This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Lug sills and basement entrances
What is a lug sill — some sort of windowsill, or something else? My source talks about windows that are equipped with lintels and lug sills. Additionally, is there a specific term for an in-ground basement entrance that can be accessed from outside the house? I'm thinking something along the lines of the basement entrance for the farmhouse in the Wizard of Oz movie; for an image of what I mean, look just above the words "There are a couple of companies" at this page. As always, talkback please. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with the term "lug sill." I looked in an old Architectural Graphic Standards and came up with nothing. However, according to Google, it's a unitary stone or masonry sill that extends beyond the jambs of the window opening [1], [2]. The "lug" is the part of the sill embedded in the wall beyond the jambs.
I know of no concise term for basement access steps covered by sloping doors, although the doors themselves are often called "Bilco doors" when metal, after a prominent door manufacturer. "Cellar doors" might be the closest match, applicable to storm cellars (a la Dorothy), root cellars or basements. "Areaway doors" seems to have some traction too. Acroterion(talk) 00:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you (although belatedly) for the help. I was asking for help while writing an article offline; it's finally in mainspace at Immaculate Conception Catholic Church (Celina, Ohio). Curious about your opinion — do you think it's worth trying for GA? I may well be overestimating my abilities with this article; it's simply that I've never before written such a long and comprehensive article by myself. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not disruptive editing, I am fixing broken links that already exist by linking them with the page that I had created. If you read the articles that I have changed, you will see that this is the case and I am enhancing these existing articles.
And when I read the article you created to link to (which I deleted as advertising), I note that you've included a helpful price list for drinks. Please stop spamming the business on Wikipedia. Acroterion(talk) 19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So if I remove the price list then this is fine? Many other bars and nightclubs in southampton have wikipedia articles about them!
No. You'll note that I deleted the article as both spam and non-notable. Please refer to WP:CORP for notability. Price lists just make your intentions blindingly obvious. Acroterion(talk) 19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not spam, how do many other bars and nightclubs have articles about them? I'm compiling a list of source to prove notability Andrewsaund (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You pretty much discredited yourself with that deleted article. However, for the sake of policy, please note that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument gets no traction: notability is demonstrated by multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in major media, preferably of national standing. See WP:NOTE and WP:CORP. Acroterion(talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have not discredited myself in any way by writing the article you deleted. I wrote a factually correct article about a business in Southampton that has an international reputation as shown in the recent TMS commentary on the BBC Ashes coverage. For your information it is not my business, I have only been a customer there on a few occasions. Andrewsaund (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Link, please? A mention of a wine bar in an article about the Ashes is not exactly non-trivial coverage. Acroterion(talk) 19:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
A live blog about the Ashes isn't even a useful source about the Ashes, much less a peripherally-mentioned wine bar in Southampton, on the other side of the world from Adelaide. Please read WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Acroterion(talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
yes it is! a blog from the publicly funded impartial BBC? how is that not a useful source about the ashes? paid professional broadcasters are commenting on the happenings in play! Andrewsaund (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a casual web forum run by the BBC. Forums, blogs and the like aren't reliable sources outside of narrow guidelines, usually having to do with the notoriety or controversial nature of a specific, highly publicized entry. Not everything on the BBC or any other news source is authoritative, and if this is the best that can be done, it's safe to say that the wine bar is conclusively non-notable. When The Times, The Guardian, or the BBC write multiple articles on the wine bar, largely dedicated to the subject and examining it in detail, then it's notable - not because of a trivial mention in a casual forum devoted to another subject entirely. For the third time, please read WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:CORP. The subject fails all three. Acroterion(talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This user seems to be on a spree of adding something about the MEK group to a bundle article about US politicos. Not really vandalism, but worthy of someone's attention. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added sources, so what the problem?NPz1 (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Your sources do not support the declaration, and your tone is clearly meant to disparage. You should discuss these edits before including them - see WP:BRD for the appropriate mechanism; however, talk page entries are subject to policy as well, and your "supporter" tags are not aceptable. Acroterion(talk) 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying to change one word in the header of Climate change denial. A sentence states an opinion on the nature of climate change as the one and only scientific understanding of the issue's nature. I've tried to change the article to reflect that the general idea of a permanently warming earth due to human interference is merely the opinion of a great majority. However, several users have challenged my edit and the conversation at Talk:Climate change denial has degraded into a discussion of whether my usage of the word "theorem" is the same as is used within the scientific community. This discussion has nothing to do with topic I presented. And now they are accusing me of being out of line by not showing them a list of sources stating that my usage of the word 'theorem' is scientifically correct. I can't deal with this by myself. Can you please moderate? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've read through the discussion and don't see much of a reason to insert "majority," nor do I see much reason to moderate. I'd say consensus is running against your terminology, both in terms of "majority" and "theorem" (which I agree you are using (unintentionally) out of context. The onus is in fact on you to justify your wording. "Consensus" as it's used in the article already implies a majority, as opposed to unanimity. I see "majority consensus" or some similar construction as redundant. It's clear that your proposal is in good faith, and that other editors are being tough on you, but it's a tough corner of Wikipedia and you're not being treated especially harshly considering the topic, nor is your proposal being taken in bad faith. Acroterion(talk) 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
A search for 'theorem' shows it in 27 online dictionaries with the definition I provided. See: One Look Dictionary directory search for 'theorem'. You make a good point about majority and consensus (if only the other editors had pointed that out); my reasons for the edit arose because the actual articles considers multiple opinions, not just the one stated at Climate Change Denial. The majority point of view is stated in Climate Change Denial's header, but the link to the Scientific Consensus article at that point gives undue weight to what is said afterward: that Global Warming (assumed to be the theory that an irreversible trend of global atmospheric warming is occurring, and will not change without human intervention) is occurring and is caused by human interference. If anything needs to be changed, it seems more like the wording after the link to Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll have another look at it when I get a few minutes - must head out right now. Acroterion(talk) 22:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, note that the issue on theorem has little or no relationship to the topic, that their bringing up my usage of it might be a straw man to make my argument for neutrality in the header seem weaker. Also, their argument against my usage of the word was simply that they weren't familiar with it, but all of them are only familiar with its usage in mathematics. The article on theorem says that the word is used in physics and engineering. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the theorem business appears to be a tangent, which you can deal with by getting back to the point: what would you like for it to say, remembering the business above about the redundant nature of "majority consensus?" Acroterion(talk) 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I restated my argument in that discussion. Basically I'd like a change that does not imply that global warming and climate change are the same exact thing (considering that throws a wrench into falsifiability; outside media usage "global warming" is a theory estimating the effects of climate change). I'd also like to see hard statistics that prove some of the claims made: particularly that it is scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human intervention, and that global warming (a theory on the long term effects of climate change) is occurring. The article linked, I just figured out, is called scientific opinion on climate change, not "consensus". Even within that article, and the section "Scientific consensus", the idea of global warming seems to lack prominence within those statements. It seems like it would be better to use a quote from that article, or paraphrase one. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Further review of the discussion leads me question their intention using the word "consensus". They openly state that they decided on using the word "instead of the real name of the article". The actual "scientific consensus" section discusses whether a consensus exists, it does not openly claim that there is already consensus. I felt dishonest making my last edit, which claims that scientific consensus is one of the opinions on consensus stated in that section. There is no reason to use the word consensus, other than the fact that several of the editors say they prefer it. Perhaps a "citation needed" tag will eventually clear the air. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it; it's sounding a bit circular. Acroterion(talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
It sounds pretty straightforward to me. Global warming and climate change aren't the same thing. Global warming is a theory concerning climate change. Making a claim that says global warming's existence is scientific consensus, when your link only talks about climate change - that's misleading. It says right on the front page of global warming that the term refers to the projected continuation of warming. What's more, I'm treated as a probate for trying to make neutrality edits. They, by volume, have locked me out from making edits to the header. Do you think its right to claim an article is called "scientific consensus on climate change" when it is really called "scientific opinion on global warming"? They are making a value judgment under the banner of "simplification". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I found sources for what I thought was a problem in the sentence. There are several links at global warming for "scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring". However, that link to "scientific consensus on climate change" needs to be rerouted to the actual sub-section, or the sentence needs to be reworded. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There's too much confusion between the often interchangeable
Astrology & Biochemistry
Dear Sir,
There have been some serious attempts to link astrology with biochemistry please see the link below and advise if you find it interesting
Just because somebody's published something doesn't make it a serious subject. The article reads as pure speculation and is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Acroterion(talk) 12:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your proposition for deletion of the article 'astrobionomy'
Please reconsider your proposition to delete the article Astrobionomy in the wikipedia.
This certainly is an assumption.
As all scientific research are based on assumptions. My proposal to name a particular stream of science for studying biochemical basis for astrological preditions about human psychology must be considered seriously. After all some psychological traits are being attributed to peopole being born in a particular sun sign period. And modern astrologers base their predictions on astronomical processes. So astronomical processes must be affecting those subjects biochmically! Because psychology has some biochemical basis e.g. some genes are being attributed to some psychological traits.
I would be glad to recieve your answer on my email: amitranjanamit@yahoo.com
As you've been advised on your talk page, this appears to be your own personal original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Acroterion(talk) 17:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Citing Sources
Hello. Would you be so kind as to redirect me to information explaining how to cite a nonfiction book? Thank you. BakuninGoldmanKropotkin (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The long version, if you have time to read all of it, can be found at WP:CITE. The easier way is to to go to the "My preferences" tab at the top of the screen, "Gadgets," "Editing gadgets" and click the refTools box, which will give a "Templates" drop-down box in the upper left part of the edit window, which can serve fill-in-the-box templates for web, news, journal and book cites. You might have to reload your browser for it to start working. Acroterion(talk) 23:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. --Nlu (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
What was the purpose of deleting the "Aprilis" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprilisband (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There was no indication that the subject met the notability guidelines at [{WP:BAND]], so the article was deleted. About 30-40 bands a day are deleted for that reason, as the bar is fairly high for musical acts. Acroterion(talk) 02:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Need Some Help
74.248.186.243 (talk·contribs) is mass reverting unsourced WP:OR on WKJS and WCDX and adding one source for massive paragraphs. After explaining WP:RS, the user is at 3RR on WKJS and close to it on WCDX. Could you explain sourcing to him/her or something? I feel I am dealing with someone who isn't here to be constructive. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Now warned for 3RR on WCDX. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So I see. Remember that reverting unsourced material is not exempted from 3RR, so you don't get a pass yourself. They appear to be trying to work with you by adding sources, even if they're not quite up to par, so I'm not prepared to jump on them. I'll leave a note. Acroterion(talk) 02:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Notes are fine, cause, as you know, my skills of talking to folks aren't at par. I know I am at 3RR too, so I am stuck, but the reason I removed them is it was unsourced OR. I am trying to bring Virginia radio articles up to par and then update them slowly with Dravecky's help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Let it be for now - the IP was trying to accommodate the sourcing request, and although hopping to another IP wasn't a good idea, they'e been educated about that and about 3RR. The world won't end if semi-sourced material persists for a couple of days. Acroterion(talk) 02:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I am, it is all getting restored on multiple pages. The anon is now at 98.83.50.176 (talk·contribs). Try to fix something and it falls to shit. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Strange, but they haven't done anything bad with the new address. Acroterion(talk) 03:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
True, but all three come back as BellSouth from Birmingham, AL. IP hopping at it's best. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Jefferson County Educational Service Center Virtual Learning Academy
I was trying to add to the Learning Service section of the eLearning article. I was planning on starting a page and adding additonal information as to when the online curriculum started and the accreditation information. I did not know if a list of courses was necessary or if the link included would be a better choice as to the courses offered. This VLA is an option for school districts and students can only enroll through a district superintendent or a district disignee.
Please let me know how I can continue to add this to the eLearning article and what errors I am making.
Sn gloria (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
In general, organizations and websites must satisfy the notability guidelines for inclusion, and there was no indication that this organization or site did so. A list of courses would not make much difference - non-trivial coverage in major independent publications of national standing would. Please take a look at WP:NOTE for the general notability guidelines, WP:ORG for specific material on organizations, and WP:WEB for websites. Acroterion(talk) 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Bmarz
Hello,
Can you please not delete the Bmarz page? He is a very importnant music producer from Washington DC. Thank you. DMVbroker (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no indication that that is so. Please review WP:BIO and WP:BAND for notability guidelines for individuals and for musical acts. Also, I have removed promotional and poorly referenced parts of Greg Calloway. While I agree that he is notable, much of the article was promotional in character and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.Acroterion(talk) 01:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Bmarz
Bmarz is an important music producer who has worked with several artists. I do not understand why you're deleting? DMVbroker (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the links above? Please understand that notability is not inherited, and that one does not qualify as notable for associating with notable figures. In general, to meet notability guidelines, a person or organization should have non-trivial coverage in multiple major media outlets known for fact-checking. Acroterion(talk) 02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI — just after you deleted this, it got reposted with textual content and a properly-formatted image; I speedied it under db-band. The author has no live contributions and no deleted contributions other than to this page. Don't know if you care or not, but I thought it couldn't hurt to tell you. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been a lot of promotional non-notable band articles this weekend - I suppose everybody's resolved to increase their media exposure and get involved in social networking, and this seems like a good place for it. Acroterion(talk) 02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thibodeau Architecture + Design
I would like to create a page dedicated to my Family (Thibodeau) Architectural Activities but first it seems I must contact you regarding prior deletion... Here is the line: 15:52, 10 January 2011 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Thibodeau Architecture + Design" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRTAD (talk • contribs)
You appear to have a conflict of interest in this matter, as noted on your userpage. Please review WP:COI for guidance in this situation, and please understand that businesses and organizations must assert and substantiate notability through reference to non-trivial coverage in third party media of more than local standing, with a reputation for fact-checking. See WP:NOTE and WP:CORP. The content posted was straight off your website, and is advertising, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. It's fine on your website, but not here, and is in any event not compatible with Wikipedia's free-content copyright license. In general, the article was deletable on three grounds: advertising, copyright violation, and no assertion of notability. A note: I'm an architect, and my business is not listed on Wikipedia because it doesn't meet the notability standard. If your firm has been covered in AR, Architect, or a major newspaper, that would be grounds for inclusion when written as a neutral, encyclopedic, non-promotional article, preferably by someone with no interest at all in the firm. Acroterion(talk) 16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I also note that your username is against policy: Wikipedia doesn't permit usernames that represent a company, so JRTAD isn't acceptable. You'll need to come up with a username that reflects only you. I realize that sounds picky, but it's frequently necessary,a nd it helps us to identify spammers. One further note: I encourage you (after you register an new account with a username that doesn't represent a company) to improve articles on architecture that are unrelated to your organization. That's the best evidence of good faith and dedication to improving the encyclopedia, as opposed to promotion of one's personal interest. The subject of architecture on Wikipedia needs attention from knowledgeable contributors with good reference materials: you can help. Acroterion(talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Analyzer99
Hi Acroterion. User:Analyzer99 just reverted again despite you warning him not to. He also completely removed [3] all the refs I just added [4] pointing out that mainly Pan-Africanists include New World populations with distant ancestry from Africa (such as African Americans) as actual "Africans". Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You made it up to 4 reverts, I think. Not a good idea. Acroterion(talk) 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this? For some reason, there is a problem creeping up between endnotes #66 and #67. I cannot figure out what the problem is, much less how to solve it. All I know is, the numbers are being thrown off, leading to further problems in other parts of the page, as examples and references have been removed as seemingly irrelevant. Do you have any idea what is going on here? Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to look for: I don't see a discontinuity in numbering, and the Flashman reference is in the right place, as is the Wuthering Heights ref. I'm using Firefox 4.0b8, for what it's worth. Acroterion(talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, whoops. De Niro doesn't have much to do with C.S. Lewis. Hmm. Acroterion(talk) 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't figure it out either. I'd bet that it has something to do with being the last reference in the table, or that there's a malformed version of that ref somewhere else - but that usually results in a big red error message. Acroterion(talk) 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I know, nothing makes sense. There are none of the usual tell-tale signs of a malformed ref. But, clearly, something is malformed somewhere. Is there a bot that might be able to sort it out? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd try asking at VPT - there's usually somebody with a clue watching there. Acroterion(talk) 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Acroterion, I noticed that you just imported a number of articles from it.wiki for translation. On a general note I was wondering if there is a policy that would speak against first storing such articles in the user namespace or somewhere on a project sub-page outside the article namespace until they are fully translated. WP:PNT has a rule that articles that aren't translated within two weeks will be proposed for deletion or stubbed back to an English-only version. From my experience as a translator on the German wiki I find it much more convenient to store and translate pages before moving them into the article namespace, especially when a bunch of related pages is imported simultaneously (your cabinet articles or e.g. the various chateaux list we recently got from fr.wiki). Regards, De728631 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I imported them at the request of Dr. Blofeld (talk·contribs), who undertook to translate them, or to get someone else to do so. In general, I'd say two weeks is a reasonable time frame for translation in article space. If they aren't yet translated, they should be stubbed down or deleted until somebody finds the time to translate. I'll see where they stand - I wasn't following their progress. Acroterion(talk) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but for future reference you might just want to put such pages into a sub-page of the requesting user so they can move it themselves when finished without a limiting timeframe. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
They can go into his userspace if necessary. Acroterion(talk) 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I thought I'd sorted out the translation..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for being quick on the draw
Thanks for blocking the editor who decided to user Talk:2011 Tucson shooting as a playground. I saw his username on the edit watchlist and immediately sent him a {{uw-username}}, and while I was putting together the warning for the edit you triggered the block. Cheers, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Obviously disruptive editor is obvious. Sometimes it's good to have the block button right at hand, keep up the good work. Acroterion(talk) 02:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Fort du Scex
On 13 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort du Scex, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Swiss Fort du Scex and the Fort de Cindey are connected by a natural cave, the Grotte aux Fées? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Please let me know if the link I have added satisfies your concern. Savidan 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal MEK
Hey!
I just wondering why you deleted my add to Tancredo, I have made the text neutral and provided sources, you should use the discussion page before you delete things on a arbitrary basis.NPz1 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
It was not neutral, as I've explained to you before, and it is a very bad practice to log out for such edits. While you've made progress from the last edits, you are still stretching the sources to state "support:" a neutral statement would be more along the lines of "has advocated the removal of the organization from the United States' list of terrotist organizations," and not add your analysis about "supporting foreign terrorist organizations," which you've rephrased to add an inappropriate emphasis. You need to scrupulously work within the confines of what the sources say. Acroterion(talk) 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
First off I didnt know I didnt was logged off so please dont criticise me for that.
Second "it was not neutral", well like I told you, I have edited and changed the text, I have added sources and even quotes from Tancredo and his press secretary which backs up my claims.
He have showed support, obviously. If you read the sources hes not anti-MEK, rather he is a stauch supporter. But if this is about semantics, which word would be a better term to describe his...support for this group?NPz1 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand about the logged off part - I keep losing sessions too. I think you're on the right track, and you're pretty close to what the sources are saying, but I think you should avoid taking his support for the delisting of MEK and implying that that constitutes support for the group. His press secretary's statement isn't quite what you've stated it to be, and it's not as useful as Tancredo's own words would be. I think you can make the point without going into as much detail as you have. Brevity is important, because if it becomes too large a part of the article it can stray into undue emphasis, since this is one of the lesser of Tancredo's controversial positions, in the context of reported sources and U.S. politics. Acroterion(talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I reckon you are an admin, and I respect your authority and knowledge on Wikipedia, but please let me know if there is anything more that needs be edited. I understand that the term "support" should be ruled off so I need to find another plausible term, also the press secretary's words should be removed. If I make these 2 edits would it be OK?NPz1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Bear in mind that administrators are just ordinary editors, albeit with fairly extensive knowledge and experience in WP policy, and I'm acting as an ordinary editor in this matter, not as an admin. You've mostly satisfied my concerns about the biographies of living persons policy. However, your sources are a problem. The Village Voice article says nothing at all about Tancredo, attribting the "I don't give a shit" quote to Gary Ackerman. I'd be careful about RightWeb/Institute for Policy Studies, since they are not an entirely neutral source (although I don't see a major issue in this case), and the Al Jazeerah source is clearly an opinion piece, not a news article. You need to find sources in news articles in preference to opinion pieces or advocacy articles. So no, it's not acceptable with those changes, particularly if you're confusing Tom Tancredo with Robert Torricelli or Gary Ackerman. Acroterion(talk) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh sorry on that Ackerman, I appreciate your critique, I will try to find some other sources and change it in the coming of days, should I post it directly in the Tancredo article, or should I consult with you before I make any more edits regarding this?NPz1 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I will do, thanks!NPz1 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Windells Camp page
I tried posting an article for history and information on Tim Windell and Windells Camp and it keeps getting flagged as promotion. I have rewritten the article 3 times to meet the qualifications and I still don't understand what more to do. The page provides history and general facts. It makes no bias about the camp being the best or slandering other companies in the same field. Woodward Camp, a competing organization, has a very similar Wikipedia page. So if there page does not qualify as spam I am very confused as to why this article would. Please help me to understand how to post this article properly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsha16 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I replied on your talkpage, but I am concerned that you seem to think that what you posted is anything but an advertisement. It was a very blatant ad, with numerous items like "If you want to be the best, learn from the best at Windells." I can't seriously imagine that you think that's not promotional? Acroterion(talk) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just asking for help. I don't appreciate the tone of your comments. The camp has been around for 22 years and I would like the history of the camp to be noted. Tim Windell is one of the first athletes in the competitive snowboarding circuit and is a widely recognized name in the industry. Again, why is Woodward Camp's page different? If I can make edits and changes I would like to do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsha16 (talk • contribs)
I will be happy to help you if you recognize that promotion is unacceptable here, and that you may have a conflict of interest if you work for, or on behalf of the organization. Thank you for the tip on Woodward Camp - I agree that it's unacceptably promotional and I'm in the process of paring it back to something sort of encyclopedic. I suggest you re-read your text and consider what you would expect to see in an encyclopedia, versus what you wrote. If it would look strange in Encyclopedia Britannica, it's nto acceptable here either. Acroterion(talk) 20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Would basic info on the camp would be acceptable? Just a small paragraph about location and services provided, etc. Do you suggest making a separate page for Tim Windell instead of grouping the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsha16 (talk • contribs)
I've left some links for you on notability, which you need to be sure that you can satisfy before you do separate articles. I'm reasonably sure the the camp meets notability standards, and Mr. Windell might be notable - check to see if he meets WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. If so, a separate article would be a good idea. It would be best to start out small and keep it to just-the-facts-maam, preferably with references to major third-party media with a reputation for fact checking. Acroterion(talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi there. I had a few questions about pictures that I had added to the article. I am having a hard time uploading the images in the correct category to the commons. What do you suggest I file them under so they have the correct copyright labels. Thanks!--Marsha16 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On 16 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort de Dailly, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in a 1946 incident, three ammunition magazines exploded at the Swiss Fort de Dailly? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 18 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort de Chillon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Swiss Fort de Chillon is being converted into a wine cellar? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi there, I am trying to create an unbiased page for the application Velocity IDE. Can you take my revisions into mind and help me create an unbiased encyclopedic page. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslinton (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You will want to review WP:NOTE and determine if the product has received significant coverage in the press to satisfy the notability guidelines. Also, you should review the conflict of interest guidelines, since you seem to be acting on behalf of the developers. Finally, you must avoid all promotional language or content: you should be trying to produce an encyclopedia article, not any kind of promotion. Acroterion(talk) 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Christopher McDonald (debate coach)
I understand that as a resident of West Virginia you may not understand the value that many of us in intelligent states place in academic activities such as speech and debate, but that by no means is a reason for deletion of this article. He is the chair of the largest National Forensic League district in Minnesota, and he is arguably the most successful coach in the state. I would appreciate it if you could respect the legitimacy of the great state of Minnesota and un-delete this article.
p.s. I highly doubt that you actually read the article in the time it took you to delete it.
No doubt we'uns in West Virginia must defer to you'uns. Nevertheless, please read WP:BIO and WP:NOTE for an edifying discussion of who is and is not notable on WIkipedia. While you're at it, please read WP:RS for sourcing requirements. I read the whole article from beginning to end, so a Minnesotan should have no problem reading and understanding the links I've given you. Acroterion(talk) 21:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I apologize. I missed the "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This will be fixed in v2 as his numerous qualifications will be acknowledged. --Bsthomas93 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
While you're at it, please read WP:BLP for policy on writing and sourcing bios, and WP:COATRACK, since your article seemed to veer into that territory at the end. Acroterion(talk) 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It should have indicated notability - it was a copy and paste of Lil Wayne which I was about to put in a db-reason when I found you'd deleted it first... :) Peridon (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It was a rather short, selective cut-and-paste, managing to not indicate notability - something of an accomplishment. Acroterion(talk) 19:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy?
Do you think Kefalonian Olive oil qualifies for speedy? Or do we have to go through AFD (which I would support, but don't have the patience to start)? --Macrakis (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought about it and couldn't justify a speedy tag. I don't think olive oil from that particular island qualifies as sufficiently distinctive to need its own article, so, I'd start with a PROD. Acroterion(talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
But, Why?
Excuse me I would like to know why my article "The Jerky and Tuba Corporation" was deleted. Also, your reason was for Vandalism. I believe I did not vandalize Wikipedia nor hurt Wikipedia in any form. I even included that this was indeed a new business and wanted to give a brief history of it. I am probably one of those who still support this site and if you do not find a legitimate reason for deletion of this article I will discontinue my patronage for this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerkyJohnny (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Any more trolling, and you'll be blocked. Acroterion(talk) 03:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you meant
I think you meant to say hit me "on" the butt rather than "in" the butt on the way out. Hit me "in" the butt just sounds ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerkyJohnny (talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyway Mr. Acroterion, I am serious about why my article has been repeatedly "Speedily Deleted". I don't understand. What have I done wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerkyJohnny (talk • contribs) 04:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't be dense: Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for silliness, which is precisely what your deleted fictional accounts are. Shall I block you as a trolling-only account? You're wasting everybody's time, including yours. If you plan on contributing constructively to the encyclopedia, you have one chance left. Acroterion(talk) 12:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Plantagent
Yes but England was ruled by the Plantagenet Dynasty. Waterloo was a Coalition Victory and as stated it was a Dynastic Dispute between the Valois and Plantagenets, two French dynasties. No offense intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbeau87 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
None taken, but you've been removing references and images in the process, and you need to seek consensus for that kind of change. Remember that much of the readership has no idea what a Plantagenet is, and the plain fact is that they were an English army, of whatever house, at least insofar as anyone of the time was a given nationality . There is plenty of room in the article for a succinct account of the dynastic succession issues, but the infobox is not a place for subtlety, and you should discuss first, not blind revert, as you've done. Use the talkpages of the articles, they're there for a reason. Provide a reasonable rationale, and wait for a response. You're effectively edit-warring: I understand that you're new to Wikipedia, but you must stop and seek consensus. Acroterion(talk) 03:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The article in question is User:Process Plus/Process Plus. WuhWuzDat 18:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
PLease let me have a copy of this wiki page. I have been working on it for weeks. I am unfamliar with the format issues because it is my first page. I did not know you would delete an unpublished page. It took me forever just to find this messqge prompt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Process Plus (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Page Deletion
i am sorry but this format of communication is not helpful. What is a watch list, how do I talk to someone about my page information, is there anyway to get back, and does someone reply as fast as you deleted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Process Plus (talk • contribs) 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah but in the Hundred Years War the Plantagenet kings actually commanded/took part in battles not to mention the famous "English Barons" who were actually Frenchmen by ancestry. Another question I have too is why is called the "Norman Conquest" when it was a coalition of Armies from Northern/Western France that took part in the Conquest of England? Especially when Guillaume Le Conquerant was a Vassal/Lord of France, and Normandy was still a Fief of France? Especially when Law French was official in England for over 6 centuries which was based on dialects of Normandy and Ile de France. I'm part Norman, yes we have scandinavian influence but without all the Norse influence were very much like the Franciens and a Gaulish people. It was actually the French Conquest of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbeau87 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anybody's saying it wasn't messy - for a long time England was ruled by French people, and at a later time by Germans. Wikipedia goes by consensus of reliable sources, so if most sources say it was the Norman Conquest, that's what we call it. Same for the broad antagonists in the Hundred Years' War. You are welcome to clarify who was who and what nationality/allegiance they held, provided you approach it from the direction of the talk page and offer references and sources. Acroterion(talk) 05:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Clear: the consiltancy that helps businesses and brands grow
Acroterion, My Apologies, my computer crashed whilst i was writing this edit, i had not finished editing however it seemed to publish anyway. I have a new version that i hope to be more encyclopedic and does not contain links to our website, and breach G11. How do I add this? Can i just add to the page as is before it gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesahirst (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The article had two problems: it was remarkably pure advertising, which is looked upon with great disfavor in an encyclopedia (as indicated by the wholly inappropriate title), and it made no indication at all that the organization was notable by reference to independent third-party references. Please review WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:V, and probably WP:COI for the relevant policies, and please re-read WP:SPAM. You may work on a draft in your userspace at User:Jamesahirst/sandbox. Acroterion(talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Game
Why did you delete The Game Insurance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrs3000 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Because it clearly does not exist. Wikipedia is for factual content, not things you've just made up. Acroterion(talk) 22:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well how can you say it doesn't exsist? Its a purely Intangible thing like "The Game" its just a exception to the rule. — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by Jrs3000 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you would delete the page its a totally relevant idea, its more or less assurance not insurance and i still don't under stand how it violates any of the terms of service. Section G3 states "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes..." which doesn't mean you can't present a topic or idea to improve wikipedia. I think that The Game Insurance would more or less fall under the exception to vandalism Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Your idea is not eligible for inclusion because it's something clearly does not exist, that you've made up. It is effectively vandalism, a clear hoax (which is considered vandalism), and entirely unsourced and unverifiable. You did read WP:V and WP:RS, which are core policies, did you not? "terms of service" are another matter entirely: Wikipedia doesn't accept any and all content. While you're reading policies, please read WP:NOT, and WP:OR. Acroterion(talk) 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
well there is no definative reference so your correct in that but is it possible for me to view the page still so i can move it into word or something becuase i'll just not post that until i can figure out how to get a reference.. i just want to have a template for when i get a reference.Jrs3000 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Jrs3000
I can place it in your userspace temporarily, but it will be deleted eventually if no source is presented. It'll be in User:Jrs3000/sandbox. The burden of proof is on the contributor: AGF doesn't trump the need to present supporting references. Acroterion(talk) 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of Shield Security Systems
Hello,
I am curious to why the Shield Security Systems page has been deleted. This page was by no means created as an advertising plug. Before writing this page I consulted the ADT Page which is obviously a competitor of shields so I knew how to format this article so it would not be percieved as an advertising plug, as it is clear that the ADT page is accepted by wikipedia. The ADT page in fact looks more like an advertising plug than what I wrote about Shield. I am wondering what steps should be taken to get this article back on wikipedia.
CY 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)CYCY 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Yaeger (talk • contribs)
The ADT Security Services article is a fairly straightforward, non-promotional encyclopedia article about a clearly notable company, which even includes a fair amount of criticism. The Shield Security article made no indication of notability - a speedy deletion criterion on its own (see WP:CORP), and contained phrases like "It's this experience and their commitment to customer service that makes SHIELD Security Systems Different," which is hardly language you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia article. Articles must be about subjects that are notable by reference to significant third-party coverage - self-referencing does not provide such evidence, and must be scrupulously non-promotional. Unless you can provide references from major publications to support notability, I don't see much likelihood that the subject is eligible for inclusion. Acroterion(talk) 16:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I can agree with the sentence you have quoted, but no where else is it any different from ADT's. There is a history, or how the company started section in both, and the services offered section is almost identical. Aside from removing the quoted sentence you made reference to you are saying that I would need to make other 3rd party (.gov/.edu) references to this article in order for it to be valid and credible? FYI I by no means am trying to argue with you, I would just like to get this right.
While advertising can be cleaned up, the frequently intractable problem in these cases is notability. Please see WP:NOTE for general notability, and WP:CORP for corporate notability. WP:RS and WP:V deal with reliable sources and verifiability. In general, notability is established by multiple non-trivial references in third party media of significant standing, with a reputation for fact-checking. Newspaper and business journal articles, focusing specifically on the company and giving the company more than a purely local context are valuable. For this kind of thing, you're unlikely to find sources in .gov and .edu domains - those are more useful for academic or political subjects. ADT is a national subsidiary of a publicly-traded firm, and easily clears the notability bar. Local firms, as one might expect, generally do not; this is intentional, as there's no reason for a local company to be included in a global encyclopedia. The general idea is that an encyclopedia shouldn't become a business directory for every small and medium business. Acroterion(talk) 17:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand, thank you for your help with this. Is there a way I can get the original document I wrote e-mailed to me? Chris Yaeger—Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC).
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
Hi, Acroterion! Thanks very much for the school block on 12.97.246.202 just now. Unless it's just some problem with my browser, though, it looks like the template/boilerplate notice on User_talk:12.97.246.202 isn't showing up at the bottom of that page correctly. I'd try to fix it myself, but I have no idea how. Thought you might like to have a look. Many thanks, and no reply necessary: I know you valiant vandal fighters (superheros, all, imo ;-) are very busy. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh! Just saw the problem. Only a typo, an extra "l" in "schoolblock". Fixed now. Thanks again. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for picking that up - I occasionally transpose a double letter pair when typing - drives me crazy. Acroterion(talk) 16:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've blocked for 55 hours and left a note. I'll watchlist some of the targets. Odd grammar and capitalization for an IP from England. Acroterion(talk) 21:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Odd indeed. I still wonder whether this is an extreme case of noclueness, or just vandalism. Alas, blocking seems to be the only remedy. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This iteration seems a little less problematic, but there's still a tendency to make things worse rather than better. Acroterion(talk) 18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I've reported him; at this point he's harassing me directly. HalfShadow 03:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
So I see. I'll answer his question about the deletion and see what happens. Acroterion(talk) 03:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
How have I been identified as harrassment when I am editing accurately and getting deleted for no reason provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindscapesGraphicDesign (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)MindscapesGraphicDesign (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Acroterion; I meant to let you know, none of my comments were meant in any way to be harrassment, and my intentions are just to become a more improved editor of Wikipedia. Thank you, and have a great day! MindscapesGraphicDesign (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It does look promotional, but it's on the Italian wiki, where I have neither administrative privileges nor proficiency in basic Italian. Is there something on enwiki that needs to be done? Acroterion(talk) 05:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my mistake, I select wrong wiki, now I have founded right wiki.--Musamies (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem, well-spotted. Acroterion(talk) 05:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
OTRS mail
Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Swimming - band wiki page deletion
Hi,
I hope I am right in using this page to explain why I created the article about the band Swimming. It was 'speedily deleted'. I did not see the initial message announcing it's imminent removal and when I looked it had already been deleted.
Swimming are a new band who are releasing an album in March on East Village Radio records (US) and Tummy Touch Records (UK). They have received a wealth of national press surrounding the releaase of their first album on their own label Colourschool records in 2009 and the forthcoming single Sun In The Island has been played on BBC Radio 1 by Rob Da Bank and Fearne Cotton in the past week. (here is the tracklist including Swimming)
I think this firmly gains them a place under the term 'popular culture' and can justify the importance of their place in music and popular culture to warrant a wikipedia entry. I hope the page can be reinstated on these grounds.
I'm not sure that the band meets the letter of the notability guidelines for musicians, but it's close enough in the newer version that I see no problem - the band's been covered by the Guardian and is getting critical notice. Acroterion(talk) 05:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Maginot Line (Armoured Cloches)
I note that you amended the Armoured Cloches section of Maginot Line. The previous edit, however, was rather problematical; whilst it may have been in good faith, it was no improvement and certain changes were bordering on vandalism, including persistently changing "In [year]" to "during [year]". Other established editors have been reverting these edits, and I was going though similar edits.
I had a long thought about what to do to your edits to the Armoured Cloches section, since you may not have noticed all the disruptive changes just made to it. I also checked WP:EMBED to see what the problem was with the bulletted list you changed to prose. I agree that it looked messy, but I think that was in great part due to the use of {{main}} tags; I see no reason why they should not be as emboldened links as in the New York City example of "Appropriate use".
I also note that the last unanswered comment on the Talk:Maginot Line was that the four stubby individual Cloches articles should be merged into the Armoured cloches section, in which case neither bullet pointed lists nor a single prose paragraph would be appropriate.
So, following that example, and wishing to revert that previous edit, I have undone the whole block, but within the Armoured Cloches section, I:
Retained your corrections of Guettor fusil-mitrailleur, armes mixtes and the LG cloche's small hole,
I also changed the few text instances of "Maginot line" to "Maginot Line", but didn't tackle the WP:ENGVAR inconsistencies (defence / defense and armoured / armored). That's for another night.
I won't be upset if you reapply the prose status, but I'd also be interested on your views about incorporating the individual cloche articles. Yes, I'm watching this page now. Tim PF (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, I thought I'd take a stab at starting an overhaul of the article, which sorely needs it, but I wasn't very satisfied with how it looked after I'd edited it. It was late and I wasn't at my best. I'd like to move it farther into the prose direction and get it better organized and referenced. I've written most of the articles on individual Maginot positions and fortified sectors and have the appropriate reference materials. While the individual cloche articles are pretty stubby, I can expand them with what I have on hand, and I'd rather all the links in the articles on individual positions went to articles than to subsections in the main article. That said, there's a good argument for consolidating the cloches into one daughter article and adding in material on the retractable turret types, using the format you describe above. The main article rambles a bit, and needs a haircut in my opinion, so it can focus on the big picture and leave the details to subsidiary articles. There's a lot that should be added that simply isn't there or is glanced over: comparisons with foreign systems, French politics, a greater examination of pre-war French defense strategy, incorporation of lessons learned in WWI, garrison life, units, organization ... Acroterion(talk) 05:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I'm not sure what you mean by "using the format you describe above", but I don't really want to get too involved with this article. It's not that I'm disinterested in the history of the World War (and especially some of the things like this that occurred between parts I and II), but my priority is with Railways and countering vandalism, so I've now used the {{RailGauge}} template for the narrow-gauge railway bit in the article.
Hi there! I had posted the Windells page as is. I decided to leave out the pictures and information on Tim for now. The article recently was flagged as an advertisement by another employee. It also questions the notability requirements. Is there any way to get around this? I though the article was great, but I guess not. Argh. --Marsha16 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not flagged for deletion on either count, they're just cleanup tags, and a number of editors have looked it over and made minor improvements. I'll see whether I can fix it up a little. By the way, there are no employees, we're all volunteers. Acroterion(talk) 17:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow! That's awesome that you all volunteer. Thanks for your time. I appreciate you putting in the effort. Let me know if you have any suggestions.--Marsha16 (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I overstate: the Wikimedia Foundation has employees, but they mostly stay in the background and have little or nothing to do with content or day-to-day management. Otherwise, yes, there are maybe 3000-5000 regular contributors on the English Wikipedia at any given time, all volunteers writing the little old encyclopedia. Since I find that writing about something, or getting a good photograph makes me understand a subject better, I enjoy writing articles. I have to watch out for a general flattening of writing style; writing encyclopedic prose can have a deadening effect overall if you don't try to consciously work in a different style in other contexts. Acroterion(talk) 01:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Tiffany Alvord
Hey, I tried to write an article about Tiffany Alvord. And it said that the same article has been previously deleted due to the lack of significance and importance. The last time it was deleted is last year's October. So I'm writing this to ask if I could rewrite the article? Of course I'll give well explanation for the article if I can write it.
Note that if you don't know: Tiffany Alvord is an American Youtube singer-songwriter and musician. She still not release any album but she's really talented.
Please respond me as soon as you can.
Your sincerely,
Daniel
Danielphan1212 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The article has been deleted three times by three different administrators for lack of demonstrated notability. If the artist meets the notability guidelines at WP:BAND, you're welcome to write an article. However, YouTube isn't recognized as a notability source (rather the reverse) and artists who've released no albums on major labels, have no airplay on the radio, etc. are clearly non-notable, so you may want to wait until some of the notability guidelines have been met. Acroterion(talk) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that you have recently had dealings with the above mentioned individual. Would it be possible to look at his edits since hes/her block has expired been. At first i noticed the editor removing the word "black" and in the process de-linking a "People" article like here. I made mention of this on his talk page - and while waiting for a response noticed there may be a bigger problem (as to y i am here) such as the removal of text that is referenced. i.e 1 - i.e2 ....What should be done ??Moxy (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The editor has been taking a side in the never-ending discussion of who's really an African, which tends to revolve around Berbers: African or not? I ran across the edit war on 1/10 at African people, which I watchlist because it attracts a particularly nasty kind of vandalism. The Black Canadians edit doesn't make much sense to me. The Mugabe edit is of some concern, but I don't see much significance to the removal of Chile's recognition of the Ivorian government, referenced or not. Some edit summaries would be nice. Acroterion(talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
deletion of 1x2studio
This article is also effort to improve the coverage of architecture and architects in Serbia and to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusan Milovanovic (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As an architect myself, I'm all for improving coverage of architecture-related subjects and for reducing the systemic bias in favor of firms in English-speaking countries. That said, any article on any company must make clear how the firm complies with the general notability standard and notability standards for companies. Acroterion(talk) 18:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you deleted my post on rich records
Hello,
There must be some misunderstanding. I want to created a page called Rich Records, he is a real person and has real significance to people around the dallas/fort worth Tx area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rom17 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:BAND, which covers notability guidelines for musical artists, and WP:NOTE, coverging general notability. Subjects of Wikipedia articles must be notable for more than simple existence or local influence, and all material must be referenced to reliable sources to back up the assertion. Acroterion(talk) 19:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sylvia Drescher
Okay um...My question is why did you delete this page? Sylvia Drscher is a real person and her page didn't deserve to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.180.165 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Because an article consisting in its entirety of "born sylvia awesome" is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, don't you think? Additionally, biographies must make a credible assertion of notability, backed up by references in independent media. Take a look at WP:BIO for more on inclusion criteria for biographies, in which simple existence is not the determining factor. Acroterion(talk) 02:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've never created a table on Wikipedia, ever, and am probably the last person you'd want to do one now. While I should probably learn, you might want to ask somebody competent. Acroterion(talk) 05:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem....the people who are supposed to be a part of WP:1.0 are long gone from Wikipedia. Seems that project, while used by nearly all WikiProjects, has fallen by the wayside. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this something that only admins can do? Seems like anyone with table skillz should be able to create the subject. Acroterion(talk) 05:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I posted a similar request on ANI (waaay at the bottom) and it hasn't been touched. Asked on WP:1.0's IRC channel, but the 4 other people there are mimes, the 5th is a bot. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I went on the main en.Wiki IRC channel and Sven Manguard found the link for me. I actually got to run a bot! :) Through Toolserver you can run the User:WP 1.0 bot. All the codes are already put in, so I couldn't screw anything up. Bot ran itself and I have the page. :) In case you ever need to make one of those tables, the bot will do everything for you (I did some of it manually before finding the bot. You can find the page here. Let me know if you ever need any help. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible Vandal
I have reverted an edit by user 195.229.241.176 at Vela International Marine. This user has a history of making unhelpful edits on subjects related to Saudi Arabia. I suspect it might be some sort of public computer hereabouts. FOr whatever action you might think best. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems like somebody who has Wikipedia confused with Facebook. Acroterion(talk) 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
ouch
Why did you have to delete my page so quick, =( I couldn't even have it up for a day? You're mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJeezy903 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-aggrandizement. Acroterion(talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice work; we might've just saved one there. Fantastic. Chzz ► 22:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm having a hell of a time finding sources that aren't manufacturers' references. Not that they're all bad, but I'd like to find a disinterested source. With the decline of printed materials and equipment libraries in architects' offices, there isn't much here in my office that's of use. Codebooks and the like are the likeliest sources. Acroterion(talk) 23:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it should survive now, anyway. Chzz ► 12:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, no. While I agree it's entirely made up, there's no speedy category for things like that, apart from hoaxes, which this isn't. I'd PROD it and it will go away in ten days, doing no harm in the meantime. Acroterion(talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I seen this and went with CSD A7. Feel free to remove if that is wrong. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
^I agree with this; whilst frustrating, such articles cannot be speedy-deleted. A PROD doesn't cost anything, and a few days won't hurt. Speedy is only for "blatant, utter crap" (my interpretation).
I'm glad we err on the side of caution; no rush; otherwise, this type of apparent junk wouldn't become this. Thanks for asking, and understanding, RJ. Chzz ► 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please post my article from my user page ambiblio on Carleton Bruns Joeckel. More guidance from the user page on how to download or upload an article would be helpful.
Thank you,
Ambiblio (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
added external link as reference
hello dear
i added external link as reference actually i did't know how to add reference so added that link in external links and i added as per your rules and specially if you guys don't want any external link then why do u give this options? i am not advertising for any kind of website just added for reference if you don't want the link kindly let me know
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubabahmad (talk • contribs) 09:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Revdel
Please don't revdel my page unless it's something really offensive. I don't even know what the IP said and now I never will.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It was in the personal attack/ personal information line. I'm not a big fan of using revdel for everything, but I feel it crossed the line. However, if you're intensely curious, I can undelete it. Acroterion(talk) 05:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, you can redelete that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted two hours ago. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
question
Dear Acroterion,
So how can I post this article which I uploaded with photos to http://www.Mega Share.com/2998070 (without space between mega and share)? It is not from any other site.Thx, Borchica (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)B
I can't access it. If posting it is not a copyright violation, I would suggest that you work on it in your user space first to make sure that it complies with Wikipedia's requirements, at User:Borchica/sandbox. Acroterion(talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it was pswd protected. This one isn't. http://turboupload.com/mh63w1zu5cib Can you read it or at least scroll it through. So you reckon it is worth working on it and posting it? Thx, Borchica (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It's the same material that was linked on the talkpage. While the linked content can be used as a source for material relating to Osmanagić's theory, it is otherwise all original research and is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Since it can be linked, there's no reason to upload it anyway, especially since it will be a copyright violation, belonging to Osmanagić and not free content. Acroterion(talk) 02:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. I understand. In order the sources to be relevant they have to be published online? For example this is not enough as it can not be checked online on their site?
- Organic material (piece of wood) was found in conglomerate material that covered megalithic block in the tunnel. Sample was radiocarbon tested in Kiel Lab in Germany (31,000 years old) and Gliwice Lab in Poland (34,000 years old). Shocking results warned that advanced human activities were present in central Bosnia at the same time like ingenious cave paintings in Spain and France (32,000 years ago). Physicist Dr. Anna Pazdur of Poland’s Silesian University announced the news at the Press Conference in Sarajevo in August of 2008
If so it is more than stupid...
You claim you are Acroterion and I gather three persons who claim you are not and then you are not? No matter that other three persons claim you are but it is not published on their web sites?
All scientists that claim there are no pyramids and that everything is naturally made were there 3 to 4 yrs ago. And they didn't provide any evidence for supporting their claims. It was just their subjective opinion. Actually you don't have to e archeologist to see that it is manmade if you visit the Valley of the Pyramids. So I wonder what must happen that the article changes to at least...there is still a dispute whether pyramids are manmade or ... and not these are natural shaped hills which is total S
All other pro evidences from different sources, scientists and institutions are useless? I really do not understand.
Please help me out with that. Is it OK if I write: Tunnels are according to that and that institute 34000 yrs old and I quote the source.
If that below is OK then also that above should be.Am I right? It is interesting that scientific explanations paragraph includes just quotes of scientists that are against pyramids. How can that be?
According to Professor Vrabac, who specializes in paleogeology, there are dozens of similar morphological formations in the Sarajevo-Zenica mining basin alone. The Geological team report on Visocica, based on the data collected in six drill holes at 3 to 17 metre depths, is supported by the Research and Teaching Council of the Faculty of Mining and Geology, as well as the Association of Geologists of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[19]
Thx,
Borchica (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be trying to win an argument via Wikipedia. That isn't possible; Wikipedia reports what is reported in reputable sources elsewhere, and isn't an appropriate place to argue a case, only to report on that argument. What's in that text is already mostly covered in the section describing the case for man-made structure. Other sources disagree, rather strongly. The article reflects this. It would be very cool if the Illyrians did create them, but substantial doubts exist. That's what the article says, and the text you uploaded is a discussion of Osmanagić's hypothesis, and can only be used as a reference for that. It would be strange if there weren't mining tunnels, man-made structures and the like in or on a given mountain in the area, so the presence of remains can't be used to prove via Wikipedia that an entire mountain is man-made. Wikipedia places the greatest weight on peer-reviewed scientific journals, as a fundamental principal, and rejects personal original research. OR can be included only to the extent that it's covered in independent sources, which is essentially what the article does, and what it is about - a debate between proponents of a man-made structure, and counter-argument from experts who disagree. Science and archeology are like that, and it appears that there's nothing new in the source.
However, you can certainly add appropriately referenced quotes from investigators to support the Osmanagić assertion, which could use better sourcing and discussion of supporting voices. Since the article is about a debate, it should reflect that debate. Acroterion(talk) 14:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all I would like to thank you for helping me with Wikipedia rules and protocol and for being so patient.
So I can publish the following for the beggining?
- Perfect orientation of the triangular sides of the structure called Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun (North, East-West) was determined by the State Institute for Geodesy from Sarajevo (performed by director of the Institute Mr Enver Buza). Northern side of the Pyramid perfectly matches the location of the Northern Star (error 12 seconds only, Great Pyramid of Egypt has an error of 2 minutes).
Borchica (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to help out. You will need to provide a published source for this; I can help with formatting the reference once you provide it. A little grammatical correction is needed, such as "The northern side" - English uses definite and indefinite articles more than Slavic languages. Acroterion(talk) 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I liked the image so I built a stub...feel free to expand as you see fit...--MONGO 21:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have a few sources and can probably build it up a little. By the way, Opal Pool is featured on Commons now, and it should have an article here. I'll probably put it up for FP on WP. I've been fooling around with noise-reduction software and may have a go at some other images for FP on Commons once I've cleaned them up. Acroterion(talk) 21:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It sure should...before the day is out I'll at least stub it. Congrats on your FP!--MONGO 21:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Opal Pool was tougher than I thought it would be...no GNIS coordinates, nor a name listed on USGS quads....not a lot of data out there...pretty stubby, but nice picture!--MONGO 00:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Something funky going on with the coords: you have Opal Pool near Ulaan-Ul in Mongolia, so I think east and west coords are mixed up. I know which feature it is from my visit, so will correct. Acroterion(talk) 01:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Removed the - from the latitude, which apparently overrides the W parameter. Acroterion(talk) 01:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That was screwy...I reverted you, saw what I had done and then reverted myself..sorry about that. I wish these infoboxes all carried a more standardized mode which used similar lat/long geocoordinate templates such as WikiProject Mountains uses, which I am most familiar with...nice additions yourself...lots of stubs can be built around your image work! I can back off if I am stealing article creation from you....--MONGO 02:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
S'alright, create whatever you want. I've had other things to work on, and you're better at getting good stub frameworks started. I'll fill in where I can. Acroterion(talk) 02:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure...back again tomorrow I hope.--MONGO 03:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
A bunch of your images made for some stubs..thank you..I also was wondering about the Wyoming County borders, especially between Park and Teton Counties. I noticed that all of Yellowstone Lake and even Madison Junction is in Teton County (SW region of the Yellowstone NP) but once you head north on the loop road about a mile beyond gibbon falls, you enter Park County..I'll have to adjust the articles to make sure I have the counties right.--MONGO 15:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
All the geothermal features as the Paint Pots, Norris, Mammoth and everything east of Yellowstone Lake are in Park County.--MONGO 15:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
My understanding of the county boundary is hazy, but your summary above sounds right - I'll check maps. Acroterion(talk) 16:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have my google earth parameter to show county boundaries...I went through a number of pages and added what articles I could find to [[Category:Geothermal features of Park County, Wyoming]] so its all fine.--MONGO 16:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Newbies...always fascinating when they know wikimarkup right off the bat.--MONGO 15:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
what the heck
Who are you and why are you messaging me? I think some other guy made it but you deleted it for no reason. I put it back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faroz06 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the white American article that has never happened before...but is happening now because the white Argentine article and various white Latin American article collages have been removed(which seems to me a form of censorship and political correctness to the point that calling someone white is now slanderous)so some of the disgruntled who are upset because that article got deleted are taking there vengeance out on the white American article..It should be noted that most of those people in the collage for white Americans are deceased and the few that are living there should not be a problem to find a source for ancestry...If it is that much of an issue..though just on a side note the American government does use race and ethnicity interchangeably though sometimes they contradict themselves
Ethnic groups:
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic.... Like they do here in describing the ethnic make up of the USA white is seen as an ethnicty here at least in the Macro sense --Wikiscribe (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water issue here. I dislike those kinds of collages personally - they're effectively decoration, like the much-maligned national flags everybody fights about, but the editor appears to have overreacted, possibly because of whatever happened at White Argentine. I take no particular issue with anything other than the clearly inappropriate redirection. Acroterion(talk) 15:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I can certainly see merit in your sentiment about the collages...But the encyclopedia encourages the use of pics to improve the articles but arguments can always be made about if the pics do in fact improve these sorts of articles..and the problem is they exist on many, many other ethnic/race or nationality articles with out much controversy ...i might add unless it is about White Racial/ethnic group than it becomes an issue where people start to pull out the wikipedia technicalities to either remove them or discourage them yet for some odd reason they flourish with out a problem on others...I am on here almost 4 years around many ethnic/racial and Nationality articles and i see this to be a trend i.e white articles pretty much get picked on ...I mean i would be the first to take it down myself if other articles on other racial /ethnic and Nationality groups also were removed....--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've seen those collages picked on at African people, where there's a perennial fight about Berbers' African-ness, but agree that in other places nobody cares. My main purpose in watching those articles as to deal with overt racist vandalism, rather than any particular editorial interest in the subject. Much of the image controversy tends toward nit-picking, using energy that could go to better content. In any case, I hope I made my point to the editor about precipitate redirections. Acroterion(talk) 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
My name is Kati and I posted the My Glorious Wikipedia page, which I believe was deleted by you. I'm quite new to Wikipedia but my Job entails to put profiles on here of bands that are breaking the market, we work with very many bands, but we only post here if they are our best selling artists and they have significant international interest. This band is getting really successful in Germany and parts of the US and has some very significant music industry names behind it, that's why we decided to put them here.
I'd be really interested to hear your view and to see why you deleted this page, it would help me understand better what I need to look out for when posting to Wikipedia, I find it a little confusing at the moment.
Thank you very much.
Kati — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kati Schulte (talk • contribs) 07:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I tagged the above with my WWMAD template (which I would love to have in mainspace) and took a look at the page in question and saw it was marked G7 and deleted as "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". What was the template used and was it by someone else, the user above, someone in the band, who? This confuses me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It was deleted because it was blanked by its original editor, Funkywon (talk·contribs). Its entire content was "My Glorious is a band from Austria. They are very very good. Their leadsinger is Sami Fischer and he is da cooles guy eva. I dont know the other members personally, but they are very handsome and seem to be very nice too." On that basis, there never was much of an article. You are welcome to create a substantial, referenced article if the band meets the inclusion guidelines as you indicate. Acroterion(talk) 13:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of respect, I've had a discussion about your article mentioned above on #wikipedia-en on Freenode. The feedback I received from that person, I had thought about and thought about what I thought the article needed. I have asked WikiProject Military History for an assessment because I feel it could be pretty close to "B-Class" for both Military History and WikiProject France, as for the importance of WikiProject France I am inclined to assess it as "Low" to avoid any confrontations and can be easily changed without any fighting among contributors. I feel it is a reasonably good article and it's the first one and biggest in size I've decided to tackle and add information too even if it was an Infobox. Hope we can work together in future because World War II or war from World War I onwards, I would be happy to help with. Any feedback or help just ask on my discussion page and name the link of the article. I hope you like my improvements to the article. Adamdaley (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to influence your assessment, but most of the other major Maginot sector articles I've done were rated as B-class by several editors, except those I've self-rated as starts because they're short on sourced information and therefore brief. I'd opted not to use infoboxes in most because they would tend to get a little wordy, given that there might be several dozen emplacements in each sector, if you include casemates. In the case of Rohrbach, with many of the positions on military land, the inforbox you added is pretty safe. As far as importance goes, they've been rated as either "low" or "mid"; personally, I'd go with "low", since these are summary articles intended to tie together the individual articles on the major positions and give context - they're not central to the subject. Don't worry about me: be bold, rate articles as you see fit, adn I appreciate your efforts and good work. Acroterion(talk) 13:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Snowball Studios , Quick Deletion.
Good Day.
I'd like to find out why exactly my post regarding snowball studios was deleted.
Aside from the filmography which i intended to add later i don't really see the difference between such a page and the one Sony has.
Granted, Sony is a bigger studio, regardless, this shouldn't effect wikipedia should it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talostro (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sony is a multinational corporation. It clearly is notable and the article on Sony Pictures Entertainment, a $7.3 billion company, is sourced and non-promotional, and does not appear to have been written by someone from Sony. All articles must be strictly non-promotional; the article I deleted read like a press release. ("Combining some of the best international creative talent with cutting-edge Israeli technology..." is not neutral language) Further, companies must be notable: a credible assertion of notability will avoid speedy deletion if the promotional language is corrected, but for retention the article must be sourced to significant coverage in independent media that indicates that the company is considered notable by the world in general. See WP:NOTE, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM for further information, and please review WP:COI for information on editing with a conflict of interest. Acroterion(talk) 15:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I did minor fixing of the article, like there were some double spacing, converted measurements from one measurement to another. Did the Infobox again. I think it's not far from "B-Class" just needs more information and sources/references. I left the WikiProject France unassessed because the WikiProject Military History assessment may change in the future. Adamdaley (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi both, this is on my watchlist due to reasons explained in the "Maginot Line (Armoured Cloches)" section above, so I assume, Adam, that you approve of the way we left it.
There's one minor problem with your {{convert}}s which I haven't time to deal with tonight (but could do so in the next few days). Changing "20 to 25 kilometers" to "{{convert|20|km|mi}} to {{convert|25|km|mi}}" gives "20 kilometres (12 mi) to 25 kilometres (16 mi)", whilst "{{convert|20|to|25|km|mi|sp=us}}" gives "20 to 25 kilometers (12 to 16 mi)".
Good job, the article needs some attention. An article that size should have 75-100 references, and to my mind it's unfocused. My plan is to do a major overhaul and tighten it up, splitting off daughter articles on equipment and history where appropriate. I've been sneaking up on it by writing articles on the individual ouvrages (107 articles), then the sectors (19 so far) [5], and I'm putting together a notion of how it might be reorganized. It really should be a featured article, which is my long-term goal. I've got enough sources, particularly the five-volume compendium by Mary, Hohnandiel and Sicard, but given its size - 1200 pages - (and my command of French) I keep discovering new things as I write.
Feel free to offer a critique of the article and your ideas on improvement on the article's talkpage. To my mind it fails B1 badly, is so-so on B2, passes B3 but isn't really structured well, fails B4 (too "listy", needs to be prosified and to root out some translation boo-boos from French) and is fine on B5. The big thing is B1, which is a long slog through sources. Any help you care to give would be welcome. I was considering reworking some sections in userspace to have some freedom to try things out without goofing up the article in the meantime; you (both) and any other interested editors would be welcome to work on those drafts, as I don't want this to become some sort of personal walled garden. I figure I'll start once I get all the sectors done, which will take a few more weeks. The SFs Savoie and Alpes-Maritimes will take a while, since they are so scattered in geography.
As for ENGVAR, it should be in British English. However, being American, writing that way doesn't come naturally to me, so corrections will always be welcome. And I always have trouble with our ridiculously complex convert templates. Acroterion(talk) 02:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about your logic for being in British English, but I'm happy to go along with that. Being a native speaker, I'll try and work through it at some time in the next few weeks, and I can also sort out the complex convert templates if Adam doesn't do it first.
Just checking one of the ouvrage sub-articles at random, Ouvrage Ferme Chappy has "June 21", "25 June" and "27 June", so should we also go for British and French DMY style dates throughout? Tim PF (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
My logic is no more than the arbitrary idea that American, Canadian, or Australian usage seems incongruous, and that we should use a "European" style of speech. Yes, I've tried to do DMY, but occasionally fail. Acroterion(talk) 03:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for being late to the discussion to the changes I made on the above named article. I can and do understand the points User:Tim PF and User:Acroterion have pointed out. By all means if you or anyone knows a better way to do something for example with what User:Tim PF brought up was the conversion thing in one particular area of the article. You can see that my "conversion" of certain distances (in the article) is limited to that one "conversion" command by wikipedia. I do not know many other commands only one's that I've picked up along the way, like simple ones. The distance conversion I wanted to make it more than just one format of distance, hence why I put kilometres and miles. If both of you came across in another form of tone in your messages, I would not be replying, and I get a sense of trying to be polite and helpfulness from both of you. On the WikiProject Military History, I have already made a couple of relations on wikipedia (english version), are two co-ordinators User:Ian Rose and User:AustralianRupert. They will also be willing to give advice on any article within the WikiProject Military History. I am sure they would be friendly and be helpful if asked on their talkpages. Anything you both have or willing to need to have another person look at an article, feel free to ask me on my talkpage with the article link. I do appreciate the feedback I have received be to me it is also constructive and positive. Adamdaley (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome to the party. I've revised all the {{convert}} tags within the "Organization" [sic] section, but left spellings as US for now. I think that some of this discussion should move to the article's talk page (and possibly the Military History's talk page), as there are a few other watchers there, and perhaps Ian and Rupert might want to join in too. Tim PF (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind if this conversation is put onto Maginot Line Discussion page under its own heading. Another two people I just thought of after reading User:Tim PF's last comment here is User:Nick-D he is an administrator and has helped me in the past with the WikiProject Military History articles. He is approachable and would give you his honest opinion if asked. I've had little contact with User:Parsecboy who is an administrator and "Lead Coordinator" of the WikiProject Miliary History. He seems to be also approachable if asked for his opinion. So there is four other users besides the three of us in this conversation, can make a bigger discussion if they wish to do so. Adamdaley (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a typical battle mentality user, could probably use some mentoring. Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying a little education: we'll see. Acroterion(talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I hesistate to ask, but just so that I know I'm not making a mistake here, would you mind reviewing my last post on the Disinformation talkpage? Thanks. Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
In edit-warring it wouldn't be appropriate for me to judge on the content at hand, but I certainly prefer the polite point-by-point discussion you've offered to characterization of other editors as vandals. I appreciate your attempts to educate the editor from WP policy. Acroterion(talk) 22:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
McGlockin
AS the blocking admin could you close out the report I filed. [6] Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
My definition of 'Exposing racism and intolerance online'
I have tried two different ways to define 'Exposing racism and intolerance online' but both have been removed! 'Exposing racism and intolerance online' is a movement which uses Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and the likes to highlight and expose racism online. This group of people, who are all volunteers, who do this in there spare time, lunch breaks and weekends!
I personal believe that 'Exposing racism and intolerance online' more than deserves an enrty in Wikipedia!
You blocked this edit back in January for edit warring on Family Foundation School. The user has now started editing again and redone the controversial move. I didn't want to take this to WP:AN/EW as the user is trying to discuss things so I think this may be more of an education issue and so AN/EW seems a bit crude. As you are already aware of some of the history would you mind taking a look and acting as you think best. Dpmuk (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
They do seems to be behaving more constructively, at least in terms of dropping the inflammatory edit summaries - maybe a little engagement will be productive. I'd agree that it's not an AN3/ANEW issue at the moment, and it would be best for me to stay away from content discussions on the article, having done the block. You might want to mention something to Orlady. I'll keep an eye on potential reverts, since Orlady's seen it and reverted the revert. Acroterion(talk) 19:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. It's good to know someone's keeping an eye on it. Wasn't expecting you to comment on the content but just on their behaviour and possible have a chat to them about it. I'm happy to wait and see what happens over Orlady's revert - something I didn't want to do myself as it seemed a bit edit warry on my part. Dpmuk (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If they revert again I'll drop them a nice message. I'll be away on and off this afternoon, so it might not be timely, though. Acroterion(talk) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Assistance request - Bureau of Land Management
I find that the article on Bureau of Land Management is greatly imbalanced, with popular views unrepresented. The article reads like an advertisement for the BLM, and its wording is often unbalanced and has an overwhelmingly positive tone. There is a controversy which has gained widespread publicity concerning the BLM's inhumane actions toward wild horses. The movement against them has presented, if I remember correctly, a popular documentary and is led by a local college professor(?). The article says nothing about these activities. I would like to request your help in editing this article - just to find and correct imbalance. I don't think it will be easy to balance it; the BLM is a powerful agency which seems intent on preserving a good image on the internet. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It's remarkably sourceless for such a large article, and it does have a nice public servant at-your-service air to it. I'd warn against undue weight on the horses - seems like it could get out of hand, but it could certainly be improved and made less of a PR piece for the BLM. I've done work on public lands articles and have an interest in the area - as long as I can fit in in between the other projects I have going on, I'd be happy to help. The first goal would be to find sources - it's much harder to find things about the BLM than, say, the NPS, since BLM got all the public lands that the NPS and Forest Service didn't want. Acroterion(talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The National Geographic article from 2001 was an extensive bibliography, and there appear to be some books. I'll see what I can assemble. Acroterion(talk) 03:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Snapper Creek Lakes a Coral Gables Community
Hello,
The page below was removed with a speedy delete. I think the reason why is because there was a link in there that made it appear to be commercial. Just remove the link if that is the problem, I can't see any other reason why it would have been removed so please let me know if there is anything else I can do to fix the article. It is definitely not a commercial article.
Brandon
Deleted article: "Snapper Creek Lakes a Coral Gables Community" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehandmedia (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You are understating the problem. The entire article was promotional. Perhaps the first sentences could have been preserved, but it was clear in the context of the link that the intent of the article was to promote real estate sales in the community, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please review WP:SPAM. If the article is to be rewritten to focus on the community and not on selling houses, you will need to show that the place is notable according to Wikipedia's general notability standards, indicating that the community has been the subject of specific, non-trivial notice in independent media. If the community is an unremarkable gated subdivision, it is unlikely that it would be retained. Acroterion(talk) 21:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Replied there: I see an attempt to disrupt the 9/11 talkpage to gain a change elsewhere. We don't need to import The Troubles to 9/11 subjects; they both see quite enough contention on their own. I can sympathize with the editor on a personal level, but he might not be the most detached of editors where Irish subjects are concerned, and there's a trend toward edit-warring with that user. Acroterion(talk) 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm very impressed with your handling of that. Well done. Chzz ► 19:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't sure how it might go - I'd be mad in their place, and they may still be, but sometimes it works out. There's a relevant discussion at WP/P: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Forced_Response_tool_for_Admins that might provide a less crude tool than straight-up blocking to get users to stop, think and respond. It would have been useful in this case to make it clear that we need a brief time-out to discuss, not a ban. Acroterion(talk) 19:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Surreal64_XXX's edit summaries
Are you able to oversight, or should I go there? HalfShadow 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Not really candidates for OS (I'm not an oversighter), but I did revdel them as "purely disruptive". Acroterion(talk) 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Eh, there should be a revdelete email board like the oversight one. As it is, I had to hop through three pages to find the difference. HalfShadow 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
To boil it down to the essentials, OS is used these days to expunge things that shouldn't be seeable even by administrators, such as detailed personal information, particularly of minors. To complicate things, there are two flavors of revdel, one for admins and one for OSers, the OS version capable of removing revdel'd material from admin view, but capable of restoring it as well. Traditional oversight still exists for cases where things should be so thoroughly eradicated that they can't be recovered without help from a developer. None of this is very obvious to anybody, except through experience. Acroterion(talk) 18:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, mow I know better, anyway. HalfShadow 18:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
McNeel Mill
Regarding this edit, I am unable to verify the status of this place in the National Register of Historic Places. The reference you provided is too generic; it does not link to a page that verifies the NHRP status. Also, I am unable to search the NHRP database to find a place called "McNeel Mill". Can you provide a more specific URL to verify this information? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The NRHP database is hard to permalink to: this has been a long-running discussion at WP:NRHP on how best to link it. In any case, I've added a source from the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office that documents the listing and approval date. Acroterion(talk) 16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The database that the reference links to is maintained by Elkman at [7] and may be queried. The NPS Focus site may be queried with name or reference number at the advanced page form at [8]. Acroterion(talk) 16:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Rock Tease article
I'm in the middle of adding citations and details, please let me finish the entry before marking it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTurtleMoves (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
You have seven days to fix it. However, given that you invented the word four days ago, you're wasting your time. Please review WP:MADEUP, and Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Acroterion(talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Rock Tease Update
Hello Acroterion,
Ok, I have updated the Rock Tease page to include references and such.
As a note about the potential for this page to be considered a personal/commercial advertisement, my biggest goal here is to showcase a non-lame use of the term 'Rock Tease' because right now it's keyed to a marriage/ring tease situation. Which, for the record, I have mentioned in the article so as not to ignore the relevant details about the term.
I'm not fiercely familiar with the wikipedia messaging system so if you would like to be certain of reaching me, my email is TheTurtleMoves@gmail.com and I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Leave it
C'mon just for a week or two
C'mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeviousPidgeon (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit of the "Conspiracy Theories" section of the World Trade Centers collapse article
Dear Acroterion,
I find it surprising that you have apparently rejected my contribution to a section of the Wikipedia article on the World Trade Centers collapses on 9/11. The reason you cite seems quite strange to me ("We don't accept original research"). Who said anything about original research? I was just offering a widely held viewpoint on 9/11 - one that (if accepted) might serve to balance what I see as the "government mouthpiece" nature of the existing content, which is as follows:
"According to a 2006 poll, 16% of American adults believed that the World Trade Center may have been destroyed by controlled demolition rather than resulting from the plane impacts.[77] This idea has been rejected by NIST, which concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers. When asked why NIST did not test for explosive residues, NIST spokesman Michael Newman responded that NIST saw "no evidence saying to go that way."
"
For one thing, the 16% figure seems suspiciously low, compared to other surveys on this issue. But even using the very same poll you have cited, this poll also found the following:
"36% of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
"
So the 16% number represents some quibbling over the exact methods used - but not "who did it and why?". And the answer of over twice as many respondents (16% vs 36%) was that the federal government was behind the attack. Yet, who is it you choose to quote in an attempt to debunk this theory? You quote NIST: a component of the very same federal government that millions of Americans suspect of being the true 9/11 culprits! Headline: "Suspects Cleared of Guilt by Own Testimony!"
Furthermore, the logic of the NIST testimony is essentially circular: "NIST didn't test for explosives because there was no such evidence". But one could just as easily say: "NIST found no evidence of explosives because they did not look for it!"
Danish scientists have recently (2009) found just such evidence of a high-tech form of thermite, or what has been called nano-thermite. This was an authentic scientific investigation over a 2 year period. It was based on dust samples saved from the collapsed towers. And this was necessary because Mayor Guiliani had all of the steel remnants from the collapsed towers quickly trucked away and shipped to China and India, to be melted down without delay and recycled (normally known as destruction of evidence). The nano-termite research was actually done in Europe and published there in an academic physics journal. The lead Danish scientist was Dr. Niels Harrit and there is an excellent video interview with him at the following link: [9]
I have heard others try to attack this study by saying this stuff looks like paint chips. Nonsense! This is not at the level of "looks like..." on the part of uninformed political hacks, instead this is a case of "proven to be..." by highly educated experts in the fields of physics, chemistry and engineering. It speaks volumes that so far there has been no real scientific rebuttal to the Danish nano-thermite findings. This turns conspiracy into fact. Leaving the least proven conspiracy theory as the official one about 19 hijackers with box-cutters. You should be asking how much real proof there is of the government-backed conspiracy theory...?
Respectfully yours,
<email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.89.183 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll say it again: Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. See WP:NOR. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for personal views on vaccines, homeopathy, the Kennedy assassination, moon landing hoaxes, or 9/11 theories, and your comments above indicate that you haven't acquainted yourself with Wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing and verifiability. Acroterion(talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Mail, you gots
Hello, Acroterion. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
please renew block
This person was temporarily blocked on the 20th, and as soon as it expired he vandalized this.Flatterworld (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Debate Mate Page
I am trying to set up a page for Deabte Mate, a non-profit organization, just so we can provide information on what it is. Why does it keep getting deleted for publicity purposes, when i have numerous refrences from Sky News, BBC, Documetaries, and lots of other references that i did not get time to insert into my document. Please allow me to create this page, it is not going against the wikipedia policys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reece Weaver (talk • contribs) 14:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be writing promotional material. Please note that Wikipedia doesn't accept advertising or promotion, no matter how worthy the cause might be, All articles on organizations must be written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, must be appropriately referenced to independent third-party media of significant standing, and should not be written by individuals with a conflict of interest. The article you wrote read like a press release, not an encyclopedia article. You are discouraged from writing about your employer or about an organization with which you are closely involved. I'd suggest writing a draft in your userspace at User:Reece Weaver/sandbox, where you can provide references and review the topic carefully for concise, dispassionate factual content. Once again, please review WP:COI, since it is clear that you fall under that policy. Acroterion(talk) 15:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you've posted a revised version - it's much better. Acroterion(talk) 15:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
dromos festival
Hi,
I keep trying to give a definition of our new festival called dromos festival. It's a festival that is supposed to encourage active involvement from local communities, t is a not for profit festival that is funded by the state in the UK via Arts Council England. We're not trying to advertise but trying to describe the whole ethos of the festival which is participation. In it's inaugural year it is still trying to find its identity so we don't have a huge definition except for "get involved". I apologise if this is constituting as advertising, but the festival is meant to create a platform for artists to present their work in different communities. Is their anything I can do in this circumstance that wouldn't constitute the page as an advert? The festival is also run each year by 5 young producers to increase their skills in producing and to help them find work after the project and it aims to do that year on year.
Really look forward to hearing from you and all the best
Martin
Unfortunately, both entries were pure promotion from beginning to end, and unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for promotion of any organization or cause, no matter how worthy. Additionally, there is no indication that the event is notable, having received significant coverage in major third-party media. See WP:SPAM and WP:NOTE for the relevant policies and guidelines. Acroterion(talk) 16:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Good block
You beat me to it. Rogertalk 17:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably the same person that created Muhammar gaddafi (talk·contribs). There was a Saturday Night Live bit from the 1970s about all the ways to spell his name: I imagine we'll see more. Acroterion(talk) 17:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it was the Irish Times who put together a list recently; I've seen a figure of 122 variants quoted :) Rogertalk 17:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Our present sockmaster seems to be a man of few words: if the real Muammar Gaddafi showed up, I'd expect to see something close to book-length. Acroterion(talk) 17:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Resolved