their own talk page. Would you take a look? I've probably got myself involved by writing that stuff up on talk. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them from Vaccine for disruptive editing. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I think your would be interested in reading This heading. Thanks. ScholarM (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to this organization when I got an email saying I would be ideal as an administrator. I tagged the article for multiple issues. The editor list is quite thin. What is your first impression as to notability and so on? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems kind of marginal in WP terms, and it's almost entirely self-sourced, which is definitely not on. I'm interested in why they think you'd be a good candidate - my initial impression is that they're selling franchises. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I made this mistake of signing up for some online employment service. As a result, I receive acres of enticing emails every day. I now someplace between amused and annoyed. I am or may not take an interest in this page.--PaulinSaudi (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Acroterion. I'm not confident operating in the realm of range blocks. It would help me out if you could check into the feasibility for blocking the range including 167.98.65.68 (talk · contribs) and 167.98.65.69 (talk · contribs). If you could respond here with any results, I'd appreciate it. If you need to email any info that's fine too. Thanks. Tiderolls 14:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Tide rolls: Since they're right next to each other that would be a /31 block, using this tool [2]

Checking the 167.98.65.0/24 range [3] I see a lot of stuff like this [4]. Legitimate edits are few and far between [5]. Clearly this is a range used by schools. As far as I'm concerned the /24 range can be blocked, and for a long time. We can start with a month - do you want to do the honors?

CUs have told me not to do hard blocks on ranges - shutting out registered users, as it causes grief on their end when they have to investigate.

I still don't understand IPv6 to be terribly confident beyond/64 ranges. I'm working on that. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel confident in executing the block; I know it's irrational because it's not that terribly complicated. Apologies. Tiderolls 15:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I would hesitate about a /16 block and would probably talk to a CU first for anything but a very short block. A /24 block covers only 256 addresses. I can apparently think in 32-bit terms, but have trouble with the 128-bit addressing in IPv6. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

2 years ago you decided to send me a note about what I introduced for discussion and correction regarding the bombing of Dresden. Instead of taking the notes I suggested as reference to further comment on the subject. You in your Wiki Glory decided to instead not take what I had written as conjecture and a means to open a discussion but rather you decided to comment on my comment and tell me I was using the Talk aspect of Wikipedia incorrectly. I can only hope that since then you have found other ways to fill your time. You see.........Wikipedia is not necessarily factual. Many subjects or topics are biased by opinion and/or ignorance among other things. So rather than editing the content of the page regarding the bombing of Dresden I chose to offer my 2 cents worth and if someone deemed it relevant or worthy then someone might be inspire to add my ideas to the main page. That era of history is very touchy and horrible. I feel your comment was both unwarranted and short sighted. I wish I had noticed your comment on the day instead of 2 years later. If I had I would have told you then what I'm going to say now. Find a pretty girl that shares your interests and values and work up the nerve to kiss her. If you do I think you'll find much more gratifying ways of filling your time than policing Wikipedia. Should it further serve your ego to anonymously engage users of Wikipedia then feel free to lash out at me in response to this message. I would be happy to berate you if only to make obvious your meak and likely lonely existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMCS231 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not necessarily factual." Uh-huh. NEXT! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sooo many things wrong with your post IMCS231 starting with the fact that you don't know how to spell the word "meek" Facepalm Acroterion you are a marvelous editor. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 15:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Reported at AN/I as "NOTHERE". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we are biased, towards serious historians and academic sources and against false moral equivalences and dubious points of views. Nothing to see here, already reported to ANI, move on. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Bless your heart. I've marked my 2023 calendar, anticipating your very polite reply. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't even understand what their original monologue was about because its not as if that article is doing some kind of coverup. The bombings are well analyzed and I do not see any evidence that those that were critical of these bombings have had their prominent views suppressed. But, hey they get a brownie point for registering a username at least!--MONGO (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I keep the article on my watchlist because it occasionally gets hit by drive-by fascism enthusiasts; it's one of HarveyCarter's favorites. There are frequent arguments about death tolls, apparently under the premise that everything is knowable if one is willing to argue about it long enough to win. So it tends to attract a lot of hostile pedantry. Given the length and jumble, I'm guessing this is one is a both-sides-were-repugnant advocate. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I AGF'd as hard as I could to see the possibility that that post was genuine in intent. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I broke my AGF. I did give them the links that you posted. Crikey. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably for the best. Now to find where I left my brain bleach. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me from having to research that. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu - so much for AGF [6]. I'm probably being too kind with only a week. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

FFS. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for doing the necessary, I expected that, but was called away by domestic matters. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad that that's over, but sorry to have experienced it in the first place. I really can't tell if it's ignorance or a deliberate strategy. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably both, spiked with prurient curiosity. We're going to see more of this kind of thing (figuratively, I hope I mean) Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Acroterion. Thank you for blocking Iporosh for advertising or promotion. I've nominated Iporosh's user page for speedy deletion under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion since it is a page that advertises or promotes something. Would you consider deleting this page? Hayleez (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's advertising, which is why I didn't delete it. I suggest moving it to draft space. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, Fastily deleted User:Iporosh under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I thanked Fastily. Hayleez (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to me, or at least an attempt at improving SEO for a non-notable service/business. -FASTILY 04:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That's fine.At first glance it was above the usual run of spam and SEO stuff. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Farfisa2000 Farfisa2000 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Moved from user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• And I'm amply aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring and sourcing. If you restore that again, you will be reported at WP:AN3. Acroterion (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • And you Too will be Reported! Remember thatFarfisa2000 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Acroterion, it just doesn't stop, does it. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm very concerned that it will go on my permanent record - that used to strike fear into us all when we were 8. Strangely, 50-odd years later, I have escaped the consequences, and no employer has asked to see it. Was there a Dutch version? Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I've always wanted to see my "permanent record" -- who can I call? Is there a super secret agency somewhere? There was that time I was hurling snowballs into traffic, you know, and some 55+ community might not want me. :( Antandrus (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
          • At that age I imagined my future self as old (like 28), living in the woods, an outcast because of my conduct in second grade while playing duck-duck-goose. Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
          • According to a very reputable source (American Dad) your permanent record is kept in the basement of the CIA in Langley, Virginia. Perhaps Seth Macfarlane might be able to help you get a look at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
            • And, yes, that D-D-G fiasco will certainly be on it. That's why they call it "permanent". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
              • Hey, I got sent to the principal's office for that - if that doesn't go on your permanent record, nothing will. However, at seven, I was perceptive enough to see that the principal was a little perplexed about why I was there. In hindsight, my teacher was probably not well-regarded by administration - certainly not by my mother, a teacher herself, who had some pointed comments. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
                • Well there was that time in fourth grade when I refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance along with the other kids. Maybe it's on the credit report in the fine print, or will bite me when I need a security clearance. Yes, that's when it will emerge from the depths. Antandrus (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

Hi Acroterion, could you RevDel this BLP violating edit: [7] made by now blocked user Nonsensestopper, please? Thanks! Some1 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense stopped. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the partial block regarding Preston Sturges. I doubt 24 hours is going to be enough, though. The IP has refused to post on the article talk page, but posted on mine and another editor's talk page. They appear to be unable to take the information in the article anything but literally. Perhaps you can keep an eye on the article and the editor for a couple of days? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I pretty much expect the same thing. We'll see if it sinks in. Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Acroterion. I spotted the above account having a right old vandalism party over at the Eurovision article, a similar-looking account name did the same Philippines editing attempt this morning, which means I'm on 2-reverts in 24 hours, so I have to be careful. I'm not an admin so my powers are limited. I've left a message at the Eurovision project page to make them aware. Good luck in dealing with JC. doktorb _words^deeds 22:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that you've blocked the IP address 24.228.152.76 for 24 hours subsequent to their argument with myself and User:Beyond My Ken on Preston Sturges. Prior to being blocked, however, they left a long and thought-out message on my talk page explaining their rationale for the edit; in light of this, I think that they were at best justified in making it, and at worst they're willing to engage in discussion about it. I realize that blocking policy does not smile fondly on people requesting unblocks on behalf of other editors, but I think there's a chance this block was in error. jp×g 22:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A "long and thought out rationale", but not justified, as the editor does not recognize the difference between literalness and figurativeness.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

And edit-warring doesn't have an "I'm right" exemption. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like an explanation of how my behavior warrants random administrator action, but someone else's does not. I'm well aware that the removal of a comment on someone's talk page is an acknowledgment of the comment, but clearly, the edit summary in the removal shows it was not understood. Someone broke an article, clearly on accident, and their error was fixed, and for that, I get a warning template and told I was disrupting the article. I offer to explain why my edit was made, and in exchange, it's called harassment. Where is an administrator to tell someone that their behavior is uncalled for? How is that not obnoxious to have to deal with? The³5₉ (Talk) 03:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Editors who remove comments from their talkpages are assumed to have read and understood the comment. Continuing to repost after something's been removed is frequently seen as harassment. Please practice de-escalation. Both of you have said what you said. That's enough. Demanding apologies never works. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

But what is calling an editor a harasser, troll, or disruptor when they clearly are making correct edits seen as? Just something to ignore? Do you not see that in doing this reversion and nothing else, it shows that his behavior is seen as okay by an administrator? The³5₉ (Talk) 04:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I could have warned you both. I didn't, because you both already know better. I expect you both to stop picking at each other. Please oblige me. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I was the only one warned. What else is there to warn me for? Correcting someone's mistake? Then trying to tell them they were wrong to misinterpret my edits as vandalism? At what point in any of this did I suddenly become someone worthy of a warning? I'd argue that the edit summaries and actions of the other user show a clear case of not knowing better. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed your comment and explained why I did it in the edit summary. That’s all. Nobody was warned. Please stop trying to find something to argue about, I’m not playing along. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you explained it as stating that I was being obnoxious. In other words, don't continue to do it. If I were to revert his talk page again, I'm 99% sure some action would be taken. I'm pretty certain that makes it a warning. And I sure as hell wasn't looking for something to argue about, I fixed an article and now I have to deal with an administrator who doesn't want to take the time to explain his inaction toward someone clearly being inappropriate in his behaviour toward other editors. I'd appreciate an explanation of where in the span of my edits I became someone that needed my comment removed and explained (but not warned). The³5₉ (Talk) 04:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting this here as a neutral place, and because Acroterion is already involved as an admin. First, I totally misunderstood why the short description was being deleted. I was solely viewing the diff, and not looking at the whole page, and the edit summaries of the reverts gave no clue to what was actually wrong. Once I saw the broken infobox, I immediately fixed it. After that, I reacted badly to User:The359's post on my page, and for that, I apologize. In the future, I will try to make sure I'm not reverting to a bad version of a page. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This might interest you Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcelite - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've never encountered Mcelite, but the two new editors are up to something. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoosaGA1, were 2 of the socks were also caught. BilCat (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that settles it, and they're all blocked. I'll hat that discussion. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

They are actual nicknames. They aren’t silly names. I don’t understand why you can’t grasp this. Landonsch22 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

How many messages have been left on your talkpage about inappropriate unsourced edits to this encyclopedia? Acroterion (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

So if I correctly source them. Are they allowed? Because they are accurate. Landonsch22 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Do they have enduring significance in the person's life, suitable for inclusion in a worldwide biography, on a scale similar to, say, Babe Ruth? As opposed to sports chat fanboy silliness? Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me. Jsopaaōd (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it ok if I can talk with you. Jsopaaōd (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you do one edit if you can be able to edit it horror film the 1970s–1980s section I think it would be better if you split it into a 1970s section and a 1980s section like this
1890s–1910s
1920s
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
on horror film the reason for it to make it look modern and even. Jsopaaōd (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Horror film and make your case there. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

But I can't edit on it's somehow protected could you be able to do it? Jsopaaōd (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Forgive the intrusion: your talk page is on my watch list.) Looking at this edit, I see why the article's talk page is protected. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I just caught onto what's going on - thanks. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

<ec>:That's probably because a series of abusive sockpuppets were disrupting the talkpage to propose the same thing this account is trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that the edit history at Huldra's page still contains the threat. Shouldn't that also be deleted? regards Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. Revdel before breakfast is not always complete. Acroterion (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

p.s.: #@$%&! Sinebot. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Huldra (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. JpSears12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked after he repeatedly removed sourced content. Now the user is unblocked, but started to remove sourced content again with no adequate explanation. Could you please block the user? Thank you in advance. --Renat 16:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Let's see what they do. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I did add a note to explain where I got the information from, but I did offer to upload the document so that you can see that the information is genuine (although a little of it is from my personal knowledge).

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 on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy