User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q3 2011

Invasion of Saudi Arabia

unwanted arrival of foreign military officers constitutes an invasion. That is denotative, not connotative. What I said in that respect is irrefutable true and necessitates no source other than a dictionary. I find your sweeping generalizations of the quality of my writing to be offensive and false. As for the word "inference" I recommend you consult a dictionary. The article as it stands is obtuse and utterly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenWiley (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then discuss it with other editors on the article's talkpage. You are inserting your own opinion directly into the article, which is very far from what recognized sources state. The perception of an invasion is an important concept in the context of the article, but it's not for you to state as an editor: it requires referenced statements by authoritative sources. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Rescuing the text of former article

Please give me the code of article which you've deleted. It is about the article named “Different between plants and animals”. I need it to put that data in the few related articles on Wikipedia. Regards, Alex ^discussion 20:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion...

Why did you go and delete my page?! It took me a good hour or so to make it that good! Come on man, it's like I'm an ice sculpture artist and you're a fat lazy guy that goes and leans on my project and breaks it! Don't do this to me man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecamronmoore (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As the note on your talkpage explains, you shouldn't create autobiographies and you're not notable. Wikipedia isn't a personal webspace provider. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

QUIT BEING A BUZZKILL JEEEZZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.20.80 (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you vaporise the link to his Facebook profile, as seen on his userpage? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 22:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not against policy that I'm aware of to have a link to one's Facebook page in userspace. Am I wrong? Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that under the influence of protecting younger editor's privacy. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(adding) Also, is there a more civilised way to say "nobody gives a flying fig" when they ask why their article was deleted? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at the privacy angle too: assuming they're really 18 as they claim, I don't see a privacy issue; if they self-identify, I won't remove it unless they ask. On the other hand I've seen a lot of 9 and 11 year olds recently, with too much information and have been very aggressive in removing material in such cases. As for the second part, I don't think there's any polite way to say that we really can't be arsed to be a repository for their self-promotion. I usually resort to a bland discussion of WP:NOTE/BIO/BAND/CORP. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Deadly Coordinates

By the time you read this I'll probably have blocked him as a sockpuppet, but see my post at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Displaying a formula"

Hi! I notice that you reverted User:Deadly Coordinates' move of Help:Displaying a formula to Help:Displaying a mathematical formula without giving a reason. May I ask why the old name was better? —Tanner Swett (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked under two usernames so far and has a history of problematic moves. While I have no opinion on the appropriate name in this particular case, consensus at AN/I was in favor of the status quo ante for this user's moves. See the note directly above.Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject West Virginia

It was recently suggested that WikiProject West Virginia might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Deborah Presley Brando Article

Hello! You have deleted a page entitled "Deborah Presley Brando", she was married to Christian Brando, elder child of actor Marlon Brando. here is an internal link to her husband Christian, where you can see it's talking about her in the marriage section.Christian_Brando , Could we start an article about her based on that? thx Antonio --Antoniomecheri (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to try, providing you have good sources, but in general marriage to someone notable doesn't create notability for the spouse, nor does descent from a notable person. I don't see this convergence making her notable, but opinions may differ. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

She also claimed that she was the illegitimate daughter of Elvis presley, the courts could not prove the opposite was true. she was found to have been the illegitimate daughter of Elvis by the supreme court of Tennessee, but could not inherit cause she was not lawful, it was in Elvis's will, which stated no unlawful child shall inherit from his estate. she was also the daughter in law of actor Marlon Brando. so, shall i start over an article, cause the last one was deleted? thx --Antoniomecheri (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI -- deletion discussion. Antonio, please be careful of our biographies of living persons policy. Antandrus (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So why is she mentioned on wikipedia's Christian Brando's article, in the content "marriage and spousal abuse?", that could be considered as nonsense too! and she has a million "mainstream media" good and verifiable sources all over Print and internet. what makes someone notable? Her claim was overturned by the Tenessee courts from non illigitimate to illigitimate but without inheritance rights. please, do your homework before concluding. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniomecheri (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Also, you have a page about Bonnie Lee Bakley, which was the wife of Robert Blake, Bonnie_Lee_Bakley,Bonnie_Lee_Bakley who based on your arguments she does not qualify as notable by marriage, (same case as Deborah Presley Brando)!!! or by inheritance, but yet you have a page of her ??? why are you discriminating here? a similar article can be written about Deborah, yet she is more notable than Bonnie, that i can tell you. check it out!--Antoniomecheri (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Antandrus for reminding me of the deletion debate: I wouldn't re-create it. I am entirely uninterested in comparing this case to others: all must stand on their own, and your abrupt jump into complaint ("I" do not run WP) makes me believe that you aren't sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia policies to create an acceptable article at this point. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You interested or not is not owned by you! you do not own wikipedia to remind you. millions than you are interested and open minded to this. you may have a problem with constructive debate, that s your problem and for you to make such a mediocre claim that i'm not familiar with this and that is not necessary, this is not the bible, remember it has not been written by almighty god but by people like us. so respect my right to express myself, sincerely yours Antonio Mecheri--Antoniomecheri (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC) And i'm inviting other people but you to this debate and re-write this article, you r uninterested, im disinterested of your inappropriate comments about me writing an appropriate article, please read your last reply.--Antoniomecheri (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You have no right to self-expression or free speech on Wikipedia, nor may you write anything you wish, particularly in a biography. If you have nothing new to contribute to the article beyond what was discussed in the deletion debate that took place only last week, it will be immediately deleted. Since Cirt has kindly placed the deleted content in your userspace for development, you can concentrate on improving it there. As for my disinterest, you appear to be confused: I am not in interested in comparing the Bakley article to this one, a matter of firm WP policy: claiming other stuff exists is irrelevant in these situations. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure I do! this wikipedia was built by people like me who expresses their rights to free speech and expression. you r delusional, I have not by all means written a thing that you alleged i wrote about anybody in any particular biography. all was written based on verifiable facts and sources. Assumption should also be a sin on wikipedia. You make it look like you r doing me a favor by letting me contribute, remember that this whole Wikipedia was written by people like me and for free! now, you sure can enforce certain wikipedia policies but in the mean while you let them slide on other articles. Reminder, policies should apply to all! that is why I brought up other article on wikipedia to compare. We all should equal in the face of wikipedia! Antonio Mecheri--Antoniomecheri (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the useful links that Cirt asked you to read, you might want to look at WP:FREESPEECH and WP:OSE for more background on why the points you raise tend not to be persuasive on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

[1] Good of you =) Nikthestoned 13:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome: Favonian recognized him as somebody's sock and blocked them. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this fellow I believe... Nikthestoned 13:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	It's good how you don't just use fixed messages for deletion, you use your own which can sometimes be funny. Puffin Let's talk! 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think I'd been very amusing recently! Acroterion (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandals

[2] What intelligent human openly vows to continue vandalising immediately after expiration of a block? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Massachusetts Fascist Movement

The MFM is a real political movement that deserves a place on Wikipedia. Its funny how all these socialist and communist movements can stay on Wikipedia, but the minute a fascist group is created it gets deleted. Isn't Wikipedia for information? well maybe people want information about the MFM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dackkorto (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"The moment a group is created" is a bit premature for listing on Wikipedia, which requires that article subjects have received significant coverage in major independent media. A group that was formed last week is unlikely to have received any useful coverage just yet, and is therefore not eligible for inclusion, since we require that articles be written from reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Whats the reason for deleting my page? Its an organization devoted to helping the people of Massachusetts. Granted it was only formed last week, but still. Dackkorto (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See above: no press = no notability. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the kinda double post. Thank you for your time Dackkorto (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, there's no prejudice to re-creation once the organization receives coverage - it's just way too soon. Acroterion (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

American exceptionalism edit

I received a message from you about my edit of the "American exceptionalism" page. I wanted to let you know that my edit was intentional. I understand that I'm new and have a lot to learn about WP: guidelines. That being said, I feel my edit was valid. I justified my edit on the discussion page of the article. If they can show me, using their source, that American Communists were the "first" to use the phrase "American exceptionalism", than I would be OK with it. The fact is, the source that they cite states that they "used" the phrase, not that they invented it. I thought it innapropriate to include in the summary portion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyJ160 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; it wasn't very apparent without an edit summary, and your edit to the talk page took out part of a signature. It's usually best to wait a day or so to see if there is a response on the talk page before removing something; I think someone's already responded. I was mostly concerned about the unexplained nature of the removal. Check in on the talk page and see if you can get a conversation started. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

A brownie as a reward for your hard work! Atterion(Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Fagreterion, it seems you still haven't learned what I told you. Now leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldBoyofWCGSV2 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kids these days ... get off my lawn you young hoodlums! Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti vandalism

I was thinking if I had the qualities an admin had and I was reading the guides to Rfa, I was thinking about it because I do a lot of vandalism reverts and wanted to be able to block the vandals. Also, delete pages which meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It said to ask an active admin if they think that my contributions reflect the points I made above so, do you think my edits are good? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Aiss

Hi, you deleted my page. Actually, Robert Aiss SHOULD be listed in wikipedia because, as an up and coming film director, I was curious to know who he was when he first got in contact with me. I googled him and I all could find was slanderous articles on ONE website. I took my chances and met up with him anyways and all the stuff written about him was FAR from the truth. He is the real deal and so far I've made numerous contacts in Hollywood and am now on my way to the top.

Robert has worked with many film Legends such as Otto Preminger and John Schlesinger and is only looking for TALENT. When he does find Talent, it's hard for that talent to see what they're getting into because of certain things written about him. There's is currently a defamation suite being filed against the person who wrote that stuff. So again, I'm speaking for myself and any future artists that he may find that this wikipedia page is definitely beneficial and SHOULD be available to the public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_aiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes Sangco (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia notability is established by accomplishments that are documented in reliable sources, not by association with other notable individuals. All biographies must be appropriately sourced. Wikipedia isn't a good place to fight a public relations campaign or to refute alleged unfavorable press. Anytime someone is described as "up and coming," it is an implication that the subject is not yet notable. If you have multiple, independent reliable sources in major media concerning the subject, please use those to make a credible assertion of notability, rather than listing the notable people he's worked with. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Severe T'snow Warning...

...Is not a club term. The DCWS is a highly professionalized organization which dedicates itself to providing warnings to help people. That is not the act of a club. It spends hours at a time, when its members could easily be doing other things, tracking storms and writing warnings for the public. That is not the act of a club. No. The DCWS is no club. It may not be as well known as the National Weather Service. It may not have quite as many forecasters. It may be limited by it's size of workforce. But it is no club. It is significant. The DCWS has provided warnings for storms that the National Weather Service didn't see. The DCWS issued a Tornado Warning in Jackson, MS before the National Weather Service did. That is no club act. That is significant. --Bowser423 (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Has any of this been covered in reliable sources? It looks like something that you have originated on your own, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. While I appreciate your enthusiasm on the subject, from what you've written, this appears to be a more-professional-than-most high school meteorology club. That's a good thing, but not of sufficient stature to be covered in a global encyclopedia, unless there's been significant coverage of the organization in major publications. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To address point-by-point,

- Has any of this been covered in reliable sources? What has not been placed in published online documents is being documented. the DCWS Severe Weather Glossary covers most of the alerting terms.

- While I appreciate your enthusiasm on the subject, from what you've written, this appears to be a more-professional-than-most high school meteorology club. This is not a club. DCWS forecasters and spotters would take offense at being called a club. In particular DCWS storm spotters bring themselves out of their way to report severe conditions to the DCWS LFOs.

- That's a good thing, but not of sufficient stature to be covered in a global encyclopedia, unless there's been significant coverage of the organization in major publications. There is a significant impact on the local culture of Dublin. If the Terrible Towel can have an article, then this is a similar case of local cultural significance.

--Bowser423 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that notability on Wikipedia is established by reference to multiple independent sources of significant standing, and that subjects may not resort to self-sourcing. If the only source on a subject is itself, it's not notable, because it has not received independent notice. With all due respect to Dublin, Ohio, local organizations in small towns are generally not notable. Has the DCWS received coverage in major Ohio newspapers, or better yet, national newspapers? Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dublin is not a small town. Dublin has the best school district in the state of Ohio (statistically), is a City and not a town as defined by Ohio, has the number 3 football team in the state, Muirfield Village of golf's Memorial Tournament, and over 41,000 residents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not addressing the issues, you're obfuscating things like "town" and "club" without dealing with the main problem: you're provided no indication at all that the subject complies with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.--Bowser423 (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been attempting to address the issues individually as you bring them up. --Bowser423 (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

<undent>You're quoting from a tagging template guideline. See WP:CSD, specifically CSD A7, which is the directly applicable policy. You will note that I've tagged only the DCWS article for speedy deletion, as it falls within the speedy deletion guidelines for organizations with no credible assertion of notability. Notability in Dublin, Ohio (giving that the benefit of the doubt, as it's not supported by any independent references) and nowhere else is not enough. The thundersnow warning was originally tagged for proposed deletion, since it's not suitable for speedy deletion, but since you contested it, it's at Afd. Whether it's a speedy, PROD or AfD, your energies would be better spent establishing and documenting notability by reference to independent published sources. I've mentioned that two or three times now. It's vital. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for you to promote your own organization; since you like to read policy, please read WP:COI; you're far too close to your subject. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The TSN-W article was written because it was a little-known alert type which is now instrumental in protecting lives/property during Blizzard T'snow. The information being made available is part of how widespread fame of an item begins. On the point of the DCWS article, I don't even know what to respond on that anymore. I know many other sources who could be asked, and tell someone, about the DCWS. Published sources are slim due to the recent-born (6/29/2010) nature of the DCWS. DCTV (The Dublin Coffman HS lunchtime news program) once ran a DCWS-created LF, and is planning to run daily LFs this year. I can't say much more for it. --Bowser423 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to take a particular interest in critiquing new articles... this is meant in no way to offend/attack/critisize. --Bowser423 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Little-known" generally means "not eligible for inclusion because it can't be sourced." As your statement above makes clear, this is a local high school club that has received no press at all, and is therefore not notable. As for my frequent critiques of new articles, yes, I do a lot of that: I do a lot of new article patrol and deletion, or at least tagging for deletion. People naturally object to having their work deleted, so I try to help them understand why this is happening. Spammers and vandals get less consideration. Since you're contributing in good faith, I'm willing to talk it over with you to see if there's some way your work can be brought into comp[liance with the guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800

Thank you for removing that reference to KAL Flight 007. I was about to do it, but then I saw you did it so thanks. I still can't believe after 16 years some people still believe it was shot out of the sky by our own military. Fighting for Justice (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar thought, and in fact had reverted two such edits earlier today, but the editor who inserted the most recent link has a history of spamming links to KAL 007 through a variety of aviation-related articles, so it's not a given that the intent was to link the causes. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This may be helpful...

...for reference in future deletion disputes like the ones on this talk page by other users and myself. WP:YOA --Bowser423 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(butting in) -- Bowser, nice work -- really. You're a quick study. I don't think we have an essay equivalent to that one yet, and we have needed one. Please have a look around our meteorology articles; there's a lot of good stuff I'm sure you can contribute. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What Antandrus said: that's a fine summary, and it reflects well upon your ability to assimilate the culture here and take advice to heart. There are several essays along those lines. WP:BAI is another one, and there are others more or less funny or scathing, such as WP:DUMB and WP:1000THINGS. Yours is more kind than those, a good thing. It's pretty clear that you're doing well with WP's steep learning curve, and since WP is written and managed by meticulous detail-obsessives, given the impressive level of effort you've put into the DCWS I think you'd fit right in. Wikipedia has a dedicated corps of serious editors on weather-related topics: an astounding number of hurricanes have featured articles about them, and I'd like to encourage you to see if there are any places in WP content where you can get your feet wet and improve the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already adopted the WP:TYPO "Hurricaine" and also seeked out "tronado" and "torando". I am putting the edit summary down as "TypoPurge - [typo]". As an anon several weeks ago I made a fix to a critical error regarding warning flags in TC watches/warnings. The major issue I have most noticed is the lack of an example in Storm warning of an actual marine Storm Warning, or, for that matter, an inland Storm Wind Warning. I will be awaiting the issuance of such an alert from the NWS (since consensus says a DCWS alert is not currently notable) so that it can be made into an example. An internet search for warning text has turned up no results, so it's a waiting game. I am particularly interested in Severe weather, so many of my improvements will likely be ones such as these. --Bowser423 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look for improper application of toronado too: just remember that an Oldsmobile Toronado was a ghastly vehicle of the 1970s that limped into the 1990s, so don't fix those, it really was spelled that way. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Is there a way to flag a page as having correct information which looks similar to a typo? --Bowser423 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You can embed noinclude notes, but that's a programming hack that's not really appropriate in most cases. Wikimarkup's already hard enough for most people to understand without having lots of notes embedded into the editing panel. By the way, Hurricane Danny (1997)'s the WP:TFA; the article featured on the front page. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid

If you insist on removing any statements that suggest the pyramids in Bosnia are legitimate, by stating there's no proof they are what people claim them to be, then you are just flat out wrong. The wiki site states in the very first line that they are natural formations, yet there have been numerous studies by accredited scientists that say otherwise, yet people are only listening to the nay-sayers.

At very least, it should be indicated that there has *yet* to be conclusive evidence that they are in fact the world's largest man-made stone structures. There is as much evidence to say that they ARE man-made, and that they ARE a work of engineering wonder.

I'm not arguing that the entire page should be stated like this, but it should be stated that the answer is NOT CONCLUSIVE until more research has been done, and more land has been excavated. By simply dismissing it as a hoax, you are doing a disservice to people who are looking for real information.

With the underwater temple in Japan being older than the pyramids in Egypt, and the temple in Turkey known as Gobleki Tepe being over 11000 years old, and of the same monolithic magnitude as the Bosnian Pyramids, the argument that the major 'scientists' are making, namely "they were hunter gatherers who didn't possess the technology or know-how to make such a structure, therefore the mere thought is absurd" argument just DOESN'T hold water anymore.

Edit: http://bpblognews.blogspot.com/2010/06/prof-ezra-zubrwo-investigate-who-built.html A link from a reputable professor who says they are in fact pyramids and they should continue research 'unfettered'. People use wikipedia is a source of fact (unfortunately), and keeping this type of information censored is tantamount to a modern day book burning. (sorry for the multiple edits, I'm new to the wiki editing thing) http://bpblognews.blogspot.com/2010/06/prof-ezra-zubrwo-investigate-who-built.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyending1 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're constructing a synthesis from a very small piece of information by implying that the presence of concrete on the mountain indicates a man-made origin.You're also removing well-documented skepticism on the nature of the hills. The fact that the article exists at all is in itself a statement that a number of theories exist on the nature of the hills, but the fact is that the theory is being promoted on slender evidence by a single researcher and his followers. That is what sources tell us, and that is how the article is written. PPlease stop edit-warring to include your overly broad conclusions. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the multiple posts; it would help if you avoided cries of "censorship" or "book-burning:" if such things applied the article wouldn't exist at all. However, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning that it publishes information that has already been published elsewhere, and reflects a consensus of thought on a given subject, including significant minority views. This is reflected in the article. Wikipedia just reports what is stated on the subject. There is room for improvement in the article, particularly on the side of the man-made proponents, but it has suffered from editors who can't set aside their outrage that the man-made claim is disputed, and who wish to use Wikipedia as a means to settle the debate in their favor. That isn't Wikipedia's purpose. The consensus of reliable sources strongly disputes the claim of man-made origin, terming it a "hoax" in strikingly sharp terms, and until that changes, the article must follow those sources. If the experts change their minds and publicly state that they have, the article must follow. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Swaggeristic

I created the accounts Snipes Swaggeristic and i understand it has been deleted but why does the article still come up on google when will it clear? (Snipesmc)== Deletion of Edwin Kiddo ==

Isn't wikipadia about information for the people? I am a real person and I posted the description of what I do.

The deletion of my post, goes against what wikipedia's supposed purpose.

Do you only allow posting of the Rich and Famous?? You must me quite a snob. Shame on you.

Edwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinsamayoa (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to document notable people, things and events. It isn't an indiscriminate repository, and requires that entries on people be both notable and sourced to reliable references. See WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Musical acts are required to meet WP:BAND's requirements. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Google will retain the information about deleted pages for a period of time known only to Google, from hours to days, but it will eventually drop out of their cache. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

As I replied to the other person on July 1st, articles must be about notable subjects: that is Wikipedia policy, which we enforce. It isn't a place for you to promote yourself. We do indeed expect subjects to be famous, in a manner of speaking: that's the point and the purpose of Wikipedia, to document notable information, not an indiscriminate depository for information. Rich, not so much. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuku- socks

Special:ListUsers/Fuku Looks like a lot of socks were pre-created. Block many of these on basis of username and WP:DUCK.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Already done. I didn't bother with the old ones, and only one new one was unblocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Hey Acroterion, I've semi-protected this page for a week as per this request by Neutralhomer. If you don't like it, by all means modify/remove the protection settings to your satisfaction. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 23:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't he retire? --Σ ^talk_contribs 23:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably unprotect it, since it's useful as a troll-catcher. NH seems to have returned for now. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Σ: I snuck in the backdoor, shhh! :) @Acroterion: I still have your page on my watchlist, I will keep an eye on the page and if anymore sockpuppets show up, I will revert them for you (after you take the protection off). Let me know if I can be of assistance in anything you are doing. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

Hello!

Do you reckon that Talk:Amy Winehouse should be locked? Just it does seem to be undergoing a fair bit of vandalism at the moment but because it's a talk page I'm not sure if it should be locked?--5 albert square (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's ok now Bongwarrior's protected it. Phew! I was starting to go dizzy with all that reverting!--5 albert square (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was off doing dishes, feeding dogs and so on. Glad it got sorted. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A misunderstanding

I think you and several other users misunderstood my request at AN for editors to review the closure of the ban discussion. The ban discussion was closed by Penwhale (talk · contribs) as "No ban enacted because it is pointless" (paraphrase). I disagreed with the close because it was against overwhelming community consensus to ban the user. See my comment here to Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that such ban requests are useless process-mongering that waste time and effort best used elsewhere and which give simple vandals and trolls more exposure than they warrant. They also beget yet more process churn of the kind seen today if Ts and Is aren't crossed and dotted. If someone wants to let it run longer, I really don't care; the result will be the same, just as it would be if there never had been a ban request. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fatimiya

Hello Acroterion, User:Fatimiya keeps repeating the same personal attacks on the AFD. The personal attacks don't serve to further any points relevent to the AFD, and I don't take kindly to those personal attacks. Can they be removed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it seems very likely that this editor is the same editor from 2008 that was blocked for constant personal attacks, and eventually suckpuppetry to get around the blocks. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SecretChiefs3,Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thamarih and [3]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't repeated the accusation since 12:01, so I'm not going to sanction him unless he continues. I'm well aware that this kind of attack is commonly used to try to discredit an editor who's active in a given subject area; the Balkan articles are rife with this sort of thing. Obviously, we have no CU data from 2008 anymore, but the aggressive behavior is similar, to the point of asking for three or four more "admin reviewers" in the hopes of finding somebody more sympathetic to his attacks than me; I'll keep an eye on things, and probably collapse the PAs in the AfD. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I note also that there is no Dr. Burch listed on the faculty of UQ, in English, Media Studies and Art History or anywhere else. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your even-handed approach. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If the AfD starts to get out of hand I'll raise it at AN/I (or you can if I'm not around: I'll be in and out today). Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see Bahai Internet Agency which the same user has just created which I believe is an attack page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a straight copy from here from another wiki]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion, there's been more personal attacks on the AFD page by user Fatimya. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another case of attacking the editors rather than their points. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

15:29, 25 July 2011 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Arrow Storage Products" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

You have deleted my page because you said it was advertising or promotion. I am trying to rewrite this and would like your input. WHat would you like to see besides what I have written already? Thanks Gmitros

I'd suggest you write a userpage draft at User"Gmitros/sandbox, scrupulously avoiding promotion (i.e., material like "Find the shed that fits your needs") This is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for advertising. The Lowes and Home Depot articles have their problems, but not that. Please review WP:YFA, WP:SPAM and WP:COI, as well as WP:NOTE: You'll need independent references to substantiate notability. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How?

How did I alienate TC members? I specifically volunteered to defer to them.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping the skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 13:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not do not indicate a high level of approval of your efforts from project members. Acroterion (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But how is that me alienating them rather than vice versa?  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Friday (Rebecca Black)

During the initial furore in March, you deleted and salted this. Since then a substantial article has developed at Friday (Rebecca Black song), and there was a request at REFUND to make this one into a redirect. That seemed reasonable, so I have done it, but as it meant overriding your protection I thought I should let you know. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem: that all happened three days after the song was released. Since then, things have, erm, changed. Acroterion (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

MAMEhub

I note that you deleted MAMEhub under the A7 criteria; please note that A7 does not cover software, and a series of web server programs are clearly software. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like half the admin corps has had a whack at it: I took it as a chat system/web feature rather than software, on closer reflection it appears you're right. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed; I've been telling them off too :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to pull WikiProject Wyoming under WikiProject United States

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Wyoming, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussions on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Poonam Pandey

I have created a new article on Poonam Pandey on 6th August,2011. It was deleted by you before on 1st April. Please have a look at it and comment. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 11:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Updating of Belgian Community information

Hi,

the page Template:Infobox_Belgium_Municipality/Population puts automatic information of NIS in the part population Template:Infobox_Belgium_Municipality

example look to Aalst, Belgium, it's 2006, look the dutch one http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aalst_(Oost-Vlaanderen) and you have the 2010 information

so you can't change it you're self but the current information is quite old 2006!

there is a list of 2010 on http://economie.fgov.be/nl/binaries/Pop%20Bevolk%2001012010_v2_f_tcm325-109882.xls

is it please possible for someone to update this?

it's really ridiculous because on the dutch page everything is 2010 but when people of other countries update information they look mostly on the english page and copy that information so they put the 2006 information of the english page while correct information of 2010 is on the dutch page

so please can someone do something?

Klodde (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So why don't you go ahead and do it? I don't read Dutch and have had no prior contact with the subject, which would be best updated by someone with a direct interest in the subject and proficiency in the language. Acroterion (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how thos things work, the problem is dates! By example for Erpe-Mere I changed the people information, like on 1/1/2010

But when you look to the page, the population info is up to date, but he keeps giving the date 1/1/2006, and I don't find any possibility to change that stupid dates :(

Klodde (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Updating database templates like that is definitely beyond my abilities: try asking Markussep (talk · contribs), who's Dutch and who has worked on that template. Acroterion (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks :), good tip Klodde (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Shiraz

Oh wow! I didn't even have to ask this time :) I was busy doing due diligence and posting warnings on the IP talk pages and hadn't even thought of asking for page protection yet. Nice patrolling, and thanks! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 02:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I just happened across it; having seen that sort of behavior in the past on that page (it was protected in May), it was the obvious thing to do. Thanks for patiently explaining to the IP. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Solidarity

Acroterion: I'm not sure what you do to get targeted the way you seem to, but considering the perpetrators, it must be worth doing. Don't let them grind you down! Ornithikos (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't get nearly as much crap as many admins, but it goes with the job. It has long since ceased to bother me, particularly the adolescents, who will get over it eventually (one hopes). Thanks for the kind words, and for your own good work. Acroterion (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

AET West/East

I wish that all sock-puppeting vandals would point out their own socks and slightly re-titled hoax articles like AET West/East did. I mean...really? Did xe think that we were going to go, "You're right, I guess it isn't a hoax"? :) Qwyrxian (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

They do get the evening's prize for sheer nerve, though: it made me smile. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You Deleted My 16 yr old son, Logan Kurtz

I am new on this site. I saw my son was on google. He has Tourettes Syndrom. He's doing amazing things for other children and even adults with Tourettes, including being a mentor. I don't understand Wikpedia but I do understand disabilities and handicaps. Please do whatever you need to do to put this REAL PERSON back on this site. Thank you.

Starr (his mom) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starrft (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for noteworthy things, not Facebook, and unless your son has received prominent news coverage, it is not likely that he will be back on this site. Please read the message located on your talk page and take note of it. Good day. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. There are two products of this status: one is that Wikipedia maintains standards for the notability of subjects, meaning that the subject of an article, particularly a biographical article, must have received significant coverage in major independent media, indicating and substantiating notability of sufficient stature for a global encyclopedia. The other is that all biographies, and particularly biographies of minors, must be sourced to reliable sources, meaning independent media with a reputation for fact-checking. This is done to preserve the privacy of the subject, and to prevent a subject, particularly a child, from receiving unwanted publicity as a result of an article.

The article met neither criterion, and was appropriately deleted. Wikipedia takes biographical information very seriously, and strongly discourages autobiographies as self-sourced, since few of us can be appropriately neutral about ourselves or our families. I am glad that you are proud of your son's accomplishments, and it is clear that he has much to be proud of. The deletion is not a reflection on or denigration of your son or his accomplishments, but as the editor above notes, Wikipedia is not Facebook, where you can write about yourself. If your son receives coverage in major newspapers or similar media, a biography would be welcome - but it should still be written by someone who is not closely associated with him, to allow the article to be written in an appropriately neutral, encyclopedic tone. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian Brown page

Hi. If you would like to contact the label to verify then please do so or contact me on [redacted]. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natniss (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Pencilcoder

Hi Acroterian; in the block message you left for this user, the link to their contributions mistakenly displays my edit history. I last edited their article which you deleted, adding a speedy template. Thanks, 99.155.206.229 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The block template doesn't contain a link to anyone's contributions. You might want to check whether you're hitting the right link in your menu, since they can vary depending on how your userpage is set up. You might also try reloading the page: depending on your browser CTRL-R or CTRL-Shift=R will do it. Thanks for your diligence in tagging. Acroterion (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've refreshed the page, and every time I hit the 'Your account's edits' link it brings up my edits. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what it's supposed to do. In this case, it brings up your IP's edits, rather than an account. Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. It's supposed to bring up their edits, not mine. If all their edits were to articles that have been deleted, then nothing would show. The implication is that my IP edits are those of the blocked account Pencilcoder. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

'Your account's edits' should produce your edit history, not Pencilcoder's. Acroterion (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I confess to being totally discombobulated by that--it would seem that the block template would be designed to link to the blocked account's edits, rather than the viewer's. Thanks, 99.155.206.229 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind helping?

Some time back, I blocked TreasuryTag for 8RR (not a typo), and he claimed to retire with a scrambled password and left this notice, attacking me for the block. He's now decided to unretire (and apparently unscramble the password!) and start telling me that I'm the one in the wrong, and he repeatedly has restored the bit attacking me; now, he's told me that I'm baying for blood with self-interested administrative actions, even though I've left him a personalised uw-npa4 warning. Would you mind implementing a technical measure to prevent him from restoring those attacks for a specified period of time? Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, a check of his userpage and talk page history will reveal that the attacks have been removed four times in the last 14 hours, and he's reverted the restoration all four times; I've left him a warning of 3RR violation, but seeing that he's used rollback to get rid of my previous talk page message, the warning will likely be gone by the time that you read this. Nyttend (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Acroterion. Before acting on this forum-shopping, you may wish to review the discussions at my talkpage, Nyttend's talkpage as well as the ongoing WP:ANI thread. You will probably also wish to read the text Nyttend is complaining about, and you will notice that I do not accuse Nyttend of "baying for blood" at all. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 11:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@TT: I'll reply more fully when I'm caffeinated, but this isn't forum-shopping (I've reviewed the AN/I), and a quick examination of your block indicates that 24 hours for blowing past 3RR in a case where it is not obvious vandalism or BLP violations is quite reasonable. Your userpage is therefore obnoxious; I wouldn't call it a strong personal attack (I've ignored worse against me, placing it in the category of venting), but it's remarkably thin-skinned. We've had admins who've asked to be blocked for violating 3RR with the best of intentions and you're carrying a grudge in this case?

@Nyttend, anybody who blocks for 3RR, particularly when its an editor who has some tenure, can expect to have crap flung in their direction. "Lazy" seems relatively mild. Enshrining the remark is inappropriate; removing it yourself and having a small edit-war over that is probably pointless, which is why asking for another opinion is reasonable. I'll reserve any further action for somewhat later in the day, when I've had a chance to review more. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

TT, if you were trying to gain sympathy, it's pretty clear that you've failed. "Petulant flounce" is a fair summary (and probably the best way for Nyttend to view it), bringing nobody but TT into disrepute. Also, if you're going to deny the "baying for blood" quote, you might trouble to see if you're actually right: it's clear from the diff that you said those words. By the way, Nixon had an enemies list too, so it's a fair comparison. Acroterion (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to deny the "baying for blood" quote, you might trouble to see if you're actually right – I strongly suggest you re-read what I said. I said that I did not accuse Nyttend of "baying for blood." ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that TT may actually have been making a collective accusation against multiple administrators, not targeted specifically at Nyttend. Regardless, surely there's a Wikipedia essay around here somewhere regarding accusations that other editors are wolves or werewolves! --Orlady (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We have three large bloodhounds. When they bay, it's not for blood, it's for the phone, doorbell, UPS or trash truck, none of which have much to do with exsanguination. I'm moderately sure that accusations of lycanthropy aren't PAs either, and Wikipedia should be concerned that it might alienate new editors who are werewolves. Given the number of adolescents I've seen who self-identify as vampires, we ought to be careful.... Acroterion (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Does vindictive sarcasm fall under WP:NPA ? 94.2.177.166 (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The "baying" business links to a comment on Nyttend's talkpage by EggCentric, the characterization supplied by TT. I believe TT and I weren't talking about exactly the same issue. And no, the "vindictive sarcasm" noted above isn't a PA either, just a disappointing trend. Perhaps my perception of PAs is influenced by the abuse report I filed with a university recently concerning serious abuse and attacks, involving advocacy of dismemberment. Acroterion (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, empty threat I'm sure, but nonetheless they'll soon regret making it! 94.2.177.166 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 14:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 14:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts, and perhaps your help

After reading news reports, I creeated this page. [[4]] While I appreciate your comments, I was really stimied by creating a new page. I had thought I had mastered this technique, but this time I could not insert text into the mysteriously blue text block, so I saved it in the above strange netherworld. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can format the references and try to eliminate the "seems to be" language, then you can move it into article space. I'll work on it when I feel a bit more awake. Acroterion (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've formatted the references. I'm not sure whether the ranch or the parent company would be the notable organization, but you need to pare it down to simple declarative prose and get ride of all the "seems to be" and "is associated with," writing a lede that summarizes the issues.Once you're satisfied and have decided on a title, just create the new title and copy the text from your userspace into the blank field. Acroterion (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bro please

None of my comments on the Paul Dee article were in any way disruptive or based in opinion. The dictionary definition of hypocrite is well known, and Mr. Dee unequivocally fulfills this meaning in a manner accordance with the adjectives I chose in my contribution. In the future I'd appreciate if you consulted me with your concerns prior to deleting my edits to articles in this encyclopedia.

97.115.11.252 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. You may find one of the many college sports forums better suited for your purposes: you may not insert your opinion, deduction or personal supposition into articles on living individuals on Wikipedia. If you continue, you may expect to be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude honestly. Let's consider what I wrote:

<rv copyright violations, unattributed quotes, BLP problems, etc.>

97.115.11.252 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BLP and WP:SYNTHESIS. You can't insert your opinion, you may only cite published sources, scrupulously avoiding your own interpretation. Furthermore, biographies of living persons are not allowed to become coatracks for extensive personal criticism. If a published source discusses the issue (and not an opinion piece, but a real news story) it may be cited. You aren't citable. Your insistence on drawing a conclusion that characterizes Dee in a particular way isn't permitted. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. See also User talk:Jeff G.#Paul_Dee.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As it were, I don't believe anything other than the career advice was opinion or subjective interpretation. Would it be possible to indicate exactly why you think this is not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.11.252 (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please ask a parent, teacher, or boss to explain it to you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Four people have explained, with great patience, what you're doing wrong. This is not a forum or a debate: your edits have been rejected in Wikipedia policy and by editor consensus. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

IP, the short version of all that is summarised in the words "We don't care about your opinion and libel is a punishable offence". If you can't back up what you say, it's going to be removed. If what you say is entirely negative, we're removing it anyway. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 04:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not libel, as I've noted everything stated is fact. And if you are removing negative statements, why is there a Wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler? 97.115.11.252 (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) Your opinion on what is or is not libel is not relevant. (2) Anything negative in the Hitler article is cited to third party reliable sources (ie: respected historians, books, etc). Your opinion does not carry that weight. I would suggest at this time that you just drop this matter. It does not matter how you ask the question, nor how many times, nor who you ask; the answer you get will still be the same. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

IP, if you would like to read a Hitler article positively dripping with pro-American bias and propaganda, you can do so on Conservapedia. Nobody reading any article is going to care about your opinion, and like RobertMfromLI said, asking the question over and over in a hundred thousand different formats and wordings is not going to change that. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've stated very clearly why my statements were fact, but if you insist on forming Wikipedia in the image of your little exclusive group of moderators and ignoring logical statements, I'll accept it. I don't have the power to do anything about it. 97.115.11.252 (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't or won't understand that your own conclusions aren't admissible on Wikipedia, nor that Wikipedia is not to be used as a base for attacks on individuals. However, thank you for refraining from re-adding the material to the Dee article. I'm going to assume that it was somebody else, however unlikely that may be, who returned under another IP and caused the article to have to be semi-protected (thanks Eagles). Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

Hello. I see you have your username among the category listing admins willing to follow through with revision deletion requests. Well, I came across and reverted this, which I think qualifies for revision deletion. Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks: I revdel'd the last two IP edits and blocked the second IP, since they didn't seem to take warnings seriously. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this also qualifies for RevDel. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan loves sam more

Looks like you'll be deleting it a few times... I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I salted it, so Ryan will have to find a different way to be sappy. Must be the 4123nd time I've deleted an x loves y more article. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan seems like a very WP:POINTy person. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Abusive email: the sequel

Hi; please could I draw your attention to this post? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 09:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I see he was nabbed before I logged on. A CU would be warranted, although odds that it'll be a cleanly blockable range are poor. I agree with your assessment in your SPI report. Acroterion (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting the likelihood to be an IP block, but more to identify which of my many 'friends' on Wikipedia is responsible. I'd put money on it being someone who's !voted to delete in your MfD. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 11:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to expect somebody who crossed paths with you and has laid low since, and is now trying to goad you, at least based on my personal experience with the more obnoxious sort of sockpuppets, but we've seen stranger things. I do very much doubt it's someone who's materialized out of the clear blue sky. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

deleted post for MDG Advertising

While I understand your point about the ADWEEK reference ("Adweek mention is about the (interesting) graphic, rather than about MDG. The specificmention of MDG is effectively trivial and doesn't serve to support any of the information in the article.") I believe the rest of the entry (even without this reference) could still stand on its own. If you look at other postings related to agencies (Strawberry Frog, TAXI,and SMART - the posting is very much in line with these. From a content standpoint alone, how is it that these postings are acceptable whereas a posting for a similar (albeit smaller) agency is not?

As for the reference to the ADWEEK article - it was included as supplemental information to reinforce MDG's participation in providing worthwhile information and resources to the advertising community, as well as the fact that the agency has produced materials that a reputable publication such as ADWEEK is willing to reference and link to.

Enorstrom (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

None of them are all that great: advertising agencies have an unfortunate tendency to, well, advertise, but your examples all share an obvious attribute. They all have multiple references substantiating their notability by reference to non-trivial coverage in major media. Take a look at the general notability guideline and the corporate notability guideline. If MDG has been covered in major media, in a way that focuses specifically on MDG, in a non-trivial way, that would provide the necessary referencing (all content must be referenced) and substantiation for notability. Please remember that just because other stuff exists, it doesn't mean that a precedent is established or that standards should be relaxed for new entries. Acroterion (talk)

stalking

thank you for your advice but the problem on the page is not a content disscusion or dispute. unless you think we should be able to keep lies on the page.perhaps i should write up black is white and put a reference number on the end that links you back to an article on the life and times of elvis presley.the user had blatently put up information he knew to be untrue as the reference said nothing of the sort. then thought he could slander me and my work in the process so i personally think you are having a go at the wrong person maybe ask him why he is lying and explain vandalism rules. can you confirm to me that you do not know my stalker as you seem to be cyber stalking me do you have nothing to do Delighted eyes (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied at the user's talkpage, with a reminder about assumption of good faith. Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Joel Tippett

I notice you recently deleted the article Joel Tippett. I don't know why you did this or what the content of the article was, but this is an obviously notable person, and it looks like the page is protected. Please create the article, or allow someone else to do so. StAnselm (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is a casualty of User:Drodedsweard who's created numerous socks to make articles consisting entirely of [Insert Name] is an AFL player. There's no prejudice to the creation of an appropriate article by yourself or anyone who is interested in creating a sourced bio: the deletion was not for lack of notability, but as an article creation by a banned user. In fact, it would be great if you did create it and pre-empt Drodeseard. JamesBWatson create-protected it: check with him for un-protection: I'm sure he'd be happy to do so. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Karl Bendetsen

Does anyone maintain a list of the worst articles on the 'pedia? If so, this would be a nominee. Once my internet at home comes up I shall give it my inexpert attention, but perhaps you know some people? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty bad, but at least he's not still living. It seems to have received no attention since in-line citations started to be the norm. You could ask around at WikiProject Biography and see if anybody's interested in helping. Acroterion (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

editing changes

Big texthi there. those edits where very unconstructive and i now know how to use font size according. can u tell me now how to change font size accoriding

Font sizes aren't usually changed on Wikipedia. Don't use other people's talkpages for editing tests. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador role

I replied on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene Article Block

I should be unblocked because 1) My section title (in the "Hurricane Irene" article) was reverted 3 times and then I engaged in discussion, and most of those posting acknowledged that the real reason for the reverts was the overly long title.

I then shortened the title, so I was not edit warring because I did not exceed three reverts-- my last edits were NEW titles that were shorter as per discussion. 2) This is a shared IP address, the other warnings on my talk page do not pertain to any of my edits on any other articles.

Respectfully,

69.171.160.245 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

See my comments on your previous IPs talkpage. I've blocked this IP, since you're evading blocks. Should this continue, the article will be protected against edits from IPs, which would be unfortunate. You may not edit-war (which is different from strict 3RR), you may not evade blocks, and you may not edit Wikipedia while the block stands. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not used any previous IPs to edit Hurricane Irene. I do sometimes post from Cafes (with different wireless hotspots) but haven't done so at all on that article.

Can you let me know specifically where I have evaded a block, or how? Which specific edit or post are you referring to where I was "evading a block"? I do not understand specifically what you mean re "Block evasion".

Respectfully,

69.171.160.236 (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're on your third IP. You have never addressed the fact that you aggressively edit-warred, which was the reason for your block.. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Dear Acroterion,

You tagged my page Crescendo World as a promotion for a company. My aim was simply to report the company with a neutral point of view as requested by Wikipedia policies. I am confused about your tag. I would like to get more detailed information and help to make sure changes can be applied not to have the page considered as a promotion (which once again surprises me). I went through a lot of companies pages and got inspired by what others do, not to make a mistake but seems I did one. Can you please help me in correcting/adapting the page (which I believe have been deleted now right?).

Thank you.

Best regards Stéphane Rouquette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srouquette (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no indication that the company is notable: see WP:CORP for notability guidelines for businesses. It was also written as promotion, which is not acceptable in an encyclopedia (companies don't have "passions" in encyclopedias). Acroterion (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete sourced information? You could of at least assumed a good faith edit and told me and i would of happily edited it as you see fit. Goldblooded (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't sourced, it was part of the article's lead. As I stated on the talkpage, it was both excessively informal and had grammar problems. Feel free to rewrite it appropriately, but note that the lead is already getting very long. There was no assumption of bad faith, it just wasn't satisfactory. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but all you had to do is message me and i would of changed it. Anyway ive rewritten the first paragraph accordingly and deleted the latter paragraph. Feel free to check it out. Goldblooded (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually i might reincorporate the second paragraph into improving the article later. Goldblooded (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; the article could use some concentrated attention. It tends to wander off into side issues that can be addressed in sub-articles, and while I disagreed with how you stated it, I think you're looking at the broad picture, which is good. Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad you agree, But do you think the German plan of attack should be in with that article or should it be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France ? Although technically the battle of france should be a seperate article because it includes the low countries and it states that it began on the 10th of May, although the germans didnt reach french soil until the 14th since the majority of the french army and the BEF was in belgium and a 3rd german army snuck past them into the Ardennes. Goldblooded (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Maginot actions were pretty much a sideshow where the Battle of France was concerned. The crucial Maginot-related battle was in the area of Sedan to secure the German flank against French support emerging from behind the Line, and allowing the Germans to turn the corner. The actions in Belgium set the scene for the Battle of France and are an integral part of the campaign. I would want a very condensed discussion of the German battle plan in the Maginot article, with a little more detail developed about the actions along the Line than would be appropriate in the Battle of France article. Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i believe only a couple of divisions attacked the line as a scapegoat, and these actually failed to penetrate the line and it was only until the surrender of the french forces in june that the germans gained acess and it had indeed proved inpregnable to the very last. However-do you think i should expand both articles or create a seperate article because they may be too large WP:SIZE Goldblooded (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There could be a daughter article on actions involving the Maginot Line. There were a couple of determined attacks by elite trrops, or at least first-line troops, so not all of the German forces facing the Line were scrubs. There's a small book on the Maginot battles by Marc Romanych, published by Osprey. I used it to write the articles on actions involving individual sections and forts: see Ouvrage La Ferté, Fortified Sector of the Crusnes, Fortified Sector of Haguenau and all the others, where I incorporated a couple of paragraphs in each article on the sector's role in the Battle of France. You might want to look over those articles (there are about a dozen) to see what can be pulled out into a broader treatment. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ill take a look and if i have time ill expand/correct the articles + it needs more sources Goldblooded (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Favor

I was wondering if I could ask you a favor. Could you look over Fuqua School of Business? I fear I've gotten too involved, so I'd appreciate it if you could look it over. I don't want influence you one way or the other, so I won't go into what I think about it, but I appreciate the help. Cheers! TNXMan 13:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article first (without checking the history) and thought it was somewhat promotional, as if it had been edited by the public relations office. Then I looked at the history and realized that it had been edited by the PR office. It's always a bad sign when something is being edited to be "less promotional." Those bulleted lists tend to lead to cruftiness; I'd prefer to see prose, which would force a more measured approach to the topic.

By the way, I'm sorry I missed out on the persecution of the innocent yesterday at A young communist (talk · contribs). FisherQueen has always handled that well, but she's not been around much this summer. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a inverse relationship between the number of exclamation points used in an unblock request to likelihood of the unblock request being granted. You can see how that particular request fits the model. :) TNXMan 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen whining so clearly expressed in print in a long time. There's some talent there; too bad it isn't useful here.

I've tag-bombed the worst list at Fuqua and left a comment on the talkpage. When I'm feeling more patient I might have a go at rewriting some of the lists to a less undue emphasis. Acroterion (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mason Storm Page deletion

Hi

Im messaging concerning the Mason Storm page I started. He is a UK artist that is featured in this months Bizarre Magazine and I was setting up his information. How do I go about doing it without it being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silaslanguk (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't copy copyrighted text, don't use promotional language (which often happens when copying promotional material), and provide references to establish notability in major independent media. The Bizarre article might be a reference. See WP:YFA for advice. Acroterion (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Subpage question

Hello Acroterion. A user named Dorce2 was recently blocked by you for creating inappropriate articles and personal attacks. The user also created this subpage, which you deleted. I was wondering if it possible to completley delete the subpage, I don't want other editors to get the wrong idea about myself. Thanks -- Luke (Talk) 15:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty thoroughly deleted, invisible under most circumstances to anyone other than an administrator, and the deleted history will show who created it in any case. That kind of thing doesn't meet requirements for oversight-style deletion. I wouldn't worry about it, and I'm sure Jimmy will understand what was going on. Acroterion (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks, just wanted to make sure. -- Luke (Talk) 15:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Shaun Harris - page deleted

Hey Acroterion

Shaun Harris is a soccer coach for Capital City FC of Ottawa. There is plenty of information about him and he has quite an established coaching record (http://capitalcityfc.com/club/). Anyway we can get this page back up? Please let me know, I am wondering why this was considered an attack page,

Let me know,

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebalnar (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't realize there was a separate page :)

I am sorry. I didn't know there was a new separate page created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepen03 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it wasn't deleted, just went elsewhere. The article was getting a little cluttered, and the floor-by-floor updates were getting in the way of the article's main point. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cuckoo (Mineral, Virginia)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Shaun Harris

Any word on that Harris deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebalnar (talk • contribs) 01:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your first message. The article I deleted had nothing to do with football, Ottawa or the coach named Shaun Harris. It was pure vandalism, probably aimed at somebody in the same classroom named Shaun Harris. There's no prejudice against re-creation of an appropriate article. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my defention of the word trublem, It is a group effort when a word like Brangelina is allowed?

Trublem Combination of problem and trouble. I have a trublem with my cashflow, planning or assignment.

Trublems plural = trubli Plural or trublem combination of troubles and problems

trublematic a combination of troublesome and problematic

Patent nonsense.

Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. This excludes the sandbox and pages in the user namespace. In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply. {{db-g1}}, {{db-nonsense}}

Many people understand trublem as a new jargon and it has a historic relevance due to the Economic woes at the present.

Brangelina !!!!!!

(TheGlobalSaffa)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --TheGlobalSaffa (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it will be commonly used Jargon.

It is not on the internet and will bring more traffic to your site.

Wikipedia is not known for stifling new idea's

(talk page stalker) First off, Wikipedia has all the traffic it needs right now - its Alexa ranking is as the grand number of 7, and second, Wikipedia is not for you to put made-up neologisms, along with a host of many other things, as outlined in this link. Thanks, --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a host for things you made up one day and wish to promote. Brangelina is a term that has achieved wide circulation in major media. Your neologism has not, and is therefore ineligible for inclusion. You'll have to find some other way to promote your neologism. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete of Article

A long time ago I know, back in 20:04, 25 June 2008 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Dalinda" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement) you deleted the page. We are actually the copyright holders. We would like to re-construct this page again but we would rather work on you in producing an acceptable page rather than you deleting it due to your ignorance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albal21 (talk • contribs)

I won't reinstate the page as it was: it was an infringement on www.hossamramzy.com/cds/dalinda.htm. It cannot be reinstated with the same text, since the web content was written and intended as advertising,and is therefore not suitable for inclusion even if the copyright issue was successfully resolved. There is no prejudice to re-creation from appropriate sources in an appropriate tone. You'll need to use coverage in independent media as sources rather than a promotional website. Acroterion (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Got a Sockpuppet

Hey Acroterion, I need some help with a sock. Take a look at User:Jonnybooth and User:Algibson, especially their edits to the page List of United States cable and satellite television networks. Just that behavior alone is indicative of sockpuppetry. But since you are the admin, I thought I would let you make the call on this one. Can you help? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it in the next hour: got one more thing to do, then must go. Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, no rush. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet; since you've flagged it, we'll keep an eye on them and if they tag-team we can do an SPI. Hope all is well with you these days. Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just tagged it as a sock. I will keep an eye out on them. Jonnybooth was editing the article the past couple days with bad and incorrect information, then today it was Algibson with the same edits. But it seems Algibson has more edits, so he might be the sockpuppeteer, though I could be wrong.

Things are good here. Slowly getting back into the swing of things. Trying not to kill my neighbors though. They have two dogs, which they like to leave outside in all sorts of weather (hot, cold, rain, whatever) and they bark all hours of the night. Then they bring them in about 9am when all hope of a full night's sleep is long since lost. But I think we are about to get rid of them....I hope. Then sleep can resume per usual. :) Otherwise though, things are going well and life is good. :) Hope things are going well in your neck of the woods and Irene didn't cause many problems. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Contents of 9/11 FLT 77 Page

I was editing the page for Flt 77, the aircraft hijacked on 9/11. Your site claims that information must be verifiable. I have verification of every change that needs to be made regarding the phone calls Theodore Olson claims to have received from his wife Barbara Olson on 9/11 regarding the hijacking of Flt 77. The verification is from our own FBI and is documented in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. If evidence produced by the prosecution representing the United States of America in a court of law is not verifiable then nothing is. I demand that you allow these changes to be made in order to reflect the facts regarding this incident! Your unwillingness to allow these changes to be made to reflect the facts reflects on the credibility of your website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcounte (talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edits amount to a synthesis of separate pieces of information to draw a conclusion that is not reached in reliable sources. We have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fringe views, and I will note that this particular theory concerning AA 77 is generally rejected even among 9/11 Truth activists. Acroterion (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Thor

Sorry, I have to get back to that. Someone templated me with a claim of a personal attack, while I am doing is pointing out that Tenebrae is continuously making false claims. Please tell him to stop spreading lies, so that this can end. Thanks --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae is not innocent in this matter. He insinuated in his report that OnlyForQuadell's edits were malicious when they turned out not to be. Tenebrae also used OnlyForQuadell's statement "it's just assumed that you bite newcomers" to accuse the editor of being too familiar with Wikipedia and perhaps having a previous account—a malicious one—when there is no solid evidence of that. Tenebrae's continued responses to OnlyForQuadell was essentially an egging-on when he could have stopped responding after TriipleThreat and I talked to OnlyForQuadell about the use of brackets. OnlyForQuadell did not keep a cool head, to be sure, but Tenebrae did not help the situation. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and was of the opinion that it could be left alone, but since he specifically ignored warnings to drop the issue (and I am of the opinion that OFQ was the principal instigator here: it is clear that he's not new to WP and has a fair level of knowledge about policy), blocking was the last resort. I agree that Tenebrae could have walked away, and specifically note that I've declined to block on 3RR, as that behavior has been satisfactorily resolved. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

To Acroterion: Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to wade through all this and come to a decision that I think protects me from further verbal abuse for now. I know that being an admin means taking on lots of additional responsibility that takes time and energy away from one's own editing, and I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of many, many editors when I say we appreciate all the extra work you do.

I'm not sure why Erik, who has sided with blocked editor OnlyForQuadell throughout all this, is being so vociferous and getting involved so much. Given that OnlyForQuadell's remarks are those of someone who is not a newbie, as you say yourself, and given both his and Erik's penchant for boldfacing the first words in some of their posts, yes, I have what I believe are reasonable suspicions. In any event, I thank you again for the help in getting away from the verbal abuse that started with OFQ's very first comment.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's not go there, shall we? I appreciate the kind words, but I see Erik's concerns in good faith, and I've noted that I partially agree with him. I think the best thing for you to do is to move on to other things: had you disengaged, this would have probably amounted to nothing. It's hard to let go sometimes, but this afternoon's business is taking up a remarkable amount of time for what was originally a near null edit. Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I do not appreciate the insinuation that OnlyForQuadell and I are in cahoots. Please assume good faith. While OnlyForQuadell has a temper, I did not think it was fair for him to be subject to reports and admin attention. Obviously he was able to engage in discussion with me and TriiipleThreat. Why didn't you walk away? Like you said on your talk page, you will respond to his false statements. WP:CIVIL says, "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility." You had basically approached him as if he was suspect of doing something wrong. It is a matter where you need to let insults roll off of you, disengage from edit warring, and bring the topic back onto the content. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside from everything else, he appears to be an experienced user masquerading as a newbie. As noted above, I'm not the only who who detected that. Why do you seem OK with that?

Incidentally, I did not assume bad faith; I asked for an edit summary. Politely. After another editor had reerted him. Yet he took a stand of, "I'm not going to tell you my edit and you can't make me!" That's a principled stand? For you to justify that behavior and to be OK with his insults — which he should retract — is beyond me. It is simply not right.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know all that. You'll note that I supplied the diff that started the whole thing, that OFQ seems to feel is a lie. I was, however, trying a little de-escalation, which isn't going to work if you insist on continuing the argument on your behalf. So, please do your part toward de-escalation, and stop argung with me. He's requested an unblock, and the reviewing administrator isn't going to be helped by you two going back and forth a few more rounds. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I will try and walk away. Please do not let him falsely call me "liar" anymore. It's not right to let him punch me in the face and tell me not to defend myself if someone else won't defend me. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Just let it be: a reviewing admin will be along in a while, and they'll contact me if they want to overturn. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm done here too. I've advised the best I can. Happy editing! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your assistance on all this (seriously!). Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Response

True, I shouldnt of changed it really and from what i remember the french war minister , Daladier was trying to purchase as many foreign war planes as the economy could withstand. But yes i agree; Armed Forces is fine in general. Goldblooded (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why Did You Delete That Page?

Sir/Ma'am,

You "speedily deleted" the page I created "Ship Your Car now, LLC". This is unfair. I am not trying to promote a company. I am trying to shed light on a new way people can ship cars. I don't know if you have ever tried to ship a car before, but the industry is disgusting. This company is different, and should be brought to the American public's attention.

This company is a hybrid Carrier-Broker. It is one of a kind. Shouldn't prototypes be visible on wikipedia? Please email me personally if possible at <redacted> as I do not really fully comprehend this wikipedia messaging thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rysherms (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied on user's talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Article about research findings

There is a research project where advancements in an area of technology were made. The research colleagues that ded the work should have their credentials findable in Wikipedia. They are notable as they were in the news and on public television. What would be the proper format for an article about this, and can you help with the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebeckbeck (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The article gave no indication of notability, and gave no context for whatever the advance was, nor for how it was noticed in the media. In any case, posting a resume wouldn't be appropriate: if the subject is notable, the article should be about whatever the topic was, mentioning the people who did the research, rather than the other way around. Acroterion (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw similar pages in Wikipedia. If I submitted an abstract to you here, would you help me compose it to be article-worthy? Mikebeckbeck (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I can give advice, but the work will be up to you. I suggest you compose the article(s) in your userspace at User:Mikebeckbeck/sandbox where you can develop it in peace. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed...

What to do when a user (Ghhhhgfffff (talk · contribs)), invades your CSD log and defaces you? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert it and ask them not to do it again; other users shouldn't edit that kind of semi-private userspace. Acroterion (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I challenge you

I challenge you all to find a document dated prior september 2011 that explains the structure of the collapsed WTC towers of New York. However, if you are not able or otherwise willing to do that, then please do not delete sourced information which explains that structure. Thank you. --Uikku (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The date of a report should make no difference, and in fact, all the high-quality sources post-date 9/11. An absence of information does not excuse resorting to poor-quality sources to reference dubious content. If no reliable sources exist, the article should be silent on the subject. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) Sorry, but I have to agree with Acroterion on this one. Unless you can find first-hand written, reliable third party sourced, the information isn't going up. Might I ask, that you wait to dig open old wounds until September 12, 2011? The next few days kinda suck for everyone in the US (and around the world), bringing back very painful memories of a horrible day, so wait to edit war on a source on that page until September 12. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Uikku hasn't reverted, so there's no edit-war, just an objection. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you believe that there was a Martian ambassador in WTC-1 if NIST told you so? Did you also notice that you deleted two independent references and you called both sources poor-quality? Uikku (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there some sort of problem with sources after 9/11/2001? Yes, I deleted two poor-quality references. The NIST report makes direct reference to original design documents, with no reference to any substantial concrete core structure, apart from the usual concrete floor slabs. The references are mistaken in their assertion, unsupported by scholarly research.. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Martian ambassador? Ooooookay. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Martian ambassador. See, you cannot verify his existence, because he was smashed into small bits when WTC-1 collapsed. But not only because of that. Nobody had written an article about him before that horrible event. If someone wrote an article about him after 9/11, that would be dubious. The exact details about WTC towers has been a subject of controversy and the trustworthiness and abilities of NIST have been on stake too. But if you verify the content of the old document that NIST refers to, then you have a high quality source there. Uikku (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you wish to argue that post 9/11 sources must be excluded because of the existence of a conspiracy, or that scholarly articles must be ignored in favor of poor-quality sources that support your point of view then you've come to the wrong place. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If I interpret that what you said this way: "There are some institutions that Wikipedia will not ever call into question." Is that correct? Uikku (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Another way to phrase it is that Wikipedia doesn't give much credence to fringe theorists that reject material that is well-documented in mainstream thought and in reputable scientific press. Wikipedia gives great weight to the work of research institutions and peer-reviewed journals, and nobody outside of conspiracy theorists have ever called the NIST report into question. Acroterion (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and I would drop the whole martian thing (do not readd the picture, fair use images aren't allowed on talk pages) it kinda kills the point you are trying to make. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, forgot about the fair use image issue. Acroterion (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the ones I know well, since I use alot of images on radio station pages (and the Frank Buckles and Stephens City pages). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I am not sure. The name I am using now was an old one that I nolonger use (til now I guess). For some reason when I signed in today, I was signed in to my old account (the one I am on now). So I signed out and signed back in and it took me to my more established account (the one I normally use). But then I got of my computer and came back later today to use wiki and apparently my computer didn't remember my info so I had to sign in again and it brought me to my old account. So, I signed out and then signed in again but for some reason I cannot access by "established" account and can only use my older one. (the one I am using now) So I really don't know what is going on.--$1LENCE D0600D (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you'd rather be on your main account, I'm going to block this account (autoblock disabled), so that this doesn't happen again. There's no prejudice to your primary account, this just avoids problems for you. But please stop shouting at people and threatening to make content forks if you don't get your way. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I probably would have never realized that an extra 0 was the problem. Also, I dont know how to "shout" through a computer. I capitalized that message to make sure that the reader saw it. There is no reason at all why the battles cannot be linked by the Texas Revolution template. I dont think that just because "some" scholars ignore these events we should do the same. The Vietnam War template would be a good example of a combination of military, naval and aerial operations in one template, why should we have a seperate standard in this case? Why do we need a seperate template for the naval battles when the one concerning the military battles is so short. Its easier just to combine them is it not? (have all the links in one place) Whats wrong with that? (that last bit is all rhetorical, for you anyway, not Karanacs and that other guy)--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to clear up the account business, but you should know that shouting is done with the cap lock key on, and is considered rude under virtually all circumstances. As for the template dispute, it appears that consensus runs against you: sometimes that happens, and locking down the caps key and yelling isn't a good way to change any minds. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand, I see now that attempting to add the naval battle links to the Texas Revolution template is pointless due to some users whose opinion is more important than historical fact or accuracy. So I will create a new template soley for the naval battles. I dont want to do this because it is unecessary when we already have the texas Revolution template but its the only thing I can think of. With that said, hopefully this so called "edit war" will be over, maybe you can tell the others for me. Thanks.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, if you create your own personal content fork, I'll delete it as a creation against consensus. You don't get to have your own preferred content in defiance of consensus, especially when there's a live (or soon will be) RfC, as Karanacs explained to you. You'll be free to make constructive comments there. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion, given your comments above I just wanted to point out Template:First Texas Navy. $ilence created it as a content fork and I renamed it and culled the links to make it fit a better scope (see also Template talk:First Texas Navy and Template_talk:Campaignbox_Texas_Revolution#Name_change. Hopefully this will resolve the issue in a manner that suits everyone. Karanacs (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad things worked out. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Massive Copyright Violation

This page United States Coast Guard Yard is a copy of the USCG's page [5]. What ought to be done? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it's a public-domain government site, it's more like plagiarism than a copyright violation. Your link doesn't work (try again), but I would suggest aggressive pruning and rewriting it down to a stub if necessary, or the application of a hatnote describing the source this article contains public domain text from www.uscg.gov/blah/foo. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I saw this, so I added the relevant template to the references section. Technically, that's "enough" to handle the plagiarism issue. The article still needs some major trimming; the biggest concern for me is that the tone is wrong (unsurprisingly, given the main source, it's overly promotional and POV); I'll tag the concerns at the top of article and add a note on talk, but I don't have the time or interest to actually fix the problem myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Velociter Solutions

With all due respect Acroterion. Please rollback the Velociter Solutions wiki page that you have deleted. I really want to work on that page and add the valuable information. Waiting for positive reply.

Thanks & Regards Nakul Dhoot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakul Dhoot (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:CORP for information on notability guidelines for companies: there was no indication that the company met those guidelines./ You may wish to work on a userspace draft of the article at User:Nakul Dhoot/sandbox first. Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Question

Hi Acroterion,

I understand why you deleted the MyEntre.Net page for not meeting notability standards. I failed to include why this online community has been important to the state of Iowa- this was my fault. How can I add additional evidence to demonstrate the notability of this program? I cannot find this page's talk page and/or where to properly cite my case for inclusion. If it helps, here are three examples of why this online community has been of significant importance to Iowa entrepreneurs:

1) Connections! - Iowa's first statewide searchable database of service providers in Iowa who help small business business (contains over 2,700 records); see http://www.myentre.net/Help/Connections/tabid/232/Default.aspx 2) Dream Big, Grow Here - A collaborative grant contest first launched in 2010. For details on the impact of this program, see http://www.myentre.net/InteractiveLearning/MyEntreNetBlogs/tabid/201/entryid/463/Default.aspx. 3) Business Concierge Service - First online market research assistance resource for Iowa entrepreneurs. http://bizhelp.myentre.net

Additionally, MyEntre.Net was the first service provider in Iowa to offer webinars for small business owners back in 2007. To date, they have over 100 recorded webinars for viewing complete with dates. I can also find many news articles (not just press releases, per the rules) which cite these important contributions and should provide adequate reference to meet Wiki standards. Thank you very much for your patience, consideration and help with this (I'm a newbie to this, and trying my best!!).

Thanks!

Rob.J.Will (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing to remember about notability is that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, judges whether something is notable based on whether it has received significant coverage by multiple, independent secondary sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books or the like. Take a look at WP:CORP and WP:NOTE for more. The reasoning noted in your message are fine, but aren't much help on Wikipedia, since they're self-referential: you need to supply evidence that the organization's been noticed by others in a substantial manner. In other words, an organization is notable on Wikipedia because people other than Wikipedia editors and the subject think so. Acroterion (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This helps clarify, where should I cite secondary resources? Do I post links to various source here to make my case or is there a more appropriate location? Also, I should fully disclose that I do have some conflict of interest, as I am employed by this program currently. However, I believe that after I demonstrate the value of this innovative program and it's services, others can freely challenge my point of view. Thanks again for the speedy reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.J.Will (talk • contribs) 14:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you write a draft in your userspace at User:Rob.J.Will/sandbox, where you can take your time about getting referencing and such right without worries regarding deletion. You should read WP:COI: while conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged, due to the need for editorial distance from the subject, it isn't prohibited: you just need to observe the best practices and be scrupulous about non-promotion and good sourcing. I can help you with reference formatting: it's a steep learning curve. You want high-quality references that deal specifically and in some depth about the program, preferably in major publications of national standing. I've dropped the deleted content into the sandbox. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

On a recent speedy deletion

Sorry about that; maybe hit rollback too fast. While it's obviously a made-up article, it wasn't straight up vandalism to your talk page. Antandrus (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I was expecting the Seussians to call, maybe leave some tracts, have some green eggs and ham, talk about my relationship with the Whos and maybe consider the teachings of the Lorax. No problem. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I have no colorist prejudices in re: eggs or ham. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You might have to change your name, then: Multihuedmike? (Although orange-y or orangeish is preferable to green in both ham and eggs, in my opinion) Acroterion (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what they say, "It ain't red meat that's dangerous; it's the green, fuzzy meat you have to watch out for." --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about the "stars on thars", Acroterion. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read

As requested by BusterD I am passing this along for you to read so that you know that your efforts are appreciated.--MONGO 17:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: Frank was quite a guy.Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Fox-Worswick House in Hailey Idaho

Hi, I just added Fox–Worswick House to National Register of Historic Places listings in Blaine County, Idaho and saw your lovely images of builidngs in Hailey. Do you happen to have one of house? The nomination form is included here if you need context. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Argh, I don't: it's right across from the Episcopal church and the Masonic Hall, but no pic among the images of that day just across the intersection. Reckon I'll have to go back. A hardship, but I'll have to bear it Although it'll not be real soon, unfortunately Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks anyway! Valfontis (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Whipped91

With apologies for acting in advance of consulting you, I have increased the duration of the block on this user to indefinite (with the intention that in this case, indefinite actually mean permanent). The edits perpetrated by this account on the morning of September 11, 2011 were despicable and in my view, this individual should not be allowed to return to editing after 48 hours, or indeed, at any time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I found it detestable too, but having spent a lot of time recently dealing with 9/11-related vandals, Truthers and the like, I was being deliberately moderate lest I fall into a "block 'em all and let God sort them out" mode. I'm fine with indef/permanent on this one (my first intention), given the insistence on promoting their theory. I appreciate the review. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WTC7 edit

"While controlled demolition of WTC 7 is a popular theme among conspiracy theorists, it is not supported in any reliable sources, nor is it given the slightest credence by major media outlets"

Au contraire. The demolition theory is supported by many reliable sources and since when did the likes of Fox News lend credibility to anything. But I thank you for explaining the mindset of Wikipedia's censorship junkies. Even the dogs on the street know that WTC 7 was demolished. Calling me a conspiracy theorist is meaningless - the official story of 9/11 also depends on a conspiracy theory. Anyway you carry on with your "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome; I did my best to try and rattle your obtuse brains.

WXNB Move

Could you move WXNB to WXBN over the redirect that is there, please? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Do you want WXNB deleted? Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead with that. You can also delete WWRE, WWRT, WWRE-FM and WWRT-FM. Those are really old callsigns for these two stations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

All done. Acroterion (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! :) Now I just have to wait until the new station (WZFC) decides what they want to do format-wise. They only changed their callsign today. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

14KT

Hi Acroterion,

I saw that you deleted the page on the artist 14KT. I have crafted a short and simple page in my user space. I would love if you could give me some feedback.

Thanks, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KristineColosimo/14KT — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristineColosimo (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage: the subject appears to meet WP:BAND criterion 9 now. Acroterion (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Denbigh High School edit

Hi Acroterion,

Please can you clarify your edit of the above entry.

You mentioned only including 'material that can be backed up by references and is of an encyclopedic nature'.

Please can you clarify? We were only part the way through editing this and have yet to add links etc

The information added was completely factual and historical. If people want to know about the school then each and everyone piece of information provides factual information which is relevant.

This is not peacockery and if you knew the UK education system then you would understand the relevancy of the information that has been included.

Many wikipedia entries include historical information and information about an organisations developments over time. If this were a company then you may talk about mergers or acquisitions over the years or stock market listings and previous names etc as that would be part of the history or fabric of the organisation and therefore relevant. As a school, the information that we have included tells the story of the development of the organisation over time.

The reason that it was added in one block is because we have been working on it offline and did not want to add something that was incomplete.

What could we add to this to make it suitable?

tr17b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr17b (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed an edit by an IP that was defamatory to a teacher; although it was referenced, it violated Wikipedia's biographical rules. Before that, the IP removed material, which I did not revert: you are free to edit as you see fit. You can't see the remvoed edit, as defamation is deleted from the public history. My actions had nothing to do with your edits, but I felt it best to leave a note about references: all material on Wikipedia must be backed up by references that can be verified, and your edits weren't. Acroterion (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Filter 390

Hey, could you put edit filter 390 back in service, please? Seems the vandal it was meant for is back. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an edit filter manager, for good and excellent reasons of a lack of competency. While I could make myself one, it's better to leave a note on the relevant talkpage, so somebody with skillz can fine-tune the code if needed. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I will track down an edit filter manager. :) Trust me, you probably know more than I do. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted My Page?

Can you please tell me why you deleted my beemp3 page? Please restore it! I wasn't advertising! I dont support beemp3 anyone as they supply links to illegal downloads of music. Please restore it somehow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahk11 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It was obviously promotional and was an obvious copy of copyrighted content: since this is a free-content website, we cannot keep material that is copyrighted elsewhere. The source material you copied was intended as advertisement, regardless of your motives, and was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I put a copy of my "Why Was My Article Deleted?" thread on his talk page, so he can have some more information on creating Wiki-appropriate articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Super cool image

I approve of your mammatus clouds over MOntan image...very nice...and thank you!--MONGO 04:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - there were forest fires in the area that gave them a pink tinge, which I've scaled back a little as it appeared strange. They lasted a surprisingly long time: I thought mammatus clouds were momentary. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a super-duper photo, great job. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion?

Why did you delete the girl on duty page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.43.126 (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no indication that the subject was notable. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Reason for the deletion of vishnuparam007

hello, can you specify the reason for deleting the page vishnuparam007. I want to know that Wikipedia is only for famous people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VISHNUPARAM007 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Because there was no indication that the subject met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. To put it concisely, you do have to be famous to be included in Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

This user Bbb23 is vandalizing the wickipidia page of Adriana Ferreyr. He has taken off numerables references one by one and then put the page up for deletion for a lack of referenceces. He has also deleted the talk page that an administrator have created for discussion of the page. Best, Jane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane77765 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aranea_Mortem" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane77765 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion and removal of poor-quality references does not constitute vandalism. Discuss the issues appropriately in the deletion discussion. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

CR.I.S.P. Deletion

Hello,

you deleted a page that i created, that is about a new European Project. Can you please state me the reasons for doing it? I thoroughly explained the reasons of the creation, and i asked for some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldTrafford27 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). →Στc. 19:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

hello

deleting the bio about my client the king of bass is interesting he fits just about all those requirments you spoken of what proof do we need to show you to have him on here,he is with a indie label.is even in the music charts actually.. and only thing i can think of hasn't won a grammy award , which you cant tell me thats what has to do when alot of people hasn't and i notice there on here..so email me at my personal email<redacted>,this is major disrespect.we believe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manner57 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BAND for requirements for musicians; iTunes is not a metric of notability on Wikipedia. Additionally, and more importantly, the article mentioned a great deal of unreferenced personal information that is not suitable for inclusion in a biography without reliable sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:122.99.95.19

USer is vandalising again. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Warned. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

UnbiasedNeutral

I of course agree with your recent revert of an edit this user made to The Bible. I took a quick look at this user's history and came across this which combined with your revert makes me a little concerned. Do you have any advice? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Usernames containing things like "unbiased," "neutral," "truth" and so on are red flags to being with, much less a declared agenda concerning religion and an apparent problem involving Jews. A number of editors seem to be keeping an eye on UN's edits, so I'd a advise a wait-and-see approach. Further activity of this kind would be clear disruptive editing. Acroterion (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Allen J and his Amazin Muzak

You have had a good deal to do with this prolific socker. As far I can see there has never been an SPI, though various groups have been tagged as socks of each other. As he is still active (3 new socks this month), I have collected all the socks I could find and raised WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Songboy193, so any new infestation can be listed there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on that: I've been busy in RL and have had little time to do more than answer messages. I'll keep an eye out for more: it seems like an edit filter could be constructed for this guy. Acroterion (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Student project?

Note the reference to EBSCOhost at the bottom of this edit. Post-abortion emotional health also references EBSCOhost. Have I detected a student project? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought it might be when I saw it, but I've lacked the time to follow up with the article's creator. EBSCO's a research database. It's the kind of article that results from some of the more laissez-faire approaches to academic assignments on WP. AT least the post-abortion emotional health article is a little more encyclopedic in character. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Psychology of collecting looks like same stable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

An IP from Northern College (Ontario) has been editing pro-eating disorder. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

For the reverted vandalism on my user page. It's much appreciated, as always. Trusilver 03:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help; clearly a returning customer. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes vandalism #274 to my userpage. I am of the understanding that when I hit 500, I get the all expense paid trip to Fiji, but I admit that "maybe" I misread that somewhere. Trusilver 03:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more like a free 45-minute refueling stop in Fiji as an added perk for your full-fare flight to Australia. As I understand it you got doused with insecticide by Fijian customs inspectors in the good old days when it was an obligatory stop on the way. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory delousing! oooh.... nostalgia. Trusilver 03:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That Policeman in New York

I was looking into that policeman who pepper-sprayed the women in NYC the other day. Anonymous has posted his address and phone number on some hidden corner of the net. I think I better tell you I found it here, [6] I bet we have a rule against that. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted the personal information from the history and nominated the content fork for deletion. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Kadey-Krogen Yachts

Where can I find the Reads Like an Advert template (label? whatever)? Where can I find all those things? I fear I trouble you too much. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Go to your preferences menu: select Gadgets, then look under the "Browsing" header and check "Twinkle." You'll then get a TW tab when working in pages. It will change according to the namespace you're working in. For articles, if you select "Tag" from the dropdown menu, you'll get a further menu of ways to tag articles. There are more ways to do things, like doing it by section, and you should resist the urge to do drive-by tagging, but moderate use is helpful.

You're not bothering me - your note above was timely and appropriate for instance: that situation was intrusive and clearly wrong, something We Just Don't Do, and needed admin intervention. I find, as you know, that I'm getting much busier in Real Life, so my time on WP will be limited, I think. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

artisan baking delete

The article that I posted was written entirely by me and is not copyrighted. I posted it on my blog, but have never published it. I have no idea how to cite my years of experience. I would like to request a reinstatement of the article. Kevroy7 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Material previously published elsewhere on the Internet under copyright cannot be copied into Wikipedia, which is a free-content encyclopedia, with its material copyrighted under the CC-by-SA copyleft. Since Blogspot content is not explicitly under the CC-by-SA copyleft, it may not be copied verbatim into Wikipedia, whether you originally wrote it or not. An absence of any copyright notice effectively means that the content is copyrighted for WP's purposes (note that you can post a CC-by-SA notice on your content per this [7], which deals with the copyright angle), but there are other issues involved.

Blogs are not usually reliable sources under Wikipedia policy; content should be sourced to references that have been published under some form of editorial control. That is not to say that your expertise isn't useful here: quite the contrary, but you should cite sources that have previously been published rather than using your own thoughts on the subject. Your referenced material can be informed by your personal expertise. Please remember that Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide: we're not in the business of teaching people how to bake or providing recipes, but we are interested in writing encyclopedic articles on the topic. You clearly have knowledge that can be imparted here, and I'd be glad to help you out. How about starting off small, with a summary article, constructed in your usespace, that can be moved to article space when it's mature? You can start at User:Kevroy7/sandbox, and I'd be glad to assist. Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. You know, I after I wrote the above, somewhere in the back of my mind I thought Google might own the copyright to all blog posts. Why don't I start by deleting the article from my blog. It is never viewed there and so is lost work. The idea here isn't for notoriety, it is to share information and hopefully start a dialogue. People will disagree with some of what I've written, and God knows there's a lot of information missing, but at least it's a beginning. Most of what I've written is from personal experience working in the field and talking with everyone from bakers to scientists, and to "cite" published works would, at least in some instances, be a lie. Do I hunt down published works and mush them onto my definitions? I appreciate your offer of help and look forward to working with you on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevroy7 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need to delete the content from the blog page: just post the CC-by-SA notice that Google recommends on it. That said, it's important to remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which takes material published in secondary sources (books, news articles, scholarly papers and the like, which are under editorial review), and uses them as references for the encyclopedic content. Your text is a primary source, a distillation of your experience. While primary sources can be used, they are discouraged for most situations other than the presentation of unvarnished facts (Rutherford B. Hayes was born in 1822, that sort of thing). I, for example, am a licensed architect with 30 years' experience. While I could write about quite a lot concerning the practical practice of architecture, I can't on Wikipedia, since my source is myself. What I can do is to write about architecture using my personal experience to judge what is important and what is not (and what is bullshit and what is not), and to source it to materials in my library. Your description of "hunt down published works and mush them onto my definitions" is, in fact, a fairly accurate description of the process. Your experience will inform your writing, including what is doubtful and what is not.

Wikipedia has a lot of enthusiastic amateurs. The sourcing requirements spring from the fact that a lot of people are writing about subjects in which they are not experts. This requirement ensures that:

• Topics reflect mainstream opinions and knowledge, rather than fringe beliefs
• That other editors can, if necessary, verify the material
• That readers who want to pursue further study are guided to in-depth references on the topic
• That a non-expert doesn't insert their own opinions

The role of an expert is to use their knowledge of the field to improve the topic and weed out subtle problems or to discard or de-emphasize obsolete or tangential views. This keeps the Randy in Boise-type editors from taking over the subject. Wikipedia is strong in popular culture and hardware, less so in other areas such as the visual arts (a peeve of mine), and in areas that might, to borrow from your title, be considered "artisanal." See blacksmith for an example of a voluminous but weakly-sourced article on a subject of making. While we try to avoid writing "how-to" articles, there are appropriate places for a description of the process of making a given thing without turning the subject into a recipe book, written by someone who thoroughly knows the topic and the literature. That's the sort of thing that experts such as yourself can contribute.

It's easy for Wikipedia editors to imply that contributions from editors such as yourself aren't valued, and to discourage participation based on internal processes or from a natural unfamiliarity with WP editing process and the 10,000 pages of Rules. Thus my offer of help: people who wish to contribute in good faith to the encyclopedia are valuable, adn worth encouraging. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)