User talk:Acroterion

Signpost

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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) 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Attack pages

Hi... this is just a casual note, a talking point rather than a criticism. I noticed you deleted as an attack page an article I'd tagged as an A7. The page consisted solely of the claim that its subject was the gay lover of someone else. I just wanted to make the point that if we delete articles like this as attacks we seem to be agreeing that it's necessarily a horrible slur to be described as gay, which I don't think is our intention. I absolutely agree that the article creator's intention was to attack the subject, but it sort of makes me uncomfortable when we seem to agree that ugh, gay, what a horrid thing to say about somebody. Just some food for thought. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I tag them by the author's apparent intention. I agree with your sentiment in principle, but most of the gay and lesbian editors I've corresponded with tend to take the position that it's one thing to use various terms within the LGBT community (or to self-describe) and quite another for someone else to do so. In this case, it's probably a 14 year old male in the throes of the usual identity insecurity. I'm not consistent, I'll admit, but as it was intended as an attack, I tagged it as such. Acroterion _(talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair - thanks for the response. All the best. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

.. so das it mean that it is not possible to add some not so popular media in wikipedia ;(? Thanx anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purfun69 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please send page mit Leonie to my mail thanx a lot!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purfun69 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

jessica george page

Can I get back what I wrote because I forgot to save it? I just wanted to post something to my girl for her to see then I was going to delete it because anyone can edit this stuff and could have easily wrote something bad about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjz1413 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a place to proclaim your undying love, so I won't restore it, and flowers would probably impress her more anyway. Would you like the text emailed to you? Acroterion _(talk) 03:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

‎Robert Anthony Sanchez

You deleted this before I could see it, but from the text preview it looks like it was an attack page - if so an attack warning is needed for the creator. Exxolon (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Up the page I fielded a complaint that I had tagged a similar edit as an attack; I don't claim to be consistent. Acroterion _(talk) 18:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you that's awesome!

I will do that because going back and forth to my talk page to copy the cite on it was a pain. thank you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not much fun. You can get very fancy, but the refTool covers most situations. Happy editing. Acroterion _(talk) 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cuss words

I am protesting your deletion of the list of cuss words article and the category:cuss words as unformal deletions. They should have been deleted through at least a formal process, rather than just deleting it right away. If whatever i said is "not the encyclopedia's concern", then why delete it unformally?. It may be almost a month late to act, but i finally decided to. Why were they deleted the way that they were instead of having a formal discussion? Why? Isn't the world cruel enough? I'm not saying that cuss words are bad nor that i'm for censoring, which i'm not, but still, why have them deleted? Please answer back on my talk page. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because it duplicated pre-existing content on profanity, and appeared to be a random, contextlesss list of American profanity. As such, it was speedily deletable. I will not bar the recreation of the topic, but you should be prepared to justify the content fork. Acroterion _(talk) 23:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I was advised to take something up to the deletion review in the past when i re-created a category after it was actually deleted through a formal process. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For speedy deletion, it's normally taken to DRV only if the discussion with the deleting admin has been unfruitful. Since I told you I wouldn't object (via a speedy deletion) to a re-creation, and that any initial discussion was best handled at AfD, that condition hasn't been met. I suggest you re-create the article (this time with some context concerning why this particular list is useful and distinct from "profanity") and we can see where it leads. Acroterion _(talk) 11:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would advise you that neither AfD nor DRV are likely to achieve the result you desire, apart from having a "process." Can you explain why this content fork is needed? The term "cuss word" is an Americanism, but since WWII globalized American terms, I can't think of any uniquely American cussing (and none of the items you listed are in any way unique to the US). Acroterion _(talk) 11:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Need uninvolved admin consensus.

I believe this article is nothing more then a self praise article. Cewen Nan, is a one sentence article saying the above is a professor for some university. That's it, no sources or anything like that, I have nominated ity under 2 criteria of deletion and was grejected the frist time because subject claims to be notable. Can you look and maybe write what you think on the talk page or talk with reviewing admin as they do not wish to address teh issue with me. Any help for a consensus for or against my opinion would help solve this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

if that's the best way I thank you fo ryour time and advice. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Aedas page

Hello there

I have made changes to the Aedas page in line with the comments made by you the other day. I have just made the changes in my sandbox for now but will upload the page when I am happy with it. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to have a look and let me know if I have it back on track. I have further edited the two new sections that appeared and obtained some new images with permission to add to the page. I would welcome any advice you have to give regarding the style and content.

with regards.

Deevincentday (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now finished my edits and have transferred the revised page from my sandbox. Please feel free to review and comment/edit as you feel appropriate. I noted your comment about white space but this is an accessibility issue for me as I have very poor vision for reading so therefore need sections to be clearly defined.

with regards.

Deevincentday (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your excellent feedback on my talk page.

with regards.

Deevincentday (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie Richardson

This article is now at AfD. Given our conversation yesterday, it occurred to me that you might care to express an opinion. I hasten to add that, far from this being meant in the spirit of canvassing, I want to urge you to express your opinion regardless of what it happens to be. If your opinion is opposite to mine, I will still welcome its addition to the dialogue. I know you're working in good faith and have a knowledge of the relevant policies, and may have something useful to add regardless of how this turns out. Indeed, feel free to express your opinion or not, as the spirit moves you. I only thought that since you were interested yesterday, you might be interested today. If I've erred, I apologize in advance and hope that you'll ascribe any error to me rather than to the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I've always thought the OMG CANVASSING knee-jerk to be silly - interested editors ought to know so the community can participate intelligently. I'll have a look, thanks. Acroterion _(talk) 17:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Well then Baseball Bugs' post should be deleted as well; he was obviously satirizing me. BethelRunner (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can see, and it certainly doesn't warrant that edit summary. Assume good faith, and you're free to strike your own comments. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BethelRunner"

If you can't see that he was being satirical then you are, as a matter of fact, completely clueless... the 'snack crackers called Goldfish' are obviously not modeled after the lowercase letter alpha. His saying so was mocking my suggestion of the addition of a section on the nabla symbol which was the original personal attack. BethelRunner (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Drop it. Acroterion _(talk) 20:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should I drop it and not you? His comment was as much a personal attack as mine.BethelRunner (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You should drop it and read this as the reason. WP:TROLL Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, WP:DEADHORSE. Please contribute to the encyclopedia instead of nursing months-old vendettas and wasting other editors' time. Acroterion _(talk) 20:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pelf's Slang

You're the biggest jerk in the world. I spent forever on that article. It's not made up. It's not "vandalism". Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not real. So, what's the point of being a carrot top and deleting people's articles? That's just stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikheartsBrady (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unsourced and defamatory. Acroterion _(talk) 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for fixing my userpage!--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for the reverts. Acroterion _(talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Took me a minute

Yeah it took me a mintue to get it fixed. There may be one or two moreout there but if I catch them i will add the steps. Still learning lots to remember lo. Cheers, happy troll hunting Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia formatting language?

Hey Acroterion, I thought I would spiff up my user page so I copied some of the formatting from your user page on to mine, (without copying over your material, so don't worry). As I looked at it, though, I thought I would like to tweak it a bit. My question is this - what language does wikipedia use for formatting and is there a SIMPLE book for learning some of it? I'm not talking about article issues, such as references and citations, I'm talking about making the user page look really nice. I have Wikipedia - The Missing Manual, but don't think there is a section on this topic in there. Thoughts? pmcyclist (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've asked the wrong person, and maybe chosen the wrong page. My page displays all sorts of ways depending on the screen size and shape, and is effectively unplanned and accidental. You're, of course, free to use it, but the formatting's an embarrassment to Wikipedia, principally because I am not competent in that area. I'm not sure who to recommend that would be able to help - a lot of the people with nice pages borrowed them from others. You're free to tweak my userpage if you want; it's been on the list of things to do, like cleaning out the attic and rotating tires. Acroterion _(talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I hear you... you should see OUR attic! Well, compared to the white field with three sandbox links that constituted my page, yours was the Mona Lisa!!! I'll poke around some and see what I can find out. Either that or I'll recruit my 16 year old daughter whose nickname is Tech Support! Best, pmcyclist (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am Klort

Me Klort. He-llo. Klort (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm. Grunt. Acroterion _(talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Me just being friendly. I klort. Klort (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I stop now. You read WP:BITE. Read now. Grrr. Klort (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Klort have stopped though 0( Klort (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Klort mad!! Rooaaaarrrgghh!! Klort leave the wikipede forever. Klort be having hurt feeling. You very rude insensitive. Klort go eat snails. You' eat snail. I never come back. o_0 Klort (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Men's View page

hey you just deleted the men's view page that some fans of our show spent a lot of hard work creating. Thats not right. We are #19 on itunes we don't need to advertise on Wikipedia. Why don't you go ahead and delete Adam Carollas wikipedia page he is #1 podcast he must be advertising too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.181.26 (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't advertise on Wikipedia. Your position on iTunes is irrelevant; coverage in third-party media is, and you gave no indication that the podcast had received any. Adam Carolla is independently notable. Acroterion _(talk) 13:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's bad form to vandalize in a fit of pique, as you did at Charles Center. Acroterion _(talk) 13:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The page of mine's should not be deleted.

Hi there, administrator

The page i have created should not be deleted because the texts i have written is about a person but it is not written in hundred percent full information.

Plus I have full permission to write an article about my best friend and other's, I have completely took my time and i didnt want to waste it, but you have deleted for no reason.

Please Acroterion, I have used alot of my time's to make this article in my frist time in my life and i worked really hard on it,

I have full hundred percent to write an article, and i have also read the Guideline's privacy policy and terms of use and also the copyrigh's, i understand them and i understand the "Your first Article".

I would like my article to be restored on this amazing website, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midsouth John (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's requirements for the notability of individuals; the article was deleted because it doesn't comply with notability requirements (which are also mentioned in WP:YFA. We appreciate your enthusiasm and encourage you to contribute, but an article on you and your best friend isn't really appropriate. Biographies are about people who have been covered in the newspaper or historical works. Is there a subject you're interested in where you could help us improve existing content? Acroterion _(talk) 01:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

World Trade Center

The article has been protected for 2 months already. Why not to unprotect it and allow anonymous users to contribute to the article? SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 11:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks for reminding me. Unprotected. Acroterion _(talk) 14:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

CSY - boat page

When you have time please look at the [1] page and let me know if it is more scholarly.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Also, how do I get this out of the sandbox? I have several other owners who would like to contribute information to the site.

Thanks, Peter CSYguy (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the Hyart Theater article

Hello! I was doing New Page Patrol and I saw your new article on the Hyart Theater. I was very happy to see that funky old theater is still standing -- so many older theaters from that era got smacked with the wrecking ball. Thanks for bringing that article and that great photo to Wikipedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! We were driving across northern Wyoming a couple of years ago and were stopped cold by this big turquoise thing on an otherwise deserted Main Street. I'd really like to see the interior, or the outside with the lights turned on, but I settled for taking lots of pictures of it as it was. Supposedly the Villa Theater's still standing in Salt Lake City; I'm going to do a little research and see what turns up. Acroterion _(talk) 13:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mamta dhody

Can I ask what the "OTRS resolution" you discussed with Mamta dhody (talk · contribs) that you refer to in your unblock message actually was? He's back to his usual tricks- edit warring, uploading copyvios, ranting about Islam/US presidents/Jews/Jesus (or whatever strikes his fancy) and being generally insulting- all that having made only around thirty edits since the unblock. I cannot see what possible positive this user is having on the project. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I was taking Georgewilliamherbert's OTRS discussion as the basis for the unblock. Since I don't have OTRS access, I don't know what was discussed or what terms might exist, but they're certainly contingent on good behavior in general; GWH's comments mainly dealt with the article and the veracity of the edits, not editor behavior. As I said when I unblocked, he has to behave, so I'll have a look at it. Thanks for letting me know. Acroterion _(talk) 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned, more or less duplicating your own warning. Acroterion _(talk) 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Russell Agency

I'm just not really sure why you deleted it? I'm really trying to make a page for this company and get the information out there. Can you just tell me what I'm doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonnieLumley (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The company does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for the notability of corporations. Wikipedia requires that articles on companies show evidence that the company is eligible for inclusion by virtue of having received multiple, non-trivial mentions in independent media known for fact-checking, and that this coverage should preferably indicate notability of more than purely local standing. This keeps Wikipedia from being flooded by companies and organizations that simply want to appear on a highly-trafficked website that tends to appear at the top of Google search lists. Since Wikipedia is not a business directory or a free webhost, this allows Wikipedia to focus on its core purpose, writing an encyclopedia, which is a task requiring some discrimination in content. I do not see the end result changing - you aren't doing anything wrong, the company, like many, just doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. A simple question to ask one's self: would you expect to see an article on this organization in an encyclopedia, even a very broadly-based one? Acroterion _(talk) 20:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not included a single copy -material in my edits-there are my own contributions from original source!

59.178.46.37 (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have offended one person at the cost of saving so many lives.

I have nothing against any religion in particular and it is you who are saying these things.Whatever I have said is from the religious books of the culprits themselves and the wrong knowledge that they have put to use in these modern times for criminal activities.As far as I know the general tone of Wikipedia is aginst heinous crime.If someone uses their religion to perpetrate crime on a mass scale ,it has to be brought to the notice of the general mileau and are termed as crimes against humanity and human rights violations. My edits to Subhash Chandra Bose are genuine and enriching and you have only served to deprive the readers of genuine knowledge.Sorry to have offended one person at the cost of saving so many lives.Mamta dhody (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One question...

Why'd you remove the article for the MMORPG Wizard 101?
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 20:25, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Because its entire content was, and I quote: "c". That was more than a year ago. Now there's a proper Wizard101 article. Acroterion _(talk) 00:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Your attention...

...would be appreciated here. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (and today User:Taivo) are deleting my comments giving vague and insulting excuses as an alibi ([2], [3], [4]). Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that whole page is a bad idea. Otherwise, what A Man in Black said - I have no interest in draining that particular swamp. You do not appear to have anything to contribute to the discussion otherwise, and you clearly have other wiki experience. I'd suggest you use the account that provided that experience and make substantive contributions. Acroterion _(talk) 17:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't get the chance to contribute when what you write is getting deleted. That's why I asked for your help.

I can go around deleting what the above two users write too, you know. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I see no point to the page. Either contribute substantively, or don't. I see nothing worth arguing over, especially when it's in a subject area that's rife with the most pointless arguments ever made. Acroterion _(talk) 17:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So is it OK deleting the comments of users I perceive to be sockpuppets of a shadowy, unnamable user? Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk)

Do you expect me to give you permission to edit disruptively? You appear to be trying to make a point, and I'm uninterested in assisting you in doing so. Acroterion _(talk) 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm expecting, unless there's one law for the rich and another for the poor. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From (none) to Autoreviewers

Thanks for this. I will try to live up to your faith in me. Emargie (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I noticed you'd done a lot of new, referenced articles, the kind we like to see. Have fun! Acroterion _(talk) 17:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What are Autoreviewers? --Una Smith (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Found the answer: Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. Thanks, this will be helpful. When I have just begun a new article, sometimes a zealous new page patroller has come by and wasted their time and mine too by slapping tags on it. --Una Smith (talk)

WP Mills

Thanks for your message, I'll leave the Wall Street mill article tagged for now. It can always be reassessed at a later date. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the projects remit extends to ore mills, then there's a lot of scope, provided they're not limited to water or wind power. Interesting project! Acroterion _(talk) 19:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Pages

My partner and I have been living apart for almost 6 months now. we see each other one a month is we're lucky. As a really cute gesture and to try really hard keeping the spark alive, my partner wrote a wiki page about me. AND U DELETED BEFORE I EVEN GOT TO SEE IT. I don't suppose however you would know what that is like. Someone that sits there and sifts through people pages.....can't exactly be the brightest soul.

As a female I need a little bit of romanticism to survive a long distance relationship. Women out there would be frothing to get there hands on a boy that did this for them and I'm a lucky one and you ruin his one shot at really trying.

To delete the website that fast........well actually I don't need to say anymore do I.

A pity such sad individuals are out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.183.25 (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, encyclopedias aren't a very good way to maintain a relationship. Wikipedia, romantic? Acroterion _(talk) 12:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

hahahaah and you consider wikipedia an actual encyclopedia. In Australia we get marks removed from our assignments at uni if we use wikipedia in any shape or form......thats how much creditability it gets. Oh and you work for it......No surprise there

It's even worse as a place to post love notes. Acroterion _(talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted a warning regarding the comment above, because I felt calling a Wikipedian "not bright" was an ad hominem attack in violation of WP:NPA --Mysidia (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally ignore that sort of thing, as it's mild and pretty much goes with the administrative territory. My question is, why would a love note posted in such a disreputable publication be so "romantic"? One would think that Uncyclopedia would do, or even Encyclopedia Dramatica, but apparently only WP is sufficiently prominent. Thanks for warning the lovelorn. Acroterion _(talk) 13:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the general public doesn't know much about Uncyclopedia or Dramatica, they're specialized sites known about primarily by their members and active users of Wikis. Wikipedia on the other hand, has been commonly mentioned in popular media, and is much more well known by the public. A note on Wikipedia would probably be seen by a lot more eyeballs. --Mysidia (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's more of a rhetorical question, I suppose; it's also the first time I've fielded such a complaint from a girl; usually it's some lovestruck boy who complains about the deletion of their article concerning the most beautiful girl in the world. By the way, congratulations on your longevity around here, not many people are left from the pioneering days when you could write an article on blue. Acroterion _(talk) 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Account used for BLP violation

What with google searches being what they are, do you think it would be a good idea to delete the creator's talk page, as well, or at least to redact the subject's name from it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the name should be redacted. I've already create-protected the article, and I have run out of good faith concerning the editor's username. Acroterion _(talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you run out of good faith with a username when I have answered your questions directly? Also, isnt the name of this post incorrect? The subject has been convicted. Arent we basing posts on facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuteteacherguy29 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; the article Acroterian linked to must be an old one, then; I thought it indicated that the subject hadn't been convicted yet. In any case, as the subject doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, there's no reason to create an article; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and doesn't need articles about every person who is convicted of a crime, unless that crime is especially noteworthy. Your username indicates that your primary goal is not to make a better encyclopedia, but to publicly humiliate this person; that isn't what Wikipedia's purpose is, so you'll need to do that elsewhere if it needs to be done. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You have answered none of my questions in a manner that indicates that you understand the responses that three administrators have provided on this subject. I believe you have created this account specifically as a way to persecute someone, as evidenced by the name you've chosen. That is not acceptable by Wikipedia policy. Guilt or innocence is not the issue. Acroterion _(talk) 02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Acroterion- Did you know there were two Columbine massacres? I learn the most amazing things on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In Serene, Colorado ?! Acroterion _(talk) 02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fisher, The single event explination was sufficient for the terms of use. I dont think you can judge someones intentions on their username. You have no idea, and you have no proof of any kind to back up your statements. The posting will not be redone by me. However, even though your interpretation is completely incorrect, and the rudeness of your post is insulting, the topic is ended as I see it.

--Cuteteacherguy29 (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons overrides all, and would rule in any case. That is the point we've been making. Now, will you please find another username? Acroterion _(talk) 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the blocking of my username trivial at this point. I was the person you just blocked. The reason is I have made it known that the post will not continue, You then decide to block it? For what reason if I do not reference the same subject matter. I ask you to reinstate as long as I do not reference the same subject matter--Itendtodisagree (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The name was used as a means of disparagement and thus violates user name policy. Please consider it retired. Official policy in these matters is quite a bit more harsh than the application in this particular case; you could have been blocked entirely under the circumstances (a username hard block, to use the technical term), for a username apparently intended to disparage someone. You are free to edit under the new name (within policy), so happy editing. Acroterion _(talk) 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as though you are doing it to make a point, can you at least edit the name of this article. Just to make a point, it is not a true statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itendtodisagree (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. However, I was not making a point, I was preventing the account from being used, and did not know that you had chosen a new name. Acroterion _(talk) 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Zoom

Hi I wrote the Zoom Entertainment page that you deleted so quickly. I realise the article is not only bringing to the attention of the world that tey exist but could be seen as advertising. They do exist and the article explins there function with links to verify that. How do I produce an article so that the world is aware that they exist? It is not indifferent to a similar named site Bang! Zoom Entertainment which can be declared an advertisement also but has many links to it. This is just a start and I will continue if allowed to obtain many incoming links to show it has VALUE.

Please reconsider your judgement on this. Regards Pete Heath (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How does the organization meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of comanies? You will need to provide references indicating the firm has received non-trivial notice in multiple publications with a reputation for fact-checking, preferably of national standing. Wikipedia is not the place to bring things to the world's attention: they should already be on the world's radar to get written about here. Acroterion _(talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Zoom Entertainment deletion

Please reconsider your judgement on this. Regards Pete Heath (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time. I will gather the required information in order to meet this criteria and perhaps resubmit at a later time.

IKON Office Solutions

How do I edit the top portion of the post. Someone asked for the citation. I could not edit in the correct paragraph. --Itendtodisagree (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ELSWORTH

Curious, why should it be moved to Kent County? Please let me know on my talk page; I'll forget to look here. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I thought you meant that the description or the community given was actually in Kent County. Just yesterday, I moved one ship's listing from Hammond, Indiana to Muskegon, Michigan; it would help if the NRIS kept up with semi-permanent moves like this. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Update?

Hallo, is there anything new concerning this? --Matthiasb (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's been in article space for about a month now. I put the history on the talk page, which seems to be the prescribed method since we can't import into this wiki. Thanks for your help! Acroterion _(talk) 13:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Message for Acroterion

I beg your pardon, but I have not added any personal commentary. This is FACT, as substantiated by evidentiary support found in the listed references. Please do your own research and verify these claims before you so quickly decide to remove them as unfounded.

This is a REAL Phenomenon...AC 360 (Anderson Cooper) has reported that illegal immigrants from mexico are responsible for planting marijuana crops in U.S. National Parks. On June 15, 2009, Anderson Cooper has reported that it is easier for these illegal immigrants to reach consumers in the U.S. because they are growing crops here in the U.S. and thus do not have to smuggle them across the border. As a result, their job is easier if they plant in the U.S. The public needs to understand the dangers that this issue poses. This has nothing to do with my opinion. These are recurring, GENUINE phenomena that need to be shared.

See for yourself:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/category/marijuana/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.30.209 (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And why is this vital to the article on Los Padres National Forest? This is a common problem in all of California's national forests and has been going on for years. Why are you so focused on this one, and how does this undue weight help the article. Please do nopt edit-war to insert this: discuss it on the article talk page. The article is not a forum for your views on Mexican drug cartels.Acroterion _(talk) 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Message 2 for Acroterion

Yes, it is important and specific to this national park. The referenced articles only specify this park, Los Padres National Park.

As a result, you have a duty to report factual events that impugn the character of this park and to hold those accountable for their actions in California. You may not be opposed to illegal immigration, but that is irrelevant here. It is imperative that United States citizens understand the core issues that affect immigration laws, national security, and the public welfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.30.209 (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a national park. It's a national forest. I have no duty, nor does Wikipedia, to report anything; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You are using the encyclopedia as a soapbox on immigration, and the information is tangentially relevant at best. Acroterion _(talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Message 3 for Acroterion

I think you have mistaken Anderson Cooper's words for mine...Everything I have written is verbatim from the news articles referenced

I have not expressed any opinion on the issue. This is totally unbiased and simply reports the nature of the events.

This is a pertinent issue and deserves recognition from Wikipedia and all those interested in the park

If your family wanted to go vacation in this park, then you should AT LEAST BE AWARE of these occurrences. Wikipedia has the duty to inform, then it is up to the individual to choose whether he or she still wishes to visit there. Do you still not see my point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.30.209 (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX; you are introducing material at variance with those guidelines, and you seem to be uninterested in the actual subject of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 03:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The user has added the material again, after a final warning. The user doesn't seem to get that what he is doing is against SOAP. I would suggest blocking, as, after all the warnings, they still have not learned.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing and soapboxing; the core issue isn't the content of Los Padres National Forest, it's the editor's use of Wikipedia as a forum for his views on immigration. Acroterion _(talk) 03:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking care of this while I was away at a July 4 barbecue. I had a feeling this inappropriate material would find its way back. -- 68.53, if you are reading this, the problem isn't the newsworthiness of Mexican drug cartels beginning a growing campaign on U.S. public lands; this has been going on for years, and is well-documented; the problems are 1) you are trying to add it to an inappropriate place (the Los Padres National Forest article is about the forest, not drug production, and the issue is tangential and [[WP:SOAPBOX|soapboxy there), and 2) the writing has a xenophobic edge to it. There's certainly somewhere on Wikipedia where a stricly NPOV rewrite of this material could be covered; Mexican_Drug_War#United_States might be reasonable, and there might even be somewhere better. Just my opinion. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor was using the quote as a sort of fig leaf for the edit; the fact that the quote mentions Los Padres is not as important as the editor thinks. I've been seeing reports like this for twenty years, it's far from new, and Sequoia, Mendocino and others (where there's more water) are probably more heavily affected than Los Padres. Lou Dobbs is a much more fertile source anyway than Cooper for xenophobia. There is an appropriate place on WP for this discussion; I can see an article on the history of marijauna production in California national forests and national parks as entirely valid, tracing its history from locals growing their own to more organized enterprises to foreign-dominated organizations, but this isn't the way to go about it, and a scholarly discussion of this sort isn't what the editor had in mind when he said above "As a result, you have a duty to report factual events that impugn the character of this park and to hold those accountable for their actions in California. You may not be opposed to illegal immigration, but that is irrelevant here. It is imperative that United States citizens understand the core issues that affect immigration laws, national security, and the public welfare. " The quoted material isn't even about illegal immigration per se, it's about Mexican drug cartels, who like cheap labor as much as the next business. Acroterion _(talk) 13:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Mary's County images

I see you're adding images on Washington County, Maryland. Nice pics! Thought you might like to know I spent Fri in St. Mary's County to take pics and added a number to National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Mary's County, Maryland. Nice trip ... best wishes.--Pubdog (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was actually in St. Mary's County on Tuesday and got a few shots, although not necesarily of NRHP things. I saw your additions and will check them out in more detail: I've also added a few in Cecil, Kent and Berkeley County, WV. Acroterion _(talk) 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the new Wash Co pics. Visited Anne Arundel County / Annapolis yesterday and added 25 new pics to National Register of Historic Places listings in Anne Arundel County, Maryland; added summaries to all ... cheers!--Pubdog (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw your AA pix; they're nice. You've done a good job of avoiding the vertical perspective distortion that makes buildings look like they're falling over backwards - not easy with a lot of these tall brick buildings. For some reason everything I've tried to shoot recently faces north (well, maybe 50% anyway) and needs extensive work in Photoshop to have a good, evenly exposed image. Also, every time I have a few minutes to shoot, the sun goes behind a cloud. Ah, well. Keep up the good work! Acroterion _(talk) 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments about my pics. I'm afraid I feel I'm battling foliage more than anything this time of year. I'm using the Picasa 3 tool from Google for any edits I make. I'm not making many edits though, so maybe I'm just lucky. I think we'll get 'em all!--Pubdog (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Trees and utility lines are the bane of architectural photography. Trees at least lose their leaves for a few months; big black phone lines are forever. The last couple of pictures I posted in Hagerstown were the best of a bad lot of street lights, signs, signal lights and overhead lines. I have a list of places to revisit after the leaves are down so I can get a long shot without trespassing.Acroterion _(talk) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

why did you delete my page: Abraham Renteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargentslaughter (talk • contribs) 04:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it was an article about someone who does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You've...

...missed the point completely by thinking it's random, and demonstrated a lack of intellect by saying as such. First of all, I never said that, "Edit-warring is murder", what I said was, "So a vandal who escapes admin for a day is no longer a vandal and disipline should not be given because he did it in the past...". That means that, because it is a problem which was left unchecked in the past, it should not be pursued as it is not valid. That's stupid. "A block for edit-warring is effective only when there's an edit war in progress...", that's simply not true. On the "randomness" of this, there is none. I sighted and showed that this is by no means random. Also, it really makes no difference to me on what you feel about my analogy. The "established means"? Do you mean find the easiest target involved and punish him, is that one of the "establisted means", as it would appear so. It's easy. It's tidy, because you let them file an appeal, but it never gets anywhere. It only pleases those who wish not "waste" their time dealing with situations properly, but it will please as long as it gets to the desired result, no matter what it costs. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the remark about my "lack of intellect" pass, rude though it is. I've blocked many, many vandals, and the lesson works best if you do it when they're vandalizing, edit-warring, spouting original research, etc. The "established means" refers to the practices we've found work best in maintaining the encyclopedia. Going back and blocking people for past offenses is very much frowned upon by the community, as it can lead to the prosecution of vendettas, fighting among admins, and general chaos. I have been able to get vandals and edit-warriors to reform without blocking them. Blocking is not the only means, or even the best means, to change behavior. A single-minded focus on blocking is not a positive administrative characteristic, and I speak as one who has, at this moment, blocked 1810 editors, most indefinitely. "Punishment" applied as such, rather than as a preventative measure, tends to escalate the problem, which is why it's discouraged. No administrator will block someone against policy simply because another editor demands that they do so; if they do, they have no business being an administrator.

From WP:BLOCK: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. We take this very seriously, and I think it's a good policy. If you disagree, take it up on the policy talk page, not here. If the user is disrupting the encyclopedia on a continuing basis, I'd be happy to deal with them, which may include blocking them. Otherwise, it is poor practice to go around meting out punishment when the editor may not even be aware that punishment is being applied. Acroterion _(talk) 13:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The above comments were expressed in the abstract. Having looked at the situation that provoked all this, you clearly are trying to prosecute a vendetta, having failed to convince other editors that your preferred edits are valid. Your behavior on Talk:Code Lyoko indicates that you are not interested in abiding by policy for reliable sources, and wish to have others sanctioned for insisting that you do so. You have resorted to rudeness when other arguments have failed. The Rogue Penguin is mainly guilty of having been lured into a reversion cycle of policy and consensus enforcement with a determined edit-warrior, leaving him open to the kind of increasingly nasty dialogue (from your side: TRP has been consistently polite) that I've seen. MataNui44 is fortunate to be blocked for only a month. Jayron acted correctly and within his discretion. Your behavior is far from exemplary, and you are not in a position to demand that others be sanctioned. Please consider yourself warned; you are yourself in disruptive editing territory.. Acroterion _(talk) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond in this to both of the above. You are blowing the "lack of intellect" quote out of preportition, though it would probably have fit better as "lack of awareness" or "logical reaction". Vendettas cause you admins to lose your cool, and all that? Well, you have me unconvinced that not prosecuting is a good strategy. When did I demand? I asked that you consider doing it and gave, reasons, evidence, as well as witness's agreement. If blocks are takeen so seriously, then why don't investigations precede them?

(Next Message) I don't think there can be any argument about my edits as I had my sources. You're the last one to talk about policy. You play by the book and get whomever is convenient, that is how the current blocking policy works. My behavior? I was the one greeted by a sarcastic ass, "Didn't you read above...". "The Rogue Penguin is mainly guilty of having been lured into a reversion cycle of policy and consensus enforcement with a determined edit-warrior, leaving him open to the kind of increasingly nasty dialogue (from your side: TRP has been consistently polite) that I've seen." Now you're getting into the "that poor dear" argument, which I've seen you pull on anyone who has "dared" to go against TRP. Polite? As if! MataNui44 is fortunate? Looks all that blocking has gone to your head, because you're feeling happy that a person who was only doing the right thing, deserves what you guys unwittingly gave him. A couple things wrong with that: 1. Jayron did not act accordingly. 2. Taht's a matter of opinion. 3. I never demanded. 4. What am I supposed to do? Also, I am beginning to suspect that there is some sockpuppetting between you admins and TRP. I will report sock puppetting if I feel it nessecary. So please consider yourself warned. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something. When did I even ask to talk with you? --76.95.66.209 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not; you were arguing with an editor I respect on her talkpage and taxing her patience as she very patiently explained why she was not going to do what you wanted her to do. You are convinced everyone you interact with is acting in bad faith, and you are keen to argue under all circumstances, attributes which are not very helpful on Wikipedia, where collaboration is essential. Acroterion _(talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, on many of your statements. No, I did not ask to talk to you. And yes, I am convinced you're interacting on bad faith. "...And you are keen to argue under all circumstances, attributes which are not very helpful on Wikipedia...", that is not true. You know I've realize why you and the other admins have done this to MataNui and I. We saw that you did not do what you're supposed to, when you're supposed to (not blocking TRP when he was edit-warring). Now that you've stuck to that decision, anyone who challenges TRP or you is an "evil edit warrior hell-bent on destroying Wikipedia". This also coincides with the blocking policy you've sworn yourself to. You've left me unconvinced that wikipedia is run by responsible, caring, fair people; instead I'm starting to get the feeling that wikipedia is run like Nazi Germany. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. Now, I'm going to go work on my house; it's nice outside. You should take a look at a bunch of policies like WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:V. Acroterion _(talk) 18:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at them and have integrated and followed them. Once more, I do believe you're backing out of this disscussion because I hit to close to home in my last post. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I have a porch to fix and this isn't getting it done. Acroterion _(talk) 19:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded on MataNui44's talk page. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 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) 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)