User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q4 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Thanks

engage brain before typing. :)--Appraiser 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that I haven't done that myself. Acroterion (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Read

What? You Said I Vandalized Girls And Boys Town???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connubialis (talk • contribs) 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This diff [1] says you vandalized the talk page. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

Sometimes I get too hasty with the rollback button. Sorry! -- Merope 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As do I: no problem. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete of user page

Hi there - just wondering why you tagged User:LOLJACKCOOPER for speedy deletion under CSDA7, when that's a criteria for articles not userpages. I've removed the tag, as I've been pulled up for this in the past! Regards, BencherliteTalk 11:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're correct - I goofed. Thanks for picking that up, I apparently haven't had enough caffeine this morning and missed the crucial "User:" part. Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. The vandals simply love me. KOS | talk 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Love is sometimes expressed strangely ;) You're welcome! Acroterion (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you once more, [2],[3]. I appreciate it. I've blocked that address for one year due to the severity of his threats. Once again thank you. KOS | talk 00:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome again; I was undecided about send the IP to AIV given the time elapsed, but I figured you ought to have the honor in any case. While you're here, a sockpuppet of User:Ln of x has returned to FisherQueen [4] and Philippe [5] with his creepy schtick; as they're both offline, admin attention might be good there. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
User blocked and the personal attacks removed by an other user. Thanks for the heads up. KOS | talk 00:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What The . . .

*Scratches head.* Did I just replace vandalism on Yu-Gi-Oh!? -WarthogDemon 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, it would appear so. No worries. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Silver Lake (Oregon)

Thanks! It's actually been on my to-do list forever. I had the redlink watchlisted. Sometimes its easier for me to improve something someone else has written than get around to writing something myself. New users do come in handy that way. :) Happy new page patrolling! Katr67 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reverts to Vista Murrieta High School.

Hello,

I am just leaving a comment on your talk page to thank you for reverting the vandalism of the article I mentioned in the headline. I'm glad someone did something to get rid of it. Yimfc724 02:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - I just ran across a suspicious change in Recent Changes, and looked a little further, as high school articles are prone to this sort of thing. You (or any editor) can revert changes too; it just takes a little practice. Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

church

But she is un-married so therefore her present children are bastards. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.43.212 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are technically correct in an archaic and rude way. You were making a point in a disruptive manner, and were reverted. It is a child first and foremost, and that is where the matter should be left; it is clear enough that she's not married. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Loser (slang)

Hi there. I placed a hangon tag to keep this article, which easily could be made into more than a list of cultural references or a dicdef. Bearian 21:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me; the original context of the tag was a user creating neologisms and nonsense pages, and spamming established articles with the nonsense/neologism. Upon reflection, I would say that tagging Loser (slang) as speedy was wrong. How about I just un-tag it and call it a stub? Acroterion (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

bishop kenny

not meaning to add a link its not to a band its to the companies that i work for,

Yikes! Then stop, seriously. There's no reason to link to your company on your alma mater's page, and it's definitely considered spam. I don't see that you're notable enough to be a notable alum - sorry about that. Cool job, though, just not notable on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

well who are you to say im not notable enough, when you have stupid baseball players on there? i make enough money and status to be notable, hell i signed 4 major bands from the southeast. and i am the youngest person to run a warped tour summer schedule. so i think im notable enough to be up there with the papelbons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.111.2 (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY, a baseball player tends to be more notable than a tour manager, no matter how much money he makes or how young he is, in part because baseball players receive coverage from multiple publications of national stature. If you've had articles written about you in national publications, then you're notable. Otherwise, no. Give me something to work with here: references. Inserting notes about yourself is a conflict of interest, and is frowned upon. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Cheoy's back to Bishop Kenny. Your turn.Student7 11:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Acroterion. I've been seeing you around doing a lot of good work for the project recently, especial reverting and reporting vandals. You seem to have gained a good amount of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and processes so I was wondering if you might be interested in becoming an administrator. If you are, I would be more than willing to nominate your at RfA... WjBscribe 03:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you! You are very kind. I think I would be interested in a month or a bit more. I have deadlines at work at the end of this month, ongoing home improvement/repair work, and there's a largish new article that I'd like to finish first - my reference materials should be here in a couple of days. There are also a few areas I ought to study, particularly in the areas of image licensing/fair use and BLP policies, where I've had less experience. I would appreciate your thoughts on issues I should be addressing, if you've got the time; I'm in no hurry, and I'm not here to prove anything about myself - I just like fooling around with encyclopedias. Acroterion (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Drop me a note on my talkpage when you feel ready to run. Hopefully I'll hear from you in a month or so. Best wishes, WjBscribe 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Polly Klass

Sorry about that myy bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosa (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome some feedback

Hello, my name is Isucheme and I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article on the Churchill-Bernstein Equation. The equation is used to find an average (convection) heat transfer coefficient to use in Newton’s Law of cooling for a cylinder in cross flow, and the mass transfer analogy, as described in the article, can be employed to find a mass transfer coefficient. I would appreciate any feed back you can give me on my article so I can make it a great article. Thank you. Isucheme 20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I am entirely unqualified to review this article. Superficially, it appears to be written well, with good formatting and referencing, and I have a general idea of the matter it discusses, but I can't judge its content. I am, however, flattered that you asked! Acroterion (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Muscle Car Trivia Deletion.

Hey I was wondering why you want the page deleted. I am adding more and people who like these cars can look them up and enjoy the movies, books, etc they are in.

       Thank you.
Wikipedia discourages collections of stuff in the form of trivia lists. I would suggest that a referenced article, written in an encyclopedic manner, and titled something like Muscle cars in popular culture might have a better chance of survival - but I doubt it. You might want to look at WP:NOT for guidelines on what's frowned upon; general lists of loosely related things such as this aren't encouraged. Don't let this discourage you, there are plenty of places to edit; it's just getting harder to find something new to create. Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientizzle

You aren't seriously reporting Scientizzle are you? I'm gonna need a serious diff to act on that. - Philippe | Talk 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we can file that under edit conflict/confusion/let's just forget it. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought that might be the case. Carry on :-) - Philippe | Talk 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
... Looks at AIV history, shakes head, goes off and edits something until competence returns ... Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for sorting the situation out. Bobo. 02:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy to oblige; Twinkle wasn't any better than the admin sort - hence the bad tag. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

WikiThanks

Thanks for helping to revert vandalism on those Georgia Tech-related articles. That was a pernicious little vandal. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. We must stand together to defend our alma mater (future alma mater for you). By the way, I was a photographer for the Technique around 28 years ago. Time flies. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider Mogilers.com Software Development Company

Hey hi,

I was wondering why you deleted "Mogilers.com Software Development Company" What can I change to avoid deletion?

Thank you a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogilers (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't delete it, I just nominated it to be deleted by an administrator. The grounds were that the article provided no sources or indications that it met Wikipedia standards for notability. These are fairly stringent, and I urge you to review them carefully. Please note that any assertion of notability must be backed up by sources that verify the claim of notability. As the message on your talk page about the deletion indicates, your first article is a good place to review these requirements. Regards, Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, New user!

Hi, i am username Mistre85 and I am a new wikipedia user. I recently posted a new article about Steady State Systems in Thermodynamics. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and possibly make suggestions for improvements or edits. I would greatly appreciate any feedback as I am trying to learn as much as I can about how to use wikipedia and would like to get some experience right away. Than you for your time.


Sincerely, Mistre85


here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_%28Thermodynamics%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistre85 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your userpage User talk:Mistre85 Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

deletion

Hi I am a new user and have to post an artical for class assignment. What is the objection and how could it be changed to be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjay42 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied here [6] Acroterion (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

the jedi strikes back

hi, this is not the first time I have encountered language difficulties. I think it would be better to obtain a wide consensus from multi-lingual users rather than concentrating upon American English users. Because American English is the modern French or Latin does not mean that it is not thoroughly broken. Please it would be nice to allow a German or a Greek a chance to read something informative rather than superfluous and uncommunicative jargon : which is meaningless outside of the box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki104 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the language, I was commenting on the fact that there was no attempt to integrate the addition with the existing content, and it was inconsistent with Wikipedia style guidelines for formatting. Those requirements, you'll find, do not dictate a national style - far from it. They do require a certain level of formality. I'm personally allergic to jargon, which creeps into technical discussions of this sort. I would suggest revisions on a more moderate scale, that are actually integrated into the existing text, since the text as it stands represents a consensus of editors from around the world. A discussion on the talk page would be a good preliminary move, to express concerns and to find consensus - as you apparently desire. Acroterion (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to inetd falls into the same category as the others - the insertion of a "wall of text", using first and second-person language, with no formatting or wikilinks. Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the points you are making. yes I am sure that I can avoid using the first person in the future. But really, is it any wonder that wiki is useless at providing an introduction to any subject if there are people who won't allow anything informative and useful? If you don't see any links, put those in yourself. What gives you a right to play God by deleting anything new and possibly worthwhile. Try adding to the content, and although it might not be useful to yourself, it might be to somebody else : as in the reader, not the critique. Criticism is easier than creation. The format is changeable so change it. Deleting content is not productive. If I can't provide what you want in the way you want it, so you provide what you want to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki104 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see that we're making some progress: you no longer insist that I'm biased against non-native speakers of English, and you've agreed that in an encyclopedia it is inappropriate to use anything other than the third person. I'm not sure why you think I'm deleting your edits. Apart from the initial edits, where you inserted large blocks of unsourced, non-manual-of-style-compliant text without explaining why in an edit summary - a good way to have it quickly reverted - I have done nothing other than copyedit Subnet mask for style and tone. Others have edited most of these articles since your edits. I would suggest that you look at a featured article (the one on the main page) - they are examples of properly composed and sourced articles.
I urge you to read and understand WP:STYLE and WP:SOURCE. It is vital that information be consistent in presentation and verifiable. Any contributor to Wikipedia must be prepared to have their contributions reviewed, edited, critiqued and possibly removed. Keep in mind that every professional writer has their work reviewed by an editor - here we have thousands of editors, including yourself. I have more than 10,000 edits and more than 60 new articles, and I'm still learning.
Also, please sign your posts with four tildes - ~~~~ to insert your signature and the time. That way we know who you are and when you visited. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So if I include four tildes this will sing my posts automatically?
I had difficulties understanding "non-manual-of-style-compliant". I think that this means by a style which is not congruent with existing manuals. That makes more sense. The American language has transformed from what is what from 1950s into 1990s and thereafter seemed to have become more and more strange. Moving onwards, wiki does not seem to include a reference of bibliography, and although I am basing my translated description on other peoples work, I think that wiki should be pointed at the complete beginner who needs a "hold-your-hand" explanation. Did I say it correctly/right? I do not think that wiki should be another attempt at the world patent organisation who attempt to hold the total of all scientific and technological progress. Wiki has pages about Doctor Who. The computer science section of wiki has been appalling. The work I have done is still there and nobody has hacked it completely. What I do to create this work is a complete hack from other sources. There does not seem to be a reliable mechanism as a bibliography on wiki. If there is, how can I learn wiki as in a simple tutorial? I have too much to do than learn about editing history, and so forth. Wiki104 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm guilty of using too much jargon like "non-manual-of-style-compliant" - not a good phrase. What I mean is that there's a standard format for the construction of an article, stating how to set up the lede/lead, sections, headings, type, illustrations, references, notes, links and so on. That's what's at WP:STYLE. It also contains guidelines for language use, which are rather neutral in tone - not specifically American, English or Canadian, as far as that's possible, although you'll find a lot of articles written in a conspicuously national style.
I agree that learning how to edit here is difficult and time-consuming. You have to write in mark-up language, which isn't what most people are used to. There isn't any step-by-step tutorial, just a list of references with [[WP:XYZ]] abbreviations. It can be quite intimidating. If I could point you to a particular tutorial, I would. Your first article is probably the best. What I would suggest is to do as I did - start with small edits, see how it works, and work your way up to bigger things.
Bibliography is largely manual, although there are templates at WP:REFERENCE. Footnotes are semi-automated, and work well once you've practiced with them a little bit. As I said, featured articles (the articles on the main page) are a good place to see well-formatted, referenced and noted articles. It helps to look at them in the editing window to see the markup language.
You shouldn't apologize for your English - it is excellent, and I didn't think you were a non-native speaker until you said so. American English has changed in detail and relative levels of formality since the 1950's, although I think the main shifts in usage that produced modern American English took place in the late 1800's; a linguist would have a better idea.
As you say, (and did), four tildes are the way to produce a signature in wikimarkup. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I have done an edit of TCP/IP. I am much more happy with the newer version myself. Actually I am a native Brit, but have learnt to speak the old English which is now an extinct language. I agree that the trends in language transition happened in the 1800s but the last 40 years has been phenomenal also. Unfortunately it is very unpolitically correct to talk about the working class these days, but that does not alter the social history whereby the "educated" classes had all the money and learnt to speak the grammatically wrong versions of the transitive language of the 19th century. They also learnt to laugh down what they did not understand : such as the rules of old English. However the British Empire was full of people who were uneducated who spoke proper grammar. As a consequence pockets of proper grammar have been left behind at places like nigeria and india. Because wiki is aimed at the developing world I think it approbate to package it sufficiently, especially re. internet technologies. The mark-up language is really easy compared to something like latex. But there is a technical problem with the footnotes at TCP/IP page I have made a discussion. The problem also is indicative that people don't use footnotes, so those are not worthwhile. Wiki104 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Woolmer hill technology college speedy delete

The speedy delete notice has been deleted three times by anons; however, I think the article actually is legitimate and should stand. I would request your assistance in looking at the editors that are currently participating; I believe that some of them deserve blocks for vandalism. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw it it was effectively vandalism with a real and useful title. I db-tagged it because I thought it needed to be re-created by someone more interested in the truth. Right now, it's a playground for vandals. I'm not an admin, though, so I'll have to interest someone who is in appropriate measures. Let me see what I can do for the moment about the article.Acroterion (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have a go with the sources I can find, and I believe we can bring the chucklefest to a speedy end. I agree that it can be kept, as a stub at least. I will, however, move it to an appropriately capitalized format - you will wish to update your watchlist. Acroterion (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved and protected in both forms (with thanks to Jéské Couriano's new admin powers), and we'll see what happens in 24 hours. Acroterion (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the reverts to my talk page. Just so you know, I've semi-protected that archive of yours that got vandalized, as that'll be the vandal's new target. Acalamari 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you get a chance, you might as well semi-protect all three archives, as there's no reason for an IP or a new user to edit them. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Done Acalamari 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Loser (slang)

Hi. I am going to work on this more. I will consider going to WP:RFPP. If I see it as hopeless, then I will inform you so as soon as possible. Bearian 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I considered it from a lot of angles - it ought to be improvable, but I keep ending up with lists of synonyms or patently obvious filler and not much more. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Acroterion impersonator

I recently reverted a piece of vandalism to which your signature had been forged by User:Sweed666. Thought you'd like to know. --Orange Mike 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A good thing to know - thanks! By the way, I copyedited Wiki104's latest contribution to Subnet mask; the contributions read like a textbook, and I'm concerned about a copyvio. Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
He just did it again; this time he forged your name on my talk page, to an accusation that I'd forged your name to a porn-related article. --Orange Mike 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
And now blocked for 24 hours. A nice circular sort of harassment. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Is 24 hours really sufficient? Outside of putting up a picture of somebody's gravestone, these forged identities seem to be his only "contributions"! I'd think he'd earned a permanent ban by now.--Orange Mike 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Dreadstar took a more careful look at his record and made it an indefinite! --Orange Mike 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore edit

Absolutely. I can't stand it when people add garbage to articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.239.187 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou okay, I'm glad my test worked, I just wanted to see if it was ture thatyou could edit wikipedia, but I tried to go back and delete it but it wouldnt let me.

Thanks ReliableCarrot —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableCarrot (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

It's a school doing that (the vandalism), they somehow have a few IPs instead of the traditional one. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they're probably sitting next to each other. I asked for a semi-protect. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Figured that as well. Sad thing is mid-day most of the admins are gone at work or school or just not here. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I have followed the guidlines for editing Wikipedia and my work is still being undone. This anom is now putting false statments into the article. How can I address this? Thanks! (WEMUS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WEMUS (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Help Editing Please

I am seeking your help with the Assemblies of Yahweh article. When I preform edits, all my changes (and even yours) are reverted by an annonomous editer. As far as I know, I am following all the requirements set forth by Wikipedia and am really trying to follow the NPOV guidlines. I need to know what to do?? Thanks! WEMUS 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it as time allows; what I come up with may be to no one's liking, but I welcome suggestions. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your time! WEMUS 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked a question on the discussion page of the Assemblies of Yahweh article and would appreciate your insight. Also, I saw the anom reverted all your changes. :) WEMUS 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Are you an admin? If not, you can't use templates like the test4im and test5. Otherwise just use stuff like test3 if you hate what I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.62.254 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah. {{test4}}, {{test4im}} and the like can be used by anyone. {{test5}} and the equivalents may only be used by admins, as they suggest the user has been blocked. And blocking can only be done by admins. (this is the same message as I posted here, to the same user) --Dreaded Walrus t c 09:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As DW says, no, I'm not an admin, and yes, protocol dictates the use of templates 1 through 4: 5 can be placed by non-admins after a block, if the admin's busy and didn't do it. So you will be reported to AIV for long-term vandalism the next time the "ugly bear" story/obsession appears. This has been going on for more than a year, and you've been amply warned. Acroterion (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you so much for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 12:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
And thanks from me too!
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For cleaning up all the penis stuff on my page, I, -Goodshoped, hereby due the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! -Goodshoped 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Its Okay:)

Hey! Its okay:) Have a nice day.--SJP 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


WOverstreet

I just blocked around a dozen socks from this user. Thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated. Spartaz Humbug! 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This guy's been busy. It would appear that he considers notability to be "anyone who's set foot on the University of Florida campus." By that standard, I guess I'm notable. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I have some cleaning up to do when I have the time. Thanks again Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
for undoing vandalism on my user page. Blanchardb 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! You might want to request that your user page (as opposed to your talk page) be semi-protected to keep IP's and new users from altering it. Acroterion (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

why

why? Nothing more needs to be said. Ok, fine, maybe the article doesn't state that I created it, but why did you key it for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1oftheseppl (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't sourced or referenced, and I couldn't find any sources to back it up. If you can reference it (using appropriate third-party sources) and clean up the opinion and apparent original research, then we've got something we can keep. That's pretty standard. Nothing to do with you personally, the article creator gets notified by courtesy. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I delete it now? You're right I don't have any reliable sources, because it doesn't exist, it was just a test article. And Copyrights were what I had on mind. BTW: how did you find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1oftheseppl (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a test edit, I'll just tag it as such for you for speedy deletion (you'd use {{db-test}}) at the top to create the template. To see new articles, click "recent changes" on the left side of the page, then click "new" near the top. All recent contributions are routinely reviewed and categorized. Feel free to create new (sourced and referenced) articles - we're not trying to shoot down legitimate content. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks

Thanks, now I know for when I actually do put something legitimate on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1oftheseppl (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you won't need to tag a good contribution for deletion, but it's handy to know that you can get rid of mistakes. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

leave me alone

i can edit my own school if i want to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobmarleydude (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You certainly can, if you can bring yourself to provide factual content, free of opinion or vandalism. Please consider doing so. Acroterion (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked now, I see. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning left at User:Toprohan

Hey, you may have left this warning at [7], which is a talk page of a user I have adopted through the new user adoption program. However, looking through the page history [8] and the user contributions of the user in question [9] I can find no such edit. Then I saw that the warning was placed by an IP address, and that the warning may be some sort of vandalism. I removed the warning; if you have any reason to opose my removal of that warning, please let me know. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're entirely correct; the IP forged my signature to harass your adoptee. I did indeed warn that IP with (almost) that template; the template must have been copied onto Toprohan's page (edited slightly along the way). I've seen this sort of thing before, so good job. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

hobvagus

Hello - I need to know why my article on Hobvagus was marked for "speedy deletion". We have created a genuine new word that we would like to share with the world and there for we are very keen to understand why it was considered inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wunwin (talk • contribs) 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NEO for the relevant policy on neologisms; while you're there, you might want to see WP:NOT#DICT (we're not a dictionary or WP:MADEUP a place for things you made up one day). Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

Billy Moses

Thank you for the welcome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy2008 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion on your new article - I've sorted it out, I think, and talked to Redmarkviolinist about deletion criteria. I still believe the article should go to Articles for Deletion, since it does not appear to meet the criteria for notability, but I'd like to give you a chance to source it first. Acroterion (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be working on it all night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy2008 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
When you say "not established it with sources". Do you mean websites?
I'm going to bed. You'll need to come up with some form of significant coverage, preferably in a newspaper of more than purely local standing (which can normally be referenced via the Web), and preferably in more than one place. Take a look at WP:YFA for guidance, also WP:SOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. Acroterion (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

speed deleted article : Young Experts’ Think Tank

I still don't understand why it was deleted? Not important enough? The organization is too small and too young to be mentioned here? Why not you deleting then all references made from wikipedia to this organization, f.e. here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia#_note-4 ??? Steelmate 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article as written contained no assertion or documentation that the organization was significant enough to have third-party coverage in publications of note. See WP:NOTABILITY. YETT may be useful as a citation here, although that could be open to debate, so there is no obvious reason to delete references using YETT, even if such a thing was really possible. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Misty Schipman

Would you believe that we have a user here named Misty schipman (talk · contribs) who created an article The Maternal Order of St. Eve (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)? I guess she has a MySpace page as well. (It may not be safe for work, and the background music is horribly loud.) I don't think Misty Schipman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is necessarily a WP:BLP minefield, but it certainly looks like a non-notable biography. We're probably safe with its normal five-day run at WP:AFD. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I also saw the MySpace page; fortunately, my sound card's dead. I got the impression she's cool with all this, but thought it warranted a second opinion. Thanks for the look-over. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. By the way, I noticed you're interested in architecture of the National Park Service. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've read up on some of that material since I'm part of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. In particular, I've noticed that National Park Service Rustic architecture was used pretty extensively by the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Depression. A lot of those buildings and structures are now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I also got a chance to stay in Glacier National Park (U.S.) a year and a half ago, and it was interesting to read how the Great Northern Railway (U.S.) invested in the park buildings out there. Anyway, if you're ever interested in National Register stuff, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Happy editing! --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that, and I believe I'll join up. The railroads were hugely influential in the early development of the western national parks. I've stayed at Many Glacier Hotel, Glacier Park Lodge, and Old Faithful Inn. Many Glacier moves when the wind blows - rather alarming. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA nom

WJBscribe would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact WJBscribe to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acroterion. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

I've got it ready to go for when you're ready. Just answer the questions, update the end time and transclude it on WP:RFA. Feel free to ask me any questions you have during the process on my talkpage or by email. Best of luck, WjBscribe 21:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for your kind nomination statement. By the way, the LST series came about because my father, now 81 years old, served on several in WWII, particularly at the invasion of Okinawa. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at a request for comment on the St Mark's College discussion page.

This is the result of an ongoing dispute and I think the more people we get to comment, the better chance we'll have of resolving the issue once and for all. You're comments would be much appreciated. Cheers. Username nought 12:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mission 66 and Historic American Buildings Survey

Are you sure that the Historic American Buildings Survey was really a part of Mission 66? I got the impression that HABS was a New Deal-era project designed to provide work to out-of-work architects, draftsmen, and photographers. Maybe Mission 66 provided new funding for HABS, or it established the Historic American Engineering Record. Does the Carr book mention anything about HABS existing prior to Mission 66? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I got this from the Carr book, but I agree that my impression was that HABS pre-dated the '50's. I don't have the book available right now; I'll check when I get home. The general drift of Mission 66 was to function as a huge money funnel, particularly from the highway trust funds, so lots of things got piggybacked onto the program. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Digging deeper into the Carr book, it notes that HABS had been inactive since 1941. I'll make an adjustment to make it clear that it was a revival, rather than the creation of the program. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting. I suppose it makes sense that it was mothballed when World War II started, since there wasn't much need for make-work programs during a time of war. It's a good thing that they restarted HABS, especially at the point where urban renewal started claiming a lot of older buildings in big cities. Otherwise, a lot of the buildings would have been demolished without explanation. Thanks for the clarification. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I did HABS-quality documentation for the Park Service while I was in graduate school; it was quite fun. Every now and then I still use those techniques of measuring and scaling for existing structures. Thanks for slicing off the -al on Historical, by the way. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

The Civilization Loop

I was simply writing to ask how I could better make my article about The Civilization Loop more note worthy to include on Wikipedia. I understand it didn't meet with your approval, but I would like to have another chance. Can you explain a little more what I could do?

Thank you


209.149.149.132 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue wasn't so much the article as the book. An effectively self-published book by an unknown author that scores around the 1.4 millionth in Amazon sales rankings isn't notable enough for inclusion here. Basic notability requirements would normally demand secondary references, independent of the subject, in published works or periodicals. See:
  • WP:NOTABILITY for the general topic, and
  • WP:BK for specific guidelines pertaining to books.
Hope this helps. Regards, Acroterion (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for you

Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot Jayson 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, thanks, I'm familiar with the essay. What is this in reference to? Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My friend Jordan has this syndrom and wanted to place his picture on the wiki, I take it that is not the right place.

You are correct: this is not the place to put up pictures of your friends, Aspergers or not. Try Facebook. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for reverting the vandalism on my page! -Goodshoped 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

-Goodshoped has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're welcome: I see you're semi-protected now, so that should help. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sweet! And you may want to see this, this, and this. Hope it helps... -Goodshoped 04:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, he's indef blocked, so on to the next mole to be whacked. Acroterion (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the reverts. :) Acalamari 04:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - you seemed to be away, and Husond took care of the problem for 48 hours. Acroterion (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations


Congratulations!

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done - unanimous support too! Enjoy your shiny new buttons. Visit the Main page and marvel at the "edit this page" tab :D. Feel free to ask if you're ever in need of help or advice about using you admin tools. Even if I don't know the answer, I can prob point you in the direction of someone who does. WjBscribe 04:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RfA! Now that you've been given adminship, I think it's ready that you "whack this mole!" -Goodshoped 04:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you everyone; I'm moving slowly this morning and I'll take it equally slowly:
Me: "What's this button?"
Screen goes blank, several hours later rumbling noise arrives from direction of Florida
Me: Ooops ...
Acroterion (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>Perish the thought. :) If you haven't already, you might want to visit the new admin school. I found it helpful, anyway. Congratulations! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's where I'm headed right now. Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on passing your request for adminship. I see that Moonriddengirl gave you the link to the new admin school, so I don't need to give you another. Instead, here's a T-shirt. Good luck. Acalamari 20:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 20:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 20:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the shirt (I think). I'm trying out the buttons and nobody's complained yet - I must be doing something wrong. I haven't done any speedy band deletions yet, so there's ample opportunity for outrage there. Acroterion (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And if you want to know, they're ready to do a checkuser on him. -Goodshoped 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Watchlisted: I'll await the results - not that there's much doubt. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Username blocking

I can't find a good template to use for this; have you? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your userpage so you'd have the reference. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

I can't believe after your RfA passed, you're still celebrating! Anyway, about the professor, yes I don't think he is a real professor to you or me, but he is using Wikipedia as a classroom - which isn't allowed, right? He has started this article, which I have nominated for deletion because of spam, nonsense, and the context. They may be using the account to bypass a schoolblock in which they need to work on some project, which is what they are doing right now as I speak. If you want, you may want to check it out. -Goodshoped 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Celebrations are over, and I'm getting used to being wrong no matter what, which is the normal admin state, and to be expected.
Using Wikipedia as a classroom is a separate topic from the username discussion. But, yes, this looks like an genuine architecture professor setting up a class assignment, and he's just calling himself what he is - there's no grounds to block him for his name. The problem's with the article, which is now gone. Speaking as somebody who spent six years in architecture school, this looks exactly like the sort of thing we had to do - except I did it on paper, since there was no Internet or Wikipedia back in 1984. It's highly unlikely that there's a schoolblock on a university, or an evasion. We'll AGF on the name and deal with the article. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sweet. -Goodshoped 23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(Re: UAA) Yes, I'll try to be nice to them. And I just got this e-mail from I believe User:TheWikiAuthority that I think he may be angry (he couldn't sleep that night), so what I think is best is that you should let him change his name and I'll be civil and polite to newbies, that's why I did that, as a courtesy reminder, you know what I mean? -Goodshoped 05:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
S/he's already got a new name, and seems to be a little sensitive. Keep in mind that many users (like this one) aren't Americans and have different expectations on courtesy and formality. You should err on the side of being too nice and too formal. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. :) Acalamari 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)

Tapadh Leibh (Thank You)...

Re: Consumer

Yes, you bet me to the total revert... thx... κaτaʟavenoTC 02:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, busy evening. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Borderville deletion

Any conrete reasons why this page was deleted?

According to the information presented in the article, the band does not meet WP:BAND criteria for notability: a single self-released EP (released this month) does not qualify. Regards, Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Steele Foundation

You keep deleting info I am creating about The Steele Foundation. I have been looking for info on this company and a friend suggested that I create a page with facts about the company. You are incorrect that it is copyright infingement. I am writing info that I have researched and thought others would find interesting. Help me out here. How am i supposed to post factual information if you keep deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Roberts (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You have posted a direct copy of content from the Steele Foundation website; this is not permitted. Also, there is no indication of notability for this organization. Please refer to WP:NOTABILITY; also, WP:YFA may be of assistance. Regards, Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

I am enjoying your contributions to wikipedia.... Kdfromhb (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Camp Nathanael

There is no Wikipedia page for Camp Nathanael and all I am simply attempting to do is to create the initial page so that other users can continue the work. Here is the website: www.campnathanael.com to verify that this place does in fact exist. I've attempted to alter the sentences and change the wording as to avoid a "direct copy/paste" from the website. I did however quote and give credit in terms of their written mission statement; which you must agree, should not be rewritten. Thanks. -Nswedlund

Please see your talk page [10] for advice from myself and other editors. The issue is not whether it exists - that is not in doubt - it's copyright violation, notability , and the fact that the article is written as an advertisement. All three issues must be addressed before the article is suitable for inclusion, not just the copyright issue. You may wish to consult Wikipedia:Your first article for advice. Regards, Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up this particular ball and running with it. I couldn't figure out how to get through to this individual to help, short of leaving a note right square in the middle of the soon-to-be-deleted article, so I'm glad you did. Let me know if there's something further I can do to help. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like to repeatedly delete good-faith additions just because they fit CSD. It may not survive, but I'd rather go the extra yard in cases like this, as opposed to the rash of repeat vandal/attack page creations I've fielded recently. Unfortunately, I think it was the block threat that got their attention. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your experience seems to be matching mine (I think we both became admins at about the same time). I've seen so many repeat vandal/attack page creations lately that when something comes along that has even the slightest shred of good faith, I want to help however I can. And it's only about a quarter of them that turn around and bite you in the butt <sigh>. I'm slowly becoming less of a deletionist and more of an inclusionist, I guess. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Etheltrust.....

Hi, to my understanding, userpages still fall under speedy criteria due to the fact that they are still classified as a main space, per here and here. Please correct me if i am wrong. Cheers.

Also take a look at this convo i had with another admin. Tiptoety (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone's been harassing me...

...there's this person that's been harassing me and trolling on my talkpage. StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs) has been harassing me since I reverted his removal of content, and he's been very uncivil to me and attacking me on his userpage, and he has been trolling on my talk page. I have the diff links if you want them, plus a warning that's still fresh on my talkpage. I would recommend you get rid of this message before he makes a big deal of this again on his userpage. -Goodshoped 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Heads up - we're at ANI!

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_User:Etheltrust. in case you're interested... Regards, BencherliteTalk 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied there: I see no harm in letting the page say "la". Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Request For Initiating Arbitration

I would appreciate it if you file a arbitration for me at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration]. You state it is not harassment but his actions has continually involve his relationship with administrators. Even now I have to deal with name complaints for another administration in which perhaps is bad judgement but does not change the course of events. I was thinking of letting it go but it is long pass mediation as if I am treated in such a way, only arbitration will determine any further involvement with editing. Thank you.StopTaoSpam (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest (and just did) that everybody drop the issue. It isn't worth the effort. I am concerned about your username, and I'm concerned about Goodshoped and Gp75motorsport's diplomatic skills. Best that you stay apart, and everybody just edit the encyclopedia. By the way, you want mediation first (which is what this discussion amounts to). Arbitration is longer and more tedious, and will just result in scoldings all around. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have and had nothing to hide. I could do the name change and than arbitration. Mediation implies there were sufficient good faith and civility involved. I received lacking of any and since I can understand your reluctant. My wiki markup is poor but will initiate it poorly if you don't get back to me tomorrow. Thank you. StopTaoSpam (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
One question: what do you want from this process? If you want to be left alone by the editors you have an issue with, I have no reason to believe that they won't do what I've asked them to do: leave you alone. In return, it's reasonable to expect you to do likewise. If you want some form of punishment, you're unlikely to be gratified.
Also, name change requests are this way; you are unlikely to have your alternate name approved. I'd suggest a new, neutral name. It usually takes a few days. Acroterion (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm willing to stop, but, please, stop attacking me and I will stop attacking you. It's that easy. -Goodshoped 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That user just arbitrated me and other users, even the fact you told him to drop it! I'm not lying! -Goodshoped 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:StopTaoSpam

Thanks. This has apparently been going on for months now, so it's time it's stopped. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins

Hi Acroterion. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I get to make a category? I think Decorative fits the name (but not necessarily the person), while Antique might cover both bases. Acroterion (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A favour

Would you (or anyone, really) be able to do me a favour, and revert Eddie Stobart Ltd. to this revision? There's been an ongoing spam problem for a few days, which I've been fine with, but it appears that currently, whenever I edit any page with a reference, it mangles it, as seen here in my last revert of the spam. If I try to revert myself, I'm still editing a page with a reference, and thus the issue still happens. I have no idea what is causing this, or if it's just me, as it happens in both IE and Firefox. Any thoughts? :-S --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Neeever mind. While I was writing that, this discussion popped up (which wasn't there when I started), so it's not just me. And then, when I tried to let you know that the issue wasn't just me, the database was locked, and it appeared that the glitch was caused by a software update, which has now been resolved, and I was able to fix it myself. Thanks for listening anyway. :P --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Always happy to help, especially if I don't have to do anything. I've seen a lot of database server issues recently. Better contribute, I guess. Acroterion (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Page

My page does nothing wrong, my purpose was not clearly stated as I was still thinking of the correct words to put it in. If you still feel it needs to be deleted then I would like to now how I can petition or some sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolzonek (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The page appears to be an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. If you've set up an orphanage and saved ten people from a fire, there should be no problems finding multiple references in a third-party media source, preferably of national standing. Neither of those accomplishments will necessarily make you notable, however. Otherwise, I could re-create it and send it to Articles for Deletion for debate, but you might not like the outcome there. I will, however, do that, if you wish. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Niagara Basketball Association

Could you please tell me why my article, Niagara Basketball Association was deleted? This organization has operated in the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, Canada (Welland, Fonthill, Port Colborne) for 38 years as a men's basketball league. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSeliske (talk • contribs) 05:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no assertion that the league was notable. As an amateur local sports league like hundreds or thousands of others around the world, it would not be eligible for inclusion, and no claim was made or substantiated that the league had wider standing or notability. Regards, Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words at my RFA

One of my favorite places Dear Acroterion,

Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence.

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of Candle of hope sock

I changed your block reasoning of this user, as they turned out to be a sockpuppet of a user called Ionas68224. Thanks. Acalamari 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, my sockpuppet taxonomy isn't that up to date. I blocked on the basis of the SV trolling. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Male pregnancy - IP with questionable edit pattern

Hi, you asked me to drop a note if the edit pattern continued; and it is. This time the user removed several of the section headings entirely, with no discussion on Talk or my talk page. Photouploaded 15:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case caught that: both IP's are now blocked, with a sockpuppet notice as well. I'll continue to keep an eye on it. Any continuation is blockable. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As you have seen, they are at it again. I noticed that in your revert, that the version to which you reverted actually had a lot of stuff missing as compared to the version that existed just prior to the IP's latest round of edits. Were there some things that you found acceptable about what the IP did? I found it rather rude of them to put the pregnancies of transmen waayyy at the end of the article, after the Pop culture section. This I found to be so because previously they were just trying to delete that section outright. Thoughts? Photouploaded (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rafael Robb

Hi. Thanks for catching my flub on the "create and article." Wondering your thoughts on a Rafael Robb article? Too newsie? --Lyonspen 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my general feeling. Consensus seems to be that murderers (and their victims) are not usually notable unless there's something else to make them so. The only notable thing about this particular incident appears to be that the perpetrator was a professor, which doesn't quite cross the bar for me. Others may disagree. If you want, I can rename the article and send it over to Articles for Deletion for debate - let me know. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for a sensible reply. It would great if you could rename and send it over to debate if only for my own edification on the process. I'd be interested to hear what people think. Thanks again.--Lyonspen 02:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Will do. This sort of thing usually gets a fairly serious, considered set of responses. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

97.82.52.2

I suggest a couple of hours of ban for the IP... best Pundit|utter 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A good idea: 24 hours. Acroterion (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebafan16

Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer T:C 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I really hate dealing with these obsessive radio/TV editors - it's hard to see if it's really a problem. It's so nice that this one uses consistent names. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed...I think he wants to be caught personally. At least he is outta our collective hair for the night. Take Care and Have a Good Evening...NeutralHomer T:C 02:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy page

I am puzzled by your message. I did not add any negative comments or personal opinions to the Best buy page. I added a link that leads to customer opinions and comments. The Best Buy page is not a company run promtional tool, it is a page for those who are looking to educate themselves about the company, and the customer experience is surely relevant information. The fact that there are numerous webpages dedicated to customer's negative experiences at the Best Buy is relevant, important and interesting. I suspect you may be an employee of Best Buy and that is why you have an interest in censoring this information. I kindly ask you not to delete my addition again. If you are concerned about the negative customer experiences being available on the Best Buy link list, perhaps it would be more contructive to add links that detail positive customer experiences, if you know of any.

I refer you back to KnowledgeOfSelf's concise response [11] to your identical critique. Don't add links in violation of policy, and don't use Wikipedia for your personal vendetta. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

leaving the project

I'm leaving Wikipedia for the time being due to pressures of every day life getting to me right now, and wish to excercise my right to vanish. Please delete my talk page and block my accout so it won't be misused or compromized in the future. Thank you, Rackabello (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You realize that WP:RTV assumes you won't be back - it's not a "for the time being" sort of thing. If you're just are going away for a while, you're fine as is. RTV isn't a method of enforcing one's own departure, and we won't block you just to keep you from temptation. Feel free to blank your own talk page; it's your prerogative. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

An Alarming Development

OK I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE ABILITY TO TALK TO AN AUTHORITY OF THIS WEBSITE. I HAVE BEEN GIVEN KNOWLEDGE OF A GROUP OF POSSIBLE TERRIORISTS USING THIS SITE, WIKIPEDIA, TO TRANSFER INFORMATION WORLD WIDE. SO PLEASE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE CONNECT ME WITH AN AUTHORITY. IF ACROTERION IS AN AUTHORITY THEN PLEASE NOTIFY ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND I WILL INFORM HIM OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Home skinny (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

^^^That is the weirdest thing I have seen on Wikipedia in awhile....and I have seen some weird stuff on here. Some people have WAAAAY too much time on their hands. :) - NeutralHomer T:C 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I await further developments with lively interest. I would note that I'm entirely certain the NSA keeps an eye on Wikipedias of all languages - it's not hard - Google does it quite well, so the NSA should find it easy. Acroterion (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Erm, OK. You're talking to an administrator IN ALL CAPS on an encyclopedia anybody can edit, so it's not hard to transfer information of any kind, including yours. If you wish to email me, there's a link on the left side that says "Email this editor". Otherwise, here is fine. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Harper's Not Reliable?

How is Harper's unreliable? It is an esteemed cultural/political magazine in the same group as the New Yorker, The Nation, and The Progressive. So, in your estimation any magazine is unreliable. Where am I suppose to get my facts? Newspapers? Well, what about the New York Times. Am I free to use that? Or, I bet you want me to strictly use Fox News materials...that's hard-hitting journalism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeftChicago (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean the Index, not the magazine. The Index is usually based on another source - making it a tertiary source, if such a thing exists. As I said, I enjoy Harper's, and subscribe intermittently. You're making a fairly startling assertion, and I'd expect multiple sources, preferably those the Index used. Maybe the CIA explains all those @&*%! Pokemon articles. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You make a very good point. I will add the sources the index used. I will remember this in the future. This is my first time adding materials....I'm a student in learning, if you will --LeftChicago (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You may expect to have your assertions challenged, FYI, but I'm leaving it alone for now. Discussions should take place on the talk page, not as part of a revert war. Check out WP:3RR for the policies. Also, remember that the Index is an essay in irony. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in this Harper's index too:

Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency#CIA_has_made_the_most_edits_to_Wikipedia.3F
User_talk:LeftChicago#Its_tough_being_a_new_editor_on_wikipedia T (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going to look it up myself, but haven't had a chance to put my hands on a dead-tree Harper's yet. Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
LeftChicago, we just confirmed that the statement you made on the CIA page was a complete fabrication. I am not sure, but this could be considered vandalism if it was done intentionally. Travb 12:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume you are speaking to LeftChicago, not me. As I've noted, LC's contribution history hasn't inspired confidence. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This Anti-Vandalism Barnstar is awarded to User:Acroterion for his vigilance in thwarting subtle vandalism Trav (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page!

-Goodshoped has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

But I reverted it back because I think it would be better if I/we leave it there and don't respond to the message. That's my way of WP:DENY, so he may stop. Thanks anyway, -Goodshoped 01:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the normal way to RBI, but, as you wish. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Internet Business Logic Posts to Wikipedia

Hi -

With respect, I think you have another false positive here -- of the kind that has been hitting the headlines lately.

In the hope that it helps, here is the text of an email justification sent to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org . You reply to adriandwalker@gmail.com would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Request to Unblock


Hi --

This is a request please to unblock entries about "Internet Business Logic", and to no longer delete the entries once they are made.

As you may see by Googleing "Internet Business Logic", it represents over 10 years of serious R&D. Some of the theory underlying the system was developed at IBM Yorktown Research [1,2,3,4] in a group that I headed.

An external third party article about the system is [6].

More recent publications about the system are [7,8].

The system itself is made available on the Internet, free for shared use.

I'll be happy to try to justify this further to the Wikipedia editorial board. Please contact me with questions at adriandwalker@gmail.com .

Thanks, Adrian Walker

[1] Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is Simple
Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22
[2] Knowledge Systems and Prolog: Developing Expert, Database, and Natural Language Systems, book, second edition, Addison-Wesley, 1990. A. Walker, M. McCord, J. Sowa and W. Wilson.
[3] Deduced Relevant Types and Constructive Negation (with N. Foo, A. Rao and A. Taylor). Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, Seattle, August 1988. Also Report RC 13407, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, 1988.
[4] Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge, (with K. Apt and H. Blair). In: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, J. Minker (Ed.), Morgan Kaufman 1988.
[5] Knowledge Systems: Principles and Practice. IBM Journal of Research and Development, January 1986.
[6] What's The Meaning of This? By David Rubinstein, SD Times. www.reengineeringllc.com/column-20030915-02.html (You can also view this at the SD Times site.)
[7] Application Semantics via Business Rules in Open Vocabulary English. Presentation at the Semantic Technology Conference, San Jose CA, 2006. http://www.semantic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html
[8] Understandability and Semantic Interoperability of Diverse Rules Systems. Position Paper for the W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability. April 2005, Washington, D.C. http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.81.167 (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting me here. With respect, I won't have an off-wiki discussion on this topic via email, since I'd like other editors to be able to view this. Please understand that inserting commentary into articles will cause its removal - we have talk pages for that. That is the problem here. That is what you were blocked for. Your edits also give the appearance of spamming, but that's a separate conversation. Please respect our methods, and discuss suitability for inclusion on talk pages, not on the article page. We can open a request for comment to draw more attention, if needed. We have no "editorial board", just nine million editors, so the discussion is consensus-driven. Keep in mind that it takes time for people to notice discussions.
When did you start adding this reference, and when was it first removed? - I'm coming in at the middle, I think, and have no context other than the apparent fact that you've been reverted before by others. Acroterion (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm also adding the discussion from your IP page so it doesn't get lost:
Three things:
Don't insert commentary like "(Note to Wikipedia editors: Please see unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org for detailed rationale and references for this entry. Thank you.)" in the article. It's an encyclopedia article, please respect that. It will be reverted on sight if you continue.
If you have references as to the notability of this product, please provide them in the proper format, or, failing that, on the article talk page.
And don't give an off-wiki email address for discussion. Discussion should be on-wiki. The unblock email address isn't for this purpose, and discussing notability there is an abuse of the process. Use the talk page.
You may also discuss this issue with me on my talk page: in fact, I'd strongly suggest this, since the way you've approached this is not productive. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk

Thanks for your message.

Sorry, can't find your talk page, unless this is it.

Were you able to see the email with detailed references at unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org ? I'll repeat them below.

Perhaps we could discuss via regular email? adriandwalker@gmail.com Thanks

--------------//----------------

TO: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Request to Unblock


Hi --

This is a request please to unblock entries about "Internet Business Logic", and to no longer delete the entries once they are made.

As you may see by Googleing "Internet Business Logic", it represents over 10 years of serious R&D. Some of the theory underlying the system was developed at IBM Yorktown Research [1,2,3,4] in a group that I headed.

An external third party article about the system is [6].

More recent publications about the system are [7,8].

The system itself is made available on the Internet, free for shared use.

I'll be happy to try to justify this further to the Wikipedia editorial board. Please contact me with questions at adriandwalker@gmail.com .

Thanks, Adrian Walker


[1] Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is Simple
 Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22
[2] Knowledge Systems and Prolog: Developing Expert, Database, and Natural Language Systems, book, second edition, Addison-Wesley, 1990. A. Walker, M. McCord, J. Sowa and W. Wilson.
[3] Deduced Relevant Types and Constructive Negation (with N. Foo, A. Rao and A. Taylor). Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, Seattle, August 1988. Also Report RC 13407, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, 1988.
[4] Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge, (with K. Apt and H. Blair). In: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, J. Minker (Ed.), Morgan Kaufman 1988.
[5] Knowledge Systems: Principles and Practice. IBM Journal of Research and Development, January 1986.
[6] What's The Meaning of This? By David Rubinstein, SD Times. www.reengineeringllc.com/column-20030915-02.html (You can also view this at the SD Times site.)
[7] Application Semantics via Business Rules in Open Vocabulary English. Presentation at the Semantic Technology Conference, San Jose CA, 2006. http://www.semantic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html
[8] Understandability and Semantic Interoperability of Diverse Rules Systems. Position Paper for the W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability. April 2005, Washington, D.C. http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.81.167 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is, indeed, my talk page.
  • The unblock mailing list is only for editors who have been entirely blocked from editing, not for discussions of content: please do not use the mailing list for this purpose, as it may be considered an abuse of the mailing list.
  • Once again, an email discussion is inappropriate: we have personal and article talk pages for this. I will, however, send you a copy of this particular discussion, since there seems to be a communications problem.
  • "Blocking" in Wikipedia terms means blocking your edits entirely, not removing the edits.
  • You must provide references that establish notability in Wikipedia terms. This cannot be accomplished by email. It appears that some of your references may meet our requirements; however, in general, papers in which you are a co-author would not be considered to be a third-party source.
  • You have inserted inappropriate discussions, notes and email addresses into articles, despite many warnings to the contrary. Please desist. If you wish to discuss your edits with other editors, the talk page/discussion page for the given article is the appropriate venue, not the body of the article. That is the principal reason your edits are being reverted.
  • Wikipedia does not have an "editorial board". What you see on article space and talk space is what it is; an open forum for editing and discussion among 9 million editors. You must convince the community that your additions are suitable for inclusion in that forum, not by emails or by sheer repetition.
  • Your edits may or may not be self-promotional: please read our policies on spam and conflict of interest. You have posted identical content to many different articles, which gives the strong impression of spamming.
  • For a general overview of how Wikipedia works, please see Wikipedia:About. I will be happy to assist you, but it will require you to take a different approach to editing.
Regards, Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for the revert on my userpage they simply love me. Happy editing. BTW did you ever figure out how to get that employee discount from Best Buy, without actually working there? :P KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. A bit more artistic than the usual image vandalism, but similar content. No, no discount. This whole cabal thing is not as rewarding as it was made out to be: I guess there's a vesting period. Acroterion (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Male pregnancy - disruptive IP

Hi, I am having trouble with the same IP (the one who was blocked for disruptive editing) at Male pregnancy again. Would you help? (Crossposted to Daniel_Case.) Thanks. Photouploaded (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Daniel and I are keeping an eye on it. Acroterion (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same ip,it's changed from the last time.--88.82.47.233 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Slow Deletion Of Beefy!

NO COMMENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaloneySee (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Jackman

< nowiki > Insertformulahere < / nowiki >

On what basis are you questioning my integrity? i made spelling corrections to Hugh's page and to the best of my knowledge did not intentionally unlock his page, so do not insinuate that my intentions were otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForkScratcher (talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff says so [12]. That's not a spelling correction. Neither is this [13]. Stop it. Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

no.2 i do not recall doing and was likely inadvertant, no.3 was NOT performed by me, i suspect as this is a shared computer that it was my housemate who did so, as he has played silly buggers on wikipedia before, i also feel you are being unnessicarily rude towards me and i ask you to stop that, and i again ask you not to question my integrity, you do not know me personally and as such are in no position to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForkScratcher (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your account is your responsibility: no one else's. If you do not exclusive control of the account, then it may need to be blocked. There has been sustained, consistent vandalism to the article in question. Your account removed the template: that is clear. The edit by the IP shows a close relationship to your username. As to your personal character, I have no opinion, I only know your account's name, its actions, and the history of the article. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now taken steps to ensure that this account will not be used for vandalism on wikipedia, however i cannot guarantee that my housemate will not continue to be a thorn in the admin teams side and i have spoken to him about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForkScratcher (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing the password, not allowing the browser to save it, and logging off cleanly are desirable. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

dear mr dude

dear mr dude y did u delete my page now me emy n josh r very diappointd seriously if u met mr de kock n mrs lowde u would say that stuff 2 they hav sumthin against gays!!!!!!!1 gays r awesome so can u plz talk the deletion off plz? :'( n emy sed i could put up her msn n piczo n josh did (4 sum weird reason) say dat i was beta than ppl plz??! just leave it 4 a week so i can show like heaps important ppl it :(

btw wots ur name n how do u pronounce ur username?

plz plz plz it wasnt nonsense or vandalism i rote it n it is bout mi life n mi life isnt nonsense :'( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimie666 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG

omg mr dude im sooooooooooooooo sorry i didnt no u wer tha maker of wikipedia but could u seriously tel me wot was rong wit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimie666 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Keimer recreated already

it's longer this time, but still nonsense. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just what we need: longer nonsense. Now gone, strike two. Acroterion (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Greggles360 unblock

Ewww. There really are some sick imaginative people around. Tonywalton Talk 23:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The cleanest excerpt: "Then im going to fill a sack with swallows and throw it at your car while you are driving to work." Otherwise, ewww. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oddly the sackful of swallows just made it worse. Tonywalton Talk 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand I did like the name. Something about a big sack of swallows being opened and flying out, heralding summer (in the UK anyway). Soooo - User:Sackful of swallows. Sackful of swallows (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, now I'm going to have recurring nightmares about demented-looking men standing by the side of the road with large, fluttering bags ... Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user talk page! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - your reasonable reply appears to have him stunned. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Although being indef-blocked by Dreadstar could have something to do with it too. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Welcome to Wikipedia, and...

Marlith T/C 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait!

I am not harrasing him, he yelled at me! =( From RyanMcCloud

And now I'm yelling at you for harassing him. Acroterion (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help me

Anietor continues to importune me leaving tags of edit-war in my talk, while I'm doing the same thing as him. He continues to rollback his POV and sinophobic version of Christianity in China. --Xi Zhu (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you follow Anietor's and Brian0324's advice and discuss this on the talk page to reach a consensus before making such broad changes. I would note that the other editors are making an effort to incorporate your concerns, and I urge you to respect their attempts to find consensus, and not simply revert. You are clearly indulging in a revert war, and regardless of the motivation, that is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Liburnicon" article deleted

Hi Acroterion. I am new to wikipedia so sorry if I ask too much silly questions. I really tried to read all available articles about "speedy deletion" and I don't know how to improve my article any more. After hours and days of trying my artice was deleted. Can you please help me to improve my article? Thanks! --User:Chaoticgood 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was a direct copy of http://www.topfreeforum.com/liburnicon/viewtopic.php?p=269&mforum=liburnicon: you can't copy material from other websites into Wikipedia, at least not easily. I would also point out that an SF convention attended by "a few hundred" fans is unlikely to meet our notability requirements. Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick responce. Have you tried to click on the link that you've mentioned? It doesn't exist. Permission for using Liburnicon text and photos (from official Liburnicon website) has been sent to Wiki OTRS system. As you know, concept of "notability" is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticgood (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The material was there at the time the searchbot found it, which makes it no less of a copyvio if it's gone now. As for notability, you presumably understand that it must be established independently. Acroterion (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your revert of the vandalism on my talk page. Keep up the good work. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to help out. Acroterion (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Image:Official Symbol.jpg"

I accidentally recreated this image's page when I tried to add a speedy delete template at the same time as you deleted it. Could you trash it again? Sorry.--AgentCDE / Talk / 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. No need to apologize, I delete vanity articles and pix on sight, and appreciate the tagging. Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

this message

is new --NEMT (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't disagree with that. Acroterion (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you restore the changes I made to the article Muhammed

I want to know why?....isn't this supposed to be "the open encyclopedia that any one can edit"

Anyone can edit it, but on high-profile articles it's best to discuss your edit first for the sake of consensus. Your edit undid consensus without discussion. Please use the talk page for that purpose, if you have a concern. Acroterion (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Roo crew

The article I am posting is accurate and authentic it is in similiar fashion to articles concerning the crips, bloods, and mafia families. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roocaptain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from being totally non-notable, possibly a fantasy, unsourced and containing the names of minors in a way that none of them may wish to be associated with? You do realize that information you post on the Internet is real, permanent, and potentially harmful? Stop, for your own good and for the sake of your friends. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Luke Morgan (defendant in landmark drunken driving case)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Luke Morgan (defendant in landmark drunken driving case), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Morgan (defendant in landmark drunken driving case). Thank you.

  • Thought you might like to know. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate the notice, I'll comment. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Userpage question

Hi Acterion, I noticed you were around and I wanted to bounce a question off you. I happened to come across this userpage, which seems objectionable under several guidelines or policies. However, I don't have all that much experience as to what's acceptable on one's userpage. Any thoughts?--Kubigula (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good morning - I signed off for the evening a couple of minutes before your message, it appears. I'd say Piercetheorganist (talk · contribs) steps over the line when he advocates killing political opponents. He's running a soapbox in general, but his contributions aren't particularly out of line. I would expect a violent reaction to any alteration in the userpage, but the middle paragraph's clearly a problem. I'll take another look at excising it and placing a warning once I've had some caffeine. A notice to AN/I would be a good idea too. Acroterion (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that the material appeared yesterday. This user has a history of disputes over civility. Acroterion (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Let me try dropping a note on his talk page first - I'd be surprised if that works, but you never know.--Kubigula (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
To elaborate (I shouldn't try to think too early), everything he added yesterday is unacceptable, and the middle paragraph is right out. Any user may delete that sort of thing on sight, but I agree that the first thing is to ask the user to reconsider - your note's a good start. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: MascotGuy

I was noticing some of his edits too. They seemed a little BenH/Mmbabies/Dingbat2007-ish. Three of the users that WP:WPRS and WP:TVS have so much problems with. I am glad you indef blocked him before he caused anymore trouble. Should I go through and revert all the changes on that recent sock?

How did you like ol' Stephens City? Not as bad of a speed trap nowadays, unless you get in 81. White Post still is. The county and state cops sit behind the "B 'n' BQ" (B-Mart was the originial name and they sell BBQ, hence B 'n' BQ) and catch people every morning. Most people though are getting wise and slowing down right there and then speeding up once they get by.

Does your Mom have any photos of when she taught in Stephens City or of Interstate 81 being built? The Newtown History Center is always looking for photos (they scan them and then ship them back) and I will love to use them for the Stephens City article, especially if she has any of 81 being built. Take Care (and come back soon :))...NeutralHomer T:C 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're a more discriminating connoisseur of socks than I. There are lots of Codyfinke socks listed under MascotGuy - perhaps they're in the wrong place?
81 was built in the 60's, after my mother had changed jobs. I've never run across any pictures of SC, but this would be a good excuse. I'll ask my father (my mother died in 1981, so no help there). I hadn't been in SC in ... 20 years? (Apart from passing on 81) The growth on the east end of town seems a little chaotic. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your Mom :(
Yeah, east side of Stephens City is a little crazy and if you would get off on the exit there and go east on VA 277, it is just as bad....but not as bad as Winchester (5 miles to the north). They just built a Martin's (grocery store) near my house about a year ago. So that is added to the traffic. But what is great, after 11pm, all you hear is the interstate. The town, with the exception of Sheetz (gas station) and 7-11, shuts down. Love it.
The Town of Stephens City, though, is being careful with what they build and where they build it. They want to hold on to that quiet small town feel Stephens City has. They are working with VDOT to possibly have 81 bypass Stephens City entirely. It will require rerouting 81 at a certain point and taking it around Stephens City and moving the current exit, but VDOT seems up for it and people like the idea. It would also allow for homes to be built in the area that is currently 81. I don't think I will see it built anytime soon, but it would be cool. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)