User talk:Acroterion

Signpost

Footnote

Hello, Just a quick "thankyou" for the edits to the national forest articles, especially Tahoe. I would like to have a footnote on that sentence
(Tahoe was originally established as the Lake Tahoe Forest Reserve on April 13, 1899. The name was changed to Tahoe on October 3, 1905)
-if you have one handy. If not, I can root around here among all these books and get one. Again thanks for the help.

Cheers! Marcia Marcia Wright (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed have a ref, the mother of all lists of things National Forest, which got me started on this little forestry binge. <ref>{{citation|title={{PDFlink|[http://www.foresthistory.org/Research/usfscoll/places/National%20Forests%20of%20the%20U.S.pdf National Forests of the United States]|341 KB}}|date=September 29, 2005|author=Davis, Richard C.|publisher=The Forest History Society}}</ref> . I had no idea there were 200 or so former National Forest properties, some quite obscure. Acroterion _(talk) 16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of thoroughness, I'd still like to have a really solid, concise ref sourcing the General Land Office, which established and administered the Forest Reserves in the Department of the Interior until 1906. That article is entirely unreferenced. Such a ref would support the terminology for all of the Forest Reserve articles. Thanks for paying attention - it's nice to see that somebody cares about the forest articles, which have been neglected compared with National Parks. Acroterion _(talk) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

General Land Office

It is a good article-I'm very surprised no one has added anything-not even an External Links section!!

Thankyou for adding your source to TNF-isn't that a great website???All pages are sourced at the bottom even. I do believe there is hope for this world yet ;)

And yes we can spruce up General Land Office -all our library books are concerning this subject of US forests/reserves/wilderness areas/primitive areas/history/legislation thereof-so my kitchen table has ...uh...disappeared. Looking forward to working with you on this. Oh, BTW do you know of a Wikipedian who is expert in Geology? We need an ID for some rocks in Caribou Wilderness that I have a photo of (but will not post to the article until I can correctly name the type.) I was thinking of Mav but unsure still. Any suggestions?

Cheers, Marcia Marcia Wright (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I ran across a geologist back in July, but I'm damned if I can remember. I'll drop a note on your talkpage if I can ever recollect. There are a few people listed at WP:GEOLOGY too. Acroterion _(talk) 22:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I hope he was unhurt...;)

Hope u dont mind my eaves-dropping. Dhaluza, in writing and bringing Marcellus Formation to GA status recently, was confident enough with his geology to identify some photos of rocks taken in Marcellus, New York, by a non-geologist, in order to include them in the article. doncram (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Eavesdropping is fine by me, Dhaluza sounds like the person for the job. Acroterion _(talk) 02:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added 2 refs to GLO, one is the actual text of the actual law from the Library of Congress website. If that is not "solid" enough, I don't know what is. Permission to remove the tags from the top of article? And I will check out WP Geology -Thanks Marcia Wright (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Har.

You don't need any permission from me - I think those refs are fine, so remove away. Acroterion _(talk) 23:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a geologist, but I do know that you probably can't identify a rock formation just from a picture. The photos at Marcellus Formation were based on matching locations and descriptions from published sources (see Talk:Marcellus Formation). You are probably better off doing the research, then taking the pictures, rather than the other way around. Dhaluza (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Insomnia

Hi there. I think you accidentally created a redirect on Insomnia to itself while you were deleting Insomina. I fixed it already, so just FYI. justinfr (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh. You're right, thanks for catching it and fixing it. Acroterion _(talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi, I noticed some vandalism on a page I was watching by an IP you have blocked in the past and they already have a warning from a couple of days ago. I'm not clear on the Wikipedia blocking policy, but I believe they're supposed to be blocked now. Copana2002 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on the articles - I've given them a final warning. They've been inserting negative information on Indian actresses in violation of BLP policy. Acroterion _(talk) 21:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:David Tombe

Just a notice, I upped your block of this user to indef for block evasion. See the bottom of his talk page for more info. Mr.Z-man 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked George Smyth XI (talk · contribs), who I'd been watching for activity. I'd been thinking of asking for a checkuser on TCW: now it would probably be wise to do a sock sweep. Acroterion _(talk) 00:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked Thatcher to do a quick check after User:86.141.250.177 posted to my talk page to confirm the block evasion, the 2 users I blocked and listed (and the IP) were the only ones he found (George Smyth XI was probably stale). Mr.Z-man 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought - finding D Tombe without a checkuser and no edits would have been pretty impressive. I was afraid the early socks were stale, so we'll just have to watch out. Thanks for the check. Acroterion _(talk) 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouvrage Col de Restefond and Ouvrage Restefond

Do the Ouvrage Col de Restefond and the Ouvrage Restefond refer to the same structures or are they different? Is there any possibility that you could add co-ordinnates to these articles? Cheers --Bikeroo (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They are different places, the O. Restefond near the town and the O. Col de Restofond up the hill. Unfortunately, I have no precise location, and as I recall the Google Earth imagery stinks for that area, so I can't pick them out. I'll give the official French imagery site - [www.geoportail.fr] - a look and see if I can discern the ouvrages - they're fairly distinctive once you've seen some, although this sort of thing strays into OR. Acroterion _(talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I take that back - there's no real town. I've added the coordinates of the "ancien blokhaus" at the col itself. There's another one about 600m to the south that's probably Restefond itself, as it's larger, but I'm not confident enough to mark it. Acroterion _(talk) 17:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

According to [1], Restefond is 200m north of the Col de la Bonette, which is correct for the image, so I'm tagging it with coorinates. Acroterion _(talk) 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out - that tallies with the two sites on the IGN map at [2]. Cheers. --Bikeroo (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

CraovaWoW

I just wanted to let ppl know that there is a WoW Server that uses a free emulator to recreate the oficials server from World of Warcraft. I don`t know how many ppl in your country can spend some money playing this game, but I know that here, in Romania, to pay for 1 month that game is a normal montly wage. And sry for the spam.. i was editing it ... it`s my first time in here. Enjoy & good night. B`bye :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CraiovaWoW (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion _(talk) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

DAMM Cellular

Dear Sirs,

We are trying to support you with information reg. DAMM Cellular Systems A/S as a TETRA supplier in line with other worldwide TETRA providers but we cant submit the text which has been added.

My e-mail adress is KAK@DAMM.dk and i am area manager from the company DAMM Cellular Systems. Please respond to this e-mail ASAP.

Best regards,

Khaled —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaled2007 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion _(talk) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No response necessary/just want to make sure it went somewhere

August 2007 - August 2008 - There was a weird misplaced WP:ARCHIVE dumped here. Did it get duplicated prior to deletion? If not, it might have to be restored and moved to prevent the loss of those comments, or, at the very least, the archiving process undone at the original talk page. I'm sure you did, but just in case - MrZaius^talk 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't put it somewhere also, since it should always be available via the relevant page history: archives of that sort only get lost if they're moved, which this wasn't. I'll check, though. Acroterion _(talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

why won't you let me add this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodland107 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has requirements for the notability of people who are included. Normally a high school track coach or teacher would not meet notability requirements. We also require verifiability, normally in the form of multiple references in independent media. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 02:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the explanation, and the good work. Much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Did You Delete My Page?

Hey, Acroterion- I created a page called "TraderPlanet" earlier today, only to come back and find it was deleted by you. It was given the "speedy deletion" tag, and I want to know what, exactly, is the reasoning behind it? If it isn't "newsworthy", then why? It took a long time to get all of the citations and such ready and formatted correctly- I saved the copy and all, and I will repost as soon as I have the reason behind the deletion.

Second off, this is a community website- information should be edited- not deleted outright without a specific reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullerba (talk • contribs) 04:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

All submissions of this kind must comply with requirements for notability, and particularly for web-based content: yours gave no indication that it was, in fact, notable. Given that it is less than a month old and in beta, this is not surprising. The article has been deleted three times by three different administrators for this reason. You also appear to have a conflict of interest: writing about yourself or an organization in which you are involved is strongly discouraged, since it is hard to maintain an appropriate level of objectivity. You should have multiple references in independent media (not press releases, but genuine articles) documenting notability, without referring back to the organization's own media. Extensive resumes of the management team are inappropriate as well, unless those individuals are themselves worthy of their own articles, meeting the same criteria mentioned above.

Finally, Wikipedia is not a community website, hosting service, bulletin board or means of promotion. It is an encyclopedia, and we require submissions to meet specific standards for verifiability, objectivity and encyclopedic content. An objective, non-promotional article on your organization is welcome if and when it reaches our standards of notability, but it does not appear to do so at this time. TraderPlanet is very new: give it time. Acroterion _(talk) 13:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Acoterion. I don't really see what makes your opinion more valid than mine, but someone at Wikipedia made you an admin, I'll wait it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullerba (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not my opinion: it's Wikipedia policy. Acroterion _(talk) 01:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding

I was actually trying to revert vandalism on the article DJ kahld or whatever it was. i didnt see that it said he was one of the worst artists or whatever. i have since reverted it to the original. ZXS9465 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we just collided - it happens now and then. Sorry about the template warning (since removed) and happy editing! Acroterion _(talk) 02:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

its all cool. ZXS9465 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

mother/father deletion

Hello, I was hoping that you could instruct me on how to have this page appear so it could be included in Wikipedia and that you felt it was worthy of inclusion. This newer artist is of local significance in the independent music community. I am a music professional and I am involved in their career as a producer/manager. Thank you for your time.

THELBT (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)thelbt

You should read WP:MUSIC, which gives guidelines for notability standards for musicians in Wikipedia. "Local significance" is unlikely to be sufficient for inclusion. The article itself appeared to be a quote from a review (and therefore a copyright violation), and was not encyclopedic. You appear to have a conflict of interest: please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for the creation of notability or for promotion. WP:MUSIC will give you a clear understanding of whether a sound article can be created - I couldn't tell from the initial article if this was possible. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I do want to use this resource properly and in no way want to have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia.

--THELBT (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)THELBT

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

??

My page 'Bulcamp Oddity' was deleted by you. This is meant to be a community, if you have a problem with any of my pages then speak to me first. There I am researching and putting together info and I come back to my page and it's gone. Terrible. Leave things alone. All items on the page were factual and it was only because I ran out of time that things were not quite as I would have liked them. Lanesra68 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did not delete the article: I liked it and left you an encouraging note, explaining that it was a copyright violation and liable to be deleted if you did not re-write it. So you can't claim you weren't consulted or warned. Since you took no further action, another admin deleted it. Acroterion _(talk) 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nathalie Dupree; Jack Bass

Thanks for letting me know -- I'll rewrite and edit both mine and Jacks. Thanks for touching in. Nathalie Dupree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathalie Dupree (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nathalie Dupree; Jack Bass

Thanks for letting me know -- I'll rewrite and edit both mine and Jacks. Thanks for touching in. Nathalie Dupree 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed Kalnins

Barak Obama's pastor is mentined by name and description on the Barak Obama page, and there is a link to Reverend Wright. No such name, description, or link exists on the Sarah Palin Wikipedia page. That is pretty odd!

If there is no conspiracy, why does Wasilla Assembly of God on Wikipedia's Sarah Palin page go to a page other than the Wasilla Assembly of God page on Wikipedia? Try it. And editing is not allowed.

The Ed Kalnins sermon quotes that are creating the cable news controversy were explicitly referenced, including links to actual videotapes of him saying these things on his own web site.

It is interesting that while anyone in the country knows who Barak Obamas pastor is, and what he said, Wikipedia will not allow any reference to Ed Kalnins on Sarah Palin's webpage, Wikipedia has a FAKE link for Wasilla Assembly of God on Palin's Wikipedia page, and it is impossible to find out the name of Palin's FORMER pastor (called "Sarah Palin's Pastor" on cable news) from her site on Wikipedia, and even if you know his name, you can not find out what his controversial quotes are, even when referenced by links to actual recordings.

Finally, I am a masthematician and logician, formerly at Stanford for eleven years. The expression "Sarah Palin's Pastor" is used all over, without reference to the name Ed Kalnins, and he is not Sarah Palin's Pastor. In mathematics and logic, if an expression with the appearance of a description such as X's A is not X's A, but has a unique referent, then the expression X's A is a name, not a description. Sarah Palin's Pastor does not refer to her pastor, but to her former pastor, and is therefore a name. At least there should be a referal to Ed Kalnins.

Kalnins is not allowed to be referenced on the supposed encyclopedia page on Palin (who was nominated almost 100% for her appeal to religeous groups), and that Palins page has a phony link for Wasilla Assembly of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found in both real life and Wikipedia that if a number of people are telling me I'm doing something wrong, then it would be productive to examine what I might be doing wrong, rather than assuming that there's a conspiracy to thwart me.

With respect to Sarah Palin's pastor, we are working on an encyclopedia. I really don't think that there's a place in an encyclopedia for a man with no name, with one possible exception. If this person becomes noteworthy in the mainstream press, he will acquire a name and a story in verifiable, reliable media, which we can proceed to document in an orderly, referenced, encyclopedic manner. Until then, it's just opinions and speculation, which have no place here.

The link to a church on the Palin page is not phony, merely generic. Perhaps if you point out on Talk:Sarah Palin that there's an article, a consensus will develop to change the reference. Just be aware that Sarah Palin's the hottest place on Wikipedia right now, and not for the faint of heart. However, the article on the church appears to be based on hearsay, and is not of an appropriate standards right now for a link, in my opinion.

With respect to Kalnins, he has a name, and is subject to Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, which means that everything about him must be referenced and verifiable. No innuendo, opinions, or positions not backed up by ironclad references. He may not in fact be notable by Wikipedia's standards: that is presently being debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Kalnins (which is the place you should be making your case, not claiming conspiracies at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ed Kalnins, its (usually unused) talkpage}.

The "supposed encyclopedia page" on Palin is, as I've noted, the most heavily edited page on Wikipedia right now, by a mile. I've seen partisanship from both directions: there are no whitewashes. Some nastiness has been deleted with respect to her daughter, which is appropriate. I doubt anything of substance is getting past the editors there.

Which brings me to my conclusion: Wikipedia is not a battleground, a place for the revelation of Truth, or a theater of political operations. It is an encyclopedia. The facts are for others to reveal. We merely document, and it looks like you're ahead of the documentation curve. That is what you're doing wrong. Wait a few days, and I suspect there will be material if there's any substance in what you're trying to say. The articles on John McCain, Joseph Biden and Barack Obama have been years in the making. Palin's received very little attention, and it's now being compressed into some very concentrated editing. Give it time, and don't use Wikipedia as a vehicle for Truth. Acroterion _(talk) 02:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, now Wasilla Bible Church is claiming Palin as a congregant. Acroterion _(talk) 03:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on Kroon and Wasilla Bible Church. I am a mathematician formerly at Stanford and all three of my first Wikipedia articles were deleted without my being allowed to edit them.

Mark Silva, White House correspondent for The Chicago Tribune, writes that “Kalnins has preached that critics of Bush will be banished to Hell, questioned if people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to Heaven, charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Iraq were part of a war ‘contending for your faith’; and that Jesus ‘operated from that position of war mode’.”

This language is almost identical to the portions deleted from my final edit of my article, only without the direct quotes supporting the summary. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palins_past_pastor_bushfoes_he.html#more

I am puzzled how Larry Kroon is considered notable, yet Ed Kalnins is about to be deleted for not being notable, despite over a thousand web pages mentioning him appearing in less than three days. Worse, the quotes I meticulously garnered from his own video posts of his sermons, were all deleted by nameless people from unknown places and qualifications.EricDiesel (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand Wikipedia's policies on original research and synthesis, as well as possibly soapboxing. We don't post material to Wikipedia by "meticulously garnering from video posts": we cite verifiable published sources with a reputation for fact-checking: the Chicago Tribune (for instance) is such an organization. You must avoid original research, which is not what an encyclopedia publishes. Encyclopedias document mainstream thought as previously published elsewhere.

The chief issue is that you put up articles that were perhaps a couple of days ahead of their time, with poor sourcing or even about a nameless person, with an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing and biography policies , on a topic where many, many people are trying to use for political advantage, and where some people have posted frankly false or libelous information. Given that, all Palin-related posts are under a microscope. Where information on living individuals is concerned, Wikipedia policy is strict and harsh. I don't think you fully appreciate this.

The article Sarah Palin's pastor was poorly sourced, negative in tone and inappropriately named. Blogs are unacceptable sources, and it doesn't matter how many web hits there are on Mr. Kalnins, the only ones that matter are those of reliable sources. The Huffington Post, entertaining though it may be, is not a Reliable Source, nor are Drudge, Little Green Footballs or the Daily Kos. You seem to have a clear political motive in writing about Kalnins, which is also inappropriate. The "nameless people" who deleted the article (three times!) are Sandahl (talk · contribs), myself, and L'Aquatique (talk · contribs), all of whom are experienced editors authorized, qualified and expected to deal expeditiously with inappropriate content.

The inclusion of Ed Kalnins is presently being debated: your opinion and participation are welcome. You should read and understand WP:COATRACK, which is being mentioned in the debate. You have dived headfirst into an area where experienced editors fear to tread with an apparent agenda to make a political point: you should not be surprised to receive scrutiny. Acroterion _(talk) 11:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I cited the number of web pages and hits on Google because one of the administrators or editors expressly cited their inability to find any as evidence for deletion.

1. Why is Wasilla Assembly of God deleting information on itself, as WasillaAG, on the page for Wasilla Assembly of God? When a pastor makes controversial remarks about Bush, Kerry, etc., why should there be a balance with other remarks, if the other remarks are not controversial?

Why don't you ask them? Keep in mind that notability is not inherited: an individual or organization is not notable simply because of association with someone who is (i.e. family members, churches, etc.). Every article on a person or organization must establish notability on its own. "Balance" in the sense you seem to imply is not required: the article should reflect the views of the mainstream press in the same proportion.

2. Here is another mainstream report from The New Jersey Times of Trenton: According to Robert Stern of The New Jersey Times of Trenton reports that “The Rev. Ed Kalnins had no way of knowing he'd become a controversial figure in this year's presidential race when he left his West Amwell congregation nine years ago to preach in a sister church in Alaska.” Stern also writes that “Since taking his sermons to Alaska, Kalnins has preached that critics of President George Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted into heaven...” http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1220414733189230.xml&coll=5

OK. As I said, it will take a few days for information to appear, and longer for it to make sense. This is not a news reporting site, and it is dangerous to try to reflect current events in an encyclopedia article. I have no opinion on the notability of the church at this point - that is the subject of a current debate in which you are welcome to participate, citing this sort of information.

3. I heard about the Huffington Post article on the web, and wanted to confirm it, so I went to Wikipedia. I did my own research because I could not find anything on Wikipedia. There is almost no information on the matrix in which Palin evolved available on Wikipedia or anywhere, which is why she was chosen. By assisting with delaying information, Wikipedia would be directly facilitating a political strategy that has been explicitly accused of existing on cable news. If Wikipedia deletes the controversial quotes, and links to where the Huffington Post quotes can be verified, it is participating in the information freze political strategy. 17:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So you believe that an encyclopedia should adopt a partisan stance by rapidly reporting unverified information before it's had time to develop in the mainstream press? It's clear that you have an agenda to discredit Palin. Others have agendas to discredit Obama. Neither has been countenanced on Wikipedia. Nobody claims either article is perfect, but they are the product of the consensus of the editors involved in those articles, always with Wikipedia requirements for neutral point of view, biographies of living persons, verifiability, etc. Really, you need to read and understand these concepts: they are not optional features of editing here. Acroterion _(talk) 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Miss Nepal Hong Kong

Hello!!

Please look into this article,Miss Nepal Hong Kong. I was little confused "Should I nominate it for deletion or not?". In fact, the links in this article redirects to non-english sites and notability may not have been asserted properly. It tries to say that winner of this competition joins national beauty pageant competition, however, my research on this says that it is completely untrue.

Since, you are an online administrator, Kindly give a look to this article.

Thank you for your time.

Hitro 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused too. I don't see any context, and I'd have no objection if you nominated it for deletion. Acroterion _(talk) 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you're in contact with the initial author, you might want to ask him /her for clarification. Acroterion _(talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think, I should take it to AfD for better consensus. The Initial contributor is blocked under sock-puppetry so i think it is useless to contact him/her. Your view is welcomed at AfD. However, thanks again.Hitro 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Miley Cyrus Death Hoax

As I stated when I put it back in, I feel there is a legitimate notability in mentioning it. I did not put it back in to be a jerk but because I saw there was nothing on the talk page about it nor in the article, and I brought up a question of notability. I respect what people are trying to do, but at the very least I would appreciate a discussion about it. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, who is 4chan? It was User:Kww that removed it, not a user named "4chan"? Anakinjmt (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no "legitimate topic" to discuss: we were being trolled. 4chan has been the source and means of coordination of numerous attacks and hoaxes aimed at Wikipedia, including emulators of our friend Gr@wp. The 4chan folks inserted it: Kww removed it, appropriately.Acroterion _(talk) 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay then. That does help, however can't there be a possibility of notability because it was picked up on be mainstream media? I realize this may be a bit of a stretch, but I'm not sure it's so much of a stretch that it's not notable. It's not like it was just picked up on by TMZ or E!. At least one major news source (Fox News) picked up on it. I'm not saying it should have a whole paragraph. Two sentences at most, and edits to Wikipedia have been deemed noteworthy in the past (first example that comes to mind is an edit made to the Chris Benoit article about his wife dying two days before her body and Benoit's and their son's were found at their home. I realize it's not exactly the same situation, but isn't it close enough? On another note, I am well aware of 3RR and was not planning on putting it back without first having at the very least some guarentee of a legitimate conversation regarding a notability of it, something which, based on your warning (which I personally feel was not necessary and slightly annoying but can deal with it) I'm assuming you are an admin of some sort. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding: it falls into a level of circular notoriety-making that Wikipedia shouldn't let itself be involved in. We have vandals trying to make news using Wikipedia to their own ends. It's also an unsourced hoax that violates BLP policy, and as such, isn't countenanced. Enforcement of BLP violations has recently become quite strict and, frankly, harsh. Admins are directed to squelch this sort of thing immediately. There could be no legitimate conversation about what was, in fact, a vandal attack that was picked up by the media. In any case it's ephemera, self-referential, and ultimately has nothing to do with the subject.

I'll take the 3RR notice off your talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I like to think that I don't purposefully come across as a troll of some sort, and I'm always trying to understand the policies (of which there are many). One final question: what if multiple news sources pick up on it? Not that I'm in the know (as I'm certainly not), but would it be more notable then? Anakinjmt (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare it to Chris Benoit, which in my opinion is a legitimate case of an aspect of Wikipedia creating the news and meriting inclusion. There was never any Cyrus accident, but Benoit was, in fact, dead. This really has nothing to do with Miley Cyrus, who was merely the means to a hoax: it has more to do with Wikipedia making the news. Where or whether that belongs, I don't know, but we try not to indulge in too much ephemera. Acroterion _(talk) 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Flat Gillig

Flat gillig is real and a phenomenon about to be present over the world. Somehow the Flat Stanley is allowed, but Flat Gillig isn't? Gillig is ten times the 2-d person that Stanley is. There are a bunch of websites devoted to him and he has already appeared and many sporting events. Respect the Flat Gillig Project.

Then provide appropriate references documenting this notability in reputable, independent third-party media. A bunch of photobucket pictures won't do. A plain, factual encyclopedia article rather than what was eligible for deletion as nonsense, non-notability, promotion or lack of context is what's needed. You appear to be using Wikipedia to promote your meme. Acroterion _(talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I linked pictures of Flat GILLIG to College Gameday on ESPN (not notable or reputable enough?) and a video of Flat GILLIG on ESPN2 (seriously? ESPN not good enough? Worldwide leader in sports doesn't make the cut?). Its nonsense because you're not familiar with the Rivals.com mainboard. If you started talking architecture to me, I would think it nonsense because I'm not familiar with it because I'm not an architect. You say it isn't notable. But if you like I can have the Rivals.com mainboard flood your user talk page with support for Flat GILLIG. Rivals.com has over 75,000 members, probably a lot more but I'm being conservative. There is NO PROMOTION, it is simply to inform people about Flat GILLIG, where he's been and who he's been with. It is also to tell of the birth of Flat GILLIG and because it involves people and things that you don't understand, you feel it is nonsense. I simply provided details about the origin of Flat GILLIG, history of the original person he is based on, and the goal of Flat GILLIG. Whats wrong with that? Tune into College Gameday live this weekend and I bet you see his giant form plastered all over the screen. People will wonder who it is, and don't you want Wikipedia to have the answer? Synyster Omega (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Syn

Edit to add more info to my argument...

The Flat GILLIG Files

A Brief History: Flat GILLIG Hysteria goes National

Flat GILLIG has appeared on both ESPN and ESPN2, along with Rivals.com and its affiliate sites. There are independent websites devoted completely to the GILLIG phenomenom, as well as a concerted effort, known as "The Flat GILLIG Project" to get Flat GILLIG's photo outside all NCAA Division 1A stadiums and the effort is well underway already. For more information on Flat GILLIG and the "Flat GILLIG Project", follow this link: CLICK HERE

http://mainboarders.com/Flat_Gillig.php

-Media statistics

Rivals.com has over 200,000 members and is owned buy Yahoo!, one of the world's largest internet/technology companies.

ESPN, along with ABC, is owned by Walt Disney Co., one of America's largest entertainment and resort companies.

-GILLIG's web appearances

YouTube, the internet's most popular video sharing website, boasts multiple videos of Flat GILLIG's televised appearances.

Rivals.com, a division of Yahoo!, and its affiliate sites is home of GILLIG's largest fanbase.

Mainboarders.com: http://mainboarders.com/Flat_Gillig.php

FlatGILLIG.com: http://flatgillig.com/

Televised Appearances

Flat GILLIG has appeared on multiple notable televised sporting events including:

The NBA playoffs,

NCAA CollegeGameday on ESPN,

and NCAA basketball games on ESPN 2. Synyster Omega (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC) SYN

Once again, it is clear that your intention is to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion: "a concerted effort, known as "The Flat GILLIG Project" to get Flat GILLIG's photo outside all NCAA Division 1A stadiums and the effort is well underway already". Simply because something's appeared on TV does not make it notable: it must receive notice in reputable third-party media. Can you provide three references in newspapers or similar media of national standing with a reputation for fact-checking? If so, you might have something. Please read WP:V and WP:NOTE. These are requirements for all articles. Web boards, "dedicated websites" and blogs and the like are not reliable sources for Wikipedia content. The credibility of the original article was not improved by the nonsensical tone and general lack of context and coherence. Acroterion _(talk) 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, "I can have the Rivals.com mainboard flood your user talk page with support for Flat GILLIG" is inappropriate and will result in blocks and article protection against creation for spamming. I advise you to follow Wikipedia requirements for referencing, writing style and verifiability. You are free to create the article again in a sandbox in your userspace, where it can be developed and reviewed by other editors before posting to article space. Acroterion _(talk) 11:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Flat GILLIG

Acroterion,

You deleted my Flat GILLIG page because of "blatant advertising". Please explain to me where and how it is doing this so I may fix it.

     Synyster Omega Synyster Omega (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My page

Wth. i was working on that?! How come you decide wether its worth it or not... it's a greek god btw... look it up (i changed it to his american name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DewyMcMellon (talk • contribs) 03:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is vandalism. You will be blocked if you re-create it. Acroterion _(talk) 11:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Revert

Thankyou for the vandalism revert. I am not yet an admin. yet, so I cannot block these vandals. -entertainU (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sugababes single Girls deletion of the writers name

Hi

I keep noticing that you keep deleting my name (Nicole Jenkinson) from the list of writers when i am the legal and publishered co writer for this song that the sugababes have performed. After checking the Wikipedia guidlines i realize i cannot write about myself but i am the legal writer on this song and MUST NOT be deleted from the list of writers.

Please inform me if this is not able to be put right as i will need to seek advice from my publisher and music lawyer about the false information given on the artical regarding the writers.

Many thanks --DoreenRay (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)--DoreenRay (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it did not conform to Wikipedia's standards for new articles about individuals: please review WP:MUSIC for notability standards for musicians. It has nothing to do with you, particularly, there was just no indication or supporting information asserting notability in accordance with Wikipedia requirements. The words "up and coming" are almost always an indication that the individual is not yet notable. Wikipedia is not a place to establish notability: it merely documents pre-existing notability. You will need to provide references in multiple independent media to document your notability: see WP:V. Please understand that nobody has a right to inclusion or credit in Wikipedia, and that your publisher or lawyer cannot demand that you be included or credited. You may wish to review WP:NLT concerning legal threats. Acroterion _(talk) 18:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason you can't note yourself as the writer in the song's article. We get a lot of kids taking credit for someone else's work, so backup is vital to ensure that the right person gets the credit. For an article solely about you, we would expect a lengthier article mentioning other work, and providing references.

However, you have previously blanked the articles for Heidi Range, Keisha Buchanan and Amelle Berrabah, which we treat as vandalism. Why would you do that? Acroterion _(talk) 19:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Geez, gimme half a minute to template the guy, wouldja?

Sheesh... HalfShadow 03:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Which guy was that? Acroterion _(talk) 03:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh geez..I forget. Oh yeah... User:Zlot641. Tagged the article and *ping!*, it's gone. Strong coffee? HalfShadow 03:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No caffeine at all, just cranky. Acroterion _(talk) 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame you. Hell, all I do is watchdog and sometimes it can be a pain. You have buttons. HalfShadow 03:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Buttons help greatly with draining the swamp, which is getting a bit deep tonight. I'm cranky for work-related reasons: this seems more productive, but I need to sign off in a few minutes and get some sleep. Acroterion _(talk) 03:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

Im sorry I over reacted it will NEVER happen again Rayman 1110 (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

advertising

so can i advertise on my user page?Rayman 1110 (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you may not "advertise" at all on Wikipedia, but appropriate links to your personal interests or projects may be placed on your userpage, as long as they're not overtly promotional in nature - we allow more discretion in userspace. Acroterion _(talk) 11:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

EntertainU

Thankyou for blocking me. I will now make constuctive edits to wikipedia, and not use it as a chat service. If this seems like a lie to you, you may monitor my edits and changes to wikipedia. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. I'm on the computer for most of the day. entertainU (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you owe me thanks for blocking you, but we are all here to build an encyclopedia, not to chat. Happy editing - Acroterion _(talk) 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

penis

penis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsacket67u (talk • contribs)

Excellent! You know a critically important word in everyday discourse, useful in practically any situation. Congratulations! Acroterion _(talk) 23:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah for the penis! It has a thousand and one uses: you can use it to urinate, masturbate, pound nails into a wall, and lure sharks! You can even use it to reproduce your genes, but only if you have good enough manners to persuade a lady to assist you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You can even let it do your thinking for you! Acroterion _(talk) 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to crazy random happenstance, I came across this message, and felt it necessary to inform you that your responses made me smile, which was a much needed thing today. Cheers. lol Pip (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah for serendipity! Glad we could help out. Cheers, Acroterion _(talk) 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:69.116.234.206

Regarding these vandalism warnings, I didn't mean to change the warning intentionally. I added my warning, but must have missed the one you added. A more serious warning is better anyway. Mpvide65 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I generally give overtly racist vandals only one chance at reform. Acroterion _(talk) 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RE-POST AARON NO ONE

THE REASONING THAT A PERSON IS NOT FAMOUS ENOUGH IS AN ARBITRARY OPINION OF AN ADMINISTRATOR.

I REQUEST THAT "AARON NO ONE" BE RE-POSTED FOR IT'S CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK AREA AND RELATION TO THE ISRAEL CONSULATE GENERAL AS WELL AS THE JEWISH ARTIST NETWORK, A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, AND THE COMBINED COMMUNITY AND INTERNATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF EACH OF THESE ENTITIES.

IN ADDITION THE ARTISTIC WORKS OF AARON NO ONE ARE CATALOGED CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ART WORLD. IN THE STYLE OF ABSTRACT MINIMALISM, WHICH IS DEFINED BY WIKI REFERENCS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exitnoone1 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

First, don't shout.

Second, it was deleted as advertising. There were no references to third-party publications documenting this artist, and the article was written in a promotional tone, complete with contact information, which is inappropriate. Thus, the deletion. A referenced article, written in a neutral, non-promotional manner, may very well be welcome. As it stood, it was unencyclopedic advertising. Acroterion _(talk) 02:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Rconklin2011

Account is being used for vandalism only. Multiple warnings given. --Terrillja (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, blocked. Thanks, Acroterion _(talk) 15:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte Ronson Article

Why did you delete the original article, because no reason was given except for that the article was requested for deletion. I'd like an explanation...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theydiskox (talk • contribs) 03:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It was blanked by the original author, Gryffindorgrabber (talk · contribs) on the second edit, valid grounds for an uncontroversial delete. I see you've created it anew, which appears to be perfectly fine. Is there a problem? Acroterion _(talk) 03:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The original article consisted in its entirety of: "Charlotte Ronson is the twin sister of DJ Samantha Ronson. She is the sister of music producer, Mark Ronson, daughter of Ann Dexter-Jones and Laurence Ronson. She lives in NYC and is a model." Hardly a substantial article, or one which indicates that the subject is notable. Acroterion _(talk) 03:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. A few days ago I wrote the article with mostly the same information that I just recently re-added and the deletion log said that you had deleted it. Apparently, it was my own fault and I never posted it in the first place! So again, apologies for blaming you for my own mistake. Theydiskox (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem: I will note that the article has been deleted before for copyright problems, so you should make sure there are no issues of that kind. Acroterion _(talk) 03:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the image: you say "(Charlotte Ronson Jean Baptiste Lacroix/Wireimage)" in the permissions. Did you take the picture, or did it come from another source? Acroterion _(talk) 03:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded on my own page, however since you posed the question on both your own and my talk pages, I suppose I should respond on this page as well. No, the image is not my own, however I was unsure of what to tag the picture is (although the tag I did use didn't say it was my own personal picture.) I gave credit where credit was due, i.e. Jean Baptiste Lacroix/Wireimage.Theydiskox (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Re- Rename- Thanks.

• I have three additinal questions

1- How do I notify someone that I left a message in a new section of their talk page, or is a notification automatically generated to them?

I've used the {{talkback|username}} }} template with success - I think it's been used on you talkpage by a few users.

2- Where is the grammar and syntax info located regarding Wiki word processors, and mathematical or other symbols?

If you use WP:wikED, you can pick formatting off the menus. I find it annoying, but you can enable it under user preferences, gadgets. Help:Wikitext examples has a lot of information concerning wikitext with links to other places. There's also Help:Editing. You should have a bar of menu items at the top of the edit window that will help with formatting in any case: it starts with bold.

3- How do I know a question is answered for a single talk page section, without putting a general watch on the whole talk page, like this one? EricDiesel (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to add only a page section to a watchlist - it's a pretty crude tool that asks the user to do most of the filtering.

Hope this helps. Acroterion _(talk) 17:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thnx 76.167.163.164 (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)