If you leave a message for me: I will respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page.
If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me, unless I don't respond when a response is expected.
This helps keep discussion easily readable and in one place.
What is a lug sill — some sort of windowsill, or something else? My source talks about windows that are equipped with lintels and lug sills. Additionally, is there a specific term for an in-ground basement entrance that can be accessed from outside the house? I'm thinking something along the lines of the basement entrance for the farmhouse in the Wizard of Oz movie; for an image of what I mean, look just above the words "There are a couple of companies" at this page. As always, talkback please. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't familiar with the term "lug sill." I looked in an old Architectural Graphic Standards and came up with nothing. However, according to Google, it's a unitary stone or masonry sill that extends beyond the jambs of the window opening [1], [2]. The "lug" is the part of the sill embedded in the wall beyond the jambs.
I know of no concise term for basement access steps covered by sloping doors, although the doors themselves are often called "Bilco doors" when metal, after a prominent door manufacturer. "Cellar doors" might be the closest match, applicable to storm cellars (a la Dorothy), root cellars or basements. "Areaway doors" seems to have some traction too. Acroterion(talk)00:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (although belatedly) for the help. I was asking for help while writing an article offline; it's finally in mainspace at Immaculate Conception Catholic Church (Celina, Ohio). Curious about your opinion — do you think it's worth trying for GA? I may well be overestimating my abilities with this article; it's simply that I've never before written such a long and comprehensive article by myself. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disruptive editing, I am fixing broken links that already exist by linking them with the page that I had created. If you read the articles that I have changed, you will see that this is the case and I am enhancing these existing articles.
And when I read the article you created to link to (which I deleted as advertising), I note that you've included a helpful price list for drinks. Please stop spamming the business on Wikipedia. Acroterion(talk)19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if I remove the price list then this is fine? Many other bars and nightclubs in southampton have wikipedia articles about them!
No. You'll note that I deleted the article as both spam and non-notable. Please refer to WP:CORP for notability. Price lists just make your intentions blindingly obvious. Acroterion(talk)19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You pretty much discredited yourself with that deleted article. However, for the sake of policy, please note that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument gets no traction: notability is demonstrated by multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in major media, preferably of national standing. See WP:NOTE and WP:CORP. Acroterion(talk)19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not discredited myself in any way by writing the article you deleted. I wrote a factually correct article about a business in Southampton that has an international reputation as shown in the recent TMS commentary on the BBC Ashes coverage. For your information it is not my business, I have only been a customer there on a few occasions. Andrewsaund (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A live blog about the Ashes isn't even a useful source about the Ashes, much less a peripherally-mentioned wine bar in Southampton, on the other side of the world from Adelaide. Please read WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Acroterion(talk)20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes it is! a blog from the publicly funded impartial BBC? how is that not a useful source about the ashes? paid professional broadcasters are commenting on the happenings in play! Andrewsaund (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a casual web forum run by the BBC. Forums, blogs and the like aren't reliable sources outside of narrow guidelines, usually having to do with the notoriety or controversial nature of a specific, highly publicized entry. Not everything on the BBC or any other news source is authoritative, and if this is the best that can be done, it's safe to say that the wine bar is conclusively non-notable. When The Times, The Guardian, or the BBC write multiple articles on the wine bar, largely dedicated to the subject and examining it in detail, then it's notable - not because of a trivial mention in a casual forum devoted to another subject entirely. For the third time, please read WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:CORP. The subject fails all three. Acroterion(talk)20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user seems to be on a spree of adding something about the MEK group to a bundle article about US politicos. Not really vandalism, but worthy of someone's attention. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources do not support the declaration, and your tone is clearly meant to disparage. You should discuss these edits before including them - see WP:BRD for the appropriate mechanism; however, talk page entries are subject to policy as well, and your "supporter" tags are not aceptable. Acroterion(talk)13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to change one word in the header of Climate change denial. A sentence states an opinion on the nature of climate change as the one and only scientific understanding of the issue's nature. I've tried to change the article to reflect that the general idea of a permanently warming earth due to human interference is merely the opinion of a great majority. However, several users have challenged my edit and the conversation at Talk:Climate change denial has degraded into a discussion of whether my usage of the word "theorem" is the same as is used within the scientific community. This discussion has nothing to do with topic I presented. And now they are accusing me of being out of line by not showing them a list of sources stating that my usage of the word 'theorem' is scientifically correct. I can't deal with this by myself. Can you please moderate? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the discussion and don't see much of a reason to insert "majority," nor do I see much reason to moderate. I'd say consensus is running against your terminology, both in terms of "majority" and "theorem" (which I agree you are using (unintentionally) out of context. The onus is in fact on you to justify your wording. "Consensus" as it's used in the article already implies a majority, as opposed to unanimity. I see "majority consensus" or some similar construction as redundant. It's clear that your proposal is in good faith, and that other editors are being tough on you, but it's a tough corner of Wikipedia and you're not being treated especially harshly considering the topic, nor is your proposal being taken in bad faith. Acroterion(talk)21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A search for 'theorem' shows it in 27 online dictionaries with the definition I provided. See: One Look Dictionary directory search for 'theorem'. You make a good point about majority and consensus (if only the other editors had pointed that out); my reasons for the edit arose because the actual articles considers multiple opinions, not just the one stated at Climate Change Denial. The majority point of view is stated in Climate Change Denial's header, but the link to the Scientific Consensus article at that point gives undue weight to what is said afterward: that Global Warming (assumed to be the theory that an irreversible trend of global atmospheric warming is occurring, and will not change without human intervention) is occurring and is caused by human interference. If anything needs to be changed, it seems more like the wording after the link to Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that the issue on theorem has little or no relationship to the topic, that their bringing up my usage of it might be a straw man to make my argument for neutrality in the header seem weaker. Also, their argument against my usage of the word was simply that they weren't familiar with it, but all of them are only familiar with its usage in mathematics. The article on theorem says that the word is used in physics and engineering. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the theorem business appears to be a tangent, which you can deal with by getting back to the point: what would you like for it to say, remembering the business above about the redundant nature of "majority consensus?" Acroterion(talk)02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I restated my argument in that discussion. Basically I'd like a change that does not imply that global warming and climate change are the same exact thing (considering that throws a wrench into falsifiability; outside media usage "global warming" is a theory estimating the effects of climate change). I'd also like to see hard statistics that prove some of the claims made: particularly that it is scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human intervention, and that global warming (a theory on the long term effects of climate change) is occurring. The article linked, I just figured out, is called scientific opinion on climate change, not "consensus". Even within that article, and the section "Scientific consensus", the idea of global warming seems to lack prominence within those statements. It seems like it would be better to use a quote from that article, or paraphrase one. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further review of the discussion leads me question their intention using the word "consensus". They openly state that they decided on using the word "instead of the real name of the article". The actual "scientific consensus" section discusses whether a consensus exists, it does not openly claim that there is already consensus. I felt dishonest making my last edit, which claims that scientific consensus is one of the opinions on consensus stated in that section. There is no reason to use the word consensus, other than the fact that several of the editors say they prefer it. Perhaps a "citation needed" tag will eventually clear the air. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds pretty straightforward to me. Global warming and climate change aren't the same thing. Global warming is a theory concerning climate change. Making a claim that says global warming's existence is scientific consensus, when your link only talks about climate change - that's misleading. It says right on the front page of global warming that the term refers to the projected continuation of warming. What's more, I'm treated as a probate for trying to make neutrality edits. They, by volume, have locked me out from making edits to the header. Do you think its right to claim an article is called "scientific consensus on climate change" when it is really called "scientific opinion on global warming"? They are making a value judgment under the banner of "simplification". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found sources for what I thought was a problem in the sentence. There are several links at global warming for "scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring". However, that link to "scientific consensus on climate change" needs to be rerouted to the actual sub-section, or the sentence needs to be reworded. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's too much confusion between the often interchangeable
Astrology & Biochemistry
Dear Sir,
There have been some serious attempts to link astrology with biochemistry please see the link below and advise if you find it interesting
Just because somebody's published something doesn't make it a serious subject. The article reads as pure speculation and is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Acroterion(talk)12:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your proposition for deletion of the article 'astrobionomy'
Please reconsider your proposition to delete the article Astrobionomy in the wikipedia.
This certainly is an assumption.
As all scientific research are based on assumptions. My proposal to name a particular stream of science for studying biochemical basis for astrological preditions about human psychology must be considered seriously. After all some psychological traits are being attributed to peopole being born in a particular sun sign period. And modern astrologers base their predictions on astronomical processes. So astronomical processes must be affecting those subjects biochmically! Because psychology has some biochemical basis e.g. some genes are being attributed to some psychological traits.
I would be glad to recieve your answer on my email: amitranjanamit@yahoo.com
The long version, if you have time to read all of it, can be found at WP:CITE. The easier way is to to go to the "My preferences" tab at the top of the screen, "Gadgets," "Editing gadgets" and click the refTools box, which will give a "Templates" drop-down box in the upper left part of the edit window, which can serve fill-in-the-box templates for web, news, journal and book cites. You might have to reload your browser for it to start working. Acroterion(talk)23:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no indication that the subject met the notability guidelines at [{WP:BAND]], so the article was deleted. About 30-40 bands a day are deleted for that reason, as the bar is fairly high for musical acts. Acroterion(talk)02:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Need Some Help
74.248.186.243 (talk·contribs) is mass reverting unsourced WP:OR on WKJS and WCDX and adding one source for massive paragraphs. After explaining WP:RS, the user is at 3RR on WKJS and close to it on WCDX. Could you explain sourcing to him/her or something? I feel I am dealing with someone who isn't here to be constructive. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. Remember that reverting unsourced material is not exempted from 3RR, so you don't get a pass yourself. They appear to be trying to work with you by adding sources, even if they're not quite up to par, so I'm not prepared to jump on them. I'll leave a note. Acroterion(talk)02:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notes are fine, cause, as you know, my skills of talking to folks aren't at par. I know I am at 3RR too, so I am stuck, but the reason I removed them is it was unsourced OR. I am trying to bring Virginia radio articles up to par and then update them slowly with Dravecky's help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be for now - the IP was trying to accommodate the sourcing request, and although hopping to another IP wasn't a good idea, they'e been educated about that and about 3RR. The world won't end if semi-sourced material persists for a couple of days. Acroterion(talk)02:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson County Educational Service Center Virtual Learning Academy
I was trying to add to the Learning Service section of the eLearning article. I was planning on starting a page and adding additonal information as to when the online curriculum started and the accreditation information. I did not know if a list of courses was necessary or if the link included would be a better choice as to the courses offered. This VLA is an option for school districts and students can only enroll through a district superintendent or a district disignee.
In general, organizations and websites must satisfy the notability guidelines for inclusion, and there was no indication that this organization or site did so. A list of courses would not make much difference - non-trivial coverage in major independent publications of national standing would. Please take a look at WP:NOTE for the general notability guidelines, WP:ORG for specific material on organizations, and WP:WEB for websites. Acroterion(talk)23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that that is so. Please review WP:BIO and WP:BAND for notability guidelines for individuals and for musical acts. Also, I have removed promotional and poorly referenced parts of Greg Calloway. While I agree that he is notable, much of the article was promotional in character and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.Acroterion(talk)01:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the links above? Please understand that notability is not inherited, and that one does not qualify as notable for associating with notable figures. In general, to meet notability guidelines, a person or organization should have non-trivial coverage in multiple major media outlets known for fact-checking. Acroterion(talk)02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI — just after you deleted this, it got reposted with textual content and a properly-formatted image; I speedied it under db-band. The author has no live contributions and no deleted contributions other than to this page. Don't know if you care or not, but I thought it couldn't hurt to tell you. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a lot of promotional non-notable band articles this weekend - I suppose everybody's resolved to increase their media exposure and get involved in social networking, and this seems like a good place for it. Acroterion(talk)02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thibodeau Architecture + Design
I would like to create a page dedicated to my Family (Thibodeau) Architectural Activities but first it seems I must contact you regarding prior deletion... Here is the line: 15:52, 10 January 2011 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Thibodeau Architecture + Design" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRTAD (talk • contribs)
You appear to have a conflict of interest in this matter, as noted on your userpage. Please review WP:COI for guidance in this situation, and please understand that businesses and organizations must assert and substantiate notability through reference to non-trivial coverage in third party media of more than local standing, with a reputation for fact-checking. See WP:NOTE and WP:CORP. The content posted was straight off your website, and is advertising, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. It's fine on your website, but not here, and is in any event not compatible with Wikipedia's free-content copyright license. In general, the article was deletable on three grounds: advertising, copyright violation, and no assertion of notability. A note: I'm an architect, and my business is not listed on Wikipedia because it doesn't meet the notability standard. If your firm has been covered in AR, Architect, or a major newspaper, that would be grounds for inclusion when written as a neutral, encyclopedic, non-promotional article, preferably by someone with no interest at all in the firm. Acroterion(talk)16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that your username is against policy: Wikipedia doesn't permit usernames that represent a company, so JRTAD isn't acceptable. You'll need to come up with a username that reflects only you. I realize that sounds picky, but it's frequently necessary,a nd it helps us to identify spammers. One further note: I encourage you (after you register an new account with a username that doesn't represent a company) to improve articles on architecture that are unrelated to your organization. That's the best evidence of good faith and dedication to improving the encyclopedia, as opposed to promotion of one's personal interest. The subject of architecture on Wikipedia needs attention from knowledgeable contributors with good reference materials: you can help. Acroterion(talk)16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzer99
Hi Acroterion. User:Analyzer99 just reverted again despite you warning him not to. He also completely removed [3] all the refs I just added [4] pointing out that mainly Pan-Africanists include New World populations with distant ancestry from Africa (such as African Americans) as actual "Africans". Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at this? For some reason, there is a problem creeping up between endnotes #66 and #67. I cannot figure out what the problem is, much less how to solve it. All I know is, the numbers are being thrown off, leading to further problems in other parts of the page, as examples and references have been removed as seemingly irrelevant. Do you have any idea what is going on here? Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to look for: I don't see a discontinuity in numbering, and the Flashman reference is in the right place, as is the Wuthering Heights ref. I'm using Firefox 4.0b8, for what it's worth. Acroterion(talk)20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure it out either. I'd bet that it has something to do with being the last reference in the table, or that there's a malformed version of that ref somewhere else - but that usually results in a big red error message. Acroterion(talk)20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, nothing makes sense. There are none of the usual tell-tale signs of a malformed ref. But, clearly, something is malformed somewhere. Is there a bot that might be able to sort it out? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acroterion, I noticed that you just imported a number of articles from it.wiki for translation. On a general note I was wondering if there is a policy that would speak against first storing such articles in the user namespace or somewhere on a project sub-page outside the article namespace until they are fully translated. WP:PNT has a rule that articles that aren't translated within two weeks will be proposed for deletion or stubbed back to an English-only version. From my experience as a translator on the German wiki I find it much more convenient to store and translate pages before moving them into the article namespace, especially when a bunch of related pages is imported simultaneously (your cabinet articles or e.g. the various chateaux list we recently got from fr.wiki). Regards, De728631 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I imported them at the request of Dr. Blofeld (talk·contribs), who undertook to translate them, or to get someone else to do so. In general, I'd say two weeks is a reasonable time frame for translation in article space. If they aren't yet translated, they should be stubbed down or deleted until somebody finds the time to translate. I'll see where they stand - I wasn't following their progress. Acroterion(talk)22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but for future reference you might just want to put such pages into a sub-page of the requesting user so they can move it themselves when finished without a limiting timeframe. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort du Scex, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Swiss Fort du Scex and the Fort de Cindey are connected by a natural cave, the Grotte aux Fées? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey!
I just wondering why you deleted my add to Tancredo, I have made the text neutral and provided sources, you should use the discussion page before you delete things on a arbitrary basis.NPz1 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not neutral, as I've explained to you before, and it is a very bad practice to log out for such edits. While you've made progress from the last edits, you are still stretching the sources to state "support:" a neutral statement would be more along the lines of "has advocated the removal of the organization from the United States' list of terrotist organizations," and not add your analysis about "supporting foreign terrorist organizations," which you've rephrased to add an inappropriate emphasis. You need to scrupulously work within the confines of what the sources say. Acroterion(talk)18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off I didnt know I didnt was logged off so please dont criticise me for that.
Second "it was not neutral", well like I told you, I have edited and changed the text, I have added sources and even quotes from Tancredo and his press secretary which backs up my claims.
He have showed support, obviously. If you read the sources hes not anti-MEK, rather he is a stauch supporter. But if this is about semantics, which word would be a better term to describe his...support for this group?NPz1 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand about the logged off part - I keep losing sessions too. I think you're on the right track, and you're pretty close to what the sources are saying, but I think you should avoid taking his support for the delisting of MEK and implying that that constitutes support for the group. His press secretary's statement isn't quite what you've stated it to be, and it's not as useful as Tancredo's own words would be. I think you can make the point without going into as much detail as you have. Brevity is important, because if it becomes too large a part of the article it can stray into undue emphasis, since this is one of the lesser of Tancredo's controversial positions, in the context of reported sources and U.S. politics. Acroterion(talk)18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon you are an admin, and I respect your authority and knowledge on Wikipedia, but please let me know if there is anything more that needs be edited. I understand that the term "support" should be ruled off so I need to find another plausible term, also the press secretary's words should be removed. If I make these 2 edits would it be OK?NPz1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that administrators are just ordinary editors, albeit with fairly extensive knowledge and experience in WP policy, and I'm acting as an ordinary editor in this matter, not as an admin. You've mostly satisfied my concerns about the biographies of living persons policy. However, your sources are a problem. The Village Voice article says nothing at all about Tancredo, attribting the "I don't give a shit" quote to Gary Ackerman. I'd be careful about RightWeb/Institute for Policy Studies, since they are not an entirely neutral source (although I don't see a major issue in this case), and the Al Jazeerah source is clearly an opinion piece, not a news article. You need to find sources in news articles in preference to opinion pieces or advocacy articles. So no, it's not acceptable with those changes, particularly if you're confusing Tom Tancredo with Robert Torricelli or Gary Ackerman. Acroterion(talk)19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry on that Ackerman, I appreciate your critique, I will try to find some other sources and change it in the coming of days, should I post it directly in the Tancredo article, or should I consult with you before I make any more edits regarding this?NPz1 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried posting an article for history and information on Tim Windell and Windells Camp and it keeps getting flagged as promotion. I have rewritten the article 3 times to meet the qualifications and I still don't understand what more to do. The page provides history and general facts. It makes no bias about the camp being the best or slandering other companies in the same field. Woodward Camp, a competing organization, has a very similar Wikipedia page. So if there page does not qualify as spam I am very confused as to why this article would. Please help me to understand how to post this article properly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsha16 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on your talkpage, but I am concerned that you seem to think that what you posted is anything but an advertisement. It was a very blatant ad, with numerous items like "If you want to be the best, learn from the best at Windells." I can't seriously imagine that you think that's not promotional? Acroterion(talk)19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just asking for help. I don't appreciate the tone of your comments. The camp has been around for 22 years and I would like the history of the camp to be noted. Tim Windell is one of the first athletes in the competitive snowboarding circuit and is a widely recognized name in the industry. Again, why is Woodward Camp's page different? If I can make edits and changes I would like to do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsha16 (talk • contribs)
I will be happy to help you if you recognize that promotion is unacceptable here, and that you may have a conflict of interest if you work for, or on behalf of the organization. Thank you for the tip on Woodward Camp - I agree that it's unacceptably promotional and I'm in the process of paring it back to something sort of encyclopedic. I suggest you re-read your text and consider what you would expect to see in an encyclopedia, versus what you wrote. If it would look strange in Encyclopedia Britannica, it's nto acceptable here either. Acroterion(talk)20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Would basic info on the camp would be acceptable? Just a small paragraph about location and services provided, etc. Do you suggest making a separate page for Tim Windell instead of grouping the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsha16 (talk • contribs)
I've left some links for you on notability, which you need to be sure that you can satisfy before you do separate articles. I'm reasonably sure the the camp meets notability standards, and Mr. Windell might be notable - check to see if he meets WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. If so, a separate article would be a good idea. It would be best to start out small and keep it to just-the-facts-maam, preferably with references to major third-party media with a reputation for fact checking. Acroterion(talk)20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi there. I had a few questions about pictures that I had added to the article. I am having a hard time uploading the images in the correct category to the commons. What do you suggest I file them under so they have the correct copyright labels. Thanks!--Marsha16 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort de Dailly, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in a 1946 incident, three ammunition magazines exploded at the Swiss Fort de Dailly? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 18 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort de Chillon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Swiss Fort de Chillon is being converted into a wine cellar? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi there, I am trying to create an unbiased page for the application Velocity IDE. Can you take my revisions into mind and help me create an unbiased encyclopedic page. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslinton (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will want to review WP:NOTE and determine if the product has received significant coverage in the press to satisfy the notability guidelines. Also, you should review the conflict of interest guidelines, since you seem to be acting on behalf of the developers. Finally, you must avoid all promotional language or content: you should be trying to produce an encyclopedia article, not any kind of promotion. Acroterion(talk)03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that as a resident of West Virginia you may not understand the value that many of us in intelligent states place in academic activities such as speech and debate, but that by no means is a reason for deletion of this article. He is the chair of the largest National Forensic League district in Minnesota, and he is arguably the most successful coach in the state. I would appreciate it if you could respect the legitimacy of the great state of Minnesota and un-delete this article.
p.s. I highly doubt that you actually read the article in the time it took you to delete it.
No doubt we'uns in West Virginia must defer to you'uns. Nevertheless, please read WP:BIO and WP:NOTE for an edifying discussion of who is and is not notable on WIkipedia. While you're at it, please read WP:RS for sourcing requirements. I read the whole article from beginning to end, so a Minnesotan should have no problem reading and understanding the links I've given you. Acroterion(talk)21:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I missed the "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This will be fixed in v2 as his numerous qualifications will be acknowledged. --Bsthomas93 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it and couldn't justify a speedy tag. I don't think olive oil from that particular island qualifies as sufficiently distinctive to need its own article, so, I'd start with a PROD. Acroterion(talk)20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But, Why?
Excuse me I would like to know why my article "The Jerky and Tuba Corporation" was deleted. Also, your reason was for Vandalism. I believe I did not vandalize Wikipedia nor hurt Wikipedia in any form. I even included that this was indeed a new business and wanted to give a brief history of it. I am probably one of those who still support this site and if you do not find a legitimate reason for deletion of this article I will discontinue my patronage for this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerkyJohnny (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be dense: Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for silliness, which is precisely what your deleted fictional accounts are. Shall I block you as a trolling-only account? You're wasting everybody's time, including yours. If you plan on contributing constructively to the encyclopedia, you have one chance left. Acroterion(talk)12:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plantagent
Yes but England was ruled by the Plantagenet Dynasty. Waterloo was a Coalition Victory and as stated it was a Dynastic Dispute between the Valois and Plantagenets, two French dynasties. No offense intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbeau87 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None taken, but you've been removing references and images in the process, and you need to seek consensus for that kind of change. Remember that much of the readership has no idea what a Plantagenet is, and the plain fact is that they were an English army, of whatever house, at least insofar as anyone of the time was a given nationality . There is plenty of room in the article for a succinct account of the dynastic succession issues, but the infobox is not a place for subtlety, and you should discuss first, not blind revert, as you've done. Use the talkpages of the articles, they're there for a reason. Provide a reasonable rationale, and wait for a response. You're effectively edit-warring: I understand that you're new to Wikipedia, but you must stop and seek consensus. Acroterion(talk)03:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is User:Process Plus/Process Plus. WuhWuzDat 18:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
PLease let me have a copy of this wiki page. I have been working on it for weeks. I am unfamliar with the format issues because it is my first page. I did not know you would delete an unpublished page. It took me forever just to find this messqge prompt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Process Plus (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page Deletion
i am sorry but this format of communication is not helpful. What is a watch list, how do I talk to someone about my page information, is there anyway to get back, and does someone reply as fast as you deleted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Process Plus (talk • contribs) 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but in the Hundred Years War the Plantagenet kings actually commanded/took part in battles not to mention the famous "English Barons" who were actually Frenchmen by ancestry. Another question I have too is why is called the "Norman Conquest" when it was a coalition of Armies from Northern/Western France that took part in the Conquest of England? Especially when Guillaume Le Conquerant was a Vassal/Lord of France, and Normandy was still a Fief of France? Especially when Law French was official in England for over 6 centuries which was based on dialects of Normandy and Ile de France. I'm part Norman, yes we have scandinavian influence but without all the Norse influence were very much like the Franciens and a Gaulish people. It was actually the French Conquest of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbeau87 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody's saying it wasn't messy - for a long time England was ruled by French people, and at a later time by Germans. Wikipedia goes by consensus of reliable sources, so if most sources say it was the Norman Conquest, that's what we call it. Same for the broad antagonists in the Hundred Years' War. You are welcome to clarify who was who and what nationality/allegiance they held, provided you approach it from the direction of the talk page and offer references and sources. Acroterion(talk)05:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear: the consiltancy that helps businesses and brands grow
Acroterion, My Apologies, my computer crashed whilst i was writing this edit, i had not finished editing however it seemed to publish anyway. I have a new version that i hope to be more encyclopedic and does not contain links to our website, and breach G11. How do I add this? Can i just add to the page as is before it gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesahirst (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article had two problems: it was remarkably pure advertising, which is looked upon with great disfavor in an encyclopedia (as indicated by the wholly inappropriate title), and it made no indication at all that the organization was notable by reference to independent third-party references. Please review WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:V, and probably WP:COI for the relevant policies, and please re-read WP:SPAM. You may work on a draft in your userspace at User:Jamesahirst/sandbox. Acroterion(talk)16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why you would delete the page its a totally relevant idea, its more or less assurance not insurance and i still don't under stand how it violates any of the terms of service. Section G3 states "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes..." which doesn't mean you can't present a topic or idea to improve wikipedia. I think that The Game Insurance would more or less fall under the exception to vandalism Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Your idea is not eligible for inclusion because it's something clearly does not exist, that you've made up. It is effectively vandalism, a clear hoax (which is considered vandalism), and entirely unsourced and unverifiable. You did read WP:V and WP:RS, which are core policies, did you not? "terms of service" are another matter entirely: Wikipedia doesn't accept any and all content. While you're reading policies, please read WP:NOT, and WP:OR. Acroterion(talk)22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well there is no definative reference so your correct in that but is it possible for me to view the page still so i can move it into word or something becuase i'll just not post that until i can figure out how to get a reference.. i just want to have a template for when i get a reference.Jrs3000 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Jrs3000[reply]
I can place it in your userspace temporarily, but it will be deleted eventually if no source is presented. It'll be in User:Jrs3000/sandbox. The burden of proof is on the contributor: AGF doesn't trump the need to present supporting references. Acroterion(talk)22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Shield Security Systems
Hello,
I am curious to why the Shield Security Systems page has been deleted. This page was by no means created as an advertising plug. Before writing this page I consulted the ADT Page which is obviously a competitor of shields so I knew how to format this article so it would not be percieved as an advertising plug, as it is clear that the ADT page is accepted by wikipedia. The ADT page in fact looks more like an advertising plug than what I wrote about Shield. I am wondering what steps should be taken to get this article back on wikipedia.
CY 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)CYCY 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Yaeger (talk • contribs)
The ADT Security Services article is a fairly straightforward, non-promotional encyclopedia article about a clearly notable company, which even includes a fair amount of criticism. The Shield Security article made no indication of notability - a speedy deletion criterion on its own (see WP:CORP), and contained phrases like "It's this experience and their commitment to customer service that makes SHIELD Security Systems Different," which is hardly language you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia article. Articles must be about subjects that are notable by reference to significant third-party coverage - self-referencing does not provide such evidence, and must be scrupulously non-promotional. Unless you can provide references from major publications to support notability, I don't see much likelihood that the subject is eligible for inclusion. Acroterion(talk)16:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can agree with the sentence you have quoted, but no where else is it any different from ADT's. There is a history, or how the company started section in both, and the services offered section is almost identical. Aside from removing the quoted sentence you made reference to you are saying that I would need to make other 3rd party (.gov/.edu) references to this article in order for it to be valid and credible? FYI I by no means am trying to argue with you, I would just like to get this right.
While advertising can be cleaned up, the frequently intractable problem in these cases is notability. Please see WP:NOTE for general notability, and WP:CORP for corporate notability. WP:RS and WP:V deal with reliable sources and verifiability. In general, notability is established by multiple non-trivial references in third party media of significant standing, with a reputation for fact-checking. Newspaper and business journal articles, focusing specifically on the company and giving the company more than a purely local context are valuable. For this kind of thing, you're unlikely to find sources in .gov and .edu domains - those are more useful for academic or political subjects. ADT is a national subsidiary of a publicly-traded firm, and easily clears the notability bar. Local firms, as one might expect, generally do not; this is intentional, as there's no reason for a local company to be included in a global encyclopedia. The general idea is that an encyclopedia shouldn't become a business directory for every small and medium business. Acroterion(talk)17:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
Hi, Acroterion! Thanks very much for the school block on 12.97.246.202 just now. Unless it's just some problem with my browser, though, it looks like the template/boilerplate notice on User_talk:12.97.246.202 isn't showing up at the bottom of that page correctly. I'd try to fix it myself, but I have no idea how. Thought you might like to have a look. Many thanks, and no reply necessary: I know you valiant vandal fighters (superheros, all, imo ;-) are very busy. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odd indeed. I still wonder whether this is an extreme case of noclueness, or just vandalism. Alas, blocking seems to be the only remedy. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Acroterion; I meant to let you know, none of my comments were meant in any way to be harrassment, and my intentions are just to become a more improved editor of Wikipedia. Thank you, and have a great day! MindscapesGraphicDesign (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does look promotional, but it's on the Italian wiki, where I have neither administrative privileges nor proficiency in basic Italian. Is there something on enwiki that needs to be done? Acroterion(talk)05:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Swimming - band wiki page deletion
Hi,
I hope I am right in using this page to explain why I created the article about the band Swimming. It was 'speedily deleted'. I did not see the initial message announcing it's imminent removal and when I looked it had already been deleted.
Swimming are a new band who are releasing an album in March on East Village Radio records (US) and Tummy Touch Records (UK). They have received a wealth of national press surrounding the releaase of their first album on their own label Colourschool records in 2009 and the forthcoming single Sun In The Island has been played on BBC Radio 1 by Rob Da Bank and Fearne Cotton in the past week. (here is the tracklist including Swimming)
I think this firmly gains them a place under the term 'popular culture' and can justify the importance of their place in music and popular culture to warrant a wikipedia entry. I hope the page can be reinstated on these grounds.
I'm not sure that the band meets the letter of the notability guidelines for musicians, but it's close enough in the newer version that I see no problem - the band's been covered by the Guardian and is getting critical notice. Acroterion(talk)05:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maginot Line (Armoured Cloches)
I note that you amended the Armoured Cloches section of Maginot Line. The previous edit, however, was rather problematical; whilst it may have been in good faith, it was no improvement and certain changes were bordering on vandalism, including persistently changing "In [year]" to "during [year]". Other established editors have been reverting these edits, and I was going though similar edits.
I had a long thought about what to do to your edits to the Armoured Cloches section, since you may not have noticed all the disruptive changes just made to it. I also checked WP:EMBED to see what the problem was with the bulletted list you changed to prose. I agree that it looked messy, but I think that was in great part due to the use of {{main}} tags; I see no reason why they should not be as emboldened links as in the New York City example of "Appropriate use".
I also note that the last unanswered comment on the Talk:Maginot Line was that the four stubby individual Cloches articles should be merged into the Armoured cloches section, in which case neither bullet pointed lists nor a single prose paragraph would be appropriate.
So, following that example, and wishing to revert that previous edit, I have undone the whole block, but within the Armoured Cloches section, I:
Retained your corrections of Guettor fusil-mitrailleur, armes mixtes and the LG cloche's small hole,
I also changed the few text instances of "Maginot line" to "Maginot Line", but didn't tackle the WP:ENGVAR inconsistencies (defence / defense and armoured / armored). That's for another night.
I won't be upset if you reapply the prose status, but I'd also be interested on your views about incorporating the individual cloche articles. Yes, I'm watching this page now. Tim PF (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I thought I'd take a stab at starting an overhaul of the article, which sorely needs it, but I wasn't very satisfied with how it looked after I'd edited it. It was late and I wasn't at my best. I'd like to move it farther into the prose direction and get it better organized and referenced. I've written most of the articles on individual Maginot positions and fortified sectors and have the appropriate reference materials. While the individual cloche articles are pretty stubby, I can expand them with what I have on hand, and I'd rather all the links in the articles on individual positions went to articles than to subsections in the main article. That said, there's a good argument for consolidating the cloches into one daughter article and adding in material on the retractable turret types, using the format you describe above. The main article rambles a bit, and needs a haircut in my opinion, so it can focus on the big picture and leave the details to subsidiary articles. There's a lot that should be added that simply isn't there or is glanced over: comparisons with foreign systems, French politics, a greater examination of pre-war French defense strategy, incorporation of lessons learned in WWI, garrison life, units, organization ... Acroterion(talk)05:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm not sure what you mean by "using the format you describe above", but I don't really want to get too involved with this article. It's not that I'm disinterested in the history of the World War (and especially some of the things like this that occurred between parts I and II), but my priority is with Railways and countering vandalism, so I've now used the {{RailGauge}} template for the narrow-gauge railway bit in the article.
Hi there! I had posted the Windells page as is. I decided to leave out the pictures and information on Tim for now. The article recently was flagged as an advertisement by another employee. It also questions the notability requirements. Is there any way to get around this? I though the article was great, but I guess not. Argh. --Marsha16 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not flagged for deletion on either count, they're just cleanup tags, and a number of editors have looked it over and made minor improvements. I'll see whether I can fix it up a little. By the way, there are no employees, we're all volunteers. Acroterion(talk)17:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That's awesome that you all volunteer. Thanks for your time. I appreciate you putting in the effort. Let me know if you have any suggestions.--Marsha16 (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I overstate: the Wikimedia Foundation has employees, but they mostly stay in the background and have little or nothing to do with content or day-to-day management. Otherwise, yes, there are maybe 3000-5000 regular contributors on the English Wikipedia at any given time, all volunteers writing the little old encyclopedia. Since I find that writing about something, or getting a good photograph makes me understand a subject better, I enjoy writing articles. I have to watch out for a general flattening of writing style; writing encyclopedic prose can have a deadening effect overall if you don't try to consciously work in a different style in other contexts. Acroterion(talk)01:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffany Alvord
Hey, I tried to write an article about Tiffany Alvord. And it said that the same article has been previously deleted due to the lack of significance and importance. The last time it was deleted is last year's October. So I'm writing this to ask if I could rewrite the article? Of course I'll give well explanation for the article if I can write it.
Note that if you don't know: Tiffany Alvord is an American Youtube singer-songwriter and musician. She still not release any album but she's really talented.
The article has been deleted three times by three different administrators for lack of demonstrated notability. If the artist meets the notability guidelines at WP:BAND, you're welcome to write an article. However, YouTube isn't recognized as a notability source (rather the reverse) and artists who've released no albums on major labels, have no airplay on the radio, etc. are clearly non-notable, so you may want to wait until some of the notability guidelines have been met. Acroterion(talk)14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have recently had dealings with the above mentioned individual. Would it be possible to look at his edits since hes/her block has expired been. At first i noticed the editor removing the word "black" and in the process de-linking a "People" article like here. I made mention of this on his talk page - and while waiting for a response noticed there may be a bigger problem (as to y i am here) such as the removal of text that is referenced. i.e 1 - i.e2 ....What should be done ??Moxy (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has been taking a side in the never-ending discussion of who's really an African, which tends to revolve around Berbers: African or not? I ran across the edit war on 1/10 at African people, which I watchlist because it attracts a particularly nasty kind of vandalism. The Black Canadians edit doesn't make much sense to me. The Mugabe edit is of some concern, but I don't see much significance to the removal of Chile's recognition of the Ivorian government, referenced or not. Some edit summaries would be nice. Acroterion(talk)02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
deletion of 1x2studio
This article is also effort to improve the coverage of architecture and architects in Serbia and to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Serbia.
