Jump to content

User talk:Acroterion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.109.10.218 (talk) at 22:07, 22 September 2009 (→‎September 2009). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Signpost

favor

Hi, I wonder if you could do a favor and help out in resolving some merger/split proposals in CT, NH, RI NRHP HD articles. With time and a good amount of communication, I and another editor who disagreed previously have made a lot of progress and achieved basic agreement for most types of nrhp hds which were originally all in contention. There remain a number of open merger/split proposals to address and close with decisions, and some other issues open as well or yet to be discussed, now with more moderation on both sides. The other editor and i agreed we would take it down several notches, and agree to abide by third party decisions. In particular we'd be happy if you would be willing to help mediate/arbitrate/judge: would you consider this? This relates to Talk:List of RHPs in CT, Talk:List of RHPs in VT, at Talk:List of RHPs in RI, and at individual NRHP HD articles and town/village/hamlet articles referenced from those. It does not all need to be rehashed. What we'd appreciate is your being willing to be an invited discussion leader and then closer in merger/split proposals in selected specific cases, I suppose to be decided on the merits of information about the extent of geographical and historical overlap in those cases. What I myself have argued is that two separate articles should be allowed, at least until adequate information is developed, and then a merger proposal could go either way. Additional information has developed in some cases now and some would probably be ready for a closing-type decision, perhaps following one more flurry of moderate discussion. Would you be willing to help, in a limited way, in resolving some of these, in that kind of role? doncram (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be willing to help out. I've watched portions of this from the sideline, and hope that we can move on from here. Am I to understand that a merge to the parent town/village/hamlet would be appropriate when the HD and the settlement more or less coincide? Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Approximately yes.
There are some cases where the NRHP HD borders are pretty much defined as a village's limits, i.e. where both are defined and are the same. There I think we all agree a merge is usually okay. However even then there could be reason for an editor developing NRHP HD material to want to choose to have a separate NRHP HD article (e.g. if the village article goes on and on about non-historic stuff or different history than is exemplified in the artifacts that compose the current HD, and/or if an editor wants to describe in detail many contributing properties which would go beyond what is appropriate in a general village type article). For such cases, there was discussion and some agreement that putting a new template in the Talk page which conveyed/encouraged the option (like that if someone wanted to develop a detailed NRHP HD article they would be welcome to do so, perhaps with pointers to a developed example or two) would be suitable and okay. Such a template could go a long way to settling many cases where borders are not known.
About cases where borders of a non-incorporated hamlet are not defined, including cases where the existence and notability of a neighborhood or hamlet is solely or mostly documented by the NRHP HD listing itself, it is not so clear. There is tacit agreement that having an NRHP HD-named article, with neighborhood or hamlet name redirecting to that, is okay in many cases, between Polaron and myself, I think, but that is complicated by others' entry into some of those cases. There are also many types of cases where there previously was contention between Polaron and myself where there would not now be contention at all between the two of us, including town green HDs and town center HDs, but where others' entry also may complicate. Between P and me, on cases where the borders are clearly different, I think there is agreement that the articles should be / can be different. doncram (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any existing examples of this sort of article in the wild yet? Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of which sort? Do you mean where there are same boundaries, both known? I checked the "Resolved issues" archive for List of RHPs in CT, and find none there. In the RFC at Talk:List of RHPs in CT Daniel Case pointed to Chautauqua Institute, i pointed to St. Elmo Historic District (St. Elmo, Colorado). There is discussion there by Daniel Case and Polaron that even if a Borough is coterminous with a NRHP HD, there should/could be separate articles, because there is current government stuff to cover in the borough article, and mention specifically of Litchfield Borough vs Litchfield Historic District being coterminous but to have different articles.
Of a second type, where unincorporated hamlet without clear borders might or might not be same as an NRHP HD, there are many open issue ones, among those listed individually at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and NH and RI. The resolved items archive has just one, Stafford Hollow, Connecticut (undefined hamlet assumed to correspond more or less to historic district), where I agreed for that one to go at non-NRHP HD name. Actually I am not so sure that merger should have been forced, but it was far superior to initial merger target, and the discussion had been confusing. Not sure how much identifying of examples of types is helpful. The open issue ones have discussion sections open. Perhaps could browse and try to identify some possibly-easier-to-settle ones? doncram (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my real question was "do you have an example of a successfully resolved disputed merge?" I'll have a look around through some of the places you've mentioned tomorrow to familiarize myself with the discussions.Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of examples now where former disputes were quietly resolved, some being cases where an article recently created at "X", the name of a nonincorporated hamlet/village, was moved to "X HD", and assent has been suggested by further edits. I asked here if we could try going through one county, and i suggest doing New London Cty, which has the virtue of having relatively little past discussion. You could directly perform any agreed-upon deletions of redirects, too, avoiding need for a batch of redirects at RFD. If it's ok, could do the discussion at the Cty's Talk page. doncram (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a statement of my personal preference, which appears to be in line with consensus, any HD that substantially coincides with the settlement should redirect/be merged to the place; i.e., Podunk HD should point to Podunk, Connecticut. The difficulty (consensus-wise) is in determining whether the coincidence is correct without having local knowledge. I will warn that I have not done much in the way of history merges, so I'll proceed cautiously, as it's hard to undo a complex merge. I'll study the topics listed at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and propose a couple to start with. Before I do anything I'll check in with Polaron and Orlady. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivision 1

Lucky you, Acroterion. There are a quite a few articles, article pairs, and redirects that were the subject of varying degrees of contention, and now await closure -- or at least review of a closure that was done by one of the parties. IMO, it makes sense to conclude these existing discussions before starting to tackle any whole new lists of articles. Here are some of the candidates for you to start looking at:
Not done yet because of factor-of-ten discrepancy between listed HD and asserted are in discussion. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peace Dale, Rhode Island and Peace Dale Historic District were the subject of a lot of reverts and currently exist as two articles displaying merge templates, but people quit engaging in the various discussions (on the Rhode Island NRHP talk page and both article talk pages) a while back.
Merged from last pre-redirect version of the HD article, mostly just infoboxes. It's clear they're the same place. I see little difference between this kind of article and, say, a lighthouse, where the NRHP data defers to the parent topic, in this case, the village. I think the infobox is valuable, as it provides concise data, but in this setting the Big Map of Rhode Island is obtrusive, so pulled it out. I've placed a notice on the talk page of the redirect. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into specifics yet, these examples appear to represent a fair cross-section of the simpler issues. I understand Doncram's concerns regarding future development with contributing structure listings and so on. However, there are very few HDs where every single structure is worthy of inclusion here. Within the small-town boundaries we've set for this matter, few HDs will have more than a dozen to two dozen major contributing structures, and the most significant of those might warrant their own CP articles anyway. I very much doubt we'll end up with excessively lengthy articles in any time horizon within reason, considering that the unincorporated villages and small CDPs simply won't generate enough verifiable content to threaten to rival Philadelphia, and HDs aren't the only candidates for daughter articles if that turns out to be the case. We can have, if the need arises, History of Podunk, Cuisine of Podunk, Great Fire of Podunk and so on. We can't anticipate all events.
Daniel Case's Hudson Valley articles do represent a good model for dealing with contributing properties; I should know, I've seen enough of them in the past couple of weeks as I've gone through the article rating backlog. None of them are all that long, and any CP worth more than a paragraph might have its own article eventually. Nearly every HD has non-contributing structures, sometimes many, and I see little difference between those intrusions and a (modest) fringe of newer development that is almost guaranteed in any place but, say, Waterford, Virginia where the county keeps the lid screwed down tight (and there's one we'll have to confront eventually). A contrary example is Shepherdstown, West Virginia, where the HD and the town are very closely related, but where the town's extent is significantly greater than the HD (our article's statement not withstanding, the town has suburbs now). Depending on the information available in that case, we might falsely believe that the HD should be merged with the town. We also have to realize that boundaries of towns change, and that annexations or development may eventually require a split. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments... None of these examples involve official, legally constituted places. These are unofficial villages/sections/neighborhoods within legally established New England towns (actually, about 3 of them cross town lines and are in more than one town). Thus, there are no legal boundaries to contend with, although a few of these places are treated as CDPs by the Census Bureau and a couple of them are postal "cities" with zip codes. All of these except Southport and Stony Creek-Thimble Islands were industrial villages, which generally are listed on the National Register not for being collections of individually significant buildings, but rather for the historical significance of the village as a coherent whole. Typically, the historic district for an industrial village might include one or more factories, worker housing (usually owned by the company, and typically built according to a few common designs), the village streets and the village's overall layout, and some company-established community facilities. Some of these industrial villages do also contain the home of the factory owner and other architecturally notable buildings (among the places on this list, Peace Dale stands out as having several significant buildings -- all built by or in connection with the family that owned most of the village). --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I want to make my views on the general subject clear, in advance of any actions on my part. In the absence of statutory boundaries, there shouldn't be much controversy, since the industrial village tends to be, by definition, the HD. It gets murkier in the circumstances I laid out, and I'm personally guilty of creating some articles that could be merge candidates - see Thurmond, West Virginia/Thurmond Historic District, an obvious merge candidate, and Jay Em, Wyoming/Jay Em Historic District, which is not necessarily a candidate, as the essentially vacant historic core is apparently surrounded by more recent development (which might amount to a dozen houses). Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivision 2

Adding still more smoldering situations needing to be resolved:

  • Hartford (village), Vermont and Hartford Village Historic District. This pair is currently merged at Hartford (village), Vermont, which was its state when a cease-fire occurred in the ongoing edit war. However, that article still displays a "merge" template and there were some contents in the HD article that didn't make it over to the merged version. (I inserted the infobox and corrected the acreage of the HD, but the HD article had a longer list of the names and addresses of included properties.) --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ludlow Village Historic District (Ludlow, Vermont) and Ludlow (village), Vermont. This pair is currently split , again due to its state at the time of the cease-fire. There are no longer any merge templates, and there has been no recent discussion that I know of. The articles gave the historic district acreage as 90 acres, but that's wrong -- NRIS says 9 acres (I corrected the village article, but since Doncram created the HD article and was the last person to touch it, I guess I'd better keep my hands off the HD article). --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • North Bennington, Vermont and North Bennington Historic District - I'm adding these because they need attention, mostly the HD article (which I think I had better not touch since Doncram is the only substantive contributor. Not only is this another merge-vs.-split battleground (I think they should be merged, as there is no meaningful content in the HD article), but the area of the HD is wrong (NRIS says 112 acres, not the 1,120 acre number in the article) and the HD article inaccurately describes the village of North Bennington as an unincorporated community (it is an incorporated village). --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newbury (village), Vermont and Newbury Village Historic District - These are currently in a merged state at Newbury (village), Vermont after a split-merge-split-merge-etc. edit war, but some content seems to have been lost when the merger was done. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) ADDED: In this case, the historic district is a fairly small fraction of the village land area, but the HD has 93 buildings and the total population of the village is only 396. Although not all of the 93 buildings are houses, I venture to guess that about half of the village population lives in the HD. --Orlady (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the acreages for the Ludlow Village and North Bennington HDs. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

While it may look like nothing much has happened, I've been reading through all the talkpages from June and July as Real Life has permitted (which means odd moments here and there). Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Thank you for your intervention. I've replied on my talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank you for your intervention, it's an appropriate way forward for each of the editors in question. dm (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you too--Pubdog (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the tone and substance and function of this remark. I've refrained from responding there so far, but I think something needs to be said in response there and/or to the person who commented. Would you please take a look at that? doncram (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I see no cause for outrage at politely-expressed disagreement. The term "principal community" seems a bit strained, and might be best avoided here at WP. It probably was invented by an intern. You are free to not respond to it, of course, and that's what I advise if the comment irks you. Acroterion (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand I don't want to advocate further here or there about whether the term "principal community" should be used in a bunch of articles. I had made a comment along those lines which was an aside, obviously not needing further discussion or resolution in the context of the topic of discussion. Rather, I object to the argumentative nature of the comment, and I bring it up to you as you have enjoined Orlady and me not to engage in argument. You may choose not to interpret her comment as polite, but in the context of a long history, it is hard not to see some disrespect and sarcasm. It was a loaded, personally directed comment. In factual terms, her statement was a) negative, b) unnecessary in the context of the discussion, c) it was very specifically commenting on me, and d) in fact included two specific unnecessary enjoinders/suggestions to me. (The first is the enjoinder of her telling me not to do something specific. The second is the suggestion that I "could footnote that page as a reference citation for the sentence that says 'Podunk is a village in the town of Smalltown'. Consider this an aside: let me just note here that the second suggestion does not work. The source does not identify any of the princial communities it lists as villages; it would support statements like I had suggested but not this. I don't want to read too much into it, but why is Orlady making a suggestion that she should know is invalid? It seems unhelpful and possibly tongue-in-cheek.) I think those qualities are enough to term the comment as argumentative, and I am asking for some notice of that. I would enjoin her: if she can't say something positive, and if it's not crucial to the discussion at hand, that she should not interject comments about me or to me. doncram (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deeply regret that my statement has offended Doncram. It was not obvious to me that this comment did not need further discussion or resolution in the context of the topic of discussion. It appeared to me that he was proposing standard language to be added to several articles. I did not think this standard language was appropriate, so I expressed that opinion, explained my reasons, and offered an alternative (i.e., citing the list as a a reference).
I suppose that it was wrong of me to address my comments in the second-person, but if I had tried to write them in an impersonal manner, I think the result would have come across as both unclear and sarcastic. Please believe that I did not intend my remarks as a personal statement on Doncram.
I agree with Doncram that the cited list does not indicate that the named place is a "village" (a term that has no legal meaning in Connecticut), but it does indicate what town it's in, so it could be legitimately be cited (as partial support) in connection with the type of sentence I suggested. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as everybody agrees to tread carefully on eggshells, then we might call this closed. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that while the DECD page does not call them "villages" but "communities", the same list republished by the Hartford Courant in this article does call these places as "villages". Also, this "list of principal communities" is actually significant in the sense that these are the places that show up on the official state highway map. Villages not on the list of principal communities are not indicated on the official state map. --Polaron | Talk 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Interesting. The Hartford Courant headline does call them "villages," but the article does not (it says they are "villages, communities, or simply 'sections' within their borders that often don’t appear on official maps but are named, known and loved by people who live in them"). --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is true because those three terms are interchangeable for the most part. Different towns appear to have different usage preferences but they all mean the same thing. --Polaron | Talk 19:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor point, but I don't think it's purely a matter of usage preference. At least a few of the areas on the list (I am speaking of places with which I am personally familiar) never were "villages" in the generic sense of that word, but instead are suburban residential areas first established during the 20th century. Whether they are "sections" or "districts" is a matter of local preference, but they aren't villages. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, "principal communities" seems too much like like officialese to use in the article, but as long as we're aware of the term's significance in terms of the state's distinctions between mere locales and communities of some higher standing, that can perhaps help in sorting out the issues.. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a point of order type question. I explained at Talk:Noank and at Talk:Poquetanuck that i would create pairs of alternative articles to further the merger vs. split proposal discussion. I did so for Poquetanuck, and Polaron has reverted my editing of an alternative Poquetanuck Village Historic District article, with edit summary "undo -- still under discussion without resolution". This needs some kind of ruling by you as a mediator/arbitrator. I submit that it undermines discussion for there to be just the joint article as an example. (By the way, at the Noank article I asked for "permission" on September 3 before proceeding to start a pair of alternative articles, and refrained from doing so upon Polaron's objection. I now want to proceed there, as I stated at Talk:Noank. For Poquetanuck i did not ask previously or now. In order for merger discussion to proceed, some judgment now on your part is needed. doncram (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watertown, Ohio

Curious your opinion on Watertown, Ohio and the Watertown HD — two weeks ago I added NRHP data to the community article (created in February 2007) for the never-created HD, saying that the entire community was included; one hour later, Doncram revised it. My reading of the boundaries and my view of the community on Google Satellite indicate to me that the entire community is included; otherwise I wouldn't have added what I did. Conversely, his point is that perhaps not the entire community is included. Would you do something here? Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently his concern is with the "presumably." I think editors have to go with what they can in good conscience derive from the material available to them without wandering into OR; it's not a clear-cut boundary. When the entire NPS Focus site is up and running, I think a lot of this back-and-forth will be resolvable by reference to the usual map found at the end of most noms. Until then it's all shadowboxing and a needless expenditure of editorial patience.
In the absence of more compelling evidence that Watertown HD and Watertown, Ohio are two different things, I think the default should be to leave the town/HD article alone. It can always be split if and when more material is available, but for now it seems desirable to keep them together and have one tolerably useful article instead of two stubs. I have no idea why a second infobox was needed. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, at least some of Doncram's additions were accidental — nobody thinks that we need {{NRHP}} or {{Ohio-NRHP-stub}} twice, and I can't imagine anyone intentionally adding Category:National Register of Historic Places in Ohio twice :-) I expect that it was somewhat of acting faster than he should have, which is an error I find myself doing rather too frequently. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the same things where the interface has lagged - sometimes to my own edits. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curious — whom do you mean by "his" in your reply here? I can't decide whether you're telling others what I mean or referring to Doncram, who added the "presumably". Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zion NP

Have you asked Doncram? He's done much more with AFDs for these articles than anyone else I know. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only twice been involved in AFDs for NRHP properties — once when I nominated Big Horn Academy building (the first time I'd heard of the NRHP), and this AFD back in March, in which all participants advocated keeping per its NRHP status. You may want to use this one as an example, as Elkman and I are the only project members who participated. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:)

No not terribly often. I still utilize the wiki when I need that information rush, but I try to avoid it if possible, I might somehow get pulled back into active editing! :P 98.220.45.32 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (KOS)[reply]

And remaining an IP helps to curb those twitchy fingers, no doubt. Good to hear from you. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here my friend! Cheers. 98.220.45.32 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah thanks for this too. BTW did you ever get that best buy discount? ;) 98.220.45.32 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Since Circuit City went belly-up they seem to think they can do what they want, despite my shilling for them here on the wiki. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where

Unclear where there is to be a discussion of anything in particular. If one is to address New London County, please note Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 31#various New London County, CT, redirects as a starter, where i hope, knock on wood, there can be agreement for 7 cases. I suggest using at least the Talk:List of RHPs in CT to mention where there is an RFD-type discussion to happen, and it could be announced elsewhere too, so that others could be constructively involved. About the other New London ones which might be discussed, which I and/or Polaron identify as potentially controversial, I think there would need to be a "discovery" phase of discussion probably to uncover some facts. I would plan to, and hope others could also, refrain from arguing already about what is proper treatment for each of these, until some basic facts for each could be established. By my noting 4 potential issue ones, I meant that exactly as that: potential issues, where i might have predispositions that others could guess, but I do not have commitment to fight to the death or anything, and where I do not yet know what facts might easily be obtained. I would hope we all could have an open mind about these. doncram (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to have the discussions on the talk pages of the individual villages, as those all more or less exist, announced at the list of CT RHPs. The "discovery"-then-discuss is what I had in mind. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcats_By_Christine_Yang

Hi, Acroterion:

I just found out today that my daughter posted this entry detail information of her and our family. I notice that you deleted the entry a week ago, but I can still see it on the cached page.

Please delete this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcats_By_Christine_Yang and this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Yang as well.

thanks

Christine's Mom

Cyang1999 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it lives now only in the local cache on your computer. Try control-r or control-shift-r, depending on your browser, and see if it doesn't disappear. Also, you might try on another computer and see if it isn't gone. I imagine you've had the chat with Christine concerning Too Much Personal Information on the Internet by now. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal question

This is not a request for legal advice, I have always wondered about this type of situation even before I went to the ER. How difficult would a case of implied contract be to prove in a court of law? It seems like that would be a big hassle and certainly not a straightforward certain outcome as the case would be with a signed contract. Can a company use an "implied contract" to negatively effects one's credit? It would seem not, otherwise any entity could report whatever to a credit burea under the guise of believing they have an implied contract...

I would think that any istitution would just give up and not persue debts in this type of situation, unless the amount were signifigantly large, as if they report to a credit buruea without proof of debt, they could be liable for any harm they do to a person's credit? Or am I way off here? XM (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've passed my limit of legal knowledge, but in general, the more paperwork, the easier enforcement. Hospitals take collections very seriously, and unless someone's positively indigent, they'll pursue collection. They know you were there and can prove it, so the court is likely to find for the hospital, particularly if there's evidence of intent to defraud. I've been in courtrooms and listened to the litany of hospital collection actions, accounting for half the cases. Acroterion (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spammer

User talk:MillionDollarDare Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bagged, tagged. Thanks, Acroterion (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shoemaker

Any way of identifying this users IP and banning that too? Frmatt (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is evidence that they have abused multiple accounts or IPs, that is certainly possible; have you seen this? WP:SPI is the place for that kind of issue, but only if there's evidence of continuing abuse. Otherwise, autoblock and account creation blocks will kick in and prevent abuse for a tim. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mongoos1111

Mongoos1111, who you have warned previously, is making pointless additions to the page on William Ellis School. The nature of their additions suggests they are a pupil there. Could you intervene? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExLibre (talk • contribs) 13:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question

why do you people keep deleting my article that im trying to create. this is a legitimate band page, not some kind of joke Carpion (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the band doesn't met the requirements of WP:BAND, the inclusion criteria for musical performers. I'd guess about 100+ bands get deleted a day on that basis. Mere existence isn't enough for inclusion, or we'd be Bandipedia. Acroterion (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is a link to clear copyright infringe

http://maxheat.com/bio.html

for the page -- maxheat --

the license is at the bottom of the page

thnx

mm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxheat (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, no copyright violation. However, the material is unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia as written: it is overtly promotional and does not indicate compliance with WP:BAND, the Wikipedia notability requirement for musicians. I would also note that you have a conflict of interest.Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We got the funk...gotta have that funk OHHHHHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcblair (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please put back Stacey Jackson

Please put the article Stacey Jackson back on Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidzy (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page, the article failed on three or four fronts. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

need to ask you something

Why did you delete my page? I was doing it for my friends and I. Our web show for some reason started to get popular and many kids from our schools (we go to different schools) want to know about it. We started to get questions like:

How did it start and why did you start it? What made you want to do it?

So we told them that we would start a Wikipedia page about the Nicknames and catch phases and things like that. Due to the fact that I had to go somewhere i did not have enough time to finish, edit, upload a picture, or create the tags. Which is why Put down "More information will be add as soon as it becomes avaible"

If it is of any use to you, I couldn't call the page "The Talk"; which is what it was going to be called; I couldn't figure how. So I called it by one of the nicknames that one of us have. Which is "Ieat6pies" Hence the reason the article was called "Ieat6pies"

I wasn't advertising anything. So please tell me why this was done. 

      Unsane33.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsane33 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left you a note on your talk page the first time you asked. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for articles about you and your friends. Please read WP:WEB for criteria for web notability and WP:NOTE for general notability. Notability means that you ahve received coverage in independent media, preferably of more than purely local standing; in other words, can you cite two or three newspaper articles on the web show, or the Web equivalent? The article was promotional in tone, and inappropriate material for an encyclopedia. You have a conflict of interest; you are strongly discouraged from writing about subjects with which you are directly, personally involved. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reasons

reasons on deleting my page? please explain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomass18 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's nonsense and inappropriate for an encyclopedia that requires referenced content and which rejects original research. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalising i am trying to make a page on my friend


all my teachers say never trust wikipedia

Did they also say that you could write anything you wanted? If so, they were mistaken. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that is coming from a teacher.....lol Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey

I need help with my page. can you help please?

Answered on your talk page. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stop it.

Just because you don't know Mark Britton, doesn't mean you go deleting him. He's famous to people in Oxfordshire. So if you could not, that'd be brilliant. Thanks!

Wikipedia isn't for self-promotion, and it's not Facebook or MySpace either. Please stop writing about yourself. Acroterion (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freegle

I was going to create a page for the Freegle - it's a recycling/gifting group in the UK and has formed out of the split of the UK Freecycle groups from the US parent.

I noticed that a page had been created and the you removed it. Before I recreate the page can you give me some background on why it was removed?

Andy

The article I deleted was unreferenced and had some issues with POV; it didn't make any assertion of notability either and claimed that Freegle was (at the time I deleted it) a day old. It seems to me that a referenced article could be created based on what I see, so I'd encourage you to go ahead. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK will do - Andy

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

thankyou for your remarks. My edit has been modified to take into account your criticism 81.109.10.218 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still wrong, though. You imply that the report indicates no core columns at all, which is not the case. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 9/11 Comission Report doesn't mention the 47 core columns. I have a copy in front of me. Please refer me to the pages where this core structure is mentioned.81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weird... I could have sworn I remember reading about core columns when I read that book, but it was a couple of years ago, and my copy isn't here at home but at my workplace, so I can't look it up to tell for sure. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The perimeter columns of the twin towers surrounded a massive 47 steel column core structure that supported the floor trusses. The building was overdesigned to withstand multiple aircraft (including passenger airliners) collisions. The building design was awarded an Outstanding Civil Engineering Award from The American Society of Civil Engineers after completion in 1971. The 9/11 Comission Report states that the core was a hollow steel shaft. The core was not a hollow steel shaft but an extremely ingenious interlacing of 47 Steel columns of huge proportions that provided the backbone for the building. The report states that the perimenter walls 'bore most of the weight of the building'. That is false. The building was held up by the core structure. The 9/11 report does not mention this core structure and any collapse theory must deal with it. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're reading the 9/11 Report's oversimplified description of the structural scheme at WTC 1 and 2 too literally. My copy of the report seems to be in a box in the attic, so I'll take your word for it that they wrote that awkward description. In schematic terms, the columns of WTC 1 and 2 were not in a grid pattern, a they would traditionally have been, with fairly widely spaced columns around the perimeter and similarly-spaced columns evenly distributed in the interior space. The WTC structure was disposed in nesting tubes of columns, with very closely spaced columns on the outside skin and, as you say, 47 core columns arranged, schematically speaking, as a tube around the core. The point of the arrangement was that it eliminated all those inconvenient intermediate columns, leaving a column-free expanse between the skin and the core, spanned by those @#$%&*! trusses. There was no literal tube at the core, despite what that line implies, and the report goes on, I recall, to discuss those columns, as the question of how many were severed in the impact was a matter of vital interest. No analysis or source claims some sort of steel-plate tube existed, as you seem to be deriving from that description.
To quote from a book that I do have on the shelf, The Skyscraper by Paul Goldberger "...the skin, which was not a "curtain wall" hung from a supporting frame, but a metal mesh that in fact supported a substantial share of the building's weight", and "...returning, in a sense, to a kind of load-bearing wall." A similar arrangement, called a "bundled tube", was used for the Sears Tower, which used "tubes" of columns, which behaved on a meta-structural scale as tubes. Keep in mind that each fllor of the WTC was an enormous 40,000 square feet, column-free between the core and the exterior wall, an extraordinary and unique arrangement. The exterior walls and the core carried unusual weights, because that was all there was: no intermediate columns. 47 columns in 40,000 square feet is an extraordinarily small number (so they had to be stout), that was facilitated by their tube-like arrangement around the core. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry old chap but you are really talking through your hat. I have seen the blueprints for the twin towers. I have seen films that were made during the construction of the towers. The core was a closely interleaved grid of interconnected massive steel girders and columns that supported the floor assembly. Each floor was firmly attached to the core into which the elevator shafts ran (tiny shafts in comparison to the total area of the core as a whole). The 'metal mesh' perimeter walls were not the main structural support system as Mr Goldberger claims. The core was not an arrangement of 47 tubes surrounding the elevator shafts; it was an extraordinarily robust support structure. The piece you quote suggests that the absence of columns between the core and the perimeter walls led the latter to be carrying more weight than was safe. The truth is that each floor was attached to the core structure which acted as a backbone through the center of the tower. You must really look at the blueprints themselves and you will then see that the core was absolutely massive. It was the most overdesigned high rise structure in the world in its day - from the safety point of view - designed to withstand multiple passenger liner collisions. The American Society of Civil Engineers do not hand out OCEA's to any fancy new building. Those towers were very, very robust and they were pulverised to dust within a matter of seconds. Now the problem with the article is that it does not represent the views of many eminent engineers, architects and fire safety experts who publicly state that in buildings of a far inferior design from the structural safety point of view fires have raged for many hours over many more floors at much hotter temperatures and they still did not collapse. No fire has ever floored a steel structured high rise prior to or after 9/11. And yet we are expected to simply swallow that on 9/11/2001 two of the most robust structures in the world were brought down by open fires (oxygen starved fires in this case). That is neglecting to mention wtc7. The point that needs to be made is that outside of the mainstream media many eminent professionals who are qualified to pass judgement on the matter do not agree with NIST because their explanation does not address the realities of the structural design of the twin towers (just focusing on the twin towers for the moment). Believe me, the critics of NIST's explanation are not kooks or fringe characters, they are very straitlaced conventional types who really know what they are talking about. I think the article needs a greater appreciation of their analysis. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned about your apparent misunderstanding of the awkwardly-worded description used in the 9/11 report. It was not an invitation to a debate. Since you agree with published sources that there were columns in the core, I am satisfied that my concern has been addressed. I see no inference in my comments or Goldbergers' (written long before 2001) that the clear span between perimeter and core was unsafe, nor did I state that the columns were themselves individual tubes. As my concern has been addressed, and as you appear to be mostly interested in initiating a debate about a personal interpretation of yours, I believe we're finished here. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no misunderstanding. The 9/11 Commission report is a fraudulent document. However, one needs to be familiar with the actual data to realise this. Most folks such as yourself are not. The report distorts and omits data in numerous ways that establish it as utterly unreliable and disingenuous. It is for that reason that 400+ University Professors, 700 engineers and Archtects and more than 200 senior military, intelligence and government officials are publicly requesting a new investigation ([1]). So many ways does the report misrepresent the data that if you believe the 9/11 commission report is true and accurate you must be unfamiliar with the actual evidence - so overwhelmingly contradictory to the reports claims as that evidence is. I do not know whether you have any religious beliefs but the all the sages and prophets taught us that we must align ourselves with the truth no matter how difficult or uncomfortable that truth may make us feel. If you wish to make an inroad into the truth about 9/11 I suggest you watch a video of wtc7 (the third building that collapsed on 9/11 at 5pm) collapsing (several exist on the web). Then ask why Europe's leading demolition expert ([2]) has asserted unequivocally that that building was brought down by controlled demolition. Or why Italy's former Prime Minister, Francesco Cossiga, has asserted that 9/11 was the work of the CIA. The same view is expressed by the former Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed forces, Leonid Ivashov ([3])

Barack's birthplace

Hello, and thanks for the friendly warning. I will cease and desist, but only because I recognize there's really no point to my repeated attempts. Bear in mind, though, that my edit was strictly factual: most really *do* believe Obama to have been born in Hawaii; there is nothing unfactual about stating that he "is believed to have been born in Hawaii." It is a fact that that belief exists out there.

And for all I know, he may really have been born there. The problem is that the Hawaiian certificate of live birth does *not* prove naturalborn citizenship. It is obtainable by those born outside Hawaii. Therefore, Obama has *not* proved that he is a naturalborn citizen. Please explain to me (or direct me to a weblink) why you think otherwise.

But even if he's naturalborn, that doesn't change the reality that he's a socialist who is dragging the U.S. inexorably closer to totalitarianism. He wants more and more government control. That much is unarguable.

The way you put your edit to Barack Obama was itself a statement of point of view, as you clearly understand. What I think is immaterial: the article is under probation, and Wikipedia is not a forum or battleground for political debate. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Found on road dead"

"Found on road dead". This term is used in "Vehicle title branding" section "Mandatory vehicle branding". Please do not delete. I have removed the reference to Ford automobiles, even though it is a longstanding part of American history, to qualm some other users. Since when did everyone become a censor?Facts707 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable and sourced? It didn't appear to be, nor to merit a disambig page. If you can find significant documentation and lore, sure, there might be an article there, but just as a random funny acronym, no. Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beware the Librarian

At 05:58, 21 September 2009, User:Beware the Librarian created another hoax article, Finch, Corey. That is probably a recreation of Corey Finch (mass murderer), which he had created a while back (see an earlier version of his talk page). I noticed that you have warned him about creating hoax articles. I think it is safe to say his is a vandalism-only account. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Closedmouth got him, indefinitely blocked. Thanks for keeping an eye on them. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion&oldid=315592762"