User talk:Acroterion

Signpost

Re: deletion of the article on andrewloppol

hey with the article on andrewloppol, its not done yet, i just needed to preview it sorry

Wikipedia isn't for things you made up one day. Acroterion _(talk) 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome again. Acroterion _(talk) 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

peripheral list

you got it deleted in two minutes!!!!! Hintss (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A random list of things you'd attach go a computer isn't really useful as an article. Acroterion _(talk) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Josh Cabrera article

Hi, the Josh Cabrera article was speedily deleted three times. Does it need to be protected from being created? Thanks. SchfiftyThree 02:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the way I was thinking, rather than blocking the user. Acroterion _(talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And done. Acroterion _(talk) 02:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me here-

Hey, you just deleted the page I was making for my company. Seems to happen every time I try to make it. This is for the new MMO called "Wizard 101." I've been assigned for this PR job, and I'd like to make it without any disrupptions, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by British Jinx21 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for promotional material. It will be deleted. In any case, an article consisting of "c" won't get very far. Acroterion _(talk) 19:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, It's not for Promotional material. This page isnt going to make itself is it? The World of Warcraft page didn't pop up itself did it? Oh- and "c" was a test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by British Jinx21 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You may want to try the sandbox for editing tests, as well as checking the Business' FAQ. Since you have a conflict of interest, it may be best to avoid creating an article on your company. (And sorry for jumping in, Acroterion) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about it, and my company allready has a page (kingsisle) Anyways, it wasn't enitely an assignment. They sorta said to me, "Hey.. does this game have a Wikipedia page yet? No? Then make one!" *shrugs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by British Jinx21 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I know all about that kind of optional-not-really "assignment". Yes, the "c" looked test-like. Keep in mind, we're after encyclopedic content, notwithsanding the 500,000 Pokemon articles. Acroterion _(talk) 19:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting up drywall in my attic theis afternoon and when I get tired of hoisting it over my head I do a little Wiki stuff, so Hersfold, you're welcome to jump in. Acroterion _(talk) 20:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Chill out

Do you seriously think that anyone believed i was an administrator? Get a grip. WeePoochy —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeePoochy (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't interfere

The comments I left on BigDunc's discussion page were nothing to do with you. I was simply expressing my belief, as a citizen of Northern Ireland, that Irish republicanism is harmful. There, now I suppose you can block me for "attacking" you as well. There really isn't much free speech on Wikipedia. WeePoochy —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeePoochy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't block you for the above, but your activities so far have consisted of vandalism, attacks on other editrors, impersonation of administrators, copying other people's userpages, and telling people on a wiki (where everything is visible to everybody else) to butt out. Acroterion _(talk) 13:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware everyone can see what I was writing on BigDunc's user page, but that doesn't mean you have to jump in and get involved, there are more important issues on this site, from what I have seen so far. Thanks.--WeePoochy (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Like this [1] and this [2], for instance? Please. Acroterion _(talk) 13:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Like those--WeePoochy (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. How do I get back my article on THE ORANGE BALL GAME. I just want to retain what I wrote, and I will not try to re-post the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picinich13 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG

X_X —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterofpi (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

acreterion/acroterion

i found you deleting him rather appropriate; I was the one who found + tagged him, so i was watching the page. Ironholds 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciated the opportunity. He's a serial sock abuser I've encountered, who thinks he's making life hard for us: sadly for him, blocking takes 10 seconds. Acroterion _(talk) 00:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

re:another admirer

Thanks for taking care of that sock. I see from the above thread that you have same kind of friend. Aren't they great? Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your recent revert of vandalism to my talk page :) It's very much appreciated. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for this [3]. – ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - Antrandus got him. Acroterion _(talk) 02:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, redux

Thanks for your suggestions on my definitely-not-a-tour-guide-page. It's for the good of the project I tell you, the good of the project! For those curious onlookers, I'm talking about this page. I also promise to try to replace this image with one that's not crooked : ) WLU (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been a couple of years since I've been in NYC, and I have a far-from-encyclopedic/guidebookopedic knowledge, but it's the coolest city in the world, and way easier to deal with than it was, say 20 years ago. Acroterion _(talk) 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

You deleted the page I tagged so quickly!

Have a cookie.

Lunakeet has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Lunakeet 15:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was more of a teasing expression of love, but still inappropriate. Thanks for the cookie - it's lunchtime soon! Acroterion _(talk) 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

acroterion elite

just checking your not involved with user:Acroterion Elite? i think he's a recreation of user:Acreterion who i got blocked a few weeks ago for impersonating you (although it was you who did the blocking). Ironholds 00:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! A nerdy gangster. He's probably Bahameenballin back again, and now he's blocked. Thank you. Acroterion _(talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If they're all the same user, couldnt you trace them and block any IP's behind it? Ironholds 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can ask a checkuser to look into the IP behind the edits and block it, if it continues. The effort expended by this person to create sockpuppets is disproportionate to the minor effort it takes to block the accounts. Acroterion _(talk) 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lardland

I noticed you just chased and blocked User_talk:Lardland, amongst other things for creating a nonsense page about Lardland. That looked very familiar to me. I had just followed a guy that entered "Lard" in random articles and that had created, o coincidence, a page called Lardland. Seen this? User_talk:Rsdersuit22 Do we have a puppet show?  Channel ®   01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

See thread below. I await more variations. Acroterion _(talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of user talk page, block without final warning: "Lard" vandals

First, when you posted an indef block notice, [4] why did you remove the previous content of the user page? It is a good idea to leave it, because it may provide context for the necessity of the block. Second, why was an indefinite block necessary without a final warning? I had reverted one of his vandal edits and was in the process of posting a warning when you blanked the page and blocked. I agreee his contribution history of that of a vandalism-only account, but they usually do a vandalism after final warning and then get the same block, but with less wiggle room if they appeal. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This vandal was the reincarnation of a lard vandal (ore maybe a 4chan meme) blocked a little while ago. Since he was a clear sockpuppet/serial abuser, I blocked immediately. Acroterion _(talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Orderages. Quite a set of sock/meatpuppets in the making. Acroterion _(talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I just gave the same treatment to Yoursgray22, who is another "lard vandal." Edison (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone should alert other admins via IRC channel or other means of a large vandal attack. Just blocked User talk:Phoneshort as another "lard" vandal. Edison (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll fire up IRC and see if anybody knows anything. I suspect 4chan. Acroterion _(talk) 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added "lard" to Lupin's filter to make it easier to spot. Acroterion _(talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Things seem a bit quieter. "Lupin's filter?" Edison (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Much better. No particular notice on IRC. Lupin's filter looks for words or strings and filters them: highly useful for RC patrol. Acroterion _(talk) 01:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you're still watching, they're now using variants of the suffix "ard" and, at some points, using two socks at a time. I'm fighting them best I can hehe. Redfarmer (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably coordinated off-wiki and using multiple users and IP's. Remedy: whack 'em 'til they get bored. Acroterion _(talk) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well they seem to have bored of that game so I'm going to bed. Good vandal fighting. :) Redfarmer (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As am I - thanks for the help. Others are watching, though. Acroterion _(talk) 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

dynasty warrior clans of battle net

this isnt a club its part of the history of a clan you may consider it a club but its still history to hunderads of people there was no right to delete that wiki i havent even finsihed it i had 10 years of history getting ready to be added on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Shi Yuan (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All organizations must meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Gaming clans do not meet these standards. Significant multiple third-party coverage in publications of national stature can be an indicator of notability. Acroterion _(talk) 00:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

we arent a organization we are a group of people if you delete a history of a group then that means all gang wiki's like the kkk wiki ayran brotherhood wiki and all must be deleted too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Shi Yuan (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No you're not a notable group. Notable is the important word here, not "group". Most gangs aren't notable, by the way, either. Acroterion _(talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

point proven... most gangs arent notableLord Shi Yuan (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we are in agreement then. Acroterion _(talk) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dixon Ticonderoga

LISTEN! I WILL UPLOAD THE FILE AGAIN AND YOU WILL NOT DELETE IT! COMPRENDO? Mexican Sponge (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Emma Hehir

You recently deleted this article with a rationale of "A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance" I believe this to be inaccurate. Having read the article before it was deleted I think that there were several indications of the individual's importance/significance including the subject winning a Nobel prize and being the first person to give birth to a cat. We have articles on many people who have done the former and almost certainly would have an article on someone who achieved the latter. I would suggest that in future a more appropriate rationale for such articles would be based on speedy delete criterion G3 (blatant and obvious misinformation). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I regard A7 as a slightly kinder and less bitey way of characterizing an obviously silly article about somebody's friend. Many deleted articles can be tagged under multiple criteria, and sometimes we just make mistakes. I just went with the way it was already tagged. Acroterion _(talk) 04:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for even bringing up, I think arguing over how articles on people giving birth to cats are deleted is a sign that I should probably be asleep. I hope no offence was taken, keep up the good work. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(and I generally agree with you, I often tag such pages as G2 candidates (test pages)) Guest9999 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, good to know someone's paying attention. I'm signing off here too, once I regain my ability to spell and format for three more minutes. I use G2 where I can, but sadly I tag a lot of G10's (who get a big red warning and a quick block if they continue). Acroterion _(talk) 04:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Talkoftheindustry

His contributions so far seem to be promotional in nature, and he's freely admitted to creating a page as part of a publicity campaign. is there any ARV criteria that really covers blocking him? I've seen users blocked before for promotional reasons/using wikipedia as a high-profile billboard but i dont know what i'd put that under. Thanks in advance! Ironholds 15:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they're just new and don't fully understand notability criteria. I would only block if it was repeated and blatant promotion. Acroterion _(talk) 21:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Acroterion, recently you took an interest in the centrifugal force page. I would be most grateful if you could look at the recent deletion of my edit on the main page of that article. If you check it out, you will find that Wolfkeeper has a long record of deleting things which I put on the main article.

When I put that edit on yesterday, I was fully expecting Wolfkeeper to delete it. But I was very careful to make sure that the edit contained only basic textbook material and that there could be no possible grounds to justify him deleting it.

You will recall that my block last week was because I was accused of incivility by having accused Wolfkeeper of wikistalking for having deleted stuff that had put on the main page.

Interestingly, Wolfkeeper has attempted to justify his actions this time. His first reason was pathetic. It was something to do with the section being out of place. The second reason merely exposes Wolfkeeper's total lack of knowledge about the topic in question.

The marble experiences a side on Coriolis force as it rolls out to the edge of the turntable. Interestingly, PhySusie who I presume was attempting to back up Wolfkeeper has then come in and stated this very fact as if it were me that didn't know it.

If you are genuinely interested in justice on wikipedia and proving that there is no corruption, I would be most grateful if you could monitor the ensuing debate very carefully.

I know that you say that you are not trained in this topic but it is all very basic stuff and I am sure that you will be more than capable of seeing exacly what is going on. David Tombe (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to further clarify that the edit which I made yesterday was totally outside the issue of ongoing disagreement. I made sure of that because I wanted Wolfkeeper exposed. I knew he would delete it, yet is was a very carefully thought out example which ilustrates both centrifugal force and Coriolis force perfectly.

Now what has happened is that Itub and PhySusie are trying to justify Wolfkeeper's actions and in doing so totally contradicting what has already been agreed.

They are behaving like school children and I would simply lke to know if this is he best that I can expect from wikipedia. Do the administration ever sort these cliques out or do they generally side up with the cliques out of fear of large numbers? David Tombe (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at at, but make no promises. I have learned a few things from watching the article, but it's been 30 years since college physics, so I'm having to start from F = m a. Since part of my specialty is building structures, which hardly ever move, centrifugal force is rarely encountered (and when it is you don't want to be in the neighborhood). Acroterion _(talk) 11:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I'd like you to focus specifically on that last edit that was deleted by Wolfkeeper. I'm sure that was just a malicious act.

A marble sits in a radial groove in a rotating turntable. You will agree with me that centrifugal force will cause the marble to roll outwards.

I am up against people who are trying to deny this. Note in particular PhySusie who states that there is no need for any outward radial force.

How do you argue against people like that? Are they genuine? Did she just come in to back up Wolfkeeper? She said so many things wrong that even Itub openly disagreed with her. That of course wasn't her aim so she immediately set herself right with Itub and then twisted it around to make it my fault by insinuating that I hadn't described the situation clearly enough. She interpreted my term 'radial groove' to be curving outwards. Radial means radial.

Itub himself clearly understood the picture but he is trying to argue that the centrifugal foce in question only exists for observers on the rotating turntable.

It exists full stop. The marble rolls radially to the edge of the turntable. We can all see it no matter whether we are spinning or what. David Tombe (talk)

Acroterion, thanks for your reply. Yes I am totally outnumbered as regards a key point. I don't believe that the rotating frame of reference transformation equations can be applied to non-rotating situations.

But the edit war on the main page has not been about that issue recently.

I very carefully chose an example of centrifugal force that would actually be covered by those equations. I did that deliberately in order to totally remove any possible excuse that they might have to delete it, although I fully expected that Wolfkeeper would delete it anyway because he deletes my edits systematically.

I wanted you to look at the pathetic excuses that they were giving to justify Wolfkeeper's actions.

As you can see, Itub has been denying that a centrifugal force is involved in the outward radial acceleration of the marble along the groove.

It is that kind of blatantly dishonest denial that I wanted an administrator to look at.

Basically they are covering up for wikistalking on the part of Wolfkeeper.

You can see my latest reply to Itub on the talk pages of centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You want me to use administrative tools in a content dispute where you feel outnumbered. You use words like "pathetic", "blatantly dishonest denial" and "wikistalking" with respect to those who disagree with you. I've seen wikistalking: this isn't it. Administrators aren't referees. You must either convince those who disagree with you through civil persuasion, or you must be willing to understand and accept the arguments of those who disagree with you. Please moderate your language - it's just an encyclopedia, and talk pages of articles on physics shouldn't resemble those of the Balkans.

Also, writing articles via discussion of proofs or first principles amounts to original research no matter how well-founded the process. We must stick to citations from reliable sources, or we end up in the sort of back-and-forth we're seeing. Acroterion _(talk) 11:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Acroterion, You yourself should be able to see the simplicity of the argument. A marble rolling out to the edge of a rotating turntable , along a groove, is experiencing centrifugal force.

If it's that simple, please provide a citation in the literature.

Are you going to join those who are denying this fact, because that is what it all comes down to? It is too simple an issue to get out of by pleading ignorance.

I have no intention of taking sides in a debate on content - that would inappropriate: I expect all editors to conduct themselves with civility.

When I see one person coming along and agreeing that centrifugal force is present in that situation, then I will know that I am dealing with an honest person. And I haven't found very many so far.

One more time: moderate your language and treat other editors with respect. This [5] and this [6] are inappropriate. Disagreement does not equal dishonesty. Acroterion _(talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Acroterion, you've disappointed me. You've played the old game of asking for a citation for something that is obvious. For a while I thought that you may have been more mature than the others. But you have done the Pontius Pilate. Centrifugal force exists in that scenario and you know it. The fact that the others are denying it means that they are not being straight. You are now turning a blind eye. You are too scared to go to the centrifugal force talk page and say that this scenario quite obviously involves centrifugal force and so those who are denying it are clearly not being honest. You would reinstate the section and block anybody who tries to remove it.

It is your job as an administrator to warn people like Wolfkeeper. When he removed that edit originally, you could have left a message in his talk page warning him that his removal of the material appears to be vandalism and that he should use the sandbox for experiments.

But I can see now that all administartors in wikipedia are scared of confronting groups of team editors. They are too weak to deal fairly with edit wars and they choose to back the majority side. Invariably when drawn in they begin to drop civility warnings in the tray of the minority party. I didn't notice you giving Wolfkeeper any warnings for his abusive language not that I get over worried about abusive language, but it's intersting to see how these administrators reserve all their warnings for the minority party. It's easiest to end an edit war by getting the minority party blocked.David Tombe (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I've nominated myself for adminship [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds‎|here]. You've been a helpful admin and advisor a couple of times before, so i'd appreciate any comment or support/oppose you could give :). Ironholds 17:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion #1 - don't even appear to be canvassing! Nobody's going to mind a couple of messages, but don't go farther than that. Acroterion _(talk) 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maryland NHLs

Hi Acroterion -- Glad to see you are editing/creating articles on Maryland NHLs and perhaps other NRHPs. The List of NHLs in MD sure does need development to a more complete condition, and your taking the lead is appreciated. I ran out of steam in developing that list-article a while back, but i will try to chip in a bit where possible now.

A comment: in NHL list-articles that i have worked on, the description column of the list-article was used for notes that are not meant to remain permanently in the article, such as the NRHP refnums and "reasonable-to-try" wikilinks. These notes can be helpful at the point of creating the new NHL article. If and when the corresponding NHL article is created, the description should be replaced by a real, short description. I would prefer your leaving the notes there, until you create the article, then by all means replace whats there.

Another comment: while the names of individual articles such as Edna E. Lockwood (bugeye) can be changed to reasonable common names of the ships/places, for consistency in the NHL list-article the displayed name of the NHL should be the NHL program name for the ship/place (per the NHL article on the ship/place, or per the National Park Service's PDF list of NHLs cited in the list-article), with a wikilink to whatever is the current name for the article, which can be different.

Thanks, and keep up the good work! doncram (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was appalled to see that almost half the NHL's in Maryland were redlinked, so I'm working my way through. I'll just step the list page back until they're all in. I see your point about Wikipedia naming convention vs. NRHP convention, and I think it's easier to do all the notes at one time, so I'll revert. Thanks for the suggestions, and I have a question:

The Gambrill House doesn't seem to appear in the NHL database - it's an NRHP property according to the Maryland Historical Trust, and they're pretty good about that sort of thing. Is there something I'm missing? Acroterion _(talk) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. As you probably understand, all NHLs are automatically listed as NRHPs, but most NRHPs are not also NHLs. I agree, the Gambrill House does not appear to be an NHL, and should not be in the List of NHLs article. There are in fact just 71 NHLs in the state (plus perhaps one or two shared ones primarily listed in another state), while the list has more than that. The list needs to be cross-checked against the National Park Service's PDF file cited in the list-article for another reason anyhow (to add specific dates of NHL designation, which are often different than NRHP dates, while the list-table was partly generated from a NRHP database so may show NRHP dates instead).

Don't worry about reverting the list-article, the names can be cleaned up to show NHL program names in the one sweep through, using the official NPS list. cheers, doncram (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, feel free to announce your new articles in the new articles section of the wp:NRHP main page. You're doing a nice job, to have found photos for most of them. Listing there attracts some helpful attention on matters like categories and so on. And, about being "appalled", i am glad that someone else feels that way, finally! Please do let's finish this out.... cheers, doncram (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the following should be removed:

• John Brown's HQ - rename to Kennedy Farm
• Baltimore Business and Government District
• Denton House
• Ellicott City HD
• Gambrill House
• Seton Hill HD
• Widehall

I started on this out of an interest in getting pictures of NRHP properties in MD, PA, WV and VA, since I get all around the area on business, and already have a few on hand. First, though, I wanted to figure out what needed pix: the answer was everything! So I'm doing articles for the pictures, in a way. Acroterion _(talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)