User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q1 2012

Another favor, please?

Can you please revert the deletions I asked you to make two weeks ago? I would appreciate it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure: it'll take a little while, since I need to go back to the logs to find everything. Acroterion (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks to be in order. Many thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxy Revisions

Acroterion: I do not really understand your belief that I have only one agenda: "to denigrate two individuals in violation of several Wikepedia policies." What I have actually done is provide information on major topics that have been widely reported in major publications such as the WSJ, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg, etc. and presented it fairly blandly if you will. I can't imagine how you can call that denigration. It is almost completely devoid of adjectives. The material itself is honest. Therefore, since the material is not even remotely personal but exclusively about business the notion of denigration is simply absurd. No one is even remotely defamed or ridiculed. I merely stated Chazen's compensation so I am even further bewildered over your suggestion that he has been denigrated along with Irani. Even so, I concede that the history section could be rewritten to include facts to support the notion that Irani contributed significantly to the company success over the years. Yes, and perhaps citing the use of the Boeing Business Jet by a retired CEO is not that important or even the question of who is actually running the company. Okay, Chazen runs the show.

I have invited constructive criticism time and time again as you will see from my entries and you might well review such comments (again, I'm afraid) by the other editors directed at me such as " get a life, stop wasting our time, it is time for you to go (and this from someone who has made little or no contributions (aside from perhaps hitting the undue button a few times) to the article! Frankly, the piece reads for the most part like a company publication and probably is largely derived from the Occidental Annual Report. It is true that some of the more disturbing and controversial chapters in the company history are included but in very little detail.

If I (instead of you, sir, with all due respect) could identify my own "agenda" let me just state that it is simply to give a full and true picture of this company so that the reader can really understand the history of Occidental. Pretending that it's all about barrels of oil and the geography of the operations, corporate platitudes and slogans, and not about real history with real consequences is short-sighted. Again, no one has been able to explain to me why legitimate news story items placed in Wikipedia represent a "hit job." Please educate me. However, use specifics if you please.Cowboy128 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia editors are expected to develop consensus for their edits within the editing community and are required to respect Wikipedia policies concerning biographies, which you should closely read, since it applies everywhere and is not negotiable. You should also read WP:COATRACK, which applies to the edits you're made, as well as WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT, and constructively address the issues raised. Your comments concerning a "cowboy code of ethics" during your edit-warring to retain your preferred version do not lend you much credibility with respect to observance of Wikipedia policy. Until now you've chosen to edit-war and to try to discredit those whose disagree with your edits rather than trying to develop a satisfactory consensus, which is the preferred and appropriate method. You will need to show that you've read and understood the policies and guidelines that we've cited in order to make progress in attaining consensus. Acroterion (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Coastie Head Cabin listed on NRHP?

Hi Acroterion ... Back in April, you added the Coastie Head Cabin to National Register of Historic Places listings in Olympic National Park. But it doesn't appear to be listed in the NRIS database (at least not under that name). Can you provide a source? I'm trying to find its NRIS Reference Number. Thanks. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As I recall there was conflicting information, and I was a bit conflicted on the subject myself. I'll go back and see where that came from: I may have meant to remove it. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I dug around a little and found a couple of web pages that suggest that it's listed on the NRHP, but I sure can't find it in the NRIS database. I looked via Elkman's tools, in the NPS Focus search and also in the latest version of the raw NRIS database that I have, but didn't find anything with that name. Maybe it's a contributing property to the Olympic National Park Headquarters Historic District, but not individually listed? --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Washington State's WISAARD [1]? They have it listed here [2], AKA the Starbuck Creek Cabin, but close examination puts it under the Washington Heritage Register, although it's part of the Historic Resources of Olympic National Park MPS. It has an NRHP registration form, but I think it's never gone through. I must have seen the form and taken it for an entered NRHP property. It doesn't appear in the NPS Park Name search results at Focus or on the list of NPS classified structures. It should come out of the list. I'm stumped as to the listing date and its source, though.Acroterion (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cecil J. Doty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glacier National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For cleaning up the vandalism on my page! Jim1138 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome: Elockid's blocked them now. Acroterion (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Whome Troll? What is this accusation&?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.69.99 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

1966 Palomares B-52 crash

OK, English is not my first language. It is very clear, but also is very clear Franco's Governement silenced people of Spain during their dictatorship precisely in this matter. Please write it and place it in the not neutral article 1966 Palomares B-52 crash. Thanks in advance. Vibria (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

First you'll need to find secondary sources that discuss the information in appropriate context, preferably in English. You can't take documents out of context and make broad statements about them. It's not surprising that the Franco regime did things like this, but you need to provide sources that place it into context. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shiraz

Hello, there is an IP that is removing well-sourced content from Shiraz due to an anti-Baha'i POV. You had previously protected the page, and I was wondering if you could either do the same (or this time block the IP, as it seems to be a single one this time). Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked and article protected for three weeks for obvious POV pushing. I assume other IPs will try and we might as well discourage them Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Haarp - European Parliament report

Hello Acroterion. An exerpt from an official report of an elected, democratic legislative body representing more than 350,000,000 people cannot be told "poorly sourced" : it comes from the one primary source on the subject: the European Parliament itself -- and the link refers to official European Parliament's own website.

Also, saying legislatures produce conclusions, not theories, was only mentioned in my editing comment, not the text itself, which makes me wonder if you read the text itself before deleting it, as i have chosen a careful phrasing which does not imply those conclusions were *not* a conspiracy theory.

I would appreciate if you could revert the changes you just made. --Henri Hudson (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say above, the legislature produced a report, not a conclusion. I have no objection to a short discussion of the EU hearings, but your retitling changes the tone to lump the legislatures in with the conspiracy theorists, and the ban section appears rather tangential at best. I suggest discussing it on the article talk page. Acroterion (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tex Grebner

I do not understand why this article was deleted. Nothing was defamatory, all quotes were taken directly from Tex Grebner's comments made on Tosh.0 or his own video blog, both of which had been cited. He is indeed a well known person, as his episode aired across the U.S. and his most popular video has over a half million views. He has hundreds of videos of himself and his Outdoor show on YouTube and is well-known by many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbrokndreamsx27 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a poorly sourced biography of a living person that in effect ridiculed the individual. The notability of the person was by no means clear. Biographies must be written with great care, and must be adequately sourced. Please review WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:RS. I am open to an appropriately-written article if it can be sourced to reliable secondary sourcing: self-sourcing doesn't establish notability, nor is it generally appropriate except for basic, uncontroversial biographical information. Acroterion (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hey, I reviewed an article (2011 Virginia earthquake) for GA status, made my recommendations known on the review page, no changes were made in the 48 hour window (actually it was more like 96 cause I forgot), so I failed the review and removed it from the GAN page. Unfortunately, the bot added it right back to the GAN page just two minutes later. Well, over the course of the past couple days, a user made all the changes for that I recommended and I told him to put it back through at GAN. Problem is, it has been there (again) since the bot readded it back on January 7. What do I do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the bot will put it back as long as there's a tag on the talkpage. Maybe the talkpage tag should be removed, and after a decent interval it can be put back for a follow-up review? I'm not totally familiar with the mechanics of the process, and not at my smartest: I've been staying with my wife at the hospital following her second hip replacement surgery on Tuesday (thank God she only has two hips) and hope she'll be discharged this afternoon. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ouchies! Glad it is just a hip replacement and nothing serious. Hope everything goes well and she is on the road to recovery soon. :) I will bug Wehwalt, I think he has done a couple GA reviews. Let me know if I can help with anything in your abscence. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alcatraz

Hello, Acroterion. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding GMO talk page edit

I can understand how the "Politics of GMO Foods" section is soapboxing, but I don't get how the "Dangers of GMO Foods" section is soapboxing. Please see the following page, to understand what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_food&diff=471317567&oldid=471306164Pottinger's cats (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You're posting long, aimless discussions of your views on a wide variety of subjects to an increasing spectrum of articles, interspersed with semi-relevant links, rather than contributing a concise discussion of proposed article improvements. Please stop using Wikipedia as a podium for your views. Acroterion (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick Question

First off, how's your wife doing? I hope she is healing quickly and painlessly. I was wondering who I would talk to about getting something changed on the IP user contrib page and talk page footers changed, specifically, the "GeoLocate" link. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

She's doing well, getting better day by day, though not painlessly, but it's going better than the other side did in July. As for questions on the user interface, I have no knowledge or skill in that department, and have never attempted anything along those lines. I know that admins technically have access to that sort of thing, but it's way beyond my abilities. I'd suggest asking at WP:VPT. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear she is doing better this time around. Hope they gave her some fun meds to take the edge off. :) I will ask over at VPT, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Speedy Deletion

Dear User,

I noticed you requested a speedy deletion of the page Nafecs ltd. I would like to understand why a factual page (unfinished I might add) was removed as having no significance, while companies like L&Fung have an extensive page on Wikipedia highlighting their services and origins. Was the page simply not extensive enough?

Many thanks,

Editor932 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor932 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Notability was a requirement that was not met; that means it did not have enough third-party reliable sources covering it. 50 staff, however, is likely not going to be notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so how is one supposed to get 'enough third-party reliable sources' to comment and make amendments to the page if it is deleted after less than 2 mins? There are also plenty of small companies with information and pages on wikipedia (less than 50 staff) that are doing notable things and worth mentioning for people's reference. I appreciate that maybe the page did not have enough notable information but speedy deletion ensures no more information can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor932 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

They are notable in other ways. In case you didn't know, we expect final drafts. For drafting, user Wikipedia:Articles for creation, or Wikipedia:Userspace draft.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the advice. Ill try ignore Wikipedia postings like the below then. Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

You'll need to show that the subject has received significant coverage by third-party media to establish notability, and as Jasper Deng points out, you may wish to work on it as a userspace draft. It's always best to concentrate on indicating notability, since Wikipedia receives a large amount of proposed articles on non-notable conpanies, bands, people, pets, etc., as well as spam. Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Spencer Coelho

Acroterion:

I just added my first article, it is on a former soccer player, Spencer Coelho, for some reason you deleted it. I made some final changes and would like to have your approval. It is one of my favorite players. I just added the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimerodrigo (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to create a sourced article that is more than just his name. Acroterion (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Conversation pit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Rudolph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Awkwardly phrased"?

Would you mind explaining here or on the article talk page?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Just that: it's an awkward construction with a qualifying clause tacked onto the front of a simple declarative statement. "In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the attacks have had a broad impact on society and culture in general." Is the sentence (in the strict grammatical sense: I know what you mean to say) talking about political ramifications, or is it talking about culture? It's an awkward transition from political to cultural events. A grammarian could offer the technical term for the problem, but the sentence has two subjects. "Ramifications" vs. "impacts." I've seen you do this before: it's sort of characteristic, and has perhaps caused you to have more difficulty than you might have otherwise. I have a tendency to repeat individual words in a paragraph that drives me crazy, and I routinely screw up other things like subject/verb agreement. You try to pack too many concepts or qualifiers into one sentence. Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't see any legitimacy to your objection. The subject is "9/11" with "ramifications" and "impact" being objects. "In addition to the political ramifications" clearly establishes that it is not the subject of the sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that my concern is about grammar and writing style, not about the content? "Legitimacy" has nothing to do with it: clear, concise and straightforward writing is the issue at hand. You're arguing about content, and I ask you to write without awkward sentence construction. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, I am not talking about content. I think your argument about grammar lacks legitimacy for the reasons I gave.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, as I said, your preferred writing style has made things harder for you than they need to be. I think you could do better. Acroterion (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of a "segue"? The wording mentions the preceding content about the political consequences of the attacks and transitions to talking about the societal consequences. What it is saying is "in addition to the preceding there is the following" and does it without being bland like the wording you restored. It also avoids the stylistic nightmare that is the beginning of a paragraph or sentence with the word "the" as is quite popular in subpar writing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know what a segue is, and I think the version I reverted could be done with more grace. I agree with your avoidance of "the", for what it's worth. Remember that this is the kind of comment that pops up in a good article review. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an idea of how to rewrite that material in order to meet your approval?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

While this uses a "the", something like "The attacks have had a broad impact on society and culture, extending beyond the attacks' political ramifications." I really dislike qualifying clauses that lead a sentence. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an objection I understand better, but I think you are being a bit too particular. Something like "Widgets can be very useful in daily life, not just when presenting analogies" is certainly a preferable sentence on its own. On the other hand, a sentence like "While the term 'widgets' is widely-used, its meaning is not as widely understood" provides a more seamless transition for subsequent sentences elaborating on the main point. My thinking is that, since talk of political ramifications takes place before the section on cultural effects, the most effective transition should start out by mentioning the political ramifications and then mention the cultural effects, so that the next few sentences laying out those effects do not create any literary whiplash for the reader.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your sense of priority, and was giving thought to how it might be accomplished: Two sentences seem excessive. Haven't come up with a good idea: if it was easy, we'd have done it. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of this wording?: [3]--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Information Wanted

It is not inappropriate to do that. It is perfectly appropriate, in fact, it is the most appropriate source I know.

Largerthanlife147 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for radio station playlists; such material is likely to be deleted. Acroterion (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk 15:17, 20 Jan 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! I wasn't paying attention to my edit count: last time I checked it was in the mid-90s. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for saving "Conversation Pit"

Just seconds after I posted it, some rules nazi who can't think well stuck an ugly "no sources-please delete immediately" tag that is about as large as the article itself, despite the obvious value of the information. His behavior makes a negative experience for other users. I fear that kind of thing is driving down contributions from the public. This happens just once to some newbie and they'll never try to contribute again.

Have you had many problems like that when you add/edit?

Thanks for your help with Conversation pit.

Ace Frahm (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We all make mistakes: read farther up the page for some folks who think I've been overly harsh on the deletion front. Blanchardb's a fine editor, with whom I usually agree: this time I didn't. Proposed deletion can be contested at any time, so I did. I haven't checked my deletion statistics, but I've personally deleted thousands of articles, most of them vanity articles, spam, vandalism, attacks or just plain non-notable bands, people or companies. I've been known to scold aggressive tagging, but then I've been scolded myself, although I've never had a deletion review overturn one of my deletions. Generally administrators with 100,000 edits (as I apparently have) don't get much trouble about their new articles. Such are the (probably unfair) advantages of tenure. I do try to keep in mind the potentially discouraging effect of article deletion when I tag or delete, and have rescued a moderate number of newbies and their articles when I see the opportunity.

Since I'm an architect, I noticed the article right away and thought "Holy crap, we didn't have an article on conversation pit yet?" Knowing the topic, I knew it was viable. It helps to have grown up in the 1960s and 70s. Thanks for starting the article, and remember to politely stick to your guns (and have some references ready to back you up) if you find yourself arguing against deletion again. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My page

Dear Wikipedian, I have seen that you have deleted my page from Wikipedia. The message says that it was 'An attack on other users'. This is not true. I heard about the book from my friends and got the information from them. I would like to ask you nicely if you could please put my page back up. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.

Yours Sincerely, WriterGuy1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterGuy1 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No. "Hi! I'm smart! You are dumb! I am better than you! Now just die..." is entirely inappropriate. You 're welcome to recreate an appropriate page yourself, however. Acroterion (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's some on-the-ball adminning!

We managed to both pull User:Kuzznshazziie's talkpage access at the exact same time. Go team :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just don't cross the streams. I've run across an awful lot of kids with really bad attitudes in the past couple of days: I'd blame it on the short days, but one of them was from New Zealand. Acroterion (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi
Thanks for your warm welcome. :)
I am fairly new to Wiki editing, so would like to get as much as help as you can provide. Could you please tell me what is a template? Was there any welcome template? Is there a GUI for a template? If there was one, only by keying in my username ABEditWiki and the post is created on my talk page?
Thanks again.
ABEditWiki (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
PS:I did not notice the info at the top, sorry. Will post this to my talk

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

SCT Picture edit's

hi Acroterion why was my page SCT Picture edit's deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiegibbett (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it was an article about a non-notable and probably fictitious organization that contained attacks against another person. Please don't re-create it. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Anon still editing

Hi... I see that you blocked 107.0.94.238 on Jan. 17, but he's still able to edit (and is still vandalizing): [4]. Dunno what's going on, but maybe you could look into it when you have a sec.—Chowbok ☠ 20:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like a school. They pciked up where they left off after the previous block, so now they're blocked for a week. Next time a month, etc. Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Butt Sock article deleted

So what if I take out the bit about the fact that a 6-year-old invented it? It's still a viable word invention. Besides, when this goes viral, someone else will put this article up. How many times will you deny it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcwatson11 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NEO. as well as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia isn't for things you or anybody else just made up, and it's certainly not a means of creating a meme. Acroterion (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Message for Acroterion

Acroterion, are you saying that I cannot be creating any more articles on pokemon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GokuBeatsAll (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you can't create duplicate articles on Pokemon if you don't like what's already there (as you implied), and that any material you add must be reliably sourced. Please note that there is a wikiproject for Pokemon where other editors may be able to help you. Acroterion (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Protect Joseph A. Maturo, Jr.?

The mayor East Haven, CN has landed himself in the news of late and his page is attracting at least some vandalism. Maybe we (you) could protect it for a month or so? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Could be worse, considering the circumstances. If it picks up again I'll protect it. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For being an honest and awesome critic (not as in bad critic). GokuBeatsAll (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tangles

Hey Acroterion, are you good at untangling article histories? I got a doozy for ya. This user cut/pasted KNDE to Candy 95 (KNDE's branding) and now the history is a mess. Do you think you can fix this mess? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe: I take a Solomonic approach to this sort of thing and may have to revert or delete back to the status quo ante. I'll see what I can do. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Before I change things: shouldn't the main article be under the call letters rather than the branding? Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason why the branding shouldn't just redirect back to the call letters. It's essentially the same content (as it would be if a cut/paste), and none of it's sourced anyway. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was going to do before I noticed the article history tangles. Thanks for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The call letter history's pretty straightforward, so I didn't see any reason to be fancy about it. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This page (Pepper Chomsky, Author) should not be speedy deleted because...

Hi Acroterion...I am a wiki-newbie and am making some progress in understanding your culture. I know there have been several deletions of the Pepper Chomsky page. I want to clear up the problems. In 2004 Pepper worked with Lenny Bloom and Sherman Skolnick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Skolnick to co-produce the Canadian radio show named "Cloak & Dagger". As well, the book Among the Truthers - A fact from Among the Truthers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 June 2011 - covers Pepper and his work on the John Lennon murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_John_Lennon. Pepper's book is titled "Code Code Peace" and first appeared in ebook form Dec. 31, 2011. Pepper has appeared as a radio guest in Canada and USA. These pages have been deleted:

  * 04:07, 29 January 2012 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "Pepper Chomsky" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  * 05:38, 27 January 2012 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Pepper Chomsky" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: promotion)
  * 05:12, 27 January 2012 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Pepper Chomsky" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

See what you think- revised text: ""Pepper Chomsky"" is a Canadian Cryptographer and Author of the book “CODE CODE PEACE” [1]. He has conducted interviews with pop stars and rock journalists, people who knew John Lennon and lived with him.[2] In 1996, he deciphered a code in John Lennon’s song Mind Games that led to the theory behind John Lennon’s murder that links Lennon to the unexpected death of Alan Watts on November 16, 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Watts Pepper Chomsky has also discovered a video image believed to be Mark David Chapman in Beirut, Lebanon. The video has been reviewed by Lois Gibson of Houston P.D. facial recognition expert noted in the Guiness World Book of Records, and Animetrics Inc. suppliers of facial recognition software to law enforcement agencies world-wide, including the US Defense Department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauncey_Marvin_Holt#Forensic_expert_Lois_Gibson Jonathan Kay managing editor of the National Post and author of “Among the Truthers” has referred to him as “A Canadian conspiracy theorist who says he has spent 16 years writing a psychically-inspired book about the “mysterious” circumstances surrounding the death of John Lennon.” [3] References: [1] Published on Amazon for Kindle, December 31, 2011 by Pepper Publishing, Toronto. [2] Chomsky interviewed Ronnie Hawkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Hawkins and Ritchie Yorke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritchie_Yorke over a 2-year period [3] published on Jonathan Kay’s “Among the Truthers” page http://amongthetruthers.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Senater (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Pepper Chomsky, Author

I really appreciate your time in responding as the material presented here is not available on Facebook. Mr.Chomsky has spent over 16 years in this pursuit. His book was just very recently published. Perhaps the inclusion in Wikipedia might be less biographical as a book summary for “CODE CODE PEACE”. You are in the US probably and are not very aware of Canada but we are aware of you. Please read this: Cloak and dagger is a term sometimes used to refer to situations involving intrigue, secrecy, espionage, or mystery. "Cloak and Dagger" is also the name of a controversial and conspiratorial radio program that aired in 2004 from Toronto on MOJO 640 AM, a Corus Entertainment radio station. From high atop the city, originating from MOJO's state-of-the-art Eaton Centre broadcast studio, the late night talk radio show was the highest-rated show in its Thursday 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. time slot, according to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. In July of 2004, Michael Posner staff journalist at the Globe and Mail, the newspaper that claims to offer the most authoritative news in Canada, wrote "Where Were You When Cloak And Dagger Was Killed? -- The conspiracy spouting radio show is off the air, as the producers say, Bush told Martin to pull the plug and Mulroney finished it off." Co-producers Lenny Bloom and Pepper Chomsky think the show, which explored alleged conspiracies that included the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., the deaths of John F. Kennedy Jr. and Princess Diana, and the events of Sept. 11, 2001, was "upsetting people in high places."

"We did our job too well, revealing state secrets the shadow government doesn't want you to know", explained Bloom.

""George W. Bush"" -- one of Cloak and Dagger's frequent targets -- had told ""Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin"" to take the show off the air. "When Martin met Bush at Monterrey in Mexico during 2004, Bush told him he would not sign any agreement about oil concessions to Canada unless he got rid of Cloak and Dagger", wrote Posner. NOW THAT'S NOTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

""Pepper Chomsky"" is a Canadian Cryptographer and Author of the book “CODE CODE PEACE” [1]. He has conducted interviews with pop stars and rock journalists, people who knew John Lennon and lived with him.[2] In 1996, he deciphered a code in John Lennon’s song Mind Games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Games that led to the theory behind John Lennon’s murder that links Lennon to the unexpected death of Alan Watts on November 16, 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Watts Pepper Chomsky has also discovered a video image believed to be Mark David Chapman in Beirut, Lebanon. The video has been reviewed by Lois Gibson of Houston P.D. facial recognition expert noted in the Guiness World Book of Records, and Animetrics Inc. suppliers of facial recognition software to law enforcement agencies world-wide, including the US Defense Department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauncey_Marvin_Holt#Forensic_expert_Lois_Gibson Jonathan Kay managing editor of the National Post and author of “Among the Truthers” has referred to him as “A Canadian conspiracy theorist who says he has spent 16 years writing a psychically-inspired book about the “mysterious” circumstances surrounding the death of John Lennon.” [3] References: [1] Published on Amazon for Kindle, December 31, 2011 by Pepper Publishing, Toronto. [2] Chomsky interviewed Ronnie Hawkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Hawkins and Ritchie Yorke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritchie_Yorke over a 2-year period [3] published on Jonathan Kay’s “Among the Truthers” page http://amongthetruthers.com/ D Senater (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)D Senater — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Senater (talk • contribs)

Um, I'm well aware of Canada, thank you. However, the first part above (if you're proposing it as content - I can't tell) is clearly promotional, contains opinion, and is not written in an encyclopedic manner. The claim about Bush needs sourcing, and in any case doesn't satisfy WP:BIO (or WP:BLP), which you should carefully review: notability is based on coverage in mainstream publications.. Chomsky may indeed be notable, but you'll need to find clear support, preferably in multiple mainstream publications, not in fringe sources. Please review WP:V and WP:RS, which point out that self-published sources are not usable on Wikipedia.The second version has no useful references and makes a poor case for notability. To sum up: find three or four articles on Chomsky in the newspapers or magazines, or in books, source everything, and write it in your userspace in a sandbox, say at User:D Senater/sandbox before putting it in article space so you don't have more deletions. Acroterion (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

D Senater (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)D Senater here...From wiki: The Globe and Mail is a nationally distributed Canadian newspaper, based in Toronto and printed in six cities across the country. With a weekly readership of approximately 1 million,[2] it is Canada's largest-circulation national newspaper and second-largest daily newspaper after the Toronto Star. The Globe and Mail is widely described as Canada's English language newspaper of record.[3] ref: Where Were You When Cloak And Dagger Was Killed? By Michael Posner 2/7/04 © 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. ""George W. Bush" you obviouly know who he is...of course you voted for him...maybe in the State of Florida...maybe they miscounted your vote? D Senater (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)D Senator

If you want help (which I'm offering), feel free to stop the sniping; it diminishes your credibility. I've referenced the Globe and Mail before myself: do you have a link, and even better, is there more coverage than that? Chomsky isn't actually mentioned as far as I see (in the rense.com mirror), which makes it essentially useless as a reference for his bio. The show could be notable, but that doesn't make Chomsky notable unless he's been covered on his own account. Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

D Senater (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)D Senater...Thank you so very much for your offer. I'll pursue my mission with integrity and vigor and find the noteworthy references that you have asked for. D Senater (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)D Senater

Quick thank you

As their original maker and a National Park lover in general, just wanted to thank you for your frequent contributions to and distribution of these navboxes! :)

RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 08:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tried to expand or create articles on national park features wherever I can. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk Back

Hello, you have new messages at User:Hoyle Casino Man's talk page! —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

Why?

I was just trying to make a wikipedia page to get my youtube channel noticed.... why delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundastuck (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You have no deleted contributions, so I can't tell what specifically you're asking about, but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for you to get something noticed, particularly your YouTube channel. Wikipedia has requirements for notability of content. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Stonewood homes

Hi, You have deleted my page for Stonewood Homes. Please can you let me know what might help it stay live?

Thanks, DebiDebinewzealand (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace Palace Library links

Glad you put it back. I restored the other 3. This is a tricky one, they look like the sort of links we really want, but how do we advise the editor? Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, when I looked at it it seemed to be relevant and valuable, sort of the exception that proves the rule. I'd advise the editor (who needs a rename) to be judicious in placing the links where they'd do the most good. This kind of thing makes me more irritated at true spammers who make us predisposed to revert useful links that might be spam. Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed Sue Gardner (our CEO if you've forgotten). We need to show some support for this library's efforts. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like a GLAM outreach opportunity as our PR folks would say (GLAM seems like it should represent something from a John Waters movie, but maybe I'm mistaken). If I don't hear back from OM in a while I'll modify the block to take away the autoblock/ACB. Acroterion (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Already done. Believe me, Bas, we do genuinely encourage participation from "galleries, libraries, archives and museums" (GLAM); but dealing with the Magic Firehose of Sewage (the efforts of spammers and self-promoters in general) has made us admins somewhat cynical and predisposed to stop the link addition first. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC) a Quaker and predisposed to favor all efforts toward peace

Thanks Mike. As we all know, unfortunately 99 out of 100 cases turn out to be folks trying to spam us, which is particularly disappointing when we find someone who isn't. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for helping me with this, a few years ago I had the same issue but couldn't solve the problem then. I created a new account (had to change ip address first), it's called Andoornborg. I will prepare a list of research guides tomorrow, can I place that list over here? Thanks again! Regards, Bas Otting (Andoornborg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andoornborg (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This can be very helpful

Dear M. Acroterion, Here is a on the spot self survey for active Editors, without turning to look at your histories, try to answer the following from your gut reaction. What percentage of your work on wiki is: adding content? editing content? revediting others content? Deleting? blocking/unblocking? making warnings? Now jot down your answers, and then check your histories, how accurate were your gutguesses?

curious to hear, thanks for taking the time if you do! BespokeFM (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

William Laverack, Jr.‎

I started a new page about a shadowy businessman who is funding a presidential candidate. At the very least it needs a BLP tag, and I would appreciate if you would add it. In addition, I would value your thoughts as to the subject's notability. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your so high and mighty

Instead of deleting actual pages, try to contribute to the overall health of the internet. I have already reported you to the real admins of Wikipedia. And no your not busy in real life, you have no life. Which is why you troll Wikipedia all day looking for something to do. Get a real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfmarion (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a business directory or a place to advertise a business. Please red WP:SPAM and WP:CORP for more information. Acroterion (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I gave above user npa4im. DMacks (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Brian Souter

I would like to know why my IP address has been blocked and the other person involved (User:Mais oui!) has not. First of all, I am not a logged out sock account because I don't have an account and this simply Mais oui idly throwing around accusations to get his own way. Secondly, Mais Oui has made THREE reverts to the article page in question and I have only reverted twice (both of which were to restore perfectly sourced details which he was constantly removing). User: Mais Oui has a long history of removing details from this article in particular, claiming it to be a violation of WP:BLP simply because it is unflattering towards the subject. However this is not the case and all the information he is trying to remove is adequately sourced. WP:WELLKNOWN applies here. Furthermore, your own revert of the article page has also removed the sourced information, which is itself a violation of WP:WELLKNOWN. 88.104.16.224 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Numerous editors have been concerned about edits to this article on BLP grounds. I have protected the article to force discussion onto the talk page. When your block expires, please use the talkpage, as the article is protected for a month. I judged the BLP concerns to be sufficiently convincing to warrant the block of the IPs and reversion, without prejudice to addition of appropriate material if a consensus develops: there is none at this time. I judged other editors to be acting in good faith in their reversions, and you had been amply warned. You are free to present appropriate sourcing to deal with editor concerns on the talkpage. Your denial that you have a registered account is most unconvincing, and it appears that you're editing logged-out to circumvent edit-warring sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The so-called "numerous editors" you refer to are mostly User:Mais oui! and single-purpose accounts such as User:Por supuesto and User:Onlyw3b 2. Please note that User:Onlwyw3b 2 has only been active for a few months and has only edited on four or five different article - three of which have also been edited by User:Mais oui!. Are you beginning to see the picture here? Furthermore, if you look at the lowest section of the Brian Souter talk page, you will see that various attempts have been made to discuss the constant removal of perfectly sourced information, but User:Mais oui! has declined to take part. User:Mais oui! likes to delete any unflattering information about this subject in particular and then claim it is a BLP or UNDUE violation, when it is so clearly not. However removal of these details is a clear violation of WP:WELLKNOWN. Also, whenever User:Mais oui! has been contacted on his own talk page to either discuss, or even be warned about his own edit warring tendencies, he simply deletes the message (you will see this in his talk page history). He then hurls baseless accusations around that other users are "sockpuppets" so that he can get his own way - which he has just done again. You have made a terrible mistake here Acro, and just because I am an IP user and choose to remain so, it does not mean that my edits are any more or less valuable to Wikipedia. The blocking of an IP address isn't really that important to me, but please review the decisions you have made and look at the situation more closely. 88.104.27.178 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how I see it, although your discussion above pretty much confirms my concerns about logged-out editing, given the history of the named account. Cycling your router to get a new IP is unnecessary: comments are appropriately addressed on the previous IP talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am having to log out in order to have this discussion with you. It is quite obvious that you would rather I be silent than point out the glaring mistakes you have made, but that isn't going to happen. As an admin, you are meant to uphold Wikipedia policies in a professional and impartial manner, but your behaviour in this matter has shown nothing of the kind. 88.104.21.150 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, cycling your router is unneccessary: the appropriate venue is the page on which you placed your unblock request. The article is protected in any case to force discussion to the talkpage, which is entirely appropriate under the circumstances: I suggest that you avail yourself of that resource.. My concerns stand: repetition of innuendo in a biographical subject, regardless of the stature of the source, is a violation of biographical policy, and we are obligated to err on the side of conservatism. I reverted on that basis. I am willing to believe that I am wrong on that count, but I am not mistaken about the fact that edit-warring is taking place on that article and that it must be discussed instead of reverted. I remain concerned about your use of multiple IPs and your disregard of other editors' concerns. Since you appear to be able to obtain new IPs easily, your time may be better spent constructively addressing these issues. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that edit-warring was taking place, but you have targeted only myself where as the other editor (who actually began the edit-warring and made three reverts compared to my two) has gotten away with this scot-free. As well as failing to take action against the instigator here, you also reverted the article page to his preferred version which omits the perfectly sourced content I added. With regards to other editors' concerns, please read the article talk page and its history and you will see that I have acted appropriately and it was actually USer:Mais oui! who has failed to do so, and the two questionable single-purpose accounts I mentioned above. The fact that I choose to be an IP user is my own choice and is not contrary to any Wikipedia rules. Editors do not have to create accounts if they do no wish to, and not having a static IP address is not evidence of any wrongdoing or negative intent (as stated earlier, I have only changed my IP address to have this discussion with you). If you genuinely believe that you handled the situation incorrectly, then may I suggest to review it properly, taking into account everything I have said here and on the IP talk page, and correct it. 88.104.21.150 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read the whole sorry history for the past six months: it's a mess. Here's a serious question concerning the content you are intent on inserting: this [5] indicates that an inquiry officially cleared Salmond and Souter, yet your wording makes it appear that this is not the case. The source is later than your sources, and it looks to me, on the other side of the ocean, that you're cherry-picking sources here to imply that this is an ongoing controversy (the payoff allegations, I mean: I assume the general resentment continues, as stated in the article). I understand that there's a lot of outrage over the knighthood, but your insertion, while it was factually correct in the narrowest sense that the Opposition was outraged and said so last summer, is now incorrect-by-omission. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am more than happy for the details from the source you quoted to be included in the article, though it doesn't make my insertion incorrect-by-omission because my insertion only stated what the Opposition said and did not try to pass their accusation off as fact. There's a distinct difference but the fact remains it was a controversial knighthood and that should be documented, not censored. It still doesn't justify deleting the details I included nor does it justify blocking my IP address and letting a more problematic editor with a clear history of disruptive editing walk away scot-free. Furthermore, the details I inserted were not only about the Opposition's criticism of the knighthood. It also expanded details about the petition by Gay Rights campaigners and included the number of people who have signed it (this is relevant to the article). It also corrected details about what the knighthood was awarded for in the first place (it originally said "charity work" when it was actually awarded for services to transport and the voluntary sector). All of these details were deleted by the other editor and then by yourself too. 88.104.21.150 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That it's controversial is obvious, and should be included (and is). You've avoided the question: your edit, on its face, makes a straightforward claim that there were hono(u)rs-for-pay. This has been refuted, yet you omittted that. That is a BLP problem, not the well-documented outrage by gay rights campaigns. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My edit makes no such claim, it merely reports that the knighthood was criticised, who by, and what was said by the Opposition MP Cathy Jamieson. Read what I wrote again. And I didn't put the source you gave in because I did not know about it when I wrote the details, and I have already said that I would have no problem with it being included in the article because it would belong there. It is still no reason to delete everything that I wrote. If anything, the details I wrote should have simply been expanded with the additional details of the inquiry. And you yourself have just accepted that the other material was well documented, so that should not have been deleted or even questioned - yet both you and User:Mais oui chose to delete it in a sweeping revert edit. And none of this is justification to block me and let the other editor just walk away. If you were worried about edit warring, simply protecting the page would have sufficed until you could examine the issue, but you shot from the hip and, even worse, chose to take sides - all before you could look at the issues more closely. So why don't you do the right thing here - reinsert all of the details I wrote back into the article but also add the source about the outcome of the inquiry after the pay-for honours debacle. 88.104.21.150 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You were edit-warring to include an incomplete and deceptive statement of the facts about a living individual. Having stopped the problem - and it was a problem - we're now having the discussion that should have taken place instead of the ping-pong match that was happening until I stepped in. My initial read was that you were using quotes to make an inappropriate allegation: as I looked further into the matter, that initial impression has been borne out. I find it highly unlikely that you were unaware of the results of the inquiry, and must assume that you are consciously omitting the refutation, and that other editors were aware of that as well, acting accordingly in good faith. The block is moot, as far as I'm concerned (the protection deals with the problem), but I will take further action if you don't take this lesson to heart. Go to the talkpage and make your case for the rearrangement, as you should have done, and make your case for a complete discussion of the Opposition's allegations and the results of the investigation. It's not up to me to pick apart the good, bad and doubtful in your preferred version: the onus is on you as the proposing editor. Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The other editor was edit-warring too, and more so than me. But you've done nothing about that, and therefore you've not dealt with the matter impartially. The details of the pay-for-honours allegation I included were not inappropriate, they were factual and well sourced and totally relevant. I did not know about the later source you yourself later found and you have nothing to substantiate that accusation. Furthermore, if the other editor knew about the outcome of the inquiry that followed - why didn't he simply amend my edit to include it instead of deleting it entirely? It's because, for years, he has continually tried to remove anything even remotely critical about this subject, which is a clear violation of WP:WELLKNOWN. And you call this good faith edits? Come to think of it, why didn't you amend the details yourself? You said earlier that you had followed the issue for months, so if you knew about the outcome of the inquiry then why didn't you simply add it to the article? All you've done here is help the other editor to obscure facts. You seem to quite easily throw accusations at me and yet he is still walking away from this without sanction, despite everything he has done throughout this article's history. His edit history, had you bothered to check it, shows what a disruptive editor he is. Attempts have been made to communicate with him and failed. He's not interesting in discussion on the article talk page and he simply deletes comments made on his own page. I believe your current stance is because you made an error in judgement and are now trying to justify the mistake. You saw an edit war erupting and just blindly reverted my edit because I was an IP address and you automatically assumed I was the one in the wrong. Then you protected the page, and then you blocked me (for whatever that was worth). It was clear bias purely because I'm an IP user. You did it all without even bothering to check the facts or the history. It's blind shooting. You're an admin in a position of responsibility and you really should know better. 88.104.21.150 (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the individual before this evening: I spent part of said evening reviewing the last six months of edits. Your edits were incomplete and left an incorrect and deceptive impression of a living individual, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Since you've been intimately involved in the editing on this topic, I must assume the omission was intentional. Protection of the article to force you to discuss the subject is therefore appropriate. Reversion of an edit containing BLP problems is entirely appropriate: it is not up to the administrator who chances on such a problem to tease out the good from the bad. Your characterization of other editors is incorrect as well: much of the material you have proposed concerning the backlash against Souter has been incorporated into the article. Blocking was superfluous: protection is preferable in these cases, and you're free to make a case for your edits: as with every editor, registered or not, you must find consensus for your edits, and you must provide the whole story. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Again you've completely failed to be impartial. I am not "intimately involved" with the article in any way, though I am aware of the subject and the various controversies surrounding him. Many of these controversies have continually been either downplayed or suppressed completely by editors such as User:Mais oui! throughout the article's history, which is highly inappropriate and certainly an abuse of editing priveliges. And here you are, not only lauding him for it, but accusing me of being the one who is deliberately suppressing facts. Reversion of any edit including potential BLP issues should be carefully thought through by any editor. If the edit is totally wrong, then it should be reverted. If the edit is simply missing information, then it should be amended. Both you and User:Mais oui! chose to revert (and he is obviously far more "intimately involved" with the article than I ever have been). I am fully aware of why a troublesome editor such as him does it, but it appalls me that an admin would do it - and then try to grasp at excuses for doing so. Does the time and effort I have spent discussing this with you this evening seem like the behaviour of a disruptive editor? You made a mistake but you're just not big enough to either rectify it or even admit it. Based on the level of trust placed in them, this kind of behaviour by an admin is inexcusable and I have decided to take the matter further and report it. No reply to this message is necessary. 88.104.21.150 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page, as you (and Mais Oui) should have done long ago. The edit war is stopped and you have received advice on how to deal with the issues: how about devoting the same effort you've put into wrangling here to resoling your concerns and those of other editors? Resolution of any given edit war is usually bitterly resented by one or both parties, but you've been given advice on how to deal with this constructively. Please use it. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(butting in) I went to the talk page of the article, expecting to see an extensive discussion in parallel with the edit war, which Acroterion was right to put an end to, with block and/or protection. Surprise: the last edit to the talk page, incredibly, was on 9 October of last year. Seriously. Go there rather than edit-war. Make your case for your changes politely and cogently on the talk page of the article; we work by WP:CONSENSUS. You may also want an opinion at the BLP noticeboard which is staffed by people who specialise in these kinds of things. Antandrus (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My talk page

Hi there - I think this last message was intended for you. User talk:Addihockey10#hi --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 22:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

7 WTC RfC

Would you mind commenting here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Acroterion,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Glacier Park Lodge

Acroterion...is this edit accurate? I looked around and think it may not be, but am not as well versed as you to know exactly where to look.--MONGO 00:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, the Glacier Park Lodge isn't listed on the NRHP as far as I can tell: it's always been a mystery to me. It's not under the Great Northern Railway Buildings Multiple Property Submission, nor under its own name. It should be a National Historic Landmark, but go figure. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be on some architectural listing but I'll surely take your word on it and not revert...the editor is also apparently familiar with that situation. More than 30 years ago, I worked at that lodge...seems like yesterday and that was a wonderful summer too.--MONGO 03:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, a thank you again for the work you did putting Historical buildings and structures of Grand Teton National Park together...the main article has one section remaining: recreation...I think it is important for that section to discuss the grand history of mountaineering the park has in that section...--MONGO 03:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I learned a lot about the place during the process of summarizing it, putting it into a chronology and organizing it. Most of the other major parks could use a similar article (especially Glacier), but it takes a fair amount of time and effort, which I can't do these days: business is (finally) picking up and I have more pressing priorities. Mountaineering in Grand Teton is a big topic, difficult to boil down to a reasonable size, but vital to include. A lot of big American names in mountaineering in the first half of the 20th century got their start in the Tetons. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's big enough to deserve its own section and will probably get one...the history of mountaineering there deserves a daughter article...I am still working on the geographical points and I know the daughter article about the geology of the region is a copy paste from PD sources...so that needs to be better.--MONGO 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Shoptheworld Princeton, New Jersey

Why did you delete my page Shoptheworld Princeton, New Jersey I am currently in the process of editing th page with more historical information what I wrote was just to start the page.

Fellow wikipedian, tagquijano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagquijano (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The article advertised a non-notable firm. Advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please do not use Wikipedia to advertise. Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Wikipedia:ANI#Justlettersandnumbers Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Mercado

Hi Acroterion, and thank you for helping re: edits to this article. Your advice re: proceeding with this would be welcome, as the primary author has again stripped most of the maintenance templates. If the text is indeed a copyright violation then it ought to be deleted--at the least the templates are in order--but I have no desire to edit war. I think the primary author has long assumed ownership, and suspect any substantial corrections will need to be supported by administrators. Thanks again, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has stripped it down to a very basic entry, which is the default measure in these circumstances. The last version was a direct copyright violation of this [6], which we can't leave there, and which can't really be used as a source either as user-generated material. It could, of course, have been copied from Wikipedia, but we're still left with a largely unsourced biography. I'll keep an eye on the article and try to help the editor along. Thanks for your diligence. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks and cheers, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Clipper Mill Foundry Baltimore MD1.jpg...

...is spectacular. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, we just happened to be there when the light was streaming through the roof monitors from behind, and it was wonderful. Clipper Mill is a little industrial enclave in Woodberry, next to Hampden in the Jones Falls valley in Baltimore, now mostly converted to condos, overpriced shops , glass-blowing studios and such, but the foundry is still semi-derelict, used as indoor parking. It has a sort of Piranesian quality that renovation will wipe out, I fear. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

shutterman deletion

Hi You have just deleted my info i posted on an artist called The Shutter Man, under the basis it is a hoax?? why has this been done. He is known to people in Scotland so is it just a hoax because the rest of the world does not know him, I find this incredulous and offensive, please advise what I should provide you to prove he is real and it is a true story?? Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumphreyP (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it as a subject with no credible assertion of notability, but I could also find no sources for the article. If the subject is indeed sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia, you should be able to find multiple independent sources in major media to substantiate the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy. See WP:RS, WP:V. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "neutral point of view"

You reverted my edit on "HIV Tests" (AIDS denialism section) for the reason "Not adhering to neutral point of view" however, the current text is much less neutral and also not relevant. The current text calls it a "fringe group" and then proceeds to explain why it is incorrect. That's not neutral, nor relevant. A section about AIDS denialism, should contain info on the origins and scientific basis for that view, and mention the significant proponents of that view. The current post is equivalent to saying, "Nothing to see here, move along!" Also, the title itself "AIDS denialism" is not neutral. It is a pejorative, just as I indicated. Just curious, have you watched Dr Gary Null's documentary I referenced? How can you presume to know more than the 14 doctors in that film? (including 2 Noble prize winners!) Why are you afraid to allow their ideas to be published? If you decide they are not worthy of being heard, that's not being neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixote11 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral POV is not necessarily balanced for and against a given concept in defiance of mainstream and academic sources. In the case of AIDS denialism, the literature is very clear that AIDS denialism is a fringe point of view, so that is what Wikipedia states. You inserted a poorly sourced personal opinion along with a promotional link (removing referenced material in doing so): that is the non-neutral position. You were trying to promote something that is not supported by the reliable sources that Wikipedia depends upon, and in the case of medical topics, sources are held to a much higher standard than a YouTube video (which isn't a reliable source for anything but Null's views). Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fringe theories: it documents them, but it also clearly states the regard in which they are held by mainstream sources. See WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDSCI and WP:VALID for a discussion of these issues. If Gary Null can get published in peer-reviewed medical journals, Wikipedia will then start taking his views seriously. See WP:MEDRS. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So you saying, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of mainstream views. Do you honestly believe that the majority is always correct? In Galileo's time the mainstream view was the Earth was the center of the universe. I would again challenge you to watch the film I referenced. You'll see that it does not contain opinions from producer Null, but is simply a forum for over a dozen respected MDs to refute, point by point, the mainstream view. They have also written papers but I neglected to reference them. So a "citation needed" would have been appropriate. But not a complete deletion of my summary which was quite objective and certainly not soapboxing. Also, just because something is on YouTube does not make it suspect. Credibility comes from who is speaking, not from the media conveying the speech. I won't bother making additional edits to Wikipedia for I believe you have accurately described how it is rigged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixote11 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to reflect views in due proportion to degree to which they're given credence by reliable mainstream sources. As you say, that's how it's "rigged". It's a fundamental principle of the encyclopedia. The Galileo analogy comes up constantly, but it is not Wikipedia's role to lead. As a tertiary source based on published, peer-reviewed secondary sources Wikipedia follows, and in the case of medical information it follows peer-reviewed literature. If the literature changes, so will Wikipedia. Null is not granted credibility by such sources. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you suggest a more effective strategy for dealing with abusive admins

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.233.87 (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see what Anthony Fauci has to do with admin abuse: you appear to just trolling. Acroterion (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell is one (of many) abusive admins. --173.206.233.87 (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're doing a poor job of convincing me or anyone else by leaving vague snarky comments. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Snarky? Obviously, it is pointless trying to talk to you about the problem. Bye. --173.206.233.87 (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditch

Hi Acroterion
Thanks for telling me what a 'fosse' is so that I could put the word 'ditch' in the 'Casemate d'Oberroedern Sud' article. Something then told me to look in a dictionary, (why, oh why didn't I look earlier?); sure enough, there it was. Ah well... RASAM (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I had assumed it was more prevalent in the UK than it apparently is. Certainly around here if you called something a "fosse" you'd get strange looks ("you mean that there ditch?"). When I'm feeling patient I'll reorganize the disambiguations. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I sincerely apologize for tagging Tyler Oehms under the wrong criteria...that's not the first time I tagged A7 when there was negative content in the article. --Bmusician 04:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why apologize? It was just nonsense, or non-notable, or maybe an attack (I was probably wrong in my rationale), or a test, or whatever. Don't worry about it. Acroterion (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace Palace Library Links

Dear Acroterion, a few weeks ago you helped me with some links to our website (www.peacepalacelibrary.nl), you told me to go to WP:GLAM. I did but I don't hear anything from them, perhapd you can help me once more? I created a list on my UserPage with all the links from Wikipedia-pages to our Research Guides: Peace Palace Library - Research Guide list. Is there a way for me to place these links at the wikipedia pages they belong to? I also placed the email I wrote to GLAM on my talk page. Thanks for any help. Kind regards, Andoornborg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andoornborg (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll give them a nudge. I believe one or more of the coordinators are away at the moment. Acroterion (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk Page content

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.114.216 (talk • contribs)

I don't think so. However, I am adding the pages in question to my watchlist, and will block you if you restore your rant, which multiple editors have removed as a violation of WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. It would be wise to listen to what people are trying to tell you. Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Slavery

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slavery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

You deleted multiple new sections of the articles Slavery, Atlantic Slave Trade and Slavery in the United States on the related Talk Pages. You provided insufficient reason for your deletion actions. Therefor i had to report your actions. You should have requested a deletion before you commence it by yourself.WP:Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.114.216 (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion

Not fair...u deleted Flub Flub fish before i could tag it under G3. N when i taged it for g3 it showed up that its already deleted. U won the tagging race (though v never had 1)

This message was just to interract with u. Please dont mind n keep up the good work ! Yasht101 04:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack Grubman

It would appear a vandal is editing this page, and adding some amusing photos, just by the way. Could you take a disinterested look at the page and take whatever action might be required? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

hey u deleted my entry in the list of alternative hip hop artists page and i wanted 2 talk 2 u

my rap name is M.C. Lovin and I am trying my best to find my way in the world as a rapper I would like for you to talk to me about what your thought process was for deleting me and express any advice you have for me... unless u dont feel like doing it... i cant tell ya wat 2 do... contact me @ www.youtube.com/freelovindaemcee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.254.197 (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

By your own admission you're "little known." Wikipedia has notability requirements for musicians: see WP:MUSICIAN for the guidelines. If you can't assert notability, your article may be deleted. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote yourself: it records subjects that are already notable. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

that doesnt make any sense tho people dont just wake up one day and all of the sudden theyre notable u gotta start somewhere and its not very good business for wikipedia to make restrictions against the average joe the average joe becomes "notable" everyday look at justin bieber hopsin and people like that its flawed logic but irreguardless i thank you for your response and hope that if u can mentally put urself in my shoes u can understand my frustration so many places are like this and this is why new money is always a rarity and old money is not as much because this doesnt just happen on wikipedia it happens everywhere i hope if you like hip hop u at least checked out my stuff at www.youtube.com/freelovindaemcee - M.C. Lovin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.254.197 (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

p.s. i looked and i couldnt find the notability requirements could you show me where they are please www.youtube.com/freelovindaemcee - M.C. Lovin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.254.197 (talk) 13:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BAND for the notability guidelines. You should have charted, been played on rotation on a national scale, etc. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

i see what you mean like billboard and stuff well thank you for your time and fast response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.254.197 (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and good luck. Maybe we'll see an article for you one day.! Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Arglefargin

I recently added a page on the Arglefargin, which was then deleted, saying that it was vandalism. I do not understand what the vandalism was, unless it was supposed to be "inserting obvious nonsense into a page."

This is not "obvious nonsense" since it is a legend from Louisiana, where I am from. If this is considered vandalism, then you should remove the pages pertaining to bigfoot, unicorns, gargoyles, chupacabra, etc.

This is a well known legend from the Nachitoches Vally, but if you wish for more sources, you can look in the book Weird Louisiana by Roger Manley.

I just want to know why my page was deleted, since there was nothing in it which I would consider "vandalism".

Thanks,

JeanPaulLandry (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's never a good idea to write about a tall tale as if it was fact: while on reflection I wouldn't call it vandalism either, writing about a mythical or fictional subject as fact is not acceptable. I'd suggest writing a more neutrally-worded version in your userspace at User:JeanPaulLandry/sandbox, in which you clearly identify the subject as a local legend, and avoid statements like "There are a number of prominent families in the midstate who still count ancient arglefargins in their ancestry, though most of them would rather be exiled than publicly admit it," which are in no way credible. We have lots of articles on local legends, but they are always noted as such. Better sourcing would help: the Amazon reviews for the Manley book don't give a high opinion of its reliability as a source. I'll put the deleted content into the sandbox for you to work on. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. When you recently edited Robert Yellowtail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong coordinates in an article

In the article "National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Teton National Park", the coordinates mentioned for Hunter Hereford Ranch Historic District is incorrect. Could you fix that?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.96.80.2 (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The NPS database we use is known to be of variable quality, so I'm not surprised. The original nomination document should have coordinates that can be checked against Google Earth: I'll try to correct it. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The latitude was missing, for some reason. Thanks for spotting that. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

cadets of Iowa

dear Mr. Acroterion I'm a student and I previously posted an article about the cadets of Iowa. I am quite new to this, so I don't. care if you do not post this on wikipedia I just want the info back that i wrote on my account and i won't try to post that article again. I PROMISE!!!! ;) :) !) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnprcjr (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

How about I put it in your account's sandbox? Then you'll have the material back, and if you have reliable sources, you might be able to develop an article from it. Acroterion (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Fort C. F. Smith (Fort Smith, Montana), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Powder River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting my IP adress history

I'm not sure if this is the correct part but i'll ask anyways, today i edited the Littlehampton climate section but i didn't realise it would change it permantley( i though you have to have an account for it to save permantley) so then i changed back to what it should be but it has kept my edits and Ip adress in history, can you delete my edit history and IP adress as i don't want my Ip adress to be shown.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.68.32 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't change the article history in that way, unless you're an account-holder who was accidentally logged-out at the time. I wouldn't worry about it; we'll just consider them test edits. Yes, anybody can edit most things, including IPs. Feel free to sign up for an account. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

Just worked how to read your reports. Tried furiously to understand how to report this behaviour, being new to it.

I shall make note of your comments, and read a little more about what to do before I take on the heavy handed tactics of others who incite ill-feeling. Cheers

Nickeroo (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Nickeroo

The 3RR noticeboard is remarkably difficult to use, thanks to Wikipedia's archaic editing interface. I've protected the Stynes article for a month and will keep an eye on it, along with the George Negus article (which hasn't seen problems) and the article on Ben Roberts-Smith. Please feel free to ask questions here if you need help: I'm on US East Coast time. Acroterion (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Guidance

Hello Acroterion, there is a discussion occurring on Talk:Kitáb-i-Aqdas regarding a user adding his understanding of primary religious sources. His interpretation of the material go against the secondary source material on the topic. All of the sources on the page are from non-Baha'i reliable sources. However, he's going on with that his understanding should go in, even when there is no secondary source backing it up, and when it goes against the currently sourced material, coming from academic journals. However, that's not the real point. He also continues to use personal attacks, and doesn't assume good faith. I've been civil with him, and even after asking to stop he continues to attack. For example, he has stated:

"Says the Baha'i Lord of the Wiki Aqdas Information-Control Projec"

""damage control" spin doctoring statements"

"a coverup by Wilmette-Haifa Baha'i partisans"

and others.

In fact, I've been saying Baha'i sources cannot be used either [7] [8] What are your thoughts on this process. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Without first looking at the editor and the issue, religious topics are particularly prominent places where anything other than direct quotation from a religious text should be sourced to a secondary academic source, to prevent personal interpretations from creeping in, the quotes above being prime examples of the kind of partisan sniping that can result. I'll have a look at what's going on. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Can you keep on eye on the discussions, and include any feedback there to keep the discussion constructive, on both my part and his part. Having a third-party in the discussion can hopefully lead to some consensus making. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Double standard for Baha'is and their "Kitab-i-Aaqdas" page?

The following is a false report:

"a user adding his understanding of primary religious sources."

I have never entered any interpretation or "understanding" but simply cited facts about the Kitab-i-Aqdas. When I wrote that the text levies a fine, in gold, for adultery, that was written in the narrative style of other editors, and a fact. But activists deleted this fact. (It now has been allowed to remain.) Is that "adding my understanding?" No comments or analysis were made by me. It appears that he deletes both direct quotes from the text, plus correct narrative descriptions of the text -- if he does not want a fact revealed. He is free to post his secondary source explanations. My impression thus far is that the page has been functioning as a kind of "coverup" of the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

"where anything other than direct quotation from a religious text should be sourced to a secondary academic source,"

Mind you it's "direct quotations from [the] text that he has an issue with -- even from his favored translation. No matter how slight or minor the quotation. (I am glad you acknowledge it is normative on Wiki pages about religious texts for the text to be quoted.)

Wiki pages on the Buddhist Lotus Sutra, the Tao Te Ching, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Mundaka Upanishad -- are abundant with quotations from these scriptures. (Primary source.) How can a religious text receive exposition with no quotations of primary source material? It doesn't appear to be the norm on other Wiki pages that deal with religious texts.

As to being nice to the Baha'i activists here, I'll try. But I don't think Baha'is should have a double standard or be able to cover up their texts on Wikipedia pages about those texts.

SUMMARY:

I've not been interpreting or commenting. But simply giving information about the contents of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and some of its most interesting contents by the way. It was remarkable how much was MISSING from that page on the subject of the Kitab-i-Aqdas before I got there. --Mentious (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If the viewpoint you're trying to advance has credence among religious scholars, you should have no trouble obtaining appropriate secondary sourcing from scholarly sources. As you know, primary religious texts can have varying interpretations and translations: some may be universally agreed upon, many others are not. You also appear to be trying to make a point: claiming a "cover-up" is not a good way to gain consensus or to persuade me that you're acting in good faith. I'd be concerned about the neutrality or interest in constructive engagement of anyone who titles a section about a religion as you have done above. Acroterion (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I'm trying to get people who are willing to help me out with a pet project I've begun but realised that it will be extremely hard for me to even make a small dent in. First of all, I got your name from the list of active members on the wikiproject for mining articles. Please disregard this, if you're not interested.

So, here's what I'm trying to do and what you could do to help me. I noticed that there were very few articles that list mines. I've tried (to the best of my abilities) to create a sub-page that lists all of the probable articles for lists of mines that I could think of, you can review this here.

Basically, I need help. Suggestions on different lists to add, I need lists created, if the lede I've been using should be changed, I'd like community consensus on the standard layout (I've been going with listing articles like List of gold mines by country and List of mines in the United States by output. If someone would like to make templates for these articles.

Please, don't feel obligated. I came to you, and others like you because of your implied interest in mining articles. List articles are not exactly in everyone's taste. If you are completely uninterested, but think you might know someone who might be, please let them know about it. I could use all the help I can get.

Oh, and if you happen to create any new articles on mines, please add them to any of my recently created lists. Sorry for this being so wordy, have a good day and happy editing! Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Coal camps in Raleigh County, West Virginia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Price Hill, West Virginia, Sullivan, West Virginia and McAlpin, West Virginia

Coal camps in McDowell County, West Virginia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Excelsior, West Virginia and Bradshaw, West Virginia

Coal camps in Fayette County, West Virginia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kimberly, West Virginia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Voice UK.

As your an adminisrator, could you do a history merge from User:MayhemMario/sandbox:The Voice UK to the main article, The Voice UK. Many thanks, MayhemMario 17:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia

I reverted a troll comment at Talk:Pedophilia (that editor was soon indeffed). I noticed that you "changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Pedophilia: content hidden (RD3: Purely disruptive material)" (thanks).

A few hours later, a misguided editor undid my revert quoting WP:TPO (lol!). I'm curious how that was technically possible—how can a revision deleted change be visible in the history, and restored to the article? I note that if I click "undo" next to my edit in the talk page history, I can see the troll post in the resulting page.

While I'm curious about this, it's not a big deal to me and if that's how it works, fine. However, I thought I should mention it in case it is a bug that should be raised elsewhere. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, sounds like a bug to me. And yikes again, that Robo37 thinks his action was justifiable. I was able to reproduce your preview myself, until I redacted the reversion, etc. Perhaps the revdel was interrupted before it dealt with the other diffs? Strange. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Found the problem: I normally revdel the Sinebot, but was in a hurry and didn't pick it up too. User error. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that raises more questions which I'll add to my mysteries box (if a revision is suppressed, why would failing to suppress the Sinebot edit allow the suppressed revision to be seen by an undo? I see that the Sinebot revision would include the bad text, but that wasn't what was displayed). Don't worry about it (no reply needed). If I get really curious, I'll raise it at WP:VPT, but I have lots of other RL stuff to ponder. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall whether my reproduction of the problem showed the Sinebot sig too. Perhaps I'll do some experimentation with something non-libelous and see if I can reproduce it. Like you, I've got other fish to fry, though. I already brought it up at VP/T. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Baltimore Nationla Heritage Area

Thank you for working on the Baltimore National Heritage Area site. I have been meaning to work on it for a while, but I am waiting for some internal planning documents to become public (hopefully this summer). Do you have a specific interest in the heritage area? Happy to provide any resources if you wanted to do more work on the page.

Thanks - Jason (jvaughan@baltimoreheritagearea.org) Maestro21113 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I've been adding information of National Heritage Areas in general, since there's not much coverage on Wikipedia. The problem is that they're poorly defined, more like marketing associations rather than a traditional parks, and I've been feeling my way along. Given the broad range of scopes, from individual sites to the entire state of Tennessee, it's hard to be very consistent. It's also possible to get very bogged down in the details in this sort of thing. Any expansion or enhancement you may wish to contribute would be greatly appreciated.

As for Baltimore,specifically, I live nearby and have provided a lot of photographs around Baltimore, most particularly of local architecture. Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuttalburg WV

Thanks for updating the Nuttalburg WV page. It is indeed a ghost town. I have done nothing but rearch coal towns in WV for about 10 years and hope to add MANY more town names.......ANY suggestions or help would be GREATLY appreciated.Coal town guy (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Coal camps in Raleigh County, West Virginia. town of Sophia

LOVE the article, however, I have a few questions. Sophia was never a coal town, did you want to create a sub category of towns that were in a coalfield, but were not a coal town? Also, I have a few towns I could add and many to link, may I do so? Coal town guy (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Answering both above: I've added articles on National Register of Historic Places districts like Nuttallburg, Kay Moor and Thurmond. More recently, I've been doing some work with the National Coal Heritage Area: they were the source for the coal camps, as can be seen on the reference, but as with everything else, more verification is often needed, so Sophia might not be appropriately included. You may certainly add towns: ghost towns are poorly covered, as are unincorporated communities. I was looking at a way to consolidate the Nuttallburg Historic District into your article, since the place name should have precedence over the district. I'll do that when I get a chance. Links are great too. Let me know if you need help. You might also want to look in at the ghost towns wikiproject. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

92.15.130.189 block

Hi Acroterion, just wondering why you've blocked this IP, and why for "Long term abuse". I can't see evidence of this (or is this a sock?). --Simon the Likable (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the latest incarnation of an IP who's been trying to blow the lid off the Kennedy Assassination for the last 18 months or so via a series of IPs from that range (Carphone Warehouse in the UK). They change IPs every week or so, and I dutifully block them. They've been disruptive in the past, posting a great deal of soapboxing and wasting editors' time, despite a long series of cautions and warnings by myself and others. The range is too big to block without collateral damage. Acroterion (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)